1Lambert & Van Gorp Manipulation Studies Text

Become a member of TranslationDirectory.com at just 8 EUR/month (paid per year)

---

In the 1970s a literary approach to translation theory began to emerge, partly as a response to the prescriptive linguistic theories that had monopolized thinking for the previous two decades. Key elements of this new literary approach are the writings of the Manipulation School; systems theories; and Gideon Toury’s descriptive translation studies (DTS), which tries to identify laws in translation, of which Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory (PS) forms a vital part (Nam Fung Chang). At the Leuven Conference in 1976, Even-Zohar presented a paper entitled “The Position of Translated Literature in the Literary Polysystem” where he considers the position of translated literature within the literary, cultural and historical contexts of the target culture. He does not advocate the study of individual translations, but rather views the body of translated works as a system working within and reacting to a literary system, which, in turn, is working within and reacting to the historical, social and cultural systems of the particular target audience. Therefore, there is a system within a system within a system i.e. the polysystem.

The notion of “system” does, perhaps, need some clarification at this point. Literature viewed as a system can be traced back to Russian Formalist thinking of the 1920s when Yury Tynjanov is credited with being the first person to describe literature in these terms (Hermans, 1999, 104). Translated literature itself is also considered to operate as a system in at least two ways – firstly in the way that the TL chooses works for translation, and secondly in the way translation methodology varies according to the influence of other systems (Munday, 2001 109). Even-Zohar himself emphasizes the fact that translated literature functions systemically: “I conceive of translated literature not only as an integral system within any literary polysystem but as an active system within it.” (1976, 200).

PS functions as a system on the level of a series of relationships between apparent opposites. These are:

- canonized (high) and non-canonized (low) forms, which opens the door for the consideration of detective and children’s stories and their role in translation

- centre and periphery

- primary (innovative) and secondary (stagnant) models

- ST and TT

- Translated and non-translated texts (Hermans, 1999, 42).

The key idea of PS is that there is a continual repositioning of genres in relation to each other, “a continual struggle for power between various interest groups” (Hermans, 1999, 42), which helps give rise to the dynamic nature of literature. If literature is to remain vibrant, it needs to be in a constant state of fluctuation, with established, canonized forms being constantly nudged and eventually replaced by newer, more innovative, peripheral models. Therefore, translated literature does not occupy a fixed position in a literary system because the system itself is in a constant state of change, although Even-Zohar proposes that the secondary position is really the normal position for translated literature (Munday, 2001, 110). However, even though change to the core comes from the peripheral, new literary forms, when translated literature occupies this position, it is generally perceived to be fairly conservative, working within the confines of the target culture.

Even-Zohar does insist that there are occasions when translated literature forms part of the nucleus, and it is then that the boundaries between translated and original literature begin to merge, being virtually indistinguishable from one another (Even-Zohar, 1976, 200). There are three possible scenarios when this may occur:

1) When an emerging literature from a relatively new culture adopts translations from more established literatures in order to fill the gaps that exist within its own system, due to it being unable to instantly create a wide range of text types and genres. Translated literature introduces features and techniques that did not previously exist, such as new poetic structures.

2) When a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of a larger nation it may rely on imported literature from the dominant culture in order to keep its literary system dynamic, as well as being possibly the only source available for the creation of new genres, for example Breton culture in Brittany may rely heavily on literary styles from France in order o fill the gaps that exist in its own literary system.

3) When there are turning points in literary history, such as when established forms lose popularity or when there is no existing model. This could conceivably be the role that Harry Potter occupies in Chinese Mandarin.

There are also occasions when translated literature can occupy both a central position and a peripheral position within a literary system.  This may occur when major social changes are taking place. Even-Zohar exemplifies this with the role of translated literature in Israel in the early 1900s when literature from Russian into Hebrew was more dominant than translations from English, German or Polish (Munday, 2001, 110; Even-Zohar, 1976, 202).

Having briefly discussed the theoretical workings of the polysystem approach, it now remains to be seen how it affects translation methodology.  Even-Zohar says that when a translated work occupies the central position, it is generally strong in itself and doesn’t need to conform to target culture conventions. The translator doesn’t try to adapt to TL models, staying close to the original ST. If the position of translated literature is weak, the reverse trend occurs. The translator tends to adopt more features from the target culture, so the translation becomes target culture dominant, often providing a less than satisfactory translation (Even-Zohar, 1976, 203-204; Munday, 2001, 110).

