MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132088630 · doi:10.5539/ells.v3n2p81

Explicitation of Conjunctive Relations in Ghabraei’s Persian Translation of ‘The Kite Runner’

2013· article· en· W2132088630 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Beikian, Nahid Yarahmadzehi, Mahta Karimpour Natanzi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSwearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsPersianPunctuationComputer scienceMeaning (existential)Natural language processingFocus (optics)Target textArtificial intelligencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explicitation has been one of the most important topics in recent translation studies. This research sought to investigate explicitation as a translation universal based on a contrastive analysis between Persian and English languages. The main focus of the study was to confirm the process of explicitation and to investigate the explicitation devices adopted in the Persian translation of the conjunctions between sentences and clauses in an English text. For the purposes of this research, one-third of a novel, namely The Kite Runner written by Khaled Hosseini (2003) and its Persian translation by Mehdi Ghabraei (2006) were scrutinized for any occurrence of shifts of conjunctions. The aim of the research was to test the explicitation hypothesis according to Blum-Kulka (1986) and the model which was followed for the analysis of conjunctive relations was that of Halliday and Hasan (1976). The results of the investigation indicated that the processes of explicitation, implicitation, and also the meaning change were observed in the corpus, although explicitation took a bigger portion in the target text. The analysis of the explicitated conjunctive relations indicated that two devices had been adopted by the translator, namely the addition of conjunctions and replacing punctuation marks with conjunctions. Furthermore, it was found that the translator had explicitated all four types of conjunctive relations, i.e. the additive, adversative, causal and temporal relations; however, from among these conjunctive relations, temporal ones were more explicitly portrayed in the target text.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicSwearing, Euphemism, MultilingualismFrench-language works237,207