Processing effort in Farsi translations of English novels ; Salinger ' s the catcher in the Rye approached from relevance theory

Introduction The concept of “encoding and decoding” is one of the mostcited concepts in the literature of the human communication studies. According to the Code model, when one intends to communicate a message, firstly s/he encodes it by use of the rules of the language s/he speaks. The outcome will be a signal to be received by the addressee who decodes it to get the message encoded by the addresser. Although this bi-lateral process is one of the crucial factors involved in human communication, it fails to explain many aspects of this communication (Gutt, 1992). One of the problems with this model is the lack of any account of how a linguistically encoded signal is decoded differently by two different addressees in two different contexts. Consider for example, the utterance ‘Oh, it’s cold! ’ which can be decoded as ‘please close the window! ’ in one situation and ‘please bring me a hot tea! ’ in another. It might be suggested that context is the determining factor in this process, but the way it can be explained is not clear in Code model. Another problem with the Code model is the fact that the information which was encoded linguistically does not guarantee the intended meaning to be conveyed completely. As Gutt states, ‘further information is needed to develop the linguistically specified skeleton to a full proposition’ (1992, p. 12). What can be suggested as a substitution to Code model of communication is inferential communication in which the communicator provides the addressee with what is called stimulus in Relevance theoretic terms. The two functions of this stimulus are informing the addressee that the addresser has the intention to provide him with a piece of information (communicative intention) and conveying the intended information to the addressee (informative intention) (Sperber & Wilson, 2004). In theory of Relevance, a communication which includes both of these intentions is called ostensive-inferential communication. The condition which is considered in RT for success of a communication is the successful inference of the informative intention by the addressee. (Gutt 1992). Regarding the issue of successful inference, what we have in RT “is not just an all-or-none matter but a matter of degree” (sperber & Wilson 2004, p. 609). According to this theory, when all other factors are equal, investing more effort for processing and recognising the intentions behind the text results in lower level of relevance of the input to the audience. Therefore, the relevance of an utterance can be assessed utilizing the criteria proposed in the RT i.e. cognitive effects and processing effort (Sperber & Wilson, 1986). Translation is one the other linguistic issues which has been approached so far mostly from Code model point of view. Therefore, the problems and drawbacks of the Code model on the one hand and more adequate accounts of the inferential model on the other hand, makes one to come to the conclusion that it will be more appropriate to approach translation and linguistic issues related to it from this point of view and as Gutt maintains “we can also expect better insights into the nature of translation” (1992, p. 15). Since translation is believed to be in the first step, recognition of the intentions of the source text by the translator, in the second step, expression of those intentions, and in the third step, recognition of the expressed intention by the audience, it can be completely approached and analysed in the framework of inferential model and RT. All steps and conditions mentioned above in the case of communication are therefore applicable for translation as a means of as well as process of communication. For instance, the criteria proposed by this theory in assessment of relevance level of an utterance are valid for translation as well; the more the reader invest processing effort to understand the text and to recognize the