jan eyre :: essays research papers

In Charlotte Bronte’s novel â€Å"Jane Eyre†, there is a slightly inconspicuous character that many readers may choose to ignore. The character that I speak of is Adele, the adorable French girl that Edward Rochester has taken as his own. While many people may undermine the importance of this character in the novel, it is easy to see that she plays a vital role in the coming together of Mr. Rochester and Jane Eyre. Unlike many novels or stories, Bronte chooses to use Adele as more of a symbol, than someone who directly helps in the marriage of two people, meaning that Adele is unaware of her bringing her master and Jane Eyre together. The role of Adele can be described as small, and at times undefined, however, before all is said and done her role, or symbolism, as I see it is clearly defined. The first role that Adele plays in the story is that of a bridge between Mr. Rochester and Jane Eyre. Had it not been for Adele needing a governess they would have never met. Jan e had sent out her application to a nearby paper to be published for people needing a governess to see. The only reply she received was from a Mrs. Fairfax, a servant at the Rochester mansion. It was for Adele that Jane was needed. Adele was rough around the edges, and needed some work on the finer things of being an American. She spoke mostly in French, and therefore, needed a governess to teach her better English. Her master, Mr. Rochester required her to know how to read, and write in English. He also would like for Jane to teach Adele what she could about music and the art of drawing. Adele became quite close to Jane and enjoyed her company. Jane also became quite fond of Adele, a good example of this takes place when Edward wants to bring only Jane into Millcote and Jane desperately begs for Adele to accompany them. â€Å"Do let her go Mr. Rochester, if you please: it would be better†(Bronte 654). The affections between Adele and Jane become stronger to the point where J ane becomes worried of what will happen to Adele once Mr. Rochester is married to her or anyone else. Adele was as charming and innocent as they come, yet she still played other vital roles in the novel. For Mr.

Physics of Sailing :: physics sport sports boating sail boat

The Hull of the boat is the frame which keeps the boat and its crew floating in the water. The mast is the tall pole that sits vertically near the center of the hull, the mast is what the sails are attached to to keep them suspended and straight. The boom is a large pole attached to the bottom part of the mast which is able to rotate up, down and side to side. The sails attach to the boom and the mast then the person controlling the main sail moves the boom around to change the direction and tension in the mainsail. The rudder is atached to the rear of the boat and is what essencially steers the boat (note that the rudder alone will not steer the boat exactly where you want to go in a sailboat unlike other motorboats). The most difficult part of a sail boat for most beginners to understand is the keel or centerboard. The keel of the boat does many things, it acts as a pivital point for sharp turns and "jibbing", it helps keep the boat upright by lowering the center of gravity of the boat, it works to keep the boat moving in a line of motion close to that of the direction that the boat is facing. This is because the boat is usually being pushed heavily to the side by the wind. And the keel also works to pull the boat into the direction of the wind the same way the sails do. This is a concept that I will discuss later on. The Sails: The sails of the boat are what provide the forward thrust. There can be several sails but in every sail boat there is a main sail. That is the sail which is attached to the mast and is usually the tallest sail on the boat, it is controlled by the boom and has several attachments used for slight adjustments to get the most effeciency. There is usually a "jib", a smaller sail in the front of the boat attached to a guy wire which reaches about %75 of the height of the mast or main sail. The jib provides additional forward force but is just as usefull in providing manuverability in low speed or low wind situations or moving out of a docks area. In this site I will refer only to sailboats with a standard mainsail and jib, as in the picture to the right.

Cause and Effect of Games Addiction

Topic: Cause and Effect of online game addiction There are many reasons people play games: for their entertainment, relaxation, studying and burning free time. Game is a part of human creativity, it keeps people entertained, creative, figure out what to do or better at problem solving. The game can include friends so people will play together or against each other and become competitive. Other than the benefits from playing online games, there are also problems from online games. Two main causes of this addiction is the design and service of the games and the effect is that people have less time.Online game addiction is a problem. The first cause of game online addiction is the design of game. Game designers make characters’ look and act like humans. Thus player is easily manipulated and they can play it by themself without anyone else. Characters have clothes, hairs, body like humans for example. When player click left-mouse they stand and another mouse they go at moment. Som ething people feel this action like they are going and doing. It is really real to see and they are interested with drag their mouse . The pictures are beautiful, natural, and it looks real making the game more fun.The background pictures are many colors, flowers, water, gardens, trees, 3D of style for example. There are many tools and support players which makes the game exciting. This is like that there is a map load when people want to finish their task. Pop-up windows show up when people use their character to trade items with others and act everything with one option. Another cause is the service of the game. Player can exchange items easily and view all traditional items in the screen. Therefore they can save it in the store or take it out of the game.Players keep characters in their account for the next time they will play. Thus game services attract people to upgrade level of character. There more exercise, the better the character will be compared to others. For example if people saw their character less level than their friends they feel shy and spend more time to play online games for winning in the future. Players can get virtual money in the virtual world. They can buy something in game by this money or put real money into game system. So game provider sells account cards for player check and save money or use it in the virtual world.Many players spend a lot of time to playing online game and have too little time to exercise and study. As a result Children get bad grades, fail their exam and don’t help anything about housework for their mother. In addition, players are bad at communicating in real life because it is they can easily talk in the game and they not only act in the play but also send message for others. Player can get sick because they play too much, which means they do not get enough rest and see the computer screen a lot. Some people play action games or violent game that have a lot of strategy to kill so they act the same way in real life.Online game addiction is a serious problem for everyone. There are benefits, but there are also problems. When players play every day, they will get addicted to online games. The design and services of the games are the reasons people get addicted, and there are negative impacts to people. I think people need to talk about children playing too many games. It is acceptable to play games, however people have to limit the time. Players should spend enough time for both games and their real lives. Thus the life is balanced, healthy and useful.

Literary Translation Essay

Literary studies have always, explicitly or implicitly, presupposed a certain notion of `literariness’ with which it has been able to delimit its domain, specify, and sanction its methodologies and approaches to its subject. This notion of `literariness’ is crucial for the theoretical thinking about literary translation. In this paper, I have attempted to analyze various recent theoretical positions to the study of literary translation and sought to understand them in the context of the development in the field of literary studies in the last three decades of the twentieth century. The recent developments in the literary studies have radically questioned the traditional essentialist notion of `literariness’ and the idea of canon from various theoretical perspectives. I have contrasted the traditional discourse on literary translation with the recent discourse in order to highlight the shift in the notion of `literariness’ and its impact on translation theory. The traditional essentialist approach to literature, which Lefevere (1988:173) calls `the corpus’ approach is based on the Romantic notion of literature which sees the author as a quasi-divine `creator’ possessing `genius’. He is believed to be the origin of the Creation that is Original, Unique, organic, transcendental and hence sacred. Translation then is a mere copy of the unique entity, which by definition is uncopy-able. As the translator is not the origin of the work of art, he does not possess `genius’, and he is considered merely a drudge, a proletariat, and a shudra in the literary Varna system. This traditional approach is due to the Platonic-Christian metaphysical underpinning of the Western culture. The `original’ versus `copy’ dichotomy is deeply rooted in the Western thought. This is the reason why the West has been traditionally hostile and allergic to the notion of `translation’. The traditional discussion of the problems of literary translation considers finding equivalents not just for lexis, syntax or concepts, but also for features like style, genre, figurative language, historical stylistic dimensions, polyvalence, connotations as well as denotations, cultural items and culture-specific concepts and values. The choices made by the translators like the decision whether to retain stylistic features of the source language text or whether to retain the historical stylistic dimension of the original become all the more important in the case of literary translation. For instance, whether to translate Chaucer into old Marathi or contemporary are very important. In the case of translating poetry, it is vital for a translator to decide whether the verse should be translated into verse, or into free verse or into prose. Most of the scholars and translators like Jakobson (1991:151) believe that in the case of poetry though it is â€Å"by definition impossible †¦ only creative transposition is possible†¦ â€Å". It is the creative dimension of translation that comes to fore in the translation of poetry though nobody seems to be sure of what is meant by creativity in the first place. The word is charged with theological-Romantic connotations typical of the `corpus’ approach to literature. The questions around which the deliberations about translation within such a conceptual framework are made are rather stereotyped and limited: as the literary text, especially a poem is unique, organic whole and original is the translation possible at all? Should translation be `literal’ or `free’? Should it emphasize the content or the form? Can a faithful translation be beautiful? The answers to the question range from one extreme to the other and usually end in some sort of a compromise. The great writers and translators gave their well-known dictums about translations, which reflected these traditional beliefs about it. For Dante (1265-1321) all poetry is untranslatable (cited by Brower 1966: 271) and for Frost (1974-1963) poetry is `that which is lost out of both prose and verse in translation ‘(cited by Webb 203) while Yves Bonnefoy says `You can translate by simply declaring one poem the translation of another† (1991:186-192). On the other hand theorists like Pound (1929, 1950), Fitzgerald (1878) say† †¦Ã‚  the live Dog is better than the dead Lion†, believe in freedom in translation. The others like Nabokov (1955) believe â€Å"The clumsiest of literal translation is a thousand times more useful than prettiest of paraphrase†. Walter Benjamin, Longfellow (1807-81), Schleriermacher, Martindale (1984), seem to favour much more faithful translation or believe in foreignizing the native language. While most of the translators like Dryden are on the side of some sort of compromise between the two extremes. Lefevere has pointed out that most of the writings done on the basis of the concept of literature as a corpus attempt to provide translators with certain guidelines, do’s and don’ts and that these writings are essentially normative even if they don’t state their norms explicitly. These norms, according to Lefevere, are not far removed from the poetics of a specific literary period or even run behind the poetics of the period (1988:173). Even the approaches based on the `objective’ and `scientific’ foundations of linguistics are not entirely neutral in their preferences and implicit value judgements. Some writings on translation based on this approach are obsessed with the translation process and coming up with some model for description of the process. As Theo Hermans (1985:9-10) correctly observes that in spite of some impressive semiotic terminology, complex schemes and diagrams illustrating the mental process of decoding messages in one medium and encoding them in another, they could hardly describe the actual conversion that takes place within the human mind, `that blackest of black boxes’. Lefevere notes, the descriptive approach was not very useful when it came to decide what good translation is and what is bad. Most of recent developments in translation theory look for alternatives to these essentializing approaches. Instead of considering literature as an autonomous and independent domain, it sees it in much broader social and cultural framework. It sees literature as a social institution and related to other social institutions. It examines the complex interconnections between poetics, politics, metaphysics, and history. It borrows its analytical tools from various social sciences like linguistics, semiotics, anthropology, history, economics, and psychoanalysis. It is closely allied to the discipline of cultural studies, as discussed by Jenks (1993:187) in using culture as a descriptive rather than normative category as well as working within an expanded concept of culture, which rejects the `high’ versus low stratification. It is keenly interested in the historical and political dimension of literature. Paradigm shift’ to use Theo Hermans’ phrase or the `Cultural turn’ in the discipline of translation theory has made a significant impact in the way we look at translation. Translation is as a form of intercultural communication raising the problems that are not merely at the verbal level or at the linguistic level. As Talgeri and Verma (1988:3) rightly point out, a word is,’ essentially a cultural memory in which the historical experience of the society is embedded. H. C. Trivedi (1971: 3) observes that while translating from an Indian language into English one is faced with two main problems: first one has to deal with concepts which require an understanding of Indian culture and secondly, one has to arrive at TL meaning equivalents of references to certain objects in SL, which includes features absent from TL culture. The awareness that one does not look for merely verbal equivalents but also for cultural equivalents, if there are any, goes a long way in helping the translator to decide the strategies he or she has to use. Translation then is no longer a problem of merely finding verbal equivalents but also of interpreting a text encoded in one semiotic system with the help of another. The notion of `intertextuality’ as formulated by the semiotician Julia Kristeva is extremely significant in this regard. She points out that any signifying system or practice already consists of other modes of cultural signification (1988:59-60). A literary text would implicate not only other verbal texts but also other modes of signification like food, fashion, local medicinal systems, metaphysical systems, traditional and conventional narratives like myths, literary texts, legends as well as literary conventions like genres, literary devices, and other symbolic structures. It would be almost tautological to state that the elements of the text, which are specific to the culture and the language, would be untranslatable. The whole enterprise of finding cultural equivalents raises awareness of the difference and similarities between the cultures . It also brings into focus the important question of cultural identity. Else Ribeiro Pires Vieira (1999:42) remarks that it is ultimately impossible to translate one cultural identity into another. So the act of translation is intimately related to the question of cultural identity, difference and similarity. A rather interesting approach to literary translation comes from Michel Riffaterre (1992: 204-217). He separates literary and non-literary use of language by saying that literature is different because i) it semioticicizes the discursive features e.g. lexical selection is made morphophonemically as well as semantically, ii) it substitutes semiosis for mimesis which gives literary language its indirection, and iii) it has â€Å"the` textuality’ that integrates semantic components of the verbal sequence (the ones open to linear decoding)-a theoretically open-ended sequence-into one closed, finite semiotic, system† that is , the parts of a literary texts are vitally linked to the whole of the text and the text is more or less self contained. Hence the literary translation should â€Å"reflect or imitate these differences†. He considers a literary text as an artefact and it contains the signals, which mark it as an artifact. Translation should also imitate or reflect these markers. He goes on to say that as we perceive a certain text as literary based on certain presuppositions we should render these literariness inducing presuppositions. Though this seems rather like traditional and formalist approach, what should be noted here is that Riffaterre is perceiving literariness in a rather different way while considering the problems of literary translation: `literariness’ is in no way the `essence’ of a text and a literary text is, for Riffatere one that which contains the signs which makes it obvious that it is a cultural artefact. Although he conceives of literary text as self-contained system, Riffatere too, like many other contemporary approaches sees it as a sub-system of cultural semiotic system. However, if one is to consider Riffatere’s notion of `text’ in contrast to Kristeva’s notion of intertextuality one feels that Riffaterre is probably simplifying the problem of cultural barriers to translatability. The assumption that literary text is a cultural artefact and is related to the other social systems is widespread these days. Some of the most important theorization based on this assumption has come from provocative and insightful perspectives of theorists like Andre Lefevere, Gideon Toury, Itamar Evan -Zohar, and Theo Hermans. These theorists are indebted to the concept of `literature as system’ as propounded by Russian Formalists like Tynianov, Jakobson, and Czech Structuralists like Mukarovsky and Vodicka, the French Structuralists thinkers, and the Marxist thinkers who considered literature as a section of the `superstructure’. The central idea of this point of view is that the study of literary translation should begin with a study of the translated text rather than with the process of translation, its role, function and reception in the culture in which it is translated as well as the role of culture in influencing the `process of decision making that is translation. ‘ It is fundamentally descriptive in its orientation (Toury 1985). Lefevere maintains, `Literature is one of the systems which constitute the system of discourses (which also contain disciplines like physics or law. ) usually referred to as a civilization, or a society (1988:16). ‘ Literature for Lefevere is a subsystem of society and it interacts with other systems. He observes that there is a `control factor in the literary system which sees to it that this particular system does not fall too far out of step with other systems that make up a society ‘ (p.17). He astutely observes that this control function works from outside of this system as well as from inside. The control function within the system is that of dominant poetics, `which can be said to consist of two components: one is an inventory of literary devices, genres, motifs, prototypical characters and situations, symbols; the other a concept of what the role of literature is, or should be, in the society at large. ‘ (p. 23). The educational establishment dispenses it. The second controlling factor is that of `patronage’. It can be exerted by `persons, not necessarily the Medici, Maecenas or Louis XIV only, groups or persons, such as a religious grouping or a political party, a royal court, publishers, whether they have a virtual monopoly on the book trade or not and, last but not least, the media. ‘ The patronage consists of three elements; the ideological component, the financial or economic component, and the element of status (p. 18-19). The system of literature, observes Lefevere, is not deterministic but it acts as a series of `constraints’ on the reader, writer, or rewriter. The control mechanism within the literary system is represented by critics, reviewers, teachers of literature, translators and other rewriters who will adapt works of literature until they can be claimed to correspond to the poetics and the ideology of their time. It is important to note that the political and social aspect of literature is emphasised in the system approach. The cultural politics and economics of patronage and publicity are seen as inseparable from literature. `Rewriting’ is the key word here which is used by Lefevere as a `convenient `umbrella-term’ to refer to most of the activities traditionally connected with literary studies: criticism, as well as translation, anthologization, the writing of literary history and the editing of texts-in fact, all those aspects of literary studies which establish and validate the value-structures of canons. Rewritings, in the widest sense of the term, adapt works of literature to a given audience and/or influence the ways in which readers read a work of literature. ‘ (60-61). The texts, which are rewritten, processed for a certain audience, or adapted to a certain poetics, are the `refracted’ texts and these maintains Lefevere are responsible for the canonized status of the text (p179). `Interpretation (criticism), then and translation are probably the most important forms of refracted literature, in that they are the most influential ones’ he notes (1984:90) and says, ` One never translates, as the models of the translation process based on the Buhler/Jakobson communication model, featuring disembodied senders and receivers, carefully isolated from all outside interference by that most effective expedient, the dotted line, would have us believe, under a sort of purely linguistic bell jar. Ideological and poetological motivations are always present in the production, or the non production of translations of literary works†¦ Translation and other refractions, then, play a vital part in the evolution of literatures, not only by introducing new texts, authors and devices, but also by introducing them in a certain way, as part of a wider design to try to influence that evolution’ (97) . Translation becomes one of the parts of the `refraction’ â€Å"†¦ the rather long term strategy, of which translation is only a part, and which has as its aim the manipulation of  foreign work in the service of certain aims that are felt worthy of pursuit in the native culture†¦ † (1988:204). This is indeed a powerful theory to study translation as it places as much significance to it as criticism and interpretation. Lefevere goes on to give some impressive analytical tools and perspectives for studying literary translation, `The ideological and poetological constraints under which translations are produced should be explicated, and the strategy devised by the translator to deal with those constraints should be described: does he or she make a translation in a more descriptive or in a more refractive way? What are the intentions with which he or she introduces foreign elements into the native system? Equivalence, fidelity, freedom and the like will then be seen more as functions of a strategy adopted under certain constraints, rather than absolute requirements, or norms that should or should not be imposed or respected. It will be seen that `great ‘ages of translation occur whenever a given literature recognizes another as more prestigious and tries to emulate it. Literatures will be seen to have less need of translation(s) when they are convinced of their own superiority. It will also be seen that translations are often used (think of the Imagists) by adherents of an alternative poetics to challenge the dominant poetics of a certain period in a certain system, especially when that alternative poetics cannot use the work of its own adherents to do so, because that work is not yet written’ (1984:98-99). Another major theorist working on similar lines as that of Lefevere is Gideon Toury (1985). His approach is what he calls Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS). He emphasizes the fact that translations are facts of one system only: the target system and it is the target or recipient culture or a certain section of it, which serves as the initiator of the decision to translate and consequently translators operate first and foremost in the interest of the culture into which they are translating. Toury very systematically charts out a step by step guide to the study of translation. He stresses that the study should begin with the empirically observed data, that is, the translated texts and proceeds from there towards the reconstruction of non-observational facts rather than the other way round as is usually done in the `corpus’ based and traditional approaches to translation. The most interesting thing about Toury’s approach (1984) is  that it takes into consideration things like `pseudo-translation’ or the texts foisted off as translated but in fact are not so. In the very beginning when the problem of distinguishing a translated text from a non-translated text arises, Toury assumes that for his procedure `translation’ will be taken to be `any target-language utterance which is presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds’. In this approach pseudotranslations are `just as legitimate objects for study within DTS as genuine translations. They may prove to be highly instructive for the establishment of the general notion of translation as shared by the members of a certain target language community’. Then the next step in Toury’s DTS would be to study their acceptability in their respective target language system followed by mapping these texts, `Via their constitutive elements as TRANSLATIONAL PHENOMENA, on their counterparts in the appropriate source system and text, identified as such in the course of a comparative analysis, as SOLUTIONS to TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEMS’. Then a scholar should proceed to `identify and describe the (one-directional, irreversible) RELATIONSHIPS obtaining between the members of each pair; and finally to go on to refer these relationships- by means of the mediating functional-relational notion of TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE, established as pertinent to the corpus under study-to the overall CONCEPT OF TRANSLATION underlying the corpus. It is these last two concepts which form the ultimate goal of systematic studies within DTS†¦ only when the nature of the prevailing concept of translation has been established will it become possible to reconstruct the possible process of CONSIDERATION and DECISION-MAKING which was involved in the act of translating in question as well as the set of CONSTRAINTS which were actually accepted by the translator. ‘ (1985:21) Toury’s step by step procedure is descriptive, empirical and inductive, beginning with the observed facts and then moving towards uncovering the strategies and techniques used by translator and the implicit notion and presupposition of equivalence rather than treating the notion of equivalence as given. The concept of constraint puts him in the company of Lefevere. The essential question is not of defining what is equivalence in general, whether it is possible or not, or of how to find equivalents, but of discovering what is meant by equivalence by the community or group within the target culture. These approaches are also extremely useful in the area of comparative literary studies and comparativists like Durisin (1984:184-142) whose approach is in many ways similar to Lefevere and Toury in focusing on function and relation of literary translation in the target or the recipient culture. He is of opinion that it is impossible to speak of theories of translation without applying the comparative procedure, as the aim of analysis of a translation is to determine the extent to which it belongs to the developmental series of the native literature. He like the other two theorists discussed, considers the translation procedure as well as the selection of the text being ` primarily determined by the integral need of the recipient literature, by its capacity for absorbing the literary phenomenon of a different national literature, work, etc.  and for reacting in a specific manner (integrational or differtiational) in its aesthetic features’ as well as the norm of time. This type of theorization is far from the traditional paradigm of translation theory that is obsessed with the ideas of fidelity and betrayal, and the notions of `free’ vs. literal translation. Thanks to the proponents of system approach to literary translation, translation studies can boast of becoming a discipline in its own right due to the development of powerful theoretical models. However, the problem with Leferverian system is its terminology. The words `refracted’ and `rewriting’ presuppose that a text can be written for the first time and that it exists in a pre-non-refracted state. These presuppositions take him dangerously close to the very `corpus’ based approach he is so vigorously attacking. Perhaps Derridian philosophy can explain why one is always in danger of belonging to the very system of thought one is criticizing. Another obvious limitation of these types of theories is that they are rather reductionist in their approach. Though Lefevere maintains that the system concept holds that the refracted texts are mainly responsible for the canonized status of the corpus and the intrinsic quality alone could not have given canonized status for them he fails to point out the exact features and qualities of the literary text which solicit refractions. Then there are problematic words like` the system’ which Lefevere points out `refer to a heuristic construct that does not emphatically possess any kind of ontological reality†¦.’ and `is merely used to designate a model that promises to help make sense of a very complex phenomenon, that of writing, reading and rewriting of literature†¦ (1985: 225). Besides types of theories are descriptive and hence have a limited use for the translator as well as translation criticism, which is a rather neglected branch of translation studies till date. Lefevere says that translation criticism hardly rises much above, `he is wrong because I’m right level†¦ ‘(1984:99). He also points out that it is impossible to define once and for all, what a good translation is just as it is impossible to define once and for all what good literature is. And † critic A, â€Å"judging† on the basis of poetics A’ will rule translation A â€Å"good† because it happens to be constructed on the basis of the principles laid down in A’. Critic B, on the other hand, operating on the basis of poetics B’, will damn translation A† and praise translation B’, for obvious reasons†¦ â€Å"(1988:176). He believes,† Translators can be taught languages and a certain awareness of how literature works. The rest is up to them. They make mistakes only on the linguistic level. The rest is strategy. † (1984:99). The perspective of course is that of a value relativist and a culture relativist, which seem to be the politically correct and `in’ stances today, but the stance can be seen as symptomatic in the light of deeper moral crises in the larger philosophical context. An ambitious and insightful essay by Raymond van den Broeck, `Second Thought on Translation Criticism: A Model of its Analytic Function’ (1985) attempts to go beyond the mere descriptive and uncourageous approach of Lefevere and Toury which tries to incorporate the ideas of their theories. Like Toury and Lefevere, Broeck stresses the importance of examination of the norms among all those involved in the production and reception of translations and remarks that it is the foremost task of translation criticism to create greater awareness of these norms but he also gives room for the critic’s personal value judgements. The critic may or may not agree with the particular method chosen by the translator for a particular purpose. He is entitled to doubt the effectiveness of the chosen strategies, to criticize decisions taken with regard to certain details. To the extent that he is himself familiar with the functional features of the source text, he will be a trustworthy guide in telling the reader where target textemes balance source textemes and where in the critic’s view, they do not. But he must never confuse his own initial norms with those of the translator (p. 60-61). Broeck attempts a synthesis of the target culture oriented inductive – descriptive approach and the notorious task of evaluating translation and the result is indeed very useful and commendable as translation evaluation is a neglected branch of translation studies. As opposed to this descriptive approach is Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility (1995). With a normative and extremely insightful point of view he examines historically how the norm of fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to shape the canon of foreign literatures in English. He makes a strong case for `foreignness’ and `awkwardness’ of the translated text as a positive value in the evaluation of translation. The other approaches to the study of translation which seem to be gaining ground lay greater emphasis on the political dimension of literary translation. The more recent literary theories like New Historicism are interested in reading the contexts of power relations in a literary text. In his critical exposition of New Historicism and Cultural materialism, John Brannigan (1998) states, `New Historicism is a mode of critical interpretation which privileges power relations as the most important context for texts of all kinds. As a critical practice it treats literary texts as a space where power relations are made visible ‘(6). Such a perspective when applied to the texts that communicate across cultures can yield very important insights and open an exciting way of thinking about translation. Tejaswini Niranjana’s book Siting Translation, History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context (1995) examines translation theories from this perspective. â€Å"In a post-colonial context the problematic of translation becomes a significant site for raising questions of representation, power, and historicity. The context is one of contesting and contested stories attempting to account for, to recount, the asymmetry and inequality of relations between peoples, races, languages. † In translation, the relationship between the two languages is hardly on equal terms. Niranjana draws attention to a rather overlooked fact that translation is between languages, which are hierarchically related, and that it is a mode of representation in another culture. When the relationship between the cultures and languages is that of colonizer and colonized, â€Å"translation†¦ produces strategies of containment. By employing certain modes of representing the other-which it thereby also brings into being–translation reinforces hegemonic versions of the colonized, helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls representations or objects without history ‘(p.3). She points out in the introduction that her concern is to probe `the absence, lack, or repression of an awareness of asymmetry and historicity in several kinds of writing on translation’ (p. 9). Harish Trivedi (1997) has demonstrated how translation of Anatole France’s Thais by Premchand was distinctly a political act in the sense that it selected a text which was not part of the literature of the colonial power and that it attempted a sort of liberation of Indian literature from the tutelage of the imperially-inducted master literature, English. St-Pierre observes the fact that translators when faced with references to specific aspects of the source culture may use a variety of tactics, including non-translation, as part of their overall strategy and use many other complex tactics in order to reinvent their relations in a postcolonial context (1997:423). Mahasweta Sengupta has offered a rather engaging and perceptive reading of Rabindranath Tagore’s autotranslation of Gitanjali. She points out giving numerous examples, of how Rabindranath took immense liberties with his own Bengali originals in order to refashion his Bengali songs to suit the English sensibility. He modified, omitted, and rewrote his poems in the manner of the Orientalists to cater to his Western audience (1996). Bassnett and Trivedi (1999) believe that the hierarchic opposition between the original work and translation reflects the hierarchic opposition between the European colonizer culture and the colonized culture. This hierarchy, they observe, is Eurocentric, and its spread is associated with the history of colonialization, imperialism and proselytization. Because of these historical reasons, radical theories of translation have come up in the former colonies. Recalling how members of a sixteenth century Brazilian tribe called Tupinamba ate a Catholic priest, an act which could have even been an act of homage, Bassnett and Trivedi suggest that the metaphor of `cannibalism’ could be used for the act of translation as it is one of the ways former colonies might find a way to assert themselves and their own culture and to reject the feeling of being derivative and appellative `copy’, without at the same time rejecting everything that might be of value that comes from Europe. Else Ribeiro Pires Viera has considered the translation theory of Haroldo de Campos, a renowned Brazilian translator who uses very interesting metaphors for translating like, perceiving translation as blood transfusion and vampirization which actually nourishes the translator and thus subverting the hierarchic polarities of the privileged original and inauthentic translation in a post colonial context. This type of approach to translation promotes the awareness of political and historical field in which translation operates among the readers as well as the translators. Another significant statement on `The Politics of Translation’ comes from Gayatri Chakaravorty Spivak (1998:95-118) who conceives of translation as an important strategy in pursuing the larger feminist agenda of achieving women’s `solidarity’. ` The task of the feminist translator is to consider language as a clue to the working of gendered agency. ‘ Translation can give access to a larger number of feminists working in various languages and cultures. She advises that a translator must `surrender’ to the text, as translation is the most intimate act of reading. It is an act of submission to the rhetorical dimension of the text. This act for Spivak is more of an erotic act than ethical. She also advises that one’s first obligation in understanding solidarity is to learn other women’s mother tongue rather than consider solidarity as an `a priori’ given.

Evolution of Technology Essay

â€Å"Men are only so good as their technical developments allows them to be† (Orwell 56). When the technology boom occurred in the 1990s and beyond, a typical student’s backpack would consist of a boondoggle, leather-bound planner, pager, cassette player, 3. 5 inch floppy disk, and a hardcover textbook. Time advanced, and eventually made its way into the 2000s, when then a backpack would hold a keychain game, CD player, soft cover textbook with a CD-ROM, and a box-shaped cell phone. Technology continued to grow into the next decade with backpacks full of smart phones, laptops, graphic calculators, receipts for online textbook purchases, MP3 players, a backup charger, and a 4GB flash drive attached to the bag’s zipper. Evolution of technology has come into major play, and has begun to conquer today’s society with one discovery at a time. For example, as assembly lines become familiar to many, technology advancements closely follow. While hundreds of employees used to manually run a factory, the majority of the hard work is now done by machines, also known as artificial labor. This change has affected business owners positively, thus allowing for new positions to help run the technology and to ensure all is running well. After such advancements were formed in our society, hundreds to thousands of new companies and manufacturing plants have been built, resulting in a major increase of available jobs to the middle class, which currently, the majority of United States citizens currently occupy. Recently, IBM teamed up with Corporate Service Corps (CSC) in order to send 30 volunteers out into different countries to work on technology-related assistance, such as distance learning programs, and upgraded laser eye treatments. The fact that advanced technology can help to save millions of lives has been one of the biggest reasons for such a large demand. IBM plan to take on several projects in different countries such as India, Brazil, China, Egypt, Ghana, and more. A total of 12 teams will go into each of those countries and successfully complete the projects for better technology-based education and eye treatments, which will cost approximately $250,000 each, all paid for by IBM. The overall project has not only opened up new opportunities for those willing to add this adventurous project to their resume, but it’s also reaching out to communities in dire need, something that the latest technology has allowed to be done. Furthermore, technology has been able to expedite the process of sending aid to places I need more quickly and efficiently with the release of new features to currently existing pieces of technology, as well as software applications. Renowned author Sarah Murray explains, â€Å"When a huge earthquake hit Haiti in 2010, the addition of Haitian Creole – spoken by 8m people in that country – to Microsoft’s online translation engine, which was achieved in just five days, helped humanitarian workers who needed to be able to translate quickly. Something as simple as an online translation system, a piece of virtual technology, was able to help save thousands to millions of lives in Haiti. One of the biggest issues in aid relief is the language and unfamiliar surrounding barrier, which Microsoft has been able to defeat with the use of several applications. The company has been closely working with skilled programmers to create certain software which allow for a variety of functions, such as Twisted Pair Wave software, which allows humanitarian professionals to keep in contact with one another from any device by keeping connected to one specific network. Relief workers can then locate others in the area by sending a ping signal to the network, which helps when in an entirely new environment and unsure of the native language. Technology continues to save the lives of many, by creating jobs that allow people to continue and support their family, as well as being able to provide support for those in a life-or-death situation when it comes down to the essentials such as food, water, and housing. Some fortunate people fail to realize how difficult it really is to obtain such aid. While technology has helped to eradicate useless jobs and help to decrease labor costs, it has resulted in the creation new useful jobs, such as manufacturing the actual technology to be used in a computer, and a computer specialist field that help to put the newly-made computers to use. Thus, if a job is able to be taken over by a machine that is incapable of independent thought, the job may be less suitable for a human being. While ATMs have replaced bank-tellers, we now have newly found jobs which focus on repairing, and manufacturing the ATM machines; it works like a two-edged sword.

Area 51 Abstract

Area 51 is a very mysterious and unknown area that no one knows about. People talk about UFO, aliens, future war machines and other mystical things lurking around in area 51. My fascination with mystical creatures and flying objects really sparks my curiosity about this area resulting in me researching about area 51. Growing up all you here about area 51 is that it’s very secretive to the point the government blocks all the entrances to the area and no photos could be taken neither around it nor above it from the sky. Even our own military jets could not fly over area 51. In my research, I will be trying to understand why the government had denied its existence till the 1950’s. What really goes on in area 51? Are there really different life forms inside this area? How do one work at area 51 and how would there life change if they did. I would one day like to work for the government and work for area 51 if possible A lot of my research is done on the Internet. Area51zone. com was a website I used. The road to area 51 (http://www. latimes. com/entertainment/la-mag-april052009-backstory,0,5104077. story) was an article I read to. http://www. fas. org/irp/overhead/groom. htm also showed an image of area 51 and details. I went to the Orange County Public Library across the street from Garden Grove high school and checked out a book called Top Secret Tourism by Harry Helms.

Practical book review Essay

Petersen breaks down the book in five parts . He starts off with part one the value of of communication balancing: listing awhile , talk until the other person stops hearing , Listen until the person calms enough to hear again. He furthers this in a another chapter. He then moves on to the Flat-brain theory . He uses diagrams to explain the different levels of Stomach functions which is where the our emotions are located . This area is were we experience our inner nudges . He also explains how the heart functions , the heart functions as a filter it gives and receives concerns , suggestions, and support. The next function is the head. The functions of the head is thinking, planning , remembering. The next couple of chapters begin to talk about he goes into a deeper understanding of the the flat brain theory until he reaches the flat- brain syndrome where he talks about how our brains function better in a short football shape. However when our brains are squished it creates a serious defect in our head fiction.he continues to talk about this concept . Part two starts off with the talker listener process taking turns talking and listening. This can and will determine the role of talker or listener. The talker-listener card was introduced and we were provided a actual card to put to use in our personal time. The purpose of this card is to create an atmosphere and role of each persons involved. The card provides instructions on when to talk and when to listen this the opportunity of the talker to without being interrupted and the listener to be attentive to what the talker is talking about. Chapters 8 through 15 go deeper in depth of the talker- listener card and its many functions from the talker prescriptive and the listener prescriptive. Part Three Petersen highlights the six communication traps, 1. Ritual listening, 2.Perry Masons( which made me chuckle ) 3. Why? 4. Not?5. I understand, he goes in depth to help the reader understand the difference between the five communications traps. He also talks about when trying new things and some of the thoughts that come long with that . When trying new skills you always have negative reactions such as: To much repetition grates, new skills often sound fake, friends and family co-worker get rattled by change. He further part three by discussing basic listening technique . He uses technique such as : para-feeling ( putting the talker’s feelings into your words), decoding . He futhers the conversation of why we don’t listen better in part five Where you can use TLC( talker-listener card) in group settings . The TLC card can help aide through difficult discussion as well help moderate a two person conversation . In conclusion in part five he states â€Å" how if you go beyond skill to increase empathy, genuineness and warmth you’ll tap into reservoir of healthy humanness that’ll out wheels on your technique( Pg 210). RESPOND! I remember growing up and my mother would ask me â€Å" how are you? what are thinking about?† I would have such a difficult time in expressing my feelings. I felt like when no one really cared about me , and my thoughts. In chapter eleven Petersen talks about the first talker goal: sharing your feelings. I immediately become more in tune with what I was reading. I recently had an encounter with a very close friend and she made the statement: Kia you listen to everyone else’s problems but you never seem to open as easy as we do to you. That’s unfair to us as friends. I thought to myself I trust them as friends but sometimes its easier for me to keep my thoughts to my self . However from reading this chapter I understand that it hinders my communication not only with my friends but with others . It puts a stumbling block on me to be open and receptive. So I went back to that friend and we went to dinner and I used skittles as props; we sat down and for every skittle in my hand I had to share my feelings or thoughts on questions she had or asked. I can honestly say that just by having this little prop it open the door and I was able to release so much that I was holding back from her. I now see the difference of talking and listening she listened attentively and this allowed me to be honest and not feel judged by her or her actions. REFLECT! Honestly the thought that popped in my head as I was reading this book was our relationship with Christ. I have said this before but it seems to be more imperative . We often talk to Christ and we tell Him all the troubles of our lives and how we need this or we need that.However we often neglect the fact that Christ has to something to say to us. I started to reflect on the stories of Jonah , Moses. They did not want to recognize the many clues that was present to them throughout their walk so it took spectacular things to happen to them before they got the message. Isn’t like God to speak to us In the loudest moments of our lives. In those times of anger and frustration and we miss the mark because we are so loud internally. He took Jonah inside of the fishes belly in order to get the message to him . It took a burning bush to get Moses attention and it took me reading this book ; to recognize that internally I’m so loud that I need to learn how to calm myself down and others to experience me. Could it be that God has to extreme measures sometimes for me to stop and recognize Him? I often am on the go and pray on the go but I have recognize that in the moments when I feel like giving up or fighting or screaming He speaks quietly and calms my mind , soul, and spirit. He speaks often I guess the question is how much are we really listening ?Silence keeps you bound , talking gets you free, listening brings understanding! ACT! Some of the techniques that I plan on using are the Talker- Listener card . I plan using this in my personal life ,when I have arguments and as well as in just simple conversations when trying to come to an agreement. I believe that this strategy will be helpful in my prayer time . The concept of talking and listening and really allowing God to minster to me as I minster to Him. Another technique I will use and will keep visuals of is the balancing scale of the emotions, heart, judgement or thoughts. Remembering the scale will help balance my conversations in the future especially when it comes to a misunderstanding. I really thank Petersen because I am a visual learner and the pictures put what he was saying in perceptive for me. Another technique that is really important to is remembering the pointing finger. In many conversations I often use my hands to communicate how I’m feeling . After reading this section of the book I understand how my hands and fingers can seem more offensive then helping . I will remember this and will try to not use my hands as much in explaining my feelings. I plan incorporating the talker- listener card in my youth groups and after school programs. Teaching our youth to the stages of communication now . View as multi-pages