اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 29 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 641 |
| تعداد مقالات | 6,336 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 9,889,977 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,484,189 |
A Pragmatic Analysis of the Translation of the Quranic Discourse Marker Thumma in Kurdish and Persian Parallel Corpora | ||
| Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 15، شماره 1، تیر 2023، صفحه 65-82 اصل مقاله (910.97 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijals.2023.45545.2353 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Ali Mohammad Mohammadi* 1؛ Ali Hemmati2 | ||
| 1Department of English, Faculty of Literature and languages, Arak University, Arak, Iran | ||
| 2Department of English Language Teaching, Farhagian University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Communicative and natural processing of language in the world of translation is substantiated through simultaneous decoding and encoding of information in the source and target languages. The researchers analyzed pragmatic strategies and approaches undertaken by the Persian and Kurdish translators of the Quranic discourse marker thumma. The source text corpus was selected randomly and the target text parallel corpora were selected based on purposive sampling. Theoretical perspectives in pragmatics and translation were employed in the analysis of parallel corpora in this investigation. The results revealed that various types and combinations of the Kurdish and Persian temporal discourse markers were utilized by these translators. Moreover, other Kurdish and Persian elaborative, contrastive, and inferential discourse markers were also used in rendering the discourse marker thumma in the Quran. This dynamic approach to the construction of discourse was substantiated based on the realization of different conventions in the construction of discourse in different languages and cultures. This dynamic system in the construction of a proper discourse for the readers is verified based on the application of different theories in discourse analysis and pragmatics and the application of context and text-sensitive strategies in the process of translation. The characteristics, bases, and resources of these dynamic translation strategies are discussed based on pragmatic awareness rising in various aspects of translation education and some suggestions were offered in the application of the findings in syllabus design, translation evaluation, and rethinking of approaches in lexicography. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| the Quran؛ Kurdish؛ Persian؛ translation؛ discourse markers | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Akbari, O., Yazdani, M., & Ghamkhah, A. (2012). A study of the transference of simile components in Persian and English translations of the Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 9(35), 67-81.
Afrouz, M., & Mollanazar, H. (2017). Strategies opted for in translating twelve categories of Quranic terms. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(55), 14-30.
Aijmir, K. (2002). English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Johan Benjamins.
Anderson, G. (1998). The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In A. A. Jucker, Discourse markers (pp. 147-171). John Benjamins. Ashrafi, A., & Seyedalangi, E. (2010). Polysemic words in English translations of the Qur’an: A comparative study of translation by Saffarzadeh, Pickthall, Shakir, and Arberry. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 14-31.
Becker, M., & Egetenmeyer, J. (2018). A prominence-based account of temporal discourse structure. Lingua, 214(23), 28-58.
Cartoni, L., & Zuferry, S. (2013). Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives by looking at their translation: The translation spotting. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(8), 65-86.
Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation. John Benjamins.
Crible, L., Abuczki, A., Burksaitiene, N., Furko, P., & Nedoluzhko, A. (2019). Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(142), 139-155.
Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress: Effects on pragmatic enrichment, Frontiers in Psychology, 6(7), 22-43.
Ebrahimi, (2000). The Quran, Kurdish translation. Adab.
Eghbaly, A. (2010). A study of the Persian translations of metaphors in the Quranic chapters. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 7-25.
Eriss, A., & Hashemi, M. R. (2018). The impact of gender-based ideological perspective of translators on translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(59).
Egg, M., & Redeker, G. (2008). Underspecified discourse representation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication.
Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 359-375). Elsevier.
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(4), 149-171.
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127.
Furko, P. (2014). Perspectives on the translation of discourse markers. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 6(2), 181–196.
Ghazizadeh, K., Safi Keikaleh, E., & Esmaeili, Z. (2015). Evaluating translations of the Holy Qur’an for children within the framework of Skopos Theory. Translation Studies Quarterly, 12(47), 32-51.
