Volume 6, Issue 1 (3-2021)                   IJREE 2021, 6(1): 77-93 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Eshtiyaghi E, Pourhossein Gilakjani A. The Effect of Unit-of-Translation on Iranian Upper-Intermediate EFL Learners’ Achievement in Bizarre News Translation. IJREE. 2021; 6 (1)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-491-en.html
Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan Branch, Lahijan, Iran
Abstract:   (166 Views)
The current study was an attempt to investigate whether the Unit-of-Translation has any effect on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ achievement in Bizarre News translation. In addition, it investigated whether there was any difference across gender regarding the effect of Unit-of-Translation on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ achievement in Bizarre News translation. To this end, 45 out of 88 EFL learners from three upper-intermediate language learners at two Language Institutes in Boumehen, Iran were selected based on Oxford Placement Test. Then, they were divided randomly into three groups; one control group (N=15) and two experimental groups (N=30). The first experimental group was male. The second experimental was female, and the third group was administered as the control group. The experimental groups received the instruction for unit of translation.  The instruction was given in five sequential sessions about 50 minutes. In contrast, the control group received no special instruction.  At the end of the course, a post-test was administered. To analyze the data, one-way ANOVA and independent samples t-test were run. The findings revealed that the Unit-of-Translation had a positively significant effect on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ achievement in Bizarre News translation. The results also indicated that concerning the effect of Unit-of-Translation on Iranian male upper-intermediate EFL learners had a better achievement in Bizarre News translation compared to their counterparts in the female group.
Full-Text [PDF 874 kb]   (40 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References
1. Abgarmi, R. P., & Shaghaghi, V. (2017). Units of translation adopted in Persian term-formation. TradTerm, São Paulo, v. 29, Junho/2017, p. 146-167. http://docplayer.net/51916133-Units-of-translation-adopted-in-persian-term-formation-unidades-de-traducao-adotadas-na-formacao-terminologica-persa.html [DOI:10.11606/issn.2317-9511.v29i0p146-167]
2. Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2002). Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. In B. Altenberg and S. Granger (eds.), Lexis in contrast, corpus-based approaches. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 3-48. [DOI:10.1075/scl.7.04alt]
3. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_47]
4. Barkhudarov, L. (1975). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London: Longman. https://www.academia.edu/38460208/Translation_and_Translating_Theory_and_Practice
5. Barkhudarov, L. (1993). The problem of the unit of translation. In Zlateva, P. (ed.), Translation as social action: Russian and Bulgarian perspectives. London: Routledge.
6. Breus, S. (2005). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: University of Tubingen. Edinburgh University Press.
7. Brown, D. (2000). Principle of language learning & teaching. (4th ed). New York: Longman.
8. Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford Translation Press. https://archive.org/stream/J.C.CatfordALinguisticTheoryOfTranslationOxfordUniv.Press1965/j.+c.+catford-a+linguistic+theory+of+translation-oxford+univ.+press+%281965%29_djvu.txt
9. Doherty, M. (1999). Clefts in translations between English and German. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 11(2), 289-315. doi: [DOI:10.1075/target.11.2.06doh]
10. Hardie, A., & Khoja, S. (2001). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 conference. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language Technical Papers, 2001. 635 p. (UCREL Technical Papers).
11. Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge. https://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-756/ [DOI:10.4324/9780203501887]
12. Huang, Z. (2002). Translation variation theory (in Chinese). Beijing, China Translation & Publishing Corporation. https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/meta/2003-v48-n4-meta725/008730ar/ [DOI:10.7202/008730ar]
13. Karimnia, A., & Heydari Gheshlagh, N. (2020). Investigating culture-specific items in Roald Dahl's "Charlie and Chocolate Factory" based on Newmark's model. International Journal of Research in English Education (IJREE), 5(2), 1-12. [DOI:10.29252/ijree.5.2.1]
14. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-326-en.html
15. Komissarov, A. (1999). The environments of translation. In Steiner, E., & Yallop, C. (eds), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Series text, translation, computational processing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Matthiessen, C. (2001). The environments of translation. In C. Y. Erich Steiner (Ed.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content (pp. 41-126). Berlin; New York: De Gruyter. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/the-environments-of-translation [DOI:10.1515/9783110866193.41]
17. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York/London: Prentice Hall. https://archive.org/stream/ATextbookOfTranslationByPeterNewmark/a%20textbook%20of%20translation%20by%20peter%20newmark_djvu.txt
18. Newmark, P. (1991). A textbook of translation. New York, London: Prentice Hall.
19. Philips, S. (2017). Symbols do not create meaning - Activities do: Or, why symbolic anthropology needs the anthropology of technology. Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. Brian Schiffer, ed. Pp. 77-86. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
20. Retsker, Y. I. (1974). Teoria p erevoda i perevodcheskaia praktika (Theory of translation and translation practice). Moscow: Mezhdunarodnii otnoshenia.
21. Sager, J. (1994). Language engineering and translation: Consequences of automation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/btl.1 [DOI:10.1075/btl.1]
22. Salimi, D., & Shahrestani, S. (2012). A review of translation theories. Iranian Translation Journal, 3(4), 22-40.
23. Sikander, A. (2018). Translation is an impossibly possible task for non-natives: An Oxymoron. International Journal of Research in English Education (IJREE), 3(4), 27-35. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-126-en.html [DOI:10.29252/ijree.3.4.27]
24. Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, R. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Pub. https://www.worldcat.org/title/dictionary-of-translation-studies/oclc/40516996
25. Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. https://www.amazon.com/Translation-Studies-integrated-Mary-Snell-Hornby/dp/1556190522 [DOI:10.1075/z.38]
26. Teubert, W. (2001). Corpus linguistics and lexicography. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 6(1), 125-153. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.6.3.11teu [DOI:10.1075/ijcl.6.3.11teu]
27. Teubert, W. (2004). Units of meaning, parallel corpora, and their implications for language teaching. In Connor, U. and T. A. Upton (eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective pp. 171-189. Amsterdam: Rodopi. doi: 10.1163/9789004333772_010 [DOI:10.1163/9789004333772_010]
28. Torop, E. (1995). Information density and translation, with special reference to German - Norwegian - English. pp. 197-234 of: Johansson, S., & Oksefjell, S. (eds), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method and case studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
29. Toury, G. (1986). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
30. Tyulenev, A. (2007). The environments of translation. Pages 41-124 of: Steiner, E., & Yallop, C. (eds), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond Content. Series Text, Translation, Computational Processing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
31. Vinay, J., & Darbelnet, J. (1958). A methodology for translation: Translation studies reader (2nd Edition). L. Venuti. New York: Routledge, 2000. pp 128-137.
32. Vinay, J., & Darbelnet, H. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation (translated and edited by J. Sager & M. J. Hamel), Amsterdam & Phladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [DOI:10.1075/btl.11]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2021 All Rights Reserved | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb