:

 

تحقیق حاضر دو ترجمه انگلیسی از تلمیحات موجود در منطق الطیر عطار را که در سالهای 1954و 1984بوسیله نات،دربندی ودیویس صورت گرفته اند را مورد بررسی قرار داده است.این تحقیق،استراتژیهای ارایه شده توسط لپیهالم 1997را که مترجمین حاضر جهت انتقال معنا از زبان فارسی به زبان انگلیسی بکاربرده اند را نیزمورد بررسی قرارداده و با هم مقایسه نموده است. نتایج نشان داده اند که هردو مترجم در ترجمه این تلمیحات از منطق الطیر،ازاستراتژی های مختلفی استفاده کرده اند که پرکاربردترین آنها عبارتندازترجمه استاندارد،تغییر جزیی،حذف،جایگزینی،كاهش،تولیددوباره وشناخت سطحی.بیشترین استراتژیهایی كه توسط مترجمان بكار گرفته شده اند ترجمه استاندارد،تغییرجزیی،و حذف هستند.استراتژیهای مورد نظر به مباحث معناشناسی، فرهنگی، بافت معنایی و ترجمه تحت الفظی تلمیحات مذکور مربوط می شوند.همچنین محقق دریافت که در ترجمه های مذکوراستراتژی استفاده از زیرنویس کمتر بکار برده شده است و با مقایسه این دو ترجمه از تلمیحات کدام ترجمه ازترجمه دیگری استاندارد تراست.ترجمه دربندی و دیویس تاحدی تحت الفظی تر از ترجمه ایست که توسط نات صورتگرفته است.لذا،عوامل دیگری چون آشنایی مترجمین با مسایلی همچون فرهنگ اسلامی،آیات و احادیث وایده  خود مترجم در انتخاب استراتژی آنها نیز ایفای نقش کرده اند.یافته های تحقیق حاضر بر این فرض است که تلمیحات و ترجمه بینامتنیت، مقولات پیچیده ای هستند که در این تحقیق تنها نات توانسته است بطور موفق معنای مورد نظرمتن شعری اصیل در منطق الطیررا به خواننده زبان مبدا انتقال دهد

 

Table of Contents

 

Title                                                                                                                                      Page

 

Title Page

 

Approval page ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….  II

 

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………. III

 

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………. VI

 

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. IX

 

List of Abbreviations  …………………………………………………………………………………………….. X

 

Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………. 1

 

1.1. Overview  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

 

1.2. Intertextuality and Allusion……………………………………………………………………………….. 2

 

1.3. Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

 

1.4. Significance of the Study ………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

 

1.5. Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

 

1.6. Definition of Key Terms……………………………………………………………………………………. 5

 

Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………… 7

 

2.1. Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  8

 

2.2. History of Intertextuality…………………………………………………………………………………… 8

 

2.3. Types of Intertextuality…………………………………………………………………………………… 11

 

2.3.1.Horizontal or Vertical Reference…………………………………………………………………….. 11

 

2.3.2. Manifest or constitutive Reference    …………………………………………………………….    12

 

2.3.3. Active versus passive Intertextuality………………………………………………………………. 12

 

2.4. Scope of Intertextuality…………………………………………………………………………………… 12

 

2.5. Poetry……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

 

2.6. Forms of Intertextuality…………………………………………………………………………………… 13

 

2. 7. Allusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14

 

2. 7.1.Functions of Allusion…………………………………………………………………………………… 15

2.7.2. Forms of Allusion ………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

 

2.7.3. Types of Allusion …………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

 

2.7.3.1. Religious Allusion……………………………………………………………………………………… 16

 

2.7.3.2. Literary Allusion ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

 

2.7.3.3. Mythological Allusion……………………………………………………………………………….. 18

 

2.7.3.4. Historical Allusion…………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

 

2.7.3.5. Proper-Name Allusion……………………………………………………………………………….. 19

 

2.7.3.6. Key-Phrase Allusion ………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

 

2.7.4. Potential Strategies for translating Allusion …………………………………………………….. 20

 

2.7.5. Complication of translating Allusive Texts ……………………………………………………… 27

 

2.8. Poetry Translation…………………………………………………………………………………………… 28

 

2.8.1. Possibility of Poetry Translation …………………………………………………………………….. 28

 

2.8.2. Types of Poetry Translation…………………………………………………………………………… 31

 

2.8.3. Methods of translating poetry……………………………………………………………………….. 34

 

2.8.4. Linguistic Problems……………………………………………………………………………………… 35

 

2.8.5. Literary or aesthetic Problems……………………………………………………………………….. 35

 

2.8.6. Poetic Structure…………………………………………………………………………………………… 35

 

2.8.7. Socio-cultural problems ………………………………………………………………………………… 35

 

