Gender and age peculiarities of the language and some linguistic difficulties of translation them in practice - Дипломная работа

Gender and age peculiarities of the language and some linguistic difficulties of translation them in practice Introduction Chapter 1. Language and Gender studies 1.1 Gender and linguistics stereotyping 1.2 Gender Language and its subdivisions a) Women’s language b) Men’s language c) Children’s language d) Age-graded language Chapter 2. Linguistic peculiarities of translation of gender graded languages 2.1 Difficulties of translation of children’s speech 2.2 Linguistic features of women’s speech 2.3 Age-graded language and the way of improving it Conclusion Bibliography Introduction The study of language has been a constant preoccupation with more or less professional researchers for thousands of years. Since the earliest times, much before the birth of linguistics as a distinct scholarly discipline, people have been aware of the essential role language plays not only in their everyday life, but also as a characteristic feature of mankind, radically differentiating human beings from other species of the animal kingdom. The fact that language acts as a fundamental link between ourselves and the world around us and that in the absence of language our relation to the universe and to our fellows is dramatically impaired is something that people have been (at least intuitively) aware of since the beginning of history. Suffice it to mention that different cultures seem to associate speech problems with intellectual deficiencies. The origin of language (believed to be divine in most ancient cultures), the relation between language and thinking, the question if we can think without the help of language (and if we can, what kind of thinking is that), the manner in which human beings (who are not, obviously, born with the ability to speak, but have, however, an innate capacity for language acquisition) come, with an amazing rapidity, to successfully use language, beginning with the very first stages of their existence (the acquisition of language actually parallels the birth of the child’s self-consciousness and the latter can hardly be imagined without the former) have puzzled researchers for centuries and none of these questions has actually received a satisfactory and universally accepted answer. Since the sender has to convey a message, and the transmission is to take place on the basis of a system of signs (a code), the first thing the sender has to do is to encode or codify his message, in other words to render the contents of the message by means of the signs of the respective code (the language) .The next stage is obviously represented by the transmission of the message proper, which can be achieved in several ways (depending of the type of communication; e.g. written or oral). What might be represented elsewhere as a disadvantage is here turned to advantage for raw commercial purposes: how else could talking-time be sold other than by reference to the stereotypical high-achievers in the area, i.e. women? Linguistic stereotypes Since the publication of Robin Lakoffs stereotypes about womens speech have percolated through from linguistic circles to the general public. [Lakoff R, 1975]. It is almost impossible to look through a womens magazine nowadays without finding some article popularising descriptions of womens speech, largely based on linguistic research. [U Magazine; September, 1995]. Lakoff drew up a list of features of womens speech, relating mostly to vocabulary, but also to syntactic structures. Until then, few outside hallowed linguistic circles had even heard of the tag-question or had any idea what it was. The following are examples of tag questions: e.g. John is here, isnt he? e.g. They will be arriving shortly, wont they? Since then, there has been furious debate about whether women use more tag-questions than men and if so, what it means. Various womens magazines offer advice on how to rid oneself of this and other female forms of speech, with the result that a further set of stereotypes has emerged, this time based on the research of linguists. The following is part of the most recent list provided by Lakoff: · Womens intonational contours display more variety than mens. · Women use diminutives and euphemisms more than men. · Women make more use of expressive forms (adjectives, not nouns or verbs and in that category, those expressing emotional rather than intellectual evaluation) more than men: lovely, divine. · Women use hedges of all kinds more than men. · Women use intonation patterns that resemble questions, indicating uncertainty or need for approval. · Womens voices are breathier than mens. · Women are more indirect and polite than men. · In conversation, women are more likely to be interrupted, less likely to introduce successful topics. · Womens communicative style tends to be collaborative rather than competitive. · More of womens communication is expressed non verbally (by gesture and intonation) than mens.