A Narrative-Argumentation Framework for Translation Quality Assessment
Exploring a Chapter in “Discourses of Rumi”
Abstract
Although argumentation theory can contribute to translation studies and especially translation quality assessment (TQA), argumentation models need to be further expanded to specifically serve the process of translation. How an argument is embedded within a larger body of text (e.g. a book chapter), and how the argument-related structural pieces are put together through textual progression represent some of the challenging questions that assessors/practitioners of translation need to deal with. This study proposes a holistic, multi-genre TQA framework that relies on narrative theory and argumentation theory. Pragma-dialectics (including argument scheme and structure) shapes the argumentative parcel, while the notion of narrative coherence, with reference to Ricoeur’s configuration, builds the narrative component. The framework is tested on an English translation of a Rumi’s chapter in his major book Fihi Ma Fihi (Discourses of Rumi). The findings show that the framework, as a multifaceted TQA instrument, can functionally process arguments in narratives.
Keywords:
translation studies, rhetoric, interpretive holism, Ricoeur, van EemerenReferences
Arberry, A. J. (1961/2002). Discourses of Rumi: Based on the original translation by A. J. Arberry. Ames: Omphaloskepsis.
Cercel, L., Agnetta, M., & Amido Lozano, M.T. (Eds.). (2017). Kreativität und Hermeneutik in der Translation. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Foruzanfar, B. (1969). Fihi Ma Fihi: The discourse of Rumi. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publication. (Reprinted in 2002).
Kharmandar, M. A. (2016). Argumentation-based literary translation quality assessment: A multidisciplinary model. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 5(2), 139–156. DOI: 10.1075/jaic.5.2.02kha
Kharmandar, M. A. (2017). A critique of argumentation-centered translation quality assessment: Beyond Toulmin’s model. First National Conference on Innovative Multidisciplinary Research in the Humanities. Shiraz, Iran.
Kharmandar, M. A. (2018). The intersections of translational hermeneutics and narrative hermeneutics: The foundational considerations. In R. Stolze & B. Piecychna (Eds.), Translational Hermeneutics (pp. 53–70). CrossRoads: A Journal of English Studies. DOI: 10.15290/cr.2018.20.1.03
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative. (Vol. 1). (K. McLaghlin & D. Pellauer, Trans.). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Stolze, R., Stanley, J., & Cercel, L. (Eds.). (2015). Translational hermeneutics: The first symposium. Bucharest: Zeta Books.
Toolan, M. (2009). Coherence. In P. Hühn, J. Pier, W. Schmid, & J. Schönert, (Eds.)., Handbook of narratology (pp. 44–62). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Toulmin, S. (2003).The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. (2016). Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step to the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1–23). DOI: 10.1007/s10503–015–9377–z
van Eemeren, F., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (Eds.) (2007). Argumentative indicators: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
Williams, M. (2001). The application of argumentation theory to translation quality assessment. Meta, 2: 328–343.
Williams, M. (2009). Translation quality assessment. Mutatis Mutandis, 2(1), 3–23.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright Licensee: Iranian Journal of Translation Studies. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0 license).
