Translation of Interjections in Drama

Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch Translation of Interjections in Drama Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Arts in Translation Studies (M.A.) Advisor: Dr. Farzaneh Farahzad Reader: Dr. Mansour Fahim By: Mona Farhoudi May, 2010 2

Table of Contents Pages Acknowledgements.....4 Abstract....8 CHAPTER ONE: THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 1.1. Introduction...10 1.2. Background of the problem...11 1.3. Statement of the problem...13 1.4. Significance of the study...15 1.5. Purpose of the study...16 1.6. Research Question...16 1.7. Theoretical Framework.....16 1.8. Definition of The Key Terms....17 1.9. Scope and Delimitations of the Study...19 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 2.1. Overview 21 2.2. Literary Translation...21 2.3. Forms of Literary Translation...23 2.3.1. Poetic Translation....23 2.3.2. Lyrics Translation...24 2.3.3. Religious Texts Translation..24 2.3.4. Translating novels, stories, plays and dramas...25 2.4. Drama, Theatre, Play...25 2.5. A Brief History of Drama...27 2.5.1. Classical Athenian Drama..27 2.5.2. Roman Drama...27 2.5.3. Medieval Ages Drama..28 2.5.4. Modern and Post-Modern Drama...29 2.5.5. Iranian Drama......30 2.6. Drama Translation......31 2.6.1. Speakability, Playability, Performability...32 5

2.6.2. Constrains of Drama Translation....33 2.6.3. The Role of Culture in Drama Translation....35 2.6.4. The Semiotics of Drama.......37 2.6.5. Strategies and determining factors in translating drama.38 2.7. Interjections........40 2.7.1. The Importance of Interjections...42 2.7.2. Classification of Interjections....42 2.7.3. Approaches in the Study of Interjections....43 2.7.3.1. The Sociolinguistic Approach......43 2.7.3.2. The Semantic Approach...45 2.7.3.3. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach...46 2.7.3.4. Wharton s Approach: Procedural Meaning..47 2.7.3.5. Cuenca s Approach: Interjections as Idiomatic Units...48 2.7.3.6. Norrick's Approach: Interjections as Pragmatic Markers...49 2.7.3.7. Matamala and Lorente s Approach: INTCA: An Electronic Dictionary of Interjection...50 2.7.4. Translation of Interjections...52 2.7.5. Strategies for Translating Interjections....53 2.8. Summary..54 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLY 3.1. Overview...57 3.2. Description of Type of Research....57 3.3. Corpus...57 3.3.1. The Rationales Behind Selecting the Corpus..58 3.3.2. About the Plays in the Corpus...58 3.3.3. The specifications of the selected dramas....61 3.4. Procedure...61 3.4.1. The Unit of Analysis......62 3.5. Data Collection...62 3.6. Data Classification...62 3.7. Sample Sheets....62 3.8. Data Processing and Analysis.64 6

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS 4.1. Overview......65 4.2. Preliminary Findings.... 65 4.3. Analysis of the corpus.....65 4.4 List of tables and graphs....83 4.5. Results and Discussion...93 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 5.1. Summary....97 5.2 Conclusion...100 5.3 Pedagogical Implications 102 5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 104 References......105 Appendix A: List of Interjections Found in The Zoo Story...111 Appendix B: List of Interjections Found in Candida...119 Appendix C: List of Interjections Found in Death of a Salesman....133 Persian Abstract..153 Abstract Translation of Interjections in Drama 7

This research examined the most frequent strategies used in translation of interjections in Persian translated versions of English dramas. The corpus consisted of the odd acts of three English drama texts and the data consisted of original English interjections which were compared with their Persian translational equivalents in terms of translation strategies. Interjections were analyzed in four categories as primary, secondary, primary + secondary and primary + affirmation/negation. The distribution and frequency of occurrence of each strategy was studied in the whole corpus. Literal translation (strategy a) was the most frequent translation strategy used in all four categorizations. Analysis of the category of primary interjections revealed that while omission (strategy e), translation by using an interjection with a different meaning (strategy d) and translation by using an interjection with dissimilar form but the same meaning (strategy b) predominated respectively, addition (strategy f) along with translation by using a non-interjective structure with similar meaning (strategy c) were the least frequent ones. Analysis of the hierarchy of secondary interjections showed that strategies e, f, d and b predominated respectively and strategy c was again the least occurring one. As for primary + secondary interjections, strategies b, c, e and f predominated respectively and the least occurring strategy was d. In category of primary interjections + affirmation/negation, while strategies e, b, c and f predominated respectively, the least frequent strategy was d. It was generally concluded that the translated versions were less conversational, less natural and more reflective of foreign discourse which might affect the reception of the translated drama. The researcher came to know that interjections imply specific difficulties in translation. The conflict between the source construction and the grammaticalized form sometimes leads to a non-identification of the interjection or to a mistranslation. Mona Farhoudi 8

References Aaltonen, S. (2000). Time -sharing on stage: Drama translation in theatre and society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Aaltonen, S. (2004). Targeting in Drama Translation: Laura Ruohonen s Plays in English Translation. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://lipas.uwasa.fi/hut/english/aaltonen/vakki2004.doc Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 2/3, 101-118. Anderman, G. and Rogers, M. (1988). Translation studies, the state of the art. Guildford: CTLS-University of Surrey. Anderman, G. (2005). Europe on stage: translation and theatre. London: Oberon Books Ltd. Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A course book of translation, New York: Routledge. Baker, M. (Ed.), (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of Translation studies. London- New York: Routledge. Banham, M. (1998). The Cambridge guide to theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bassnett, S. (1985). Ways Through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts. In T. Hermans (Ed.), The Manipulation of Literature; Studies in Literary Translation. (pp. 87-103). London: Croom Helm. Bassnett, S. (1990). Translating for the Theatre Textual Complexities. Essays in Poetics, 15(1), 71-84. 102

Bassnett, S. (1991). Translating for the theatre: The case against performability. TTR (Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction), IV, 1. Behroozi, S. (2009, April 25). Students festival expands theatrical horizons: scholar. Tehran Times, 10743, 28-31. Chesterman, A. (2005). Problems with Strategies. In A. Károly and A. Fóris (Eds.), New Trends in TS. In Honour of K.Klaudy. (pp.17-28). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Clarke R.F. (1965). The growth and nature of drama. Great Britain: The Syndic of Cambridge University Press. Classe, O. (2000). Encyclopedia of Literary translation into English. London- Chicago: Fitzroy Doarborn Publishers. Cuenca, M.J. (2000). Defining the indefinable? Interjections, a Syntaxis. An International Journal of Syntactic Research, 3, 29-44. Cuenca, M.J. (2006). Interjections and pragmatic errors in dubbing. Meta, 51 (1): 20-35. Dastjerdi, H. (2004). Translation of Poetry: Sa di s Oneness of Mankind Revisited. Translation Journal, available from http://accurapid.com/journal/30liter.htm Elam, K. (1980). The semiotics of theatre and drama. London: Methuen. Fletcher, R.H. (1916). A History of English Literature for Students. Boston: Richard G. Badger. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(2), 11-27. Floor, W. (2005). The History of Theatre in Iran. The United States of America: Mage Publishers. 103

Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. (1988). An Introduction to Language. The United States of America: Saunders college publishing. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Gostand, R. (1980). Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication: Drama Translation. In O. Zuber (Ed.), The Languages of Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of drama. (pp. 1-9). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Häber, C. (2005). Translation and Religion: Holy Untranslatable? Linguistics list, 16.2711, 15-28. Hatim, B. (1988). Pragmatics and Translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (pp. 179-183). London: Routledge. Hatim, B. and Mason, L. (1990). Discourse and translator. The United States of America: Longman Group UK Limited. Hofstadter, D. R. (1997). Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language. New York: Basic Books. Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In. R. A. Brower (Ed.), On Translation. (pp. 232-39). The United States of America: Harvard University Press. Johnson, D. (1996). Stages of Translation. Bath: Absolute Classics. Johnston, B. (2007). Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism: Art, Theatre, Philosophy. Project Muse Scholarly Journals Online, 41(1), 107-111. Jovanović, V. (2004). The Form, Position and Meaning of Interjections in English. Linguistics and Literature, 3, 17-28. 104

Kesarwani, R. (2008). Overview of Literary Translation. Translation India Blog, available from http://translationindia.com/blog/index.php/archives/15- Literary-Translation.html Kockelman, P. (2003). The Meanings of Interjections in Q eqchi Maya. Current Anthropology, 44, 467-490. Li, C. (2005). A Cognitive-Pragmatic Account of Interjections. Linguist list, 3(9), 65-69. Malekpour, J. (2004). The Islamic Drama. London: Routledge. Matamala, A. (2007). The translation of oh in a corpus of dubbed sitcoms. Catalan Journal of linguistics, 6, 117-136. Matamala, A. and Lorente, M. (2006). New tools for translators: INTCA, an electronic dictionary of interjections. In D. Chiaro, C. Heiss and C. Bucaria (Eds.) Between Text and Image. (pp. 63-75). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice-Hall International. Norrick, N.R. (2007). Pragmatic Markers, Interjections and Discourse. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6, 159-168. Norrick, N.R. (2008). Interjections as Pragmatic Markers. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak4/norrick/wip.html O Connell, D.C. and Kowal, S. (2008). Communicating with one Another: Toward a psychology of spontaneous spoken discourse. Springer: New York. Osimo, B. (2008). Translating for Theatre. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://courses.logos.it/en/4_21.html 105

Pavis, P. (1982). Language of the stage, essays in the semiology of the theatre. New York: Performing Arts Publications. Peirce, C.S. (1931). Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce. In C. Hartshorns and P. Weiss (Eds.). The United States of America: Harvard University Press. Perrine, L. (1974). Literature 3: Drama. The United States of America: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Riera, J. (2007). The non-verbal in drama translation: Spanish classical theatre in English. Ingleses de la Universidad complutense, 15,119-137. Schultze, B. (1998). Highways, byways, and blind alleys in translating drama: Historical and systemic aspects of a cultural Technique. In K. Muller- Vollmer and M. Irmscher (Eds.), Translating Literatures, Translating Cultures, New Vistas and Approaches in literary Studies. (p. 180). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Sommerstein, A.H. (2002). Greek Drama and Dramatists. New York: Routledge. Stange, U. (2008). The Acquisition on Interjections in Early Childhood. Germany: Diplomica Verlag. Saussure, F. (1915). Course in General Linguistics. In C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, A. Riedlinger and W. Basain (Eds.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Suh, J. (2002). Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts. Meta, 47(1), 51-57. Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation. London and New York: Routledge. Wardhaugh, R. (1990). An Introduction to sociolinguistics. Great Britain: Brasil Blackwell. 106

Wharton, T. (2001). Natural pragmatics and natural codes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 109-161. Wharton, T. (2003). Interjection, language, and the showing/saying continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11, 39-91. Xiaoshu, S. and Dongming, C. (2003). Translation of Literary Style. Translation Journal, available from http://accurapid.com/journal/23style.htm Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language. The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Zaltin, P. (2005). Theatrical Translation and Film Adaptation: A Practitioner s View. Great Britain: MPG Books Ltd. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1988). Towards a Typology of Literary Translation: Drama Translation Science. Meta, XXXIII (4), 485-490. 107

چکيده ترجمه حروف ندا در نمايشنامه اين تحقيق به بررسی پر بسامدترين راهکارهای به کار رفته در ترجمه حروف ن دا پرداخت ه اس ت که مترجمين ايرانی در حين ترجمه درام های انگليسی ب ه فارس ی ب ه ک ار ب رده ان د. پيک ره تحقي ق شامل پرده های فرد سه نمايشنامه انگليسی ب وده و داده ه ای جم ع ا وری ش ده ش امل ح روف ن دای انگليس ی ب وده ان د ک ه ب ا مع ادل فارس ی اش ان در قال ب اس تراتژی ه ای ترجم ه مقايس ه ش ده ان د. حروف ندا در قالب چهار دسته طبقه بندی و بررسی شد: ١- حروف ندای اولي ه ٢- ح روف ن دای ثانويه ٣- حروف ندای اوليه + ثانويه ۴- حروف ن دای اولي ه + تاکي د/نف ی. مي زان بس امد و توزي ع هر استراتژی در کل پيکره بررسی شد و نت ايج نش ان داد ک ه ترجم ه تح ت اللفظ ی (اس تراتژی a) شايع ترين راهک ار ب ه ک ار رفت ه در ه ر چه ار گ روه ح روف ن دا ب ود. تحلي ل گ روه ح روف ن دای اوليه حاکی از ا ن بود که در حاليکه حذف (استراتژی e) ترجمه بوس يله ح روف ن دايی ب ا معن ای متفاوت (استراتژی d) و ترجمه توسط حروف ندايی با فورم نامشابه و معن ای مش ابه (اس تراتژی b) ب ه ترتي ب اس تراتژی ه ای غال ب بودن د اف زودن (اس تراتژی f) ب ه هم راه ترجم ه بوس يله س اختاری ن اهمگون از س اختار ح روف ن دا ب ا معن ای مش ابه (اس تراتژی c) ک م ک اربردترين استراتژيها محسوب می شدند. بررسی دسته حروف ندای ثانويه نشان داد که استراتژی های b d, f, e, به ترتيب پرک اربردترين و اس تراتژی c ک م ک اربردترين ب ود. در خص وص دس ته ح روف ندای اوليه + ثانويه اس تراتژی ه ای,f,e,c b ب ه ترتي ب اس تراتژی ه ای غال ب و اس تراتژی d کم کاربردترين استراتژی ترجمه بود. در دسته حروف ندای اوليه + تاکيد/نفی استراتژی های,f,c,b e به ترتيب پربسامدترين و استراتژی d کم بسامدترين ب وده اس ت. پ س از تحلي ل و بررس ی کليه استراتژی های فوق اين نتيج ه حاص ل ش د ک ه نس خه ه ای ترجم ه ش ده درام ه ای م ذکور از نظر قدرت بيان در مکالمه و طبيع ی ب ودن نس بت ب ه نس خه اص لی درامه ای انگليس ی ض عيف ت ر بودند و اين ترجمه ها تحت ت اثير ک لام خ ارجی ق رار داش تند ک ه اي ن ام ر ممک ن اس ت در پ ذيرش درام از سوی جامعه مقصد تاثيرگذار باش د. ح روف ن دا س بب ب روز مش كلات خاص ي در ترجم ه مي شوند. ناسازگاري ميان ساختار و فورم گرامري اين گروه بعضا سبب عدم شناسايي نق ش ا نه ا و بروز خطا در ترجمه مي شود. مونا فرهودی 152

دانشگاه ا زاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقيقات پايان نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته مترجمی زبان انگليسی( M.A ) موضوع ترجمه حروف ندا در نمايشنامه استادراهنما دکتر فرزانه فرحزاد استاد مشاور دکتر منصور فهيم نگارنده مونا فرهودی سال تحصيلی ٨٩-١٣٨٨ 3