1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2352-1805
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1813
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper proposes a model that addresses students’ common errors in English-Arabic-English translation. My study documents an attempt to develop a new interconnectedness between students’ errors and translation theories that may improve their performance when translating different genres. Consistent and repeated errors produced by tens of students working on the same texts were compiled and analyzed. The errors showed lack of knowledge of genre structure, functional analysis, appropriate intervention as well as lack of understanding of the wider context upon which appropriate decisions can be made. The methodology expounded in this study involves describing and categorizing students’ errors. It suggests solutions grounded in translation theory and proposes comparisons with professional translations. This methodology proved to be very successful during my teaching experience at the Lebanese University. The model solution developed in this study draws on genre analysis, text-typology, text-functionality, register analysis, and equivalence. The application of the model solution minimized students’ errors to a large extent and enabled them to provide accurate descriptions of different translation strategies and critically assess professional translations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ttmc.00013.baz
2018-04-26
2019-12-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, Mona
    2011In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bazzi, Samia
    2009Arab News and Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Discourse Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.34
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.34 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bühler, Karl
    1934/1965Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Catford, John
    1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dickins, James , Sandor Hervey , and Ian Higgins
    2002Thinking Arabic Translation: A Course in Translation Method: Arabic to English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Elmgrab, Ramadan
    2013 “Implication for Translation Teaching Pedagogy: A Case of Benghazi University.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences70: 358–369. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.073
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.073 [Google Scholar]
  7. Halliday, Michael. A. K.
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hatim, Basil
    1997English-Arabic/Arabic-English Translation: A Practical Guide. London: Saqi Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hatim, Basil , and Ian Mason
    1990Discourse and the Translator. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1997The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hermans, Theo
    1999Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. House, Juliane
    1997Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Koller, Werner
    1979Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1995 The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target, 7 (2): 191–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Malmkjær, Kirsten
    1991The Linguistics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203432860
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203432860 [Google Scholar]
  16. Munday, Jeremy
    2012Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Newmark, Peter
    1981Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1988A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nida, Eugene
    1964Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden, Holland: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nord, Christiane
    1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Reiss, Katharina
    2000Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Swales, John
    1990Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Toury, Gideon
    2012Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  24. van Dijk, Teun. A.
    1988News as Discourse. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Venuti, Lawrence
    2000The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203446621
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203446621 [Google Scholar]
  26. Vermeer, Hans. J.
    2000 “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” InThe Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti , 221–232. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Vinay, Jean-Paul , and Jean Darbelnet
    2000 “A Methodology for Translation.” InThe Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti , 84–93. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ttmc.00013.baz
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): descriptive translation studies , genre , register analysis , Skopos theory and translation pedagogy
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