The claim
CLAIM-233’s version 2 named Gutt’s interpretive resemblance among the rival accounts that predict a pass on the central defeat test (CASE-184). The record reads the account in Gutt’s 1989 thesis (LIT-1845, NOTE-1435). Two utterances interpretively resemble each other “to the degree that the sets of assumptions which each conveys in its own cognitive environment overlap, that is, … the degree to which they share their explicatures and/or implicatures” (pp. 74–75). “Identity in propositional form between two utterances is not a sufficient condition for identity in their interpretations” (p. 72). A report that changes the words can resemble the original more closely than a repetition of them (pp. 73–74). The interpretation a translation is to keep includes irony (pp. 215–217), intimacy (pp. 165–167), register (pp. 238–240) and the force of a greeting (pp. 229–232). Even direct translation fixes its clues by their effect on interpretation, not by their form (pp. 253–255). Judged stance and footing are nearer to what the account preserves than embedding similarity is. On renderings built to dissociate the two, it predicts the pass.
What it does not say
- That Gutt predicts anything about human ratings. The thesis tests nothing on readers, and the prediction is the record’s inference from the account.
- That context is idle. Fidelity is relative to a cognitive environment: the receptors’ for indirect translation, and the original’s for direct translation (pp. 164, 254). What the account predicts for a rater depends on the environment the rater brings.
- That the 1991 book (LIT-784), unread, keeps these definitions. The thesis is skimmed, and pp. 258–298, on partial resemblance and failure, are unread.