Chapter three: Methodology………………………………………………………………………………… 36

 

3.1. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37

 

3.2. Restatement of the research questions  ………………………………………………………………. 37

 

3.3. Materials ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38

 

3.3.1. Mantiq ut-Tair……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38

 

3.3.2. Nott’s Translation………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38

 

3.3.3. Darbandi’s and Davis’ Translation ………………………………………………………………….. 39

 

3.4. Procedures …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39

 

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Results …………………………………………………………….. 40

 

4.1. Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

 

4.2. Analysis of the Data……………………………………………………………………………………….. 41

 

4.2.1. Key-phrase Allusions in Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair………………………………………………….. 41

 

4.3. Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 69

 

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusions ……………………………………………………………. 74

 

5.1. Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 75

 

5.2. Strategies Used for Key-phrases Allusion  …………………………………………………………. 76

 

5.3. Concluding Remarks ………………………………………………………………………………………. 76

 

5.4. Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………………………………….. 77

 

5.5. Implications of the Study ………………………………………………………………………………… 77

 

5.6. Suggestions for Further Research……………………………………………………………………… 77

 

References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 78

 

Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements

 

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.  H. Vahid Dastjerdi for his guidance, advice and constructive comments on the topic in question and providing advice and guidance throughout the research period.

 

My special thanks also go to Dr. M. R. Talebinejad for his advice, help and encouragement. And also I am grateful to my brother, Saadi, M.A. English teaching from University of Tehran.

 

Finally and most importantly, I thank my God for granting me health and fitness and inspiring me hope and encouragement to accomplish this work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables

 

Table 1   ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Figures

 

Figure 2.1……………………………………………………………………………………………… 22

 

Figure 2.2……………………………………………………………………………………………… 23

 

Figure 4.3……………………………………………………………………………………………… 69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

The present study focused on two English translations of KP allusions in Attar’s
Mantiq ut-Tair. Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair which has been translated by Nott (1954), Darbandi and Davis (1984) was used in the study. It also considered the strategies by Leppihalme (1997, p. 96) which two translators utilized when doing the job in order to transfer the meaning of the ST into TT. The present study compared two English translations of Mantiq ut-Tair with each other to find out what translation strategies have the translators used to convey the intertextual allusive items to the TT and to what extent the true sense of KP allusion in Mantiq ut Tair has been transferred to English. The results showed that when dealing with KP allusions present in the ST which are

 absent from the TL, translators often resort to different strategies ranging from standard translation, minimum change, omission, replacement, reduction, recreation to the simulated familiarity strategies. The most frequently used strategies by the translators were standard translation, minimum change and omission. These strategies contribute to semantic, cultural, contextual, and literal translation of allusions. The researcher also found that the translations were subject to almost all different strategies except use of footnotes strategy. This thesis also made a comparison between the first translation and the second one to find out which one is more standard than the other with respect to the translation of intertextual references. The second translation of Mantiq ut- Tair by Darbandi and Davis to some extent was more literal than the first translation by Nott. Therefore, other factors such as familiarity with Islamic culture, verses, traditions and the translators’ ideas for which the translations are carried out are needed to explain the translator’s choice of different strategies. The findings of the study suggested that due to the fact that KP allusions and intertextuality are more complicated issues, only Nott could successfully transfer the intended meaning of the original poetry text in Mantiq ut-Tair to TL reader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Abbreviations

 

KP=Key-phrase

 

PN=Proper noun

 

SL= Source language

 

ST=Source text

 

TL=Target Language

 

TT=Target text

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

 

 

• Overview

     The concept of intertextuality was first introduced by Julia Kristeva in an essay entitled “Word, Dialogue and Novel”, in 1966, to describe the way all language and all literature are constructed from previous utterances to form mosaics of quotations (Kristeva, 1986, p. 37). “Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981, p. 10).” In other words, Hatim (1997) also argued intertextuality is one of the basic forms of relations that are presence of one text in another one – a quote would be the most obvious example (p. 29).

 

    Meanwhile, Fairclough (1992) noted that intertextuality points to how texts can transform prior texts and restructure existing conventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones (p. 270). “A text is no longer considered as the container of meaning, but as an intertextual space in which a number of elements are combined, absorbed or transformed (Cascallana, 2006, p. 98).” However, Schäffner & Holmes (1995, p. 58) argued that the influences of intertextuality and the relationship between text and context predispose a target audience to associate specific content with text presented through a given medium.

 

     According to Lefevere (1992), translating poetry can be considered different from translating other text types, in the sense that one translating poetry is not engaged in a single level to deal with but a fourfold process including: language, ideology, poetics and universe of discourse at each of which particular problems arise to involve him with (p. 88).