This survey aimed to measure the quality of Iranian interlingual rendition of Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four by Balooch based on Houses theoretical account of interlingual rendition quality appraisal. To make so, about 10 per centum of the beginning text was indiscriminately selected. The profile of the beginning text registry was produced and the genre was realized. The beginning text profile was compared to the interlingual rendition text profile. The consequence of this comparing was dimensional mismatches and open mistakes. The dimensional mismatches were categorized based on different dimensions of registry. The open mistakes which were based on denotive mismatches and mark system mistakes were categorized into skips, add-ons, permutations, and breaches of the mark linguistic communication system. Then, the frequences of happenings of subcategories of open mistakes along with their per centums were calculated. The dimensional mismatches and a big figure of major open mistakes including skips and permutations indicated that the interlingual rendition was non in conformity with the House ‘s position saying that literary plants needed to be translated overtly. Mismatchs on different degrees of registry showed that the cultural filter was applied in interlingual rendition and the second-level functional equality required for open interlingual rendition was non reached. Therefore, the Iranian interlingual rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four did non carry through the standards to be an open interlingual rendition.
Keywords: interlingual rendition, quality, appraisal, House, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell.
1. Introduction
Harmonizing to Williams ( 2004 ) , concern for excellence in interlingual rendition, particularly interlingual rendition of literary and spiritual plants, has existed for long clip. There have been treatments, arguments, and attacks about quality of interlingual rendition and how good a interlingual rendition of a text should be. Translators, interlingual rendition companies and interlingual rendition services of authoritiess and international organisations must all be accountable for the quality of their merchandise. Yet the inquiry of how to judge that quality can be really hard. This judgement is different from a individual to another and it depends on type of the text. The serious issue is refering the quality of interlingual rendition of literary plants. Every community has its ain specific civilization, traditions, and linguistic communication with different constructions. Consequently, every beginning text has its ain lingual, semantic, and matter-of-fact constructions that can be different from those of mark text. Therefore, bearing this in head, the transcriber should take a specific scheme to reassign intended significance and construction of the original text into mark text. Failing to acknowledge the construction of beginning text and the manner of rendering the construction into mark linguistic communication affects the quality of interlingual rendition. In Iran, there are interlingual renditions particularly in the field of literature that have low quality. It can be due to the fact Persian transcribers are less familiar with or less interested in the interlingual rendition quality and the standards and criterions by which interlingual rendition should be evaluated. There should be dependable standards and criterions by which interlingual rendition can be assessed and evaluated. These standards and criterions can work decently on the footing of a model or a theoretical account. They differentiate a good interlingual rendition from a bad one. They provide valuable information in which the transcriber ‘s failure and errors in interlingual rendition procedure are identified. This can assist transcribers better their public presentation by cognizing their failings and errors and as a consequence, the quality of the interlingual rendition is enhanced. There are different theoretical accounts and attacks for measuring the quality of interlingual rendition. One of them is House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account of interlingual rendition quality appraisal ( TQA ) which covers about all facets in procedure of interlingual rendition and has some advantages over other theoretical accounts due to its coverage issue and the relaxation of usage.
Several research workers used House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account to analyse the quality of interlingual rendition of literary plants. Mohebbipour ( 2010 ) in his article assessed the quality of Iranian interlingual rendition of Faulkner ‘s The Sound and the Fury. He focused on differentiation between overt and covert interlingual rendition and stated that harmonizing to House, to interpret literary plants such as The Sound and the Fury the open sort of interlingual rendition needed to be applied. Then, for analysis of the text, he defined open mistakes and covert mistakes and provided some Iranian interlingual rendition illustrations with their written texts for open mistakes. Mohebbipour besides provided word for word interlingual rendition for mistakes that he found in interlingual rendition. He calculated the frequence of the happenings of mistakes and eventually he used Chi-square to analyse the consequences of the survey. By comparing ST profile with the TT one, merely one mismatch in the tenor was found. There were besides cases of open mistakes such as incorrect interlingual rendition, skips, add-ons, and incorrect combination of elements in the interlingual rendition. The research worker claimed that the transcriber had a good cognition of TL sentence structure because there was no grounds of breach of TL system. Calculating the frequence of mistakes through Chi-square, the consequence showed the statistically important difference between two overtly and covert mistakes every bit good as the statistically important difference among subcategories of open mistakes. Gehrmann ( 2011 ) used the TQA theoretical account proposed by House ( 1997 ) to measure Swedish interlingual rendition of Tolkien ‘s The Lord of the Rings. The chief work of the research was to supply the textual profiles of both ST and TT. By analysing the profiles of the two texts, a figure of mismatches on the dimensions of tenor and field were found. There were besides open mistakes caused by the semantic add-ons. The add-ons on the dimension of field caused a greater explicitness in the interlingual rendition and increased aesthetic pleasance for the audience. However, this manipulated the readers ‘ reading and imaginativeness and as a consequence, the interpersonal map. The societal attitude was changed on the dimension of tenor because the degree of manner becomes more literary by add-on of measure uping adverbials. No mistakes were found on the dimensions of genre and tenor. Based on the transcriber ‘s position about the interlingual rendition in which interlingual rendition was to be like an original of TT, Gehrmann concluded that the interlingual rendition of The Lord of the Rings was a covert sort of interlingual rendition.
