ACCEPTABILITY, APPROPRIATENESS, AND ADAPTATION OF TEXT

ACCEPTABILITY, APPROPRIATENESS, AND ADAPTATION OF TEXT

Author:  V.Z. Demyankov

Affiliation:  Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Abstract:  Texts and discourses need accomodation to conditions of their use in order to influence opinions, attitudes, and actions of the target audience. For instance, political texts and children’s books are normally adapted to be properly understood. Such adaptations may be creative to different degrees and involve subjects, objects, target audience, circumstances of communication and techniques of presentation or, formulated in praxeological terms: who adapts, what, for whom, when, where, and how.
In linguistics, acceptability is a pre-theoretic notion pertaining to evaluation of sentences and utterances and it does not coincide with grammaticality or well-formedness. Acceptable sentences and utterances are rather defined as well-adapted to the discourses they belong to, that is, acceptability is part and parcel of communicative adaptation of texts and discourses.
On the other hand, texts and discourses themselves are appropriate to the degree they are well-adapted to the wider context of use, to circumstances of communication. Achieving discourse appropriateness is the main reason for adapting texts.

Keywords:  cognitive linguistics, text adaptation, discourse adaptation, sentence acceptability,
text appropriateness, linguistic vs. extra-linguistic knowledge, culture accommodation

References:  Boldyrev N.N. Yazyk i sistema znaniy. Kognitivnaya teoriya yazyka. M.: YaSK, 2018.
Dem'yankov V.Z. Tekst i diskurs kak terminy
i kak slova obydennogo yazyka // Yazyk. Lichnost'. Tekst: sbornik k 70-letiyu T.M. Nikolaevoy / In-t slavyanovedeniya RAN; otv. red. prof. V.N. Toporov. M.: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur, 2005. S. 34-55.
Likhachev D.S. Tekstologiya: Na materiale russkoy literatury X–XVII vekov. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. L.: Nauka, 1983.
Smirnov V. Odessa-taki rabotaet! Odes-sko-blatnoy slovarik. Odessa: Poligraf, 2008.
Chukovskiy K.I. Zhivoy kak zhizn': Ras-skazy o russkom yazyke. M., 1961.
Ufimtseva A.A. Semantika slova // As-pekty semanticheskikh issledovaniy. M.: Nauka, 1980. S. 5-80.
Apostel L. Pragmatique praxéologique: Com-munication et action // Le langage en contexte: Etudes philosophiques et linguistiques de pragma-tique / Parret H. et al (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1980. P. 193-315.
Austin J.L. How to Do Things with Words: (The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University). Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.
Aylwin S. Structure in Thought and Feeling. London; N.Y.: Methuen, 1985.
Baumbach S., Michaelis B., Nünning A. Introducing Travelling Concepts and the Metaphor of Travelling: Risks and Promises of Conceptual Transfers in Literary and Cultural Studies // Travelling Concepts, Metaphors, and Narratives: Literary and Cultural Studies in an Age of Interdisciplinary Research / Baumbach M., Nünning A. (eds.). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2012. P. 1-21.
Bazell C.E. Meaning and the morpheme // Word. 1962. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 132-142.
Beeman W.O. Language, Status, and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Bell A. Good copy – bad news: The syntax and semantics of news editing // Applied Sociolin-guistics / Trudgill P. (ed). London etc.: Academic Press, 1984. P. 73-116.
Belyea B. The notion of “equivalence”: The relevance of current translation theory to the edition of literary texts // La traduction: L’universitaire et
le practicien: Congrès U. du Québec à Montréal
28-31 mai 1980 / Thomas A., Flamand J. (eds.). Ottawa (Canada): Université d’Ottawa, 1984. P. 39-47.
Bergmann M. Metaphorical assertions // Philosophical review. 1982. Vol. 91. No. 2. P. 229-245.
Bierwisch M. Struktur und Funktion von Varianten im Sprachsystem // Kontexte der Grammatiktheorie Hg. v. Motsch W. Berlin: Akademie, 1978. S. 81-130.
Brown G. Speakers, Listeners and Communication: Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Bublitz W. Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversations: Discourse Topics and Topical Actions, Participant Roles And Rrecipient Action in a Particular Type Of Everyday Conversation. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benja-mins, 1988.
Camaioni L. The problem of appropriate-ness in pragmatic development // Le langage en contexte: Etudes philosophiques et linguistiques de pragmatique / H. Parret et al. (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1980. P. 79-92.
Coleman L. Why the only interesting syn-tactic dialects are the uninteresting ones // Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lin-guistic Society. Chicago: Chicago University, 1973. Vol. 9. P. 78-88.
Coulmas F. Language adaptation // Language adaptation / Coulmas F. (ed.). Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1989. P. 1-25.
Derrida J. Parages. Paris: Galilée, 1986.
Delisle J. L’analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction: Initiation à la traduction française de textes pragmatiques anglais: Théorie et pratique. Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa, 1984.
Dijk T.A.v. Studies in the Pragmatics of Dis-course. The Hague etc.: Mouton, 1981.
Eco U. Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix, 2003.
Ellis R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford; N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Fauconnier G. Etude de certains aspects logiques et grammaticaux de la quantification et de l’anaphore en français et en anglais. Lilles: Atelier Reproduction de thèses; Paris: Librairie Champion, 1980.
Ferguson S. Language Assimilation and Crosslinguistic Influence: A Study of German Exile Writers. Tübingen: Narr, 1997.
Firth J.R. Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–59 / F.R. Palmer (ed.). London; Harlow: Longmans, Gren and Co., 1968.
Friedman V.A. Toward a typology of status: Georgian and other non-Slavic languages of the Soviet Union // The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels: April 20-21, 1979: Including papers from the Conference on Non–Slavic languages of the USSR (April 18, 1979). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1979. P. 339-350.
Garrett P. Attitudes to Language. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Gross J. Editing and its discontents // The State of the Language / Ricks Ch., Michaels L. (eds.).  Berkeley etc.: University of California Press, 1990. P. 282-288.
Hatim B. Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Lin-guistics. Exeter: University of Exeter, 1997.
Hübler A. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1984.
Hymes D.H. On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1971.
Kasher A. Dialogues: How basic are they? // Dialoganalyse II: Referate der 2. Arbeitstagung Bochum 1988 / Hg. v. Weigand E., Hundsnurscher F. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1989. Bd. 1. S. 71-86.
Kernan K.T., Sabsay S. Semantic deficiencies in the narratives of mildly retarded speakers // Semiotica. 1982. Vol. 42. No. 2/4. P. 169-193.
Lang E. Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung. Berlin: Akademie, 1977.
Langendoen D.T. On a class of not ungram-matical constructions // Journal of Linguistics. 1982. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 107-112.
Lightfoot D. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Lyons J. Towards a notional theory of parts
of speech // Journal of Linguistics. 1966. Vol. 2.
P. 202-236.
Lyons J. Semantics. Cambridge etc.: Cam-bridge University Press, 1977.
Mailloux S. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 1982.
Marković M. Dialectical theory of meaning. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel, 1984.
McCawley J.D. A note on Japanese passive // Speech Production and Language: In Honor of Osamu Fujimura / Kiritani Sh., Hirose H., Fujisaki H. (eds.). Berlin; N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. 271-277.
Motsch W. Sprache als Handlungsinstrument // Kontexte der Grammatiktheorie / Hg. v. Motsch W. Berlin: Akademie, 1978. S. 11-49.
Mulken M.V. Copyist behavior: Historical linguistics and text filiation // Medieval dialectology / Fisiak J. (ed.). Berlin; N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995. P. 153-174.
Nash W. English Usage: A Guide to First Principles. London etc.: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.
Neubert A. Text als linguistischer Gegenstand // Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität. 1982. Bd. 36. S. 25-42.
Olshtain E., Cohen A.D. Speech act behavior across languages // Transfer in language production / Dechert H.W., Raupach M. (eds.). Norwood (New Jersey): Ablex, 1989. P. 53-67.
Parret H. Pragmatique philosophique et épistémologie de la pragmatique: Connaissance et contextualité // Le langage en contexte: Etudes philosophiques et linguistiques de pragmatique / H. Parret et al. (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1980. P. 7-189.
Rathmayr R. Pragmatik der Entschuldigun-gen: Vergleichende Untersuchung am Beispiel der russischen Sprache und Kultur. Köln etc.: Böhlau, 1996.
Rappaport G.C. On syntactic binding into adjuncts in the Russian noun phrase // Topics in Syntax and Semantics: NPs, Non-A binding / Bouchard D., Smith C. (eds.). Dordrecht; Boston: Reidel, 1987. P. 475-501.
Richards J.C., Platt J., Weber H. Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Essex: Longman, 1985.
Rochemont M.S. A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English. N.Y.; London: Garland, 1985.
Sajavaara K. Second language speech production: Factors affecting fluency // Second Language Productions / Dechert H.W., Möhle D., Raupach M. (eds.). Tübingen: Narr, 1984. P. 45-65.
Sandt R.A.v.d. Context and Presupposition. London etc.: Croom Helm, 1988.
Sass C.P. On interpersonal competence // Interpretive approaches to interpersonal communication / Carter K., Presnell M. (eds.). Albany: State University of New York, 1994. P. 137-157.
Scheller-Boltz D. The Discourse of Gender Identity in Contemporary Russia: An Introduction with a Case Study in Russian Gender Linguistics. Hildesheim; Zürich; N.Y.: Georg Olms Verlag, 2017.
Sommers J.D. From sentence combining to whole essay revision: Theory into practice // Sentence Combining: A Rhetorical Perspective / Daiker D.A., Kerek A., Morenberg M. (eds.). Carbondale; Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1985. P. 151-158.
Spitzberg B.H., Cupach W.R. Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills (California): Sage, 1984.
Thomas J.H. Philosophy of Religion in Kier-kegaard's Writings. Lewiston etc.: Mellen, 1994.
Veale T, Brône G., Feyaerts K. Humour as
the killer–app of language: A view from Cognitive
Linguistics // Cognitive Linguistics and Humor
Research. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2015. P. 1-11.
Vossler K. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Spra-chphilosophie. München: Hueber, 1923.
Warren M.J. Repunctuation as interpretation in editions of Shakespeare // English Literary Renaissance. 1977. Vol. 7. P. 155-169. Repr. // A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama / Salmon V., Burness E. (eds.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1987. P. 455-469.
Weinberger E. Anonymous sources: (On translators and translation) // In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What It Means / Allen E., Bernofsky S. (eds.). N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2013. P. 17-30.
Wright R.A. Meaningnn and conversational implicature // Speech acts / Cole P., Morgan J.L. (eds.). N.Y. etc.: Acadic Press, 1975. P. 363-382.

Acknowledgments:  The research presented in section 1 is financially supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation, project 19-18-00040 “Parametrization of linguistic creativity in discourse and language” at Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The research presented in sections 2 and 3 is financially supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation, project No. 19-18-00429 “Language mechanisms of cultural system accommodation in various types of discourse of the 20th and 21st centuries” at Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

For citation:  Demyankov, V. Z.  (2019). Acceptability, appropriateness, and adaptation of text. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki, 4, 9-19. (In Russ.).

Pages:  9-19