Article

INTRODUCTION

     This study deals with a contrastive rhetoric of differences and similarities between deictic expressions in English and Persian non-academic texts. It also deals with the implications of this contrastive rhetoric for foreign language teaching, learning, and translating. Our focus in the present research is mostly on the manner of writing of different writers, (native and non-native) and translators, more specifically how their respective cultures have affected their writings. That is, the present research tries to find out how these writers use deixis according to their cultures and whether these expressions are used in both languages or because of some cultural differences there are some differences in using them. Since deixis is considered as a cohesive device and it is analyzed within the texts, and actually it is related to the context of situation, consequently it is a part of semantic and also pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. According to many linguists deictic expressions are divided into three groups consisting: person, place, and time. To these traditional categories, we should now add (following Lyons 1968, and Fillmore, 1971b, 1975) discourse (or text) deixis and social deixis (Levinson 1995, p. 62). So, in this study five different types of deixis are examined.

Research Questions 

     The major issue to be addressed in this study includes the following research questions and their subtypes:

1. Is there any significant difference between the frequencies of occurrence of deictic expressions in English and Persian texts?

2. Is there any significant difference between the type of deictic expressions employed by native speakers of English and Iranians in their writings respectively?

2.1. Is there any significant difference between the native speakers of English and Iranians in their use of time deixis in their writings?

2.2. Is there any significant difference between the native speakers of English and Iranians in their use of place deixis in their writings?

2.3. Is there any significant difference between the native speakers of English and Iranians in their use of person deixis in their writings?

2.4. Is there any significant difference between the native speakers of English and Iranians in their use of social deixis in their writings?

2.5. Is there any significant difference between the native speakers of English and Iranians in their use of discourse deixis in their writings?

BACKGROUND AND RELATED LITERATURE

On Contrastive Rhetoric

     Rhetoric is one of the old branches of human knowledge. According to Valero-Garces (1996, p. 281) rhetoric refers to “the strategies the writer uses to convince readers of his/her claims and to increase the credibility of his/her research”. There are two major trends of rhetoric: Generative rhetoric and contrastive rhetoric. Generative rhetoric was under the influence of Noam Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar, which is out of the domain of this study. Generally speaking, comparative studies in linguistics have a long history and yet there are great concerns about using this field of study in order to overcome many potential problems in language learning and teaching.

     Robert Kaplan, one of the early founders of contrastive rhetoric believes that language and writing are cultural phenomena and that each language has its own cultural conventions. Kaplan (2005) believes that the focus of contrastive rhetoric is on written discourse, since, “a major real-world problem” (p.2), lies in literacy. Kaplan and Grabe (2002) define literacy as a kind of ability to encode and decode discourses.

     One of the most important parts of any contrastive study is to consider a third term or a common ground between two phenomena which allows them to be compared and contrasted. This common platform of reference has been named tertium comparationis (Krzeszowski, 1984).This phenomenon mainly refers to the equivalence of structural form or, at most, the equivalence of the functions of the two texts. Many scholars have emphasized the necessity for establishing this common ground before making a comparison between texts. For example, Grabe (1987) argues that contrastive studies must be limited to text types which are really comparable.

On DEIXIS

     There are many scholars who have some theories and ideas about deixis. Some linguists had just considered three main types for deictic expressions i.e. time deixis, person deixis, and place deixis. But some other linguists like Fillmore (1975), Lyons (1977), and Levinson (1995) added two more types to them which are social and discourse deixis. Since this research considers the ideas of Levinson (1995) as the most comprehensive one, so the following table shows his categorization[i] of deictic expressions:

     Table 1. Major types and subtypes of deictic expressions

     The numbers below each category works as a code to analyze the texts which are exemplified in the following data analysis section.

 Time deixis: “concerns the encoding of temporal points and spans relative to the time at which an utterance was spoken (or a written message inscribed) …Time deixis is commonly grammaticalized in deictic adverbs of time (like English now and then, yesterday and this year)” (Levinson, 1995, p. 62). Here Levinson considers a distinction between proximal (or close to speaker) and distal (or non-proximal, sometimes close to addresse) deixis. Such distinctions can be obviously seen in demonstratives like ‘this’ and ‘that’ and in deictic adverbs of place like ‘here’ and ‘there’ (p.72).

Place deixis: “concerns the encoding of spatial locations relative to the location of the participants in the speech event” (Levinson, 1995, p. 62). Here also Levinson makes a distinction between coding time or CT (the moment of utterance by speaker) and receiving time or RT (the moment of reception by addressee).

 Person deixis: “concerns the encoding of the role of participants in the speech event in which the utterance in question is delivered…Familiar ways in which some participant- roles are encoded in language are of course the pronouns and their associated predicate agreements” (Levinson, 1995, p. 62).

 Social deixis: “concerns the encoding of social distinctions that are relative to participant- roles, particularly aspects of the social relationship holding between speaker and addressee (s) or speaker and some referent” (Levinson, 1995, p.63). In many languages , distinctions of the fine gradation between the relative ranks of speaker and addressee are systematically encoded throughout, for example, the morphological system, in which case we talk of honorifics; but such distinctions are also regularly encoded in choices between pronouns, summons forms or vocatives, and titles of address in familiar languages (p.63). Levinson restricts social deixis to those aspects of language structure that encode the social identities of participants, or the social relationship between them. Obvious examples of such grammaticalizations, as he considers, are polite “pronouns” and “titles of address” (1983, p.89). For the sake of feasibility this study includes only those titles of address which covers honorifics and kinship terms. However, it may seem necessary to mention that kinship terms are considered just in kin relations, leaving aside other probable usages of them.

Discourse deixis: “has to do with the encoding of reference to portions of the unfolding discourse in which the utterance (which includes the text referring expression) is located” (Levinson, 1995, p. 62). Discourse deixis has a large domain but in this study just the categorization of demonstratives are taken into consideration.

METHOD

CORPUS

     The corpus collected for this study, consisted of one Persian novel, two English novels and one Persian translation (10,000 words from beginning part of each which is equal approximately to 30 pages for each category).

INSTRUMENTATION

     In order to compare and contrast the probable similarities and differences between deictic expressions in the beginning 30 pages (approximately 10,000 words length) of English and Persian novels, it was necessary to choose a model. So, in this study the ideas of Levinson (1995) as a most comprehensive one were utilized as the main theoretical model.

PROCEDURE

     Three different novels were selected from among realistic novels of three groups of novelists: native Iranian speaker of Persian i.e. Sadegh Choubak, native speaker of English, i.e. Mark Twain, and an Iranian translator, i.e. Mohammad Ghazi who had translated the English novel into Persian. The body of these novels from the beginning was chosen for study and was analyzed for the types and amounts of deictic expressions -time, place, person, social, and discourse- used. It is worth noting that, since novels are chosen as non-academic writing, in comparison with academic texts they don’t have different sections like introduction, body and conclusion. So, it was believed that the beginning part of them shouldn’t be very different from other parts regarding the types and amounts of deictic expressions used by the writers. To begin with, the texts were carefully read word by word in order to identify and locate the first three types of deictic expressions i.e. time, person, and place. After that, they were analyzed for discourse deixis and at last they were read in order to find social ones. All cases were examined in the context to determine the discoursal and semantic functions. Of course, the analysis of the text was carried out twice in order to increase the reliability of the findings.

DATA ANALYSIS

     This research aimed to investigate whether there is any statistically significant difference in the use of deictic expressions by authors and translators of English and Persian novels. In addition to descriptive statistics, since the present study is mainly concerned with frequency, Chi square as the appropriate non-parametric statistical test was used to analyze the data.

EXAMPLES OF SENTENCES USED BY A NATIVE SPEAKER OF ENGLISH in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

     You [3/1] don’t know about me [3/1], without you [3/1] have read a book by the name of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” but that [5] ain’t no matter. That [5] book was made by Mr. [4/1] Mark Twain and he [3/2] told the truth, mainly. There was things which he [3/2] stretched, but mainly he [3/2] told the truth. That [5] is nothing [3/3].

EXAMPLES OF SENTENCES USED BY A NATIVE SPEAKER OF PERSIAN in Tangsir

     هر دم یک جای آن[3/2] را می چسبید و ول می کرد و بازمی کشید. سوسک هنوز[1/1] رمقی داشت و شاخک هایش تکان می خورد و مورچه شاخک هایش را گاز می گرفت. و سوسک، پاهایش می پرید و تنش تکان نمی خورد. مورچه هر جای تن او[3/2] به دندانش می رسید آن[3/2] را گاز میزد و می کشید. مورچه حریص و شتاب زده و گرسنه بود.

EXAMPLES OF SENTENCES USED BY A NATIVE SPEAKER OF ENGLISH in The Prince and the Pauper

     All Offal Court was just such another hive as Canty’s house. Drunkenness, riot, and brawling were the order there [2/2], every night and nearly all night long. Broken heads were as common as hunger in that [2/2] place. Yet little [4/1] Tom was not unhappy. He [3/2] had a hard time of it [3/2], but did not know it [3/2]. It [3/2] was the sort of time that [5] all the Offal Court boys had, therefore he [3/2] supposed it [3/2] was the correct and comfortable thing.

EXAMPLE OF SENTENCES USED BY A PERSIAN TRANSLATOR of  the Prince and the Puaper (Shahzadeh va Geda)

     سرتاسر محله اوفال کورت، مانند خانه کانتی، شبیه به کندوی زنبور عسل بود. مستی و عربده جویی و جنگ و نزاع برنامه هر شب ساکنین آن[22/] محله بود و تقریبا هر شب تا نزدیک[/12] صبح ادامه داشت. به همان[5] اندازه که شکم گرسنه در آنجا[/22] یافت می شد، سر و دست شکسته نیز فراوان بود. با این[5] وصف تم کوچک موچودی بدبخت نبود و گر چه زندگی وی[3/2] به عسرت و سختی می گذشت، ولی خود[3/2] از آن[5] آگاهی نداشت. زندگی وی[3/2]، عینا مانند تمام کودکان دیگر بود که درمحله اوفال کورت به سر می بردند، و به همین[5] جهت توم گمان می کرد که روش مطلوب و صحیح زندگی همین[5] است و بس.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    In order to compare the type and amount of deictic expressions objectively, the sample corpuses which were English and Persian novels and translation were analyzed to gather raw data for reaching the answers to the research questions. The first chi-square test was run in order to show the total frequencies of deixis used in all of the English and Persian texts under investigation. The results are as follows:

                                  Figure 1.The comparison of all kinds of deixis between English and Persian texts

a. the value of observed Chi-square (all English and Persian corpus): 652.727, p<0.05;

b. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus translation group): 158.142, p<0.05; and

c. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus original): 549.429, p<0.05.

     As results show, by considering the values of chi-square and by considering this fact that for all three groups, p<0.05, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the frequencies of occurrence of deictic expressions in both English and Persian texts. In other words, the frequencies of deictic expressions used by Iranian writers are indeed different from the frequencies used by English writers. Generally speaking, the frequencies of occurrence of deictic expressions used by English writers are more than those used by Iranian writers i.e. English writers used more deixis in their texts than Iranian writers.  In the comparison of original versus translation and original versus original groups, also there is a significant difference between the uses of deictic expressions.

     The findings clearly indicate that native speakers of English have used far more deictic expressions than Persian writers as non-native of English whether in the comparison of original versus original, original versus translation, and both of the English and Persian data under study.

     The second chi-square test was run to examine the probable differences between these three groups in their use of time deixis. The summary of the results of these chi-squares are as follows:

                                  Figure 2. The comparison of time deixis between English and Persian texts

a. the value of observed Chi-square (all English and Persian corpus): 0.264, p>0.05;

b. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus translation group): 0.313, p>0.05; and

c. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus original): 0.042, p>0.05.

     In the light of the above chi-square values and by considering this fact that p>0.05, it is seen that there is not a significant difference between the native speakers and Iranians in their use of time deixis in their writings. In other words, time deixis with its two subtypes of: coding and receiving, are actually used similarly by these groups i.e. the use of time deixis in the original English novel and the original Persian novel, also in the original English novel and its translation, and consequently in all of the English and Persian corpus are the same.

