10.71528/

Communicative aspects of APLL Neologized Equivalents to English IT: Communicative aspects of APLL Neologized

PDF
  • Abbas Paziresh*1,
  • Zohreh Jaffari2,
  1. Department of English Language and Translation Studies, Chabahar Marine and Maritime University, Iran
  2. Department of Foreign Languages and Translation Studies, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran

Received: 2022-04-03

Revised: 2022-05-05

Accepted: 2022-07-18

Published in Issue 2022-12-01

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Paziresh, A., & Jaffari, Z. (2022). Communicative aspects of APLL Neologized Equivalents to English IT: Communicative aspects of APLL Neologized. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 1(4), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.71528/
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 299

Abstract

Equivalents or neologisms which are proposed by Academy of Persian Language and Literature (APLL) have always been chanllenging and
sources of controversy among experts and researchers. The greatest concerns were about forms or morphology of APLL terms. Information
Technology (IT) has a wide range of terminology which is brought about by internet and digital devices. In Iran, APLL tried to coin equivalents
to these terms. These terms acceptance and communicative aspects were problematic. Therefore, this survey research aimed at evaluation of
communicative aspects of APLL equivalents based on models of Picht and Draskau, (1985) and De Beaugrande and Dressler (1992). For this
purpose, first the researcher synthesized these models into nine statements and then selected fifty most widespread equivalents and their English
originals and converted them into a static questionnaire in Google Forms. After formation of the questionnaire, its link was created and sent to
three hundred and sixty IT users and experts. Of them, 106 people visited the questionnaires and marked the statements. The questionnaires
statements were analyzed in terms of frequencies and percentages of answers to the statements. The analysis indicated two types of respondents:
those who were in favor of APLL equivalents and those who were against them. Then the researcher converted the frequencies into descriptive
statistics. However, it was found that the group in favor of the APLL neologisms (Mean= 35) reported that they are appealing, consistent with
Persian rules of morphology, socially accepted, semantically justifiable, genre related, concise and expected. On the other hand, the other group
which was against the APLL equivalents to IT terms (Mean=70.55) reported that such terms are not consistent with Persian rules of morphology,
socially accepted, semantically justifiable, genre related, concise and expected. Moreover, the group against the APLL equivalents outperformed
the group in favor of such equivalents. In addition, the analysis of the significance level of the relationship between the two groups through a ttest indicated that since p < 0.0001, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. The study has implications for teachers,
students and researchers in language teaching, translation studies and linguistics

Keywords

  • Equivalence, acceptability, communicativeness, neologism and information technology
PDF

References

  1. Adipranata, R. (2010). Teaching object oriented programming course using cooperative learning method
  2. based on game design and visual object oriented environment. In 2010 2nd International
  3. Conference on Education Technology and Computer (Vol. 2, pp. V2-355). IEEE. Retrieved on
  4. February 28, 2021 from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt.
  5. Berman, A. (2000).Translation and the trials of the foreign, in L.
  6. JNTELL, Volume 1, Issue 2, Autumn 2022
  7. Chen, A., Liu, L., & Kager, R. (2015). Cross-linguistic perception of Mandarin tone sandhi. Language
  8. Sciences, 48, 62-69.
  9. Crystal, D. (2012). Think on my words: Exploring Shakespeare's language. Cambridge University Press.
  10. De Beaugrande, R. A. de, Dressler, W. U. (1992). Text Linguistics. Ljubljana
  11. Dogançay-Aktuna, S. (2004). Language planning in Turkey: yesterday and today. International Journal
  12. of the Sociology of Language, 2004(165), 5-32.
  13. Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL quarterly, 39(3), 399-
  14. Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). Can threatened languages be saved?: Reversing language shift, revisited:
  15. A 21st century perspective (Vol. 116). Multilingual Matters.
  16. Fishman, J. A., & Ferguson, C. A. (1968). Language problems of developing nations. Wiley.
  17. Fishman, J. A., Das Gupta, J., Jernudd, B. H., & Rubin, J. (1971). Research outline for comparative
  18. studies of language planning. Longman.
  19. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (2001). Equivalence parameters and evaluation. Meta: Translators'
  20. Journal, 46(2), 227-242.
  21. Hesabi, A., Amirian, Z., & Nazari, J. (2017). Political terms by APLL: Issues of terminology
  22. implantation and acceptability. Applied Research on English Language, 6(3), 339-362.
  23. Jakobson, R. (1987). Language in literature. Harvard University Press.
  24. Jakobson, R. (2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. Harvard University Press.
  25. Khanji, R. (1999). Audience judgment and the role of the terminologist in technical
  26. lexicography. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 35, 83-93.
  27. Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target. International
  28. Journal of Translation Studies, 7(2), 191-222.
  29. Krein-Kühle, M. (2014). Translation and equivalence. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp.
  30. -35). Palgrave Macmillan.
  31. Lupyan, G., Rahman, R. A., Boroditsky, L., & Clark, A. (2020). Effects of language on visual
  32. perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 24(11), 930-944.
  33. McCarty, T. L. (Ed.). (2014). Ethnography and language policy. Longman.
  34. Mphahlele, M. C. (2001). A model to achieve communicative equivalence in translation
  35. dictionaries (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University). Available at
  36. https://scholar.google.com/scholar.
  37. Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Longman.
  38. Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation (Vol. 1, p. 982). Pergamon Press.
  39. Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (Eds.). (1982). The theory and practice of translation (Vol. 8). Brill Archive.
  40. Panou, D. (2013). Equivalence in translation theories: A critical evaluation. Theory and Practice in
  41. Language Studies, 3(1), 1-8.
  42. Picht, H., & Draskau, J. (1985). Terminology: an introduction. University of Surrey.
  43. Pym, A. (2000). Negotiating the frontier: Translators and intercultures in Hispanic history. St. Jerome.
  44. Sanches, M., Blount, B. G., &Gumperz, J. J. (1975). Sociocultural dimensions of language use.
  45. Academic Press.
  46. Communicative aspects of APLL Neologized Equivalents to English IT terms…
  47. Saule, B., & Aisulu, N. (2014). Problems of translation theory and practice: original and translated text
  48. equivalence. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 136, 119-123.
  49. Schiffman, H. (Ed.). (2011). Language policy and language conflict in Afghanistan and its neighbors:
  50. The changing politics of language choice (Vol. 2). Brill.
  51. Schmid, M. E., Köpke, B. E., Cherciov, M. C., Karayayla, T. C., Keijzer, M. C., De Leeuw, E. C., &
  52. Polinsky, M. C. (2019). The Oxford handbook of language attrition. Oxford University Press.
  53. Șimon, S., Kriston, A., Dejica-Carțiș, A., & Stoian, C. E. (2018). Challenges in translating educational
  54. terminology. In Edulearn 18. 10th International Conference on Education and New Learning
  55. Technology (Palma, 2nd-4th of July, 2018): conference proceedings (pp. 5327-5335). IATED
  56. Academy.
  57. Szilagyl, Andrew, D. Jr. and Wallace, Marc J. Jr. (1990). Organizational behavior and performance.
  58. Scott, Foresman and Company.
  59. Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive translation studies–and beyond: Revised Edition (Vol. 100). John
  60. Benjamins Publishing.
  61. Wardhaugh, R. (2011). An introduction to sociolinguistics (Vol. 28). John Wiley & Sons.
  62. Zarnikhi, A. (2009). Terminological activities at the Academy of Persian Language and Literature
  63. (APLL). In Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP Symposium.
  64. https://scholar.google.com/scholar