پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 933 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,666 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,514,362 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,896,525 |
بررسی مقابله‌ای معادل‌یابی دشواژه‌ها در فرهنگ‌های هزاره و آریان‌پور | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 12، شماره 37، بهمن 1399، صفحه 95-120 اصل مقاله (675.02 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2019.24354.1652 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| فاطمه زهرا نظری رباطی* 1؛ فاطمه زند2 | ||
| 1گروه مترجمی زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه حضرت نرجس (س)، رفسنجان، ایران | ||
| 2مربی زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه حضرت نرجس (س)، رفسنجان، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| دشواژه‌ها، یکی از حوزه‌های مشکل‌ساز در ترجمه هستند. فرهنگِ لغت، از جمله ابزارهایی است که مترجم‌ها برای از بین بردن این مشکل از آن بهره می‌جویند. دانستنِ ویژگی فرهنگ‌ها در حوزۀ دشواژه‌ها، به مترجم‌ها کمک می‌کند تا فرهنگِ مناسب را انتخاب کنند. پژوهش حاضر، به منظورِ بررسیِ راهکارهای ترجمۀ دشواژه‌ها در مدخل‌های «fuck»، «hell»، «shit»، «dead» و «drunk» در دو فرهنگ پرکاربرد هزاره و آریان‌پور بر پایة راهکارهای ترجمة داوودی (Davoodi, 2009) انجام گرفته‌است. هدف این مقاله، بررسی مقابله‌ای مدخل‌های مورد اشاره بود تا با روش تحلیلی-توصیفی به پرسش‌های پژوهش پاسخ داده شود. نخست اینکه، کدام راهکارها در این دو فرهنگ برای ترجمۀ دشواژه‌ها به کار رفته‌است؟ دوم، آنکه آیا فراوانیِ دشواژه‌ها با راهکارهای ترجمه در این فرهنگ‌ها ارتباط دارد؟ سوم اینکه، کدام فرهنگ در برگردان دشواژه‌ها موفق‌تر عمل کرده‌است؟ یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد در فرهنگ هزاره، دشواژههای بیشتری نمایان شدهاست. همچنین با بهره‌گیری بیشتر از راهکارهای حسنِ تعبیر و دشواژه، ترجمة قابل قبولی در پیوند با دشواژه برای دریافت‌کنندگان زبان مقصد ارائه شدهاست. این در حالی است که در فرهنگ آریان‌پور دشواژههای کمتری دیده میشود و تأثیر دشواژه در زبان مقصد با بهره‌گیری از راهکار سانسور کم‌رنگ شدهاست. به این‌ترتیب، فرهنگ هزاره در پیوند با دشواژههای پیکرۀ موردِ بررسی، موفق‌تر عمل‌کرده و به منظور معادل‌یابی، دشواژههای این پیکره از جنبة کمّی و کیفی، انتخاب مناسب‌تری برای مترجم‌ها خواهد بود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| دشواژه؛ فرهنگ آریان‌پور؛ فرهنگ هزاره؛ راهکارهای ترجمه؛ بررسیِ مقابله‌ای | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Comparative Analysis of Translation of Taboos in Hezareh and Arianpour Dictionaries | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Fatemeh Zahra Nazari Robati1؛ Fatemeh Zand2 | ||
| 1Translation Studies Department, Literature and Humanities College, Narjes University, Rafsanjan, Iran | ||
| 2The coach translation studies department, Literature and Humanities College, Narjes University, Rafsanjan, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Taboo terms are one of problematic areas in the process of translation. Dictionaries are one of tools translators use to solve this problem. There are some differences between dictionaries in the number of taboo terms and the strategies applied in their translation. Knowing the characteristic of dictionaries in this respect can help translators choosing a suitable dictionary to solve their problem. The present study was an attempt to find the frequency of taboos, the strategies applied in their translation in Hezareh and Arianpur dictionaries and the relation between the frequency of taboo terms and the applied strategy to understand the characteristics and successfulness of these two dictionaries in this respect. Many studies have been done on the topic of taboo terms and their translations in Persian and English language but in case of dictionaries nothing has been done. Different scholars have provided different definitions, categorizations and translation strategies for taboo terms. In the following the categorization of taboo terms and the strategies of translating them are presented. In the following some of the classifications on taboo terms are presented: A. Anderson and Hirsch (1985, p. 79): 1. sexual organs, sexual relations, 2. religion, church, 3. excrement, 4. death, 5. the physically or mentally disabled, 6. prostitution, 7. narcotics, crime; B. Allan and Burridge (2006, p. 1): 1. bodies and their effluvia (sweat, snot, faeces, menstrual fluid, etc.), 2. the organs and acts of sex, micturition and defecation; 3. diseases, death and killing (including hunting and fishing), 4. religion and church, naming and addressing sacred persons, beings, objects, and places, 5. food gathering, preparation and consumption, 6. prostitution, narcotics, and criminal activity; C. Habibovic (2010, p. 7): 1. sex, 2. religion, 