     The next chi-square test was run to check out the probable differences between these three groups in their use of place deixis. The sketch of the results of these chi-squares is as follows:

a. the value of observed Chi-square (all English and Persian corpus): .297, p>0.05;

b. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus translation group): 1.513, p>0.05; and

c. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus original): 2.381, p>0.05.

                                  Figure 3. The comparison of place deixis between English and Persian texts

     Giving consideration to the above chi-square values and by noticing that p>0.05, it is observable that like time deixis, there is not a significant difference between the native speakers of English and Iranians in their use of place deixis in their writings. In other words, place deixis is indeed used the same by English and Iranian novelists and translator. Dividing place deixis into three subtypes of: proximal, distal, and neuter, it is worth noting that regardless of the total place deixis and its distal subtype, there is a significant difference between the use of proximal and neuter subtypes in all groups.

                   Another chi-square test was performed to observe the expected differences between these three groups in their use of person deixis. The summary of chi-square results is as follows:

a. the value of observed Chi-square (all English and Persian corpus): 1369.767, p<0.05;

b. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus translation group): 302.308, p<0.05; and

c. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus original): 984.890, p<0.05.

                             Figure 4.The comparison of person deixis between English and Persian texts

      In view of the above chi-square values and by considering that p<0.05, it is noticeable that there is a significant difference between the native speakers and Iranians in their use of person deixis in their writings. Dividing person deixis into three subtypes of: pure, impure, and non-referential, it is worth mentioning that regardless of the all person deixis under study, there is also a significant difference between the use of all these subtypes except for the non-referential in the comparison of all English and Persian corpus (i.e. there is a significant difference between the use of non-referential person deixis in two groups of original-original and original-translation).  The results also reveal that, the English writers use more person deixis than Iranian ones.

     An additional chi-square test was run to compare the social deixis used by these three groups. The summary of the chi-square results is as follows:

a. the value of observed Chi-square (all English and Persian corpus): .873, p>0.05;

b. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus translation group): 4.935, p<0.05; and

c. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus original): 5.224, p<0.05.

                                Figure 5. The comparison of social deixis between English and Persian texts

     The results of chi-square test show that social deixis is used differently by these groups in their texts except for the comparison of all of the English and Iranian corpus. Honorifics and kinship terms are two subtypes of social deixis. There is also significant difference between their use of these different subtypes by these groups except for honorifics in the original-original, and kinship terms in original-translation group.

     The last chi-square test was run in order to see the probable differences between these three groups in their use of discourse deixis. The summary of chi-square results is as follows:

a. the value of observed Chi-square (all English and Persian corpus): 51.366, p<0.05;

b. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus translation group): 21.423, p<0.05; and

c. the value of observed Chi-square (original versus original): 31.683, p<0.05.

                                  Figure 6. The comparison of discourse deixis between English and Persian texts

      Taken into consideration the above chi-square values and paying attention to this fact that for all comparisons, p<0.05, it can be seen that there is a significant difference between the native speakers and Iranians in their use of discourse (text) deixis in their writings. In other words, discourse deixis is actually used differently by these groups. Generally speaking, Iranian writers use more discourse deixis than English ones.

CONCLUSION

     This study was an attempt to investigate and analyze the rhetoric of deictic expressions of the beginning part of English and Persian novels and translations. In order to achieve this aim, the beginning part of three novels and one translation, were investigated. As mentioned above, these novels were written by a native speaker of English, a native speaker of Persian, and a translator who had translated from English into Persian. A total of three novels and one translation (30 pages of each one) were analyzed to discover the types and amounts of deictic expressions used by the above mentioned novelists and translator.

     In the next step, Levinson’s (1995) categorization of deixis was used to find the different categorizations of deixis and their subtypes.[ii]The aim of this study was to find out whether the use of deictic expressions is affected by different languages and/or cultures.

     The results of Chi-square tests indicated that all kinds of deixis and their subtypes are employed by English and Iranian novelists and translator. However, some of them, whether the main types or their subtypes, were used similarly or differently by these groups.