Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study correlates argumentation, translation, and literature to construct a new model for assessing the quality of translated literature. Literary translation is described as being compatible with the rhetorical stream of argumentation studies, while the study rests on the overriding notion of ethics of difference in argumentative cross-cultural and translational encounters. The model incorporates ethics of difference and interpretive act, pragma-dialectical contributions of scheme/structure and rhetorical/dialectical situations, and aesthetic features including figures of speech and (sub)genres of literature. Application of the model to an English translation of a classical poem (a Rumi’s allegory) shows that the model can be systematically applied to quality assessment of translated literature (and literary genres e.g. plays, novels, audiovisual/cinematic products, etc.). Considering the implications and suggestions for further research, the study can progressively develop into a literary or cross-linguistic subgenre of argumentation theory, with implications for comparative literature, philosophy of meaning, translation theory, and dialectical hermeneutics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Apter, Emily
    2013Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. London and New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelelli, Claudia V. , and Holly E. Jacobson
    (eds) 2009Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xiv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Mona
    2006Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2010Critical Readings in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bassnett, Susan
    2014Translation: The New Critical Idiom. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berman, Antoine
    1985 “Translations and the Trials of the Foreign.” InThe Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., edited and translated by Lawrence Venuti (2012), 240–253. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blair, Anthony J
    2012Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2363‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1983 “The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed”, (Trans. R. Nice ). Poetics12: 311–356. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(83)90012‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(83)90012-8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kharmandar, Mohammad Ali
    2014 “Exploring Archaism in Translation Theory and Modern Persian Poetics: Towards a Persian Translation Paradigm”. Iranian Journal of Translation Studies12 (42): 40–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2015) Ricoeur’s extended hermeneutic translation theory: Metaphysics, narrative, ethics, politics. Études Ricoeuriennes/Ricoeur Studies, 6(1): 73–93. doi: 10.5195/errs.2015.281
    https://doi.org/10.5195/errs.2015.281 [Google Scholar]
  11. Danesi, Marcel , and Andrea Rocci
    2009Global Linguistics: An Introduction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214048 [Google Scholar]
  12. Edwards, Philip
    (ed.) 2003Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Garssen, Bart
    2013 “Strategic Maneuvering in European Parliamentary Debate.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2 (1): 33–46. doi: 10.1075/jaic.2.1.02gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.02gar [Google Scholar]
  14. Hietanen, Mika
    2007Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. London: T & T Clark.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011 “The Gospel of Matthew as a Literary Argument.” Argumentation25 (1): 63–86. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑010‑9198‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9198-z [Google Scholar]
  16. House, Juliane
    2009Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Inghilleri, Moira
    2005 “The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the ‘Object’ in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” The Translator11 (2): 125–145. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2005.10799195
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2005.10799195 [Google Scholar]
  18. Maulana Jalalu-‘d-din Muhammad Rumi
    . “masnav e ma’navi”. InMasnavi Ma’navi (2002) [CD]. Ghom: Noor Computer Services Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Martinez Melis, Nicole , and Hurtado Albir, Amparo
    2001 “Assessment in Translation Studies: Research Needs.” Meta46 (2): 272–287. doi: 10.7202/003624ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003624ar [Google Scholar]
  20. Mirdal, M. Gretty
    2010Mevlana Jalal-ad-Dın Rumi and mindfulness. J Relig Health51: 1202–1215. doi: 10.1007/s10943‑010‑9430‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-010-9430-z [Google Scholar]
  21. Munday, Jeremy
    2012Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-Making. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nasri, Mansour
    1968 “The Interpretation and Explication of Masnavi, Vol. 1. Tehran: Gutenberg.” InMasnavi Ma’navi (2002) [CD]. Ghom: Noor Computer Service Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Page, Norman
    2004 “Larger Hopes and the New Hedonism: Tennyson and FitzGerald.” InEdward FitzGerald’s The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, ed. By Harold Bloom , 151–168. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pym, Anthony
    2014Exploring Translation Theories, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Selim, Samah
    2010 “Pharoah’s Revenge: Translation, Literary History and Colonial Ambivalence.” InCritical Readings in Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker , 319–336.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sharifian, Farzad
    2011Cultural Conceptualizations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Snoeck Henkemans, A Francisca
    2010 “‘Anyway’ and ‘even’ as Indicators of Complex Argumentation.” Cogency2 (1): 81–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Eemeren, Frans H
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Bart Garssen
    2008Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cvs.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    1984Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Eemeren, Frans H. , Peter Houtlosser , and Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca
    (ed.) 2007Argumentative Indicators: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Eemeren, Frans H. , Bart Grassen , Erik C.W. Krabbe , Snoeck Henkemans , A. Francisca, Bart Verheij , and Jean H.M. Wagemans
    2014Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Venuti, Lawrence
    2012 “Genealogies of Translation Theory: Jerome.” InTranslation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., ed. by Lawrence Venuti , 483–502. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (ed.) 2012aTranslation Studies Reader, 3rd ed.London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Whinefield, E.H
    1898Masnavi Translated and Abridged. Retrieved February 12, 2014, fromwww.thesufi.com/2011_Sufism_Ebooks/mevlana_rumi_ebooks/masnavi_b1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Williams, Malcolm
    2001 “The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment.” Meta2: 328–343.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error