The intent of this research was to measure the quality of Iranian interlingual rendition of Orwell ‘s ( 1949 ) Nineteen Eighty-Four by Balooch ( 2004 ) based on House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account of interlingual rendition quality appraisal ( TQA ) . By utilizing House ‘s theoretical account, the interlingual rendition schemes used by the transcriber became known. House references two types of schemes known as open interlingual rendition scheme and covert interlingual rendition scheme that transcribers can utilize based on different types of texts. Differentiation between open interlingual rendition and covert interlingual rendition revealed the mistakes and errors made during the interlingual rendition procedure every bit good as mismatches between ST and TT. Based on House ‘s theoretical account of TQA, there are two chief beginnings of mistakes in interlingual rendition: ( a ) open mistakes and ( B ) covert mistakes. Significance of open mistakes in this survey leaded the rating procedure into calculating the frequence of happenings of these mistakes in order to see whether a important difference existed between ST and TT based on House ‘s differentiation between overt and covert interlingual rendition. Based on analysis of findings of the survey, the undermentioned inquiries could be answered:
Which strategies has the transcriber most often used for interpreting Orwell ‘s ( 1949 ) Nineteen Eighty-Four based on House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account of interlingual rendition quality appraisal?
To what extent has the quality of Iranian interlingual rendition of Orwell ‘s Nineteen Eighty-Four been preserved based on House ‘s theoretical account?
Methodology
Participants
The research worker of this survey was taken as the participant, since he selected stuffs and analyzed the information. However, for the affair of inter-rater dependability, another participant who was an MA pupil of English Translation was selected to analyze and to analyse the same extracted stuffs with the same theoretical model. The intent was reproduction of the research in the indistinguishable state of affairss in order to see whether the same consequences were achieved or non.
Materials
For the intents of this survey, Orwell ‘s ( 1949 ) Nineteen Eighty-Four was chosen as the instance survey. It is a authoritative novel which has influenced modern-day literature and some other artistic plants such as popular music and films. This book is considered as a dystopian scientific discipline fiction incorporating several neologies such as Big Brother, doublethink, and Thought Police. Some of these neologies have been brought into linguistic communication and become modern-day slang. The popularity and the celebrity of Nineteen Eighty-Four were the other grounds to take this book as the instance survey. Since this survey was a descriptive-comparative analysis of a interlingual rendition by agencies of House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account of TQA, the stuffs consisted of Nineteen Eighty-Four and its Iranian interlingual rendition by Balooch ( 2004 ) . Without sing the forepart affair and the appendix, Nineteen Eighty-Four has wholly 234 pages ( from page 5 to page 239 ) divided into three parts. In fact, the analysis of the whole book and comparing it with its Iranian interlingual rendition would hold taken excessively much clip. Furthermore, specific characteristics of the novel such as its linguistic communication, characters, and manner did non belong to certain parts of the text but they were distributed all over the text. Sing the above mentioned grounds, a systematic random trying method was used to roll up the information. Based on this method 10 per centum of the book ( about 23 pages ) was selected as the sample. To happen the frequence interval, 234 was divided by 23 ; the consequence was 10. Every 10th page of the book ( beginning text ) included the pages of 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95, 105, 115, 125, 135, 145, 155, 165, 175, 185, 195, 205, 215, 225, and 235 based on which the text analysis was performed and compared with the TT.