PS is important because it moves translation away from the traditional ST-TT linguistic comparisons of shift and equivalence towards the viewing of translation in a social, cultural and historical context. There is also a change from the study of individual texts as a systemic approach tries to uncover the universal laws and principles that govern translation.  It is also quite significant because it can be applied to other systems other than literary systems, such as television programming and politics, making the system itself universal.

PS has been widely criticized on a number of issues:

- Gentzler questions Even-Zohar’s objectivity, claims that the universal laws are too abstract, criticizes the level of input and the relevance of Russian Formalism, and states that little thought has been given to limitations placed on translation and texts (Munday, 2001, 111).

- Berman condemns Even-Zohar’s proposition that translated literature generally occupies a role of secondary importance in the target culture because “it downplays their creative and formative aspect” (Hermans, 1999, 154). Berman also thinks that translated literature remains a separate entity within the target culture.

- Susan Bassnett thinks that comments describing target literature as “young”, “weak”, “vacuum”, etc are highly subjective.  Subjectivity also dominates the definition as to what constitutes canonized and non-canonized literature. She questions the abstract nature of the theory which tends to neglect concrete examples while, at the same time, wondering whether the theory has progressed much beyond the ideas of Russian Formalism of the 1920s (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998: 127 in Hermans, 1999, 109).

- André Lefevere claims that Even-Zohar is presumptuous in his claim that the systems he describes actually exist, condemns the nature of the theory, and describes the terms “primary” and “secondary” as “superfluous” (Hermans, 1999, 125).

- Philippe Codde believes that PS has become outdated as other systemic theories are presented as alternatives (2003, 26).

- Theo Hermans argues against one of Even-Zohar’s most fundamental principles by saying that the target culture may not necessarily select the ST. He cites the example of the period of European colonization when France and England were seen to be “dumping literary items on a colonized population” (1999, 111). He also claims that the series of binary opposites that constitute the polysystem theory doesn’t take into account those factors that are not diametrically opposed.

While PS could be seen as offering an intellectual approach to translation, I believe that it remains far too abstract in its presentation because it does not provide concrete evidence, it does not venture into specifics, or offer functioning examples. No mention is made of the concept of overt and covert translations (this comes later), although Even-Zohar says that it is difficult to differentiate translated literature from original when placed in the central position.

Gideon Toury worked with Even-Zohar before moving on to develop his own general theory of translation. In his “Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond” (1995), he calls for a systematic approach to translation rather than the study of individual cases. Firstly, he acknowledges that translation occupies a place in the social and literary system of the target culture, therefore recognizing polysystems. He proposes a three-phase TT-oriented methodology:

1) Consider the text in terms of the target culture to determine its significance and acceptability.

2) Compare segments of the ST and TT to determine the linguistic relationship, by mapping the TT onto the ST to find “coupled pairs”. (This point is controversial because the choice of segments would be subjective).

3) Distinguish trends, make generalizations, identify norms, and draw conclusions for future decision-making.

This allows for the creation of a profile for the genre, period and author. He argues for successive descriptions through time and concurrent descriptions of the various recognized genres in society (Gaddis Rose, 1997, 5-10). From this framework, and from comments made by publishers, reviewers and translators themselves, norms can be determined, which show up regularities and trends.

Toury sees different kinds of norms in action during various stages of the translation process. The first kind is the “initial norm” where the norm shifts either towards the ST or the TT. If the shift is more towards the ST, the TT is described as adequate. If the shift is towards the TT, the ST is described as acceptable. This is an interesting concept because Toury himself says that no translation is ever totally adequate or acceptable (57). He describes other norms:

1) Preliminary norms, which vary depending on translation policy, whether translation occurs, choice of text, and directness of translation.

2) Operational norms, which describe the presentation and linguistic nature of the TT.  This involves matricial norms that refer to the TT as a whole, such as the addition of footnotes and passages, or the omission or relocation of passages; and textual-linguistic norms that cover language and stylistic features.

Through the identification of norms, Toury hopes to formulate translation laws. The first law he proposes is “the law of growing standardization”(267-274), which refers to the loss of source language variations and features as the TT is made to conform to target language standards. The second law is “the law of interference” where ST norms are translated as such in the TT. This refers to such things as ST syntax being transferred across to the TT, making it “read like a translation.” This relates back to polysystems, because a target language is more likely to accept source language syntax if the position of translated literature is in the centre of the polysystem.

Toury’s work has been widely discussed:

- Gentzler (1993, 133-134) says that it has had a major impact on translation studies because it has now moved away from a one-on-one analysis, it considers literary tendencies in the target culture, an original message can be conveyed in different ways, and it considers both ST and TT in their own cultural systems. However, he thinks that it does over generalize.

- Hermans thinks that it overlooks the status of the ST in the source culture, and doesn’t believe it is possible to find all of the variables and laws that apply to translation. He also dislikes the terms “adequate” and “acceptable” because of other connotations, preferring the terms “ST-oriented” and “TT-oriented”.

- Munday (1997) says that “the law of interference” needs to consider the effects of patterning. He also says that there is a need for clarity and an attempt to avoid ambiguity in the TT.

Although Toury claims that his norms are descriptive, Andrew Chesterman (1997) states that the very concept of norms makes them prescriptive. Chesterman proposes an alternative set of norms:

1) Product or expectancy norms are what the reader would expect from a translated text in regards to fluency and readability.

2) Professional norms are those that “regulate the translation process” (1997, 67). There are three types of professional norms – the accountability norm that deals with professional standards of integrity, the communication norm that aims to ensure communication between all the parties involved, and the relation norm that deals with the ST/TT linguistic relationship.

In 1976, 1978 and 1980 The International Comparative Literature Association held meetings and conferences around the world on the subject of translated literature. The main outcome was a publication entitled “The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation” edited by Theo Hermans.  It viewed literature as dynamic and complex, and called for more interaction between theoretical models and practical case studies. The main issue was how to proceed with the case studies. In 1985 José Lambert and Hendrik van Gorp produced a paper called “On Describing Translations” which proposes a scheme to compare ST and TT literary systems and the relationships between the author, text and reader. There are four sections to their scheme:

1) Preliminary data, which includes information on the title page, in the preface, and any other information about the translation.

2) The macro level, which deals with the way the text is divided, the title, chapters and structure.

3) The micro level, which investigates linguistic shifts.

4) Systemic context involves a comparison of micro and macro levels, and text and theory, leading to the identification of norms.

Lambert and van Gorp do not believe that it is possible to determine all of the relationships involved in translation, but they do emphasize the fact that all translations and translators are inextricably linked to each other.

BIBLIOGAPHY

Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997.

Codde, Philippe. “Polysystem Theory Revisited: A New Comparative Introduction.”  pp 25-37
Poetics Today. Vol.24, No.1, Spring 2003.

Even-Zohar, Itamar. “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem.” 1976.
In Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader. (2^nd Edition)
New York: Routledge, 2000. pp 199-204

Gaddis Rose, M. Translation and Literary Criticism. Manchester: St Jerome, 1997.

Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Theories. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.

Hermans, T. Translation in Systems. Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St Jerome, 1999.

Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications.
London: Routledge, 2001.

Nam Fung Chang. “The Cultural Turn of Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystems Studies
Promises and Problems.” www.art.man.ac.uk

Toury, G. Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995

poly system theories

A theory that seeks to establish scientifically the cultural laws and conditions governing literary production, polysystem theory is also a theory of culture. Developed by Itamar Even-Zohar (1990) of the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics at Tel Aviv University in response to problems concerning translation, polysystem theory is grounded in Russian formalism, especially in the work of Victor Shklovsky (1893–1984), Jurij Tynjanov (1894–1943), and Roman Jakobson (1896–1982). Even-Zohar regards such work as instances of what he calls dynamic functionalism or dynamic structuralism, as opposed to the static functionalism of Saussurean structuralism. The theory starts out from the semiotic premise that a culture is less a unified, monolithic entity than a system composed of various internal systems—hence, “polysystem.” Literature belongs to and indeed forms one such system, but because of the interrelatedness of the cultural polysystem, literature cannot be considered in isolation from other systems, as they function both synchronically and diachronically within the culture and in relation to the literary system. Polysystem theory is concerned less with investigating what constitutes literature than with how and why certain kinds of literary work come into or go out of favor; it also explores the relationships between various kinds of literary products and between these and other aspects of the polysystem. It is thus as concerned to explore questions of transfer, translation, and cultural or literary interference as it is to identify the nature and extent of the literary system itself.

The individual system can be seen as a replica in miniature of the entire polysystem. (In fact, polysystem theory allows for divergences in structure between system and polysystem, depending on historical factors.) As in conventional Marxist theory, a primary postulate is that this system—which we will assume to be the literary system, though it might indeed be any of a culture's multiple systems—is stratified rather than homogeneous. However, while Marxist theory connects the distinctions between “high” and “low” culture with the social means of production and the consequent division of people into classes defined by their relations to the means of production (as owners, workers, sellers, buyers, and so on), polysystem theory considers culture to have a center dominated by a group that establishes an official ideology. This ideology in turn influences the various systems within the polysystem by affecting their respective centers. Stratification in polysystem theory is thus like that of rings in a cross section of a tree trunk, rather than vertical stratification as seen in conventional Marxist theories of culture.

Systems within the polysystem may be imagined as distributed between the center of the polysystem and its periphery. Those at the center dominate and control the polysystem and thus both provide and govern its official ideologies and practices, while those toward the periphery represent alternative or marginal systems. The whole structure of the polysystem, however, is dynamic in that noncentral systems will tend to attempt to take over the center, whereas more central ones will tend to defend their positions, either by excluding or marginalizing the others or by appropriating them and converting them into agencies for central ideology and practice. Thus, for instance, whereas fifty years ago “green” issues in the political system or issues concerning health foods, organic farming, and so on in the culture's provisioning system were largely perceived and treated as the preoccupations of eccentrics or extremists and hence peripheral, today those same issues have moved toward the center. Politically, “green” issues in many countries have become an identifiable threat to conventional (that is, central or official) politics concerned with industry, science, technology, and the exploitation of the land and its resources, so that representatives of conventional politics have often found it expedient to adopt “green” stances (that is, they appropriate a particular ideology already present within the political system). Culturally, the notions of health food and organic farming have been adopted by major food companies as a sort of slogan to help sell their products. The possibility of alternative methods of food production and processing has been adopted by and adapted to the central system of mass production and marketing of foodstuffs.

It is through the struggle of systems within the polysystem to attain and hold the center that the culture survives and evolves: a totally static polysystem is an extinct one. The same struggle is evidenced within individual systems, where different models representing the system are engaged in competition for the center. The model is not identical with an actual object or procedure but is rather an abstract bundle of possible features or codes that contributes to a system's repertoire. The repertoire, in turn, allows people in the culture to actualize these models as “real” (that is, tangible) products—in the literary polysystem, as actual texts.

Models come into existence and may be located at the center or toward the periphery of the appropriate system, depending on their consonance with the models dominant at the center and, beyond that, with the systems dominant at the center of the polysystem itself. They may be generative or nongenerative, depending on whether people in the culture adopt them to produce actual texts—if they do, they may in fact add features to or change the configuration of the model. Moreover, models or certain of their features may become canonized—that is, deemed as legitimate and worthy of preservation. Noncanonized norms and works are often forgotten, though canonization and noncanonization are descriptions, not valorizations.

Once a model (or its features) enters the system's repertoire and becomes stabilized through canonization and imitation, it ceases to be a primary type and becomes a secondary one. This is a distinction between innovation and conservation, the latter leading to the establishment of normative features for texts so that deviations are regarded as shocking or as tending to produce inferior texts. Traditional models of genre provide a useful instance of how models become secondary: the model for dramatic tragedy established by Aristotle in the Poetics, for instance, became canonized and later secondary in many European cultures, so that it was still possible in the eighteenth century to condemn a tragedy because it did not observe the Aristotelian model, which included the so-called unities of time, place, and action.

Canonical status is usually conferred by the group that controls the center of the polysystem and that therefore often determines the relative prestige of possible repertoires. Should that group fail to preserve its government of both polysystem and canonized repertoire, it will be replaced by another group, which will then usually introduce a different repertoire, with other canons. Epigonism, or inferior imitation, occurs when the older, displaced repertoire and canon continue to function as workable models for groups at the periphery. Canonized but no longer generative texts may reenter the repertoire at a later point in a culture's history, whereupon they serve rather as models for the generation of new texts.

