آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 50 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 2,337 |
| تعداد مقالات | 33,783 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,323,003 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,312,196 |
Examining Discourse Markers in English Translations of Surah Al-Baqarah in the Holy Qur’ān | ||
| International Journal of Textual and Translation Analysis in Islamic Studies | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 1، شماره 3، مهر 2023، صفحه 253-273 اصل مقاله (610.26 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Research | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22081/ttais.2024.68212.1024 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Elkhas Veysi1؛ Bahman Gorjian* 2 | ||
| 1Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of ELT, Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 20 بهمن 1401، تاریخ بازنگری: 04 خرداد 1402، تاریخ پذیرش: 28 خرداد 1402 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The translation of discourse markers in English versions of the Holy Qur’ān can significantly impact the quality of the translated text. Translators face the challenge of ensuring the accuracy and effectiveness of discourse markers when converting the original text into the target language. This study employed a qualitative research methodology to investigate the usage of English and Persian discourse markers in three translated versions of the Holy Qur’ān by Arberry, Shakir, and Yusuf Ali. Focusing on the renowned Surah Al-Baqarah, 286 verses were meticulously analyzed. Descriptive statistics, following Fraser’s (2005) framework, were applied to categorize discourse markers. The study identified various discourse markers falling into four distinct categories: elaborative, contrastive, inferential, and temporal markers. The results underscored the pivotal role of discourse markers in shaping the translation and structure of the Holy Qur’ān. These markers establish a cohesive link between content words and contribute to the overall coherence of Qur’ānic passages. The study recommends that translators exercise careful consideration in selecting and translating discourse markers to maintain the integrity and meaning of the text. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Discourse؛ Discourse Markers؛ Holy Qur’ān؛ Translation | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Al-Batal, M. (1985). The cohesive role of connectives in modern expository Arabic text. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan, United States.
Alinezhad, B., & Veysi, E. (2011). Investigating the correlation between sub-patterns and Pithes with cognitive roles in Persian language. Journal of Al- Zahra University, 2(4), 7-40.
Al-Khawaldeh, M.A, Asem, N., & Zainudin, I. (2014). A corpus-based description of discourse markers in Arabic sports journalistic texts. Journal of Islamic and Human Advanced Research, 4(4), 200-215.
Ansari, N. S. (2015). A study of discourse marker in Prem Chand’s “Kafan. Language in India, 15(2), 104-112.
Arberry, A. J. (1973). The Koran interpreted. 2 Vols. Macmillan.
Asadi Amjad, F., & Mohammad Farahani, M. (2013). Problems and strategies in English translation of Qur’ānic Divine names. International Journal of Linguistics 5(1), 128-142.
Barnabas J., Luka, T., Gabriel, G., Bitrus, I., & Vershima, M. I. (2015). An Evaluation of the Use of Discourse Markers in Nigerian Newspapers. New Media and Mass Communication, 23. 44-56.
Bu, J. (2013). A study of the acquisition of discourse markers by Chinese learners of English. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 29-50.
Buyukkarci, K., & Genc, B. (2009). Discourse markers: The Case of ‘and’ in the Speech of Turkish Speakers of English. The Linguistics Journal, 4(2), 40-50.
Dalili, M., & Dastjerdi, V. (2013). A Contrastive Corpus-Based Analysis of the Frequency of Discourse Markers in NE and NNE Media Discourse. Corpus Linguistics and Ling. Theory, 9, 1, 39-69.
Fraser, B. (1996). On discourse markers. Ms. Journal of Pragmatics, 1 (6/2),167 -190. International Prasmatics Association.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
Fraser, B. (2005). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles (ed.) K. Fischer. Elsevier Press.
Grosz, B. J. & Candace L. S. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3), 175-204.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing. A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jabeen, F., Rai, A., & Arif, S. (2011). A corpus-based study of discourse markers in British and Pakistani speech. International Journal of Language Studies, 5(4), 69-86.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a Foreign Language. English Language Teaching, 1(3), 31-48.
Khalifa, I., Al Feki, Z., & Farawila, A. (2012). A comprehensive taxonomy of Arabic discourse coherence relations. ICCIT.
Knott, A. (1996). A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. Ph. D thesis. University of Edinburgh, Department of Artificial Intelligence.
Litman, D. J. (1996). Cue phrase classification using machine learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 5,53–94.
Makarem Shirazi, N. (1975). Tafsir Nemooneh. Tehran: Daralkotob-e-Islami.
Mann, W. & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Technical Report ISI]RS-87-190, USC/ISI, June.
Mohammadi, A. M. (2022). A discourse-oriented approach to the analysis of discourse markers in the Holy Qur’ān: Towards introducing a discourse monitoring model based on Qur’ānic texts. Literary-Qur’ānic Researches, 9(3), 57-78.
Mohammadi, A. M., & Hemmati, A. (2023). A pragmatic analysis of the translation of the Qur’ānic discourse marker Thumma in Kurdish and Persian parallel corpora. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 15(1), 65-82.
Onodera, N. O. (2004). Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. New York: John Benjamins.
Qorbani Laktarashani, F., & Hosseini, Z. (2023). Equivalence difficulties in translating conceptual metaphors case study: The word "Inda" in the Holy Qur’ān. Linguistic Research in the Holy Qur’ān, 12(2), 1-18.
Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners.World Journal of English Language, 11(2), 41-58.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (2002). Longman Dictionary of language Teaching and Applied Lingustics, 13,978 -1- 4082 -0460 Published by Routledge.ISBN -
Ryding, K. C. (2005). A Reference grammar of modern standard Arabic.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1998). Approaches to discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 3(29), 355–359.
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse Markers: A Tutorial Overview. Lingua, 107,227-265.
Shaarani, A. (1964). Majma’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’ān. Tehran: Al-Elmyeh Publication.
Shakir, M. H. (2001). Holy Qur’ān. Qum: Ansariyan Publication.
Tabataba'I, S. M. H. (2003). Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur’ān. Qom: Ansarian.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on meta-discourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Vasheghani Farahani, M., & Dastjerdi, H.V. (2019). Metadiscourse Features in two English Translations of the Holy Qur’ān: A Comparative, Corpus-based Inquiry. Lebende Sprachen, 64, 378 - 398.
Yusuf Ali, A. (1982). The Holy Qur’ān. India: Delhi.
Zaidan Ali, J. (2008). Discourse markers in Qur’ānic translation: Al-Hilali and Khan’s as an Example, 275-82. Institut Terjemahan Negara Malaysia Berhad. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 41 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 42 |
||