The Catcher In The Rye English Language Essay

Sing an English novel as the beginning papers and its Iranian interlingual renditions as the mark text, we mean to reply this inquiry. Extracting parlances and non-idioms from the first chapter of J. D. Salinger ‘s The Catcher in the Rye, is the first measure to get down. Then we made a comparing of collected information with their Iranian interlingual renditions by Najafi and Karimi for the following phase.

Following compensation scheme by adding mark linguistic communication parlances someplace in the translated texts by the Iranian transcribers, is an unfastened door to pull off the idiomatic loss in their interlingual renditions.

This indicates that, if in any instance it ‘s non possible to interpret a beginning linguistic communication parlance as an parlance in mark linguistic communication, the transcriber can counterbalance the loss of the parlance by adding a mark linguistic communication parlance to topographic points where there ab initio was a non-idiom.

Cardinal words:

English Idiom, Persian Translation, Translation Strategies, Compensation Strategy, Source Text ( ST ) , Target Text ( TT ) , Source Language ( SL ) , Target Language ( TL ) .

Introduction:

Translation is by and large explained as a procedure in which the transcriber transfers the significance of a SL text into TL under the fortunes of continuing the content and truth of original text, every bit far as it is possible.

Where there is no equivalent for a SL parlance in the TL, the transcriber gets throughout compensation scheme to make full this incurred spread. The more skilled the transcriber is, the better will be the interlingual rendition.

If you are enthusiastic to this issue as we are, this is the paper you can mention to and take your reply.

Theoretical Background:

Translation

Bell ( ibid. : 6 ) argues that “ a entire equality between a beginning linguistic communication text and its interlingual rendition is something that can ne’er be to the full achieved. “

Harmonizing to Bassnett-McGuire ( 1980: 2 ) , the purpose of interlingual rendition is that the significance of the mark linguistic communication text is similar to that of the beginning linguistic communication text, and that “ the constructions of the SL will be preserved every bit closely as possible, but non so closely that the TL constructions will be earnestly distorted. ” In other words, the beginning linguistic communication construction must non be imitated to such an extent that the mark linguistic communication text becomes ill-formed or sounds otherwise unnatural or gawky.

Parlance:

Parlances are the major and natural portion of all linguistic communications every bit good as a outstanding portion of our mundane discourse. Parlances are such a normal portion of our linguistic communication usage that we barely even detect how immensely we use them in our mundane address and authorship. English is a linguistic communication full of parlances, so, scholars of English should be cognizant of their nature, types, and usage.

Using many parlances in English linguistic communication is one of the facets that makes it someway hard to larn for a Iranian scholar. They can be used in formal manner and in slang.

“ Idiom is defined as a group of words which have different significance when used together from the 1 they would hold if you took the significance of each word separately ” ( Collins Cobuild lexicon, 1990 edition ) .

Indeed, the significance of parlance can merely be inferred through its significance and

map in context, as shown in the illustrations below ( from Fernando, 1996 ) .

“ staff of life and butter, as in `It was a simple staff of life and butter issue ‘ ( see farther below ) ; bless you, which is normally used in the context of affable looks ; travel to hell, which indicates that there is a struggle among middlemans in an interpersonal contact ; In amount, which indicates dealingss among parts and constituents of a text. ”

Parlances are a set of phrases have different significance from its single parts of the phrases. Sometimes it is difficult to acknowledge the significance of a phrase merely by cognizing the significance of the words including in it e.g. “ paint the town ruddy ” is a phrase which has a significance other than the significance of its words individually, it means “ holding a good clip! ”

Some traditional theories of idiomaticity assumed that “ parlances are frozen, semantic units that are basically non-compositional ( Hambin & A ; Gibbs, 1999, p.26 ) . ” However, “ there have been a figure of semantic categorization systems proposed since 1980 for evaluation the composing of parlances which fundamentally give differing names to the same constructs ( Grant & A ; Bauer, 2004 ) . ”

Translating Parlances:

working with English, the transcriber may easy acknowledge if an parlance violates `truth conditions ‘ , as in `it is raining cats and Canis familiariss ‘ , `storm in a teacup ‘ , ‘jump down person ‘s pharynx ‘ , etc. It may be difficult to acknowledge, if the parlance is non of this nature, and transcribers may merely believe of it as an ordinary look, with the effect of either losing its tone or losing its significance.

There are two beginnings which may do misunderstanding:

The first possible beginning is that there are parlances which can misdirect readers/users ; they do non sound idiomatic at all, but at a closer expression, careful readers would happen the ‘hidden ‘ parlances.

