%40تخفیف

MA in English Translation Studies The Application of Juliane House’s Functional-Pragmatic Model of TQA on Persian Translation of the Book “Medical Ethics Manual” Translated by Nazafarin Ghasemzadeh

Name: MA in English Translation Studies The Application of Juliane House's Functional-Pragmatic Model of TQA on Persian Translation of the Book "Medical Ethics Manual" Translated by Nazafarin Ghasemzadeh
SKU: 15173
Price: 210000 IRR
Availability: InStock

تعداد179 صفحه در فایل word

Department of English Translation Studies

MA in English Translation Studies

The Application of Juliane House’s Functional-Pragmatic Model of TQA on Persian Translation of the Book “Medical Ethics Manual” Translated by Nazafarin Ghasemzadeh

Abstract

There tends to be a growing demand for mediating scientific achievements and knowledge among the nations all over the world. Translation is a mediating tool in transferring scientific knowledge such as medicine. Evaluation of translated medical texts seems to be a paramount undertaking since it deals with human beings’ lives. There are different models and approaches for assessing the quality of a translation. Translation quality assessment is one of the cases of that evaluation. And Juliane House’s functional-pragmatic model of translation quality assessment seems to be a promising one. The main aim of this thesis is to analyze the quality of the Persian translation of Medical Ethics Manual on the basis of House’s model in order to test the applicability of that model to this kind of texts. In order to reach this purpose, profiles of both source text and target text were compared to each other and the collected data determined the errors as the potential power of quality assessment is to predict the errors. According to House’s TQA model, a scientific text should be translated covertly, to be considered satisfactory and any deviation from it will be accounted as an error. Collected data indicated that overtly erroneous errors outnumbered covertly erroneous errors. So it was concluded that this translation did not fulfill the criteria to be a covert translation but tended to be an overt one. Also, it should be mentioned that these results do not breach this model in any way. The outcomes and advantages of this study are expected to be applied in pedagogical courses of training would-be translators and are hoped to be of help to the translators of this work to revise future editions.

Key words: Translation, Equivalence, Translation Quality Assessment (TQA), Juliane House’s Model, Overt versus Covert Translation

دسته: زبان خارجه, زبان خارجه برچسب: Equivalence, Juliane House's Model, Key words : Translation, Overt versus Covert Translation, Translation Quality Assessment (TQA)

توضیحات

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1. Overview 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem 2

