3.4 Design of the study35
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion
4.2 Analysis and Results 37
4.3 Discussion 45
Chapter 5: Conclusion
5.1 Summary of the study48
5.3 Discussing the Results in Terms of the First Research Question49
5.4 Discussing the Results in Terms of the Second Research Question50
5.5 Discussing the Results in Terms of the Third Research Question51
5.6 Pedagogical Implications of the Study52
5.6.1 Implications for Translators and Translators Trainers52
5.6.2 Implications for Contrastive Analysts52
5.7 Suggestions for Further Research53
List of abbreviations
CSIs: culture-specific items
NP: noun phrase
ST: source text
SL: source language
TT: target text
TL: target language
VP: verb phrase
Reduplication is a morphological process in which the root or stem of a word or a part of it is repeated. In many languages, reduplication is used in inflections to convey grammatical functions and in lexical derivations to create semantic forms (Nadarajan, 2006).There are different categorization and ideas on reduplication and reduplicative words. For example according to Minkova (2002), there are two kinds of reduplication: full and partial reduplication. Full reduplication involves the exact repetition of the sound or word, while partial reduplication involves reduplication of only a part of a word. He (ibid) mentioned that most reduplications in English are partial reduplication which involves consonant ablaut or vowel alternation (e.g., riff raff, ping pong, chit chat, tip top), rhyme reduplication (e.g., hocus-pocus) and full reduplication (e.g., boo-boo). English reduplications have a certain form class and specific meaning. For example, chit-chat is a noun meaning a light conversation, and a verb meaning to talk informally or to gossip.
Katamba (1993 and 2006) considered reduplication as an affixation process which involves the addition of a free morpheme (not necessarily a bound morpheme) to the beginning, the end or within the base. Moreover there are two different points of view regarding reduplication. The first point states that it is a process whereby phonological material is copied. That is, the segmental content is repeated with various phonological constraints (Marantz 1982).
The second one explains that it is a process whereby a bundle of morpho-syntactic features are copied (Inkelas and Zoll 2005). Broselow and McCarthy (2009) have mentioned three kinds of reduplication used in English mostly for the purpose of informal expressive vocabulary:
a. Rhyming reduplication
b. Exact reduplication
c. Ablaut reduplication
The examples are classified according to this classification mentioned by Broselow and McCarthy (2009). The main point is that, these words (reduplicative words) should not be translated literally. Especially in translation of novels because if they were translated literally their meaning would be lost. The translators’ main task is the analysis of the source text so it’s necessary for s/he to get the exact meaning and message of the source text.
1.2 Statement of the problem
Translation is not merely an interlinguistic process. It is more complex than replacing source language text with target language text and includes cultural and educational nuances that can shape the options and attitudes of recipients. Translations are never produced in a cultural or political vacuum and cannot be isolated from the context in which the texts are embedded (Dingwaney and Maier, 1995). And translation theory’s main concern is to determine appropriate translation method for the widest possible range of texts or text-categories.(Newmark, 1988).So in order to have a proper translation choosing the best translation method and procedure is so important. Translating reduplicative words is not an easy matter for translators (Hall, 1964). Sometimes the translator doesn’t get the correct meaning and also sometimes s/he understands the meaning but cannot find the correct procedure to translate it. So the translation doesn’t covey the correct meaning and message.
As a result the translator first should get the exact meaning of the reduplicative words in SL and then choose the appropriate strategy to translate it and make the correct sense and meaning in the target text. Also preserving the form of reduplicative words is important but meaning and sense have priority (Hall, 1964). The translator should pay attention that translations are never a product of a cultural void and there is a general agreement between translation scholars that in seeking to transport words (and sentences and texts) from one language to another, the translator cannot merely search for equivalent words in the target language to render the meaning of the source (Dingwaney and Maier, 1995). Therefore, as stated by Korzeniowska and Kuhiwczak(2005), translators not only have to be intermediaries between different language systems, but also have to be intercultural mediators. The role of the translator is to mediate source ideas across cultural and national boundaries placing him or her in a unique position to understand various development issues.