An illustration given by Salinger in “ The Catcher in the Rye ” is `got the axe ‘ in the undermentioned text:

“ The director warned me, but I did n’t notice, so I got the axe. ”

On the first expression, readers may construe it in footings of a individual who took an axe and wanted to make something with it like cut a tree but at a closer expression, a careful reader may happen out that means “ to lose the occupation ” .

The 2nd beginning of misunderstanding occurs when the words in an parlance have equivalents in the mark linguistic communication ( i.e. in Iranian ) but with wholly different significance. Another good illustration given by Salinger is the parlance:

“ for the birds ” .

“ Winter conditions is for the birds. ”

At first it may be understood that this sentence means winter conditions is good for the birds but it makes no sense because the significance is truly different and it means “ worthless ; unwanted ” .

Schemes used interpreting parlances

Parlances are civilization edge and this is another challenge for the transcriber to reassign the exact significance and content of SL parlance into TL parlance absolutely.

For the interest of work outing these troubles the transcriber may use a scheme.

Using the appropriate method in this procedure, the transcribers can acquire over the troubles easy and it is valuable and utile for their plants.

Mona Baker, in her book In Other Words ( 1992, pp. 72-78 ) , defines the undermentioned schemes for interpreting idiomatic looks: 1 ) Using an parlance of similar significance and signifier, 2 ) Using an parlance of similar significance but dissimilar signifier, 3 ) by paraphrasis, 4 ) by skip.

( 1 ) Using an parlance of similar significance and signifier:

The first interlingual rendition scheme by Mona Baker is interpreting TL parlance similar in its signifier and significance to the SL parlance.

For illustration: Tooth and nail ( ( O?O§ U†U†U? U? O?U†O?O§U†

( 2 ) Using an parlance of similar significance but dissimilar signifier:

Another scheme suggested by Mona Baker is interpreting a SL parlance into TL idiom the same significance but different signifier. In this instance, the transcriber does non continue the lexical points and translate as a semantic equivalent.

For illustration: Acid lingua in her caput. ( O?O?O§U† U†U?O?O?O§O±U? O?O§O?O?U† )

( 3 ) Translation by paraphrasis:

The most common scheme in interlingual rendition of parlances is paraphrase. Translators frequently can non interpret a SL parlances as a TL parlance, hence they use the paraphrasis scheme by utilizing a word or a group of words in TL precisely related to the significance of that parlance in SL which may be a non-idiom.

Newmark ( 1988, p.109 ) “ says that while utilizing this scheme non merely constituents of sense will be losing or added, but the affectional or matter-of-fact impact will be reduced or lost. Still, paraphrasis is normally descriptive and explanatory ; sometimes it preserves the manner of the original parlance every bit good. ”

For illustration: On tenterhooks. ( ( U…O«U„ O§USU†U©U‡ O±U?U? O?O§U?U‡ O?O?O? O?O§O?U…

( 4 ) Translation by skip:

“ This scheme is non used really often. In fact, it is non approved by many bookmans and some of them do non include it among other interlingual rendition schemes ( Veisbergs, 1989 ) . ” However, sometimes it ‘s impossible to interpret a SL parlance into TL, so the transcriber may utilize another scheme called compensation. In this scheme the transcriber omit an parlance and may set another parlance elsewhere in the TL text by continuing the consequence of SL parlance.

Compensation Scheme:

Compensation is a scheme most decidedly deserving sing, while it can be used as one possible scheme for covering with parlances and quite an effectual 1 for counterbalancing the loss caused by interpreting. Therefore, in order to continue the idiomaticity of the original text and to avoid the mentioned loss, many transcribers resort to compensation in interpreting parlances as their concluding but feasible scheme. That is when an parlance is non possible to be translated into TT, a transcriber ‘s last attempt is to counterbalance an parlance by excluding that and seting an parlance in another topographic point, by continuing the usage consequence of parlance in the ST.

“ Nida and Taber ( 1969 ) reference that, whereas one inevitably loses many parlances in the procedure of interlingual rendition one besides stands to derive a figure of parlances ( P. 106 ) . ” Baker ( 1992 ) indicates that in compensation, a transcriber may go forth out a characteristic such as idiomaticity where it originate in the ST and present it someplace else in the TT ( p. 78 ) .

In support of this thought, Newmark ( 1991 ) suggests that “ all wordplaies, initial rhymes, rime, slang, metaphor and pregnant words can be compensated in interlingual rendition. ” Though he farther adds that, “ compensation is the process which in the last resort ensures that interlingual rendition is possible ” ( pp.143aˆ?144 ) .

Theoretical model

We agree with Lorenzo, M. et al. , in that “ the first measure a transcriber must take is to clearly specify his nonsubjective before bring forthing a interlingual rendition which is every bit true as possible to the original text. ” One of the facets of Hans Vermeer ‘s construct of skopos ( 1989:227 ) is “ the constitution of a clearly defined objective or aim for interlingual rendition ;

Any signifier of interlingual rendition, including interlingual rendition itself, may be understood as an action, as the name implies. Any action has an purpose, a intent. ”

The word skopos is a proficient word for the purpose or intent of interlingual rendition.

Nida ‘s Dynamic Equality

In the procedure of interpreting parlances, the transcriber may confront many troubles which is non a simple undertaking to get the better of.

The major job is the deficiency of equality in the procedure of interlingual rendition. It would be desirable if a transcriber could happen a TL parlance which is the same as that in construction and content of SL parlance. Anyhow every linguistic communication, both beginning and mark, has its ain parlances and it may be difficult to happen the precise beginning equivalent in the mark linguistic communication.

The definition of dynamic equality is ab initio given by Eugene A. Nida in his book “ Toward a Science of the Translation ” ( Nida, E.A. , 1964:161 ) . Nida is an American transcriber, bookman, instructor, leader, influencer, conceptualizer, pioneer, and influential theorist. Nida argued that there are two different types of equality, viz. formal equivalence-which in the 2nd edition by Nida and Taber ( 1982 ) is referred to as formal correspondence-and dynamic equality. Formal correspondence “ focuses attending on the message itself, in both signifier and content ” , unlike dynamic equality which is based upon “ the rule of tantamount consequence ” ( 1964:159 ) .

Dynamic equality connects the mark linguistic communication and civilization in order to do messages comprehendible to aim linguistic communication receptors. For case, if we translate a phrase like ‘ two bleedings apiece ‘ literally into Iranian, it will bring forth a absurd significance for the Iranian receptor. Idiomatic looks may non look apprehensible when translated from one linguistic communication to another. In such instances the equality opposite number “ “ O®U?U†O±U?O? O?U? U‚O?O¶U‡ can be used to do it apprehensible to the receptor. In this position the transcriber has brought an equivalent which the original writer most likely meant.

Method:

Principal:

The survey is based on a incompatible comparing between the two Iranian interlingual renditions of

The Catcher in the Rye by Muhammad Najafi and Ahmad Karimi. In this survey we tried to accomplish which of these transcribers has followed the compensation scheme in his ain interlingual rendition, and whether they have been successful in this procedure or non.

Gathering the informations:

Roll uping the information, of class, is every bit of import as other phases ( like decision ) and even more of import. Because the more accurate the collected information is so, the more favourable the consequence will be.

Concentrating on the procedure in this survey, we long to explicate the stairss in informations collection, severally. At the earliest measure, we extracted English parlances and non-idioms from the first chapter of the novel, so found their Iranian equivalents from two Iranian interlingual renditions by Najafi and Karimi of the same novel. We aimed to cognize whether English parlances are translated into Iranian parlances or non and whether English non-idioms are translated into Iranian parlances or non. Then we read the aforesaid translated chapter by two transcribers several times to clear up if they may be parlances. We looked up English parlances in Idioms Oxford Dictionary, although we had trouble in acknowledging the exact parlance at first.

On the other manus, as we are Iranian pupils, it was non difficult to happen Iranian parlances every bit hard as English parlances, anyhow. But on non-idioms, we considered the most English phrases or sentences which translated as parlances in TL.

Possibly you ask why we chose this novel. As you know, of class, this novel is rich in parlances and it makes the work for research worker to entree the idealistic consequences easier.

Then we counted the parlances and non-idioms in both original text and its Iranian interlingual renditions by two transcribers.

Table 1. Entire Number of Idiomatic and Non-Idiomatic Translations of the Salinger ‘s Parlances

J.D. Salinger ‘s Parlances

Entire

Translation

Najafi

Karimi

44

Idiomatic

22

18

Non- Idiomatic

22

26

In this tabular array, we calculated the entire Numberss of English parlances ( N=44 ) which is translated by transcribers, either idiomatic or non-idiomatic. As you can see, here, Najafi translated more English parlances ( N=44 ) into Iranian parlances ( N=22 ) than Karimi. We guess, this tabular array will corroborate our claim that Najafi has translated much more adept than Karimi, because he got usage of compensation scheme by adding more Iranian parlances than Karimi. Anyway, our intent is non to compare individuals and is merely to find if there is any usage of compensation scheme in each of these interlingual renditions.

