In The Name of God
Allameh Tabataba'i University
Faculty of Persian Literature & Foreign Languages
Department of English Translation Studies
On the Relationship Between Cultural Literacy and
Nationality
A Study of Allusion Recognition and Translation
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree
in English Translation Studies
By: Elham Sadeqi
Advisor: Hussein Mollanazar, PhD
Reader: Gholamreza Tajvidi, PhD
June 2010
Allameh Tabataba'i University
Faculty of Persian Literature & Foreign Languages
Department of English Translation Studies
On the Relationship Between Cultural Literacy and
Nationality
A Study of Allusion Recognition and Translation
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree
in English Translation Studies
By: Elham Sadeqi
Advisor: Hussein Mollanazar, PhD -------------------------------------------------------------------Reader: Gholamreza Tajvidi, PhD -------------------------------------Examiner: Ahmad Sediqi, PhD -----------------------------------------
June 2010
Abstract
While allusion has been around the corner since the dawn of literature, its
translation was dealt with for the first time in 1997 when Ritva Leppihalme's
groundbreaking doctoral dissertation Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to
Translation of Allusions was published. The said book soon turned into a
universal role model for further studies on translation of allusions; however, the
latecomers devoted their attention mainly to strategies translators adopted to deal
with this widely-practiced literary device. It seems that few researches have
bothered to look anew at allusion and study cultural literacy as the main
prerequisite for its successful recognition and translation. This research is an
attempt to foreground the vital importance of cultural literacy as an integral part
of literary translation in general and translation of allusions in particular.
Conducting a descriptive-comparative study, the researcher distinguishes
between Semitic and Iranian proper-name allusions in 100 ghazals of Hafiz using
Shamisa's model. The data extracted are then recorded in Gutt’s chart in order to
facilitate comparison between the information accessible to translators with the
information required for the comprehension of allusions. Lastly, the researcher
employs Ben-Porat’s model of allusion recognition and activation, i.e.
recognition of the marking elements and signs, identification of the evoked text,
modification of the original interpretation of the local text, and activation of
evoked text to determine the degree of cultural literacy each translator possesses.
The main objective is to prove that cultural literacy is not a matter of nationality
and thus the native translators should not be considered more culturally literate
merely for the sake of their nationality when it comes to translation of literary
texts embedded in their own culture.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................ x
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... xii
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Overview and Background of the Problem ........................................................................ 2
1.2. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 5
1.6. Research Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 5
1.7. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 6
1.8. Definition of Key Terms .................................................................................................... 8
1.9. Scope and Delimitation of the Study ................................................................................ 10
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................................... 11
2.1. Overview: Organization of the Chapter............................................................................ 12
2.2. Allusion in English Literature .......................................................................................... 12
2.2.1. Etymology .................................................................................................................. 12
2.2.2. Definitions ................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.3. Sources ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.4. Types .......................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.5. Functions ................................................................................................................... 23
2.3. Allusion in Persian Literature ........................................................................................... 32
2.3.1. Etymology .................................................................................................................. 32
2.3.2. Definitions ................................................................................................................. 33
2.3.3. Sources ...................................................................................................................... 35
2.3.4. Types .......................................................................................................................... 37
2.3.5. Functions ................................................................................................................... 44
2.3. Allusion and Cultural Literacy ......................................................................................... 48
2.3.1. Allusion Recognition and Cultural Knowledge ......................................................... 48
2.3.2. Cultural Literacy ....................................................................................................... 50
viii
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 53
3.1. Overview: Organization of the Chapter............................................................................ 54
3.2. Description of Type of Research ...................................................................................... 54
3.2. Research Design ............................................................................................................... 54
3.4. Corpus .............................................................................................................................. 55
3.5. Instruments ....................................................................................................................... 56
3.6. Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 57
3.7. Data Collection and Recording ........................................................................................ 58
3.8. Data Processing and Analysis .......................................................................................... 59
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 61
4.1. Overview: Organization of the Chapter............................................................................ 61
4.2. Results .............................................................................................................................. 61
4.2.1. Recognition of Semitic Allusions ............................................................................... 62
4.2.2. Recognition of Iranian Allusions ............................................................................... 81
4.3. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 98
5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 100
5.1. Overview: Organization of the Chapter.......................................................................... 101
5.2. Review of the Research Questions ................................................................................. 101
5.3. Pedagogical Implications................................................................................................ 108
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................... 109
References ................................................................................................................................ 110
ix
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Stages of Semitic Proper-Name Allusion Activation Completed by Translators........60
Table 4.2 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the Allusion
to Adam and the Wheat.................................................................................................................61
Table 4.3 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the Allusion
to Noah and the Dust....................................................................................................................64
Table 4.4 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the Allusion
to Jesus and the Needle................................................................................................................68
Table 4.5 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the Allusion
to Muhammad and the Moon........................................................................................................71
Table 4.6 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the Allusion
to Uvais Qarni and the Yemen Breeze..........................................................................................73
Table 4.7 Stages of Iranian Proper-Name Allusion Activation Completed by Translators.........79
Table 4.8 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the Allusion
to Zal and Esfandyar....................................................................................................................80
Table 4.9 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the Allusion
to Bijan and the Well....................................................................................................................83
Table 4.10 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the
Allusion to Alexander and the Mirror..........................................................................................86
Table 4.11 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the
Allusion to Qanoun and Shafa.....................................................................................................89
x
Table 4.12 Accessible Information and Required Information for the Recognition of the
Allusion to Khizr and the Crow....................................................................................................92
xi
Acknowledgement
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Hussein
Mollanazar, who has the attitude and the substance of a genius: he
continually and convincingly conveyed a spirit of adventure in regard to
research and scholarship and an excitement in regard to teaching. Without
his guidance and persistent help this dissertation would not have been
possible.
