Share

» :: پایان نامه بررسی مقایسه ای حروف ربط در زبان انگلیسی نسخه از Tavalodi Digar ترجمه شده توسط فروغ فرخزاد

Table of Contents                                                                                                                Page

List of Tables…………….….………………………………...……..…………………....…....   xi

List of Figures…………………………………………………..…………………………..…... xii

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………..…………………………….. xii

Abstract…………………………………………………………...……………………………..xiv

Chapter One: Introduction ……………..………………………..……  1

1.1 Overview….………………………….……………………………………..………..  2

1.2 Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study..……………….……..….……..  8

1.3 Significance of and Justification for the Study………………………………….…...12

1.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses ………………………….…………………….14

1.5 Definition of Key Terms…………………………………………………….…….…14

1.6 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study………………………………….…...… 16

Chapter Two: The Review of Related Literature …………….………..…..….  18

2.1 Introduction.………………………………………………………………………… 19

2.2 Translation: Nature and Definitions ……………………………………….……….  19

2.3 Cohesion in linguistic ……………………………………………………..………...21

2.4 Cohesion in translation studies…………………………………………..…………..23

2.5 Cohesion and discourse analyze…………………………………………..………....26

2.6 Empirical studies on cohesion in text……………………………………….……….27

             2.6.1 Substitution and Translation ………………………………….…………  28

            2.6.2 Reference and Translation……………………………………….………...32

            2.6.3 Conjunction and Translation…………………………………….…………33

           2.6.4 Significance of Cohesion…………………………………………….……..36

2.7 The Role of Cohesive Ties in Corpus Linguistics ……………………..………..…  37

           2.7.1 The problems of text cohesion interpretation………………...………….…42

2.8 Cohesive Ties and Translation……………………………………………………….47

Chapter Three: Methodology…….……………………..….……...…….…… 51

3.1 Introduction………………………………………………..…………………….…   52

3.2 Design of the study ………………………………………………………...………..52   

            3.3. Theoretical Framework …………..………………………………….…..…...…..    88

           3.4 Instrumentation …..…………………..…………………………………..…...…....   53

           3.5 Corpus ……………………………………………………………..………….…….. 54

3.6 Procedure………………………………………………………………....………...  55

3.7 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………....…  56

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Discussion …………………………..……..…….…..….  57

4.1 Introduction.………...…………………………….………..………...58

4.2 The frequency and percent of cohesive ties applied ……………….……..58

            4.2.1 Substitution samples………………………….…………..…..59

            4.2.2 Conjunction samples…………………………….…..………..63

           4.2.3 Reference samples………………………………………………...………..67

            4.2.4 The frequency and percent of cohesive ties applied………………….……70

4.3 Cohesive ties and text/language oriented considerations…………………….74

            4.3.1 Translation created by Salami……………………………………………...74

            4.3.2 Translation created by Karimi-Hakak……………………………...………76

4.4 Cohesive ties and translations difference…………………………………...…….….77

            4.4.1 Translations and substitution……………………………………...……….77

           4.4.2 Translations and conjunction……………………………………...………..79

           4.4.3 Translations and reference………………………………………...….….…80

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications……………………………………82

5.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………..……….. 83

5.2 Restatement Problem ………………………………..………………….……..…… 83

5.35 Conclusion ……………………………………….………………….………..…..  84

5.4 Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………..……………...85

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………….……………...86

References…...………………………...………………………………………….………….. .. 87

Appendices..……..………………………………………………………………….………..… 96

Abstract (Persian)…………………………………………………………………………………..

 

List of Tables

 

Table 4.1 The frequency and percent of cohesive ties used by Salami……………….……….71

 

Table 4.2 The frequency and percent of cohesive ties used by Karimi-Hakak……….………..72

 

Table 4.3 The frequency and percent of substitution..............................................74

 

Table 4.4 The frequency and percent of conjunction………………………………...…..…...…75

 

Table 4.5 The frequency and percent of reference........................................................................75

 

Table 4.6 The frequency and percent of substitution……………………….……….……...……76

 

Table 4.7 The frequency and percent of conjunction…………………………...……..…...……76

 

Table 4.8 The frequency and percent of reference………………………………….…...………77

 

Table 4.9 Substitution * frequency cross-tabulation……………………………...…………...…78

 

Table 4.10 Chi-Square Tests for substitution……….…………………………….……………..78

 

Table 4.11 Conjunction * frequency Cross-tabulation…………………………….………….…79

 

Table 4.12 Chi-Square Tests for conjunction……………………………………......……...…...80

 

Table 4.13 Reference * frequency cross-tabulation………………….……………...…...………81

 

Table 4.14 Chi-Square Tests for reference………………………………..……………………. 81

 

List of Figures

Figure 4.1 The frequency of cohesive ties used by Salami………………..…..…………………72

 

Figure 4.2 The frequency of cohesive ties used by Karimi-Hakak…….…….……………....…..7

 

Abstract

 

Cohesion is the term for the quality of a text such that it appears as a single unit, not as a random sequence of thoughts or sentences. Cohesion is achieved by a number of devices or ties as explained below. The most common cohesive device in texts is the backward reference to something that has been mentioned before. The present study employed Halliday and Hasan’s theoretical framework of cohesion model to analyze (selected text) to reveal the adhering effect of cohesive elements that are responsible for creating semantic understanding of a text. In this research, the researcher used both qualitative and quantitative research methods by means of qualitative descriptive statistics and chi-square formula. During the study, the researcher compared two translations of the poem “Tavalodi Digar” respects to cohesive ties. The results indicated that the result was not significant between the categorical variables for conjunction and reference but the difference between the translators was statistically significant for substitution. The study clarified that reference based on language oriented was the most productive kind of cohesive ties, and translators are recommended to pay more attention to conjunction and substitution in their translation practice.

Key words: Cohesive ties, conjunction, reference, substitution

خرید و دانلود محصول

1395/09/10
Cohesive ties , conjunction , reference , substitution , Versions of Tavalodi Digar by Forough Farokhzad