Ghoreishi, S. M. H., Baghaei, H., & Alizadeh, A. (2010). The relation between repetition of Quranic words and collocations, and their translations. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 71-89.
Haugh, S. (2014). Corpus-based studies in contrastive linguistics. Oslo Studies in Language, 6(1), 43-52.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics. Pearson International. Jones, R. (2012). Discourse analysis: A resource book for students. Routledge.
Karimnia, A., & Gharekhani, R. (2016). A polygenetic investigation of explicitation in English and Persian Translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(54), 26-41.
Maleki, A. (2017). The Quran, translation. Setareh Sabz.
Manafi Anari, S., & Mostafaei, Y. (2017). Loss and gain in poetic, prose, & explanatory translations of the Holy Qur’ān. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(56), 15-34.
Mansouri, M. (2010). An investigation of word order in Persian and English translations of the Holy Qur’ān. Translation Studies Quarterly, 8(30), 41-58.
Mansouri, M. (2015). A study of the translation of passive voice in Persian translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 12(47), 14-28.
Mohammadi, A. M., Nejadansari, D. & Yuhanaee, M. (2015). The index of pragmatic uses and functions of well in university EFL classroom discourse: A case study in Iran. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 12(2), 86-116.
Mohammadi, A. M. (2021). An analysis of the underspecifications of “AND” in parallel corpora. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 11 (1), 67-80.
Mohammadi, A. M. (2022a). A pragmatic exploration of the temporal discourse marker Thumma in parallel corpora of two Persian translations of the Quran. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Translation Studies,7(3), 1-22.
Mohammadi, A. M. (2022b). A pragmatic analysis of the Quranic temporal discourse markers in parallel corpora: A study of two Persian translations. Translation Studies, 20(78), 43-60.
Mohammadi, Z., & Valavi, S. (2018). Word-selection methods in the translation of elliptical and excessive metonymy in the Holy Quran verses. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(60), 34-47.
Mosaffa Jahromi, A. (2010). Ideological conflict and translating metaphors in the Holy Qur’an: cognitive view. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 51-69.
Mosaffa Jahromi, A. (2012). Information structure and translation in Quranic texts. Translation Studies Quarterly, 9(35), 41-59.
Movahhedian, M., & Yazdani, M. (2020). Extended metaphor in the Glorious Qur’an through translation: A case study. Translation Studies Quarterly, 18(69), 43-60.
Najafi, A., Asadpour, H., & Yazdani, M. (2009). Transformation of cohesive tools and explicitation in English translations of the Holy Quran: A case study of surah Yusuf. Translation Studies Quarterly, 6(24), 24-41.
Ordudari, M., & Mollanazar, H. (2016). Rendering the Islamic concepts of the Holy Qur’an: Towards a more comprehensive model. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(52), 16-36.
Poostforoush, M., & Mollanazar, H. (2010). Toward translator’s agency: A Bourdieusian insight on translating the glorious Qur’an into English. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 42-57.
Poshtdar, A. M. (2016). Techniques of translation in an old translation of the Qur’an in the manuscript of Jame’ al-Qisas. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(53), 21-39.
Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Vaezi, M., Rasuli Ravandi, M. R., & Moseli, M. (2018). Translation analysis of emphasis devices of Qasr by negative (Lā) and exception (Illā) in some English translations of the Holy Qur’ān: A case study of Shakir, al-Hilālī-Muhsin Khān, and Irving translations. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(60), 21-38.
Valavi, S., & Hassani, M. (2016). Translation of some types of singular metonymies in the last ten units of the Qur’an: A case study of the translations done by Elahi Ghomshei, Makarem, Moezzi, and Fouladvand. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(52), 19-33.
Yazdani, M., & Ghamkhah, A. (2015). The Qur’an’s language through translation: An inquiry into the manner of reflection, in translation, of Qur’anic references & its relationship with the Qur’an-specific language. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(51), 8-25. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 108 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 146 |
||