دانلود پایان نامه

(۱۹۶۴, cited inZequan, 2002) proposesformal and dynamic equivalence, whereas Catford(1965,cited inZequan, 2002) believes textual equivalence and formal correspondence for having a good translation. Others like Schiaffino and Riccardo Zearo Franco (2007) maintain that quality is defined as meeting the needs and expectations of the customer or user. TQA must apply to both: a) the translated text (the product) andb) The translation process (the process).Hervey and Higgins (1992, cited in sharkas, 2009) adopt the more practical principle of inevitable translation loss, which means that every translation involves a certain degree of loss in meaning. Consequently, the translator’s task is not to seek the perfect or ideal translation but to reduce the translation loss. According to Dickins, Hervey, and Higgins (2002, cited in sharkas, 2009), translation loss is not a loss of translation, but of textual effects; and since effects cannot be quantified, loss cannot be either. It can, however, be controlled by continually asking if the loss matters or not, in relation to the purpose of translation. According to House (1998), TQA presupposes a theory of translation. The theoretical views through the history of translation can represent the views toward the assessment of the quality of translations. Hence, a brief general review of the history of translation studies can give us some clues about the theoretical views toward translation quality assessment.
۲۶.۱ The History of Translation and TQA
Berman(1992: 1, cited in Aveling, 2004)considers that because “reflection on translation has become an internal necessityof translation itself…(t)he construction of a history of translation is the first task of a modern theory of translation”. Also Baker (2001) mentions that interest in the history of translation has grown in recent years; conferences have focused on the subject, many books have appeared. D’hulst (1991, cited in Baker, 2001) claims that “it is time to give the history of translation the place it deserves” (p. 100). Baker (2001) asks: “Are historians motivated by a concern for improving the image to translators /translation in the eyes of other members of society?” (p. 100). Lambert (1993, cited in Baker) suggests that “it could be that the writing of history stems from a need to legitimize a new discipline” (۱۰۱).Moreover, Dhulst (1994, cited in Baker, 2001) maintains that introducing a historical perspective into translation studies can also bring about greater tolerance of different approaches to translation and can provide unity to the discipline. Early examples of historical works include Cary (1960)’s La Traductiondans Le monde modern and Savory(1975)’s The Art of Translation,cited in Baker, 2001). The new classic works by: (Bassnett ,1980, Translation Studies; Kelly,1980, The True Interpreter;Stiener,1975,After Bable,cited in Baker, 2001).Out of these three works, Kelly’s comes closest to a general history of translation, whereas Steiner and Bassnett deal primarily with theories of translation. Baker holds that translation history has paid attention to country, region or linguistic or cultural community. It can also be divided using chronological conventions such as centuries, reigns and dynasties. Work on translation history has generally followed the periodization of cultural history (Antiquity, the Middle ages, Renaissance, etc.).
Avelling (2004),based on ideas developed by the French historian Michel Foucault, divides the history of discourse on translation into four periods: (1) a traditional period, from the beginning of the Christian era to the end of the eighteenth century, which is a period of immediate empirical focus, (2) a period of theory and hermeneutic inquiry, growing out of German Romanticism around the beginning of the nineteenth century, (3) a modern period, reaching well into the twentieth century, in which the influence of general linguistics is increasingly dominant, and (4) the contemporary period, subsequent to the publication of Steiner’s book, which has taken to itself the name of Translation Studies.
Also Newmark(1988) classifies the history of translation into pre-linguistic and linguistic era. Miremadi (2004) divides the different periods of translationbased on the history of English literature (translation from Antiquity to Pre-Middle-Ages era, Renaissance, Post- Renaissance era16th and 17th century, Modern, andpostmodern).
Miremadi (2004) maintains that generally, diversity in intents and arguments always leads to questionings, which necessarily require judgments; and anticipation in making judgments, in turn, will lead to theories. When there is no controversy over an issue, theory and judgment processing come to halt. As Kelly (1979, cited inMiremadi, 2004) mentions, the Jewish scholars who translated the Old Testament had no interest in theory because they never anticipated any controversy over the issue of translating the Holy Scriptures. In this regard Machan (1985, cited in Miremadi, 2004) points out that:
What makes the evaluation of translating developments in theclassical period and Christian era difficult is the fact that, as it was mentioned earlier, either no theory existed or even could be available or,if, by any chance, there was a theory, the translators themselves refused to express the techniques and their goals explicitly. (p. 38)
Newmark (1988) explains that in pre- linguistic period, little was written about translation. The important aspects like translation’s contribution to the development of national languages; its relation to meaning, thought and the language universals were unexplored territories. Then as Goethe (1826, cited in Newmark, 1988) says, the main discussion included: a) conflict between free and literal translations and b) the contradiction between its inherent impossibility and its absolute necessity. Cicero (55 BC, cited in Newmark, 1988) first championed sense against words and argues that a translator must be either an interpreter or a rhetorician. Tytlor (1790, cited in Newmark, 1988) appears to be among the forerunners who wrote a significant book on translation, stating that a good translation is the one in which the quality of the ST is so completely conveyed into another language as to be as distinctly comprehended and as strongly felt by a native of the country to which that language belongs as it is by those who speak the language of the SL.
In the nineteenth century, the important essays and references by Goethe (1813,1814; Humboldt,1816; Novalis, 1798; Schleiermacher, 1813; Schopenhauer, 1851; Nietzsche,1882, cited in Newmark, 1988) were inclined towards more literal translation methods, while Arnold (1928,cited in Newmark, 1988) favored a simple, direct, and noble style for translating Homer.
In the twentieth century Croce(1922), Gasset (1937), and Valery 1946, cited in Newmark, 1988) questioned the possibility of adequate translation, particularly of poetry .Benjamin (1923, cited in Newmark, 1988) sees translation filling in the gaps in meaning in a universal language. He recommends literal translation of syntax as well as words. The sentence is a wall blocking out the language of the original, whilst word for word translation is the arcade.
Newmark concludes that in the pre-linguistics period of translation, translators made e no attempt to distinguish the different types of or the qualityof texts and while they were strong on theory, they are short on method and practical examples. They showed a gradual translation from a natural or free treatment towards a literal analysis, if not translation, of the original, but there is no development of a theory, and many of the writers were not aware of each other’s work.
Newmark (1988) claims that “a translator has to be a good judge of writing; he or she must respect good writing scrupulously by accounting for its language, structures and content, whether the piece is scientific or poetic, philosophical or fictional”(p. 6).On the other hand, Benjamin(1923, cited in Newmark,1988) states:
In a good work, language surrounds the content as a shell surround andits fruit, whilst a translation is a coat hanging loosely round the content of the original in large folds. A translation is never finished, and one has to keep paring away at it, reducing the element of paraphrase, tightening the language. The shorter the translation, the better it is likely to be. (p.17)
In the nineteenth century, a new policy dominated as Newmark (1988) maintains that up to the 19th century, literal translation represented a philological academic exercise from which cultural reformers were trying to save literature .In the 19th century, a more scientific approach was brought to bear on translation, suggesting that certain kinds of texts must be accurately translated whilst others should and could not be

این فایل ها تست های آزمون آزمایشی کارشناسی ارشد انتشارات سنجش و دانش می باشد که با پاسخ های کاملا” تشریحی ارائه می شود. شما می توانید از منوی جستجو (بالای سایت سمت چپ ) تست های دروس دیگر را پیدا کرده و رایگان دانلود کنید

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *