پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 933 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,666 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,516,363 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,897,007 |
ارزیابی عملکرد مترجمان بوفکور بر اساس تحلیل‌عناصر و بارمعنایی واژگان: ارائه مدل تحلیلی جدید بر مبنای داده‌ها | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 12، شماره 37، بهمن 1399، صفحه 9-37 اصل مقاله (626.49 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2020.30075.1830 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| محمود افروز* | ||
| استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده زبان‌های خارجی اصفهان | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هر چند، ترجمه در جایگاه متنِ مقصد، گویی، هستیِ مستقلی ندارد، اما در ادبیاتِ زبانِ مقصد میتواند دارندة هویت و هستی باشد. مسئلة نقد و ارزیابیِ ترجمة متن‌های ادبی، به ویژه با تمرکز بر عنصرهای فرهنگی، امری ضروری است. تحلیلِ عنصرهای معنایی، یکی از شیوه های ارزیابی است که به بررسی روابطِ معناییِ میانِ واژگانِ مبدأ و مقصد می پردازد. هدف از پژوهشِ حاضر، بررسی و نقدِ عملکردِ مترجمِ بومی (بشیری) و غیربومیِ (کاستلو) رمانِ بوفکور صادق هدایت بوده که با تکیه بر شاخصه‌های تحلیل عناصر و بارِ معناییِ واژگان انجام شده‌است. شاخصه های مورد اشاره، به وسیلة نگارنده، در هفت رخ‌دادِ حفظ، تأکید، جبران، بسط، قبض، حذف و نویسه گردانی شرح داده شده‌اند. خطاهای مترجم‌ها نیز به صورت گسترده مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. بر پایة یافته های پژوهش، واژه‌های حوزة دین، شغل‌ها و اشیاء جزء پرچالشترین مفاهیم برای هر دو مترجم بوده‌اند. همچنین، رخ‌دادهای «قبض» و «جبران» بیشترین و رخ‌دادهای «تأکید»، «حذف» و «خطا»، کمترین درصد فراوانی را در هر دو ترجمه داشته‌اند. نتیجه نهایی پژوهش، نمایانگر موفقیتِ بیشتر مترجمِ بومی در نگهداشتِ عنصرها و بار معناییِ واژگانِ معادلیابی‌شده، است. دلیل این امر را میتوان، آشناییِ بیشترِ مترجمِ بومی با فرهنگِ مبدأ دانست. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| ارزیابی ترجمه؛ ترجمه متون ادبی؛ بوفکور؛ تحلیل عناصر معنایی؛ بار معنایی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Assessing Equivalents Selected by Translators’ of ‘The Blind Owl’ Based on Componential Analysis and Semantic Load of the Words: Proposing a New Analytical Model Based on Data Analysis | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mahmoud Afrouz | ||
| Assistant Professor in Department of English Language and Literature Faculty Member of University of Isfahan | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Among the most challenging problems encountered by translators, especially those dealing with literary texts, seems to be the problem of finding adequate and acceptable equivalents for the original text’s culture-specific terms in the TL. Therefore, assessing translation of literary texts, specifically that of culture-specific references, is a crucial issue in translation studies. Componential analysis is one method of translation assessment which focuses on semantic relations of ST and TT lexical items. It should also be noticed that any lexical item can have positive, neutral, or negative connotations. Interestingly, the situational context can play a pivotal role in specifying the particular semantic load of the lexical items. The present study aimed at criticizing equivalents selected by a native and a non-native translator of a contemporary Persian novel based on componential analysis and semantic load of the words. Sadeq Hedayat’s ‘the Blind Owl’ is a masterpiece in the modern Persian literature. The work was first rendered into English by D. P. Costello in 1957. Iraj Bashiri also translated the work into English in 1974 and then revised it in 1984. However, his last revision, being used as part of the research corpus of the current study, came about 2013. Since the source language is Persian, Costello is considered as the non-native and Bashiri, the native translator. On the whole, native translators may be expected to possess a somehow comprehensive acquaintance with their own culture. However, the main question that may arise here is that whether their familiarity would lead to a more precise translation of culture-bound concepts and terms or not? Can it be claimed that a native translator is more skilled than a non-native translator as far as dealing with cultural items is concerned? In order to assess the performance of the two translators, the following seven procedures or occurrences were detected and described by the author: retention, amplification, compensation, expansion, reduction, omission, and transliteration. Mistranslated items were also analyzed separately and, consequently, ‘mistranslation’ was taken into consideration as an occurrence along with the seven aforementioned occurrences. The collection of procedures was employed as the framework of the study. The following steps were taken to conduct the study: studying the Blind Owl for identifying terms and expressions (especially culture-specific ones); categorizing the items into various groups; specifying the equivalents in the two translations; and finally, analyzing the data based on the framework suggested by the author. In order to categorize the culture-specific terms, a combination of classifications presented by Vlahov and Florin (1980), Newmark (1988), Thriveini (2002), and Espindola and Vasconcellos (2006) was employed and the CSIs were classified into the following categories: objects, plants, relationships, proper names, measurements (of weight, money, distance, etc.), religious-bound terms, customs, ideas and rituals, foods and drinks, clothes and special garments, games and specific hobbies, occupations, symbols, gestures, terms related to social life, etc. Concentrating on the two key criteria of componential analysis and semantic load of the words, the researcher has made an attempt to find answers to the following questions: 1) Which categories contained the most challenging culture-specific items? 2) Which translator (the native or the non-native) has been more consistent in observing the componential analysis and semantic load of the CSIs? 3) Which occurrences have had the most or the least frequency? 4) How the occurrences attributed to the native are comparable to the non-native translator? 5) How successful have been the two translators in their equivalent choice? The findings revealed that the fields of religion, occupation and object contained the most challenging terms and concepts. Also, translators’ tendency towards transliteration, in some cases, had deprived the TT readership of the information essentially needed for better understanding the source text. Based on the findings, it was also realized that neither native translator, nor the non-native has been consistent in resorting to specific procedures. Moreover, it was found that while ‘expansion’ and ‘compensation’ had occurred most, the occurrences of ‘amplification’, ‘omission’ and ‘mistranslation’ had the least frequency in the works of the two translators. Overall, based on the results of the study it was concluded that the native translator has been more successful than the non-native in observing the meaning-components and semantic-load of the lexical items embedded in the novel. One reason to justify the event seems to be the deep familiarity of the native translator with the source culture. Therefore, professional native translators interested in modern (and even classic literature) are highly recommended to try their hands at rendering masterpieces of their own nation. They can even have a more active role in retranslating literary works (including poems, short-stories, plays, novels, etc.) already rendered into a foreign language by non-native translators. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Translation assessment, Literary text translation, The Blind Owl, Componential analysis, Semantic load | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
افروز، محمود. (1395). «بررسی تطبیقی-تحلیلی نقش مترجمان بومی و غیربومی در حفظ هویت ملی». مطالعات زبان و ترجمه. شمارة 49. دورة 1. صص 41-55. امیرشجاعی، آناهیتا و محمدحسین قریشی (1395). «بررسی نشانه ای- فرهنگی و تغییر ایدئولوژی در ترجمه (بر اساس تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی) مطالعة موردی: پیرمرد و دریا، اثر ارنست همینگوی». زبان پژوهی. سال 8. شمارة 19. صص 7-32. طالبی دستنایی، مهناز، فریده حق‌بین و آزیتا افراشی (1395). «بررسی استعارۀ خشم در زبان نابینایان مطلق مادرزاد در مقایسه با همتای بینایشان». زبان پژوهی. سال 8. شمارة 20. صص 85-98. نظری، علیرضا و لیلا جلالی حبیب آبادی (1397). «تحلیل معادلگزینی عناصر فرهنگی رمان بوف کور در ترجمه به عربی با تکیه بر رویکرد ایویر». پژوهشهای ترجمه در زبان و ادبیات عربی. دورة 8. شمارة 19. صص 109-134. References
Afrouz, M. (2017). A comparative-interpretative study of the role of native and non-native translators in preserving national identity. Journal of Language and Translation Studies, 49(1), 41-55 [In Persian].
Afrouz, M. (2019). How different Muslim translators render the Holy Qur’an into English? The case study of Sunni, Shia and “neither Sunni nor Shia” translators. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 12(1), 1-14.
Afrouz, M., & Shahi, M. (2020). Translation after Wittgenstein. Perspectives, 28(1), 159-161.
Aixela, J. F. (1996). Culture-specific items in translation. In R. Alvarez & M. C. A. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp. 52-78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Al-Zoubi, M. (2009). The validity of componential analysis in translating metaphor. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 17(3), 151-160.
Amirshojaee, A., & Ghorishi, M. (2016). The semiotic-cultural analysis and the ideological changes in translation. Language Research, 8(19), 7-32 [In Persian].
Arnita, G. A., A., Puspani, I. A. M., & Seri Malini, N, L. N. (2016). Componential analysis of the cultural terms in the bilingual short story entitled Mati “Salah Pati” and its translation “the wrong kind of death”. Linguistika, 23(44), 12-19.
Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A course book on translation. London & New York: Routledge.
Bashiri, I. (2013). The blind owl. Minneapolis: Manor House.
Costello, D. P. (1957). The blind owl. London: John Calder LTD.
Davies, E. E. (2003). A goblin or a dirty nose? The treatment of culture-specific references in translations of Harry Potter books. The Translator, 6(2), 65-100.
Dehbashi Sharif, F., & Shakiba, S. (2015). A modification of culture-specific items and translation strategies used by native and non-native translators in translation of ‘the blind owl’ by Sadegh Hedayat, ELT Voices, 5(3), 48-59.
Espindola, E., & Vasconcellos, M. L. (2006). Two facets in the subtitling process: foreignisation and/or domestication procedures in unequal cultural encounters. Fragmentos, 30, 43-66.
Garcés, C. V. (1994). A methodological proposal for the assessment of translated literary works: a case study, the Scarlet letter by N. Hawthorne into Spanish. Babel, 40(2), 77–102.
Guillou, L. (2013). Analysing lexical consistency in Translation. In B. Webber, A. Popescu-Belis, K. Markert, & J. Tiedemann (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on discourse in machine translation (DiscoMT) (pp. 10-18). Bulgaria: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Hadilu, B., Zeinalzadeh Vafa, S., & Rostami, Gh. (2016). A contrastive study of lexical cohesion in English short story books written by native English and Iranian authors. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 313-320.
Halliday M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: past and present. London & New York: Routledge.
Ivir, V. (2003). Translation of culture and culture of translation. SRAZ XLVII, 117-126.
Ku, M. (2019). A westward journey vs. a playful journey: Strategies for the translation of cultural elements in journey to the west, Onomázein, 43, 50-69.
Nazari, A., & Jalali Habib Abadi, L. (2018). Analysis of selecting equivalence for cultural elements of the blind owl novel in translation into Arabic relying on the approach of Ivir. Translation Researches in the Arabic Language and Literature, 8(19), 109-134 [In Persian].
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
Pérez, F. J. D. (2017). The translation of humour based on culture-bound terms in modern family: A cognitive-pragmatic approach, MonTI, 9(2), 49-75.
Poordaryaei Nejad, A., & Khorian, H. (2019). Exploring strategies used by Costello in rendering cultural elements while translating ‘the blind owl’. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1), 99-106.
Rahimieh, N. (2014). The blind owl by Sadeq Hedayat, Middle Eastern Literatures, 17(1), 107-109, DOI: 10.1080/1475262X.2014.903045
Sarcevic, S. (1985). Translation of culture-bound terms in laws, Multilingua, 4(3), 127-133.
Setyawan, R. A. (2019). Procedures of translating culture-specific item in the book “the international Jew the world’s foremost problem”, Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 52, 30-39.
Talebi, M., Haghbin, F., & Afrashi, A. (2016). Anger metaphor in language of the blind from birth: A comparative study with sighted counterparts. Language Research, 8(20), 85-98 [In Persian].
Terestyenyi, E. (2011). Translating culture-specific items in tourism brochures. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 5(2), 13-22.
Thriveini, C. (2002). Cultural elements in translation: The Indian perspective. Translation Journal, 6(1), 15-27.
Vasheghani Farahani, M., & Mokhtari, A. (2016). An analysis of culturally specific items in English translation of Hedayat's ‘blind owl’ based on domestication vs. foreignization dichotomy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(4), 308-324.
Vinay, J. P. & Darbelnet, J. (1958). Comparative stylistics of French andEnglish: A methodology for translation. (J. Sager & M. J. Hamel, Trans.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
وب‌گاه‌ها | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,125 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 659 |
||
