Thank you, Trevor and Peter:Well, try at least the bibliography of my article (my website link below) if not the text, and see "Translation and Relevance" (2nd edition) by E-A Gutt.
On 8/16/04 10:16 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:
RT is not just about spoken language. Maybe this was the original
application, but its principles have been extended and applied to
written texts.
Do you have any reading suggestions? I would like to see this applied to
texts.
...
I wasn't trying to be fair. A.Nyland is a self proclaimed "traditional
grammar" aficionado. ...
...I will leave Reinier to answer for his own project. The rather similar project on which I have been working (see http://www.ktbh-team.org/) has had a lot of input from cognitive linguists who are also experts on RT. From my own perspective, this input has been hard to assimilate; in principle it should make for a very good product but in practice the effort required to get there looks unrealistic. These experts have in fact not appealed much to RT, more to other aspects of cognitive linguistics e.g. from Langacker and Taylor.
Thanks Peter and Trevor, sounds like we agree. The applicability of
Relevance Theory to Biblical Hebrew texts is subject to significant
restrictions. I wonder how these restrictions impact a project like Reinier
de Blois' dictionary?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.