The Subtitling of Discourse markers: A corpus-based study of well , I mean , and you know and their Persian translations in Sherlock series

Publish Year: 1395
نوع سند: مقاله کنفرانسی
زبان: English
View: 506

This Paper With 11 Page And PDF and WORD Format Ready To Download

  • Certificate
  • من نویسنده این مقاله هستم

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این Paper:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

ELSCONF04_194

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 19 خرداد 1396

Abstract:

Discourse markers have multi-function structure, high degree of grammaticalization, and strong culture bound character that is why translation of them is so problematic. The aim of the present study is to investigate the three discourse markers (DMs) well , I mean and you know and their Persian subtitle translations. This is done inorder to see to what extent it is possible to translate these markers in subtitling and to what extent these two languages(English and Persian) can express the similar pragmatic functions and also to see What are the most and the least frequently used strategies in translating discourse markers well , I mean and you know in the Persian subtitle of the Sherlock series based on Mattson (2009) model. To this end, a corpse of nine episodes of Sherlock series waschosen for the present study. DMs were analyzed based on Svartvik (1980) parameters including: intonation, pauses,collocation, Position of the DM, Type of utterance, body language of the speakers, and larger social context of the DM and their translations were analyzed based on Mattsson (2009) parameters. Results revealed that well , I mean and you know are all-translatable from English to Persian, but in some cases they are not translated in the subtitles. The study also shows that English and Persian languages can express the same or similar pragmatic functions even though they do so in different ways. Moreover, the findings indicated that considering all DMs and their translation strategies in subtitling, one encounters the fact that match strategy (61.3%) and explicitation (Addition) strategy (4.8%) were the most and the least frequently used strategies

Authors

Mohammad Taghavi Nejad

MA student in Translation Studies, Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Saeed Ketabi

Associate Professor in Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Ahmad Moinzadeh

Associate Professor in Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

مراجع و منابع این Paper:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این Paper را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود Paper لینک شده اند :
  • Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal ...
  • Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. ...
  • Fraser, B. (2014). The domain of pragmatics'. In J. Richards ...
  • Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1989). Ianguage, Context, and ...
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980/2003). Metaphors We Live by. ...
  • Mattsson, J. (2006). Linguistic Variation in Subtitling: The subtitling of ...
  • Mattsson, J. (2009). The Subtiting of Discourse Particles. A corpus-based ...
  • Mohseni, A., & Golestani, M. (2015). Analysis of Contrastie Discourse ...
  • Popescu-Belis, A., & Zufferey, S. (2011). Automatic identification of discourse ...
  • Ramon, N. (2015). The English Discourse Particle :oh6in Spanish Translations ...
  • Svartvik, .J., & Quirk, R. (1980). A corpus of English ...
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1999). Critical discourse analysis and conversation ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع