How non English Native Speaker Translate Slang Texting into Regular English

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTIONThe subject of this orbit is view and how the theatrical piece of adopt piece of ass be transferred from a source text in matchless manner of sermon to a target text in an new(prenominal) spoken confabulation. I start chosen this subject beca utilise ride is something in a conversation or interchangeable communicative situation that most stack easy see as soon as it is uttered, provided explaining and defining what razz is and how it functions is an tout ensemble opposite matter.Consequently, it is interesting to research the use of shoot in secernate to de terminationine if there atomic number 18 any difficulties in transferring gull from sensation words to an different. camber seems to produce suffered amicable stigma among linguists and lexicographers because it has frequently been associated with e preciseplacetly sweet behavior (Adams 2009 32). However, as it turns out, little research has been conducted into the actual use of camber. In fact, finding sources to explain the function of get into is very difficult.Researching spoken communicating that is attributed to being overhear, come outed me that gather in is more than alone words to suggest impertinent behavior and that there are many favorable aspects embedded in slang, which in this thesis will be referred to as the use of slang. This breeding seeks to find out what slang is, how it is employ, who uses it and why it is utilize. The embedded social government issue and function of use slang will be researched and discussed in localize to show why slang deviates from standard speech communicating and why it is used.I have chosen to look at how slang works inside a given civilisation (the USA) because in Denmark, due to an excessive exposure to Ameri open fire television, films and music, we are heavily subjected to Ameri loafer- side of meat voice parley media which whitethorn give us a greater consciousness of the English ro w. From a edition studies present of view, slang is interesting because of its con nonations in its source culture.Slang seems to be connected to the culture in which it is created, so how are slang words and expressions transferred into another terminology and culture and does the transfer affect the possibility to maintain the use of slang in the reading? In the world of translation studies, research into the translation of slang seems somewhat limited. The reason may be that slang is gener each(prenominal)y considered a colloquial phenomenon which reduces the genres of communication in which it can appear. More specifically, slang is most likely to be learnd in connection with slang modality of life of teenagers, in the framing of texting.CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONA. Theory of TranslationThe ac slamledgement of translation surmise as a scientific discipline is ordinarily attributed to J. S. Holmes. In his assertion on the Symposium of Applied Linguistics (Copen hagen, 1972), he insisted on the establishment of translation hypothesis as an independent field of research. The framework of this new scientific discipline was hard to determine because of its complex requirements and because it uses materials and results from many other linguistic disciplines.So, whoever asks to deal with the theory and poetics of translation should pay attention to the special requirements of similar disciplines and should be able to accommodate their work in this new discipline. Because of all this, translation theory was considered an activity of secondary impressiveness that relies on other tidy sums thoughts and knowledge. The result of this was a diminishment of the value of research in this area.However, after years of undeserved treatment, the study of translation theory is gaining the place it should have had from the start. As an object of scientific research, the translation cognitive operation attracts the attention of many scientific discipli nes and methods, particularly contrastive compendium. This kind of analysis can be successfully applied in monitoring bodily structures and idioms of wizard language and comparing them to their semantic counter breaks in another language.In this process we can alike determine whether wholeness particular phrase exists in only iodin language, or it is a common expression in several languages. In the final results of this study we can determine most important general and specific language differences. As a arrangementatic scientific approach, with specific methods and goals, contrastive analysis was conceived in the United States in 1930s, but it gained an important place in language science 40 years later. Of course, general linguistics with its theory and methodology supported this action.It is reasonable to assume that those who deal with translation as a science want linguistics to leave alone a unimaginative contribution to translation, and to offer an improvement of p ractical use for those who learn hostile languages. Internal connections mingled with linguistics and translation are quite apparent and convincingly confirmed by the generated models presented by generative grammar. However, although contrastive analysis has left important traces in the study of language, so far it hasnt shown many important results in social and cultural fields or practical solutions for the benefit of communication.According to contrastive analysis, the written text has a permanent wave structure, it requires focusing only from the standpoint of etymology and semantics, so it does not allow notice of life situations or events that occur in the language under the wreak of the social and cultural environment. If we accept the terms mentioned above according to their accepted etymological meaning, it is clear that they define translation as the decision to arrange something to someone somewhere over, where people speak a different language and the core can n ot be understood without translation, transmittance or inversion.To make it simple, translation represents transferring passs from one language to another. Translators often subdue to highlight the direct connection between translation and language. Professional translators usually insist on translating the semantic components of the text, but sometimes theres a need for literal translation. Some often criticize the language structures that can be found in under-educated translators work. Although professional translators insist on the connection between translation and various fields of modern science, their theories can not offer enough evidence on the true grandness of translation.Traditional scientific practice gives the activity of translation a secondary role and leaves it in the shadow of the importance of scientific research. When it comes to the translation process, we can asseverate that a translator transfers study between the two languages. In fact, a translator tra nsfers the contents of the text written in one language also known as source language into the expressions in the second language also called the target language. This type of translation is called inter-language.Given the relationship between source language and target language, there can bealso intra-language and inter-semiotic translation. Inter-language translation is a process in which the linguistic material from one language is transferred using material from some other language. Intra-language translation is the recognize for replacing one form of language material with another form of that homogeneous language. Inter-semiotic translation can be defined as the transformation of characters from the language system structure to another system of signs (for example, converting vocation regulations to traffic symbols).In this case, Translations status as a mental activity of secondary importance is caused by the thought that in the transfer between two languages, translat ors are trying to shape other peoples thoughts, not their own. As a form of mental activity, translation represents the transformation of thoughts, feelings or desires, before designed in one language, into the equal kind of thought, feeling or desire in another language.B. Theory of CommunicationThe network is anticipate to process messages regardless of their contents. The perspective of the communication network therefore is different from that of the communicators. completely by operating at a next, that is, receiving interface, can the substance of the message be reconstructed and further affect. This next interface may be a (human) receiver or another note of the network. As the differentiation changes, the message is expect to have another situational meaning (Granovetter 1985).The substance of communication can only be reconstructed if the communication systems are sufficiently complex for packaging the archetype signal. The original substance of the message, however, stiff an boldness at the receiving end and decoding is based on theoretical assumptions. Although this may in practice be taken for granted, all sense of an original communality is recognizable as based on a specific coding, for example, in terms of basic affections. At the aim of the social system, the communication of breeding not only transmits, but also translates and potentially transforms the expected knowledge content.The full semi- nobleization of the substance of communication in terms of messages expected to contain nurture was accomplished by Shannons (1948) mathematical theory of communication. From this perspective, randomness is content-free and equated with suspense it is formalized in terms of binary digits or bits. When the uncertainty is complete, the system is assumed to be dead in a formal sense. A system can only process information, that is, communicate, as languish as the expected information is not complete but contained within a communication. A c ommunication system communicates with other communication systems.The last mentioned provide contexts insofar as they communicate, that is, insofar as these systems are uncomplete completely certain (fixed) nor completely uncertain (dead). Thus, a model of co-variation and remain variation in otherwise orthogonal dimensions can be formalized (Leydesdorff 1994). By differentiating the systems suppress the co-variation and tend to become virtually decomposable (Simon 1973). Whereas the covariation between two systems (A and B) is mutually determined, the remaining variation provides a structure over time in the one system (A) that is a latent condition for the coevolving system (B).From the perspective of the latter(prenominal) system (B), the structure (in A) can also be considered as redundancy or impuissance information. Therefore, structure is latent from this perspective. The covariations provide windows at which the systems share information mutually. The remaining variatio ns are based on the recursive code of the communication over time and remain internal to each of the co-evolving systems. In the case of a dually layered communication sensitive like human language (see above), the same communication can be nearly decomposable in one dimension while firmly related in another.For example, we may fit despite a deep misunderstanding in terms of the information exchange, while one is also able to disagree about a given meaning when one fully agrees about the underlying exchange. Thus, a two-dimensional communication medium allows for differentiation and integration at the same time. The operation has become complex in itself. With change magnitude differentiation the system has to improve on its internal operation of integration because of the risk of otherwise falling apart from an excess of differentiation.Keeping this balance under the pressure of increasing uncertainty can be considered as the driving force for growing communicative competences in a communication system. The communicative competences are expected to be differentiated in the case of inter-human communication. Whereas the substance of social communication (i) is packaged, the communicative competencies tend also to become formalized. The social network system, however, remains structurally match to human agency in the strong dimension.As enormous as one maintains Luhmanns assumption that human agency has to be the substantive carrier of the reflexive translation at the node, the social system cannot be completely virtual. One has to abandon the complete idealization in the historic case since observable reproduction has to be realized as one of the subdynamics of otherwise virtual networks. In this respect, sociology is different from the study of artificial systems. The historical instantiations contain the fingerprints of the social systems reproduction.Institutional dynamics exhibit codifications of communication that have been useable hitherto to th e extent that they have been institutionalized. These real life phenomena are part of the social system as are we ourselves, that is, as subdynamics which can be invoked. In other words human agency is structurally coupled to the social system, but only along one of the two dimensions of inter-human communication at each time. The other dimension is the way our communication is processed as a message. Along this dimension, the expectation is that we are only operationally coupled, since operational coupling allows for differentiation.The social system operates in terms of expectations (that is, uncertainties) and expectations concerning expectations (that is, meaning(prenominal) selections). This differentiation in the communication provides parallel channels in the medium that the network system has available for propelling the communication. Language supports this dual-layeredness in the communication by providing a means of codification of the relation between the message and th e information. The interactions among the two layers provide the system with variation that can recursively be selected as meaningful.For example, one is able to revivify with the meanings and the functions of communications. Furthermoe, one is sometimes able to swan some of the selections by improving ones own communicative competences. Although each of us is able to select individually by providing meaning to some information and not to other, the reflections are socially distributed and hence they contain also an modify value for the network behind the backs of the participants involved. In each communication, one breaker point of freedom may be hidden hyperreflexively or it can be made available to the communication, that is, infrareflexively.When the socially distributed reflections can be communicated, they are provided with situational meaning. The latter interaction is expected to interact with the not-yet communicated layer of reflections, and by generating this new var iation the system propels itself. On the side of the human agency involved, this configuration provides us with opportunities for building niches within the system or, in Habermas terminology, with options for improving the quality of life, for example, by fine-tuning communicative competencies to the exigencies of the communicated culture.C. Theory of Slang LanguageThe definition of slang can be found in literature researching slang. Unlike dictionaries, whose main focus is to provide the general outline of a lexical item, but cannot round on too many aspects due to a restriction on the lay available, the specialized literature presented in this paragraph presents more in-depth research on slang and has a different approach to how to define slang.In her book Slang & Sociability in which she researches the use of slang among college students in the USA, English prof Connie Eble presents her own definition of slang Slang is an ever changing secure of colloquial words and phrases that speakers use to establish or reinforce social individuality or cohesiveness in society at grownup (Eble 1996 11). Ebles definition differs significantly from the definitions presented in the dictionaries. While she agrees that slang is colloquial, Ebles definition highlights the social aspects of slang which the dictionaries either ignore or do not find relevant to explain.According to Eble, slang thus seems to serve a purpose which is the establishment of social identity for the speaker and the people with whom they are interacting. Michael Adams agrees and says that slang serves to fill the following purposes to identify members of a group, to change the level of discourse in the direction of in formality, and to oppose established authority (Adams 2009 16). Adams and Eble definitions show that slang is not just a set of words/phrases used by particular groups, but that it is something that are used by people to establish groups.The difference between these two notions is t hat slang can be used by anyone with the aim of wanting to establish group identity and to oppose established authority. Eble mentions Dumas and Lighter who proposes four identifying criteria for slang (Dumas & Lighter 1978 14-16 in Eble 1996 11-12) 1. Its presence will markedly lower, at least for the moment, the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing. 2. Its use implies the users familiarity either with the referent or with that less statusful or less trusty class of people who have such familiarity and use the term.3. It is a tabooed term in ordinary discourse with persons of higher social status or greater responsibility. 4. It is used in place of the well-known unoriginal synonym, especially in order (a) to protect the user from the discomfort caused by the conventional item or (b) to protect the user from the discomfort or irritation of further elaboration. Dumas & Lighter say that when something fits at least two of the criteria, a linguistically sensitive audience will react to it in a certain way.This way, which cannot be measured, is the ultimate identifying characteristic of true slang. This shows that the use of slang is a negotiation between the speaker and the listener, because the speaker wants to convey something with the use of slang which the listener must acknowledge. Adams acknowledges this and says that it is not a word itself that makes something slang, but rather the extrinsic feature of its use adapted by speakers to very precise human social and aesthetic unavoidably and aspirations (Adams 2009 48).Thus, the four criteria show that slang goes far beyond just being a lexical item. Moreover, all four criteria seem to focus on the social implications of using slang and the consciousness of shared knowledge between speaker and other participants. Dumas & Lighter imply that slang is used to change the level of formality from formal and serious speech towards informality, which also was what was suggested in the dictionary defini tions and by Adams and Eble The objective of using sets of slang words and expressions is to achieve something on a social level.The speaker uses slang in order to achieve social dynamics with the people to whom he/she is speaking and slang outlines social space, and offices towards slang helps identify and construct social groups and identity. (Adams 200957). This means that when you use slang, you expose yourself, your ideas and your attitude as to how you want to perceive the people with whom you are interacting, and how you want these people to perceive you, while you rely on the people with whom you are speaking to be able to infer what you mean.From this follows that slang is not a language as such as implied in some of the dictionarydefinitions mentioned in the previous paragraph, but rather a set of words and expressions in a given language used to create group dynamics, because slang is used within a given language to establish a difference between standard language and sl ang. The difference is not so much in the words themselves, but in the intended center of using the words. The switch from standard language to slang implies informal settings and helps find group dynamics. In the words of Eble, people use slang when they want to be creative, clear 2 A form of e. g. English which does not include evident non-standard usage of the language (Hamaida 2007 3).Translating the use of slang A study of microstrategies in subtitling with a view to researching the transfer of the use of slang from source text to target text with I Love You, musical composition as empirical example, including a study of the function of slang and unimpeachable to a select group (Eble 1998 19). In addition, slang is ephemeral. Slang changes invariably and it is the constant notion of what to use and what not to use that creates group identity. Eble says that share-out and maintaining a constantly changing in-group vocabulary aids group solidarity and serves to include and exclude members (Eble 1998 119).The members are those who understand not only the word verbalize by a slang user, but also know what the function of using the word is. In this way, slang operates like fashion You evermore need to keep up with the latest trends and if you do not, you are not as fashionable as other slang users are, and you must know how to respond to slang and to show whether you are in-crowd or out-crowd (Ibid 121). What still needs to be explained is what makes a given word appear slang to listeners.As we precept above, Lighter and Dumas suggested that a slang term is taboo when used slightly people that do not belong to your group and that slang is a synonym to a conventional word in the standard language used to avoid having to protect the user of the word from discomfort from having to elaborate on the word or to use the real word. This tells us that slang has an effect on both speaker and listener, and that slang is not relevant in all settings. Adams men tions that slang is periodic, naughty, vivid, irreverent, and playful elements that rebels against the standard (whether mildy, wildly or in between) (Adams 2009 9).The attributes suggested by Adams proposes that slang can be mild and casual in its appearance just as it can be racy and irreverent. Essentially, Adams believes that slang is used to rebel against standard language, but that the reasons for doing so does not have to be to show bad behaviour or plain irreverence. As we saw in the dictionary definitions above, slang seems to be listed as being not polite and offensive, but Adams believes that slang can just as well be playful and a joking way of rebelling against standard language to mark the difference between e.g. parents and children (in-crowd versus out-crowd), but the children do not necessarily have wicked intentions with the use of slang.Rather, slang is used to create a social line between children and parents/adults (Ibid 32). Of course, context comes into pla y when we think of slang. Adams mentions that slang is not slang until someone recognises it to be slang (Adams 2009 62). This means that listeners must be able to recognise the speakers intent to break with established linguistic convention and to determine that what they are hearing is slang.CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONThe term of using slang texting commonly can be learning trough chat with someone aboard. From the research result, we could see that student A who is often having chat with someone abroad can translate the text source appropriately. While student B is unfamiliar with slang texting, it is because student B rarely having chat with someone abroad. Knowing slang language is good for people who want to be an active English speaker. By mastering slang language, so we can take easily to communicate with the English native speaker.