3.3.2 Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word054
3.3.3 Translation by cultural substitution055
3.3.4 Translation using a loan word055
3.3.5 Translation by praphrase using a related word055
3.3.6 Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words055
3.3.7 Translation by Omission056
3.3.8 Equivalent 056
3.3.9 Tense Shift056
3.3.10 Semantic Shift057
3.4 Procedure 057
3.5 Data Collection059
Chapter IV: Data Analysis, Results, and Discussion060
4.2 Frequency and Percentage of the Procedures062
4.3 Results by the type of procedure068
4.3.2 Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word071
4.3.3 Translation by cultural substitution075
4.3.4 Translation using a loan word080
4.3.5 Translation by praphrase using a related word082
4.3.6 Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words083
4.3.7 Translation by Omission093
4.3.9 Tense Shift0109
4.3.10 Semantic Shift0110
4.4.1 Similarities and Differences with the previous studies………123
Chapter V: Conclusion, Pedagogical Implications, and Suggestions for Further Research0127
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research0132
Appendix A: Randomly Selected Chapters0141
Appendix B: One fifth of Data0142
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Frequency and Percentage of Translation Procedures in All Three Persian Translations062
Table 4.2 Superordinate Procedure069
Table 4.3 Instances of Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word0
Table 4.4 Samples of Translation by cultural substitution075
Table 4.5 Translation using a loan word081
Table 4.6 Samples of Translation by Paraphrase Using Unrelated Words
Table 4.7 Samples of Translation by Omission093
Table 4.8 Samples of Equivalent in Persian Translations098
Table 4.9 Samples of Tense Shift0109
Table 4.10 Instances of Semantic Shift0110
Table 4.11 Samples of Mistranslation0112
List of Figures
Figure 4.1 Frequency of the Procedures in All Three Translations 064
Figure 4.2 Percentage of the Procedures in All Three Translations065
Figure 4.3 Frequency of the Procedures in Each Translation066
Figure 4.4 Percentage of the Procedures in Each Translation067
Figure 4.5 Percentage Share of Each Procedure in Every Translation from the Total Amount068
List of Abbreviations
CV Compound verb
POS Part of speech
PV Phrasal verb
SOV Subject Object Verb
SVO Subject Verb Object
1.1 Theoretical Background
As phrasal verbs (PVs) are typically idiomatic, they cannot be understood by defining individual parts of them (Spears, 2007). Again, this idiomatic aspect of phrasal verbs gives them a high frequency in both written and oral languages; they also appear in both formal and informal situations (Ayadi, 2010). English is replete with PVs and due to simplicity of their coinage process, new ones can be readily created. PVs have their roots in Germanic Language; English belongs to the same family of languages (Schmitt & Siyanova, 2007). One third of the English vocabulary has been made up by PVs (Li, Zhang, Niu, Jiang, & Srihari, 2003). Their absence in non-Germanic and non-Scandinavian languages means that there is no grammatical device available in the target languages for these categories, consequently rendering “the entire conceptual information” will be so hard for the translators (Jakobson cited in Baker, 2011, p.96). Remaining unfamiliar with these structures during training and later performing as translators will bring this weakness to the spot light.
Newmark (1983) sets phrasal words and their non-phrasal equivalents in contrast. In addition, he argues that many translators are unaware of the functions of phrasal words, later he declares that for a translator who is translating into English they are priceless, and for a translator who is translating from English they are frustrating.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
While the modern English holds substantial numbers of PVs, Persian compound verbs (CV) that are considered as their equivalents in Persian have different structures comparing to the English PVs and are limited in number. The result of this will be a gap that goes hand in hand with different linguistic characteristics of the English PVs such as stylistic, syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic features and the result will be, increased difficulty in equivalent finding process for the translator both in terms of keeping correspondence between form and content. In fact, finding an equivalent that holds the same form and meaning in the target language, which is Persian, is impossible because of the absence of a similar form. Another issue is that wrong interpretations of idiomatic units such as PVs will inevitably lead to mistranslation and loss of meaning. PVs are categorized under several different categories and not all of them are readily detectable for the translator. Therefore, even observing them in texts demands specific considerations and knowledge about them.
Grammarians and Lexicographers offer their own definitions for these units. PVs’ form and formation besides their meanings that typically happen to be idiomatic make translations of these units of language a challenging issue for the translators in the process.
