درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The present article reports a study carried out to investigate whether or not awareness of functional translation theories has any impact on the translation quality of translator trainees. 2oo Iranian undergraduate students took part in this study. They were divided into four groups -two- experimental and two control groups. After homogenizing the participants by a TOEFL test, a translation pre-test was administered and then functional theories of translation like Translational Action and Skopos Theory were taught to the experimental groups who were later required to use the material taught in their classroom translation practice during one academic semester. The control groups were instructed traditionally as widely practiced in Iranian undergraduate translation classes. A translation post-test was given to all the groups at the end of the semester. The statistical results demonstrated a significant difference between the pre- and post- test in the two experimental groups as compared with the control groups.

This study aims to understand certain linguistic and semantic resources for the text construction, namely the constructs of cohesion, coherence. The analysis of cohesive ties was conducted on the writing samples of 40 subjects (20 most coherent and 20 least coherent) Iranian undergraduates of English. This prompted us to identify the dominant types of cohesive devices used in most coherent writing samples. The analysis of data revealed that both the writing samples were found highly dense in the use of reference. The correlation analysis also didn’t show any overlap between the referential ties and coherence.. Hence, we can claim that referential ties don’t play any role in making a text coherent. Among the five major types of cohesive classes, substitution and ellipsis were found least frequently used in both the writing samples. Their occurrence was less than 1%. It, therefore, seems that the two types of cohesive devices aren’t widely used in written discourse. In the collective data, since, their occurrence is not even noticed in any of the writing scripts where as they could be the most dominant type of cohesion of spoken discourse.

چرا ما شاهد ترجمه های متعدد از یک متن ادبی هستیم؟ اگر یک زبان مبداء و یک زبان مقصد وجود دارد دلیل پیدایش ترجمه های متعدد از یک متن ادبی چه می تواند باشد؟ در این مقاله به طور مختصر ملاحظه خواهیم کرد که ترجمه ادبی انتقال ساده مطالب از یک زبان به زبان دیگر نیست بلکه یک تفسیر است و مستلزم انتقال یک فرهنگ به فرهنگ دیگر است. سوالی که مطرح می شود این است که آیا متنی که مترجم به وجود می آورد بایستی با فرهنگ مقصد همخوانی داشته باشد یا با فرهنگ مبداء؟

Literature is the aesthetic manifestation of language. It is ‘as old as human language and as new as tomorrow’s sunrise.’ This paper explores the interrelationships between language and literature from 600 AD to the present day. The grammar of present-day English is closely related to that of Old English with the same tense formation and word orders. The verse unit is a single line and its organizing device is ‘alliteration’. The range of Chaucer’s English did much to establish English as a national language. The writers of the Elizabethan period reshaped the literary language by borrowing foreign words and by coining new expressions and figures of speech. Shakespeare’s language and modern English have enough in common so that historians consider that they both belong to the same stage in the history of English. Milton attempted to reinvent the English language through his Paradise Lost. The writers of the seventeenth century developed a prose style that could bear the weight of the most serious and complex ideas. Then, the writers of the eighteenth century devoted themselves to developing out a formal, polished, and “correct” style of expression. Wordsworth and Coleridge intended to purify and renew the literary language and make it closer to the everyday speech of the ordinary people. Modernism tried to articulate a representation of the world and the way of seeing it through complexities of mind using the spoken rather than the formal language.

دراین مطالعه شبه طولی از دو روش خطای معمول و بازخورد اصلاحی جهت بررسی ثبات غلط (فسیل شدگی) میان زبانی استفاده شد. خطاهای نوشتاری در مقالات استدلالی 76 زبان آموز ایرانی در سه سطح زبانی متفاوت با استفاده از مدل ارائه شده توسط گس و سلینکر(1994) شناسایی و طبقه بندی شدند. این خطاها برای باراول با بازخورد ضمنی و برای باردوم با بازخورد صریح تصحیح شدند تا بررسی شود که آیا این دو نوع بازخورد باعث بهبود درنوشتار می شوند، و آیا خطاهائی وجود دارند که در برابر تصحیح مقاومت کنند. نتایج نشان داد که خطاهای مربوط به ""انتخاب کلمه ، جمع، شکل کلمه و حرف تعریف the"" جزوشایع ترین خطاهای این زبان آموزان بودند، که ""انتخاب کلمه"" در صدرفهرست قرار دارد. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که اگرچه هر دو نوع بازخورد می تواند منجر به کاهش خطاها شود، ارائه بازخورد صریح ومستقیم برای فراگیران روشی موثر تر میباشد. با این حال نتایج آزمون تی نشان داد که تاثیر کوتاه مدت بازخورد نمی تواند در طول زمان پایداربماند و این تایید کننده گفته کسانی ازقبیل ترواسکات (2007) است که اثر تصحیح خطا را زیر سوال برده اند. علاوه بر این، یافته ها نشان می دهند که خطاهای مربوط به ""ضمیر، ترتیب کلمات، مجهول و مالکیت"" را احتمالآ می توان جزو خطاهائی برشمرد که فسیل شده اند، زیرا اگر چه برای تمام انواع خطاهای دیگر بازخورد ضمنی توانست مفید باشد، این چهار خطا در برابر تصحیح مقاومت نشان دادند و تنها بازخورد صریح توانست موجب کاهش معنادار آنها شود.