1.3. Purpose of the Study 3

1.4. Significance of the Study 3

1.5. Research Hypothesis 5

1.6. Statement of the Research Questions 5

1.7. Limitation and Delimitation of the Study 5

1.8. Definition of Key Terms 6

Chapter Two: Review of the Related Literature

2.1. Overview 8

2.2. Translation 8

2.2.1. A Brief History of Translation 8

2.2.2 The Nature of Translation 9

2.2.3. The Translation Process 9

2.2.4. Kinds of Translation 10

2.2.5. Some Perspectives on Translation 12

2.2.6. Translation as Communication across Cultures 15

2.2.7. Translation as Scientific Exchanges 17

2.3. Equivalence 18

2.3.1. Different Types of Equivalence 18

2.3.2. The Controversy over Equivalence 21

2.3.3. An Analytic Framework for Establishing Equivalence 22

2.3.4. The Limits of Equivalence 25

2.4. Approaches to Evaluating the Quality of a Translation 27

2.4.1. Anecdotal, Biographical and Neo-hermeneutic Approaches to Judging Translation Quality 28

2.4.2. Response-oriented, Behavioral Approaches to Evaluating Translations 32

2.4.3. Text-based Approaches to Evaluating Translation 35

2.4.3.1. Literature-oriented Approaches: Descriptive Translation Studies 35

2.4.3.2. Post-Modernist and Deconstructionist Approach 37

2.4.3.3. Functional and Action and Reception-Theory Related Approaches 39

2.4.3.4. Linguistically-Oriented Approaches 42

2.4.4. Linguistic Analysis versus Social Judgment 47

2.5. House’s Original Model for Translation Quality Assessment 49

2.5.1. Functions of Language versus Functions of Texts 50

2.5.2. Towards a Model of Translation Quality Assessment 52

2.5.3. Operation of the Model 57

2.5.3.1. Method of Analysis and Comparison of Texts 57

2.5.3.2. Evaluation Scheme 58

2.5.3.3. Justification of Method 60

2.5.3.4. Implementation of the Model 60

2.5.4. Refinement of the Model 60

2.5.4.1. Suggestions for a Translation Typology 60

2.5.4.1.1. Overt Translation 61

2.5.4.1.2. Covert Translation 62

2.5.4.2. Distinguishing between Different Types of Translations and Versions 63

2.6. House’s Revisited Model 67

2.6.1. Criticism of the Original Model of Translation Quality Assessment 67

2.6.1.1. The Nature of the Analytical Categories and the Terminology Used 67

2.6.1.2. Lack of Intersubjective Verifiability of the Analyses 69

2.6.1.3. The Limits of Translatability 69

2.6.1.4. The Distinction between Covert and Overt Translations 70

2.6.2. Rethinking the Categories for Analysis 71

2.6.3. Rethinking the Overt-Covert Dichotomy 75

2.6.4. The Meaning of the Cultural Filter 78

Chapter Three: Methodology

3.1. Overview 81

3.2. Research Method and Approach 81

3.3. Restatement of the Purpose of the Study 82

3.4. Restatement of the Research Questions 82

3.5. Restatement of the Research Hypothesis 82

3.6. Corpus and Sampling 83

3.7. Theoretical Framework 83

3.8. Data Collection and Data Analysis Procedures 84

3.9. Research Design 84

Chapter Four: Data Analysis, Results and Discussion

4.1. Overview 86

4.2. Source Text Author’s Profile 86

4.3. Target Text Translator’s Profile 87

4.4. Text Profiles 87

4.4.1. Language/Text Level 88

4.4.1.1. Word 88

4.4.1.2. Clause 88

4.4.1.3. Sentence 88

4.4.1.4. Paragraph 88

4.4.2. Function 89

4.4.3. Genre 89

4.4.4. Register 90

4.4.4.1. Field 90

4.4.4.2. Tenor 90

4.4.4.3. Mode 91

4.5. Source Text Profile Analysis 91

4.5.1. Language/Text Level 91

4.5.2. Function 91

4.5.3. Genre 92

4.5.4. Register 92

4.5.4.1. Field 92

4.5.4.2. Tenor 92

4.5.4.2.1. Author’s Provenance and Stance 92

4.5.4.2.2. Social Role Relationship 92

4.5.4.2.3. Social Attitude 92

4.5.4.3. Mode 92

4.5.5. Summary of Source Text Profile Analysis 93

4.6. Target Text Profile Analysis 94

4.6.1. Language/Text Level 94

4.6.2. Function 94

4.6.3. Genre 94

4.6.4. Register 94

4.6.4.1. Field 94

4.6.4.2. Tenor 94

4.6.4.2.1. Translators’ Provenance and Stance 94

4.6.4.2.2. Social Role Relationship 95

4.6.4.2.3. Social Attitude 95

4.6.4.3. Mode 95

4.6.5. Summary of Target Text Profile Analysis 96

4.7. Overtly Erroneous Errors 97

4.8. Overtly Erroneous Errors of TT 100

4.8.1. Omissions 100

4.8.2. Additions 107

4.8.3. Substitutions 114

4.8.4. Ungrammaticality 122

4.8.5. Dubious Acceptability 125

4.8.6. Summary of Overtly Erroneous Errors of TT 125

4.9. Discussion 125

Chapter Five: Conclusions

5.1. Overview 130

5.2. Summary of the Findings 130

5.3. Implications 132

5.4. Suggestions for Further Studies 132

References

English References 135

Persian References 140

Appendices

Overview 142

Appendix 1: ST 143

Appendix 2: TT 155

List of Tables

Table 3.1. The Corpus 83

Table 4.1. ST Analysis of Register, Function, Genre and Language/Text 93

Table 4.2. TT Analysis of Register, Function, Genre and Language/Text 96

Table 4.3. Target Text Overtly Erroneous Errors 125

Table 4.4. Register, Function and Genre Analysis of ST and TT 126

Table 4.5. Language/Text Analysis of ST and TT 127

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Translation Process 10

Figure 2.2. A system for analyzing original and translated texts and assessing their functional equivalence 23

Fig. 2.3. Category of Complex Medium (Writing) 54

Fig 2.4. Genre-Register-Language/Text 72

Fig. 2.5. Metafunction in relation to Language, Register and Genre 73

Fig. 2.6. A Scheme for Analyzing and Comparing Original and Translation Texts 74

Fig. 2.7. The Dimension Overt-Covert Translation 77

Figure 4.1. TT Overtly Erroneous Errors 128