Studies in Literature and Language
A CDA Approach to Translation Quality Assessment: A Case Study of Lost Symbol
Abstract
Translation Quality Assessment (TQA) is the pivotal point of this study with a focus on discourse and mainly Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in order to find out how far it is possible to transfer discourse as a culture based concept from source community into the target community. This transfer is regarded as a yardstick to assess the translator’s overall accomplishment and the quality of the translation as well. For the same purpose Van Dijk CDA Framework (2004) has been used to assess the Farsi translation of Dan Brown’s novel Lost Symbol which has been done by Hosein Shahrabi. A thorough comparison between the selected data from the source text and the related translations in term of the discursive/pragmatic strategies and the results of Chi-Square Tests showed that the transfer of discourse from source into the target is possible with the least of deviations and the fact that discourse is a concept rooted in the culture of the people and parties involved in the act of translation, would not hinder the efforts put by the translators to create the same discourse in the target society for the end readers. The safe transfer of discourse from source into the target is considered to be the main yardstick for the assessment of translation quality under this study.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Brown, D. (2009). Lost symbol. US: Anchor Books.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Cyrus, L. (2009). Old concepts, new ideas: Approaches to translation shifts. Retrieved from http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/11973/Cyrus_Old.pdf;jsessionid=A84B9E2843C3FAD63B81466116A99413?sequence=1
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1991). What might we mean by ‘enterprise discourse’?. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. London: Routledge.
Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
House, J. (2001). Translation Quality Assessment: linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta, 46, 243-257
McTear, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1989). Assessment of pragmatics. London: Taylor and Francis.
Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. Routledge: London
Mumby, D. K. (2004). Discourse, power, and ideology: Unpacking the critical approach. London: Sage.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a science of translating with special reference to principles and procedures involved in bible translating. Brill: Leiden.
Nida, E. A. & de Waard, J. (1986). From one language to another: Functional equivalence in bible translating. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Nida, Eugene. (1995). Dynamic Equivalence in Translating. In Sin-Wai Chan, & David E. Pollard (Eds.), An encyclopedia of translation: Chinese-English -English-Chinese (pp.223-330). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Pym, A. (1997). Limits and frustrations of discourse analysis in translation theory. Retrieved from dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/91779.pdf
Rahimi, A. & Sahragard, R. (2007). Critical discourse analysis. Tehran: Jungle publication.
Scriven, M. (2007). The Logic of evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.coris.uniroma1.it/news/files/Scriven_Logic_evaluation.pdf
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies. An integrated approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Titscher, S., Wodak, R., Meyer, M., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1977). Pragmatic macro structures in discourse and cognition. Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Pragmatic%20macrostructures%20in%20d%20iscourse%20and%20cognition.pdf
Van Dijk, T.A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993a). Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. Cambridge, MA, and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2004). Communicating. Frankfurt: Lang.
Widdowson, H. (2000). Critical practices: On representation and the interpretation of text. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse of historical approach. London: Sage Publication.
Zhongying, F. (1994). Translation methods. Beijing: Foreign.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/n
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c)
Share us to: 
Online Submission: http://cscanada.org/index.php/sll/submission/wizard
Reminder
How to do online submission to another Journal?
If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:
1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author
Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.
2. Submission
Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: caooc@hotmail.com; sll@cscanada.net; sll@cscanada.org
Articles published in Studies in Literature and Language are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).
STUDIES IN LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE Editorial Office
Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org
E-mail: office@cscanada.net; office@cscanada.org; caooc@hotmail.com
Copyright © 2010 Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture 