Theoretical Model
House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account of interlingual rendition quality appraisal was used as a theoretical model for this research. Unlike some other theoretical accounts which consider the text consisting of separate elements, House ‘s theoretical account takes the text as a whole phenomenon. The theoretical account is functional and encompasses different dimensions of text such as lingual, matter-of-fact and discourse. House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account involves textual and register analysis of profiles of both the beginning and mark text. Register analysis of ST and TT profile can be realized via lexical, syntactic, and textual agencies. Textual means comprises theme-dynamics, clausal linkage, and iconic linkage. The theoretical account operates at different degrees of analysis. It begins from the degree of ‘individual textual map ‘ ; so, goes to the degrees of registry and genre ; and eventually ends at the degree of ‘language/text ‘ . The degree of registry analysis covers three dimensions of field, tenor, and manner. Field refers to analysis of capable affair and societal action. Tenor covers participant relationship including writer ‘s birthplace and stance, societal function relationship and societal attitude. Mode refers to impart or medium of communicating and engagement in the text. Comparing ST profile with TT profile conveying about mismatches between the two profiles. Dimensional mistakes and mismatches are referred to as covert mistakes, whereas, mismatches of the denotive significances or breaches of mark linguistic communication system are open mistakes. House besides presumes two sorts of interlingual rendition, viz. as covert and open interlingual rendition. A covert interlingual rendition is a interlingual rendition that appears as if it produces in the mark civilization. On the other manus, an open interlingual rendition is a interlingual rendition that the cultural characteristics of the beginning text are purposefully retained. After analysis of ST, TT, mismatches and mistakes, the interlingual rendition can be recognized as either covert or open one. While open interlingual rendition and its original text demand to be matched at the degrees of genre, registry, and language/text, in covert interlingual rendition merely genre and the primary degree map have to be matched with the original text. It is deserving adverting that harmonizing to House, open interlingual rendition is suited for the texts such as literary plants, fictions, moral anecdotes, comedy duologues, and historic addresss, while covert interlingual rendition covers text types including scientific texts, tourer information brochures, economic texts, journalistic texts, and advertizements.
Procedures
At foremost, based on House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account, the ST was analyzed and its profile including the registry was obtained. Based on registry analysis of ST, ST genre was realized. Then, a statement of map was made for the beginning text. Then, the same stairss were taken for the TT, that is, TT profile was obtained. The TT profile was analyzed and compared with the ST profile. The consequences were mismatches and mistakes including lexical, syntactic, textual mismatches. They categorized into two groups of covert mistakes and open mistakes. The frequence of happenings of the open mistakes was calculated. It should be mentioned that the unit of mistakes recognized in the survey was phrase. Each phrase contained one or more mistakes. Every individual mistake was taken into history in the procedure of computation of the frequence of happenings. Each mistake and mismatch was provided with a description and an illustration from ST and TT. A statement of quality was made based on the consequences of analysis ST and TT. Finally, the type of interlingual rendition was recognized based House ‘s differentiation between overt and covert interlingual rendition.
Since this survey was based on House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account and this theoretical account was a non-quantitative and descriptive-explanatory one, a non-statistical and descriptive method was used in order to analyse the information. By comparing the indiscriminately selected parts of the beginning text with their Iranian opposite numbers in the translated text, some mismatches and mistakes were revealed. The dimensional mistakes were referred to as covert mistakes ; while, those mistakes related to denotive mismatches or mark system mistakes were referred to as open mistakes. Because of significance function of open mistakes in interlingual rendition quality appraisal of literary interlingual renditions, the frequence of happenings of open mistakes and their per centums were computed. House suggests overt sort of interlingual rendition for literary plants. Therefore, the interlingual rendition was assessed against the standards and features that an open interlingual rendition needed to hold. In other words, the ST and TT profiles were analyzed to see whether the 2nd degree functional equality was achieved and accordingly, whether at this degree the mark text matched genre, registry, text and lingual schemes of the beginning text. If these standards were fulfilled, the interlingual rendition would be assumed as an open sort of interlingual rendition. On the contrary, if the interlingual rendition did non fit with the beginning text on dimensions of registry and language/text and alternatively, applied a cultural filter, so, the interlingual rendition could be assumed as a covert sort of interlingual rendition.