Table 2. Entire Number of Idiomatic and Non-Idiomatic Translations of the Salinger ‘s Non-idioms

J.D. Salinger ‘s Non-Idioms

Entire

Translation

Najafi

Karimi

42

Idiomatic

42

26

Non-Idiomatic

0

16

This tabular array besides illustrated that Najafi translated 42 English non-idioms out of 42 as idiomatic. On the other manus, Karimi translated 26 English non-idioms out of 42 as idiomatic. This tabular array shows how Najafi and Karimi have functioned in interpreting non-idioms into parlances. By entire non-idioms, we mean those which translated as parlances by Najafi and it will be our standards for numbering Karimi ‘s parlances and non-idioms.

Table 3. Entire Number of Different Data Extracted from Both Translations and the Original Text

Datas

J.D. Salinger

Najafi

Karimi

Parlance

44

64

44

Non-idiom

42

22

42

Entire

86

86

86

This tabular array confirms that Najafi has translated the novel more idiomatic ( N=64 ) than Karimi ( N=44 ) .

Classifying the Datas:

After pull outing and numbering the entire parlances in both original text and its interlingual renditions, it revealed that transcribers had applied 3 different interlingual rendition schemes for parlances. These schemes were:

Translating English Idioms into Persian Idioms

Translating English Idioms into Iranian Non-idioms

Translating English Non-idioms into Persian Idioms

Analyzing the Datas:

In this phase, we analyzed the whole collected informations and deliberate frequence and the per centum proportion of each scheme in the same interlingual renditions. The consequences are shown in the tabular arraies below ;

Table 4. Frequency and Percentage of Idiom ‘s Translation Strategies Applied by Najafi

Scheme

Frequency

Percentage

Translation of parlance with parlance

22

50

Translation of parlance with non-idiom

22

50

Entire

44

100

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage of Idiom ‘s Translation Strategies Applied by Karimi

Scheme

Frequency

Percentage

Translation of parlance with parlance

18

40.90

Translation of parlance with non-idiom

26

59.10

Entire

44

100

Table 6. Frequency and Percentage of Non-Idiom ‘s Translation Strategies Applied by Najafi

Scheme

Frequency

Percentage

Translation of non-idiom with parlance

42

100

Translation of non-idiom with non-idiom

0

0

Entire

42

100

Table 7. Frequency and Percentage of Non-Idiom ‘s Translation Strategies Applied by Karimi

Scheme

Frequency

Percentage

Translation of non-idiom with parlance

26

61.90

Translation of non-idiom with non-idiom

16

38.10

Entire

42

100

Table 8. Percentage of each Applied Strategies in both Translations

Scheme

Najafi

Karimi

Translation of non-idiom with parlance

100

61.90

Translation of non-idiom with non-idiom

0

38.10

Entire

100

100

Consequences:

The consequences show that both transcribers, Najafi and Karimi, have applied three schemes in interpreting parlances: interpreting English parlances with Iranian parlances, interpreting English parlances with Iranian non-idioms, interpreting English non-idioms with Iranian parlances, and interpreting English non-idioms with Iranian non-idioms.

One of the transcribers, Najafi, used more often the first and the 3rd ( interpreting English parlances and non-idioms as Persian parlances ) scheme in his interlingual rendition, on the other manus, the latter transcriber, Karimi, used the 2nd and the last ( interpreting English parlances and non-idioms as Iranian non-idioms ) scheme more frequently.

Discussion and Decision:

As mentioned before, it ‘s difficult to interpret a SL parlance into TL parlance sing the accurateness and the fidelity of SL into TL.

In this he-man, out of 44 extracted parlances from J.D. Salinger ‘s novel, 22 ( 50 % ) of the looks have non been translated as parlances by Najafi. In the same instance, Karimi has translated 18 ( 40.90 % ) of the parlances with Iranian parlances and the staying 26 ( 59.10 % ) parlances have been translated non-idiomatically. This instability between the entire figure of parlances and their non-idiomatic interlingual renditions causes a loss of idiomaticity in the Persian translated texts. Some of these idiomatic losingss have been compensated for elsewhere in the text, since the transcribers have replaced some English linguistic communication non-idioms with Iranian parlances. By this scheme, Najafi has added 42 parlances and Karimi has added 26 parlances to their interlingual renditions. We recognized that there ‘s non the exact contrast in Numberss of parlances in two linguistic communications ( SL, TL ) , but it ‘s really common in interlingual rendition. The transcribers were someway successful here in counterbalancing idiom spreads in the TL. Furthermore, they compensated those non-idiom looks in the original context to work better on their interlingual renditions.

Compensation scheme is considered here as the best to interpret parlances, non-idioms and figure of address as good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *