A study on the vietnamese translational versions of comtemporary english works – a communicative perspective
This study investigated some strategies representing communicative approach to translation manifested in Vietnamese translational versions of contemporary English works. The theories of translation methods developed by Susan Bassnett and Mc. Guire, Catford, Hatim, B. and I. Mason, especially...
Đã lưu trong:
| 格式: | Luận văn |
|---|---|
| 语言: | English |
| 出版: |
Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Đà Nẵng
2025
|
| 主题: | |
| 在线阅读: | https://data.ufl.udn.vn/handle/UFL/1247 |
| 标签: |
添加标签
没有标签, 成为第一个标记此记录!
|
| Thư viện lưu trữ: | Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Đà Nẵng |
|---|
| 总结: | This study investigated some strategies representing communicative
approach to translation manifested in Vietnamese translational versions of
contemporary English works. The theories of translation methods developed
by Susan Bassnett and Mc. Guire, Catford, Hatim, B. and I. Mason, especially
Peter Newmark were used to elicit data. The communicative translation
requires both linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge. 800 samples serving as
data were extracted from some contemporary English works and their
Vietnamese translation versions. They were divided into 8 strategies making
up communicative approach to translation. The strategies were categorized
according to their features. Data were analyzed basing on linguistic
knowledge, culture and social conventions. The results suggested that the
frequency and preference of the strategies were not the same. Some of them
were used more than others. In communicative translation, the translators
focused the most on rearranging words, phrases or sentences compared with
the original versions according to both objectively grammatical rules and
translators’ subjective intention (30,5%). Next, the translators tried to clarify
the source language text by adding some linguistic items to it or paraphrasing
it; they even adapted cultural elements in the SL text to TL culture (17,6%).
Besides, some grammatical adjustments were made so that the translational
versions sounded natural and familiar to the TL readership (14,6%). Idiomatic
translation occupied 11,2 %. Both sentence division and connective addition
occupied 7,9%. During transferring process, the idiomatic, figurative form
were converted into direct, non-figurative form (5,6%). The strategy
occupying the least percentage was converting rhetorical question into
assertion (3,7%). |
|---|