کاربردشناسی و نمود آن در ترجمه دوبله فیلم

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مطالعات ترجمه، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانشیار مطالعات ترجمه، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 دانشیار زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

ترجمه صرفاً انتقال عناصر زبان مبدأ به زبان مقصد نیست. در فرآیند این انتقال، مترجم با چالش­های زیادی مواجه می­شود که یکی از این چالش­ها بُعد کاربردشناسی است، حوزه ای که آن­طور که باید مورد توجه محققان و پژوهشگران ترجمه قرار نگرفته است. مترجمان گاهی صرفاً به واژگان و ساختار دستوری و ظاهری متن توجه دارند و از ابعاد و لایه­های پنهان متن غافل می­شوند. این بُعد بیش­تر در گفت­وگو نمود پیدا می­کند و از آن­جا که فیلم صرفاً گفت­وگو محور است درنظرگرفتن این ابعاد در ترجمه دوبله از اهمیت زیادی برخوردار است اما آن­طور که باید تاکنون به آن پرداخته نشده است. پژوهش حاضر سعی دارد تا ابتدا دسته­بندی­هایی را که پیش­تر محققان برای کاربردشناسی ارائه کرده­اند به­صورت منسجم و در قالب یک دسته­بندی جامع به­صورت خلاصه توضیح دهد و سپس با ذکر نمونه­هایی از فیلم، نمود این ابعاد را در ترجمه دوبله نشان دهد. بدین منظور نمونه­هایی از چهار فیلم انگلیسی­زبان که به زبان فارسی دوبله شده­اند انتخاب شد و سپس با تحلیل این موارد و مقایسه آن­ها با ترجمه فارسی، نمود بُعد کاربردشناسی در ترجمه دوبله فیلم مشخص شد.

عنوان مقاله [English]

Pragmatics and its Representation in the Translation of Film Dubbing

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Salari 1
  • Ali Khazaee Farid 2
  • Shahla Sharifi 3
1 PhD Student at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
2 Associate Professor of Translation Studies at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
3 Associate Professor of General Linguistics at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
چکیده [English]

Translation is not just the transference of source text elements to the target text. In this process, the translator faces so many challenges, one of which is the pragmatic aspects of the text. This subject is not considered by many scholars and researchers. Translators sometimes focus solely on the vocabulary and textual structure of the text and overlook the hidden dimensions and layers of it. This problem is much more frequent in film translation because films are based upon dialogues and deal with these hidden dimensions. The present research tries to elaborate the categories that researchers have previously suggested for pragmatic aspects of the text and then showing their representations in dubbing translation by giving some examples. To this end, some samples from four English films which were dubbed into Persian were chosen. Then, the cases were analyzed and pragmatic representation become evident in dubbing translation. In these cases, it can be observed how translators changed these hidden aspects of the original films.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Pragmatics
  • translation
  • dubbing
  • hidden aspects of text
  • translation challenge

مراجع

  1. Abbott, Barbara. "Definiteness and indefiniteness." The handbook of pragmatics. Horn, Laurence R.  Ward, Gregory. Uk: Blackwell, (2004): 122-149.Abbott, Barbara. "Definiteness and indefiniteness." The handbook of pragmatics. Horn, Laurence R.  Ward, Gregory. Uk: Blackwell, (2004): 122-149.
  2. Arroyo, JoseLuis Blas. "Mire usted Sr. Gonzalez… Personal deixis in Spanish political-electoral debate." Journal of Pragmatics 32.1 (2000): 1-27.
  3. Austin, John. “How to do things with words”. The discourse reader. Jaworski, Adam,  Nikolas Coupland. New York: Routledge, (1962): 63-75.
  4. Bach, Kent, and Harnish, Robert M. “Linguistic communication and speech acts.” Cambridge: The MIT Press, (1979).
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. “The study of translation in view of new developments in discourse analysis: The problem of indirect speech acts.” Poetics today 2.4 (1981): 89-95.
  6. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1987.
  7. Bublitz, Wolfram, and Neal R. Norrick, eds. Foundations of pragmatics. Vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter, 2011.
  8. Carlson, Gregory. “Reference”. The handbook of pragmatics. Horn, Laurence R.  Ward, Gregory. Uk: Blackwell, (2004): 74-96.
  9. Cui, Ying, and Yanli Zhao. “A contextual perspective on presupposition, with reference to translation studies.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 43 (2014): 31-42.
  10. Desilla, Louisa. “Implicatures in film: Construal and functions in Bridget Jones romantic comedies.” Journal of Pragmatics 44.1 (2012): 30-53.
  11. Ehrman, James F. "Pragmatics and translation: the problem of presupposition." TTR 6. 1 (1993): 149-170.
  12. El-Gamal, Ayman. "Presupposition, perceptional relativity and translation theory." Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses, 14 (2001): 37-62.
  13. Fawcett, Peter. “Translation and language: Linguistic theories explained.” Manchester: St. Jerome. (1997).
  14. Fillmore, Charles J. "Types of lexical information." Studies in syntax and semantics. Springer, Dordrecht, (1969). 109-137.
  15. Fillmore, Charles J. "Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis." Bloomington: IULC, (1975).
  16. Frank, David B. “Implications of Implicatures for Translation.” Paper presented at Bible Translation 2015, Dallas, Texas, October 17, 2015. www.dbfrank.net/papers/implications_of_implicatures_for_translation.pdf. (2015).
  17. Givon, Talmy. Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (1989).
  18. Grice, H. Paul. "Logic and conversation, syntax and semantics." Speech Acts 3 (1975): 41-58.
  19. Goffman, Erving. On Face Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Jaworski, Adam,  Nikolas Coupland. New York: Routledge, (2001): 222-247.
  20. Gutt, Ernst-August. "Implicit information in literary translation: A relevance-theoretic perspective." Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 8.2 (1996): 239-256.
  21. Hanks, William F. The indexical ground of deictic reference. Duranti, Alessandro, and Charles Goodwin, eds. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1992). 43-76.
  22. Hatim, Basil. "Pragmatics and translation." Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge: London/New York, (1998): 179-183.
  23. Hatim, Basil and Mason, Ian. “The Translator as Communicator.” London and New York: Routledge, (1997).
  24. Heim, Irene. "The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases." unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. (1982).
  25. Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (Eds.). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, (2004).
  26. Huang, Yan. “Types of inference: entailment, presupposition, and implicature.” Bublitz, Wolfram and Neal R. Norrick, eds. Foundations of pragmatics. Vol. 1. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, (2011): 397-421.
  27. Kasper, Gabriele. "Linguistic politeness: Current research issues." Journal of pragmatics 14.2 (1990): 193-218.
  28. Koolstra, Cees M., Allerd L. Peeters, and Herman Spinhof. "The pros and cons of dubbing and subtitling." European Journal of Communication 17.3 (2002): 325-354.
  29. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. "The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse." Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 8.2-3 (1989): 101-130.
  30. Leech, Geoffrey N. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman, (1983).
  31. Levinson, Stephen C. “Pragmatics”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1983).
  32. Levinson, Stephen C. “Deixis”. The handbook of pragmatics. Horn, Laurence R.  Ward, Gregory. Uk: Blackwell, (2004): 97-121.
  33. Mey, Jacob L. “Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.)”. Oxford, England: Blackwell, (2001).
  34. Poesio, Massimo. "Weak definites." Mandy Harvey, and Lynn Santelmann. Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Vol. 4, N.Y.: Cornell University, (1994): 282-299.
  35. Pinto, Derrin. "Lost in subtitle translations: The case of advice in the English subtitles of Spanish films." Intercultural pragmatics 7.2 (2010): 257-277.
  36. Rafieyan, Vahid. "Relationship between Pragmatic Comprehension and Translation of Culture-Bound Texts." Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 3.3 (2016): 257-267.
  37. Russell, Bertrand. "On denoting, mind, 14: 479–493. Reprinted in Russell, B." Essays in Analysis (1905): 103-119.
  38. Searle, John R. “Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language”. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, (1969).
  39. Shehab, Ekrema. "Pragmatic failure in translating Arabic implicatures into English." Babel 62.1 (2016): 21-38.
  40. Stalnaker, Robert. "Presuppositions." Journal of philosophical logic 2.4. (1973). 447-457.
  41. Strawson, Peter F. "On referring." Mind 59.235 (1950): 320-344.
  42. Sultan, Kadhim M. "The semantics, pragmatics and translation of speech acts." journal of the college of basic education 10.50 (2007): 23-41.
  43. Triki, Manel. "A Pragmatic Approach to the Study of English/Arabic Translation Errors." Journal Academica 3.1 (2013): 39-51.
  44. Von Heusinger, Klaus. "Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure." Journal of semantics 19.3 (2002): 245-274.
  45. Yule, George. “Pragmatics”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1996).
  46. Zandi, Mehdi, and Masoud Azizinezhad. "A pragmatic approach to translation: a case study of deictic expressions in translations of hafiz." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 28 (2011): 928-931.
  47. .

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار