KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / The Literacy Trek / 2024 / Volume: 10 Issue: 2

Correction:

Correction: Structural repetitions and discourse relations in English-Turkish translations of TED talks

Özgür Şen Bartan(Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları, İngilizce Mütercim Tercümanlık Anabilim Dalı)0000-0002-7351-7858
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2024-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Also, mostly, the translators tend to omit repetitions at the beginning (92.9%).

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study attempts to analyse translations of the discourse relations of the arguments with structural repetitions in the TED-MDB corpora consisting three texts (English) and their translations (Turkish).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The analysis shows that speakers of TED Talks mostly prefer to use these repetitions in their speeches with implicit discourse relations (66.6%), and translators translate them through implicit forms (54.8%).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Also, mostly, the translators tend to omit repetitions at the beginning (92.9%).
🔬Tür:Erratum
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:TED-Multilingual Discourse Bank · Discourse relations · Implicitness

Abstract

This study attempts to analyse translations of the discourse relations of the arguments with structural repetitions in the TED-MDB corpora consisting three texts (English) and their translations (Turkish). The main questions addressed in this paper are: a) Are connective relations used explicitly or implicitly together with repetitions? b) Which discourse relations are being used with repetitions? c) Do translators translate repetitions or omit them? The analysis shows that speakers of TED Talks mostly prefer to use these repetitions in their speeches with implicit discourse relations (66.6%), and translators translate them through implicit forms (54.8%). Moreover, the dominantly explicit usage of and in repetitive structures shows that the relations can be associated with an explicit connective and. Accordingly, ExpansionConjunction (addition) relations are frequently being used with repetitions at the beginning (73.8%). Also, mostly, the translators tend to omit repetitions at the beginning (92.9%).

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Bartan, Ö. Ş. (2024). Correction:. The Literacy Trek, Volume: 10 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1552906

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (28)

  1. Abdulla, A. K. (2001). Rhetorical repetition in literary translation. Babel 47(4), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.47.4.02abd
  2. al-Khafaji, R. (2006). In search of translational norms: The case of shifts of lexical repetition in Arabic-English translations. Babel, 52(1), 39-65. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.52.1.03alk
  3. Apel, J., Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2007). Processing parallel structure: Evidence from eye tracking and a computational model. In S. Vosniadou, D. Kayser, & A. Protopapas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd European Cognitive Science Conference (pp. 125–131). Taylor & Francis
  4. Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In H. Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and translation studies in language engineering: In honour of Juan C. Sager (pp. 175–186). John Benjamins
  5. Ben-Ari, N. (1998). The ambivalent case of repetitions in literary translation. Avoiding repetitions: A “Universal” of translation?. Meta 43(1), 68–78.: https://doi.org/10.7202/002054ar
  6. Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E. A. (1978). Universals of lexical simplification. Language Learning, 28(2), 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00143.x
  7. Butt, D. (1988). Ideational meaning and the ‘Existential Fabric’ of a poem. In Robin P. Fawcett and David Young (Eds.) New developments in systemic linguistics. Vol. 2., Theory and Application. (pp-174–218), Pinter Publishers.
  8. Čermáková, A. (2015). Repetition in John Irving’s novel A Widow for One Year: A corpus stylistics approach to literary translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(3), 355-77. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.3.04cer
  9. Corbett, E. P. J., & Connors, R. J. (1965). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. Oxford University Press.
  10. Crible L., & Pascual, E. (2019). Combinations of discourse markers with repairs and repetitions in English, French and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 156, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.002
  11. Dancygier B., & Sweetser E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge University Press.
  12. Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 12, 421–430.
  13. Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 343–370.
  14. Haoda F., Ineke C. & Lynn G. (2018). Form and meaning in collocations: a corpus-driven study on translation universals in Chinese-to-English business translation, Perspectives, 26(5), 677-690, https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1424222
  15. Hu, K. (2016). Introducing corpus-based translation studies. Springer
  16. Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2009). Constituent order and semantic parallelism in online comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence from German. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62, 2338–2371. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902790070
  17. Leech, G. & Short, M. (2007). Style in Fiction. Longman.
  18. Lucas, S. E. (2009). The art of public speaking. Mc Graw Hill.
  19. Mahlberg, M. (2013). Corpus analysis of literary texts. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics,. Wiley-Blackwell.
  20. Mahlberg, M. & Wiegand, V. (2020). Literary stylistics. In S. Adolphs & D. Knight (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities. (pp- 306-327), Routledge.
  21. Marco, J. (2018). Connectives as indicators of explicitation in literary translation: A study based on a comparable and parallel corpus, Target: International journal of translation studies, 30(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16042.mar
  22. Mastropierro, L. & Mahlberg, M. (2017). Key words and translated cohesion in Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness and one of its Italian translations, English Text Construction, 10(1), 78-105. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.05mas
  23. McIntyre, D. (2013). Corpora and literature. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Wiley-Blackwell.
  24. Webber, B., Prasad, R., Lee, A., & Joshi, A. (2016). A discourse-annotated corpus of conjoined VPs. In Proceedings of the 10th Linguistics Annotation Workshop (pp. 22–31). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Zeyrek, D., Mendes, A., Grishina, Y., Kurfalı, M., Gibbon, S., & Ogrodniczuk, M. (2020). TED multilingual discourse bank (TED-MDB): A parallel corpus annotated in the PDTB style. Language Resources and Evaluation, 54(2), 587-613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-019-09445-9
  26. Zufferey, S. & Cartoni, B. (2014). A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target, 26(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf
  27. al-Khafaji, R. (2006). In search of translational norms: The case of shifts of lexical repetition in Arabic-English translations. Babel, 52(1), 39-65. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.52.1.03alk
  28. Ben-Ari, N. (1998). The ambivalent case of repetitions in literary translation. Avoiding repetitions: A “Universal” of translation?. Meta 43(1), 68–78.: https://doi.org/10.7202/002054ar