d be aware of the use of appropriate strategies and to have a comprehensive knowledge on different kinds of allusion in different texts to achieve a good translation. The present study investigated a particular problem in the translation of poetic texts that are constructed on the basis of intertextual references, namely KP allusions. It actually focused on the way different translators have dealt with intertextual references in the English translations of Mantiq ut-Tair of Farid ud-Din Attar.
۱.۴. Significance of the Study
Intertexuality is a problematic factor in translation studies. Therefore, it could be considered as one of the most challenging factors to measure and quantify the translator features because the ignorance of intertextuality and translation strategies has caused a lot of problems in translating poetry text. The present study aimed at building a foundation in order to provide allusive references, namely KP allusions to find out how translation strategies in poetic text can help translators in this respect to open horizons on to new and unknown shores of translation studies.
۱.۵. Research Questions
The present study intended to find answers to the following questions:
۱. What translation strategies have the translators of Mantiq ut-Tair used to convey the intertextual allusive items to the TL?
۲. To what extent has the true sense of KP allusions in Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair been transferred to English?
۱.۶. Definition of Key terms
Allusion: “Refers to a variety of uses of performed linguistic material in either its original or a modified form, and PN to convey often meaning (Leppihalm, 1997, p. 8).” According to Barton and Hudson (1997), an allusion is an indirect or explicit reference by one text or another text, to a historical occurrence, or to myths and legends (p. 9).
Intertextuality: “The production of meaning from the complex relationships that exists between the text, other texts, and the readers can be referred to as intertextuality (Cascallana, 2006, p. 98).”
Key-phrase: “Allusion containing no proper name apparently taxis all turn into pumpkins at mid- night (Leppihalme, 1997, p.10).”
Strategy: “A sequence of operations the translator put into use while trying to fulfill an aim (Loescher, 1991, p. 68).”
Poetry: “A form of literary art in which language is used for its aesthetic and evocative qualities in addition to or in lie of its appearing meaning (Oxford, 2008, p. 973).”
.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
۲.۱. Overview
This chapter will review the literature that is related to intertextuality and allusion in more detail. As discussed in the introductory chapter it will begin by describing the concepts of intertextuality. The main focus of the present study is on allusion as a certain type of intertextuality. This chapter also will review forms of allusions and the strategies suggested for translating them.
۲.۲. History of Intertextuality
The concept of intertextuality was first introduced by Kristeva in an essay entitled “Word, Dialogue and Novel”, in 1966, to describe the way all language and all literature are constructed from previous utterances to form mosaics of quotations (Kristeva, 1986, p. 37). “Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts (Beaugrande; Dressler, 1981, p. 10).” On the other hand, (Fairclough, 1992, p. 270) argued intertextuality points to how texts can transform prior texts and restructure existing conventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones. But, Kristeva (1986, p. 40) used intertextuality and the text to critique the classical logic with its emphasis on singularity and the monologic. Therefore, she made a Bakhtinian point when she argued the minimal unit of poetic language was at least double, not in the sense of the signifier/signified dyad, but rather in terms of one and other (Kristeva, 1986, p. 40).
Cascallana (2006, p. 98) also stated that the notion of intertextuality moves away from the traditional study of sources and influences, broadening its scope towards the dialogics of the text. Cascallana (2006) noted that a text is no longer considered as the container of meaning, but as an intertextual space in which a number of elements are combined, absorbed or transformed (p. 98). Cascallana (2006, p. 98) said that the production of meaning from the complex relationships that exist between the text, other texts, the readers and can be referred to as intertextuality (p. 98).
Meanwhile, Porter (1986, p.34) believed intertextually means looking for traces, the bits and pieces of text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse. He claimed that the most mundane manifestation of intertextuality is explicit citation, but intertextuality animates all discourse and goes beyond mere citation (Porter, 1986, p. 34).
Shortly, (Porter, 1986, p. 35) by identifying and stressing the intertextual nature of discourse, however, we shift our attention away from the writer as individual and focus more on the sources and social contexts from which the writer’s discourse arises. According to this view, he noted that authorial intention is less significant than social context; the writer is simply a part of a discourse tradition, a member of a team, and a participant in a community of discourse that creates its own collective meaning (Porter, 1986, p. 35). In other word, “Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts (Beaugrande; Dressler, 1981, p. 10).”
But (Hatim 1997, p. 29) believed that intertextuality is essentially a mechanism through which a text refers backward (or forward) to previous (or future) texts, by alluding to, adapting, or otherwise invoking meanings expressed in those other texts. Therefore, “in most basic form of intertextuality, communicative interaction involves the exchange of meanings as signs between speaker and hearer (or writer and reader) (Hatim 1997, p. 219).”
Bakhtin/ Medvedev (as quoted in Allen,2000, p. 16) argued that while Formalism seeks to explain the general ‘literariness’ of literary works, and Saussurean linguistics seeks to explain language as a synchronic system, what is missed by both approaches is that language exists in specific social situations and is thus bound up with specific social evaluations. According to this view, to produce an abstract account of literary language or any language is to forget that language is utilized by individuals in specific social contexts. The crucial word here is utterance, a word which captures the human-centered and socially specific aspect of language lacking in formalism and Saussurean linguistics (Allen, p. 16).
Until, in 1968 Barthes proclaimed “the death of the author” based on the intertextual insight that texts derive their meaning, not from some author creating denovo and exnihilo, but only through their relations to other texts. Meaning results from the play of texts, as they are generated by the langue and the culture. The death of the author results in the liberation of the reader. The intertextual reader or interpreter then is free in tracing the relations between texts (Irwin, 2004, p. 230).
According to Mitchell (2001, p. 26), the importance of Riffaterre’s work for the problem of intertextuality comes mainly from his insistence on the importance of the reader in text production. He also noted that the reader is the only one who makes the connection between the text, interpretant and intertext (Mitchell, 2001, p. 26). Mitchell (2001) pointed out literary production includes the reader and the reader’s reactions as well as the text; and the literary phenomenon is not located in the relationship between the author and the text but between the text and the reader (p. 26). However, Mitchell (2001) noted that the reader is under the guidance and control of the various intertexts; when the text activates an intertext, it controls the reader’s response, thus maintaining the text’s identity (p. 26).
According to Allen (as quoted in Andersen, 2006, p. 16), Genette has outlined a terminology to describe intertextuality. One of the terms he has coined is the architext, which he describes as the entire set of general or transcendent categories from which emerges each singular text. In fact, Allen (as quoted in Andersen, 2006, p. 16) cites Genette as having described his own poetics as open structuralism. Genette (as quoted in Bazerman, 2009, p. 5) has mapped out sets of possible relations among texts, or transtextuality: intertextuality (explicit quotation or allusion) in the following section, types of

دسته بندی : No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید