Communicative Aspects of APLL Neologized Equivalents of English IT Terms

Subject Areas : Applied Linguistics

Abbas  Paziresh ¹ (Department of English Language and Translation Studies, Chabahar Marine and Maritime University, Iran)
Zohreh  Jaffari ² (Department of Foreign Languages and Translation Studies, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran)

Received: 2022-04-03 Accepted : 2022-07-18 Published : 2022-12-01

Keywords: فناوری اطلاعات, مقبولیت, Acceptability, Keywords: Equivalence, communicativeness, neologism and information technology, هم ارزی, ارتباط پذیری,

Abstract :

Equivalents which are proposed by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature (APLL) have always been challenging and sources of controversy among experts and researchers. The greatest concerns were about the forms or morphology of APLL terms. Information Technology (IT) has a wide range of terminology which is brought about by the internet and digital devices. In Iran, APLL tried to coin equivalents to these terms. These terms acceptance and communicative aspects were problematic. Therefore, this survey research aimed at the evaluation of communicative aspects of APLL equivalents based on models of Picht and Draskau, (1985) and De Beaugrande and Dressler (1992). For this purpose, first, the researcher synthesized these models into nine statements and then selected the fifty most widespread equivalents and their English originals and converted them into a static questionnaire in Google Forms. After the formation of the questionnaire, its link was created and sent to three hundred and sixty IT users and experts. Of them, 106 people visited the questionnaires and marked the statements. The questionnaire statements were analyzed in terms of frequencies and percentages of answers to the statements. The analysis indicated two types of respondents: those who were in favor of APLL equivalents and those who were against them. Then the researcher converted the frequencies into descriptive statistics. However, it was found that the group in favor of the APLL neologisms (Mean= 35) reported that they are appealing, consistent with Persian rules of morphology, socially accepted, semantically justifiable, genre-related, concise, and expected. On the other hand, the other group which was against the APLL equivalents to IT terms (Mean=70.55) reported that such terms are not consistent with Persian rules of morphology, socially accepted, semantically justifiable, genre-related, concise, and expected. Moreover, the group against the APLL equivalents outperformed the group in favor of such equivalents. In addition, the analysis of the significance level of the relationship between the two groups through a t-test indicated that since p < 0.0001, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. The study has implications for teachers, students, and researchers in language teaching, translation studies, and linguistics.

References:

Adipranata, R. (2010). Teaching object oriented programming course using cooperative learning method based on game design and visual object oriented environment. In 2010 2nd International Conference on Education Technology and Computer (Vol. 2, pp. V2-355). IEEE. Retrieved on February 28, 2021 from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt.

Chen, A., Liu, L., & Kager, R. (2015). Cross-linguistic perception of Mandarin tone sandhi. Language Sciences, 48, 62-69.

Crystal, D. (2012). Think on my words: Exploring Shakespeare's language. Cambridge University Press.

De Beaugrande, R. A. de, Dressler, W. U. (1992). Text Linguistics. Ljubljana

Dogançay-Aktuna, S. (2004). Language planning in Turkey: yesterday and today. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2004(165), 5-32.

Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL quarterly, 39(3), 399-423.

Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). Can threatened languages be saved?: Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective (Vol. 116). Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. A., & Ferguson, C. A. (1968). Language problems of developing nations. Wiley.

Fishman, J. A., Das Gupta, J., Jernudd, B. H., & Rubin, J. (1971). Research outline for comparative studies of language planning. Longman.

Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (2001). Equivalence parameters and evaluation.  Meta: Translators' Journal, 46(2), 227-242.

Hesabi, A., Amirian, Z., & Nazari, J. (2017). Political terms by APLL: Issues of terminology implantation and‎ acceptability. Applied Research on English Language, 6(3), 339-362.

Jakobson, R. (1987). Language in literature. Harvard University Press.

Jakobson, R. (2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. Harvard University Press.

Khanji, R. (1999). Audience judgment and the role of the terminologist in technical lexicography. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 35, 83-93.

Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 7(2), 191-222.

Krein-Kühle, M. (2014). Translation and equivalence. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 15-35). Palgrave Macmillan.

Lupyan, G., Rahman, R. A., Boroditsky, L., & Clark, A. (2020). Effects of language on visual perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 24(11), 930-944.

McCarty, T. L. (Ed.). (2014). Ethnography and language policy. Longman.

Mphahlele, M. C. (2001). A model to achieve communicative equivalence in translation dictionaries (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University). Available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar.

Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Longman.

Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation (Vol. 1, p. 982). Pergamon Press.

Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (Eds.). (1982). The theory and practice of translation (Vol. 8). Brill Archive.

Panou, D. (2013). Equivalence in translation theories: A critical evaluation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 1-8.

Picht, H., & Draskau, J. (1985). Terminology: an introduction. University of Surrey.

Pym, A. (2000). Negotiating the frontier: Translators and intercultures in Hispanic history. St. Jerome.

Sanches, M., Blount, B. G., &Gumperz, J. J. (1975). Sociocultural dimensions of language use. Academic Press.

Saule, B., & Aisulu, N. (2014). Problems of translation theory and practice: original and translated text equivalence. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 136, 119-123.

Schiffman, H. (Ed.). (2011). Language policy and language conflict in Afghanistan and its neighbors: The changing politics of language choice (Vol. 2). Brill.

Schmid, M. E., Köpke, B. E., Cherciov, M. C., Karayayla, T. C., Keijzer, M. C., De Leeuw, E. C., & Polinsky, M. C. (2019). The Oxford handbook of language attrition. Oxford University Press.

Șimon, S., Kriston, A., Dejica-Carțiș, A., & Stoian, C. E. (2018). Challenges in translating educational terminology. In Edulearn 18. 10th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technology (Palma, 2nd-4th of July, 2018): conference proceedings (pp. 5327-5335). IATED Academy.

Szilagyl, Andrew, D. Jr. and Wallace, Marc J. Jr. (1990). Organizational behavior and performance. Scott, Foresman and Company.

Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive translation studies–and beyond: Revised Edition (Vol. 100). John Benjamins Publishing.

Wardhaugh, R. (2011). An introduction to sociolinguistics (Vol. 28). John Wiley & Sons.

Zarnikhi, A. (2009). Terminological activities at the Academy of Persian Language and Literature (APLL). In Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP Symposium. https://scholar.google.com/scholar