1.3 Significance and Purpose of the Study
This qualitative, product oriented, comparative analysis research is an attempt to determine translation procedures that are adopted by Persian translators in their efforts to render PVs into Persian. This task has been carried out by analyzing three translations of the English novel Inferno (2013) by Dan Brown, based on a model of translation procedures that is briefly referred to as taxonomy. To fulfil this aim, a modified model based on Baker’s (2011) Taxonomy for dealing with non-equivalence in translation at word level has been used. Frequency of every procedure in each of the three translations into Persian are determined and the most common procedures that are favored by the translators are identified.
Further, results have made it clear whether Persian translators are able to identify and translate PVs or they mistranslate or omit them from their translations. In the case of omission, there are two possibilities, either it was allowed because of not being vital to the development of the text as Baker (2011) labels it omission or it was vital but the translator omitted it without a justifiable reason. Unlike other models of translation procedures, Baker’s (2011) model is for dealing with the issue of non-equivalence in translation at the word level, therefore she did not include “equivalent” among other procedures and dealt with it separately.
The results of this study revealed Persian Translators’ level of acquaintance with PVs, as the number of mistranslations is a telltale sign about it. Moreover, it can be helpful for the fellow learners in the same filed, because a little investigation has been done into this topic in our own country, it demands further studies to unlock its potentials from different aspects.
The purpose of this study is to find out about the frequency and usage percentage of translation procedures in Persian translations of English PVs by using a model of translation strategies that has never been used by other researchers for investigating about English PVs.
1.4 Research Questions
The following research questions were proposed to achieve the objective of this qualitative study:
1. What is the frequency and percentage of each procedure that is applied in every single Persian translations of Inferno?
2. Which procedure has the highest total average percentage score in all three translations into Persian?
1.5 Definition of the key terms
1.5.1 Phrasal Verbs (PVs):
In the English Grammar, PVs are defined as the combination of a verb and an adverbial or prepositional particle. This combination reflects a meaning, which is not related to the individual parts of it, for example give in means submit and yield. Heaton (1985) distinguishes no difference between PVs and CVs, he considers them as the result of a combination between a verb and an adverb or a preposition (as cited in Olteanu R-A, 2012).
Crystal (1995) defines PVs in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language as a lexeme and names them multi-word items. It is noteworthy that a lexeme is a free morpheme and hence a free form, which cannot be broken down any further without losing the meaning it holds.
Eastwood (1999) explains PVs as constructions that are made of a verb plus an adverb. He suggests the following list of adverbs: “about, along, around, away, back, behind, by, down, forward, in, off, on, out, over, round, through, up.” (p. 128) In addition, he mentions that some of these particles can be prepositions too; in that case, they are called prepositional verbs.
Longman Phrasal Verbs Dictionary (2000) defines a PV as a verb that “consists of two or three words” (p.3) Frequently PVs are made of two words, the first one is a verb, and the second one is a particle that can be an adverb or a preposition.
It is also possible for the PVs to take two particles for example in Do away with or Stand up for, where both an adverb and a preposition are present (MacMillan, 2005). These PVs are called phrasal-prepositional verbs. It is noteworthy to say that prepositional verbs can turn to phrasal verbs by losing their objects. For example in the sentence he ran out the door, out is a preposition but it can become an adverb by losing its object, then in a sentence like she put the cat out , out is an adverb. Hence, prepositional verbs can become PVs when their prepositions lose their object. (Spears, 2005)
Spears (2005) defines PVs as idiomatic expressions that are sometimes called two-word verbs. Further, he clarifies that their idiomaticity is the result of unpredictability of their particles, which can be an adverb or a preposition. For example when one says put your shoes on there is no explanation for their choice, why on and not in or up. Even those different particles mentioned in the last sentence could build different forms with different meanings. This unpredictability in their particles and opaqueness of their meaning is because they do not have a literal and expected meaning, therefore they are labeled as idiomatic expressions.
1.5.2 Translation Procedures, Baker’s (2011) Taxonomy
The purpose of translation is to transfer meaning from written or spoken SL texts into their equivalent written or spoken TL texts. The equivalence and the ways to attain it in the process of decoding and recoding intended messages from SL to TL has been the center of hot debates among translation practitioners and scholars for over centuries. Among them, one may imply to the arguments over word-for-word versus sense-to-sense, later literal versus free or being faithful to the form rather than the content vice versa, manner rather than the matter or the author versus the reader. Today, thanks to the scholars of translation studies, many models have been developed in an effort to guide translators through the procedures that will help them in decision-making.