Findingss
Beginning Text ( ST ) Profile
To depict the dimension of FIELD, it should be said that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a dystopian novel. It is a authoritative novel which is really celebrated and popular among other literary plants. The narrative is designed to be read by grownups. Lexical agencies applied on field were usage of neologies such as Big Brother, doublethink, and Thought Police, usage of no proficient academic footings, presence of several collocations and parlances such as p. 15 act a portion ; p. 105 the seashore is clear ; and cases of informal words like darn and Black. The narrative largely contained short simple clauses and sentences. However, there were several cases of long sentences consisted of short subsidiary clauses and phrases. Orwell ( 1949 ) frequently used the punctuations such as semicolon, colon, and comma within the text. The writer frequently began the sentences with adverbs, concurrences, and comparative pronouns: p. 25 what he had written… ; and p. 85 Then he went… . Strong coherence was achieved through repeats and iconic linkage: p. 65 and so, for… , and so a voice… ; p. 135 if I confess… , if I refuse… . There were besides theme kineticss particularly sequences of theme-rheme, anaphoric referencing by agencies of pro-forms for noun phrases, adverbials, clauses or sentences, and cases of clausal linkage: when, as, but, and, that is, hence. On TENOR, writer ‘s temporal, geographical and societal birthplace was unmarked, modern-day in-between category criterion British English. The writer ‘s personal ( emotional and rational ) stance provoked a sense of fright for readers. The writer was against dictatorship and absolutism. He used particular lexical points to supply a sense of fright for readers: p. 85 anguish chamber. Several intensives, adjectives and adverbs were identified including violently, atrocious, and lifelessly. There were frequent utilizations of narrative and descriptive constructions to depict a dictatorial society: p. 25 and in forepart of him there lay non decease but obliteration. For societal function relationship, the writer put himself on a par with his addressees. The writer acted as a storyteller who told the narrative to the audience. He got readers involve in the narrative by utilizing 2nd individual personal pronoun in an ordinary manner without any authorization. Although some informal words and parlances were used, the text did non incorporate proficient and complicated word. The syntactic agencies applied were utilizations of personal pronouns and genitive adjectives in soliloquy, and dialogic parts: p. 15 ever the eyes watching you… , and p. 235 we must run into once more. The writer most frequently talked about the Winston. That could propose that the full transition was described from Winston ‘s point of position. Social attitude was advisory and informal. It was advisory and colloquial because the text contained conversations and there was besides engagement between addressees. Therefore, no great societal distance between writer and audience could be seen. It was informal because there were contractions and informal lexical points such as slangs particularly in the duologues of characters of the novel. The lexical agencies applied here were usage of colloquial, informal lexical points, usage of parlances, usage of ploies such as p. 75 the point is, p. 185 to state you the truth, and usage of lexical points bespeaking vagueness, for illustration sort of, kind of. The syntactic agencies were frequent usage of individual citation Markss ( ‘… ‘ ) for direct addresss, frequent usage of contractions like p. 95 you ‘ll hold to… , and presence of egg-shaped constructions: p. 145 any inquiry? p. 135 why non? On MODE, the medium was complex because the text was written to be read as if spoken. The lexical agencies were usage of conversational lexical points and presence of ejaculations including p. 115 but expression! and p. 185 Ah, Smith! he said you excessively! The syntactic agencies were presence of egg-shaped constructions, usage of individual citation Markss ( ‘… ‘ ) for taging direct addresss between characters, usage of personal pronouns particularly first and 2nd personal pronouns, frequences of contractions, frequences of short co-ordinated clauses particularly in dialogic parts linked with comma and and. There was besides usage of elan ( – ) seldom in storyteller ‘s address and more often in conversations between characters to demo a short intermission in the talker ‘s on-going address: p. 215 but ever – do non bury this, Winston – ever there will be the poisoning. The text was etic because there were mentions to readers, links to the peculiar participants through the frequent utilizations of deictic personal pronouns, and engagement of addresser and addresses together. There were besides redundancy through repeat and iconic linkage in the text. Engagement was complex because there was a soliloquy with several cases of readers being straight addressed and with constitutional dialogic parts. Predominance 3rd individual personal and genitive pronouns indicated narrative format of narrative. There were besides other types of pronouns in dialogic and colloquial parts particularly foremost and 2nd personal and genitive pronouns to bespeak a direct colloquial interaction inside the narrative. Frequent switches in the text between monologue format of the text and dialogic vocalizations between characters were seen every bit good. The text was preponderantly etic pulling its readers into the text through ample utilizations of deictic pronouns: p. 205 we bring him to our side. GENRE was dystopian novel and scientific discipline fiction.
Statement of Function
The map of Nineteen Eighty-Four largely consisted of an interpersonal functional constituent. The conceptional functional constituent was besides implicitly present in the text, in that the text informed its readers about certain events affecting the supporter and the other characters depicted in the text. The writer ‘s purpose was to warn people about totalitarian societies such as communist states by supplying a similar society which would be in future. The interpersonal map was marked through the GENRE, since the writer focused on the character of Winston who lived in a totalitarian society and described his ideas, beliefs, and challenges. On the dimension of FIELD, the interpersonal map was present due to utilizing conversational lexical points, absence of proficient academic footings, about simple syntactic constructions, and redundancy through repeat and iconic linkage. On TENOR, the advisory manner degree marked through informal lexical points, contractions, ploies, eclipsiss and repeats supported interpersonal map. The MODE had besides the interpersonal functional constituent because the medium of the text is ‘written to be read as if spoken ‘ and the engagement was marked by frequent dialogic parts interspersed in the monologic model.
Comparison of Original and Translation
On FIELD, there were lexical mismatches because the informality of words was reduced: thick negroid lips vs ‘labhA?yA« mutuvarim Virginia saloon A?madah ‘ . There were besides syntactic mismatches because some of long sentences dwelling of several subordinated clauses in the original text were translated into separate short sentences: p. 235 He made a half-hearted effort to catch up, so slowed down, turned, and made off in the opposite way. V ‘ibtidA? bA? bA« maylA« saE»y kard Bi A« birisad. baE»d qadam hA? rA? A?histah kard, charkhA«d Virginia dar jahati mukhA?lif Bi rA?h uftA?d ‘ . On TENOR, there were syntactic mismatches in societal function relationship, since the 2nd personal pronoun of you in soliloquy parts was translated otherwise in Persian, and alternatively impersonal pronouns such as ‘insA?n, fard ‘ were used. As a consequence, interpersonal effectivity and the engagement of readers in the narrative were reduced. Lexical mismatches were seen in societal attitude since some of informal lexical points and parlances are markedly more formal in Iranian interlingual rendition. That widened the distance between the writer and readers: p. 125 a batch of rubbish V ‘muhmal bA?fA«hA? ‘ . On MODE, there were lexical mismatches in medium because some of conversational and informal lexical points were translated to more formal lexical points in Persian ( see lexical mismatches in TENOR ) .
Overt Mistakes
This subdivision presents open mistakes and their four subcategories of skips, add-ons, permutations, and breaches of the mark linguistic communication system. For each group one illustration is provided.
Omissions
Omissions refer to those missed parts in the interlingual rendition text which have non been translated by the transcriber.
Table 1 Omissions
ST
Terrestrial time
Explanation
p. 65
And the tone of the music changed excessively.
_
The transcriber missed the whole sentence. The open interlingual rendition for this sentence is: ‘Va tuni A?hang avazI¤ shud ‘ .
Additions
Additions occur when the transcriber adds excess elements in interlingual rendition that do non fit with the original text.
Table 2 Additions
ST
Terrestrial time
Explanation
p. 205
We bring him over to our side,
‘MA? A« rA? jisman Virginia rA«han Bi jibhayi khudimA?n mulhaq mA«kunA«m ‘ .
‘jisman Virginia rA«han ‘ agencies physically and mentally in English. However, such words did non be in the original text.
Substitutions
This subdivision contains mistakes which are due to either incorrect choices or incorrect combinations.
Table 3 Substitutions
ST
Terrestrial time
Explanation
p. 225
Besides he knew that someplace or other she was still alive and needed his aid.
‘Dar zI¤imn mA«dA?nist A« zindah ast va Bi kumaki vA«nstA«n nA«yA?z dA?rad ‘ .
The topic of the sentence ( he ) refers to Winston. Alternatively of utilizing the name ‘vA«nstA«n ‘ for adjectival pronoun of his which distorts the significance of sentence, it is better to interpret the sentence like this: ‘Dar zI¤imn mA«dA?nist A« zindah ast va Bi kumakash nA«yA?z dA?rad ‘ .
Breachs of the Target Language System
Breachs of the mark linguistic communication system are due to either ungrammaticality, that is, clear breaches of the mark linguistic communication system, or doubtful acceptableness, that is, breaches of the norm of use. No case of breaches of the TL system was found for ungrammaticality.
Table 4 Doubtful acceptableness
ST
Terrestrial time
Explanation
p. 65
He noticed that both Aaronson and Rutherford had broken olfactory organs.
‘VA«nstA«n daryA?ft qi bA«nA«yi A?runsun Virginia rA?dirfA«rd har du shikastigA« dA?rad ‘ .
The clause had broken olfactory organs was literally translated by the transcriber. However, it is non common in Iranian to utilize the verb ‘dA?shtan ‘ for ‘shikastigA« ‘ . Alternatively, this should hold been translated like this: ‘VA«nstA«n daryA?ft qi bA«nA«yi A?runsun Virginia rA?dirfA«rd shikastah ast ‘ .
The frequence of happenings of each type of open mistakes was calculated as follows:
Table 5 The frequence of happenings of open mistakes
Types of Mistakes
Frequency
Percentage
Omissions
76
25 %
Additions
34
11 %
Substitutions
196
63 %
Breachs of the TL System
2
1 %
Entire
308
100 %
As it is shown in the Table 5, the largest group belongs to the class of permutations with 63 % and the smallest 1 is the breaches of TL system with merely 1 % of entire mistakes. Between the two extremes, there are the class of skips with 25 % , which is the largest class after the permutations, and the class of add-ons with 11 % of the entire mistakes.
Discussion and Decision
Harmonizing to House ( 1997 ) , the open sort of interlingual rendition is needed for interlingual rendition of literary plants. Since Nineteen Eighty-Four is a literary work, hence, in this survey, the judgement for measuring the quality of interlingual rendition was based on the standards and criterions defined for open interlingual rendition. That was why a considerable attending was paid for open mistakes in the procedure of interlingual rendition quality appraisal. The analysis of original and interlingual rendition revealed a figure of mismatches along the dimensions of FIELD, TENOR, and MODE. These mismatches caused a alteration of the interpersonal functional constituent. There were besides a big figure of open mistakes that affected the conceptional constituent and the transmittal of information. On FIELD, the long sentences in the ST were translated into several short sentences. As a consequence, a greater explicitness was made in interlingual rendition. The interpersonal functional constituent was changed because the explicitness in interlingual rendition directed readers ‘ imaginativeness and reading much more closely. On TENOR, the interpersonal functional constituent was changed because the 2nd personal pronoun in the soliloquy parts of the original was substituted with the impersonal pronoun in the interlingual rendition. Some of informal lexical points were translated more formal. Consequently, the manner degree was changed in several cases and it became less informal every bit good. On MODE, there was a alteration in informality of the text which was similar to TENOR. Although, there were a figure of dimensional mismatches in the interlingual rendition, but GENRE remained unchanged.
The greater sum of loss was due to open mistakes where a entire figure of 308 open mistakes were identified. Out of this figure, 196 mistakes ( about 63 % of entire figure of mistakes ) belonged to permutations which constituted the largest group of open mistakes. Omissions, add-ons, and the breaches of the TL system allocated 76, 34, and 2 mistakes ( about 25 % , 11 % , 1 % of entire mistakes ) severally. The skips and permutations were assumed as major mistakes ; while, add-ons and breaches of TL system were minor 1s. Omissions were major mistakes because the transcriber deliberately or accidentally missed and omitted several parts of the text that in most of the instances were non justifiable. Overt mistakes of permutations were caused by incorrect choices and incorrect combinations in interlingual rendition. This type of mistakes was due to the fact incorrect equivalents were selected in interlingual rendition. Additions used by the transcriber caused more elucidation, explicitness, and redundancy in the text. In most of the instances, add-ons were neither necessary nor justifiable. Breachs of the TL system that had the lowest frequence of happenings among the others did non hold so much consequence on the quality of interlingual rendition.
To reply inquiry one, the findings of the survey including dimensional mismatches and open mistakes should be taken into history. In other words, the transcriber ‘s interlingual rendition schemes could be revealed through the analysis of dimensional mismatches in general and analysis of open mistakes in peculiar. Harmonizing to the analysis, the schemes used by the transcriber were skips, add-ons, permutations, and usage of cultural filter. However, the most frequent scheme used in interlingual rendition was permutations with 196 points. After permutation, skips and add-ons were severally the most frequent schemes used by the transcriber.
To reply inquiry two of research and eventually do the statement of quality, the standards and characteristics needed for open interlingual rendition should be borne in head. It is obvious that in some parts of the text, the transcriber did non take history of denotive significances of the words of the original. The writer ‘s manner was non paid so much attending. In several instances, the transcriber manipulated the text which did non sound to be sensible. In other words, it can be said that most of the text under the survey was non translated overtly. Therefore, it can be concluded that based on the big figure of open mistakes including major mistakes such as skips and permutations, the standards of open interlingual rendition were non fulfilled by the transcriber. Further, the application of the cultural filter to some parts of interlingual rendition indicated alterations at the degrees of registry ( including dimensions of FIELD, TENOR, and MODE ) . There was more explicitness in the interlingual rendition that affected the interpersonal functional constituent. Therefore, the second-level functional equality required for open interlingual rendition was non reached. In add-on, the visibleness of the transcriber needed for open interlingual rendition was non seen in some parts of the interlingual rendition. As a consequence, the Iranian interlingual rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four by Balooch ( 2004 ) could non be assumed as an open interlingual rendition but reversely a covert interlingual rendition.
The findings of this survey can be compared to Gehrmann ‘s ( 2011 ) research on quality appraisal of Swedish interlingual rendition of Tolkien ‘s The Lord of the Rings. Like this survey, Gehrmann analyzed textual profiles of both ST and TT and provided illustrations for them. He found a figure of mismatches along the dimensions of tenor and field. He besides detected the overt mistakes which were merely caused by semantic add-ons and other types of open mistakes were ignored. Unlike the current survey, he did non cipher the frequences of happenings of each mistake. Finally, he concluded that the interlingual rendition was a covert sort of interlingual rendition. His decision largely relied on analysis of dimensional mistakes.
The interlingual rendition quality appraisal of Nineteen Eighty-Four non merely recognized the debatable countries including mismatches and mistakes in this peculiar interlingual rendition but besides revealed some facts about interlingual rendition of literary plants. This survey showed what jobs and troubles a literary transcriber had to confront with and what strategies he applied in the procedure of interlingual rendition. The frequent schemes used by the transcriber in interlingual rendition of such a literary work were skips and permutations which in most of the instances were non justifiable. A big figure of mistakes found in this Iranian interlingual rendition of the popular literary work underline the significance of interlingual rendition quality appraisal for literary plants in Iran. There can be Iranian interlingual renditions of many literary plants that need to be reviewed and revised. Taking into history a theoretical model as House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account in interlingual rendition such can assist transcribers observe and avoid errors and mistakes in interlingual rendition procedure.
The findings of this survey can be helpful for literary transcribers to acquire familiar with jobs in interlingual rendition of literary every bit good as schemes used to get by with such jobs. Omissions and permutations are the most frequent mistakes in Iranian interlingual rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. The editors of interlingual rendition can besides acknowledge the above-named mistakes in literary interlingual rendition and take them in the procedure of reexamining and redacting interlingual rendition. The teachers and manque transcribers can utilize the findings of the survey in the procedure of acquisition and learning interlingual rendition. The major restriction of the survey was this fact that House ‘s ( 1997 ) theoretical account of TQA consisted of several different parts and it took into history about all facets of interlingual rendition. Therefore, in this survey, analysing a figure of pages took so much clip and it became s a humdrum undertaking. In this survey, merely the frequences of happenings of open mistakes were computed. For farther research, the frequences of happenings of dimensional mismatches can be calculated every bit good. Overt mistakes can be subdivided into more classs. The quality of interlingual rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four can be assessed by agencies of the other theoretical accounts of TQA and the consequences can be compared with those 1s of this survey. A similar survey ( interlingual rendition quality appraisal ) can be done with literary texts in other linguistic communications. Additionally, other types of text with different genres can be assessed with House ‘s theoretical account.
