Monitoring discourse in translation: Analysis of the Qur’anic elaborative discourse marker “wa” in parallel corpora

Document Type : Research article

Author

Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Languages, Arak University, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Discourse is monitored through the employment of discourse markers in the process of human communication. The present article investigated two translations of the most frequent, complex, and ambiguous Qur’anic discourse marker wa into the Persian language. Two theories of coherence and translation spotting shaped the foundation of this research. Two Persian translations were selected based on purposive sampling. The analysis of the Persian parallel corpora revealed that the translation of this elaborative discourse marker was performed innovatively and dynamically by resorting to four categories of contrastive, elaborative, temporal, and inferential discourse markers and their various combinations. The creative, flexible, and dynamic approach observed in the analysis of the parallel corpora indicated that translation is complex pragmatic, culture-based, and discourse-oriented phenomenon. It is a dynamic discourse construction system underpinned by the invocation of different theoretical perspectives in discourse and the pragmatic enrichment of linguistic elements between languages, cultures, and discourses. As these creative and flexible approaches applied by translators are not put into practice in the areas of lexicography, curriculum development, and other areas of translation education, researchers, teachers, and other authorities are recommended to revise their approaches based on research findings and the relevant implications arising from parallel data analyses.

Keywords

References

  1. Afrouz, M., & Mollanazar, H. (2017). Strategies opted for in translating twelve categories of Quranic terms. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(55), 14-30.
  2. Aijmir, K. (2002). English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Johan Benjamins
  3. Ashrafi, A., & Seyedalangi, E. (2010). Polysemic words in English translations of the Qur’an: A comparative study of translation by ‎Saffarzadeh, Pickthall, Shakir and Arberry. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 63-79.
  4. Cartoni, L & Zuferry, S. (2013). Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives by looking at their translation: The translation spotting, Dialogue and Discourse, 4(8), 65-86.   DOI:10.5087/dad.2013.204 
  5. Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation. John Benjamins. 
  6. Cummins, C. & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress: Effects on pragmatic enrichment, Frontiers in Psychology, 6(7), 22-43. DOI: org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01779
  7. Crible, L., Abuczki, A., Burksaitiene, N., Furko, P., & Nedoluzhko, A. (2019). Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED talks: A parallel corpus study of under specification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(142), 139-155. DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012
  8. Egg, M., & Redeker, G. (2008). Underspecified discourse representation. In A. Benz, & P. Kühnlein (Eds.), Constraints in Discourse (pp. 117 - 138). (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series; No. 172). John Benjamins Publishers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication.
  9. Eghbaly, A. (2010). A study of the Persian translations of metaphors in the Quranic chapters. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 7-25.
  10. Eriss, A., & Hashemi, M. R. (2018). The impact of gender-based ideological perspective of translators on translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(59).
  11. Faghih Malek Marzban, N. (2008). The functions of conjunctions. Humanities Scientific Research Quarterly, 4(6), 145-168.
  12. Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 359-375). Elsevier.
  13. Frisson, S. & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for under specification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(4), 149–171. DOI:org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678893
  14. Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic under specification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127.  DOI: org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x
  15. Furko, P. (2014). Perspectives on the translation of discourse markers. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 6(2), 181–196. DOI: 10.1515/ausp-2015-0013
  16. Glanzberg, M. (2018). The coherence theory. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.
  17. Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds), Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, pp. 183-98. Academic Press.
  18. Hoek, J., & Zufferey, S. (2015). Factors influencing the implication of discourse relations across languages.  Conference: Proceedings 11th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. At: London. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269105580
  19. Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2017). Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 113-131. DOI: org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
  20. Haugh, S. (2014). Corpus-based studies in contrastive linguistics. Oslo Studies in Language, 6(1), 43-52. DOI: org/10.1075/bct.43
  21. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  22. Kafash Roodi, P., Akbari, O., & Ghonsooli, B. (2010). Collocation errors in translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 51-65.
  23. Karimnia, A., & Gharekhani, R. (2016). A polygenetic investigation of explicitation in English and Persian translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(54), 26-41.
  24. Maleki, A. (2017). The Quran, translation. Setareh Sabz.
  25. Manafi Anari, S. (2003). Accuracy, clarity and naturalness in translation of religious texts. Translation Studies Quarterly, 2(5), 13-24.
  26. Manafi Anari, S., & Ramezanpour Sobhani, M. (2017). Foregrounding and backgrounding in the Holy Qur’ān and its English translations. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(56), 41-55.
  27. Mansouri, M. (2015). A study of the translation of passive voice in Persian translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 12(47), 14-28.
  28. Mohammadi, A. M., & Dehghan, R. (2020). An analysis of discourse markers in translation criticism: Introducing a discourse monitoring model in the Iranian context. Translation Studies Quarterly, 18(69), 7–24.
  29. Mohammadi, A. M. (2021). An analysis of the under specifications of “AND” in parallel corpora. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 11 (1), 67-80. DOI: 10.22059/JFLR.2021.321993.828
  30. Mohammadi, Z., & Valavi, S. (2018). Word-selection methods in the translation of elliptical and excessive metonymy in the Holy Quran verses. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(60), 34-47.
  31. Mosaffa Jahromi, A. (2010). Ideological conflict and translating metaphors in the Holy Qur’an: cognitive view. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 25-41.
  32. Movahhedian, M., & Yazdani, M. (2020). Extended metaphor in the glorious Qur’an through translation: A case study. Translation Studies Quarterly, 18(69), 43-60.
  33. Nejadansari, D., &. Mohammadi, A. M. (2014). The frequencies and functions of
    discourse markers in the Iranian University EFL classroom discourse.
    International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 1-18. DOI: 10.5861/ijrsll.2014.840
  34. Poshtdar, A. M. (2008). Strategies adopted in translating Quranic single words. Translation Studies Quarterly, 6(22), 31-46.
  35. Poshtdar, A. M. (2010). Versified translation of the Qur’an in Mathnavi, Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 42-55.
  36. Safavi, M. R. (2008). The Quran, translation. Abnoos.
  37. Seliger, H., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research. OUP.
  38. Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer (Ed),
    Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 315-339). Elsevier.
  39. Taghipour Bazargani, D. (2010). A comparative study on two translations of the Holy Quran‏:‏‎ A critical discourse analysis approach. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 18-33.
  40. Tayyebi, A. (2010). Translation problem and problem solving in translations of the glorious Quran: A cognitive psychology ‎approach. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 34-49.
  41. Urgelles-Coll, M. (2010). The syntax and semantics of discourse markers. Continuum.
  42. Vaezi, M., Rasuli Ravandi, M. R., & Moseli, M. (2018). Translation analysis of emphasis devices of Qasr by negative (Lā) and exception (Illā) in some English translations of the Holy Qur’ān: A case study of Shakir, al-Hilālī-Muhsin Khān, and Irving translations. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(60), 21-38.
  43. Valavi, S., & Hassani, M. (2016). Translation of some types of singular metonymies in the last ten units of the Qur’an: A case study of the translations done by Elahi Ghomshei, Makarem, Moezzi, and Fouladvand. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(52), 19-33.
  44. Yang, S. (2011). Investigating discourse markers in educational settings: A literature
    review. ARECLS, 8(7), 95-108.
  45. Zufferey, S. (2017). Discourse connectives across languages: Their explicit or implicit translation. Languages in Contrast, 16(2), 264-279. DOI: org/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics