%40تخفیف

Novel “Things Fall Apart” and Its Two Farsi TranslationsAn Investigation into the Representation of Social Actors in Chinua Achebe’s

Name: Novel “Things Fall Apart” and Its Two Farsi TranslationsAn Investigation into the Representation of Social Actors in Chinua Achebe’s
SKU: 14793
Price: 210000 IRR
Availability: InStock

Department of Foreign Languages

Master of Arts in Translation Studies

Novel “Things Fall Apart” and Its Two Farsi TranslationsAn Investigation into the Representation of Social Actors in Chinua Achebe’s

Abstract

Since translation has been considered as a social practice and a communicative event, the range of translation research extended from a pure comparison of the ST and TT(s) at textual level, separated from the target context, to a critical review of a translation considering the context in which it is produced. Following this shift of view in translational research, critical discourse analysis has opened a new perspective in translation studies and attracted the attention of many scholars and researchers in the field. However, there are still some areas which, more or less, remained untouched, particularly in the context of Iran.

Against this background, this study was designed to examine the least explored area in translational research to which CDA has been applied. The current study aimed at spotting any potential biased portrayal of social actors in a target text through the translation process. Accordingly, target texts are explored both as an independent text and a continuation of a given source text. To this end, the present study employed van Leeuwen’s (1996) representational framework in order to analyze a postcolonial novel and its two translated versions. Besides the present study sought to investigate whether or not the translations can actually deviate from the representational pattern of the ST. The corpus of the present study included Chinua Achebe’s novel “Things Fall Apart” alongside its two Farsi translations. Interestingly, the results revealed that, there were no statistically significant differences between the ST and its both translated counterparts regarding the representational categories of the social actors, included in the texts. Moreover, the findings indicated that both translations did not differ from one another significantly considering the representation of social actors. In other words, the representational choices, the translators applied for portraying of the social actors were in line with that of the author. Also, transmission of Postcolonialism through translations remained intact.

دسته: زبان خارجه, زبان خارجه برچسب: Novel “Things Fall Apart” and Its Two Farsi TranslationsAn Investigation into the Representation of Social Actors in Chinua Achebe’s

توضیحات

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………II

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….III

Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….IV

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….VI

Table of Content………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….VII

List of Table & Figure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..X

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..XII

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1. Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………….1

1.2. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………..1

1.3. Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………4

1.4. Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………..5

1.5. Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………………………….6

1.6. Research Questions…………………………………………………………………………………..7

1.7. Research Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………………….8

1.8. Definition of Key Terms………………………………………………………………………………………..8

1.9. Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………………………………………..10

Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature

2.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………….12

2.2. A Brief History of Translation Studies………………………………………………………………12

2.3. A General Review of Critical Discourse Analysis………………………………………………….15

2.3.1. Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis…………………………………………………………..20

2.3.1.1 The Building Blocks of Critical Discourse Analysis…………………………………….21

2.3.1.1.1. Ideology………………………………………………………………………….23

2.3.1.1.2. Power……………………………………………………..………………………………25

2.3.1.1.3. Criticality…………………………………………………………………………………26

2.3.1.1.4. Manipulation…………………………………………………………………………………….27

2.3.1.1.5. Hegemony ……………………………………………………………………………….29

2.4. CDA Main Trends…………………………………………………………………………………..29

2.4.1. Fairclough’s Model………………………………………………………………………………30

2.4.2. van Dijk’s Model…………………………………………………………………………………31

2.4.3. Hodge and Kress’s Model……………………………………………………………………….32

2.4.4. Wodak’s Model………………………………………………………………………………….33

2.4.5. van Leeuwen’s Model……………………………………………………………………………35

2.5. CDA and Its Contribution to Translation Studies…………………………………………………..37

2.5.1 Translation and Ideology…………………………………………………………………………40

2.5.1.1. Cultural Studies………………………………………………………………………………42

2.5.1.1.1. Postcolonialism and Translation Studies…………………………………………………43

2.5.2. Translation and Power……………………………………………………………………………44

2.6. Empirical CDA- Driven studies on Translation…………………………………………………….45

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………52

3.2. Corpus………………………………………………………………………………………………52

3.3. The Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………………………………….54

3.4. Data Collection……………………………………………………………………………………..56

3.5. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………….56

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

4.1. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………59

4.2. Results………………………………………………………………………………………………59

4.2.1. Results of Social Actors Analyses in Three Texts Comprising the Corpus……………………..60

4.2.2. Results of Frequency and Percentage of Exclusion and Inclusion………………………………66

4.2.3. Role Allocation………………………………………………………………………………….69

4.2.4. Genericisation vs. Specification…………………………………………………………………71

4.2.5. Personalisation vs. Impersonalisation……………………………………………………………73

4.2.6. Distribution of discursive Structures of van Leeuwen’s Model in Self-groups and Other-group

………………………………………………………………………………………………………….76

4.2.6.1. Distribution of Exclusion and Inclusion Patterns of Self-groups and Other-groups…………76

4.2.6.2. Distribution of Activation vs. Passivation of Self-groups and Other-groups………………..79

4.2.6.3. Distribution of Genericisation vs. Specification of Self-groups and Other-groups…………80

4.2.6.4. Distribution of Personalisation and Impersonalisation of self-groups and other-groups……82

4.3. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………..85

4.3.1. Discussion on Research Questions……………………………………………………………………….86

Chapter 5: Conclusion

5.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………….93

5.2. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………..93

5.3. Implications of the Study……………………………………………………………………………95

5.4. Suggestions for Further Studies…………………………………………………………………….96

References……………………………………………………………………………………………….98

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………………

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 2.1. Syntagmatic models, Language as Ideology, Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1996)……………………34

Figure 2.2. Social actor Network, van Leeuwen (2008)………………………………………………….37

Table 4.1. Total number of social actors with their assigned categories in the source text………………61

Table 4.2. Total number of social actors with their assigned categories in Manshorian’s translation……62

Table 4.3. Total number of social actors with their assigned categories in Ebrahimi’s translation………63

Table 4.4. Total number of self-groups and other- groups and the discursive categories in the source text.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………64

Table 4.5. Total number of self-groups and other- groups and the discursive categories in the Manshorian

’s translation………………………………………………………………………………………………65

Table 4.6. Total number of self-groups and other- groups and the discursive categories in the Manshorian

’s translation………………………………………………………………………………………………66

Table 4.7. Result of chi- square for Exclusion (Suppression, Backgrounding) in ST and its translated

Versions…………………………………………………………………………………………………..67

Table 4.8. Distribution of Exclusion and Inclusion in ST and Its Two Translated Versions…………….68

Figure 4.1. Total Frequency of Exclusion and Inclusion in the ST and Its TTs…………………………68

Table 4.9. Result of chi-square for the total number of social actors. Activation vs. Passivation………70

Figure 4.2. Distribution of activation vs. passivation in ST and in its translated versions………………70

Table 4.10. Result of chi-square for total number of social actors. Genericisation vs. specification…….71

Figure 4.3. Frequency of specification and genericisation category in ST and its translated versions…..73

Table 4.11 Result of chi-square for total number of personalisation vs. impersonalisation……………..73

Figure 4.4 Graphic representation of personalisation and impersonalisation categories in ST and in its TTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….73

The pie graph 4.1. Distribution of total number of the social actors in the ST and its TTs………………75

Table 4.12. Result of chi-square for representation of self. Exclusion vs. inclusion…………………….77

Table 4.13. Chi-square result of exclusion and inclusion for other-groups………………………………78

Table 4.14. Result of chi-square for activation and passivation of self-groups………………………….79

Table 4.15. Result of chi-square for activation and passivation of other-groups…………………………79

Table 4.16. Result of chi-square for genericisation vs. specification of self-groups…………………….80

Table 4.17. Distribution of genericisation and specification for other-groups…………………………..81

Table 4.18. Chi-square result for personalisation and impersonalisation of self-groups…………………81

Table 4.19. Chi-square result for personalisation and impersonalisation of other-groups……………….83

Figure 4.5. Graphic portrayal of the total number of self and other in the ST and its TTs………………83

Table 4.20. Result of chi-square for total number of self-party………………………………………….84

Table 4.21. Result of chi-square for total number of other-party…………………………………………84

List of Common Abbreviations Used in This Thesis

ST………………………………………………………………………………………………Source Text

TT………………………………………………………………………………………………Target Text

TS……………………………………………………………………………………….Translation Studies

CDA……………………………………………………………………………Critical Discourse Analysis