hey, this is Dana I have two projects that I have to submit tomorrow.the summary one I think the files are clear enough, isn’t?and the essay one I did not know what topic to choose but our prof gave us an example, cranberry morphemes.hope it’s clear..
the_summary_instructions.docx
the_essay_instructions.pdf
the_article_that_need_to_be_summarized.pdf
a_sample_of_the_summary.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Project (10%)
You can choose to work individually, as a pair or as a group.
Individually (summary of a journal article)
For COLT students, choose a refereed article (published in 2016 onwards) related to
semanticspragmatics and translation
For TESOL students, choose a refereed article (published in 2016 onwards) related to
teaching semantic or pragmatic notions
Send me the article for approval. Once I approve the article, you are required to summarize
it. Please see sample attached.
– You should prepare a 2-page concise summary using APA style formatting guidelines
-Use the link to upload your summary
-choose an article that is interesting and easy to read
– The deadline for submitting the article summary is the 24th of March.
– Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Any plagiarized work will be given a zero
-Points will be deducted for late assignments
-You can use a plagiarism checker .
/http://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker
Similarity level of 25% or below is acceptable
Suggested topics
COLT (focus on Arabic & English)
TESOL (focus on aids, techniques, strategies,
models, software, teaching methods or
approaches)
Translation of paralinguistic signs
Testing paralinguistic signs or prosodic
features in speaking classes
Translation of idioms, inerjections, phrasal
Strategies, techniques or teaching methods
verbs, collocations, culture-specific words,
used to teach idioms, phrasal verbs,
synonymy, antonymy, homonymy,
collocations, synonymy, antonymy,
hyponymy, polysemy, paradox
homonymy, hyponymy, polysemy, etc. in EFL
classes
Translation of metaphor , poetry, literature
Teaching figurative language (metaphor,
(novels, poems, short stories), simile, humor, simile, etc.) or literature to EFL students
hyperbole,
Translation of connotative meaning
Teaching pragmatics
Pragmatic abilities of aphasics, autistic
Pragmatic abilities of aphasics, autistic
children and schizophrenics
children and schizophrenics
Pragmatics and translation
Teaching pragmatics to autistic children
Pragmatics & interpretation
Translation of movies (dubbing, subtitling,
etc.)
Politeness and translation
Translation of speech acts
Deixis in Arabic
Translation of deixis
Metonymy in Arabic
Translation of metonymy
Translation of binomials
Teaching metonymy
Teaching binomials
Evaluation
grammar 1, structure 2, vocabulary (spelling) 1, APA Style 1, referencing 1, cohesion 1, title
1, paragraph division 1, examples 1
Group work ( 3 to 4 students)
Write a script or a sketch of five minutes on how misunderstanding may lead to a
breakdown in communication. You need to act out the story on stage in the auditorium.
Some expressions that may cause misunderstanding are idioms, polysemy, homonymy,
paradox, violation of the cooperative principle, etc.
Evaluation
creativity 1, originality 1, variety of theories 1, grammar 1, props 1, accuracy 2, division
of work 1, eye contact 1, voice volume and intonation 1
Individually or pair work (digital story telling)
Create a video (3-4 mins.) where you tell a digital story using some semantic notions.
Check the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuxPs2Vc87o&feature=youtu.be
creativity 2, originality 1, variety of theories 1, grammar 1, accuracy 2, division of work 1,
presentation of examples 1, clarity 1
Pair work ( 2 students)
Choose a video (soap opera, talk show, movie, etc.) and analyze the talks in it using
theories in pragmatics (e.g., deixis, implicature, speech acts, etc.). You need to find at
least 10 different examples pertinent to 2 or 3 theories. Results of your analysis
(including translations) will be presented to your friends in the auditorium. You need to
show the video and your analysis in slides. Check
Evaluation
creativity 1, variety of examples 1, presentation of the analysis 2, accuracy in terms of
analysis and translation 2, division of work 1, eye contact 1, voice volume and intonation
1, language (grammar, structure, vocabulary) 1
TERM PAPER GUIDE: ENGT 243 MORPHOLOGY & SYNTAX
College of Languages & Translation, Spring 2019
LECTURER: GHADA A. ALGHAMDI
ABOUT THE TERM PAPER
Write a 500-word essay on one of the following concepts in linguistics: DEADLINE March 28th (Midnight)
–
Fossilisation in linguistic morphology
The syntax of small clauses
GO ALS AND OBJECTIVES
You should write a coherent piece of text in which you discuss the topic.
You always need to narrow the topic down to very specific arguments and particular issues within the
topic area that you are writing about.
ASSIGNMENT CHECKLIST
Before submitting your term paper, be sure to check for the following:
–
The paper is a Word document.
–
The document is left-aligned (using the blue-triangle button pointing from left to right).
–
The document is double-spaced.
–
The text is 12 point in Times New Roman Font.
–
Not a single sentence in the entire document is plagiarized.
–
Use Cover page
o
Title of the research
o
Student names
o
University ID numbers
o
Course information
o
Date
o
There is no need to indicate name of course instructor.
o
There is no need for logos, designs, or colors.
Every academic paper is framed by an introduction and a conclusion section. Be sure to check for the
following:
–
Introduction
o
Insert a Page Break and Give a proper title for your essay.
o
Indent all paragraphs using the Tab key.
o
The introduction prepares the reader for the topic.
o
The last sentence of your introduction should be your thesis statement.
Page 1 of 3
–
Body
The ‘main body’ inbetween is then structured according to your own preferences.
o
This shows in detail your findings about your topic.
o
Throughout the essay, give a comprehensive summary of theories relevant to the
topic. Provide and explain very specific arguments and particular issues within the
topic area that you are writing about.
o
Whenever you need to exemplify a linguistic construction that you talk about, such
examples are set off from the text, numbered consecutively, indented and ideally put in
italics:
Subject-modifying relative clauses typically follow the subject NP directly in English:
(1) The man I saw on the street was talking to his neighbour.
o
Move from one paragraph to the next according to logical reasoning. Use appropriate
transition words from one part to another, so the reader follows your argument.
o
Be sure to cite studies (within-text citation) according to APA. For example:
Rizzi (1986) suggested that in pro-drop languages such as Spanish, Italian, and Arabic, the content of pro
is recovered through the rich agreement specification.
The theory of V-movement was applied to fulfill the government and the requirements of Arabic pro
syntactic properties for proper government. (Jalabneh, 2007)
–
–
Conclusion
o
Your conclusion should convey a sense of completeness and closure as well as a sense
of the lingering possibilities of the topic, its larger meaning, and its implications.
o
The final paragraph should close the discussion without closing it off.
References
o
Insert Page Break
o
In the center of the page include a Level 1 Heading: REFERENCES
o
Follow APA in Arabic and English referencing.
GRADE DISTRIBUTION
The essay is worth 10 points, distributed as indicated below.
Criteria
Details
Points
Relevance of discussion
identifying the theme in a focused and clear thesis statement.
1
Sufficiency of discussion
Ideas are narrowed and relevant to the topic sufficiently.
1
Exemplification
Examples are arranged to argue for the importance of the ideas.
2
Thorough discussion
Detailed explanation of the relevance of examples to the topic.
1
Documentation
Gave credit appropriately for ownership of ideas used.
1
Language
Proper organization of ideas, sentences, and overall editing.
4
Total
Posted on LMS
10
Page 2 of 3
SUBMISSION & PLAGERI SM
Late assignment submission will NOT be accepted.
The papers should be submitted through the Blackboard Learning System (LMS) together with the
SafeAssign Originality Report, which details the results of plagiarism matching process (with the Internet,
ProQuest, Global Reference database and institutional document archives).
You can view the report for your own submitted paper. If more than 10% of the ideas are copied verbatim
from others without due reference, you will lose points.
WORD COUNT
Term paper/Assignment length requirements are usually given in terms of numbers of words. it is
normally acceptable to be 10% above or below this word limit (so, for example, a 500 word essay should
be between 450 to 550 words).
The word limit that you are given reflects the level of detail required. This means that if your paper is too
long, you’re either taking too many words to explain your point or giving too many/too detailed examples.
If your paper is too short, either there is more to the answer than you have written or your paper has not
gone into enough detail about the answer.
Page 3 of 3
Translation Studies
ISSN: 1478-1700 (Print) 1751-2921 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrs20
Metaphors of translation and representations
of the translational act as solitary versus
collaborative
James St. André
To cite this article: James St. André (2017) Metaphors of translation and representations of
the translational act as solitary versus collaborative, Translation Studies, 10:3, 282-295, DOI:
10.1080/14781700.2017.1334580
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2017.1334580
View supplementary material
Published online: 30 Jun 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 551
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrs20
TRANSLATION STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 10, NO. 3, 282–295
https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2017.1334580
Metaphors of translation and representations of the
translational act as solitary versus collaborative
James St. André
Department of Translation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
This article explores the role of metaphors in the conceptualization
of the translation process as one possible reason why Europeanlanguage accounts of translation and theoretical models thereof
tend to focus unduly on a single individual as translator,
regardless of the fact that there is ample historical evidence to
show that translation is often a collaborative process. Building on
the author’s earlier work regarding metaphors of translation, it
argues that metaphors of translation are skewed towards a
conceptualization of the translator as individual. Given the
importance now generally accorded to metaphoric language as
an influence on our way of thinking, attempts to shift the
emphasis in translation studies towards collaborative or collective
processes is likely to founder unless at the same time we try to
rethink our metaphorical description of translation; therefore, the
article ends with some suggestions for such collaborative
metaphors.
Translation as collaboration;
metaphors of translation;
translator as musician;
translation as bridgebuilding; translation as
makeover; translation as
performance
Introduction
Some time ago I attended a talk by Brian Holton, sponsored by the Research Centre for
Translation at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Holton 2015). Like many gifted
practitioners of literary translation who are asked to reflect upon their work, he had
fairly frequent recourse to metaphoric language to describe the translation process. I
counted at least six distinct metaphors, and probably there were more that I missed.
He spoke of the translator as a tram driver, constrained to drive along the tracks laid
down by the author; also of the translator as singer of a cover version of a popular
song, always being measured against the original version; of the translator as a ghost
writer (this one was in the title of his presentation), hired to produce a text for an
author who cannot write for herself or himself; the translator as someone who stands
between the author and the audience; the translator as someone who assumes a
persona, where persona is understood in its original Latin meaning of a mask worn
during a dramatic performance; and finally translation as site-specific art.
Of these six metaphors, the first five, which centre around the figure of the translator
and the translation process, specifically picture the translator as a single individual. Even
in the last case, which is centred around the translation product, where it is possible that
CONTACT James St. André
[email protected]
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
TRANSLATION STUDIES
283
there could be more than one person involved in site-specific art, I would argue that there
is an implicit assumption that only one person is involved, “the artist” generally being conceived in the singular since the Romantic era.
Yet during the question-and-answer period after the talk, Holton stated most emphatically that he viewed collaboration as one of the best approaches to the translation of
Chinese poetry into English, whether by a team made up of one native speaker of each
language, or of one translator and one poet. Furthermore, he pointed out that he
himself had been involved in very fruitful cooperation on various projects over the
years, although he had also worked essentially alone (in his understanding) on many
others.
In Holton’s talk we can see in microcosm a paradox I wish to explore in this article: that
even though the lived experience of many translators includes a significant amount of collaboration of some sort or other, the discourse surrounding the translation process, in particular the metaphors that we use to describe the translation process, continue to feature
the solitary translator.
Taking my cue from perhaps a singular blend of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (cf. Whorf
1956), the work of Max Black (1955) and the essays collected by Ortony (1979) on the use
of metaphoric language in the creation of new knowledge in science, and the now classic
Metaphors We Live By (Lakoff and Johnson 1980) on the pervasiveness of metaphors in
our basic understanding of the world, I would argue that this edifice (to use a metaphor)
of knowledge presents an obstacle (another metaphor) to rethinking translation as a collaborative process (see St. André 2010b for more details on this). This article is a first
attempt to draw attention to this problem, outline in some detail the range of metaphors
for translation in an effort to see how they may or may not be useful in thinking of translation as a collaborative process, and suggest some avenues for further research.
Background
In the 1930s and 1940s, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf came up with strong claims
concerning the constraints imposed by different languages on the way people think. The
claim that language constrains thought is now commonly linked to their names as the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Their ideas can in turn be traced back to the work of Wilhelm
von Humboldt, who posited a link between different languages and the development of
different cultures and Weltanschauung or world view (Trabant 2000). While a strong
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that one cannot think certain thoughts in particular languages,
or that language largely determines the way that we think) is generally not considered
tenable by linguists today, a weak form of the hypothesis (that different linguistic structures may influence the way we think, and make it easier or harder to make certain connections) is widely acknowledged (Lucy 2015; Chandler and Munday 2016).
If linguistic structures may tend to make it easier or harder to think in certain ways, this
must be understood to include the use of figurative language. Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980)
work on how basic metaphors, often associated with the body, guide our thinking of even
very basic concepts demonstrates how important metaphors are for some of our often
unexamined assumptions about time, space, reality and values. Yet even as Lakoff and
Johnson were demonstrating how unexamined metaphoric structures may lead us into
a rut (here we see metaphoric language helping us to think about metaphors), the work
284
J. ST. ANDRÉ
of Black (1955) and of Ortony and his collaborators (1979) demonstrated that the creation
of new metaphors may help us out of those ruts by mapping phenomena from two different domains onto one another. They were particularly interested in the role of metaphors
in the creation of new knowledge in the sciences (for example, the billiard ball metaphor to
explain the motion of gas molecules), but the insight holds true for other fields of knowledge as well. Thus, as is often claimed for translation itself, the use of metaphor allows for a
reorientation of our thinking (see Guldin (2010) on the close links between metaphor and
translation). Returning to Sapir and Whorf, we may metaphorically map their understanding of languages as world views onto metaphors in translation studies to argue that such
metaphors also represent “world views” of the translation process. Thus while it may be
true that thinking within one metaphor (read: “language”) tends to constrain our ability
to think about a particular issue, our ability to come up with different metaphors allows
us to approach that issue from other angles.
Taken in conjunction, these three points make clear that the metaphors we use to
describe the translation process may make us tend to think in certain directions about
translation, and that if we want to get out of those ruts, the employment of new metaphors
may be extremely useful.
Specifically in relation to translation studies, Round (2005, 50–58) discusses both the
long history of using metaphors to understand translation and the idea that different
metaphors tend to highlight different aspects of the translation process or raise different
questions, while Cheetham (2016) argues at great length that the prevailing conceptual
metaphors for translation today are ones of movement and replacement, that these metaphors have negative implications for the translation process, and that shifting to performance-based metaphors may help us to overcome some of those negative implications and
gain new insights into the translation process. Finally, the work of Bistué (2013, 2–35) may
help us to understand why so many metaphors of translation revolve around a single
figure. She argues that, beginning in the twelfth century, European writings about translation struggled to theorize a single writing subject for translations, and that in their arguments they often relied on metaphors of abduction, condensation, assimilation, reduction
and unification to achieve this end.
In my previous work (St. André 2010a, 2010c), I listed some of the more common
metaphors for the translation process. Since the time of those two publications, I have
kept an eye open for new or hitherto overlooked (by myself) metaphors, and to date I
have collected over 150,1 used to describe all types of translation.2 Some are quite distinctive and limited to a particular situation, such as squeezing a jellyfish, used in the nineteenth century to describe the translation of Japanese literature into English (Henitiuk
2010). Others seem to be ubiquitous, such as the transfer or conduit metaphor, where
the understanding of text as a container that holds a content is used in a wide variety
of basic descriptions of the translation process (see Martín de León 2010). Some can be
grouped together as closely related metaphors, as suggested by various researchers such
as Tymoczko (2007), Hermans (1985) and myself (St. André 2010d). Some metaphors,
although not closely related to each other, share an underlying theme. A cluster of metaphors have been shown to have a gendered or sexual aspect, whereby the inequality in
gender roles …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