3. bodily functions, 4. ethnic groups, 5. Food, 6. dirt 7. death ; D. Gao (2013, p. 2): 1. bodily excretions, 2. death and disease, 3. Sex, 4. four-letter words, 5. swear words, 6. privacy, 7. discriminatory language; E. Avila Cabrera (2014): 1. animal name, 2. death/killing, 3. drugs/excessive alcohol consumption, 4. ethnic/racial/gender slur, 5. filth, 6. profane/blasphemous, 7. psychological/physical condition, 8. sexual reference/body part, 9. urination/scatology, 10. violence. As taboos are part of the culture of each language, to translate a taboo, the translator must be familiar with both source and target languages in order to know whether the taboo word in the SL, is known as taboo in the TL or not. According to Behzad and Salmani (2013, p. 227) three possibilities may arise in the process of translating taboo terms: a) the taboo term in L1 is not taboo in L2, b) the taboo term in L1 is taboo in L2 too, and c) the term which is not taboo in L1 is considered as taboo in L2. Facing these situations, in part (a), the translator has no problem and can translate the word easily, but in parts (b) and (c), there are some choices to render if not exact but similar and acceptable meaning and feeling of the word into the second language. There are different strategies for translating taboo terms. Each translator can use one of them according to the context. The following are some of these strategies: A. Allan & Burridge (2006): 1. euphemism, 2. dysphemism, 3. orthophemism; B. Vossoughi & Etemadhosseini (2013, p. 3): 1. Omission, 2. manipulation of segmentation, 3.euphemism; C. Venuti (as cited in Hashemian, Mirzaei, & Hosseini, 2015, p. 25): 1. domestication, 2. foreignization. D. Davoodi (2009): 1. censorship, 2. substitution, 3. taboo for taboo, 4. euphemism, E. Tanriverdi Kaya (2015): 1. substitution, 2. taboo for taboo, 3. omission. 4. euphemism, 5. addition, 6. explication, 7. Dyphemism. In the present study, the strategies proposed by Davoodi were applied. According to Davoodi (2009), there are four possible strategies in translating taboo terms: Censorship: it is the first possible way that a translator can choose when facing a taboo term in translation. As Davoodi asserted: “In this case, the translator ignores the term easily and censors it as an extra term” (2009, p. 1). But that’s not an appropriate choice, “because in some occasions, the taboo term is a key term in the source text and the omission of it will distort the meaning of the text”. (ibid.) Substitution: another way in translating a taboo term is by substituting the word with another one in target language. But Davoodi believed that “it often certainly distorts the meaning” (ibid.). Taboo for taboo: to Davoodi, “On the other hand, although the translator knows the expressions are not acceptable to target people and society, s/he prefers to translate them into taboo” (ibid.). Euphemism: according to Davoodi: “euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression to replace one that offends or suggests something unpleasant” (ibid.) To address the questions of the study, taboo terms relating to words drunk, fuck, shit, dead and hell were found in both dictionaries. Then their frequency was also studied. Next, the applied strategies based on Davoodi’s strategies were compared. To conduct this comparison two 5 columns tables including no., taboo term in English, taboo term in Persian and the applied strategy for each of dictionaries were prepared. Of the 51 taboos of the corpus, Hezareh has provided translation for 49 taboos and Arianpur for only 9 taboos; thus, Hezareh dictionary has more taboo terms in comparson to Arianpur dictionary. On euphemism and translation of taboo for taboo term, an acceptable translation for the target receivers have been provided, while in the Arianpur dictionary less taboos are presented and the effect of taboos is lessened using censoring strategy. Concerning the frequency, as the preferred strategy in Arianpur is censoring thus the frequency of taboo terms is lesser in Arianpur in comparison to Hezareh dictionary. Therefore, the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the corpus in the present study showed that, Hezareh dictionsry is more suitable than Arianpour dictionary regarding finding equivalents of taboo terms. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Taboo, Arianpur dictionary, Hezareh dictionary, Translation strategies, Comparative analysis | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
ارباب، سپیده (1391). «بررسی و طبقه‌بندی دشواژههای فارسی در تداول عامه». پژوهشهای زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی. دورة 4. شمارة 2. صص 107-124.
