2.1.2. Domestication in Early Translation Theories……………..……………17
2.1.3. Fluency Techniques and Alternative Translation Strategies in the 17th-18th Centuries..…………………………………….…………………………………………26
2.1.4. Victorian Age and Foreignization………………………………………32
2.1.5.Early 20th century–theory and practice in Britain and America……….41
2.1.6. Alternative points of view…………………………………..……….…44
2.1.7. Theory and Practice in the 1960s……………………………………….49
2.1.8. The cultural turn in translation studies………………………………….54
2.1.9.Criticism of Venuti’s Theory of Domestication and Foreignization……65
2.1.10. Conclusion……………………………..……………………………..76
2.2. Culture Specific Items……………………………………………………….……79
2.3. Tourism…………………………………………………………………………..83
2.3.1. Tourist…………………………………………..………………….…..86
2.4. Eastern Azarbaijan……………………………………………………………….87
2.4.1. Tabriz……………………………………………………………………89
2.4.1.1. Tabriz is the City of Beauties………………….……………..89
2.4.1.2. Tabriz from the View of Tourists…………………………….91
2.4.1.3. The Famous Persons and Luminaries of Tabriz………………93
2.4.1.4. Tabriz the City of Pioneers……………………………….….94

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………………………….95
3.1. Overview……………………………………………………….…………………95
3.2. Design……………………………………………………………………………97
3.3. Corpus…………………………………………………………………………….97
3.4. Samples…………………………………………………………………………..98
3.5. Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………..98

3.6. Data Collection and Data Analysis Procedure……………….…………………..98
Chapter Four: Data Analysis…………………………………………………………..…….100
4.1. Overview………………………………………………………………………..100
4.2. Samples…………………………………………………………………………..105
4.2.1. Geographical Culture Specific Items……………..…………………..106
4.2.1.1. Sample 1. Magbarat-al-Shoara…………………….…..……106
4.2.1.2. Sample 2. Arg-E-Alishah……………..…………….………108
4.2.1.3. Sample 3. Masjid-E-Kabud…………………………….……110
4.2.1.4. Sample 4. El-Goli (Shah-Goli)………….……………….….111
4.2.1.5. Sample 5. Boq-E Saheb-ol-Amr………….…………………112
4.2.1.6. Sample 6. Pol-E Aji Chai…………………..…………….…113
4.2.1.7. Sample 7: Borj-E Khalat-Pooshan………………………….114
4.2.1.8. Sample 8. Hamam-E Nobar…………………………………115
4.2.1.9. Sample 9. Rabae Rashidiye…………………………….……115
4.2.1.10. Sample 10. Boq-E Oun-ibn-E Ali…………………….……116
4.2.1.11. Sample 11. Bagh-E Do-Kamal…………….…………………..117
4.2.1.12. Sample 12. Mooz-E-Ye Azarbaijan………………….……118
4.2.1.13. Sample 13. Meidan-E Shohada………………………………..119
4.2.1.14. Sample 14. Pol-E Ghari……………………………….…..120
4.2.1.15. Sample 15. Khan-E-Ye Mashrooteh………………….……121
4.2.1.16. Sample 16. Bazaar-E Tabriz……………….………………123
4.2.1.17. Sample 17. Bagh-E Golestan………………………….…..123
4.2.1.18. Sample 18. Mooze-Ye Sanjesh…………………………….124
4.2.1.19. Sample 19. Masjid-E Jame Tabriz…………………………125
4.2.1.20. Sample 20. Boqe Seyyed Hamzeh…………………………127
4.2.1.21. Sample 21. Borj-E Atashneshani…………………….……127
4.2.1.22. Sample 22. Masjid-E Ostad Shagerd……….……………..128
4.2.1.23. Sample 23. Khane-YE Haidar Zade……………….………129
4.2.1.24. Sample 24. Mouze-YE Qajar………………………………130
4.2.1.25. Sample 25. Darre-YE Liqvan………….…………………..131
4.2.1.26. Sample 26. Aji Chay (Talkheh Rood)…………….……….131
4.2.1.27. Sample 27. Pol-E Kabli (Etehad-E Melli)………..……….132
4.2.1.28. Sample 28. Boq-E Seyyed Ibrahim…………….………….133
4.2.1.29. Sample 29. Bazaar-E Ghazan………….…………….…….133
4.2.1.30. Sample 30. Jadde Abrisham…………………………….…134
4.2.1.31. Sample 31. Timche Amir………………………….………134
4.2.1.32. Sample 32. Timche Mozafari-E………….………………..135
4.2.1.33. Sample 33. Qoll-E Sorkhab……………….………………135
4.2.1.34. Sample 34. Kakh-E Ostandari………………………….….136
4.2.1.35. Sample 35. Khangah-E Goosh Khane…….…………….…136
4.2.1.36. Sample 36. Ghar-E Qadamqah…………….……………….137
4.2.1.37. Sample 37. Cheshme Tap Tapan……………………..……138
4.2.1.38. 4.2.1.38. Sample 38. Daryache-YE Uremia……………………138
4.2.1.39. Sample 39. Hammam-E Mehr Abad……………………….138
4.2.1.40. Sample 40. Masjid-E Mehr Abad……….…………………139
4.2.1.41. Sample 41. Abshar-E Asiyab Kharabeh….……………….139
4.2.1.42. Sample 42. Borj-E Dozal………………….………………140
4.2.1.43. Sample 43. Qale-YE Kordasht………………….…………140
4.2.1.44. Sample 44. Hammam-E Kordasht………….……………..141
4.2.1.45. Sample 45. Darre-YE Kabutaran……………………….…141
4.2.1.46. Sample 46. Abshar-E Sarkand Dizaj……………………….142
4.2.1.47. Sample 47. Kelisa-YE Mujumbar……………………………..142
4.2.1.48. Sample 48. Emarat-E Thomanians…………………………143
4.2.1.49. Sample 49. Kelisa-YE Veinaq…………………………….144
4.2.1.50. Sample 50. Qale-YE Babak………………………….……144
4.2.1.51. Sample 51. Gunbad-I Ghaffariye…………………….……145
4.2.1.52. Sample 52. Gunbad-I Kabood……………………………..145
4.2.1.53. Sample 53. Pol-E Dokhtar………………………….……..146
4.2.1.54. Sample 54. Rood Khane-YE Gizil Uzan…………….……147
4.2.1.55. Sample 55. Qale Dokhtar…………………………….……147
4.2.1.56. Sample 56. Qaflankooh…………………………………….148
4.2.1.57. Sample 57. Mantaqe-YE Chichakli……….………………149
4.2.1.58. Sample 58. Qale Jowshin………………….………………149
4.2.1.59. Sample 59. Qale Zahak…………………….………………150
4.2.1.60. Sample 60. Kooh-E Sormelu……………….……………..150
4.2.1.61. Sample 61. Kooh-E Bozgush………………………….…..150
4.2.1.62. Sample 62. Kooh-E Kamtal…………………………….…151
4.2.1.63. Sample 63. Hammam-E Chaharsue…………………….…152
4.2.1.64. Sample 64. Masjid-E Roomian………………………………..152
4.2.1.65. Sample 65. Bana-YE Tappe Mosalla………….…………..153
4.2.1.65. Sample 65. Maqbare Oliya-Ye Qazi Jahan………………..153
4.2.1.66. Sample 66. Boqe Pir Jabir………………………………….154
4.2.1.67. Sample 67. Masjid-E Sakhre-IE Gadamqah……………….154
4.2.1.68. Sample 68. Mantaqe-YE Geermizigol…….………………154
4.2.1.69. Sample 69. Masjid-E Ojuzlu…………………………………..155
4.2.1.70. Sample 70. Kooh-E Sultan Daghi…………………….……155
4.2.1.71. Sample 71. Qale Pishtu…………………….………………155
4.2.1.72. Sample 72. Karvansara-YE Al-Khalaj………………….…156
4.2.1.73. Sample 73. Talab-E Quri Gol……………………….…….156
4.2.1.74. Sample 74. Mantaqe-YE Shah Yurdi………………………157
4.2.1.75. Sample 75. Pol-E Panj Chashme……………………..……157
4.2.1.76. Sample 76. Masjid-E Zargaran……………………….……158
4.2.1.77. Sample 77. Kelisa-YE Choopan……………………….….158
4.2.1.78. Sample 78. Kooh-ha-YE Sangi Uch Gizlar….……………159
4.2.1.79. Sample 79. Cheshme-YE Pir Sagga………….……………159
4.2.1.80. Sample 80. Abshar-E Pir Sagga……………………………160
4.2.1.81. Sample 81. Ghar-E Hajji Abad…………………………….160
4.2.1.82. Sample 82. Pol-E Gavdush Abad………………….………161
4.2.1.83. Sample 83.Maqbare-YE Ilkhani-YE Asafestan……………161
4.2.1.84. Sample 84. Ab-E Garm-E Asbfrooshan………….………..161
4.2.1.85. Sample 85. Ab-E Garm-E Allah-Haq………………….….162
4.2.1.86. Sample 86. Kelisa-YE Sohrel………………………….….162
4.2.1.87. Sample 87. Pol-E Tirvan……………………………….….163
4.2.1.88. Sample 88. Pol-E Tarikhi Gizil Korpu………….………….163
4.2.1.89. Sample 89. Qale Barazlu…………………………………..164
4.2.1.90. Sample 90. Sakhteman-E Inali………….…………………164
4.2.1.91. Sample 91. Borj-E Farrokhi……………………….………164
4.2.1.92. Sample 92. Pol-Ha-YE Khoda-Afarin….…………………165
4.2.1.93. Sample 93. Borj-E Qarluja………….……………………..165
4.2.1.94. Sample 94. Galae Darasi……………………….………….166
4.2.1.95. Sample 95. Ab-E Garm-E Motaaleg……….………………166
4.2.1.96. Sample 96. Zoghal Akhte……………………………..……167
4.2.1.97. Sample 97. Borj-E Modavar……………….………………168
