%40تخفیف

Translation of Speech Acts in Drama Based on Koller’s Typology of Equivalence

تعداد132 صفحه در فایل word

Department of Foreign Languages

Translation of Speech Acts in Drama Based on Koller’s

Typology of Equivalence

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics that studies the ways in which context contributes to the meaning. The communicative situation that is investigated in pragmatics is of utmost importance for translation studies. Therefore as a pragmatic approach to translation, speech acts as one of the compelling notions in pragmatics has been chosen as the focus of this study. Since, the concept that is expected to balance the differences and secure communication in translation is equivalence, this thesis attempted to figure out whether the concept of equivalence especially as explicated by Koller’s hierarchy of equivalence is a suitable methodology in translation of speech acts. Data of this study was collected based on the existing speech acts in four prominent plays of great American playwrights namely Neil Simon and Arthur Miller. Firstly, English utterances containing speech acts were extracted from the corpus and were categorized according to Searle’s categorization of speech acts, then, translation of each speech act was extracted from their translation and by comparing each speech act and its translation type of equivalence used by translators was determined. Finally, the frequencies of each type of equivalence used by translators for each type of speech act were identified. After a thorough analysis it was found out that denotative equivalence was the most frequent equivalence used by translators in all different types of speech acts. All in all, it can be concluded that Koller’s typology of equivalence is not a suitable methodology in translation of speech acts. The results proved the vital role of pragmatics in translation and the importance of being observant of different realization of speech acts in the source and target language, in order to render a pragmatic translation.

Key words: pragmatics, speech act, illocutionary act, equivalence, direct speech act, indirect speech act.

دسته: زبان خارجه, زبان خارجه برچسب: direct speech act, Equivalence, illocutionary act, indirect speech act., Key words: pragmatics, speech act

توضیحات

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………..I

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………II

Table of Contents………………………………………………………….……III

List of Tables………………………………………………………………..…VI

List of Figures……………………………………………………………..….VII

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………..….VIII

Chapter 1: introduction

1 .1.Overview ……………………………………………………….……….2

1.2. Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………….3

1.3. Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………….5

1.4. Research questions………………………………………………………5

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

1.6. Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………7

1.6.1. Searle’s Classification of Illocutionary Acts…..…………………..8

1.6.1.1. Representatives or Assertives…………………………………8

1.6.1.2. Directives………………………………………………………9

1.6.1.3. Commissives ………..………………………………………….9

1.6.1.4. Expressives……………………………………………………9

1.6.1.5. Declarations………………………………………………….10

1.6.1.6. Indirect Speech Acts…………………………………….…..10

1.7. Limitation of the Study …………………………………………….….13

1.8. Definition of the Key Terms ……………………………………….….14

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….…….17

2.2. Pragmatics………………………………………………………………17

2.3. Speech act……………………………………………………..…………21

2.3.1. Types of speech acts…………………………………….…..…….27

2.4. Translation………………………………………………………..……30

2.5. Equivalence..………………………………………………..…….…….32

2.6. Studies Done in Iran……………………………………………….……37

2.7. Studies Done Abroad…………………………………………….….…38

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………….…..41

3.2 Design of the Study ……………………..…………………….………….41

3.3 Corpus of the Study………………………………………..……………..42

3.3.1. Lost in Yonkers……………………………………………….…..43

3.3.2. Plaza Suite………………………………………………..……..43

3.3.3. Death of a sales man…………………………………….………43

3.3.4. A view from the bridge……………………………….…………44

3.4. Data Collection Procedure ..………………………………..……………45

3.5. Data Analysis Procedure …………………………….…………………..46

Chapter Four: Results and Discussions

4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………….……….48

4.2. Research findings………………………………………………….……48

4.2.1. Assertives………………………………………….…………….49

4.2.2. Directives …………………………………………….………..63

4.2.3 Commissies………………………………………………………74

4.2.4. Expressives…………………………………………………..…85

4.2.5.Declarations……………………………………….……………..94

4.3. Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………….97

4.3.1. Assertives…………………………………………………..…..98

4.3.2. Directives………………………………………………….……99

4.3.3. Commissives……………………………………………………101

4.3.4. Expressives……………………………………………….……102

4.3.5. Declarations……………………………………………………103

4.4. Discussion…………………………………………..………………..….104

4.4.1 Discussing the Results in Terms of the First Research Question……..105

4.4.2 Discussing the Results in Terms of the Second Research Question ….105

Chapter Five: Conclusion

5.1. Introduction………………………………………………………….……108

5.2. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….…..108

5.3. Implications for Translators………………………………………………109

5.4 Implications for translation studies teachers…………..………………….110

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………….…..110

References …………………………………………………………………….112

List of Tables

Table page

Table 4.1 ……………………………………………………………………………..98

Table 4.2 ……………………………………………………………………………..99

Table 4.3 …………………………………………………………………………….101

Table 4.4 …………………………………………………………………………….102

Table 4.5 ………………………………………………………………………..…..103

List of Figures

Figure page

Figure 4.1 …………………………………………………………………………..98

Figure 4.2 …………………………………………………………………………100

Figure 4.3 ………………………………………………………………………….101

Figure 4.4 ………………………………………………………………………….102

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation meaning

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

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

DE……………………………………………………………Denotative Equivalence

CE…………………………………………………………..Connotative Equivalence

TNE…………………………………………………..…Text Normative Equivalence

PE…………………………………………………….……….Pragmatic Equivalence

FE…………………………………………………….……….…Formal Equivalence