Discourse And The Translator Hatim Pdf Writer

Popular Posts

• 

  If, however, he adopts the discourse of the source culture, he risks having his translation rejected if the target culture does not see the value in the unfamiliar discourse or understand it. According to Mwepu, “this constitutes a sensitive element that underlies the interaction between the translator and the ST writer” (2002: 11). Translation and discourse choose one or more cohesive devices (lexical, grammatical or textual) in a source and translated text, preferably in specific type of discourse. Note, for example, how participants and entities are referred to or how lexical items are repeated in these texts. Compare the patterns in the two languages.

  1. Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict. A Narrative Account. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bandia, P. (2010) ‘African Tradition’ in M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 313–320.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, D. and K. Tusting (eds) (2005) Beyond Communities of Practice. Language, Power and Social Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1972) Esquisse d’un théorie de la pratique. Geneva: Droz. Translated by Richard Nice (1977) As Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Candlin, S. and C. N. Candlin (2007) ‘Nursing through Time and Space: Some Challenges to the Construct of Community of Practice’ in R. Iedema (ed.) The Discourse of Hospital Communication, Tracking Complexities in Contemporary Health Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 244–268.Google Scholar
  7. Coupland, N. (2003) ‘Introduction: Sociolinguistics and Globalization’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7:4, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1971) L’Ordre du discours. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  9. Gee, J. P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hatim, B. (2001) Teaching and Researching Translation. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Hatim, B. (2007) ‘Intervention at Text and Discourse Levels in the Translation of Orate Languages’ in J. Munday (ed.) Translation as Intervention. London and New York: Continuum, 84–96.Google Scholar
  12. Hatim, B. and I. Mason (1990) Discourse and the Translator. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Hermans, T. (2010) ‘The Translator’s Voice in Translated Narrative’ in M. Baker (ed.) Critical Readings in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 193–212.Google Scholar
  14. House, J. (2006) ‘Text and Context in Translation’, Journal of Pragmatics 38, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inghilleri, M. (2003) ‘Habitus, Field and Discourse: Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity’, Target 15:2, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Inghilleri, M. (2005a) ‘Mediating Zones of Uncertainty: Interpreter Agency, the Interpreting Habitus and Political Asylum Adjudication’, The Translator 11:1, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inghilleri, M. (2005b) ‘The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the “Object” in Translation and Interpreting Studies’ in M. Inghilleri (ed.) Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting, special issue of The Translator 11:2, 125–145.Google Scholar
  18. Inghilleri, M. (2010) ‘Exploring the Task of the Activist Translator’ in J. Boéri and C. Maier (eds) Translation/Interpreting and Social Activism. Granada: ECOS Traductores e Intérpretes por la Solidaridad, 152–155.Google Scholar
  19. Inghilleri, M. (2012) Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kouraogo, P. (2001) ‘The Rebirth of the King’s Linguist’ in I. Mason (ed.) Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester and Northampton, MA: St Jerome. 109–130.Google Scholar
  21. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montgomery, M. (2005) ‘The Discourse of War after 9/11’, Language and Literature 14:2, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mossop, B. (2007) ‘The Translator’s Intervention through Voice Selection’ in J. Munday (ed.) Translation as Intervention. London and New York: Continuum, 18–37.Google Scholar
  24. Park, J. S. -Y. and M. Bucholtz (2009) ‘Introduction. Public Transcripts: Entextualization and Linguistic Representation in Institutional Contexts’, Text and Talk 29, 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simeoni, D. (1998) ‘The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus’, Target 10:1, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stubbs, M. (1997) ‘Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis’ in A. Ryan and A. Wray (eds) Evolving Models of Language: British Studies in Applied Linguistics 12. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 100–116.Google Scholar
  27. Tusting, K. (2005) ‘Language and Power in Communities of Practice’ in D. Barton and K. Tusting (eds) Beyond Communities of Practice. Language, Power and Social Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tymoczko, M. (2002) ‘Connecting the Two Infinite Orders. Research Methods in Translation Studies’ in T. Hermans (ed.) Crosscultural Transgressions. Research Models in Translation Studies II. Historical and Ideological Issues. Manchester and Northampton, MA: St Jerome, 9–25.Google Scholar
  29. Tymoczko, M. (2007) Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester and Kinderhook: St Jerome.Google Scholar
  30. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Widdowson, H. (2004) Text, Context, Pretext. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolf, M. (2007) ‘Introduction’ in M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolf, M. and A. Fukari (eds) (2007) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  This article investigates essential questions regarding ideology and language from a translation studies perspective. Adopting a broad-based approach, it examines what is meant by ‘ideology’ and how it is treated in translation studies, where it has primarily been linked to manipulation and power relations. However, this article focuses on the ideology of the individual translator. Following Simpson and Van Dijk, it considers ideology to be constructed from the knowledge, beliefs and value systems of the individual (in our case, the translator) and the society in which he or she operates. The main interest is in how ideology in its many facets is conveyed and presented textually in translation and how analysis drawn from within monolingual traditions (such as critical discourse analysis and the tools of systemic-functional analysis) may not always be the most appropriate to detect and classify the shifts that take place. Examples are analyzed of translations of speeches and other political writings and interviews with revolutionary leaders in Latin America (Castro, Marcos, Chávez).

  
  Keywords: Translation, ideology, critical discourse analysis, cognition, Latin America
  ...'>Discourse And The Translator Hatim Pdf Writer(02.04.2020)

• 

  If, however, he adopts the discourse of the source culture, he risks having his translation rejected if the target culture does not see the value in the unfamiliar discourse or understand it. According to Mwepu, “this constitutes a sensitive element that underlies the interaction between the translator and the ST writer” (2002: 11). Translation and discourse choose one or more cohesive devices (lexical, grammatical or textual) in a source and translated text, preferably in specific type of discourse. Note, for example, how participants and entities are referred to or how lexical items are repeated in these texts. Compare the patterns in the two languages.

  1. Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict. A Narrative Account. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bandia, P. (2010) ‘African Tradition’ in M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 313–320.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, D. and K. Tusting (eds) (2005) Beyond Communities of Practice. Language, Power and Social Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1972) Esquisse d’un théorie de la pratique. Geneva: Droz. Translated by Richard Nice (1977) As Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Candlin, S. and C. N. Candlin (2007) ‘Nursing through Time and Space: Some Challenges to the Construct of Community of Practice’ in R. Iedema (ed.) The Discourse of Hospital Communication, Tracking Complexities in Contemporary Health Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 244–268.Google Scholar
  7. Coupland, N. (2003) ‘Introduction: Sociolinguistics and Globalization’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7:4, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1971) L’Ordre du discours. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  9. Gee, J. P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hatim, B. (2001) Teaching and Researching Translation. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Hatim, B. (2007) ‘Intervention at Text and Discourse Levels in the Translation of Orate Languages’ in J. Munday (ed.) Translation as Intervention. London and New York: Continuum, 84–96.Google Scholar
  12. Hatim, B. and I. Mason (1990) Discourse and the Translator. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Hermans, T. (2010) ‘The Translator’s Voice in Translated Narrative’ in M. Baker (ed.) Critical Readings in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 193–212.Google Scholar
  14. House, J. (2006) ‘Text and Context in Translation’, Journal of Pragmatics 38, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inghilleri, M. (2003) ‘Habitus, Field and Discourse: Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity’, Target 15:2, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Inghilleri, M. (2005a) ‘Mediating Zones of Uncertainty: Interpreter Agency, the Interpreting Habitus and Political Asylum Adjudication’, The Translator 11:1, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inghilleri, M. (2005b) ‘The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the “Object” in Translation and Interpreting Studies’ in M. Inghilleri (ed.) Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting, special issue of The Translator 11:2, 125–145.Google Scholar
  18. Inghilleri, M. (2010) ‘Exploring the Task of the Activist Translator’ in J. Boéri and C. Maier (eds) Translation/Interpreting and Social Activism. Granada: ECOS Traductores e Intérpretes por la Solidaridad, 152–155.Google Scholar
  19. Inghilleri, M. (2012) Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kouraogo, P. (2001) ‘The Rebirth of the King’s Linguist’ in I. Mason (ed.) Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester and Northampton, MA: St Jerome. 109–130.Google Scholar
  21. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montgomery, M. (2005) ‘The Discourse of War after 9/11’, Language and Literature 14:2, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mossop, B. (2007) ‘The Translator’s Intervention through Voice Selection’ in J. Munday (ed.) Translation as Intervention. London and New York: Continuum, 18–37.Google Scholar
  24. Park, J. S. -Y. and M. Bucholtz (2009) ‘Introduction. Public Transcripts: Entextualization and Linguistic Representation in Institutional Contexts’, Text and Talk 29, 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simeoni, D. (1998) ‘The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus’, Target 10:1, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stubbs, M. (1997) ‘Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis’ in A. Ryan and A. Wray (eds) Evolving Models of Language: British Studies in Applied Linguistics 12. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 100–116.Google Scholar
  27. Tusting, K. (2005) ‘Language and Power in Communities of Practice’ in D. Barton and K. Tusting (eds) Beyond Communities of Practice. Language, Power and Social Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tymoczko, M. (2002) ‘Connecting the Two Infinite Orders. Research Methods in Translation Studies’ in T. Hermans (ed.) Crosscultural Transgressions. Research Models in Translation Studies II. Historical and Ideological Issues. Manchester and Northampton, MA: St Jerome, 9–25.Google Scholar
  29. Tymoczko, M. (2007) Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester and Kinderhook: St Jerome.Google Scholar
  30. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Widdowson, H. (2004) Text, Context, Pretext. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolf, M. (2007) ‘Introduction’ in M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolf, M. and A. Fukari (eds) (2007) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  This article investigates essential questions regarding ideology and language from a translation studies perspective. Adopting a broad-based approach, it examines what is meant by ‘ideology’ and how it is treated in translation studies, where it has primarily been linked to manipulation and power relations. However, this article focuses on the ideology of the individual translator. Following Simpson and Van Dijk, it considers ideology to be constructed from the knowledge, beliefs and value systems of the individual (in our case, the translator) and the society in which he or she operates. The main interest is in how ideology in its many facets is conveyed and presented textually in translation and how analysis drawn from within monolingual traditions (such as critical discourse analysis and the tools of systemic-functional analysis) may not always be the most appropriate to detect and classify the shifts that take place. Examples are analyzed of translations of speeches and other political writings and interviews with revolutionary leaders in Latin America (Castro, Marcos, Chávez).

  
  Keywords: Translation, ideology, critical discourse analysis, cognition, Latin America
  ...'>Discourse And The Translator Hatim Pdf Writer(02.04.2020)