Linguistic Levels of Translation: A Generic Exploration of Translation Difficulties in Literary Textual Corpus

Magda Madkour

Abstract


This case study research was based on a generic exploration of the translation problems that graduate students face in literary translation. Literary translation is fundamental to translation programs at higher education due to the upsurge that has occurred in publishing classical and modern literary works from various cultures. However, literary texts have special characteristics that make the process of transferring them from one language into another a daunting task. Translating literary texts is difficult even for professional translators because misinterpreting the messages of the source texts can lead to distorting the aesthetic aspects of the literary work. Students need to learn various linguistic levels of literary translation as well as strategies and methods of translation. Learning the linguistics levels of translation necessitates providing adequate training that is based on enhancing students’ cognitive abilities. Cognitive-based translation training helps students learn the procedures of solving the problems of translating sound and literary devices. Cognitive approaches are relevant to the translation process since cognition implies mental activities that students can use to understand and synthesize the literary text, and reconstruct it creatively. Therefore, the current study aimed at examining the relationship between cognitive teaching methodologies and students’ performance in literary translation. To examine this relationship, qualitative and quantitative data was collected from graduate students at the College of Languages and Translation at Imam Mohammed bin Saud Islamic University (IMAMU University), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In addition, corpus data was gathered from authentic literary texts including, novels, short stories, and poetry, to investigate the effect of linguistic analysis and cognitive strategies on the quality of literary translation. Quantitative data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and qualitative data depended on the software NVivo. The results of data analysis indicated a correlation between using cognitive teaching methodology and students’ performance in literary translation. The themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis referred to topics related to causes of  translation problems, including lack of experience in the field of literary translation; weakness in literary translation skills; and challenges in interpreting literary devices and eloquence. Data analysis revealed that these problems were due to using traditional teaching methods that were based on giving lectures and direct instructions, and rote learning. The emergent themes concerning ways of resolving these problems include the importance of employing cognitive methods to stimulate students’ creative abilities, and motivate them to improve their analytical and critical thinking.  The discussions, presented in the literature review of the present study, focus on five issues: the linguistics levels of literary translation; the characteristics of literary texts; the problems of translating literary texts; the main principles of the cognitive method which makes it appropriate for teaching literary translation; and the relationship between literary translation theories, cognition, and creativity. The research recommendations highlight the importance of bridging the gap between translation theory and practice to provide strategies for solving the problems of translating literary texts. The recommendations also include the procedures for integrating Newmark’s translation theory into cognitive taxonomies to enhance students’ knowledge, and help them acquire refined skills for translating literary texts efficiently.


Keywords


Cognitive teaching methodologies, linguistic analysis, literary translation, Newmark translation theory

Full Text:

PDF

References


AlBzour, B. A. (2016). Cognitive systematicity of semantic change: cross-linguistic evidence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(3), 91-98. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.62.

Argamon, S., Whitelaw, C., Chase, P., Hota, S., Garg, N., and Levitan, S. (2007). Stylistic text classification using functional lexical features. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(6), 802-822. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.v58:6/issuetoc

Austen, J. (2014). Pride and prejudice. (New edition). New York: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform

Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target, 12(2), 241–266.

Baker, M. (2005). Contextualization in translator and interpreter-mediated events. New York: Elsevier

Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A course book on translation (2 nd. ed.). New York: Routledge.

Barnstone, W. (1995). The Poetics of translation. CT, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2000). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, handbook I: cognitive domains. (New edition). New York: David McKay Company, Inc.

Blythe. R. (1969). Akenfield. New York: Pantheon Books.

Boase-Beier, J. (2011). A critical introduction to translation studies. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.

Bransford, J.D. Brown, & Cocking, R. R. (2000). (ed.). How People learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Buhler, K. & Goodwin, D. F. (2011). Theory of language: The representational function of language. New York: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.

Chanda, I. (2012). Metaphor translation as a tool of intercultural understanding. Comparative Literature and Culture, 14(4), 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1996

Creswell, J. (2013). Research design; qualitative and quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4 th. ed.). London: Sage.

Dean, R. J. (2010). The effects of cognitive process and decision making training in reading experience on meaningful learning with underachieving college students. ProQuest LLC, Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Lowell.

DiYanni, R. (ed.) (2002). Plato: poetry and inspiration (translated by Benjamin Jowett), in Literature: Reading fiction, poetry, and drama. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.

Dryden, J. (1987). The major Works (edited by Keith Walker). Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2 nd. ed.). New York: Continnum.

Eliot, T.S. (2004). Complete poems and plays. New York: Faber & Faber.

Enani, M.M.(2000). On translating Arabic: A cultural approach. Cairo: G.E.B.O.

Forster, E.M. (2013). The E.M. Forster collection: Classic works. (New edition). New York: Waxkeep Publishing.

Gee, J. P. & Handford, M. (2013). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis: New York: Routledge.

Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.

Grice, P. & Baker, J. (2011). The conception of value. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Grossman, E. (2011). Why translation matters. CT, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gutt, E.A. (2010). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context (2 nd. ed.). New York: Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M.A. K , (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K , (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (4 th. ed.). New York: Routledge

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. New York: Routledge.

Henry, O. (1997). 100 Selected stories. (Reprint). New York: Wordsworth Editions.

House, J. (2014). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. New York: Routledge.

Howlett, C.; Ferreira, J.; Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(3), 305-321.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-07-2014-0102

Jae, J. S. (2005). The translatability–universals connection in linguistic typology: Much ado about something. Babel,

(4), 308-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/babel.51.4.03son

Jakoboson, R. (1967). On linguistic aspects of translation. In On Translation, ed. R.A. Brower.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jakoboson, R. (1990). Language in literature. New York: Belknap Press.

Jakobson, R. (2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. Translated by Harry Zohn in Translation Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London: Routledge.

Jakoboson, R. (2011). Fundamentals of language (New edition). Charleston, SC: Nabu Press.

Jones, M. H. (2014). The beginning translator’s workbook: Or the ABC of French to English translation (Rev.ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Kasparek, C. (1987). The translator's endless toil. The Polish Review, 2(3), 84.

Kenesei, A. (2010). Poetry translation through reception and cognition: The proof of translation is in the reading (New Edition). UK: Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kussmaul, p. (1995). Training the translator. New York: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Landers, C.E. (2001). Literary translation: A practical guide. New York: Multilingual Matters.

Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America and Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Lefevere. L. (1992). Translating literature: Practice and theory in a comparative literature context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Lihua, Y. A. N. G. (2014). Treatment of cultural differences in translation. Studies in Literature and Language, 8(1), 39-42. 10.3968/j.sll.1923156320140801.2941

Madkour, M. (2011). Multiple intelligences and language acquisition: A qualitative study and application of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Barnes & Nobles.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave.

Maupassant, G. (2006).The complete works of Guy de Maupassant: Short stories. (New edition). New York: Book Jungle.

Moghadas, S. M. & Sharififar, M (2014). A Model for cognitive processes of neologisms translation. International Journal of English Langage & Translation Studies, 2(1) ,04-19. http://www.eltsjournal.org/

Munday, J. (2012). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. New York: Routledge.

Munoz M. R. (2010). On paradigms and cognitive translatology. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 169–89). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. London and New York: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Newmark, P. (1998). More paragraphs on translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Nida, E. & Taber, Taber, C.R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation, with special reference to Bibletranslating. Leiden: Brill.

Nida, E. & Taber, C. R. (1974). The theory and practice of translating (New edition). Leiden: Brill.

Nurmi, A. (2016). Minority voices in literary fiction: A case study of translating multilingual practices. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 35(2), 227-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0035

Oxford Dictionary. (2015). Figurative speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pantopoulos, I. (2012). Two different faces of Cavafy in English: A corpus-assisted approach to translational stylistics. International Journal of English Studies, 12(2), 93-110. http://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/161771

Parrish, P. E. (2006). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Paper presented for AECT Annual Conference, October, 2006, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. New York: Routledge.

Qualitative Software Research International (QSR). (2016). NVivo version 10. Retrieved from the URL http://www.qsrinternational.com/

Reiss, K. (2015). Translation criticism- potentials and limitations: Categories and criteria for translation quality assessment. New York: Routledge.

Risku, H. (2012). Cognitive approaches to translation. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 5, 1-10.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781405198431

Rojo, A. (2015). Translation meets cognitive science: The imprint of translation on cognitive processing. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 34(6), 721-746.http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0035

Rydning, A. F., & Lachaud, C. M. (2010). The reformulation challenge in translation: Context reduces polysemy during comprehension, but multiplies creativity during production. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 85–108). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Sapargul, D., & Sartor, V. (2010).The trans-cultural comparative literature method: Using grammar translation techniques effectively. English Teaching Forum, 48(3), 26-30.

https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/48_3_5_-sapargul_sartor.pdf

Schaffner, C. (2004). Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1253-1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012

Schwieter, J. W. & Ferreira, A. (2014). The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Scott, C. (2004). Back translation: Same questions, different continent. London: Association of Translation Companies.

Shi, X. (2014). The strategy of metaphor translation: Domestication or foreignization. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 766-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.4.766-770

Shirinzadeh, S., & Mahadi, T. (2014).Using expansion strategies in making untranslatable areas of poetry translatable: Sa'di's Bustan as a case in point. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 39-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p39

Shreve, G. M. & Angelone, E. (2010). Translation and cognition. John Benjamins Publishing. Kent: Kent State University.

Shreve, G. M., Lacruz, I., & Angelone, E. (2010). Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption, and visual interference in a sight translation task. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Blackwell Publishers Inc. Massachusetts.

Sun, S. (2012). Measuring difficulty in English-Chinese translation: Towards a general model of translation difficulty, PhD Dissertation, Kent State University. Retrieved from the URL http://search.proquest.com/docview/1039104230

The University of Kansas. (2015). Cognitive strategies. Retrieved from the URLhttp://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/?q=instruction/cognitive.

ToV Le, Q., & Le, T. (2015). Applying Halliday’s linguistic theory in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 15(2), 135 - 146. doi.org/10.1108/QRJ11-2014-0059

Treffinger, D., Schoonover, P. & Selby, E. (2012). Educating for creativity and innovation: A comprehensive guide for research-based practice. New York: Prufrock Press, Inc. Van, T. T. M. (2009). The relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum 47(3), 2–9.

Venuti, L. (2012). The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.

Waldau, T. (2010). Metaphors and translation: A study of figurative language in the works of Astrid Lindgren Stockholm: Mid Sweden University, Department of Humanities (English Studies).

Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educationa Technology,45(2),10-16.

Wordsworth. W. (1884). Ode: Intimations of immortality from recollections of early childhood. New York: Library of Congress.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. (5th ed.) . London: Sage.

Yingxue, Z. (2013). The motivation of problem-based teaching and learning in translation. English Language Teaching, 6(4), 120.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n4p120

Yinhua, X. (2011). Equivalence in translation: Features and necessity. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 1-3. http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_11_Special_Issue_August_2011/19.pdf

Zasyekin, S. (2010). Translation as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(3), 225-234. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10936-009-9134-2




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.6p.99

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.