افروز بروجنی، مهناز (1389). بررسیساختارمحتواییوزبانیواژگانتابودربرخیازداستانهایمعاصر فارسی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه شهرکرد.
آکماجین، آندرین، آنا فارمر، لی بیک مور، ریچارد دیمرزو روبرت هارنیش (1375). زبان‌شناسی (درآمدی بر زبان و ارتباط). ترجمۀ خسرو غلام‌علی‌زاده. چ 1. کرمانشاه: طاق بستان.
حق‌شناس، علی‌محمد، حسین سمیعی و نرگس انتخابی (1389). فرهنگ معاصر هزاره انگلیسی-فارسی. تهران: واحد پژوهش فرهنگ معاصر.
شریفی، ساغر و پروانه فخام‌زاده (1386). «مدخل‌گزینی در فرهنگ عمومی یک‌زبانه». ویژه نامه فرهنگستان- فرهنگ‌نویسی. شمارة 1. صص. 101-124.
شریفی، ساغر و فریبا قطره (1397). درآمدی بر فرهنگ‌نویسی. تهران: کتاب بهار.
شریفی، شهلا و فهیمه دارچینیان (1388). «بررسی نمود زبانی تابو در ترجمه به فارسی و پیامدهای آن».زبان‌شناسی و گویش‌های خراسان. شمارة 1. صص 127 -141.
شکیبا، نوشین (1386). «تأثیر بافت اجتماعی بر کاربرد دشواژه در گفتار زنان و مردان تهرانی». زبان و زبان‌شناسی. دورة 2. شمارة 3. صص 141-152.
عباسی، آزیتا (1392). «فرهنگ‌نویسی و توانش کاربردشناختی». ویژه نامه نامه فرهنگستان-فرهنگ‌نویسی. شمارة 7. صص 23-38. .
مدرسی، یحیی (1387). درآمدی بر جامعه‌شناسی زبان. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
میرزاسوزنی، صمد. (۱۳۹۲). ترجمه متون ساده. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
ورمزیاری، حمید (1399). «مقایسۀ ساختار خرد سه فرهنگ انگلیسی به فارسی بر اساس نظریۀ معناشناسی قالبی فیلمور». زبان‌پژوهی.
References Abbasi, A. (2014). Lexicography and applied potential. Special issue of Persian Academy Papers-Lexicography, 7, 23-38 [In Persian]. Afrooz Brujeni, M. (2010). The exploration of content and linguistic structure of the taboo words in the contemporary Persian stories (Master’s thesis). Shahrekord University, Sharekord, Iran [In Persian]. Akmajian, A., Demers, R., Farmer, A. K., & Harnish, R. M. (1997). Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication) 1nd ed.(. (Kh. Qolamalizadeh, Trans.). Kermanshah: Taq-e-Bostan [In Persian]. Alavi, S.Y., Karimnia, A., & Salehi Zadeh, S. (2012). Translation of taboos from English into Persian: a skopos-based study. Journal of Linguistics and Translation, 54 (2013), 12289-12292. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Andersson, L. G., & Hirsch, R. (1985). A project on swearing: a comparison between American English and Swedish. Gothenburg: Göteborg (Dept. of Linguistics at the University of Göteborg). Arbab, S. (2013). The study and the classification of Persian colloquial taboo words. Journal of comparative Linguistic Researches, 2 (4), 107-124 [In Persian]. Arianpur Kashani, A., & Arianpur Kashani, M. (1974). The Arianpur progressive English-Persian dictionary. Tehran: Amir Kabir [In Persian]. Ávila-Cabrera, J. J. (2014). The subtitling of offensive and taboo language: A descriptive study (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Universidad Nacional de Educacién a Distancia, Madrid, Spanish. Ávila-Cabrera, J. J. (2015). An account of the subtitling of offensive and taboo language in Tarantino’s screenplays. Artículos Originales, 26, 37-56. Behzad, A., & Salmani, B. (2013). Translation of taboo words & expressions in Saramago's Blindness. International Journal of Scientific Research, 2 (8), 227-8. Bolton, K., & Hutton, C. (1995). Bad and banned language. Language in Society, 24(2), 159-186. Davoodi, Z. (2009). On the translation of taboos. Translation Directory. Retrieved from <http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article2052.php> Fershtman, Ch., Gneezy, U., & Hoffman, M. (2011). Taboos and identity: considering the unthinkable. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3, 139-164. Gambier, Y. (1994). Language transfer and audiovisual communication. Turku: University of Turku. Gao, Ch. (2013). A sociolinguistic study of English taboo language. China: Academy Publisher. Habibovic, A. (2010). Taboo language: Swedish teenager’s understanding of and attitudes to English taboo language (Master thesis). Kristianstad university, Kristianstad, Sweden. Haghshenas, A. M., Samei, H., & Entekhabi, N. (2010). Farhang Moaser millennium English-Persian dictionary. Tehran: Farhang-e-Moaser Research Section [In Persian]. Hashemian, M., Mirzaei, A., & Hosseini, M. (2015). Taboos in IRIB’s dubbed Hollywood movies: a look at translation of culture-bound elements. Presented in The 2nd National Applied Research Conference on English Language Studies, January 28-30, University of Tehran, Iran. Heatherington, M. E. (1980). How language works. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop Publishers. Khoshsaligeh, M., Ameri, S., & Mehdizadekhani, M. (2017). A socio-cultural study of taboo rendition in Persian fansubbing: an issue of resistance. Language and Interculrural Communication. Retrieved from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2017.1377211.> Khossalighe, M., & Ameri, S. (2014). Translation of taboos in dubbed American crime movies into Persian. T & I Review, 4(2), 25-50. Mirza Suzani, S. (2014). Translation of simple texts. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian]. Modarresi, Y. (2009). An Introduction to sociolinguistics. Tehran: Humanities and Cultural Studies Research Center [In Persian] Naseri, N., & Pishkar, K. (2015). Transmission of taboo words in translation: Simin Daneshvar’s Suvashun and Mohammad R. Ghanoonparvar’s translation based on Anthony Pym’s model. Applied Linguistics and Language, 2 (7), 260-270. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall. Proctor, P., Summers, D., & Quirk, R. (2009). Longman dictionary of contemporary English (5nd ed.). (M. Mayor, Trans.). UK: Longman. Robinson, D. (2006). Translation and taboo. Deklab: Northern Illinois University Press. Shakiba, N. (2007). Implications of context in the usage of taboo words in Tehrani male and female speech. Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 141-152 [In Persian]. Sharifi, S., & Fakhamzadeh, P. (2008). Choosing entry in monolingual general dictionaries. Special issue of Persian Academy Papers-Lexicography, 1,101-124 Sharifi, S., & Qatre, F. (2018). On lexicography. Tehran: Ketabe Bahar [In Persian]. Sharifi, SH., & Darchinian, F. (2010). The analysis of presence of taboo in rendition into Persian and its effects. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 1, 127-141[In Persian]. Tanriverde Kaya, M. (2015). Translation of taboo language: the strategies employed in 3 Turkish translations of Lady Chatterley’s lovers (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University of Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of Translation and Interpreting, Ankara, Turkey. Trudgil, P., & Andersson, L. (1990). Bad language. London: Penguin. Varmazyari, H. (2020). A comparison of the microstructures of three English-Persian dictionaries based on Fillmore's Frame Semantics. Journal of Language Research, 12(37). doi:10.22051/JLR.2020.27490.1768[In Persian]. Vossoughi, H., & Etemad Hosseini, Z. (2013). Norms of translating taboo words and concepts from English into Persian after the Islamic revolution in Iran. Journal of Language and Translation, 2(5), 1-6. Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics (5nd ed.). UK: Blackwell | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 828 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 388 |
||