4.2.1.98. Sample 98. Gunbad-I Sorkh…………………….…………168
4.2.1.99. Sample 99. Sadd-E Alavian………………………….……169
4.2.1.100. Sample 100. Ghar-E Kabootar……………………….…..169
4.2.1.101. Sample 101. Mabad-E Mehr………………………….….170
4.2.1.102. Sample 102. Hammam-E Khaje Nasir………….………..170
4.2.1.103. Sample 103. Tappe Yaldor……………….…………………..171
4.2.1.104. Sample 104. Shorsu………….……………………….…..171
4.2.1.105. Sample 105. Aqche Qala……………….…………………172
4.2.1.106. Sample 106. Gunbad-I Allah Allah……………….….…..173
4.2.1.107. Sample 107. I- Qalasi……………………….……………173
4.2.1.108. Sample 108. Okuz Daghi…………………………………174
4.2.1.109. Sample 109. Kooh-E Sahand…………………………….175
4.2.1.110. Sample 110. Kooh-E Sabalan…………………………….175
4.2.2. Ethnographic Culture Specific Items…………..……………….…….176
4.2.2.1.Sample 1.Sang Nebeshteye Orartu-YEE Razliq…………….176
4.2.2.2. Sample 2. Katibe Urartu-YEE Javan Qale…………….……176
4.2.2.3. Sample 3. Mahale-YE Sorkhab………….………………….177
4.2.2.4. Sample 4. Sang-E Besmellah…………………………….…177
4.2.2.5. Sample 5. Varni……………………………….………….…178
4.2.2.6. Sample 6. Ghorabieh…………………………………….….178
4.2.2.7. Sample 7. Baslog………….…………………………….…..179
4.2.2.8. Sample 8. Pashmak…………………………………….……179
4.2.2.9. Sample 9. Eriss………………………………….…………..180
4.2.2.10. Sample 10. Noga…………………………….…………….180
4.2.2.11. Sample 11. Kufta-Tabrizi………….………………………181
4.2.2.12. Sample 12. Polow…………………………….…………….181
4.2.2.13. Sample 13. Dolme………………………………………….182
4.2.2.14. Sample 14. Panir-E Liqvan………………………………..182
4.2.2.15. Sample 15. Jazire-YE Islami……………………………….183
4.2.2.16. Sample 16. Kandovan……………………………………..183
4.2.2.17. Sample 17. Ushtabin……………………………………….184
4.2.2.18. Sample 18. Bandar Sharafkhane…………………………..184
4.2.2.19. Sample 19. Ash…………………………………………….185
4.2.2.20. Sample 20. Dizi………….…………………………………186
4.2.2.21. Sample 21. Bonab Kabab-I………………………………..187
4.2.2.22. Sample 22. Dooshab……………………………………….187
4.2.2.23. Sample 23. Roosta-YE Girmizi Gol…………………………..188
4.2.2.24. Sample 24. Kalagaei……………………………………….188
4.2.2.25. Sample 25. Gelim…………………………………….……189
4.2.2.26. Sample 26. Jajim…………………………………………..189
4.2.2.27. Sample 27. Tikme Dash……………………………………190
4.2.2.28. Sample 28. Gara Aghaj…………………………………….190
4.2.2.29. Sample 29. Roosta-YE Ivand………………………….…..191
4.2.2.30. Sample 30. Ajabshir………….……………………………191
4.2.2.31. Sample 31. Abesh Ahmad……………….…………………192
4.2.2.32. Sample 32. Sujug………………………………………….192

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب(به صورت کاملا تصادفی و به صورت نمونه) با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود-این مطالب صرفا برای دمو می باشد

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

4.2.2.33. Sample 33. Malekan…………….………………………….193
4.2.2.34. Sample 34. Miyaneh……………………………………….193
4.2.2.35. Sample 35. Hashtrood……………………………………..194
4.2.2.36. Sample 36. Osku…………………………………………..195
4.2.2.37. Sample 37. Jolfa……………………….…………………..195
4.2.2.38. Sample 38. Ahar……………………………………………196
4.2.2.39. Sample 39. Kaleybar………………………………………196
4.2.2.40. Sample 40. Shabestar………………………………………197
4.2.2.41. Sample 41. Marand………………………………………..197
4.2.2.42. Sample 42. Herris………………….………………………199
4.2.2.43. Sample 43. Azar Shahr……………………….…………….199
4.2.2.44. Varzgun……………………………………………….……199
4.2.2.45. Sample 45. Bostan Abad………….……………………….200
4.2.2.46. Sample 46. Hadi Shahr……………………….…………….200
4.2.2.47. Sample 47. Katibe Urartu-YEE Seqendil………………….201
4.2.2.48. Sample 48. Shir Yeki Pich Bafi……………………………201
4.2.2.49. Sample 49. Bonab………………………………………….202
4.2.2.50. Sample 50. Maraghe……………………………………….202
4.2.2.51. Sample 51. Char Oimagh………………………………….203
4.2.2.52. Sample 52. Sarab………………………………….……….203
4.2.2.53. Sample 53. Tabriz………………………………………….204
4.2.2.54. Sample 54. Tasooj…………………….……………………204
4.2.2.55. Sample 55. Ilkhechi……………………………….……….205
4.2.3. Art and Cultural Culture Specific Items…………..………………….205
4.2.3.1. Sample 1. Nowruz………………………………….……….206
4.2.3.2. Sample 2. Golshan-E Raz…………………………………..206
4.2.4. Ethnic Culture Specific Items…………………………..…………….207
4.2.4.1. Sample 1. Bagher Khan (1861-1916)……………………….207
4.2.4.2. Sample 2. Sattar Khan (1865-1915)………….……………..208
4.2.4.3.Sample3.Shaikh Mohammad Khiabani(1878-1910)…………208
4.2.4.4. Sample 4. Sayyid Mohammad Hussein Shahriyar (1905 – 1988)…………………………………………………………………………………………209
4.2.4.5.Sample 5.Prof.Mohsen Hashtroodi(1907-1977)…………….209
4.2.4.6. Sample 6. Parvin Etesami (1906-1941)…………………….210
4.2.4.7.Sample 7.Mirza Hassan Roshdieh(1865-1963)……………..210
4.2.4.8. Sample 8. Allameh Mohammad Taghi Jaffari………………211
4.2.4.9. Sample 9. Jabbar Baghchebun (1885-1966)………………..211
4.2.4.10. Sample 10. Rassum Arabzadeh (1914-1986)………….…..212
4.2.4.11.Sample11.Abu Mozaffar Jahan Shah-e Garagoyunlu……….212
4.2.4.12. Sample 12. Sultan Mahmud Ghazan Khan………………..213
4.2.4.13. Sample 13. Kamal-iddin Masoud Khojandi………….……213
4.2.4.14. Sample 14. Kamal-iddin Behzad Harati…………………..213
4.2.4.15. Sample 15. Khasta Ghasim………………………………..214
4.2.4.16. Sample 16. Sheikh Mahmud Shabestari…………………..214
4.2.4.17. Sample 17. Ohadi Maragheie………….…………………..215
4.2.4.18. Sample 18. Mirza Mohammad Ali Ghuchani……………..215
4.2.4.19. Sample 19. Babak Khorramdin…………….………………216
4.2.4.20. Sample 20. Abu-Al-Ghasem Nabati……………………….216
4.2.4.21. Sample 21. Segat-ol-Islam…………………………………217
4.2.4.22. Sultan Mahmud Mojalled…………………….…………….217
4.2.4.23.Sample23.Nizam-iddin Sultan Mohammad Naghash………218
4.2.4.24. Sample 24. Mowlana Mashrabi Shervani………………….218
4.2.4.25. Sample 25. Samad Behrangi……………………………….218
4.2.5. Socio-Political Culture Specific Items………………………..……….219
4.3. Discussions………………………………………………………………………220
Chapter Five: Conclusion………………..……………………………………….………….226
5.1. Overview………………………………………………………………………..226
5.2. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..227
5.3. Suggestions for Further Studies…………………………………………………229
References………………………………………………………………………..………….232
List of Tables
Table 2.1.7.1. Nida’s Defenitions of Good and Bad Translation……………………………..52
List of Figures
Figure 4.3.1. Eastern Azarbaijan Culture Specific Items Translation According to Domestication and Foreigniation……………………………………………………………220
Figure 4.3.2. Geographical Culture Specific Items in Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism Texts….221
Figure 4.3.3. Ethnographic Culture Specific Items in Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism Texts….222
Figure 4.3.4. Art and Cultural Culture Specific Items in Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism Texts………………………………………………………………………………………….223
Figure 4.3.5. Ethnic Culture Specific Items in Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism Texts…………224
Figure 4.3.6. All of the Eastern Azarbaijan Culture Specific Items According to Domestication and Foreignization…………………………………………………………..225
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. Overview
First of all, in this section, the researcher tends to describe a little about the theory that is applied in this thesis to evaluate the translation of culture specific items in Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism Texts.