1.3 Significance of the Study
در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب(به صورت کاملا تصادفی و به صورت نمونه) 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-این مطالب صرفا برای دمو می باشد
ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل
Translation is the process of changing the language that is written or spoken in to another language (Culler 1976). The need and importance of translation also arises when one wants to know the words or phrases or a language used in other countries so as to familiarize oneself for a particular purpose (Bassenet, 2002). And in order to have a correct translation, the translator should bring in mind the type of the text, language functions context and so on and finally choose the best method and strategy. Translation of metaphors, expressions and some linguistic forms need more attention. Reduplication also needs more attention.
Reduplication is a word formation process in which one or more elements are copied from the base of the word (Hall, 1964). Reduplication is used in many world languages with various types and uses. In many cultures people use this linguistic process so it is necessary to know how to translate reduplicative words correctly. This study meets this need and also is considered as a new study in translation studies because in Iran there are not enough studies on translation of reduplication. It’s an applicable study for translators and student of translation. Moreover as reduplication is a linguistic process the results of this study are useful for linguists. This study also provides more suggestions for new researches.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
This study has tried to consider that if the reduplicative words can be translated literally or not. And if so would they preserve the source meaning and sense?
The main aim of this study was to define English reduplication and offer the proper translation strategies for translating English reduplicative words into Persian preserving the correct sense and meaning. It also has tended to show which translation strategy has been used in translation of English reduplicative words and finally the superiority of preserving meaning or form would be studied.
1.5 Research Questions
This study is intended to find the answer of some questions regarding translation of English reduplicative words to Persian. The questions which are to be answered in this study are as the followings:
1- Are English reduplicative words translated literally to Persian in the selected corpuses?
2- What strategies are suitable in translation of reduplicative words from English to Persian?
3- In translation of reduplicative words is preserving the meaning important or form?
It is assumed that Davis’ strategies for translation of reduplicative words are applicable in Persian and it is also thought that reduplicative words should not be translated literally and preservation of the meaning has superiority over form. By finding the answer of such questions, the assumptions would be analyzed and answered.
1.6 Theoretical Framework
Reduplication is a common linguistic process in many languages but reduplicative words are not universal. It means the nature of the reduplicated material varies from language to language. So reduplicative words in each language can be considered as culture-specific items of that language (Davies, 2003).
The theoretical framework used for the categorization and clarification of the obtained data is Davies’ schema. Davies suggested seven strategies for handling with culture-specific items and expressions such as reduplicative words: preservation, addition, omission, globalization, localization, transformation, and creation.
First strategy for dealing with CSIs named by Davies is preservation (Davies, 2003). This translation procedure is usually employed by the translator when an entity does not have any close equivalent in the TL and target culture. However, this translation strategy has already been well known in translation studies but under different names. Davies acknowledges that preservation procedure is “at the heart of the process of lexical borrowing” (ibid, p: 84).
The scholar distinguished two types of preservation:
* Preservation of form: occurs when a translator may simply decide to maintain the source text term in the translation.
* Preservation of content: occurs when the actual English words are not preserved, but where a cultural reference receives a literal translation, with no further explanation.
In fact, some words or phrases referring to CSIs may pass into another language and over a period of time become fully integrated. However, this process may be accepted more by one cultural community rather than others. Both preservation of form or preservation of the content may not always be the best choice in translation of CSIs. Davies (ibid) warned that in some cases the preservation of the content may be confusing for the TL readers.
Another translation strategy named by Davies is addition. It proposes a solution for translation of CSIs when preservation leads to obscurity. Addition occurs when a translator may decide to keep the original item but supplement the text with whatever information is judged necessary. Other scholars also mentioned this translation procedure.
However, some translators did not put so much effort to incorporate explanation in the text and chose the second type of addition. In some cultures this tradition of providing explanations in footnotes is more acceptable than in others.
The third translation procedure for dealing with CSIs proposed by Davies is called omission. Omission appears when a problematic CSI is left out in the translation so that the readers have no idea of its existence. Omission can be employed in the translation of CSI due to a number of reasons. According to Davies, there are three reasons. First of all, omission can be used when the translator cannot find the equivalent in the TL. Secondly, omission may be used as a reasoned decision of a translator. Translator may put effort and find a solution for the translation of CSI but, having in mind the TC and target readers decides that translation is not justified. Finally, omission is used when the translation by explanation or paraphrase gives a prominence it did not possess in the original. In such cases the emphasis of the original would be changed, therefore omission becomes an optional solution. A frequent use of this translation strategy may affect the translation negatively. Davies noted that there is certainly some loss of meaning arising from the omission of the signals of copiousness and luxury. All in all, the translator should use omission with great care.
This translation procedure has many positive aspects. Globalization of CSIs makes the TT accessible to a much wider audience. Moreover, globalization conveys the essential characteristics of the translated concept and at the same time helps to avoid details that could be misunderstood by the TT readers. However, globalization frequently results in the loss of association and shades of meaning. Thus, the strategy of globalization should not be overused by the translator.
Another important strategy for dealing with CSIs is called localization. Davies noted that she uses his term as an opposition to the above described translation procedure globalization. Localization occurs when a translator instead of aiming for ‘cultural-free’ descriptions, […] may try to anchor a reference firmly in the culture of the target audience.
Davies also stated that “there is a very fine line between passable and implausible localization”(p: 89). It is rather difficult to localize CSI that it would have the same effect as it had on the TL audience. Even in such cases when the translator succeeds to achieve this goal, other problems may arise. Davies warned that localization of a particular cultural entity may require additional modifications further in the text.
Translation strategy that goes beyond globalization or localization is named transformation by Davies. This strategy changes the content of the CSI used in the SL and may be defined as an alternation or distortion of the original.
According to Davies, the employment of transformation in translation can be influenced by a number of reasons. The modification of the content of SL text can be reasoned by the translator’s or editor’s evaluation of the target audience’s flexibility and expectations. In other cases, transformation may be used because the translator’s or editor’s willingness to wrestle with possible obscurity.
Davies noted that in certain cases it is rather difficult to draw the line between globalization, localization and transformation because it is not clear where the change of the content goes beyond the frames of localization and globalization. In other cases it becomes difficult to realize where explicitness goes beyond addition and could be considered transformation.
The last translation strategy named by Davies is called creation. Creation appears when translators have actually created CSIs not present in the original text. Creation may be employed by the translator due to a number of reasons.
Davies suggested that creation is used when translators presuppose that the original form would be too strange for the target readers. Creation may result from the intention of the translator to make CSI more transparent and comprehendible for the target audience.
However, while trying to make the translation more transparent the translator tends to simultaneously put efforts in order to retain at least some flavor of SL.
Finally, this strategy can be used in order to compensate for the loss of meaning in translation in other parts of the TT. Translation of CSI is a difficult task that has been reviewed by a number of scholars, whose theories fall under two approaches: naming two goals of the translator, i.e. retaining the strangeness of the foreign text or adapting it to the TL; and providing a list of translation procedures for dealing with individual CSIs.
1.7 Limitations of the study
Conducting this study which is done based on Davis’ translation strategies in translation of reduplicative words from English literature (novels and story books) into Persian provided some limitations for the researcher:
The most important problem refers to the limited related works to be used as the literature review so the scope of the study is supposed to be broadening in order to gather the literature review.
Another infuriating restriction which was faced during the research was the lack of original book access which forced the researcher to use the PDF version of the story. Moreover, many research papers were not easily found and the researcher also had to use man PDF versions.
1.8 Definition of key words
Reduplication: It is a morphological process in which the root or stem of a word or a part of it is repeated (Hall, 1964)
Rhyming reduplication: It is a type of reduplication in which two words have the same rhyme ( Broselow and McCarthy, 2009).
Exact reduplication: Through this type of reduplication process that the words are repeated exactly ( Broselow and McCarthy, 2009).
Ablaut reduplication: It is another type of reduplication and one of the features which distinguishes this type from the others is that the vowel of the first part is approximately always high and front while that of the second is low and back (Minkova, 2002).
Review of Related Literature
2. Review of Related Literature
In the following literature review a complete definition of reduplication has been prepared to make readers understand this linguistic phenomenon better and in the next part different types of English reduplicative words have been classified with examples. Then in part 2.4 the translation strategies suitable for translation of reduplicative words are well explained. And finally works done on this area (translation of reduplicative words) in Iran and other countries have been introduced.
2.2 Reduplication definition
Reduplication is among the processes that commonly exist in English and some other languages, and it is one of six main kinds of grammatical processes mentioned by Sapir in addition to word- order, composition, affixation, internal modification of the radical or grammatical element and accentual differences. It is used with various forms to achieve various purposes: lexical, morphological, and grammatical (Dineen, 1967).
شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید
In the literature, there are other terms which are sometimes interchangeably with reduplication like ‘cloning, doublin, duplication, and repetition’ but the standard term is ‘reduplication’ . “Grammatical processes may either involve the modification of single form in some way, or the combination of more than one form” (Hall, 1964, p.135).
In this regard, prosodic morphology puts an emphasis on the phonological processes included in reduplication which differentiate the base (that is the fixed element) from the copied (repeated) form. The process and the meaning that it may have in any particular language are not connected in a natural way. Reduplication involves prosodic units (beginning with a phoneme and ending with a morpheme) or a word being repeated. In the same word, the whole or part of a base is repeated. So, it is a process of repetition (Dineen, 1967).
This process is called reduplication since the second word follows the first one to emphasize it. So, the second part cannot be said alone without the first one. It is regarded as a particular kind of grammatical formation or a non- concatenative morphological phenomenon, i.e. a series of units that are linked together whereby a new word is produced by repeating a morpheme accompanied by a change in a vowel or initial consonant.(Robins,1967).
The reduplicative compound which consists of at least two linguistic forms (parts, halves, that is the base and the element which is reduplicated is known as a reduplicant. It is not frequently written as a full- form but as RED or R. The reduplicant is most often copied one time only not more are ordered in a paradigmatic, i.e. non- suppletive morphological relation. The second form includes a segment or a sequence of segments that is derived by non- recursive repetition of the part of the first form (Verma and Krishnaswamy, 1989).
There are two different points of view regarding reduplication. The first point states that it is a process whereby phonological material is copied. That is the segmental content is repeated with various phonological constraints, Marantz (1982); McCarthy and Prince (1986) quoted in Ghomeshi et al, 2004). The second one explains that it is a process whereby a bundle of morpho-syntactic features are copied (Inkelas and Zoll 2005 qtd in ibid).
Reduplication is not syllable epenthesis (i.e. the insertion of extra consonant to the middle of the word) because the motivation beyond reduplication is morphological in that the birth of a new morpheme is the end product. While in epenthesis, there is no birth of a new morpheme, it is a matter of insertion. It is the same word and there is no new word produced (Lass, 1984).A focus has been put on the copying process in the various theories suggested by: Marantz, 1982; Yip, 1982; Clements, 1985; Broselow and McCarthy, 1983 quoted in Bao, 1990).
Katamba (1993 and 2006) considered reduplication as an affixation process which involves the addition of a free morpheme (not necessarily a bound morpheme) to the beginning, the end or within the base. In this regard, McCarthy (qtd in Katamba and Stonham 2006) noticed that reduplication is a special case of ordinary affixation morphology, where the affixes are phonologically underspecified, receiving their full phonetic expression by copying adjacent segments.
The dictionary does not provide us with the semantic, syntactic, morphological, and phonological properties of a morpheme, which are specified, but with the reduplicative morpheme, its semantic and syntactic properties are available in the dictionary while the phonological one is not complete. Within the literature of auto-segmental phonology, much attention is paid to reduplication, particularly the partial type.
Gemination is a process whereby consonants and vowels are doubled; it is sometimes regarded as a form of reduplication. Indicating various kinds of reduplication which have the same meaning is done by using the term ‘dupleme’ after ‘morpheme’. Similarly, deletion, and affixation of non- reduplication material, etc, are phonological and morphological processes with which reduplication is often used. So, the word ‘duplifix’ is used to indicate the reduplication and affixation are combined. In other languages, initial reduplication and gemination of the first consonant in the distributive plural and in repetitive verbs are also combined.
Reduplication is used in a number of languages to varying extents. It can be modified in two ways: as being a process or an addition. It is considered as a regular way of pluralizing the nouns. In Greek, for instance, there are different kinds of repetition in the structure of a word.”In historical linguistics, the term refers to the way a prefix/ suffix reflects certain phonological characteristics of a root”. The initial consonant of the base is copied in certain grammatical contexts, like perfective forms (Crystal, 1992).
In some languages, reduplication is described as a word- formation process by which a prefix is created by repeating the first consonant and vowel of a base. In a base, the vowel which is [+ length] becomes [- length] in the prefix in a systematic way (Falk, 1978). In addition, reduplication can also be used to refer to repetition, customary activity and frequency of an action or event which are found in verbs, the increase in size and addition of intensity which are used to refer to an argumentative meaning that reduplication has.
It also expresses plurality,distributivity (each X), continuous, habitual aspect, variety and similarity (all different kinds of X,X and such),’out of control’, in addition to different types of derivational meaning (for example, agentive nominal) (Katamba and Stonham, 2006).
The other usages mentioned by Hyman (1975) and Napoli, 1996) are: Nouns are derived from verbs; it is a reference to modality and aspect (perfective and progressive); and it refers to a type of S-V concord in certain persons and numbers. Hall (1964) indicated that reduplication is used when a speaker wants to produce expressive or figurative tone than ordinary speech. Reduplicated nouns are found in a language to refer to genuinely, completeness, originality and being uncomplicated as opposed to being fake, incomplete, complicated, or fussy. The functions of reduplication can be considered to be both rhetorical as well as cohesive. Content can be reiterated in a paraphrase form or alternative lexical forms (near -synonyms) and meaning is specific to the context in which the form is created (Wang, 2005).
2.2.1 Reduplication and Repetitions
Reduplication is a word formation process in which some part of a base (a segment, syllable, morpheme) is repeated, either to the left, or to the right of the word or, occasionally, within the middle of the word. While reduplication is found in a wide range of languages and language groups, its level of linguistic productivity varies and it is sometimes used interchangeably with repetition)wang,2005). Repetition is a term which is used to indicate sounds and concepts that are repeated in one form or the other to provide reinforcement and emotional emphasis. Persson, (1974) insists that repetitions in English can be distinguished at three linguistic levels which are a) lexical as in old, old view; b) syntactical as in God he knows; and c) semantic as in they deceived and hoodwinked us. Wang (2005) insists that there are fundamental differences between reduplication and repetition and that reduplication exists at the lexical level while repetition exists at the syntactical level.
2.2.2 Types of English reduplicative words
Several ways of classifying reduplication appear in the literature of many languages. Full and partial reduplications denote either that the whole base is repeated (full or total) or a part of it (partial). Both types are often used in many languages (Matthews, 1974). Likewise, pre-reduplication (pre-modification) and post- reduplication (post- modification), imply whether the repeated or copied element comes before or after the base (Haspelmath, 2002).
In English, and some other languages, reduplication is considered as a special case of affixes where there is a similarity between the affix and some part of its environment.
So, there are three types of reduplication:
a.prefixal or initial: the part before the base which is reduplicative formative is copied, i.e. it can be to the right of the reduplicant;
b. suffixal or final: the part after the base which is reduplicative formative is copied, i.e. it can be to the left of the reduplicant;
c. infixal can be internal. It is considered by Katamba (1993) and Katamba and Stonham (2006) as a morphological odd process whereby a copy of part of the base is inserted in the base as an infix.
Thus, reduplication is accomplished by the allomorphic variation which is used. Such types can also be applied to the complete reduplication. From the general pattern of the language, reduplication can be prefixal in one case and suffixal in another (Gleason (1961), Matthews (1974), Napoli (1996), Crystal (1992), Katamba( 2006), Urbunczy(2007).
Broselow and McCarthy (2009) also mentions three kinds of reduplication used in English mostly for the purpose of informal expressive vocabulary. Those types are non- productive, i.e., there is no new form, their parts are firmly fixed:
a. Rhyming reduplication
The examples are ‘claptrap’, ‘hockey- pockey’, ‘slim jim’, etc. Sometimes, a semantic component supports such a morphological tendency to reduplicate. For instance, the two parts of the compound word ‘walkie-talkie’ rhyme in addition to their independent meanings which are connected to each other, and reflect the connotations of the word.
b. Exact reduplication
The examples which are taken from the baby- talk are ‘bye- bye’, ‘choo- choo’, ‘pee- pee’, etc.
c. Ablaut reduplication
This type is exemplified in: ‘bric- a- brac’, ‘chit- chat’, ‘jibber- jabber’.One of the features which distinguishes this type from the others is that the vowel of the first part is approximately always high and front while that of the second is low and back.
Ghomeshi et al (2004) added other types of reduplication with different degrees of productivity in addition to the previous three ones mentioned by Broselow and McCarthy (2009):
d. Multiple partial reduplication
Is exemplified in: ‘hap- hap- happy’ (in song lyrics).
e. Depricative reduplication. The example is ‘table- shmable’.
f. Intensive reduplication: This type is used with adjectives, verbs,
Prepositions/ adverbs, pronouns and nouns:
1. You’re sick sick sick!
2. Let’s get out there and win win win!
3. Prices just keep going up up up.
4. All you think about is you you you.
5. It’s mine mine mine.
Concerning stress, it is either placed on each item, or it can be of strong-weak- strong stress pattern. A type of reduplication is used in some languages, which is ‘Expressive minor’. It is of seldom use, in which the first and last segments of the base are repeated or copied by the initial reduplicant (Wikipedia, 2009). It also gives a type of infixal reduplication. In ‘purple- ma- ple’ or ‘purpa- ma- ple’ (taken from purple), the word consists of two syllables where the slang- ‘ma-‘ infix is inserted between an initial open syllable and the reduplicative one. The first instance of the repeated syllable is decreased to become consonant- schwa.
Ghomeshi et al (2004) added another type which is contrastive reduplication. It is a phenomenon existing in colloquial English whereby the words and sometimes phrases are repeated.
2.3 Translation and reduplication
After the centuries of circular debates around literal and free translation, theoreticians in the 1950s and 1960s began to attempts more systematic analyses of translation. The new debate revolved around certain key linguistic issues. The most prominent of these issues were those of meaning and ‘equivalence’. Over the following twenty years many further attempts were made to define the nature of equivalence (Munday, 2001).
Newmark felt that the success of equivalent effect is ‘illusory ‘ and that ‘the conflict of loyalties ‘ the gap between emphasis on source and target language will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice(Newmark,1988). He suggested narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of ‘semantic’ and ‘communicative’ translation:
Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as the closely as the semantic syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original (quoted in Munday 2001, p: 44).
This description of communicative translation resembles Nida’s dynamic equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on the TT reader, while semantic translation has similarities to Nida’s formal equivalence. However Newmark distances himself from the full principle of equivalent effect, since that effect is in operant if the text is out of TL space and time (1981).
Newmark said that semantic translation differs from literal translation in that it ‘respect context ‘, interpreters and even explain (metaphors for instance). Literal translation, on the other hand means word for word in its extreme version and, even in its weaker form, sticks very closely to ST lexis and syntax According to Newmark semantic translation remains within the SL culture while communicative translation transfers foreign elements into the TL culture (Munday, 2001).
Larson (1988) also introduced two main kinds of translation. Form-based translation and meaning -based translation. Form-based translation attempts to follow the form of the source language and is known as literal translation. Meaning-based translation makes every effort to communicate the meaning of the source language text in the natural form of the receptor language (Larson, 1988).Larson also proposed meaning-based translation for such words (reduplicative words), which makes every effort to communicate the source language in the natural forms of the receptor language. This kind of translation is also called idiomatic translation.
So regarding these explanations and classifications reduplicative words should not be translated literally if so they would lose the exact meaning and effect. Also because the form of this linguistic process (reduplication), it means repetition, has an effect it is better to be translated idiomatically (or communicatively) besides preserving the form. It should be considered in preserving the form and meaning, latter has priority (Hall, 1964).
2.4 Works done in Iran