A Comparative Study of Discourse Markers: The Case of three English Applied Linguistic Texts with their Farsi Translations

Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice

مقاله 1، دوره 3، شماره 7، بهمن 2010، صفحه 1-22   

نوع مقاله: Research Paper

نویسندگان

Bahram Behin^{* 1}؛ Gholamreza Abedini bonab²؛ Mahtaj Chehreh³

¹Shahid Madani University of Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Iran

²Bonab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bonab, Iran

³Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University,Tabriz, Iran

چکیده

This research was an attempt to find the relationship between English discourse markers and their Farsi translations. It was conducted in order to find out whether DMs translations completely demonstrate source texts orientation and to what extent DMs translations are functionally appropriate compared to the original text? Six instruments were used. Three of them were the original English books and the other three were their translations. Ten pages from each original book were randomly selected. Then they were compared to their translations by the researcher and two translation teachers according to Farahzad's (1992) scale. The results of the study showed that there is a high degree of relationship between English DMs and their Persian counterparts; however, there is not a 1:1 translation about DMs. It can be also said that Persian translations are, functionally and almost totally, appropriate, compared to the original texts.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Connective markers؛ Cohesion markers؛ Pragmatic markers؛ Cue phrases

مراجع

Bahrami, A. (2011). Barrasiy-e Zaban (The Study of Language). Rahnama Press

Bassnett-McGuire, S. (1980) Translation Studies, U.S.A. : Methuen & co. Ltd

Bazzanella, Carla. 1999 . Corrispondeze Fuzionali di Well in Italiano: Analisi di Testo Letterario e Promlemi Generali. In Linguistic Testuale Comparitiva,  Etudes Romannes 42.ed. Has Peter Lund. Universite de Copenhague: Musem Tusculanum Press. Traduction et d`Interpretation-Interpreter Trainer Certificate Program, January2000

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford, UK; New York,NY, USA: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blass, R. (1990). Relevance Relations in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chastain, K. (1980). Developing Second – Language Skills. HJB Publishers

Douglas Brown, H. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Longman

Fahim, M. (2009). Esool-e Yadgiriy-e ve Amoozesh-e Zaban (Principles of Language Learning and Teaching). Rahnama Press

Farahzad,F. (1992). Testing Achievement in Translation Classes.

Farahzad,F . (2003). Sequencing Texts on the Basis of Difficulty in a ranslation Program. In Translation Studies Quality, Vol 1, No. 1 : Tehran

Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383-395.

Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38(1-4), 19-33.

Fraser, B. (1999).What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31:931-935.

Fraser,B.(2004). An account of discourse markers. In Garces, P.R.Gomez,L.Fernandez,8.M.Padilla.(Eds). Current trends in intercultural cognitive and social pragmatics.Sevilla:Universidad desevilla:13-34.

Frenz,h.(1961). The Art of Translation. In N.P. Stall knecht, H.Frenz (eds.), Comparative Literature: Methods and Prespectives.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Giora, R. (1997). Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory. Journal of Pragmatics 27, 17-34.

Giora, R. (1998). Discourse coherence is an independent notion: a reply to Deirdre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics 29, 75-86

Goadec, D . (1989). Le Traducteur et l'Enterprise, U.S.A :Routledge.

Hatim,B, & I.Mason(1990) Discourse and the Translator, London & NewYork: Longman

House,J.(1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tubingen:TBL Verlag Gunter Narr

Iten, C. (1998). The meaning of although: a relevance theoretic account. UCL WorkingPapers in Linguistics 10, 81-108.

Jocobsen, R. (1958). On Linguistics Aspects of Translation on Translation, Reuben. A. Brower (ed).  Cambrigde,  Harward University Press.

Nida & C.R.Taber (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation Leiden Netherlands: E.J.Brill

Nord, C. (1991), Text Analysis in Translation Theory, Methodology and Didatic Implication of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis, Amsterdam:Rodopi

Noormohammadi, M. (2007). Gostaresh-e Maharathay-e Amoozesh-e Zaban-e Dovoum(Developing Second – Language Skills). Rahnama Press

Rado, S. (1979). Factors in a Theory of Translation. Assen: Vangorcum.

Redeker,G.(1990).Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure.Journal of Pragmatics 14(3), 367-81.

Reiss, K. (2000) Moglichkeiten and Grenzen der Ubersetzungskritik, Munich: M. Hueber, translated(2000) by E. F. Rhodes as Translation Criticism: Potential and Limitation, Manchester:St Jerome and American Bible Society.

Savory, T. H (1957). The Art of Translation . London: Cape

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shaffner, Chiristina, (1998). Action. In More Baker (ed), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. U.S.A: Routledge

Toury,G. (1995) Discriptive Translation Studies- And Beyond, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Jhon Benjamins

Viny, Jean-Paul Darblent (1958). Stylistique compare du Francais et de l'anglais : Method de Traduction, Paris : Didier

Wilson, D. and D. Sperber (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90:1-25.

Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. Cambrige University Press

Zwicky, A. (1985). Clitics and particles.Language 61, 283-305.