One of the key issues in the recent translation theories has been on whether the translator should remain invisible. The term invisibility describes the extent to which certain translation traditions tolerate the presence (i.e. intrusion, intervention) of the translator in the translation (Hatim,2001,45). This term originated in the works of Lawrence Venuti, himself a literary translator since the late 1970s. Venuti suggests that “invisibility” reveals itself in two related phenomena: The “effect of discourse”, that is, the translator’s use of language; A “practice of reading” or the way translations are received and evaluated (Venuti,1995,1).
A translation from one literary language into another one normally involves three transfers: from one natural language into another one; from one time into another; from one cultural milieu into another one (Hochel,1991,41).
Those transfers can result in an invisible (domesticating) translation where the target text is perceived as if it was originally written in the target language, within the target culture and for the contemporary audience. They can also result in a Foreignizing translation, which makes it obvious to the reader that the original literary work belonged to a different language, age and culture.
Hatim defines domestication as “an approach to translation which, in order to combat some of the “alienating” effects of the foreign text, tends to promote a transparent, fluent style”.
Foreignization is “a translation strategy which deliberately breaks target linguistic and cultural conventions by retaining some of the “foreignness” of the source text” (Hatim,2001,46).
The German philosopher and theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher formulated the distinction between the two strategies most emphatically. In his 1813 lecture on the different methods of translation Schleiermacher argued that “there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him.” (Schleiermacher,1963). Thus every translator has to choose between a domesticating method and a foreignizing method. The first one is “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bringing the author back home”, and the second one is “an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad” (Ibid,20). Further on in this thesis I will show that most translations actually achieve a certain compromise, domesticating the text in some aspects and foreignizing it in others.
Venuti (1995) shows that Anglo-American literary history has been for a long time dominated by domesticating theories – that recommend fluent translating. As France (2000,9) points out, domestication ‘has long been, and still remains, an essential criterion for judging the success of a translation’. For many British readers the model of good writing was provided by such works as Fowler’s Modern English Usage or The King’s English. Those works declared their preference for the familiar over the far-fetched, the concrete over the abstract, the single word over the circumlocution, the short word over the long, Saxon word over the Romance. If one accepted a given stylistic doctrine as possessing general validity, then translations could be all judged by their conformity to conservative literary taste (Ibid,9).
Venuti (1995) defines domesticating translation as a replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that is intelligible to the target language reader. Foreignizing translation is defined as a translation that indicates the linguistic and cultural differences of the text by disrupting the cultural codes that prevail in the target language. Other scholars, like Tymoczko (1999), criticize this dichotomy by pointing out that a translation may be radically oriented to the source text in some respects, but depart radically from the source text in other respects, thus denying the existence of the single polarity that describes the orientation of a translation.
This thesis is going to explore the relationship between foreignization and domestication in translations of culture specific items in Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism Texts from Persian language into English language.
Secondly, we want to give some information about Tourism itself, and introduce Tourism Industry and give some statistics about Tourism industry briefly.
Tourism is travel for recreational, leisure or business purposes. The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people “traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for no more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes”.
Tourism has become a popular global leisure activity. In 2011, there were over 983 million international tourist arrivals worldwide, representing a growth of 4.6% when compared to 940 million in 2010. International tourism receipts (the travel item of the balance of payments) grew to US$1.03 trillion (€740 billion) in 2011, corresponding to an increase in real terms of 3.8% from 2010 (UN-WTO).
Tourism is important, and in some cases, vital for many countries. It was recognized in the Manila Declaration on World Tourism of 1980 as “an activity essential to the life of nations because of its direct effects on the social, cultural, educational and economic sectors of national societies and on their international relations.” Tourism brings in large amounts of income in payment for goods and services available, accounting for 30% of the world’s exports of services, and 6% of overall exports of goods and services. It also creates opportunities for employment in the service sector of the economy, associated with tourism.
Thanks to the possibilities, tourism industry and cultural differences can become an important source for social developments because it comes to represent the value upon which tourists experiences gains their social senses (Salvatore,2009).
Thirdly, we are going to describe Eastern Azarbaijan Province and give brief information about this land of beauties such as area, population, climate and the like.
