(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)

Epigraph. II

Dedication. III

Acknowledgments. IV

Table of Contents. V

List of Tables. VIII

List of Graphs. IX

Abstract X

CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose.. 1

1.1. Introduction. 2

1.2. Significance of the Study. 7

1.3. Statement of the Problem.. 11

1.4. Research Questions 14

1.5. Definition of the Key Terms 15

1.6. Limitations and Delimitations 16

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature.. 18

2.1. Introduction. 19

2.2. Translation. 21

2.3. Culture. 25

2.4. Language and Culture. 29

2.5. Translation and Culture. 33

2.6. Translation Problems 36

2.6.1. Linguistics Differences. 37

2.6.2. Social Differences. 41

2.6.3. Cultural Differences. 42

2.7. Presuppositions 47

Epigraph. II

Dedication. III

Acknowledgments. IV

Table of Contents. V

List of Tables. VIII

List of Graphs. IX

Abstract X

CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose.. 1

1.1. Introduction. 2

1.2. Significance of the Study. 7

1.3. Statement of the Problem.. 11

1.4. Research Questions 14

1.5. Definition of the Key Terms 15

1.6. Limitations and Delimitations 16

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature.. 18

2.1. Introduction. 19

2.2. Translation. 21

2.3. Culture. 25

2.4. Language and Culture. 29

2.5. Translation and Culture. 33

2.6. Translation Problems 36

2.6.1. Linguistics Differences. 37

2.6.2. Social Differences. 41

2.6.3. Cultural Differences. 42

2.7. Presuppositions 47

2.7.1. Philosophical Presupposition. 48

2.7.2. Semantic Presupposition. 48

2.7.3. Pragmatic Presupposition. 49

2.7.4. Cultural Presupposition. 50

2.8. Cultural Presuppositions 50

2.9. Different Classifications of Cultural Presuppositions 52

2.9.1. Newmark’s Classification. 53

2.9.2. Thriveni’s Classification. 58

2.9.3. Pavlovic’s Classification. 60

2.10. Translation Strategies 63

2.11. Translation Strategies for Cultural Presuppositions 66

2.11.1. House’s Strategies. 67

2.11.2. Newmark’s Strategies. 68

2.11.3. Baker’s Strategies. 72

2.11.4. Hervey and Higgins’ Strategies. 74

2.11.5. Aixela’s Strategies. 77

2.11.6. Vinay and Darblenet’s Strategies. 81

2.11.7. Wiersema’s Strategies. 82

2.12. Concluding Points 83

Chapter III: Methodology.. 84

3.1. Introduction. 85

3.2. Corpus 86

3.3. Theoretical Framework. 88

3.4. Design. 97

3.5. Procedure. 97

3.6. Data Collection. 98

3.7. Data Analysis 98

Chapter IV: Results and Discussions. 100

4.1. Introduction. 101

4.2. Description of the Data. 101

4.2.1. Cultural Presuppositions. 102

4.2.1.1. Ecology. 102

4.2.1.2. Material Culture (Artifacts) 102

4.2.1.3. Social Culture. 104

4.2.1.4. Organizations, Customs, Ideas. 105

4.2.1.5. Gestures and Habits. 107

4.2.2. Translation Strategies. 108

4.2.2.1. Transference. 108

4.2.2.2. Naturalization. 109

4.2.2.3. Cultural Equivalent 110

4.2.2.4. Functional Equivalent 110

4.2.2.5. Descriptive Equivalent 111

4.2.2.6. Synonymy. 112

4.2.2.7. Through-translation. 113

4.2.2.8. Shifts or Transposition. 114

4.2.2.9. Reduction and Expansion. 115

4.2.2.10. Couplets, Triplets, and Quadruplets. 116

4.2.2.11. Notes, Additions, and Glosses. 117

4.3. Analysis of the Data. 121

Chapter V: Conclusion, Implications, and Suggestions for Further Research.. 126

5.1. Introduction. 127

5.2. Conclusion. 128

5.3. Pedagogical Implications 130

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research. 132

References 134

Appendixes 139

List of Tables

Table 1: Food. 18

Table 2: Clothes. 18

Table 3: Housing. 18

Table 4: Transport 18

Table 5: Work. 18

Table 6: Leisure. 18

Table 7: Political and Administrative. 18

Table 8: Religious. 18

Table 9: Artistic. 18

Table 10: Historical Terms. 18

Table 11: Gestures and Habits. 18

Table 12: Transference. 18

Table 13: Naturalization. 18

Table 14: Cultural Equivalent 18

Table 15: Functional Equivalent 18

Table 16: Descriptive Equivalent 18

Table 17: Synonymy. 18

Table 18: Through-translation. 18

Table 19: Shifts. 18

Table 20: Reduction. 18

Table 21: Couplets. 18

Table 22: Triplets. 18

Table 23: Additions. 18

Table 24: Notes. 18

Table 25: Overall frequencies of cultural presuppositions. 18

Table 26: Overall frequencies of translation strategies. 18

Table 27: All cultural presuppositions separately for each short story. 18

Table 28: All cultural presuppositions and their translation strategies. 18

List of Graphs

Graph 1: Percentages of Cultural Presuppositions. 18

Graph 2: Percentages of Translation Strategies. 18

Abstract

Translation as a way to transfer the meaning is a kind of activity that involves not only two languages, but also two cultures. Like any other field of study, translation deals with all the aspects of human life such as social, industrial, and cultural. In other words it is not enough for translators to have a good command of both the source and target languages; they have to be completely aware of both the source and target cultures. Each culture creates certain messages, connotations, and denotations. Therefore it is likely that many concepts occur in one language and culture but not in the other. In other words, one of the major problems facing translators is how to find equivalents for implicit ideas, opinions, and presuppositions, which have their bases in their underlying cultures. Facing with unshared elements of culture, namely cultural presuppositions, between the source and target language, translators have a variety of options to treat the cultural aspects of the ST and finding the most appropriate strategy to convey these aspects in the TT. The present study will focus on different translation strategies which the Persian translators of James Joyce’s “Dubliners” (2001) have applied to deal with translation problems rooted in cultural presuppositions. The process of classification of cultural presuppositions and the translation strategies for dealing with them is based on Newmark’s (1988) translation categorizations.

CHAPTER I

Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction

Translating as an activity is almost as old as mankind, but the history of translation as a discipline dates back to no more than two decades ago (Schaffner & Kelly-Holms, 1995). In this short period of systematic investigation of this discipline, the nature of such studies has undergone a drastic change. Traditionally there has been a dividing line between the language and the extra linguistic reality. Although there have been different definitions of translation but most of them emphasized the linguistic aspects of the translation process. For instance, Catford’s (1974) definition of translation is as follows: “translation is the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language.” (P.20). As it can be seen here what is significant is the equivalent textual material. Next, Newmark (1981) defines translation in this way: “Translation is a craft, consisting of two languages, in the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in another language” (P.7).

Defining translation seems simple at first glance and there are many definitions of this kind. However, translation is not strictly limited to language, rather, language and culture are deeply intertwined and it is the translation which bridges the gap between different languages and hence, cultures. Here it is clear that these definitions by famous theoreticians exclude the factor of culture in translation. As Snell-Hornby (1988) claims, translation must be regarded something more than merely transcending the linguistic elements from one language to another. It has recently come to be understood as a cultural system and it was to be treated with delicate observing the cultural aspects. Gradually some theorists confirm this fact that translation is an activity which involves a kind of verbal, but never strictly verbal communication. Miremadi (1991), for instance, has stated: “it is a two-way process: from one culture to the others and form other cultures into one’s culture. In other words, there is a give and take process” (P.11). Toury (1978) also believes that “Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions” (P.200). The reason for such a drastic change in the point of view toward the translation studies is that the contemporary approach sees language as the integral part of culture. Language is an expression of culture and individuality of its speakers; so cultural meanings are intricately woven into the texture of the language.

Newmark (1988) defines culture as: “the way of life and its manifestation that is peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression” (P.93). Culture is a complex collection of experiences which condition daily life; it includes history, social structure, religious, traditional customs and every day usage. Translating as an activity and translation as the result of this activity are inseparable from the concept of culture.

Regarding this definition, it is clear that there are many words and expressions that differ from one culture to another; for instance, way of living varies from one society to another according to the beliefs of the people, the situation in which they live, the technological advances, etc. So, every culture has its own characteristics. The people of a special society know the characteristics of their culture while the people of other communities are not able to understand it. Histories of different societies and cultures are characterized by events and processes that shape their cultural cognition. It is possible that different events and processes have similar effects on language use and it is also possible that similar processes and events have different impacts on the structure of a language and how it is used by its speakers. Speakers of