The Quality Assessment of the Persian Translation of “The Graveyard” Based on House's Translation Quality Assessment Model

الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمه

Tannaz Alavi ¹ (MA in Translation Studies, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University Varamin-Pishva Branch, Iran)
Iraj Noroozi ² (Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Iran)

تاريخ الإرسال : 23 الإثنين , شوال, 1441 تاريخ التأكيد : 23 الإثنين , شوال, 1441 تاريخ الإصدار : 06 الأربعاء , جمادى الأولى, 1441

الکلمات المفتاحية: Translation quality assessment, Field, register, Mode, Tenor,

ملخص المقالة :

The notion of Translation Quality Assessment has been the object of many studies. TQA as the compre- hensive treatment of translation evaluation, focuses on the relationship between the source text and target text and also emphasizes that translation is a linguistic operation. To accomplish this research, House‟s model of TQA was chosen as the framework for the investigation of “The Graveyard” by Gaiman and its Persian translation by ObeydiAshtiani. The aforementioned model involved qualitative aspects which fo- cus on lexical, syntactic and textual means under the main categories of field, tenor and mode. Subse- quently, the categorization of the translation as either overt or covert was done. The findings and out- comes of this analytic and comparative study demonstrated that the Persian translation did not follow the original one in several cases and was ultimately categorized into a covert translation where cultural filter has been applied.

المصادر:

Newmark, p. (1988). A Text bookof translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Newmark, p. (1981). Approaches to translation.

Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bassnett, S. (2007). Translation studies. London:

Routledge.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of trans-

lation. London: OUP.
Kelly, L. G. (1979). The true interpreter. A histo-

ry of translation theory and practice in the west. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translat-

ing. With special reference to principles and procedures involved in bible translating. Lei-

den: E. J. Brill.
Hervey, S & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking transla-

tion. A course in translation method:

French to English. London: Routledge. House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tubingen, Germany:

Narr.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation stu-

dies: Theories and applications. london:

Routledge.
. Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation stu-

dies: Theories and applications. Pp. 146-

147-148
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/89) Halliday language,

Context and Text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Ox- ford/Geelong: OUP/Deakin University Press.

House, J (2006). Text and Context in Translation; Journal of pragmatics.

House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. New York: Routledge.

Reiss, K. (2000). Translation Criticism–The Po- tentials and Limitations, translated by E.F.

Baker, M., & Luis, P.G. (2011). Translation and interpreting. In James Simpson (Ed.).

Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translation: The ques- tion of validity.