TRANSLATION STUDIES
Year:2005 | Volume:3 | Issue:11|Papers Count:10

From among different approaches to translation, the philosophically-oriented ones enjoy a prominent and advantageous position. It was Jean-Rene Ladmiral who coined the technical term "Traductologie" when discussing the epistemological principles of translation studies. Compared to Post-Modern philosophers, Derrida has made a greater contribution to the development of discussions on translation and translation studies, the evidence being that the first book ever published by Derrida was itself a translation of a work by Edmund Husserl. This article initially presents an overview of the attitudes adopted by certain philosophers to the question of translation.  Discussed subsequently is the position of philosophical translations compared to that of the translation of other text types. The article concludes providing an analysis in brief of Derrida's philosophical discourse on translation.  

This article is a close reading of perhaps the most famous stories (narratives) in the history of mankind: 1) Gods creation of the world and the act of naming (appellation), 2) human beings eating off the tree of knowledge and the expulsion from the garden of Eden, and 3) the building of the tower of Babe, its destruction by God, the dispersal of mankind and languages, and consequently the inevitability of translation. These stories are narrated in the light of the readings of two leading figures in the contemporary critical theory: Walter Benjamin and Jacques Derrida. Through recounting these three stories, I intend to narrate the 'genesis' of language and translation in three phases: Appellation: The first phase of language signifies Gods word In this phase, Gods creation is synonymous with his Word: ''In the beginning was the Word', Human beings act of naming other creatures becomes an imitation of Gods creation. At this stage, words (or better to say "names"? have no communicating quality. They only represent themselves. Tree of Knowledge: In the second phase of the story of language, knowledge, judgment, or outside values enter the realm of language. This is the first 'fall' of language. Words are now only vehicles or tools for communicating things outside themselves. They lose their sacred immanent essence. They are no longer 'names', Tower of Babel: The third phase or the second 'fall' of language occurs when human beings aspiration to 'singularize' languages becomes frustrated At this stage, by the dispersal of languages and the ever-increasing creation of new 'tongues', human beings can no longer understand one another. They now need translation. This article, by going through the above three narratives, intends to explain the basis of the biblical philosophy of language and translation.  

Of the most crucial issues in rendering translation from English to Persian is the requirement to pay special attention to various meanings of words and expressions in different contexts. English as a widely-used language has an extended range of vocabulary in which a lot of terms in different contexts may take several different syntactic and semantic structures and convey less familiar or unexpected meanings. Despite the importance of this issue, it is most often observed that translators are unfortunately easily exposed to the potential threats of sticking to the first equivalent proposed in dictionaries and neglect the other implications of words, as if the first equivalent given has a fascinating attraction that forces the other meanings back. In this paper, the author mentions some of the reasons for translators' lack of attention to other meanings of words in the process of translation and then the linguistic factors that bring about such problems are categorized into five groups. Next, more examples are provided to clarify the importance of preventing being spell-bound by the first meaning, and finally some suggestions will be given to improve the process of translating texts from English to Persian Language.  

Relying partially on Hatim and Mason's (1990, 1991, & 1997) theoretical Framework for the analysis and assessment of translated works, dealing with the sets of constraints relating to genre, discourse, and text as semiotic systems within which the expression of ideology occurs; Mason (1994); Calzada pérez's (2002) critical framework for translational phenomena; and Schleiermacher's dual distinction, namely, 'foreignization/domestication', this paper investigates the ideological consequences of an English translation of Hedayat's Bouf-e Kour [The Blind Owl], originally written in Persian, by D. P. Costello (1957). The study has mainly focused on the generic, discoursal and textual features of the target text that may be considered as representations of 'domestication', in the sense of the dichotomy originally proposed by Schleiermacher (1813). The extent to which such instances may be regarded as manifestations of ideological orientations by the translator has been the researcher's concern. The reason why a Persian source text and its translated English version have been chosen for comparison is to test the hypothesis that the present status of English as a 'dominant' language, associated primarily with a dominant culture (Le. Anglo-American culture), serves as a motive for translators into English to appeal to a 'domesticating' strategy (see, for example, Venuti, 1995). The study finally comes up with the conclusion that the target text under investigation may as well be categorized among 'domesticating translations' into English.  

The article initially introduces different approaches adopted towards translation theory, and clarifies the aims and object of a translation theory. Subsequently proceeds to explore the relation between the translator and theoretician in translation studies, following which certain conceptual tools are introduced and elaborated on as a requirement for development of a common language to be used by translators, theoreticians and translation instructors in their discussion of different issues prevailing in the realm of translation studies.  

This paper attempts at exploring the problems involved in the transfer of meaning from one culture to another as well as possible solutions such as the techniques that can be applied to the successful interpretation of texts in their cultural context. Considering these techniques, it is aimed to see what the most frequently-used strategy in dealing with cultural distance in the process of translating is. In order to cope with the research question, a test comprising 20 culture-bound items was developed and administered to 30 senior undergraduate students of English translation at Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch. Participants were asked to translate them from English into Persian without any time limitation. After collecting data, the frequency of each strategy was calculated to see which of the following strategies was most frequently used in dealing with cultural distance in the process of translating:1- Loan Word (Borrowing) 2- Literal Translation (Literalism) 3- Generic word with a descriptive phrase (Paraphrasing) 4- Cultural Substitute 5- Cultural Equivalence  

The main ambition of the present paper is two-fold to pinpoint some pre-required professional ethics in terms of the qualities for the novice who decides to try his hand at simultaneous interpreting, mostly taken from the fully-fledged SI literature and second to offer some practical tips for the novice on how to break into this mode of interpreting.  

Criticism has been prevalent among people from many years ago. It is regarded as one of the literary expressions we use. At the same time, different derivations of the word as critic, criticize, critical, critique, are also widely used. Translation criticism can be defined as looking comprehensively at different aspects of a translated work. Here, we confess that not only we feel the absence of a comprehensive view toward translation, but also it has been ignored in many aspects. Though the scope of translation criticism is infinite, but we there are some principles for the work which the author intends to talk about. So the question is: What are the principles of translation criticism? Or how we should criticize translation? There is no doubt about the value behind the translation criticism. If the work is done with reliance on certain principles and be based on awareness, then an astonishing improvement and change will come about. Some people state that translation criticism works on the negative aspects of the work. They say criticism is finding the present deficiencies. We oppose to this view and believe that criticism should care about the positive as well as the aspects of the work. One of the goals involved in translation criticism is to make the society aware of the delicacy involved in translation. We should make sure whether the translator has achieved his goals or not. One question is posed here. Who is responsible for criticizing the translated 'papers? Translator? Author? Or a third person? It is obvious that critic is the best answer.  

Translation is an operation carried out on language use. This undoubtedly means that translation itself is always a site of ideological encounters. Throughout centuries, individuals and institutions have applied their particular beliefs to the production of certain effects in translation. This paper intends to study the effect of translators' ideological presuppositions on the Qur'an translations. The method followed in this study is descriptive and the researchers do not intend to judge the correctness of translations or appropriateness of the application of translators' ideological presuppositions