The Eastern Azarbaijan Province in an area of 45490.88 sq. km. and with the population of 3325400 people is located in the northwest of Iran plateau. The province has 19 counties (Shahrestan). Tabriz a city with a long historical background, is the capital city in the province (Islami,2001,3).
Eastern Azarbaijan Province, being a part in the large plateau of Iran, has both mountainous and flat lands, enjoying various climates. The climate is influenced by the Meditteranian cold climate and the moist weather of the Caspian Sea. Because of this the weather is always changing through the cold, mild, warm and rarely dank conditions (Ibid,3).
Azarbaijan is a cradle for the civilization, culture and arts. It has introduced some outstanding figures to the world of science and arts, all of whom have been honors to the Iranian history (Ibid,3).
Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism Texts are texts loaded with culture-specific items. To achieve the goals of tourism industry, these guide texts should show off the specific zone with all its aspects. Culture specific items are the most important aspects that these guide texts should render appropriately to get more tourists, to get the tourists familiar with them and importantly, to globalize them.
Tourist discourse can be considered a specialized type of cross-cultural communication. Translator’s task is not that of demonstrating his/her knowledge on specific subjects, as, rather, their capacity of mediating it, so as to make it available to types of tourists who are necessarily different from that targeted by the original work. Hence, translators should learn to dose the amount of information tourists will be able to take in. (Agorni,2012,5)
The language of tourism has recently become a productive field of research, stimulating work in various fields, such as cultural studies, discourse analysis and specialized discourse, to name just a few. Yet, in spite of the fact that several linguistic approaches are currently focusing on the analysis of specific genres and text types which could make popular texts such as those adopted in the tourist field into objects of special attention – research on tourism in a translation perspective is still a relatively recent development (Agorni,2012,6).
Domesticating and foreignizing strategies are popular in translation studies and each of them has their own advantages and disadvantages in translating tourist texts. The advantages for domesticating include maintaining the terseness of the text, obtaining the reader‘s understanding of the translated text, and gaining the interest of the reader. Its biggest weakness is that the cultural and historical elements of the original text could be lost in translation. The advantages for Foreignizing are revealing the cultural and historical factors of the Source Text (ST), and disseminating the culture and customs of the original. Its disadvantages are neglecting the reader’s understanding, and the function of attracting the tourists may be lost (Sanning,2010,124).
1.2. Statement of the Problem
It is known that culture is the integrated pattern of human knowledge, beliefs, and behavior that is both a result of and integral to the human capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. Culture thus consists of language, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes, institutions, tools, techniques, works of art, rituals, ceremonies and symbols. (Stevens et al,2008,430).
Tourist attractions are often deeply rooted in the culture of a country. Every society, on every level, has its own culture influenced by its history and geography. Therefore the aim of tourist text translating should not be only to perform cultural rendering but also to translate culture specific items from Persian to English.
The domesticating strategy was first put forward by Schleimacher,(1838/1963,47) and developed by Lawrence Venuti (1995,19-20). It “entails translating in a transparent, fluent and invisible style in order to minimize the foreignness of the TT.” (Munday,2001,146). In the West, “the domesticating strategies have been implemented at least since ancient Rome.” “Such strategies find their strongest and most influential advocates in the French and English translation traditions, particularly during the early modern period.” (Baker,2001.240-244).
This is because, in our view, they share many more similarities such as beliefs, traditions, habits, etc. than they do with Asians. Therefore Western scholars and translators prefer to apply domesticating strategies to render texts. They are also used when translating between Persian and English. For instance, the translation of the place name “Poets Corner” for “Magbarat – al – Shoara ((مقبره الشعرا”, is a typical example of domesticating.
“Foreignizing entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language.” (Venuti,1995,242&Baker,2001,242). As far as the Foreignizing strategy is concerned, we believe that it should focus on the cultural and historical factors underlying the tourist text.
One should stick to culture-specific strategies when translating such texts. In principle, faithfulness is the top priority when translating tourist texts. This is because such translations should be faithful to the central ideas of the SL text, such as cultural background, historical facts, geographical settings, aesthetic values, fabricated attractions and natural landscapes (Sanning,2010,129). As far as Persian texts are concerned, it is primarily a Foreignizing strategy that is employed in order to maintain faithfulness, According to Venuti (1995,240-244), “strategies in producing translations inevitably emerge in response to domestic cultural situations. But some are deliberately domesticating in their handling of the foreign text, while others can be described as Foreignizing, motivated by an impulse to preserve linguistic and cultural differences by deviating from prevailing domestic values.” In actual translation, we usually use the transliteration to translate the local meals and foods. The translation of a meal name “Kuku” for “Kuku(کوکو)” is a typical example of Foreignizing.
