Study of Lexical Cohesion on “Pride and Prejudice” and its two Translations
The present study aimed to determine some lexical cohesion elements in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and those elements which are used by two different translators in rendering their concepts into Persian. Lexical cohesion is one of the central devices for making texts hang together. Lexical cohesion which gives the most substantive contribution to the text, is the way to know what is the relationship between one word and another word in a text. The main purpose of this study is to use eclectic model, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Tanskanen (2006) theories, to investigate how two translators-by the use of lexical cohesive elements- translate words to make semantic logical relationship between sentences of Pride and Prejudice Persian translations and also to what extent were successful in translation of words. In addition, it is the other aim to find out the best translator to create lexical cohesion through the sentences of Persian translations. In this regard, the researcher used the first 30 parts of English version of Pride and Prejudice as well as two Persian translations. Lexical cohesion elements in English version were classified into some of reiteration namely: repetition, synonymy, general nouns according to Halliday and Hasan (1976) and simple repetition, complex repetition, equivalence, generalization and specification according to Tanskanen (2006). Then, these lexical cohesion elements in two Persian translations were specified. The researcher tried to find out the elements of lexical cohesion that are used in two translations, are more similar to which of the Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Tanskanen (2006) theory, the frequency of strategies in two Persian translations-by Rezaei and Mosaheb and comparison of two translators’ translations were examined with the purpose of determining better translation. The last, the data were appeared on a diagram according to SPSS software. It seems that in these translations, the translators’ translations are more similar to Tanskanen (2006) theory and simple repetition element of this theory is used more than others. This study shows that depending on the importance of each lexical element, none of the translators are successful in making cohesion in texts. This may lead us to the problem of non-understanding.
Key terms:
Cohesion, Lexical Cohesion, Reiteration, Translation
فهرست مطالب
1.2 Statement Of The Problem.. 3
1.3 Significance Of The Study.. 3
1.4 Objective Of The Study.. 4
1.6 Limitation And Delimitations Of The Study.. 4
1.6.1 Limitation Of The Study. 4
1.6.2 Delimitations Of The Study. 5
1.8 Definition Of Key Terms. 6
CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW… 7
2.3 The Concept of Translation.. 9
2.4 Translation and Equivalence. 10
2.5 The Meaning of Cohesion.. 10
2.5.2.1 Reiteration relations by Halliday and Hasan (1976). 12
2.5.2.3 Synonymy or Near-Synonymy. 13
2.5.4 Reiteration relation by Tanskanen (2006). 14
2.5.4.1 Simple and Complex repetition. 14
2.5.5 Collocation relations. 16
2.5.5.2 Activity-related collocation. 16
2.5.5.3 Elaborative collocation. 16
2.6 Cohesion and Translation.. 17
2.7 lexical cohesion and Translation.. 17
CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY.. 20
DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION.. 23
4.2 Reiteration in Pride and Prejudice and Its Renderings. 24
4.3 The Frequency of Reiteration Categories in English and its Persian Translations 25
4.4 Translation Procedures. 29
4.5 The Frequency of Translation Procedures Used by Each Translator. 54
5.3 Suggestions for further studies. 70
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Categories Of Lexical Cohesion In Halliday And Hasan (1976), Tanskanen (2006) 12
Table 4.1 : English Reiterations And Their True, Wrong And Non Persian Renderings. 24
Table 4.2 : The Frequency Of Translation Procedures Used By Mosaheb. 54
Table 4.3 : The Frequency Of Translation Procedures Used By Rezaei (2006). 58
Table 4.4 : Comparison Of The Frequency Of Translation Procedures Used By Two Translators 62
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 the frequency of english reiteration categories. 25
Figure 4.2 the frequency of true persian translation by rezaei and mosaheb. 26
Figure 4.3 the frequency of wrong persian translation by rezaei and mosaheb. 27
Figure 4.4 the frequency of non persian translation by rezaei and mosaheb. 28
Figure 4.5 the frequency of true translation procedures used by mosaheb (2001). 55
Figure 4.6 the frequency of wrong translation procedures used by mosaheb (2001). 56
Figure 4.7 the frequency of non-translation procedures used by mosaheb (2001). 57
Figure 4.8 the frequency of true translation procedures used by rezaei (2006). 59
Figure 4.9 the frequency of wrong translation procedures used by rezaei (2006). 60
Figure 4.10 the frequency of non-translation procedures used by rezaei (2006). 61
Figure 4.11 comparing the frequency of true translation procedures used by the two translators 63
Figure 4.12 comparing the frequency of wrong translation procedures used by the two translators 64
Figure 4.13 comparing the frequency of non translation procedures used by the two translators 65
منابع
- Austen, J. (1993). Pride and Prejudice. Hertfordshire. Wordsworth Edition.
- Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.
- Baker, M. (2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
- Bassnett, M. E. S. (1980). Translation Studies. London & New York: Methuen & Co.
- Beaugrande, R. De, & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London/UK: Longman.
- (1999). Encarta World English Dictionary. London.
- Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp.17-35). Tübingen: Narr.
- Brown, G, & Yule, G. (1983). Discoure analysis. Cambridge: C.U.P.
- Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- (2009). The Technique of Making Idiomatic Translation. Jakarta- Indonesia: Kesaint Blanc.
- Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Crystal, D. (1992). Introducing Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
- Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, CUP.
- Etymology, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation.
- Fan, M. (2008). An exploratory study of collocational use by ESL students- a task based approach. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
- Fillmore, C. J. & Baker, C.F. (2001). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/
- Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-254.
- Firth, J. R. (1951). Modes of Meaning. Essays and Studies (4): 118-148.
- Halliday, M. A. K, and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
- Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and Cohesion Harmony. Delaware: International Reading Assciation.
- Hatim, B and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London. Longman.
- Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). Translator as Communicator. London & New York: Roueledge.
- Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki.
- Jordan, M. P. (1998). Pragmatic, Stylistic and grammatical limitation on choice: a study of cause-effect signaling in English. In Sanchez-Macarro. A, & Carter. R (Eds), Linguistic Choice Acress Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English (Pp.65-86). Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Larson, M. (1984). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross- Language Equivalence. Lanham: University Press of America.
- Leech, G. N. Short, M.H. (1981). Style in Fiction. London: Longman.
- Malkjar, K. (2004). The Linguistic Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
- Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- McCarthy, M. (1988). Some vocabulary patterns in conversation. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London & New York: Routledge.
- Mirzapour,F. Ahmadi,M. (2011). Study on Lexical cohesion in English and Persian research articles. English Language Teaching (4): 245-249.
- Morris, J. and Hirst, G. (1991). Lexical Cohesion Computed by Theasaural Relations As an Indication of the Structure of a Text. Computional Linguistic 17(1): 21-48.
- Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theory and applications. London: Routledge.
- Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to Translation. Herfordshire: Prentice Hall.
- Nida, E. A. (1959). Principles of translation exemplified by Bible translation. In Browser. R. (1966). On translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
- Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Group.
- Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2000). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rahimi, A. Ebrahimi, N. A. (2012). Lexical cohesion in English and Persian texts of novels. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science 3(11): 569-576.
- Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse Studies: An Introductory Text-book. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
- Tanskanen, S. K. (2006). Collaborating towards Coherence. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Coherence, Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantic and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
- Verhaar, John, W. M. (1967). The verb be and its synonyms, Part I: Classical Chinese, Athapaskan, Mundari. Dordrecht: Reidel.
- Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. New York: OUP.
- Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.