Volume 3, Issue 4 (12-2018)                   IJREE 2018, 3(4): 27-35 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Assistant Professor Department of Language & Literature The University of Lahore
Abstract:   (956 Views)
Translation seems a spoon feeding activity if it is taken mere transference of meaning from one language to another i.e. source language to target language. A good translation is usually considered, a translation in which merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another as to be distinctly apprehended by the native speaker of the country to which that language belongs as it is by those who speak the language of the original work. This vendetta leads to the presupposition that there may be other types of translations i.e. a bad translation, an average translation, or the best translation. There is another controversy of free (sense) and literal translation (sense & style). Sometimes it is taken as word for word translation and sometimes as sense for sense translation. But the problem arises when the cultural, poetical, linguistic, stylistic, and technological issues are involved in translation. To find out its inherent impossibility, the participants were given one quotation to translate it from Urdu to English. It is concluded that although the quotation which was given for translation was quite simple and did not have cultural and equivalence problems to a great degree, yet the varied responses with respect to structure, understanding, punctuation, and expression show that it was not an easy task
Full-Text [PDF 492 kb]   (143 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

1. Bassenett, S. (2002). Translation studies. Routledge, London, New York.
2. Bell, R. T. (1987). Translation theory; where are we going? META, 32(4), 403-415. URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/002052ar CopiedAn error has occurred doi: [DOI:10.7202/002052ar]
3. Belloc, H. (1959). On translation. The Bible translator, 10(2), 83-100. [DOI:10.1177/000608445901000204]
4. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press/Oxford University Press, Australia/Oxford.
5. Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspect of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (ed.) On translation. New York: Oxford University Press. 232–239. [DOI:10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18]
6. Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame. London and New York: Routledge. [PMID]
7. Lotman, J., & Uspensky, B. (1978). On the semiotic mechanism of culture. New Literary History, 9(2), 211–232. doi: 10.2307/468571 https://www.jstor.org/stable/468571 [DOI:10.2307/468571]
8. Manfredi, M. (2008). Translating text and context: Translational studies and systematic functional linguistics, vol. 1. Translation theory. Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali (CeSLiC), p. 103. doi: 10.6092/unibo/amsacta/2393.
9. Shuping, R. (2013). Translation as rewriting. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(18), 55-59. www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_18_October_2013/6.pdf
10. Taylor, C. (1998). Language to Language: A practical and theoretical guide for Italian/English translators. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. Yang, W. (2010). Brief study on domestication and foreignization in translation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 77-80. Qingdao: A [DOI:10.4304/jltr.1.1.77-80]