In addition, I am heartily grateful to Dr. Gholamreza Tajvidi, whose
encouraging remarks on my proposal imbued me with the motivation and
patience needed to accomplish a task as demanding as writing a
dissertation.
My heartfelt thanks also go to Dr. Farzaneh Farahzad, Dr. Salar Manafi,
Dr. Kambiz Mahmoodzadeh, and Dr. Ahmad Sediqi who honored me with
their unstinting support during the time of my studies in the Allameh
Tabtaba’i University.
I am greatly appreciative of Dr. Ritva Leppihalme who kindly offered me
her precious articles and inspirational insights.
xii
I am most indebted to my beloved family for their continuous and
unconditional support through my entire life. I understand that this research
would not have been possible without their love and patience.
Lastly, I offer my regards and blessings to all of those who supported me in
any respect during the completion of the project.
xiii
To My EverEver-Loving Family
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Overview and Background of the Problem
Sartre (as cited in Stewart, 1995, p. 322) underlines the important role
background knowledge plays in comprehension and thus communication
when he states that "There is always some way of understanding an idiot, a
child, a primitive man, or a foreigner if one has sufficient information." It
seems that Gutt (2006) supports the same view when he complains that the
Bible translators have tended to significantly underestimate the amount and
importance of background knowledge needed for adequate comprehension,
often resulting in a lack of impact of translated Scripture. However, he
further adds:
Over the last decade or so, there have been some very
encouraging indications that this situation is beginning to
change. The importance of providing background information
is increasingly being recognized, and new ways are being
sought of providing more background material to the audience.
(p. 2)
Comprehension of allusion, as a culture-bound literary device, highly
depends on the reader's background knowledge. The author of this paper;
however, investigates the relationship between the translation of proper2
name allusions and the translator's cultural background knowledge, or what
Hirsch calls Cultural Literacy.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
While allusion has been around the corner since the dawn of literature, its
translation was dealt with for the first time in 1997 when Ritva
Leppihalme's groundbreaking doctoral dissertation Culture Bumps: An
Empirical Approach to Translation of Allusions was published. The said
dissertation soon turned into a universal role model for further studies on
translation of allusions; however, the latecomers devoted their attention
mainly to strategies translators adopted to deal with this widely-practiced
literary device. It seems that few researches have bothered to look anew at
allusion and study cultural literacy as the main prerequisite for its
successful recognition and translation.
1.3. Significance of the Study
This research is an attempt to foreground the vital importance of cultural
literacy as an integral part of literary translation in general and translation
of allusions in particular. The researcher, thus, seeks to put forward the idea
of introducing cultural literacy development courses in university
3
curriculum in order to improve the students' translational competence. It is
worth mentioning that lack of cultural literacy is the main reason for
students’ reluctance to try their hand at literary translation or any other kind
of culture-bound translation practices.
It also aims to end the native translators' monopoly on the translation of
literary works of their own language and culture and give the non-native
translators the credit they deserve for their translations. Therefore, nonnative translators would be encouraged to translate masterpieces of
different languages and cultures fearless of being viewed inferior to their
native counterparts in terms of cultural literacy.
It goes without saying that such researches would contribute to the
development of literary translation field and to Translation Studies in
general.
1.4. Purpose of the Study
Conducting a descriptive-comparative study, the researcher distinguishes
between Semitic and Iranian proper-name allusions in the source text and
determines whether it was native translators or non-native ones who
recognized and translated such allusions with a higher degree of success. In
4
the end, the degree of cultural literacy each translator possesses is
determined and the final judgment will be issued.
1.5. Research Questions
This study addresses the following questions:
1- Regarding the recognition and translation of proper-name allusions in
Persian poetry, do Iranian translators surpass non-Iranian translators?
2- Regarding the recognition and translation of Iranian proper-name
allusions in Persian poetry, do Iranian translators surpass non-Iranian
translators?
3- Do non-Iranian translators recognize Semitic proper-name allusions
with a greater degree of ease and success than the Iranian allusions?
4- Are Iranian translators more culturally literate than non-Iranian ones
when it comes to translation of texts embedded in Iranian culture?
1.6. Research Hypotheses
Based on the above questions, the following hypotheses were developed:
1- Iranian translators have no superiority over non-Iranian translators in
allusion recognition and translation.
5
2- Iranian translators have no superiority over non-Iranian translators in
Iranian allusion recognition and translation.
3- Non-Iranian translators seem to recognize Semitic allusions with a
greater degree of ease and success than the Iranian allusions due to
their trans-cultural nature.
4- Cultural literacy is not a matter of nationality; therefore, Iranian
translators should not be considered more culturally literate merely
for the sake of their nationality.
1.7. Theoretical Framework
Due to the diverse and complex nature of allusions, literary scholars have
always found it hard to classify them into well-defined clusters. The said
diversity and complexity have resulted in different classifications with
various degrees of convergence and divergence. However, the researcher
finds Shamisa's classification of allusions practical as a part of the
theoretical framework she needs to facilitate the research.
In the preface to A Dictionary of Allusions, Shamisa (1987/2007, pp.11-12)
maintains that "Allusions are either Iranian or Semitic; however, there are
rare cases of Greek and Indian allusions (in Persian literature)." He divides
Semitic allusions into Islamic allusions and Arabic allusions, stating that
6
"Arabic allusions allude to the men of dark ages in Arabian Peninsula while
Islamic ones refer either to the great men of Islam or issues on Tafsir of the
Quran." Christian allusions are considered as a subcategory of Islamic
allusions in his typology.
In order to compare the information accessible to translators with the
information required for comprehension, the researcher adopts the model
proposed by Gutt (2006, pp. 10-11) in his article "Aspects of Cultural
Literacy Relevant to Bible Translation". It is worth mentioning that the said
model has been tailored to the specific needs of the present research.
According to Gutt, the comparative study of background knowledge (here
cultural literacy) logically involves the following three steps:
1. Identifying information needed for understanding the intended
meaning of the original text;
2. Identifying information likely to be accessed by target readers (here
translators) for that particular text;
3. Identifying mismatches between the two backgrounds.
Ben-Porat’s model of allusion recognition and activation constitutes the
final part of the framework. According to Ben-Porat (as cited in McGuire,
2009, p. 3), the process of allusion activation involves the following stages:
1. Recognition of the marking elements and signs;
7
2. Identification of the evoked text;
3. Modification of the original interpretation of the local text;
4. Activation of evoked text as a whole to produce maximum
intertextual patterns.
1.8. Definition of Key Terms
Allusion: Michelson (2005, p. 6) defines allusion as "An implied or
indirect reference to something assumed to be known, such as an historical
event or personage, a well-known quotation from literature, or a famous
work of art." This widely-practiced figure of speech is, however, defined
by Irwin (2004, p. 227) as "an intended indirect reference that calls for
associations that go beyond mere substitution of a referent."
Iranian Allusions: As the name implies, Iranian allusions are implied or
indirect references to Iranian historical events or persons as well as wellknown quotations from Persian literature or works of art. Iranian allusions
are sometimes called national and epic allusions. According to
Encyclopedia Islamica (2001, p. 135), national and epic allusions mostly
refer to the stories of the Shahnameh (The Epic of Kings), including those
of Bijan and Manijeh, Rostam, Arash the Archer, Alexander, mythical
creatures including the dragon and demon, as well as love stories of
8
Khosrow and Shirin, Veis and Ramin, and Vamiq and Azra. [translated by
the researcher]
Semitic Allusions: As one of the major categories of allusion proposed by
Shamisa (1987/2007, pp.11-12), Semitic allusions are comprised of Islamic
and Arabic allusions. While Arabic allusions allude to the men of dark ages
in Arabian Peninsula, the Islamic ones refer either to the great men of Islam
or issues on Tafsir of the Quran. Christian allusions are considered as a
subcategory of Islamic allusions in Shamisa's typology. Encyclopedia
Islamica (2001, p. 135) in its entry to allusion states that the majority of
Islamic allusions in Persian poetry and prose refer to the Prophet's, Imam
Ali's, and Rashidun Caliphs' lives as well as some decisive events like that
of Karbala plus Quranic stories about the lives of other prophets.
[translated by the researcher]
Cultural Literacy: According to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
(retrieved in February 2009), what Hirsch calls cultural literacy is the
ability to converse fluently in the idioms, allusions, and informal content
which creates and constitutes a dominant culture. From being familiar with
street signs to knowing historical references to understanding the most
recent slang, literacy demands interaction with the culture and reflection of
it. Knowledge of a canonical set of literature is not sufficient in and of itself
9