Current study demands a model of translation procedures that can be used on PVs, to make this happen Baker’s (2011) taxonomy of translation strategies that is used by professional translators has been selected. Equivalence as a factor has been added to this taxonomy of translation procedures. Further, tense shift, semantic shift, and mistranslation are added to this model.
Baker’s (2011) model is composed of eight strategies which can be summarized according to what follows:
a) Superordinate: translation by a more general word. In other words, the translator will capture and transfer propositional meaning of a source term in where the target language lacks a needed hyponym, which is a more specific term or a subordinate word. For example, flower (gol) is a superordinate and Poppy ?p?-p? (l?leh), Daisy ?d?-z? (Mina Ch?m?ni), Borage ?bo?r-ij, ?b?r- (Gole G?vz?b?n) are hyponyms of flower, then flower is called hypernym in its relation with these hyponyms. Baker (2011) believes that when a translation turns out to be inaccurate it is usually due to a wrong interpretation of the propositional meaning
b) Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word. The expressive terms can carry feelings and attitudes of a speaker. Some terms may have similar propositional meanings such as synonyms and near synonyms within a same language but their expressive meaning makes them different from one another. For example, while an expressive term such as stillness implies to both silence and motionlessness: e.g., the stillness of the night, the terms silence, and motionlessness carry only one of the meanings that this term conveys without carrying the same poetic sense of the tranquil silence. While a translator renders an expressive term into his/her own language, s/he may go for a less expressive and a more neutral term and therefore feelings and connotative meanings will be ignored. Some expressive terms have both propositional and expressive meanings: e.g. whinge ?hwinj, ?winj that means to complain in an annoying way, some are only expressive e.g. bloody.
c) Translation by cultural substitution. When it comes to cultural-specific items and expressions, translator can replace them with those items that have different propositional meanings but are capable of bringing the same impact on the target language readers. Further, they sound more familiar to the reader: e.g. Clarinet ?kler-?-?net, ?kla-r?-; ?kler-?-n?t, ?kla-r?- that is a single-reed woodwind musical instrument can be translated into Persian by replacing it with a similar musical instrument such as gh?r?ney.
d) Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation, this strategy is common in dealing with cultural-specific items and modern concepts, e.g. Hotel, Telephone.
e) Translation by paraphrase using a related word, in this case translator lexicalizes source item with a different form in the target language.
f) Paraphrase using unrelated words, happens when a translator uses a superordinate or simply unpacks the meaning out of the source language items, and this strategy is useful when the source language item is semantically complex: e.g., they have a totally integrated operation from the preparation of the yarn to the weaving process. Its Persian translation is: T?m?mi ye m?r?hele tolid ?z moh?y? s?zi n?kh gerefte t? f?r?y?nde ris?ndegy r? d?r d?khel k?rkh?ne ?nj?m mid?h?nd.
g) Translation by omission, this strategy is only acceptable in some special contexts where a source item needs lengthy explanations while it does not play a vital role in the development of the text: e.g., He went from house to house dragging two metal ingots b? do shemshe felezi ?z kh?ne ie be kh?neye dig?r mir?ft.
Translation by illustration, in this study has been replaced with another element, which is equivalent. Persian CVs can carry an equivalent meaning with a different form. Moreover, literal translation of non-idiomatic PVs can also be regarded as their equivalent.
Researcher got informed that seven translations from Dan Brown’s Inferno (2013) had been rendered into Persian since its publication. All the efforts that were made to find them all and select three of them randomly, turned out to be in vain. Only three translations could be found.
Researcher was determined to mix two models of translation procedures and make a mixed taxonomy to work with. As this study is around the concept of PVs and analyzing them demands some procedures that are functional and working for this unit, available options for the researcher were a few models, among these options Newmark’s taxonomy (1988) and Vinay and Darbelnet’s (1995) and even Ventui’s (1995) Domestication and Foreignization, were contemplated on. Then it turned out that the majority of the professors that researcher consulted with them did not have a positive stand toward those models, due to loads of researches that have been done by their application. So, this research will take advantage of a single modified model out of Baker’s (2011) taxonomy.
