3.3. Materials 38
3.3.1. Mantiq ut-Tair38
3.3.2. Nott’s Translation38
3.3.3. Darbandi’s and Davis’ Translation 39
3.4. Procedures 39
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Results 40
4.1. Overview 41
4.2. Analysis of the Data 41
در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود
شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید
ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل
4.2.1. Key-phrase Allusions in Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair41
4.3. Results 69
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusions 74
5.1. Overview 75
5.2. Strategies Used for Key-phrases Allusion 76
5.3. Concluding Remarks 76
5.4. Limitations of the Study 77
5.5. Implications of the Study 77
5.6. Suggestions for Further Research 77
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. H. Vahid Dastjerdi for his guidance, advice and constructive comments on the topic in question and providing advice and guidance throughout the research period.
My special thanks also go to Dr. M. R. Talebinejad for his advice, help and encouragement. And also I am grateful to my brother, Saadi, M.A. English teaching from University of Tehran.
Finally and most importantly, I thank my God for granting me health and fitness and inspiring me hope and encouragement to accomplish this work.
List of Tables
List of Figures
The present study focused on two English translations of KP allusions in Attar’s
Mantiq ut-Tair. Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair which has been translated by Nott (1954), Darbandi and Davis (1984) was used in the study. It also considered the strategies by Leppihalme (1997, p. 96) which two translators utilized when doing the job in order to transfer the meaning of the ST into TT. The present study compared two English translations of Mantiq ut-Tair with each other to find out what translation strategies have the translators used to convey the intertextual allusive items to the TT and to what extent the true sense of KP allusion in Mantiq ut Tair has been transferred to English. The results showed that when dealing with KP allusions present in the ST which are absent from the TL, translators often resort to different strategies ranging from standard translation, minimum change, omission, replacement, reduction, recreation to the simulated familiarity strategies. The most frequently used strategies by the translators were standard translation, minimum change and omission. These strategies contribute to semantic, cultural, contextual, and literal translation of allusions. The researcher also found that the translations were subject to almost all different strategies except use of footnotes strategy. This thesis also made a comparison between the first translation and the second one to find out which one is more standard than the other with respect to the translation of intertextual references. The second translation of Mantiq ut- Tair by Darbandi and Davis to some extent was more literal than the first translation by Nott. Therefore, other factors such as familiarity with Islamic culture, verses, traditions and the translators’ ideas for which the translations are carried out are needed to explain the translator’s choice of different strategies. The findings of the study suggested that due to the fact that KP allusions and intertextuality are more complicated issues, only Nott could successfully transfer the intended meaning of the original poetry text in Mantiq ut-Tair to TL reader.
List of Abbreviations
SL= Source language
The concept of intertextuality was first introduced by Julia 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).” In other words, Hatim (1997) also argued intertextuality is one of the basic forms of relations that are presence of one text in another one – a quote would be the most obvious example (p. 29).
Meanwhile, Fairclough (1992) noted that intertextuality points to how texts can transform prior texts and restructure existing conventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones (p. 270). “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 (Cascallana, 2006, p. 98).” However, Schäffner & Holmes (1995, p. 58) argued that the influences of intertextuality and the relationship between text and context predispose a target audience to associate specific content with text presented through a given medium.
According to Lefevere (1992), translating poetry can be considered different from translating other text types, in the sense that one translating poetry is not engaged in a single level to deal with but a fourfold process including: language, ideology, poetics and universe of discourse at each of which particular problems arise to involve him with (p. 88).
1.2. Intertextuality and Allusion
Hatim and Mason (1997) described intertextuality as an “all pervasive textual phenomenon” (p. 29) or it is a precondition for the intelligibility of texts (p.80). Hatim (1997) identified the intertextual context of a text as all the other relevant prior texts which the various textual clues in a given utterance conjure up for a given language user on a given occasion of use (p. 200). On the other hand, Plett (1991, p. 5) has opposed the intertext to the text, which is a useful approach: In his view “A text may be regarded as an autonomous sign structure, delimited and coherent (1991, p. 5).” He also argued that boundaries of a text are indicated by its beginning, middle and end, its coherence by the deliberately interrelated conjunction of its constituents (1991, p. 5). Plett also noted that an intertext is characterized by features that exceed it. It is not delimited, but de-limited, for its constituents refer to constituents of one or several other texts (1991, P. 5).
While Genette (1997, p, 1) 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.” However, Allen (2000, p. 96) allows that Genette does not seek to identify the stable system of literature, but merely investigates the links in the architextual network. In fact, Allen cites Genette as having described his own poetics as open structuralism (Allen, 2000, p. 100). It is thus clear that Genette identifies an intertextual identity, where the segment inserted in the text equals that of the ST and intertextual deviance where the two are not identical (Plett, 1991, p. 9).
Meanwhile, Plett’s point of departure is the structure and system of the text itself. Therefore, the surface level concerns itself solely with the syntactic part of the text. The second level, however, of the deep structure, is concerned with what lies implied within the text, what the reader may deduce from it (Plett, 1991, p. 10). This is term for “the textual transcendence of the text, which defined as ‘all that sets the text in a relationship, whether obvious or concealed, with other texts’ (Genette, 1997, p. 1).”
According to Abrams (1999, p. 8) allusion is one of the aspects of intertextuality. He argued that allusion is a reference, explicit, or indirect, to a person, place, or event, or to another literary work or passage (Abrams, 1999, p. 8). Furthermore, Perri (1978, p. 295) added allusion is one of the ways in which references can be established between texts, whether literary or others, or indeed from the world outside of textuality.
Generally speaking, Leppihalme (1997, p. 10) has discussed allusion and divided it into two kinds of allusion that is PN allusion (with name in it) and KP allusion (without name). She argued taking a first step toward identifying the equivalence of KP allusions and knowledge a professional translator must have talent in finding them in both languages (1997, p. 10). She discussed there are several challenges for translators to face on the way to rendering of KP allusion and using strategies in it. Therefore, this study intends to find out what strategies have been used by Nott (1954), Darbandi and Davis (1984) in rendering KP Allusions of Mantiq ut-Tair of Farid ud-Din Attar.
1.3. Statement of the Problem
Translation is certainly a skill that could be learned and intertextuality is not separated from it. If translation is transferring a literary work into a different language, intertextuality can be regarded as a kind of translation which transfers a literary work into a different context. The intertextual context of the ST which may be unfamiliar to the TL audience, poses many problems to the translator. For example, KP allusions are one of the translator’s problems because of their meaning ambiguity in another culture. In order to solve these problems translators should 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.
1.4. 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.
1.5. Research Questions
The present study intended to find answers to the following questions:
1. What translation strategies have the translators of Mantiq ut-Tair used to convey the intertextual allusive items to the TL?
2. To what extent has the true sense of KP allusions in Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair been transferred to English?
1.6. 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).”
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.
2.2. 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 intertextuality will be elaborated.
2.3. Types of Intertextuality
“Intertextuality can operate at any level of text organization (Hatim & Mason 1997, P. 18).” He pointed out intertextuality involving phonology, morphology, syntax or semantics and its expression ranges from single words or phrases with special cultural significance in a given linguistic community at a certain time, to Macro-textual conventions and constraints associated with genre, register and discourse (Hatim, 1997, p. 201). According to (Hatim and Mason 1997) “intertextuality encompasses any element (macro-or- micro-) which helps readers identify and derive meaning from the surface features they have already come across (p. 201).” Therefore, Hatim (1997, p. 30) has summarized and expanded different types of intertextuality which have been proposed by different writers.
2.3.1. Horizontal or Vertical Reference
Citing the work of Bakhtin, Hatim(1997, p. 30) distinguished between horizontal and vertical intertextuality. In the first case the relation between two texts is explicit-a text, or extract thereof, written in reply to or development of another one, for example. This type of intertextuality is a key feature of academic writing and identified by Hoey (1991, pp. 31-34) in terms of “academic oeuvre” and “text colony”. On the other hand, Hatim (1997) argued that vertical intertextuality is more implicit, and may relate, for example, to writing conventions (p. 30).
2.3.2. Manifest or Constitutive Reference
The distinction between intertextual relations of texts to other texts (horizontally) and/or to textual conventions (vertically), may be linked to another useful distinction proposed by Norman Fairclough- that of “manifest” and “constitutive” intertextuality (Hatim, 1997, p.30). According to Fairclough (as quoted in Agger, par14) manifest intertextuality can be divided into the following categories: “Discourse representation, presupposition, negation, metadiscourse, and irony”, all of which are affected by the text in one way or another.
2.3.3. Active versus Passive Intertextuality
According to Hatim and Mason (1990, p. 124), the intertextual link “is strong when it activates knowledge and belief systems well beyond the text itself”. On the other hand, there are passive forms of intertextuality which “amount of little more than the basic requirement that text be internally coherent (p.124).”This classification of intertextuality is seen by Beagrande and Dressler (1988, p. 182) in terms of the Mediation; or “the extent to which on feeds one’s current beliefs and thoughts into the model of the communicative situation”. Hatim and Mason (1990), argued, occurs when knowledge of other texts is drawn upon to process the text at hand. When there is a great distance between the current text and the previously encountered text (due to the factors such as the passage of time), then mediation is said to be greater (p. 127).
2.4. Scope of Intertextuality
Maybe the context of literary theory is the origin of the studies of intertextuality. Some fields as film, music, painting and poetry were encompassing by intertextuality.
Poetry is a form of speech, written or spoken. In other words, poetry like all discourse is a communication-the saying of something by one person to another person (Brooks and Warren, 1838, p. 2). Lefevere (1992, p. 88) maintained that translating poetry can be considered different from translating other text types, in the sense that one translating poetry is not engaged in a single level to deal with but a fourfold process including: language, ideology, poetics and universe of discourse at each of which particular problems arise to involve him with. Therefore, one has to develop some strategies to deal with them considering the perspective problems, Lefevere (1992, p. 88) has introduced a hierarchy for these levels, which looks like this:
3. Universe of discourse
Lefevere (1992) also pointed out that the inconsistency between a ST and the ideology of the target culture can be troublesome, in the sense that it compels translators to manipulate the translation outcome to make it fit in with the dominant ideological currents of his culture) p. 88). By poetics, Lefevere (1992, p. 88) means literary traditions of a certain language one of the problem arising at this level is the presence of a particular genre of poetic element in the SL which is nonexistent in the TL. He argued on the universe of discourse the translator may face things, customs and concepts that are immediately intelligible to the readers of the original text but are no longer intelligible for the readers of TT (p. 49). In Lefevere (1992) view allusion can be found in the level of poetics or prose, in which it is considered, on the one hand, troublesome to convey and on the other hand translatable (p. 49).
2.6. Forms of Intertextuality
According to concept of intertextuality, no text can be read outside its relations to other texts. In fact, any text in order to be communicable would strike various types of relations with other texts. These relations may take many forms including allusion, plagiarism and quotation (Genette, 1992, P. 8). The present study, is investigating on one form of intertextuality, namely; that is allusion.
The etymology of term ‘Allusion’ as proposed by Leppihalme (1997, p. 5), seems to have a connection with the idea of play: add + ludere = alludere. According to Lass et al, (1987 as cited in Leppihalme, 1997, p. 6), an allusion is a figure of speech that compares aspects or qualities of counterpart in history, mythology, scripture, literature, popular or contemporary culture.
In other words, Leddy (1992, p. 110) argued that language use, at least to a certain extent, shows that an allusion is not just a reference. Accordingly, the precise nature of allusions has been debated among scholars over the last three decades. For example, authorial intention and names’ potentiality of being allusive are some of the problematic areas which have caused some debates among scholars which are addressed briefly here as follow:
Leddey (1992, p. 89) assumed a level of authorial intentionally as inevitable. He therefore suggested that the authors make use of allusions to express something, though they may not always be conscious of their intentions and may even create allusions which are culture-bound unintentionally. Pucci (1998) have strongly argued that the reader should be the sole source of meaning in allusion (p. 32).
Another problematic issue to be considered about allusion is whether names are allusive. Hermeren (1992, p. 11) believed that allusions employ implicit information which are unstated connotations, so in this sense they are indirect. He also seems to be suggesting that alluding words cannot be identical with the evoked text and thus he questions the possibility that names and unmodified quotations could function as allusions. On the other hand, Ben-Porat (1976, p. 50) and Perri (1978, p. 41) argued that allusive words and the evoked words may be identical emphasizing on names’ potentiality of being allusive.
2.7.1. Functions of Allusion
The use of allusion has had a long rhetorical history for reasons mentioned by Wheeler (1979): “Allusions help to elucidate the meaning of each text and to indicate the literary modes and conventions in which its author works (p. 182).” According to Sikorska (2000, p. 260), allusions elucidate the meaning by being complementary to the earlier text and thus expanding the scope of its meaning. But, Leppihalme (1997,p. 37) noted that creating humor, delineating characters and carrying themes are more functions of allusion. The first of these, humor (including parody and irony) is employed to detract from the importance of a situation or character. Conrad’s allusion to the ‘whitened sepulcher’ in his Heart of Darkness is an example of irony which depicts religious hypocrisy. Reinforcing themes is another function of allusion proposed by Leppihalme (1997).
She writes on the macro-level the use of creative allusions often brings in a suggestion of universality, a heightening of emotion, a desire to imply that there is something about a situation or character in the alluding context that is more important than the reader would other wise assume, and which may be of thematic importance for the interpretation of the text as a whole (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 37).
Allusions can also function as an economical aid to characterization characters who make use of allusions, as Leppihalme (1997, p. 44) puts it, seem to be well-educated, literate and intelligent and they use allusions in order to serve their interests, as when a central character, who is a professor with a well-established reputation in the expanding field of children’s literature (Lurie as quoted in Leppihalme, 1997) frequently alludes to Lewis Carroll and other children’s classics (p. 44).
2.7.2. Forms of Allusion
Leppihalme (1997, p. 57) identified different forms of allusion, some of which are the linguistic means for expression of comparisons.
She notes when allusions compare aspects or qualities of counterparts in history, literature, popular or contemporary culture, as they frequently do such comparison is expressed by a variety of linguistic means (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 57).
Then she goes on to name these linguistic means: there is at least the similie, with its variations: ‘that man is like Onasis’ , he reminds me of Onasis’, the oppositive expression, ‘my neighbor, that Onasis’, the premodifying allusion, ‘an Onasis type’ and the vocative allusion, ‘It’s easy for you to say, Onasis!’(p. 5).”
Lefevere (1992) pointed out that allusion point to the real untranslatable, which does not reside in syntactic transfers or semantic constructions, but rather in the peculiar way in which cultures all develop their own ‘shorthand’, which is what allusions really are. A word or phrase can evoke a situation that is symbolic for an emotion or state of affairs. The translator can render the word or phrase and the corresponding state of affairs without much trouble. The link between the two, which is so intricately bound up with the foreign culture itself, is much harder to translate (pp. 56-57).
2.7.3. Types of Allusion
Allusions can be sorted into four thematic groups; religious allusion, literary allusion, mythological allusion, historical allusion, PN allusion and KP allusion (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 66). They are more explained as follow:
126.96.36.199. Religious Allusion
Religious scriptures have always been a source of inspiration for poets and authors of literary texts. In fact, the allude to religious scriptures(the report of God’s action in history, the founding texts of religion or religions, the guides to ethics, the evidences about people and societies in the remote past and so on) to attribute value to their works. Traces of religion in literature can be followed in different ways. Sometimes, authors make an allusive reference to a verse from the religious scriptures (Lepihalme, 1997, P. 69). For example, take this couplet from Attar:
همچوموسی دیده ای آتش ز دور لاجرم موسیجه ای برکوه طور(624)
Nott’s translation: Like Moses you have seen the fire from afar; you are really a little Moses on Mount Sinai
Darbandi and Davis translation: Like Moses you have seen the flames burn high- On Sinais slopes and there you long to fly,
This KP allusion refers to seventh verse of Al-Naml Surah: (Remember) when Moses said unto his household: Lo! I spy afar off a fire; I will bring you tidings thence, or bring to you a borrowed flame that ye may warm yourselves.
This reference can be explicit or implicit. So, authors may also incorporate scriptural references in their works by using the PNs associated with a specific religion (the name of prophets, saints, battles, holy places, etc).Another example is:
هر که مذکور خدای آمد به خیر کی رسد درگَََََََََََرد سیرش هیچ طیر(703)
Nott: The bird who is sought after by prophet Solomon, merits a crown for his head.
Darbandi and Davis: Whatever secrets he divined I knew;
This KP allusion refers to twentieth verse Al-Naml Surah: And the sough among the birds and said: How is it that I see not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent?
188.8.131.52. Literary Allusion
According to McSweeny (1999, P. 1) a literary allusion is “an explicit or implicit reference to another literary text that is sufficiently overt to be recognized and understood by a competent reader”. As Bloom quoted in Wheeler (1979, P. 2) in fact, authors allude to other works of literature to maintain their literary identities in the shadow of their precursors and thus to activate the two texts simultaneously. An example is mentioned from Attar:
آن پراکنون درنگارستان چین است اطلبو العلم و لوبالصین ازینست(740)
Nott: This feather is still in the picture-gallery of that country; hence the saying, “Seeking knowledge, even in China!
Darbani and Davis: (In China still this feather is on view, Whence comes the saying you have heard, no doubt, Seek knowledge, unto China seek it out.)
The KP allusion refers to this couplet of Hafez in eight century: the China face was beloved to your beauty and the story has reminded everything in life.
184.108.40.206. Mythological Allusion
As Karmer(1961, P. 7) argued mythologics are fabulous stories, reaching back into the dim past, which consist largely of “tales of gods and heroes, their births, loves and hates, spites and intrigues, victories and defeats, acts of creation and destruction”. The importance of mythology of the ancient world has through the ages provided inspiration and theme, character and plot, to every author and poet who has come in touch with its myriad enchantments (Karmer, 1961, P 7). He proposed that knowing mythologies compose a great part of our literature; it would not be an exaggeration to claim that without knowledge of mythology much of elegant literature of our language can not be understood and appreciated. An example is:
باز آی آخرکه دربگشاده ایم توغرامت کرده مااستاده ایم(1850)
Nott: Return then, to the way. I open my door to you and wait. When you have truly changed your attitude your sins will be forgiven.
Darbandi and Davis: Asking no payment for this newer crime; Poor fool — would you repent once more? My gate- Stands open always; patiently I wait.
The key- phrase allusion refers to old custom that every sinner should punish in past times of Sufism.منبع آن ذکر شودکتاب منطق الطیر است شماره بیت
220.127.116.11. Historical Allusion
Wheeler (1979) suggested the classification of allusion. He also identified two kinds of allusion; cultural and textual. Then, he went on to explain that “cultural allusions help to identify or define national, regional or class cultures” (P. 18). According to Wheeler (1979) the main function of textual allusions is “establishing link between specific adopted and adoptive texts (P. 20).” LanHam (as cited in Wheeler, 1979, P. 20) proposed textual allusions have four different types: “gnomic allusion that is a statement transcribed or adopted in order to under line some message or theme”. He (1979) lists four terms which could be applied to various kinds of gnomic allusion: “aenos (the quoting of wise sayings from fables), opomnemonysis (the quoting of an approved authority from memory), chira (a short exposition of a deed or saying of person whose name is mentioned) and paroemia (the quoting of proverbs (p. 20)”.
Second type of textual allusion is what Wheeler (1979, p. 21) calls short hand notations, which is often used to suggest typicality of character. The third type of textual allusion is borrowed embellishment, such as “purple passage” that stands out in a text or a reference that is used to add a sophisticated touch to a piece of writing and also to imply that the writer is learned (p. 20). And finally, Wheeler (1979, p. 22) considered allusion as a plot pointer or thematic pointer in the adoptive text, as the forth type of textual allusion. But the main classification of allusion in this study, is based on Leppihalme (1997, p. 18).
18.104.22.168. Proper-Name Allusion
PN allusions include both real-life and fictional figures. The famous leaders of the past, or the well-known writers and painters may be alluded to by name (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 66).
همچو موسی بازو و زوریم نیست وز ضعیفی قوت موریم نیست (1033)
Nott: I have no one to help me and I have not the strength of an ant
Darbandi and Davis: My feathers are too weak to carry me;The distance to the Simorghs sanctuary.
The KP allusion refers to thirty fifth verse of Al- Qasas Surah (He said: We will strengthen thine arm with thy brother, and We will give unto you both power so that they cannot reach you for Our portents. Ye twain, and those who follow you, will be winners.
Sometimes authors borrow PNs from Holy Scriptures, like biblical PN allusions, or allusive references to real- life figures mentioned in the Koran ((Leppihalme, 1997, p. 67).
22.214.171.124. Key Phrase Allusion
As Leppihalme (1997, p. 10) discussed KP allusions can be defined as encompassing all other allusions, those which do not contain a PN. Even though this definition casts a rather wide net, KP allusions are notably less numerous than PN allusions in the corpus. It is commonplace to say that the Koran is the source of countless allusions in the Persian literature. In fact, Koranic phrases lie embedded in many pages of Persian poetry from the time Islam entered Iran to the present day. But these phrases as Gordon (cited in Leppihalme, 1997) put it, remain always a thing apart from the movement of the writer’s own poetry: “He knows and his audience knows, that he is citing scripture. To both reader and writer the words are so familiar that quotation marks are unnecessary (p. 69).” It is therefore, no surprise that the Koran is the most common single source of KP allusions in the text under investigation that is Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair. Other sources of KP allusions in Mantiq ut-Tair would be Hadiths (saying and quotations from the holy personalities in Islam).
لیک فردا در بلا عمر دراز جمله از شاهی خود مانند باز(931)
Nott: tomorrow they will meet misfortune and be forever deprived of their royalty
Darbandi and Davis: Though it is true that you confer on men-This majesty, kings must sink down again-And bear the punishments of Judgment Day
The KP allusion refers to the common verse in standing of kings at the Day and asking about their judgments in society at their time.
Adopting slogans from films, advertisement, and political campaign forms a further group of KP allusion. Yet various catch-phrases, clichés, proverbs, popular beliefs, assumptions and stories are other forms of KP allusions suggested by Leppihalme (1997, p. 70). The following section introduces Leppihalme’s lists of strategies for translating allusions.
2.7.4. Strategies for translating Allusions
According to Leppihalme (1997, p. 24) there is a difference between PN allusions and KP allusions. She also noted that potential strategies for these two groups are slightly different. She again proposed this is due to the fact that it is often possible to retain a PN unchanged, whereas KP requires a change in wording. In fact, there is no criterion comparable to the treatment of PN for translating KPs. KPs are hardly ever retained untranslated, the ‘retention’ (literally) of a KP then make no sense in this case. Nor is there in most cases only one standard translation available, the use of which could be labeled a retentive strategy; rather, due to synonyms, variations of word order, etc, KPs can mostly be translated in a variety of ways. However, the translation strategies that Leppihalme offers for translating KP allusions are as follows (1997, p. 84):
A. Use standard translation
B. Literal translation /minimum change
C. Addition extra-allusive guidance (including typographical means)
D. Footnotes, endnotes and other explanations outside in the text itself.
E. Simulated familiarity, internal marking (marked wording or syntax)
F. Replace by preformed TL item
G. Reduction to sense (making the connotations overt but dispensing with the KP itself)
H. Re-creation using a variety of techniques
Strategies mentioned for case of PN allusions are divided in three categories with subcategories including:
1. Retain name
(1a) Retain unchanged, or in conventional TL form
(1b) Retain unchanged with added guidance
(1c) Retain unchanged with detailed explanation
2. Replace name
(2a) Replace with different source language (SL) name
(2b) Replace with different target language (TL) name