1.3. Purpose of the Study
Through this study we will concentrate on culture specific items that are available in the tourism text guides of Eastern Azarbaijan and English translation of them to evaluate whether the English equivalences of the Culture Specific Items are domesticated and/or foreignized.
For this aim we will select the culture specific items through geographic formations, man-made geographical objects, flora and fauna that are special to a certain place, foods and drinks, clothing, places of living, furniture, pots, vehicles, names of occupations and tools, music and dance, musical instruments, books, feasts, games, rituals and their characters, names of people, nicknames and the likes from Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism guide texts.
We hope this study serves better translation of culture specific items in the tourism guide texts of Eastern Azarbaijan and showing off the culture of this Land of Beauties to foreign tourists and at last to the foreign countries.
1.4. Significance of the Study
Tourism guide texts are texts loaded with culture-specific items. It is important to transmit the message adequately, or it may lead to loss of business. The objective of the present study is to examine different translation techniques, named domestication and foreignization applied in the English section of the Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism guide texts with a special focus on culture-specific items.
1.5. Research Questions and Hypothesis
1.5.1. Research Questions
This study aims to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent, translators applied domestication strategy to translate the culture specific items into English?
2. To what extent, translators applied foreignization strategy to translate the culture specific items into English?
3. What is the major strategy for translating Eastern Azarbaijan culture specific items into English?
1.5.2. Research Hypotheses
By tying up the general nature of a translation with the meaning values of culture specific items in the ST and TT, the study set out to test the following three inter-related hypotheses:
1. Translators of Eastern Azarbaijan tourism texts applied less domestication strategy to translate the culture specific items into English.
2. Translators of Eastern Azarbaijan tourism texts applied more foreignization strategy to translate the culture specific items into English.
3. Foreignizing translation is the major strategy for translating Eastern Azarbaijan culture specific items into English with domestication as a supplement.
1.6. Definition of key terms
1.6.1. Translation
There are lots of various explanations and definitions matching this wide used term that some of them are:
“Translation always implies an unstable balance between the power one culture can exert over another. Translation is not the production of one text equivalent to another text, but rather a complex process of rewriting that runs parallel both to the overall view of language and of the “Other” people have throughout history; and to the influences and the balance of power that exist between one culture and another.” (Alvarez&Vidal,1996,4)
In another definition, Hatim and Mason (1997) have expressed the term “Translation” as: “translation is “an act of communication” permanently dealing with at least two different languages along with a broad network of elements including cultural, historical, political and ideological differences.”(Hatim&Mason,1997)
1.6.2. Cultural Translation
Cultural translation refers to a dynamic process where everyone and everything that is a part of the interaction in translation undergo change, where notions are constructed about other cultures and about oneself (Sanning,2010,124).
1.6.3. Domestication
Domestication entails translating in a transparent and fluent, invisible style in order to minimize the foreignness of the TT (Sanning,2010,127).
1.6.4. Foreignization
Foreignizing entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language (Sanning,2010,128).
1.7. Limitations and Delimitations
1.7.1. Limitations
There are some limitations in the process of this study: one major problem is that access to some books and resources are very difficult and some of them are not found. Another problem is that before this we have few articles that have done research about the cultural aspects of tourism guide texts based on Venuti’s domestication and foreignization theory.
1.7.2. Delimitations
The present research is going to study the translation of culture specific items in Eastern Azarbaijan Tourism guide texts from Persian to English based on Venuti’s domestication and foreignization theory.
1.8. Theoretical Framework
Domestication and foreignization are two basic translation strategies which provide both linguistic and cultural guidance. They are termed by American translation theorist L.Venuti. According to Venuti, the former refers to “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, brings the author back home,” while the latter is “an ethno deviant pressure on those (cultural) values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad” (Venuti,1995,20).
Generally speaking, domestication designates the type of translation in which a transparent, fluent style is adopted to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for target language readers, while foreignization means a target text is produced which deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original (Shuttleworth&Cowie,1997,59).
Chapter Two: Review of the Related Literature
2.1. History of the Theory of Translation
Venuti describes the history of translation theory as a set of changing relationships between the translator’s actions and the concepts of equivalence and function. Equivalence is defined as a “variable notion” of the connection between the original text and its translation and function is “a variable notion” of how the translated text is connected to the receiving language and culture (Venuti,2000b,5).
A diachronic study of translation history undoubtedly requires a period classification. George Steiner (1975) believes that the whole history of translation theory could be divided into four periods. In the first period, seminal analyses and pronouncements stem directly from the enterprise of the translator. The period started with Cicero’s and Horace’s statements on translation and finished with Alexander Fraser Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation (1792). All the analyses and beliefs during that period stemmed from the practical work of translating, thus the central characteristic of the period is that of “immediate empirical focus”. The 18th century finished with a relatively coherent body of theory (the first systematic study of translation processes in English by Tytler), whose rationalistic character and empiricism was its downfall in the Romantic climate (Kelly,1979,224). Tytler advocated that translation should have the ease of original composition and respect English literary decorum and therefore praised Pope’s expurgation of Homer. By the end of the 18th century the preference in translation theory was clearly given to fluent translation.
According to Steiner, the second period of the history of translation theory began with Schleiermacher’s lecture Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens (1813). Schleiermacher advocated the method of “moving the reader to the author”, preserving the peculiarities of the foreign text. Schlegel and Humboldt saw different languages as immeasurable in their individuality and continued Schleiermacher’s approach of inter-lingual transfer as a problem of understanding speech acts and emphasizing with the source text. If during the first period translation was seen as a means to appropriate texts, Romantics rather saw it as a way to enrich the readers by enabling them to appreciate the difference of other cultures.
The third period started in 1940s with the publication of first papers on machine translation as well as the application of structural linguistics and statistics to translation. There was little understanding of one group of theorists or translators by another. One can say that different translation theories developed in response to specific situations: for instance, Americans (like Nida) developed translation theory in the context of anthropological research and Christian missionary activity, the English to fit the needs of colonial administration (Kelly,1979,225). It is therefore hardly a coincidence that towards the end of the period Savory concluded that the experts in translation theory had “bequeathed to us a welter of confused thought” (Savory,1957,49). Unlike during the first two periods, the emphasis was not on translating literary texts but rather on transmitting information from one language into another, so the most important issue was how to make this information clear to the target reader.
The essential feature of Steiner’s fourth stage is consolidation of theory, a combined interdisciplinary effort to understand the process of life between languages. The fourth period started in the beginning of the 1960s with the works of Mounin, Nida and Catford. The arguments began between those who believed that anything could be translated into any language and those who insisted that nothing could be translated at all, and Humboldt’s ideas about the uniqueness of every language were “rediscovered”, therefore preserving this uniqueness was seen as important once again. It is during this period that “classical philology and comparative literature, lexical statistics and ethnography, the sociology of class-speech, formal rhetoric, poetics, and the study of grammar” are combined in an attempt to clarify the act of translation and the process of “life between languages” (Steiner,1975,238).
As Bassnett (1991) points out, it will always be difficult to study translation theory diachronically, since the first period covers the span of about 1700 years whilst the last two periods cover thirty years (Hedger,2006). Nevertheless, there are certain concepts of translation that have prevailed at different stages of literary history.
2.1.1. Domestication in Early Translation in England
During the Middle Ages English was initially marginalized as a literary medium in comparison with the languages used for learning (Latin) and polite culture (French). Ellis shows that it was Chaucer’s decision to write only in English that proved crucial for future developments of English literary culture and translations of the late 14th- early 15th centuries were characterized by an aggressive self-confidence about the adequacy of the English language for the translation of texts from other languages. Before Chaucer hardly anyone in England had defended translation. Chaucer did so in his prologues to Book II of Troilus and the Astrolabe (“natheless suffice to the these trewe conclusions in English as well as sufficith to these noble clerkes Grekes these same conclusions in Grek”). Trevisa provided his Polychronicon with two prologues, the first a spirited defense of vernacular translation, the second a description of some of his distinctive practices (Ellis,2000,42-43). The fantasy for some early English translators was that one day the tables would be turned and Latin would be considered just a stiff aid for learning English (Boutcher,2000,46).
During the period starting from Henry VIII’s reign great classical books were introduced to the country, which was from the literary point of view still backward but whose language was fresh and vigorous (Cohen,1962,9). During that time translators worked in cultural conditions diametrically opposed to modern ones. For then virtually nobody outside the British Isles ever dreamt of needing to learn English. Modern translators, on the other hand, are conscious that English has become the world’s lingua franca, the vehicle of a great body of classical English and modern Anglophone literature, in the way that Latin was before. They are mainly translating for people, who will never see or read a copy of the “original” book, who will take translation for the original (Boutcher,2000,50).
The arrival of great English literature in the 16th century was made possible due to translated and indigenous works in English which unlearned gentlemen and courtly ladies could consume by the 1690s: Shakespeare, for instance, worked from the sources of comparatively recent Italian writers, such as Giovanni Boccaccio, and in writing his historical plays he drew largely from Sir Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Matthiessen (1931,3) says that a study of Elizabethan translations is a study of the means by which the Renaissance came to England. Translators were creating the literary English language, accommodating continental literature to particular “local” circumstances in England. Conscious of their cultural inferiority to the continent, they brought foreign books into the English language “with all the enthusiasm of a contest” (Ibid,3).

دسته بندی : پایان نامه

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید