پایان نامه ارشد رایگان درمورد interest

“And the Mountains Echoed” to probe whether there is any difference between the male translator and the female one. This was only possible by applying a comprehensive framework, which served the ultimate purpose of the study.
3.2. Corpus of the Study and samples
The researcher chose two translations of Khaled Hosseini’s novel “And the Mountains Echoed” of two translators, i.e. a male and a female one to study the accurate items of this novel.
The chosen corpus of study include the original novel as well as the translated ones accompanied with the names of writer and translators with the years of publication of translations based on solar calendar.
The researcher read the whole novel and selected 3 chapters of it and compared them with items were rendered in Persian language considering the gender of the translator. In this study, the researcher uses parallel corpora which contain some source text items and their translations. Parallel corpora, a sound basis for contrastive study, show how an idea in one language is conveyed in another language.
The corpus of this study, thus, includes a social novel and its pertinent translations from two translators a male and a female one. The following table represents title; name of author/ translator as well as the year of publication of the corpora:
Table 3.1: The Corpus of this Study
Indicators
Original novel
Male translator
Female translator
Title
And the Mountains Echoed
ندای کوهستان
و کوهستان به طنین آمد
Author/translator
Khaled Hosseini
مهدی غبرائی
نسترن ظهیری
Year of publication
2013
1392
1392
3.3. TheoreticalFramework
As wardaugh has expressed in his book “An Introduction to Sociolinguistics”, a major topic in sociolinguistics is the connection, if any, between the structures, vocabularies, and ways of using particular languages and the social roles of the men and women who speak these languages.
Numerous observers have described women’s speech as being different from that of men (see Baron, 1986, Arliss, 1991, pp. 44–112, and pp. 162–207 of Wardaugh’s book). I should also observe that there is a bias here: men’s speech usually provides the norm against which women’s speech is judged. We could just as well ask how men’s speech differs from that of women, but investigators have not usually gone about the task of looking at differences in that way. For example, in discussing language change in Philadelphia, Labov (2001, p. 281) deliberately recasts his statement that ‘Women conform more closely than men to sociolinguistic norms that are overtly prescribed, but conform less than men when they are not’ to read that men ‘are less conforming than women with stable linguistic variables, and more conforming when change is in progress within a linguistic system.’ He does this so as to avoid appearing to bias his findings.
Any view too that women’s speech is trivial (see the denial in Kipers, 1987), gossip-laden, corrupt, illogical, idle, euphemistic, or deficient is highly suspect; nor is it necessarily more precise, cultivated, or stylish – or even less profane (see De Klerk, 1992, and Hughes, 1992) – than men’s speech. Such judgments lacksolid evidentiary support. For example, apparently men ‘gossip’ just as much aswomen do (see Pilkington, 1998); men’s gossip is just different. Men indulge in a kind of phatic small talk that involves insults, challenges, and various kinds of negative behavior to do exactly what women do by their use of nurturing, polite, feedback-laden, cooperative talk. In doing this, they achieve the kind ofsolidarity they prize. It is the norms of behavior that are different.
In setting out a list of what Cameron calls ‘sociolinguistic universal tendencies of women and men’s talk Wardhaugh (1986, p. 342), Holmes (1998) does offer some testable claims. There are five of these:
1. Women and men develop different patterns of language use.
2. Women tend to focus on the affective functions of an interaction more oftenthan men do. (Function)
3. Women tend to use linguistic devices that stress solidarity more often thanmen do. How the participants relate to each other. (Solidarity)
4. Women tend to interact in ways which will maintain and increase solidarity, while (especially in formal contexts) men tend to interact in ways which willmaintain and increase their power and status.
5. Women are stylistically more flexible than men. Women use more standard forms than men from the same social group in the same social context – Women are more stylistically flexible than men.
Lakoff cites numerous examples and clearly establishes her point that ‘equivalent’ words referring to men and women do have quite different associations in English.
Some characteristics of women’s language included: Tag questions- Rising intonation for declarative statements-“Empty” adjectives (divine, lovely)-Specialized women’s vocabulary (color terms)-Frequent use of emphasis (“speaking in italics” – What a beautiful hat)-Intensive so (You are so fired)-Politeness devices and hypercorrect grammar (women use more standard language; more indirect requests)-Hedges (well, like, sort of) Women don’t tell jokes.Robin Lakoff, 1975, “women’s language” (p. 318-19 inWardhaugh)
In the area of morphology and vocabulary, many of studies have focusedon English. In a paper which, although it is largely intuitive, anecdotal, andpersonal in nature, is nevertheless challenging and interesting, Lakoff (1973), claims that women use color words like mauve, beige, aquamarine, lavender,and magenta but most men do not. She also maintains that adjectives such as adorable, charming, divine, lovely, and sweet are also commonly used by womenbut only very rarely by men. Women are also said to have their own vocabulary for emphasizing certain effects on them, words and expressions such as so good, such fun, exquisite, lovely, divine, precious, adorable, darling, and fantastic. Distinctions are made in the vocabulary choice used to describe men and women.
When we turn to certain grammatical matters in English, we find that Brend (1975) claims that the intonation patterns of men and women vary somewhat, women using certain patterns associated with surprise and politeness more often than men. In the same vein, Lakoff says that women may answer a question with a statement that employs the rising intonation pattern usually associated with a question rather than the falling intonation pattern associated with making a firm statement. According to Lakoff, women do this because they are less sure about themselves and their opinions than are men. For the same reason, she says that women often add tag questions to statements, e.g., ‘They caught the robber last week, didn’t they?’ These claims about tag questions and insecurity have been tested by others (Dubois and Crouch, 1975, Cameron et al., 1989, and Brower et al., 1979) and found wanting: experimental data do not necessarily confirm intuitive judgments. The latter investigators did find, however, that the gender of the addressee was an important variable in determining how a speaker phrased a particular question.
Another theoretician in this thesis is Waddington who has a theory on accuracy in translation.
Waddington introduces four methods of assessment. The first method (method A) is more known than other methods and is functional in translation classes.
Method A is taken from Hurtado (1995); Waddington “Method A” is a very analytical method of assessment.It is based on error analysis and possible mistakes are grouped under the following headings:
(i) Inappropriate renderings which affect the understanding of the source text; these are divided into eight categories: contresens, fauxsens, nonsens, addition, omission, unresolved extralinguistic references, loss of meaning, and inappropriate linguistic variation (register, style, dialect, etc.).
(ii) Inappropriate renderings which affect expression in the target language; these are divided into five categories: spelling, grammar, lexical items, text and style.
(iii) Inadequate renderings which affect the transmission of either the main function or secondary functions of the source text. (Waddington 2001, p. 313).
According to the several definitions for the term accuracy represented so far, it can be concluded that in Waddington’s Method A, the first group of the mistakes, which consider the understanding of the ST message, is related to the accuracy of the translation; it contains inappropriate renderings affecting the understanding of the source text and he divides them into eight categories: contresens, faux sens, nonsense, addition, omission, unresolved extralinguistic references, loss of meaning, and inappropriate linguistic variation (register, style, dialect, etc.).
The eight items of Waddington “Method A’ which is French and German can be defined as follows:
Contresens: It means writing a sentence the meaning of which is exactly the opposite of what you mean. So, in translation, it occurs when the meaning of the translation is opposite of the meaning of the source text.
Faux sens: it can be defined as “mistranslation”. It occurs when some part is translated in a false sense and has got a false meaning as compared with the source text.
Nonsens: It occurs when some part is translated in a nonsensical way and has got a nonsensical meaning compared with the source text.
Addition: it occurs when some part is added in the translation that does not have any equivalent in the source text.
Omission: it occurs when some part of the meaning of the source text is omitted in the translation, i.e. some part exists in the source text but it

تکه های دیگری از این پایان نامه را می توانید

در شماره بندی فوق بخوانید

متن کامل پایان نامه ها در سایت homatez.com موجود است

You may also like...

Add a Comment