Gender and Translation Essay

Abstract The purpose of this survey was to place the function of the gender of the transcriber on the truth of the interlingual rendition. and to find whether there is any difference between the interlingual renditions done by female and male transcribers in footings of interlingual rendition truth. Two English novels and two interlingual renditions for each. one done by a female and the other by a male transcriber. were selected. Each interlingual rendition was compared with its beginning text. sentence by sentence. and based on some certain classs. their inappropriate renditions impacting the apprehension of the ST. and in fact impacting the interlingual rendition truth. were extracted.

The entire Numberss of the ascertained inappropriate renditions of each group of the female and male transcribers were counted. Having analyzed the information and holding applied some statistical analyses. the research worker discovered that the reply to the research inquiry was negative and the void hypothesis of the research was supported. Cardinal Wordss: gender. truth. mutedness. niceness. laterality 1. Introduction Every procedure of interlingual rendition involves at least two linguistic communications and one message. which can be called signifier and significance.

In fact. the significance is the message which is transferred by assorted characteristics and it is the undertaking of the transcriber to reassign the significance of the ST into the TT. So. depending on different factors impacting the translator’s public presentation and the manner the message is conveyed. different interlingual renditions will be produced. Gender of the transcriber is one of the factors that may impact the merchandise of the transcriber. and the truth of interlingual rendition is an of import characteristic in measuring any translated text. This research aimed to work on the differences which might be in footings of the truth between the interlingual renditions done by male and female transcribers.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Therefore. the research inquiry was as follows: “Is there any difference between the interlingual renditions done by female and male transcribers in footings of interlingual rendition truth? ” In order to look into the above mentioned research inquiry. the undermentioned hypothesis was developed: “There is no difference between the interlingual renditions done by female and male transcribers in footings of interlingual rendition truth. ” 2. Gender. Language. Accuracy and Translation 2. 1. Gender and Language: Language. socially and personally. is a important portion of man’s individuality.

Language and gender are linked and developed through man’s engagement in every twenty-four hours societal pattern. It is proved through assorted probes that the linguistic communications of work forces and adult females are truly different ( Holmes 1995: 1 ) . In the yesteryear. adult females were unseeable. yet today they believe that they possess a different voice. different psychological science. different experience of love. etc. and besides different civilization from that of work forces ( Coates 1997: 13 ) . Many surveies have been conducted so far. sing the function of the gender “as a determiner of lingual usage” ( Stockwell 2002: 16 ) .

Harmonizing to Stockwell ( 2002: 16 ) . today the term ‘genderlect’ is used to mention to the different lexical and grammatical picks which are characteristically made by males and females ; e. g. adult females in their negotiations use frequent certain colour term. frequent certain appraising adjectives. non certain modulation. ticket phrases and super-polite looks. such as euphemism. less cursing and more indirect words. Some of their linguistic communication differences proved through assorted probes are as follows: adult females are believed to be the chatty and dish the dirting sex ( Graddol & A ; Swann 1992: 70 ) .

Women speak quietly. whereas work forces speak loud and such differences in the voices relate to their physical sexual differences ; furthermore. work forces are thought to be stronger and bigger than adult females ( Graddol & A ; Swann 1992: 13 ) . Work force usage ‘I’ . swear words and forbidden 1s more than adult females. and in order to go on the conversation and demo the certainty. adult females use more hedges. looks such as ‘I’m sure’ . ‘you know’ . ‘perhaps’… ( Coates 1997: 116. 126 ) . Harmonizing to Jepersen ( cited in Coates 1997: 20 ) . since adult females start speaking without holding thought. they are much more frequently break off than work forces without completing their sentences.

It is believed that adult females talk. compliment others and besides apologise more than work forces do ; moreover. in conversations adult females normally do non disrupt men’s words and they wait until they finish their talk ( Holmes 1995: 2 ) . Besides. as Graddol and Swann ( 1992: 92 ) believe adult females speak more courteously than work forces. But what is the lingual definition of the construct of ‘politeness’ ? Politeness should be considered as “an look of concern for the feelings of others” ( Holmes 1995: 4 ) .

Holmes ( 1995: 6 ) believes that adult females are more concerned about the feelings of those to whom they are speaking and they speak more explicitly than work forces ; besides. he says that adult females are considered as the members of the subsidiary group. so they have to be polite. In assorted conversations. adult females use the minimum responses more than work forces and at appropriate minute. while work forces use such words less and frequently with hold to demo their laterality and the impotence of the gender to which they talk ( Coates 1997: 116 ) . As mentioned before. work forces interrupt more than adult females and it is because they think they are more dominated and powerful ( Coates 1997: 110 ) .

There is an thought that impotence is a feminine feature ( cited in Graddol & A ; Swann 1992: 91. 92 ) . DeVault ( 2002: 90 ) believes that “the construct of “mutedness” does non connote that adult females are silent” . Harmonizing to Coates ( 1997: 35 ) . for centuries adult females were considered in a ‘muted group’ and this was the coveted province of them ; so this belief that adult females speak excessively much is because of this fact that they are required to show themselves to the dominant group of work forces and talk to them. so that they can be heard by them and this speaking is against their mutedness.

Consequently. adult females are considered as the subsidiary group and work forces as the dominant 1. and for this ground. females are making their best in order to be heard by the society and show their abilities to males. But sing their interlingual renditions. it must be said since interlingual rendition is the merchandise of man’s linguistic communication. it must hold the same features as that of linguistic communication. So. every interlingual rendition must reflect the features of the linguistic communication of its transcriber. 2. 2. Translation and Accuracy:

In the procedure of interpreting a text. the message of the original should be preserved in the interlingual rendition and this shows the fidelity or fidelity of the transcriber to the original text. Beekman and Callow ( 1989: 33 ) believe that a faithful interlingual rendition is the one “which transfers the significance and the kineticss of the original text” ; and by ‘transferring the meaning’ . they mean that the interlingual rendition conveys the ST information to the TT reader. Harmonizing to Beekman and Callow ( 1989: 34 ) . “only as the transcriber right understands the message. can he get down to be faithful” . and it is merely so that “he can interpret clearly & amp ; accurately” .

In fact. fidelity and fidelity are two footings which show how much the TT reconstructs the ST. Some interlingual rendition theoreticians believe that the interlingual rendition should be evaluated by sing its ST as “the yardstick” ( Manafi Anari 2004: 34. vol. 2. no. 5 ) . Manafi Anari ( 2004: 41. vol. 1. no. 4 ) defines truth as “the exactness or preciseness of the significance conveyed” and in fact it “implies conformance of interlingual rendition with the original text in footings of fact or truth” .

Besides. he defines ‘accurate translation’ as a interlingual rendition “which is the reproduction of the message of the ST” ( Manafi Anari 2004: 34. vol. 2. no. 5 ) . Newmark ( 1996: 111 ) believes that in interpreting a text. “the truth relates to the SL text. either to the author’s significance. or to the nonsubjective truth that is encompassed by the text” . etc. Harmonizing to the treatment above. truth can be considered as one of the representations of the fidelity in interlingual rendition. i. e. demoing how accurately the transcriber has managed to reproduce the message of the ST into the TL.

Larson ( 1984: 485 ) believes that in every interlingual rendition. truth. clarity and naturalness are of the great importance. Sing the interlingual rendition truth. she believes that in some instances. when the transcriber tries to acquire the significance of the ST and convey it to the TT. s/he may do some errors. either in the analysis of the ST. or in the procedure of conveying the significance. and a different significance may ensue ; so. there is a demand for a careful cheque sing the truth of the interlingual rendition.

Harmonizing to Khomeijani Farahani ( 2005: 77-78 ) based on what Larson proposed in 1984. the procedure of measuring the truth of interlingual rendition can be done in 2 possible ways: one manner is acknowledging the cardinal words of the ST and their equalities in the TT and comparing how close they are ; i. e. finding whether the transcriber could convey the same and exact significance of the ST by choosing the best mark equivalents and whether s/he could accomplish an acceptable truth or non.

Another manner is utilizing back interlingual rendition ; i. e. interpreting the TLT into the SL. so. transporting out a incompatible analysis and if the retranslated text is moderately close to the SLT. the interlingual rendition has got the acceptable truth. Besides. Waddington ( 2001: 313 ) has proposed a interlingual rendition quality appraisal method based on Hurtado’s ( 1995 ) theoretical account: Waddington’s “Method A” introduces three groups of errors which may be in a interlingual rendition.

The first group of the errors. which consider the apprehension of the ST message. is related to the truth of the interlingual rendition ; it contains inappropriate renditions impacting the apprehension of the beginning text and split them into eight classs: contresens. fake pots. nonsens. add-on. skip. unsolved extralinguistic mentions. loss of significance. and inappropriate lingual fluctuation ( registry. manner. idiom. etc. ) .

Consequently. the term ‘translation accuracy’ refers to the translator’s apprehension of the message of the ST and that how accurately the transcriber has managed to interpret a text from one linguistic communication into another. 2. 3. Gender and Translation Through reexamining the linguistic communications applied by adult females and work forces. and besides by analyzing assorted facets of their lives. it is revealed that adult females are considered as the subsidiary group and work forces as the dominant 1. Hence. it is for this ground that in recent decennaries. females are making their best in order to be heard by the society and show their abilities to males.

Over the past several decennaries and after the women’s motion. gender issues got involved in the linguistic communication issues ; meanwhile the interlingual rendition surveies developed more and more ( von Flotow 1997: 1 ) . Sing the interlingual rendition. it can be assumed that since interlingual rendition is the merchandise of the linguistic communication of the human being. it might hold the same features as those of linguistic communication. So. every interlingual rendition might reflect the features of the linguistic communication of its transcriber. Harmonizing to von Flotow ( 1997: 5 ) . “gender refers to the sociocultural building of both sexes” .

During 1960s-1970s. feminist minds discussed socialized difference between adult females and work forces and the cultural and political impotence of these two genders ( von Flotow 1997: 5 ) . About the construct of gender. Sherry Simon ( 1996: 5 ) believes that “gender is an component of individuality and experience which. like other cultural individualities. takes signifier through societal consciousness” .

By reexamining the history of interlingual rendition. we can detect that ever there have been “well-known arguments over how best to be faithful” ; so. it is non amazing “that fidelity in interlingual rendition has been systematically defined in footings of gender and sexuality” ( Chamberlain. cited in Baker 1998: 93 ) . For a long clip. interlingual rendition has been employed to explicate women’s actions in public. and as von Flotow ( 1997: 12 ) has referred to Marguerito Duras. adult females lived in darkness for centuries. they did non even know themselves really good ; so. while come ining the populace atmosphere. they had to interpret what they mean.

As claimed by Arteaga ( 1994: 2. cited in Simon 1996: 134 ) . cultural and lingual histories of every state show the relationship between ego and other ; at nowadays. in cultural surveies. interlingual rendition is considered as a metaphor showing “the increasing internationalisation of cultural production” every bit good as “the destiny of those who struggle between two universes and two languages” .

Harmonizing to Simon ( 1996: 134-135 ) . marginalized group position interlingual rendition as a agency through which they can set up themselves in the civilization and linguistic communication of the dominant groups: adult females try to “translate themselves” into the men’s linguistic communication and migrators try to interpret their past experiences into the present. It is because of “the sense of non being at place within parlances of power” that has made many adult females and besides migrators. such as Salman Rushdie. to believe themselves as being “translated beings” ( Rushdie 1991: 13. cited in Simon 1996: 135 ) .

Translator and interlingual rendition have been considered as marginalized. since some have believed that the original text has got high quality over the interlingual rendition and that the interlingual rendition is merely an equivalent of the original and it is non an original in itself ( Hatim & A ; Munday 2004: 200 ) . Historically. interlingual rendition has been considered as a secondary and debauched version of writing ( Simon 1996: 39 ) .

As Simon ( 1996: 39 ) provinces. it has been appeared as a great instrument for adult females supplying them to step into the universe of literature and authorship ; interlingual rendition helps adult females to show themselves through their Hagiographas and interlingual renditions ; for long. adult females have been limited to merely interpret and they have been merely permitted to come in this specific secondary zone of composing ; they have been forced to stand outside the boundary lines of the dominant zone of composing and non been allowed to bask the place of writing.

Feminism and interlingual rendition are both considered in the class of “secondariness” and both are served as instruments for the critical apprehension of differences as it is described in linguistic communication ( Simon 1996: 8 ) . The purpose of feminist interlingual rendition theory is to find and to knock the constructs of lower status of adult females and interlingual rendition. in both society and literature ; for this intent. the procedure through which interlingual rendition has come to be feminized should be explored and the constructions of authorization keeping such association should be troubled ( Simon 1996: 1 ) .

By the transition of clip. and through the accomplishments formed by women’s rightists and their motions. adult females could show themselves and their abilities in society. and in fact. they could set up their individualities in the universe ; merely as Simon says. “feminism has besides reordered lines of cultural transmission” ( Simon 1996: 84 ) . By agencies of interlingual rendition. transcribers – frequently females – have created new ways of exchange ; besides. they have opened new interlingual rendition markets. and harmonizing to Simon ( 1996: 84 ) . “in add-on to the conceptual challenging of interlingual rendition figure of speechs. feminism has worked to set up new rational connections” .

3. Methodology The research worker compared some Iranian interlingual renditions with their English masters to detect whether there is any important difference between the interlingual renditions of the male and female transcribers in footings of interlingual rendition truth. So. a comparative descriptive attack was adopted. In fact. this research was conducted through a descriptive corpus-based method. As the principal of the survey. two English novels and two interlingual renditions for each. i. e. one by a male and another by a female transcriber. were compared sing their truth.

The research worker considered about 10000 words of each English novel and compared the original sentences with their Iranian interlingual renditions. The rubrics of the novels and their interlingual renditions were as follows: ( Austen. J. ( 1813 ) . reprinted 2003. Pride and Prejudice. Bantam Classic: New York. ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1385. ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? : ? ? ? ? ? ? 1386. ( Bronte. E. ( 1847 ) . reprinted 2003. Wuthering Highs. Bantam Classic: New York. ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) . ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1386. ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1385. 4. Data Analysis In order to detect whether male transcribers translate more accurately than female transcribers and to happen out whether there is any important difference between the truth of the interlingual renditions of these two genders. the research worker chose two English novels and she compared the first 10000 words of each novel with their two interlingual renditions. one done by a male and the other by a female transcriber.

Here. the unit of the analysis was ‘sentence’ ; i. e. the research worker compared each sentence of the beginning text with its certain interlingual rendition harmonizing to the first portion of Waddington’s “Method A” ( 2001: 313 ) which is related to interlingual rendition truth and contains the eight classs of the inappropriate renditions which affect the apprehension of the beginning text: contresens. fake pots. nonsens. add-on. skip. unsolved extralinguistic mentions. loss of significance. and inappropriate lingual fluctuation ( registry. manner. idiom. etc. ) .

Examples below show the manner the research worker analyzed the interlingual renditions. Here. there are: * MT1: male transcriber of the Text 1 *FT1: female transcriber of the Text 1 * MT2: male transcriber of the Text 2 *FT2: female transcriber of the Text 2 Examples are as follows: ( But to be candid without fanfare or design – to take the good of everybody’s character and do it still better. and say nil of the bad – belongs to you entirely. ( Text 2/ Sentence 220 ) ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( FT2 ) : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ( Fake pots: do it still better: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( Addition: ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ( Omission: character/ or design ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( MT2 ) : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? … ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? … ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ( Fake pots: fanfare: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / to do it still better: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( Addition: ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ( Omission: character

( They could non every twenty-four hours sit so inexorable. and taciturn ; and it was impossible. nevertheless. crabbed they might be. that the cosmopolitan frown they wore was their mundane visage. ( Text 1/ Sentence 159 ) ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( FT1 ) : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ( Addition: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? ? ( Omission: sit/ countenance/ universal/ they wore ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( MT1 ) : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ( Fauxs pots: grim: ? ? ? ? ? ( Addition: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( Omission: they wore/ universal The research worker computed and so presented the figure of the frequences of each class of the interlingual renditions in the undermentioned tabular arraies: MT1 |Contresens |Fauxsens |Nonsens |Addition |Omission |Unresolved Extralinguistic References |Loss of Meaning |Inappropriate Linguistic Variation |Total | |Frequency |3 |169 |0 |217 |193 |3 |32 |11 |628 | |Percentage |1 |47 |0 |60 |53 |1 |9 |3 |- | |Table 1: MT1’s Inappropriate Renderings.

FT1 |Contresens |Fauxsens |Nonsens |Addition |Omission |Unresolved Extralinguistic References |Loss of Meaning |Inappropriate Linguistic Variation |Total | |Frequency |3 |136 |0 |163 |151 |12 |25 |2 |492 | |Percentage |1 |38 |0 |45 |42 |3 |7 |1 |- | | Table 2: FT1’s Inappropriate Renderings MT2 |Contresens |Fauxsens |Nonsens |Addition |Omission |Unresolved Extralinguistic References |Loss of Meaning |Inappropriate Linguistic Variation |Total | |Frequency |1 |136 |0 |139 |171 |16 |44 |62 |569 | |Percentage |0 |36 |0 |37 |45 |4 |12 |16 |- | |Table 3: MT2’s Inappropriate Renderings.

FT2 |Contresens |Fauxsens |Nonsens |Addition |Omission |Unresolved Extralinguistic References |Loss of Meaning |Inappropriate Linguistic Variation |Total | |Frequency |3 |169 |2 |204 |201 |4 |67 |11 |661 | |Percentage |1 |45 |1 |54 |53 |1 |18 |3 |- | |Table 4: FT2’s Inappropriate Renderings 5. Discussion: Sing the interlingual renditions of the Text 1. the research worker found that the female transcriber translated more accurately than the male transcriber. since the figure of the ascertained inappropriate renditions of MT1 was more than that of FT1.

But sing the Text 2. the research worker got an opposite consequence ; i. e. she discovered that the male transcriber translated more accurately than the female transcriber. for the figure of the inappropriate renditions of FT2 was more than that of MT2. So. based on the different findings obtained from the analysis of the Text 1 and Text 2. the research worker discovered there is no important difference between the interlingual renditions done by the female and male transcribers in footings of interlingual rendition truth.

6. Decision Harmonizing to the information analysis and findings obtained through analyzing inappropriate rendition instances impacting the apprehension of the ST. and in fact. impacting the truth of their interlingual renditions. which occurred in the interlingual renditions of the male and the female transcribers. it was proved that there is no important difference between the interlingual renditions done by male and female transcribers in footings of interlingual rendition truth. Therefore. the void hypothesis of this research was supported.

Here. it is concluded that the gender of the transcriber plays no important function in the truth of the interlingual rendition. and that it can non be said whether female transcribers translate more accurately than male transcribers or frailty versa. So. this survey proved that the gender of the transcriber can non be considered as a deciding factor in analyzing the interlingual rendition truth. References Baker. Mona. ( ed. ) ( 1998 ) . The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Beekman. John. and J.

Callow. ( 1989 ) . Translating the Word of God. Zondervan Publishing House. Coates. Jennifer ( 1997 ) . Women. Men and Language ( A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language ) . 2nd Edition. London and New York: Longman. DeVault. Marjorie. L. ( 2002 ) . “Talking and Listening from Women’s Standpoint: Feminist Schemes for Interviewing and Analysis” . Darin Weinberg. ( ed. ) Qualitative Research Methods. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc. . 88-111. Graddol. David. and J. Swann. ( 1992 ) . Gender Voice.

Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Hatim. Basil. and J. Munday. ( 2004 ) . Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge. ` Holmes. Janet. ( 1995 ) . Women. Men and Politeness. London and New York: Longman. Khomeijani Farahani. Aliakbar. ( 2005 ) . “A Framework for Translation Evaluation” . Translation Studies. 3 ( 9 ) . 75-87. Larson. Mildred. L. ( 1984 ) . Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equivalence. Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America. Manafi Anari. Salar. ( 2004 ) .

“A Functional-Based Approach to Translation Quality Assessment” . Translation Studies. 1 ( 4 ) . 31-52. —– ( 2004 ) . “Accuracy and Naturalness in Translation of Religious Texts” . Translation Studies. 2 ( 5 ) . 33-51. Newmark. Peter. ( 1996 ) . About Translation. Clevedon/Philadelphia/Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Simon. Sherry. ( 1996 ) . Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politicss of Transmission. London and New York: Routledge. Stockwell. Peter. ( 2002 ) . Sociolinguisticss: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.

von Flotow. Luise. ( 1997 ) . Translation and Gender: Translating in the ‘Era of Feminism’ . Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Waddington. Christopher. ( 2001 ) . “Different Methods of Evaluating Student Translations: The Question of Validity” . Meta. XLVI ( 2 ) . 311-325. Besides. available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. erudit. org/revue/meta/2001/v46/n2/004583ar. pdf [ Accessed May 5. 2007 ] . ———————– [ 1 ] Contact Number: 09123274659 [ 2 ] Contact Number: 09124017793. 02133793821 E-mail Address: maliheh. [ electronic mail protected ]com

x

Hi!
I'm Mack!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out