Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4055

4055

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3 |Likes:
Published by Bahare Shirzad

More info:

Published by: Bahare Shirzad on Jun 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/29/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
Herbert P.Philips (in Nida, 1964:156) argues that
no statement of the principles of correspondence in translating can be complete without recognizing the many different typesof translations
. As a result, the translator intends to begin the discussion with brief introduction in terms of developing the terms and bringing them down into the TL(Farsi/Persian) examples in order to assess and evaluate how applicable they are.
Traditionally, we have tended to think in terms of free or paraphrastic translations ascontrasted with close or literal ones
‟; however, there are many other types of translation
 beside these popular expressions (Nida in Venuti, 2000: 153). Here, the main focus is on
„Nida‟s
(1964)
“dynamic” and “formal” varieties of “correspondence,”
later replacing the
term “dynamic” with “functional”
(Nida and Taber 1969)
‟ (
ibid: 147-148). The mosttranslation theory discussed during these decades [1960s-1970s] is equivalence and in 1963Georges Mounin argues that
„equivalence is based on “universals” of language and culture
 questioning the notions of relativity that in previous decades made translation seemsimpossible. At the same time, the literature on equivalence is fundamentally normative,aiming to provide not only analytical tools to describe translations, but also standards toevaluate them. The universal is then shaped to a local situation
(Venuti, 2000:147).As a result,
„since no two
languages are identical, either in the meanings given tocorresponding symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are arranged in phrases andsentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence betweenlanguages. Hence there can be no fully exact translations
(Nida inVenuti, 2000: 153). Inother words, equivalences perform contextually to convey and standardize the text close tothe original same as
the most direct form of commentary
as D.G. Rossetti stated in 1874(Fang: 1953) on the basis of 
relatedness
between STL and TTL (ibid; Venuti, 2000:147).On the other hand,
“there are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalents”
 (Bellac
 
1931 and 1931a:37) to identify the text in detail but to study the equivalences asanalytical tools (Venuti, 2000:156; Nida, 1964:156).
 
2
In fact, „
Equivalence is submitted to lexical, grammatical, and stylistic analysis; it isestablished on the basis of text type and social function. By the end of the 1970s, so manytypologies of equivalence have been devised that Werner Koller can offer a nuancedsummary of the possibilities.
Equivalence, he writes, may be “denotative,” depending on an“invariance of content”; “connotative,” depending on similarities of register, dialect, andstyle; “text
-
normative,” based on “usage norms” for particular text types;
 
and “pragmatic,”
ensuring comprehensibility in the receiving culture (Koller 1979:186
 – 
91; Koller 1989:99
 – 
104)
(Venuti, 2000:147).
Having all this in mind, we are going to discuss the „relatedness‟ between English (STL) and
Farsi/Persian (TTL). As a matter of fact,
Persian language is one of the Iranian languageswhich form a branch of the Indo-European family and it is written in Arabic script with anumber of additional characters to accommodate special sounds and in Iran it is generallyreferred to as
Farsi‟ (Katzner, 1986: 166
-167). Therefore, not only differences of linguisticaffiliation exist but also highly diverse cultures are between mentioned languages.Despite the fact that, English structure order is subject-verb-object; In Farsi as Farzad (2012)mentions that the verb is always at the end of sentences. Obviously, if one intends to render asentence into Farsi, he/she has to break the structure even if the purpose is to translateliterally in order to make it intelligible
1
and natural
2
translation; however,
it is inevitable alsothat when source and receptor languages represent very different cultures there should be
many basic themes and accounts which cannot be “naturalized” by the process of translating‟
(Nida in Venuti, 2000: 164). Besides, the formality of the text also plays an important role.Sometimes, in informal texts, Iranian translator disregards grammatical rules and renders in(S) (V) (O) order which mostly applies in Farsi spoken language and informal written text.
1-
 
Intelli
gible: „… human translations are more faithful and more intelligible than machinetranslation of that era‟ (Somers, 2003: 229). That is to
say, if you for instance, use Googletranslator to render a sentence from English into Persian (like interlinear renderings), theresult is segments without any order and fragmented unintelligibly.2-
 
Natural:
„A natural translation involves two principal areas of adaptation, namely. Grammer 
and lexicon. In general the grammatical modifications can be made the more readily, since
many grammatical changes are dictated by the obligatory structures of the receptor language‟
(Nida in Venuti, 2004: 163)
 
3
On the other hand,
„differences between cultures cause many more severe complications for 
the translator than do differences
in language structure‟ (
ibid: 157). Also, Nida (ibid: 163)argues that D-E translation contains three dimensions:
(1) equivalent, which points thesource-language message, (2) natural: which points toward the receptor language and (3)closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation. Basically, the word natural is applicable to three areas of the communicationprocess; for a natural rendering must fit (1) the receptor language and culture as whole, (2)the context of the particular message, and (3) the receptor-language
audience‟.
Therefore, anIranian translator is not always sure how the English audience responds or supposed torespond
and as a result, finding „dynamic equivalences‟ is quite
a challengeable task. Forinstance, to translate a particular text
and find a „pragmatic equivalence‟
I referred to my
British neighbour to see how this line which is extracted from „The Secret Diary of AdrianMole‟ written by Sue Towesend
would effect
on him: „My f 
ather, Stick Insect and Maxwell
House‟. He said: „this is the first time I heard such expression, but I think this wants to tell hewas such a slim guy!‟In next paragraphs, the translator illustrated „dynamic equivalences‟ through diverse contexts
of texts (represented in appendix) on the basis of decoding ability of audiences and theirpotential interest, the nature of message and purpose of the author or the translator to producethe TT meeting these criteria: 1) making sense 2) conveying the spirit and manner of theoriginal 3) having a natural and easy form of expression and finally, producing similarresponse and effect (ibid: 154; ibid: 160).As can be observed, abstract (1) is a poem in which the elements of visualization (white,whitness, colorless and blank) and free-verse are obvious. The semantic area of the poem as a
whole idea is „the lightness of the feather and floating‟
. The translator keeps all mentioned

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->