Researcher had the intention to perform a quality assessment at the final stage of the study. The idea came from a study that had been done by Persian researchers Yarahmadzehi, Beikian, and Nadri (2013) on the same topic with different methods and data. However, further investigations unfolded this fact to the researcher that there are a few old models that are suitable for this purpose, such as Larson’s (1998) model who puts emphasis on three criteria of Accuracy, Clarity, Naturalness and suggests comparison, back-translation, comprehension, naturalness, readability and consistency check tests as the solutions. Although, these criteria are the most agreed upon standards among scholars for performing the assessment on a translation, the way that a researcher conducts tests to keep scientific objectivity is the main concern of today’s theoreticians who have the lead in this domain. Furthermore, the quality assessment through analyzing small units of translation is questionable; many factors should be taken into account while dealing with the quality in a translation. For example, according to Khanmohammad and Osanlou (2009) “it is impossible to score cohesion and style at the sentence and clause level” (p.135).
In addition, the quality assessment demands certain models for the error analysis therefore conducting a separate study by other researchers, looks to be a wiser decision. Among currently developed translation quality assessment models, many of them are rubrics that have usage in the translator training courses. Though, some of them such as Waddington’s models can be mixed together and then be used with a larger unit of translation to work on, such as the case of a study that Shahraki, Karimina conducted (2011).
Review of the Related Literature
In the first part of this chapter, some of the topics that are linked with translation such as different definitions of translation will be discussed, then equivalence in translation will be dealt with to the extent that is needed for the aims of this study. Non-equivalence and translation of idioms will be talked about in the same part.
در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود
شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید
ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل
In the second stage, a historical review of English PVs will be put forth. Next part will be dedicated to the features of the English PVs from syntactic and semantic standpoints. Explaining Persian CVs and a report on the gist of the related studies will form the final stages of this chapter.
2.2 Different Looks upon Definition of Translation
Jakobson (1959) in his article “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” categorizes translation into three categories and provides explanations for them:
(1) Intralingual translation or rewording.
(2). Interlingual translation or translation proper.
(3). Intersemiotic or transmutation.
Only the definition of the second one will be introduced to the readers of this thesis, mainly because of its relevance to the present study. Jakobson (1959) labels words, idiomatic phrase-words as code-units, and defines translation (interlingual) as decoding the meaning of the message that is coded and carried by the rest of the code-units of the source (not individual code-units) then recoding the same message with the code-units of the target language. Hence, code-units will be different but the messages will be equivalent.
Catford (1965) defines translation as an operation, which involves substitution of textual materials of the SL by the equivalent textual materials of the TL. He further states that the use of the term textual material denotes the fact that the grammar and lexis of the SL cannot always be translated by the equivalent forms in the TL. Sometimes, some textual materials are replaced by the non-equivalent terms or even in some levels of the language, no replacement occurs at all.
Nida (1975) defines translation as “the reproduction of the closest natural equivalent of the source language message.” (cited in Newmark, 1991, p. 34)
Larson (1984) calls translation a process that involves changing the forms. This form can be in written or spoken language and shapes the surface structure of the language. A translator’s task is to figure out the meaning out of these forms by examining the cultural context and the situations in where a communication takes place in, further a translator studies lexicon and grammar of the source language, and then rebuilds it with the forms of the receptor language to convey the same thing.
Venuti (1995) considers translation as “the forcible replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that will be intelligible to the target language reader.” (p. 18)
Hatim and Mason (1997) define translation as two acts of communication during which the first one passes through cultural and linguistic limits to reach to the new readers or listeners, possibly with the aim of accomplishing new purposes.
Newmark (1998) defines translation as transferring the meaning of the source text accurately and with elegance to the readers of the target text who possess another culture.
Hatim and Munday (2003, cited in Munday, 2009) prefer to provide the following descriptions as the bounds of translation:
(1) . First stage involves a process in a particular socio-cultural context where the translator transfers a written SL to TL.
(2) . The process that takes place in the first stage leads to the production of a written text, which is capable of functioning in the socio-cultural context of the TL.
(3) . Cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural, and ideological processes are happening inherently within the first two stages.
Gill and Guzm?n (2010) define translation as:
A point of contact between peoples, and since it is rare that two peoples have the same access to power, the translator is in a privileged position as mediator, to make explicit the differences between cultures, expose injustices or contribute to diversity in the world. (P. 126)
2.3 Equivalence in Translation
Much ink has been spilled over the concept of equivalence in translation. Many eminent scholars in the field of translation studies have shared their views on the types of equivalence in translation and the ways to attain it. The aim of this section is to go through a few definitions for this concept, coming from the key figures of the field in the recent decades.
Nida (1964, 1969) published two books, which gained much fame among the scholars in the field. The first one that was published back in 1964 was titled Toward a Science of Translating and the second one that was co-authored with Taber (1969) was titled The Theory and Practice of Translation. By the help of the theories in semantics and pragmatics and Chomsky’s ideas in the field of generative grammar, Nida (1964) suggested two types of equivalence in translation. The first one was the formal correspondence or equivalence in translation where the focus of translation is on the source text’s message, not only in terms of form or manner but also in terms of content or matter. Therefore, the message in the receptor language to the maximum possible extent should match with the various elements in the source language. Correctness and accuracy of the conveyed message will be examined by a constant comparison between messages in both cultures while the stress is utterly on the source text. So, the aim of this type of equivalence is to render a message literally or word for word and that’s why Nida (1964) goes a step further in his book and labels it as “gloss translation”.
Second type of equivalence based on what Nida (1964) proposed, is dynamic or functional equivalence where the intention and focus of the translator is to create the same effect in the reader of the translation but this effect should be close to the one that the readers of the original text experienced. Therefore, seeking equivalent effect and the sameness of the relationship between the receptor and the message with the relationship of that original receptors and the message is the intention of this type of equivalence instead of matching the message in the receptor language with the source.
Catford (1965) discussed about textual equivalence and argued that in linguistic sense it scarcely happens that the items in the source and target texts carry the same meaning. Then, he argued that due to this lack of equivalence at the word level, sentence must be regarded as the yardstick of seeking equivalence, mainly because of the existence of a direct linkage between the function of speech in a given situation and sentence as a grammatical unit. Languages may not be equivalent at the word level but they can function well in the same situation.
Thus, according to Catford (1965) a translation can be equivalent with the source text when it is “interchangeable in a given situation.” (1965, p. 49)
Newmark (1981) in his book Approaches to Translation suggests semantic and communicative equivalence as two types of achievable equivalences in translation. Semantic translation aims for the contextual meaning of the original to the highest degree that semantic and syntactic structures of the target language permits. In communicative translation, the resemblance of the effect received by the readers of the translation with the effect brought on the readers of the original work is aimed for. Unlike word-for-word translation which remains in the grammar and lexis of the original or literal translation that goes a little further comparing to word-for-word and changes grammar to the grammar of TL, semantic translation brings context into account and cares for it. Thus, whenever a translator encounters a metaphor for example, explaining it will be a part of the semantic translation. This feature was absent in formal equivalence, literal translation and in its extreme form word-for-word rendering.
Koller (1979) states that equivalence will be possible if the translation keeps the content, function and style of the original then suggests five different categories for the equivalence in translation:
(1) Denotative equivalence: this type of equivalence considers extralinguistic1 contents of the text.
(2) Connotative equivalence: refers to the lexical choices that lead to conveying similar connotations.
(3) Text-normative equivalence: is related to the equivalence in different text types and the textual and linguistic norms that make them different.
(4) Pragmatic equivalence: refers to communicative function of translation that has its focus on the readers of the translation. Munday (2008, p.47) knows this similar to Nida’s (1964) “dynamic equivalence.”
(5) Formal equivalence: This type of equivalence that is also called expressive equivalence aims for the aesthetic and formal characteristics of the text.
Baker (2011) considers different levels for the concept of equivalence and categorizes it into the levels of word, above word, grammar, textual, pragmatic. A brief one by one overview of these levels will be presented in here:
(1) Equivalence at word level: Baker (2011) states that the role of a translator is decoding meaning out of the units that contain meaning. Word is considered as the smallest unit that carries meaning and can be used on its own. There are smaller meaningful elements than words within a language but they cannot be used independently that is why linguists explained morphemes and divided them into bound and free. Even the notion of meaning needs further clarification that is why Baker (2011) provides the readers with different accounts that the complex notion of meaning bears within a language.
(2) Equivalence above word level: in this type translator should seek equivalence while deals with the idioms and fixed expressions and collocations. Baker (2011) suggests her model of translation strategies for rendering idioms at the end of this section.