THARAKA COMMUNICATION STYLE AS A TRANSLATION PROBLEM
Abstract
Background: Translation is a kind of communication. A translation is done because there is need to communicate to the target audience the contents of the text that is being translated. A good translation should be accurate, clear, natural and acceptable to the audience. A natural translation should take into consideration the style of communication of the target culture. The aim of my study was to investigate the communication style of Kîîtharaka and determine how much this style is a translation problem. The research objective was to investigate whether Tharaka people use metaphors in discourse in general and especially in argumentation.
Methodology: The research was carried out among the speakers of Kîîtharaka from four locations namely: Mutino, Ntugi and Gatunga locations in Tharaka Nithi County, and Tharaka Location of Kitui County. The four locations were chosen to represent the four dialects of Kîîtharaka.
Results of the Study: The findings are that Kîîtharaka uses metaphors extensively and more so in argumentation. So any texts that employ metaphors will be following the natural style of communication of Kîîtharaka. Therefore, such texts will be natural Kîîtharaka texts. And by extrapolation, Kîîtharaka being an African language spoken within an African Culture it can be supposed that any African texts (including translations) that employ metaphors will be natural texts. The converse is therefore true that any texts that avoid the use metaphors especially in argumentation will be unnatural Kîîtharaka texts. And by extrapolation, Kîîtharaka being an African language spoken within an African Culture, it can be supposed that any African texts (including translations) that avoid the using metaphors in an effort to make the message clear will be producing unnatural texts.
Keywords: Tharaka Communication Style, Metaphor, Translation Problem
References
Bible Translation & Literacy (EA). (2018). Mwimbi-Muthambi Sociolinguistic Survey. Nairobi. BTL(EA).
Blight, C. Richard. (1999). Translation Problems from A to Z. Dallas. SIL International
Bullinger, E.W. (1999). Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. New York. Baker Publishing group.
Clark, Billy. (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge. Cambridge University Pres. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104
Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Guthrie, Malcom. (1948). The Classification of the Bantu Languages. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Gutt, Ernst-August. (1992). Relevance Theory. Dallas. Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Henderson, Anne. (2017). Through a Hebrew lens or a Western filter. Dallas. BT Conference.
Mberia, Kithaka. 1993. Segmental phonology with special reference to the noun and to the verb. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Nairobi.
Rygg, Kristin. (2012.) Direct and Indirect Communicative Style. University of Bergen, Norway.
Schroder, Helga. (2018). Semantics and Pragmatics. Lecture Notes. AIU.
Simons, Gary F. and Fennig, Charles D. (eds.). 2018. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Twenty-first edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. (1995). Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
TeSelle. (1975) Parable, Metaphor and Theology: Speaking in Parables. Philadelphia: Fortress. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/XLII.4.630