Volume 2, Issue 4, July 2014, Page: 273-282
A Critical Semiology of “the Scarlet Letter” and its Persian Version
Hassan Arefi, Allame Tabatabaii University Faculty of Persian Literature Foreign Languages, Tehran, Iran
Ahmadreza Mohebbi, Kharazmi University Faculty of Humanities, Social sciences & Foreign languages, Tehran, Iran
Received: Jun. 29, 2014;       Accepted: Jul. 16, 2014;       Published: Jul. 30, 2014
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140204.15      View  3592      Downloads  285
Translating symbolic literary masterpieces into another language has long been a thorny bottleneck to those involved in translational endeavors. The aim of this study was to explore the translation strategies used for the transference of the Scarlet Letter (1850), written originally in English by Nathaniel Hawthorn, to Persian, namely Daghe Nang (1990) done by the well-known Persian writer and translator Simin Daneshvar. Investigation of the fundamental requirements for an effective transference of literary semiotics presupposes a thorough grasp of the source and target languages and their respective cultures. The findings of this study indicated that the translation strategies employed for such transference were: (cultural) adaptation, addition, assimilation, domestication, expansion and modulation. According to the authors, this study certifies that Daghe Nang constitutes an interlingual and intersemiotic version, as its translator transferred many different signs (linguistic, cultural, societal, religious and ideological) from English system of signs to Persian sign system.
Semiotics, Sign (Symbol), the Scarlet Letter, Daghe Nang, Translation Strategy
To cite this article
Hassan Arefi, Ahmadreza Mohebbi, A Critical Semiology of “the Scarlet Letter” and its Persian Version, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 2, No. 4, 2014, pp. 273-282. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140204.15
Araghi, F. (2012),Literary translations and their impacts on the contemporary style, focusing on Simin Daneshvar and Bahman Sholevar’s works, Birjand University, Iran.
Baker, M.(1992), In Other Words, London and New York, Routledge.
Barthes, R. (1964/1967), Elements of Semiology (trans. Annette Lavers & Colin Smith). London: Jonathan Cape.
Bassnett, S. (ed.) (1997), Translating Literature. London: Boydell and Brewer.
Bassenett, S. (2002), Translation Studies. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York: Routledge.
Catford. J. C. (1965), A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, third edition. Cambridge University Press.
Collins English Dictionary, Fifth edition. Glasgow: Harpercollins.
Culler, J. (1976), Saussure, Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
Daneshvar, S. (1990), Daghe Nang, Tehran: Kharazmi Press.
De Saussure, F. (1916/1974), the Course in General Linguistics (trans.Wade Baskin). London: Fontana/Collins.
De Saussure, F. (1916/1983), Course in General Linguistics.Trans. Roy Hariris.London: Duckworth.
Eco, U. (1976), A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indian University Press/ London: MacMillan.
Fawcett, P. (1997), Translation and Language, St. Jerome, Manchester.
Hatim, B. &Munday, J. (2004), Translation: An Advanced Research Book. London and NewYork: Routledge.
Hawthorn, N. (1850), The Scarlet Letter. York Press.
Jakobson, R. (1959), On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, in R.A. Brower (ed.), On Translation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Jakonbson, R. (1971), Selected Writings, v. 2, Word and Language (7 Vols.). The Hague &Paris: Mouton.
Martin T. (1965), Nathaniel Hawthorne, New Haven, Conn.
Munday, J. (2001), Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Application. London and NewYork: Routledge.
Newman, L. (1979), A Reader’s Guide to the Short Stories of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Boston: Mass.
Newmark, P. (1988), A Textbook of Translation. UK: Prentice-hall.
Nöth, W. (1990), Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Noth, W. (2001), Towards a Semiotics of the Cultural Other. American Journal of Semiotics. v. 17, no. 2.
Panofsky, E. (1970a), Meaning in the Visual Arts. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Peirce, Charles S. (1931-58), Collected Writings (8 Vols.) (ed). Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss and Arthur W. Burks). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sebeok, T. A (ed.) (1960), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sebeok, T. A (ed.) (1977), A Perfusion of Signs. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Shipley, J. (Ed). (1955), Dictionary of World Literary Terms, Criticism, Forms, Techniques. London: Allen &Unwin.
Shuttleworth, M. & M. Cowie, Eds. (2007), Dictionary of Translation Studies (Farahzad.Tajvidi.Bolouri Trans). Tehran: YaldaGhalam Press. (Original Work Published in 1997).
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988), Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sojudi, F. (2007), Practical Semiotics, Second ed. Tehran: Elm Press.
Sojudi, F. (2007), Intercultural Relations: “a Semiotic Approach”, Semiotics: Theory and Practice. Tehran: Elm Press.
Tobin, Y. (1990), Semiotics and Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
Torop, P. (2002), Translation as Translating as Culture, Sign Systems Studies 30, Torop, Peter; Lotman, Michail, & Kull, Kalevi (eds.). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Toury, G. (1995), Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vahid dastjerdi H. and Maddah E.(2011), Word choice and symbolic language, a case study of Persian translation of the Scarlet Letter, Isfahan, Iran.
Venuti, L. (1999), The Scandals of Translation, Second ed. London and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2004). Translation Studies Reader, Second ed. London and New York: Routledge.
Vinay, J.-p. and Darbelnet, J. (1958/1977), Stylistique comparee du francais et de l’anglais: method de traduction, Paris: Didier, translated and edited by J. C. Sager and M. J. Hamel(1995) as comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for Translation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins
Browse journals by subject