Models may migrate from one system within the polysystem to another or even from one polysystem to another, depending on geographical contiguity or cultural contact. An interesting case is that of the epic narrative, whose canonized model, represented by Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, contains such major features as the narrating of significant events in a culture's history, its formulation as a story in verse, its vast spatial and temporal scope, and minor features such as accounts of the mustering of armies and descriptions of weapons. This model proved generative for many centuries, so that epic narrative poems continued to be written in a number of cultures during the Renaissance, often with revisions or renovations of various features that helped the form to regain primary status. Thereafter, however, with a few exceptions, the epic narrative poem became secondary, and by the nineteenth century such works as Victor Hugo's La légende des siècles are clearly epigonic imitations. By this time, though, prose had become foregrounded as a feature of epic narrative, enabling the production of prose fiction epics (for instance, Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, Hugo's Les misérables). Subsequently, the model was transferred to the theater system (for example, J. W. von Goethe's two-part play, Faust), from which it was launched into the music system, especially in opera (Richard Wagner's operatic cycle, Der Ring des Nibelungen) and, in the early decades of the twentieth century, into film (D. W. Griffiths's Intolerance, for instance, Cecil B. De Mille's various biblical extravaganzas, or, later, George Lucas's Star Wars trilogy). The prose model underwent a revival in the twentieth century, not only in national(ist) narratives such as Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind (probably better known as a film epic) but also in fantasy narratives, of which the primary instance is J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The epic narrative model thus provides an illuminating exemplification of the migration of a model within the literary system and the transfer of a model both to other systems within a cultural polysystem and to other polysystems.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/polysystem-theory#ixzz2vZGA2z9t

Descriptive translation studies and beyond

This title has been replaced by Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond: Revised edition (2012)

A replacement of the author's well-known book on Translation Theory, In Search of a Theory of Translation (1980), this book makes a case for Descriptive Translation Studies as a scholarly activity as well as a branch of the discipline, having immediate consequences for issues of both a theoretical and applied nature. Methodological discussions are complemented by an assortment of case studies of various scopes and levels, with emphasis on the need to contextualize whatever one sets out to focus on.

Part One deals with the position of descriptive studies within TS and justifies the author's choice to devote a whole book to the subject. Part Two gives a detailed rationale for descriptive studies in translation and serves as a framework for the case studies comprising Part Three. Concrete descriptive issues are here tackled within ever growing contexts of a higher level: texts and modes of translational behaviour — in the appropriate cultural setup; textual components — in texts, and through these texts, in cultural constellations. Part Four asks the question: What is knowledge accumulated through descriptive studies performed within one and the same framework likely to yield in terms of theory and practice?This is an excellent book for higher-level translation courses.

ttttttt

rertt

زبان شناسی۱

University HomeMyUCSCPeopleCalendarsA-Z Index

Search 

UC Santa Cruz homeLINGUISTICS

ABOUT

UNDERGRADUATE

GRADUATE

FACULTY

COURSES

RESEARCH 

Overview

Linguistics Research Center

Linguistics Labs

Reading and Research Groups

Faculty Collaboration

Conferences

Colloquia

Publications

Home » About » What is Linguistics?

About UCSC Linguistics

Bi-Annual Newsletter - Jan 2014

What is Linguistics?

Faculty Directory

Staff Directory

Department News & Events

Support the Department

Directions to the Department

UCSC VIsitor Information

Contact Information

What is Linguistics?

Each human language is a complex of knowledge and abilities enabling speakers of the language to communicate with each other, to express ideas, hypotheses, emotions, desires, and all the other things that need expressing. Linguistics is the study of these knowledge systems in all their aspects: how is such a knowledge system structured, how is it acquired, how is it used in the production and comprehension of messages, how does it change over time? Linguists consequently are concerned with a number of particular questions about the nature of language. What properties do all human languages have in common? How do languages differ, and to what extent are the differences systematic, i.e. can we find patterns in the differences? How do children acquire such complete knowledge of a language in such a short time? What are the ways in which languages can change over time, and are there limitations to how languages change? What is the nature of the cognitive processes that come into play when we produce and understand language?

The part of linguistics that is concerned with the structure of language is divided into a number of subfields:

Phonetics - the study of speech sounds in their physical aspects

Phonology - the study of speech sounds in their cognitive aspects

Morphology - the study of the formation of words

Syntax - the study of the formation of sentences

Semantics the study of meaning

Pragmatics - the study of language use

Aside from language structure, other perspectives on language are represented in specialized or interdisciplinary branches:

Historical Linguistics

Sociolinguistics

Psycholinguistics

Ethnolinguistics (or Anthropological Linguistics)

Dialectology

Computational Linguistics

Psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics

Because language is such a central feature of being a human, Linguistics has intellectual connections and overlaps with many other disciplines in the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. Some of the closest connections are with Philosophy, Literature, Language Pedagogy, Psychology, Sociology, Physics (acoustics), Biology (anatomy, neuroscience), Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Health Sciences (Aphasia, Speech Therapy).

The main purpose of the study of Linguistics in an academic environment is the advancement of knowledge. However, because of the centrality of language in human interaction and behavior, the knowledge gained through the study of linguistics has many practical consequences and uses. Graduates of undergraduate and graduate programs in Linguistics apply their training in many diverse areas, including language pedagogy, speech pathology, speech synthesis, natural language interfaces, search engines, machine translation, forensics, naming, and of course all forms of writing, editing, and publishing. Perhaps the most widely appreciated application was contributed by UCSC Linguistics alumnus Marc Okrand, who invented the Klingon language for Star Trek. 

HUMANITIES DIVISIONCONTACTLINGWEB @ UCSC . EDUUC SANTA CRUZ, 1156 HIGH STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95064

©2012 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

نرم افزارهای مترجمین

http://www.translationdirectory.com/free_software.php

phonotactics

هسته چطور مشخص شد؟ 

مقاله آی اس آی که در زمینه فلسفه چاپ کرده ایم

مقاله آی اس آی که در زمینه فلسفه چاپ کرده ایم

 لینک دانلود آن از سایت ژورنال

http://www.textroad.com/JBASR-March,%202013%281%29.html

 

لینک دانلود مستقیم

 

http://www.textroad.com/pdf/JBASR/J.%20Basic.%20Appl.%20Sci.%20Res.,%203%283%2916-20,%202013.pdf

دسته بندی :

مقایسه دو ترجمه از یک اثر

ترجمه یا تخریب؟ مقایسه دو ترجمه از یک اثر

داستان ṣThevery Hungry Caterpillar اثر نویسنده و تصویرگر هنرمند، اریک کارل،توسط دو مترجم‌ «کتایون صدرنیا1»،سال 1372 و «نوشین کمالوند2»،با بازنویسی‌ فاطمه نظری،در سال 1379 به‌ بازار نشر کودک و نوجوان آمده‌ است.

در این داستان روزهای هفته، شمارش اعداد و چگونگی‌ دگردیسی کرم ابریشم به پروانه‌ با کلام و تصویر:برای مخاطب‌ پیش‌دبستانی روایت می‌شود.

داستان با تکنیک کلاژ،در هماهنگی نزدیک با موضوع‌ داستانی،آفریده شده است.کرم‌ ابریشم کوچولویی که از تخم‌ بیرون می‌آید،به راه می‌افتد تا غذا پیدا کند.او با سوراخ کردن‌ خوراکی‌ها آنها را می‌خورد، می‌خورد،می‌خورد تا کرم‌ ابریشم بزرگ چاق و چله‌ای‌ می‌شود.سپس پیله‌ای به دور خود می‌تند و پس از دو هفته،پیله‌ را سوراخ می‌کند و از آن بیرون‌ می‌آید.او حالا یک پروانه‌ زیباست.

حال می‌پردازیم به مقایسه‌ دو ترجمه یاد شده از این اثر.برای‌ پیشبرد بهتر این مقایسه،از جدول‌هایی استفاده کردیم که در هر ستون آن،معادل‌های یکی از دو مترجم ذکر شده است.

http://www.noormags.com/View/GetFile.ashx?ArticleId=130644&Type=HTM&LID=1

دسته بندی : مقایسه دو ترجمه از یک اثر

منابع آزمون دکتری ترجمه

منابع آزمون دکتری ترجمه

زبان انگلیسی عمومی

استعداد تحصیلی 

مجموعه دروس در سطح کارشناسی شامل:

روش تدریس -  زبان شناسی

مجموعه دروس در سطح کارشناسی ارشد شامل

  روش تحقیق در ترجمه - نظریههای ترجمه -  نقد ترجمه

دسته بندی : منابع آزمون دکتری ترجمه 92