Cohesive Devices and Norms: A Comparative Study of an English Text and its

Translated Versions
[PP: 01-06]
Hooshang Khoshsima
Masoumeh Yazdani Moghadam
(Corresponding Author)
Department of English Language, College of Management and Humanities
Chabahar Maritime University, Sistan and Baluchestan province
Iran
ABSTRACT
Translation is a means for conveying information from Source Language (SL) to Target
Language (TL). So, for this to occur some adjustments, reduction, lost and gain are necessary during
the translation process. House (2001, p. 247) mentions that translation is "re contextualization of a
text in an SL by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in a TL.” Cohesive devices are tools
which connect sentences with each other. So, the present research takes into account cohesive devices
in an original English text and its Persian versions. Thus, the study is trying to identify the most
frequent norms applied in translating cohesive devices from English into Persian in 2000 decades. To
reach the goal of the study, three translations of the intended book were compared with each other.
The findings of the study indicated that translators applied equivalent strategy in most cases and this
was an evidence of the most frequent norms.
Keywords: Cohesive Devices, English Language, Persian Language, Translation, translational
Norms.
ARTICLE The paper received on Reviewed on Accepted after revisions on
INFO 05/05/2017 20/06/2017 12/07/2017
Suggested citation:
Khoshsima, H. & Moghadam, M. (2017). Cohesive Devices and Norms: A Comparative Study of an English
Text and its Translated Versions. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 5(3). 01-
06.

1. Introduction applying lexical and grammatical relations.

There are two access routes to the Thus, these connections organize a text and
problem posed by the act of translating: expect the readership to understand the
either take the term 'translation' in the strict meanings of the words by using
sense of the transfer of a spoken message surrounding sentences and words.
from one language to another or take it in In the process of translating
the broad sense as synonymous with the cohesive devices from English into Persian
interpretation of any meaningful whole some shifts will occur which have impact
within the same speech community, Ricœur on translated text. Blum-Kulka (1986/2000,
(2006, p.11). In translating from one p. 300) states
language into other different factors need On the level of cohesion, shifts in types of
consideration. English and Persian are cohesive markers used in translation seem to
different from each other in many different affect translations in one or both of the
aspects including grammatical, lexical, following directions:
cultural, etc. Therefore, when translating a. Shifts in levels of explicitness; i.e. the
general level of the target texts’ textual
from English into Persian, translated text
explicitness is higher or lower than that of
should be comprehensible to the target the source text,
readers. So, one of the most important b. Shifts in text meaning(s); i.e. the explicit
factors which makes the translated text and implicit meaning potential of the source
mutually comprehensible is for the text to text changes through translations.
have internal cohesion. Thus, one of the The present research aims at
tools which help us to achieve cohesion in studying cohesive devices and norms in
the text is the proper application of cohesive Animal Farm and its three English
devices in translation from Source Text translation on the basis of Halliday and
(ST) into Target Text (TT). According to Hasan (1976) and Baker (1993)’s model for
Baker (1992) "cohesion links different norms to identify and categorize cohesive
elements of the text to each other by
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 03 July-September, 2017

devices and their translational norms in the Cohesive devices preserve meaning
original texts and its translated versions. relationship in the text. Blum-Kulka
In translating from English into (1986/2000) maintains that cohesion holds
Persian, the translators should be familiar relationships between various parts of the
with both English and Persian languages. text using specific markers.
Here, in the case of cohesive devices the According to what was mentioned
translators should identify and render them above, the study considers following
appropriately into the target language. research question: What is the most
Cohesive devices make the text frequent norm in translating cohesive
comprehensible and they exist in almost all devices from English to Persian?
languages of the world. Thus, Translators According to Baker (1993, p. 239)
apply different strategies in the process of norms “are options which are regularly
conveying cohesive devices from English taken up by translators at a given time and
into Persian. Some render them into their in a given socio-cultural situation.”. As
equivalent Persian counterparts, others use Baker (1993, p. 240) states:
quotations, and the others omit them. Thus, This is identified only by reference
the translators must consider text type, to a corpus of source and target texts, the
readership and purpose of translation and scrutiny of which would allow us to record
render cohesive devices correctly to avoid strategies of translation which are repeatedly
opted for, in preference to other available
misunderstanding in translation. The
strategies, in a given culture or textual
problem is how to convey cohesive devices system. She emphasizes that coherent
from English into Persian so that they can translated texts can be the object of analysis
keep both meaning and style of the original in identifying norms. This study was an
text. Some examples of them are as follows: attempt to find translational norms based on
(1) With the ring of light from his lantern Baker's theoretical framework.
dancing from side to side, he lurched across 2. Review of the Related Literature
the yard... 2.1 Cohesive Devices in English
(2) He was twelve years old and had lately Halliday and Hasan (1976) identify
grown rather stout, but he was still a grammatical and lexical cohesive devices
majestic-looking pig... such as reference, substitution, ellipsis,
(3) First came the three dogs, Bluebell, conjunction and lexical cohesion.
Jessie, and Pincher, and then the pigs… Reference shows relationship between a
The underlined parts are cohesive word and what it refers to. English and
devices. In sentence one, two and three, we Persian languages use pronouns to show
have reference, conjunction and ellipsis reference. Baker (1999) argues that
respectively. The translators omitted the substitution and ellipsis show grammatical
reference in sentence one, but preserved relationships; in substitution one item is
conjunctions in the sentence two and replaced by another item, but ellipsis
translated them into their lexical meaning in involves the omission of an item.
Persian. In the sentence three we have Conjunction is the application of formal
ellipsis which translators in one case markers to connect sentences, clauses, etc.
omitted it and in the other two cases to each other. Halliday and Hasan (1976)
maintained it in Persian and translated it also identify lexical cohesive devices such
into its equivalent in Persian. as reiteration and collocation. The first one
Cohesive devices maintain cohesion covers repetition of lexical items, for
in the text; so when we translate them from instance, repetition of an earlier item, a
English to Persian, we should pay attention synonym, or near-synonym, superordinate
to their meaning to convey intended and a general word. Collocation covers
meaning of the original author to the target lexical items which co-occur with each
readership. Cohesive devices such as other in the language.
reference has lexical equivalent in Persian They mention that cohesive devices
but ellipsis and substitution are mainly create cohesion between different parts of
grammatical. the texts; therefore, different cohesive
The purpose of the research was to devices as mentioned above such as
identify and categorize cohesive devices reference, ellipsis, and substitution produce
and their translational norms in a cohesion especially grammatical one.
comparative study of an English text and its Conjunction can also be used in
Persian versions. It is hoped that the study grammatical and lexical cohesion.
be beneficial for translators, and English 2.2 Norms in Translation
students in general.

Cite this article as: Khoshsima, H. & Moghadam, M. (2017). Cohesive Devices and Norms: A Comparative
Study of an English Text and its Translated Versions. International Journal of English Language & Translation
Studies. 5(3). 01-06..
Page | 2
Cohesive Devices and Norms: A Comparative… Khoshsima Hooshang & Moghadam Masoumeh Yazdani.

Gideon Toury introduced norms and newspapers corpus producing by the

in Translation Studies in 1970s. So, norms following three methods; (a) texts written in
refer to sociocultural constraints on English, (b) texts translated into English
human behavior, i.e., common values and from Russia by human translators and (c)
ideas on how to operate, think and texts translated into English from Russia by
translate in a certain society and context. machine translation to illuminate the use of
Merlaerts (Cited in Pym et al. 2008, p. cohesive devices and other textual features
91). Munday (2001, p. 118) states that in these texts. He stated that seven cohesive
"Toury's concept of norms is focused features were employed to describe genre
mainly on their function as a descriptive characteristics. These features are as
category to identify translation patterns. follows:
However, even such supposedly non- Third-person pronominal cohesive
prescriptive norms attract approval or devices, possessive pronouns,
disapproval within society." Chesterman demonstrative pronouns, definite articles,
(1997) argues that norms employ comparative cohesive devices, reference
prescriptive pressure in a society and cohesive devices, and conjunction cohesive
offers other norms namely (a) product or devices. The results of the study indicated
expectancy norms, (b) process or that literary texts are highly dependent on
professional norms. the use of 3rd person pronominal devices,
1.Professional norms refer to the readership they had more than twice as many devices
expectation, i.e., how a translation as newspaper texts, regardless of the
should be like. Many factors strongly method of text production. Therefore, non-
influence on these norms such as translated texts differ from the other two
predominant translation method in the types of texts based on the number of
target culture, and economic and variables; moreover, texts produced by
ideological issues. He also asserts that machine and human translations differ from
sometimes a critic or publisher validate each other in the parameter numbers. Fallah
certain norms in a society, that is a and Rahimpour (2016) considered cohesive
translation should meet TL standards. devices in translation from English into
2. Process norms. He mentions that these Persian. They conducted a study on the
norms identify translation process. readability levels of English scientific texts
(Chesterman 1997) identifies three translated into Persian. They distributed
types of process norms: (a) these texts to three groups of students
accountability norms relating to the including those who studied translation
ethical issues in translation process, (b) course in their bachelor and master degrees,
communication norms governing social those who studied a field of science in their
issues in translation, and finally (c) bachelor and translation in their master
relation norms are linguistic issues degrees, and finally those who studied a
between ST and TT. field of science in both their bachelor and
In the case of cohesion, lexical and master course to translate them taking
grammatical relations connect sentences cohesive devices and cohesion into account.
and language stretches to each other (Baker, The results of the study showed that there
1999). Here are some studies considering wasn’t significant difference between these
cohesion and cohesive devices. Vahid three groups in using cohesive devices.
dastjerdi and Taghizadeh (2006) studied Regarding cohesive devices, Ja’fari (2012)
cohesive devices in Sa'di's Gulistan and also conducted a research to identify use of
compared them with their English cohesive devices by EFL students in a piece
counterparts. They concluded that there is of writing and also to find the relationship
no one- to-one correspondence between between the frequency and types of
cohesive devices in English and Persian. cohesive devices and composition quality.
Pirmoradian and Vahid dastjerdi (2014) To reach the goal of the study, he selected
have done another research and compared 75 undergraduate EFL students at random
cohesive devices in an English text and its from different university in Iran. Then, he
Persian translation. Their study showed that analyzed their writing composition. The
because of structural differences of English findings indicated that the students used
and Persian, there is not relationship various cohesive devices in their
between them in applying cohesive devices. compositions which reference devices had
Bystrova -McIntyre (2012) studied the highest percentage of use and there was
cohesive devices mainly reference and a significant and positive relationship
conjunctions and other textual features in between the number of cohesive devices
three types of texts such literary, scientific and their quality of writing. Wu (2014)
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org ) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 03 July-September, 2017
Page | 3
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 03 July-September, 2017

investigated shifts in cohesive devices from compared them with their Persian versions.
English into Chinese. He selected several In the end, the study calculated percentage
English texts and their translation into of translation strategies employed by the
chinses to identify the shifts in cohesive Persian translators for each cohesive
devices during translation process from device, and these strategies were compared
English into Chinses. He concluded that with each other to find the most frequent
about “English and Chinese, some cohesive translational norms in 2000 decades.
devices might be less used in one language 4. Analysis and Discussion
or even be avoided, while they are more To reach the goal of the study, and
frequently used in the other language. The follow some steps to provide answer for the
reasons lie in that English and Chinese research question, descriptive findings of
belong to different language systems” the data presented in tables and figures as
(p.1663). Thus, it is important for follows:
translators to be aware of cohesive devices Table 1: Frequencies of the Cohesive Devices
to achieve coherence in English and in the Original Corpus
Chinese translations
3. Methodology
This descriptive study aimed at
identifying the most frequent translational As table 1 shows 'reference' and
norms in translating cohesive devices from 'conjunction' have the highest frequencies
English to Persian. To accomplish the in the original corpus.
purpose of the study, the researchers chose Table 2: Percentage of the Translational
an original English text translated into Strategies of Cohesive Devices in the
Persian, then, we studied three chapters of it Translated Corpus
randomly and identified all instances of
cohesive devices. Next, these cohesive
devices were compared with their Persian
equivalents to reveal those translational
strategies employed by the Persian
translators. After that, we calculated the
frequencies and percentage of each As table 2 indicates regarding
cohesive device in the original corpus, also 'reference' translators transfer it in most
their percentage in the Persian translation. cases into Persian. In connection with
Finally, the study carried out the percentage ellipsis in most cases Persian translators
of the most frequent translation strategies translated them into their Persian versions
for each cohesive device separately. This and this had regularity in the three
data analysis process was done using translations. As for substitutions again
Baker's framework for norms. The Persian translators rendered them into their
following English text and its Persian Persian equivalents. So, equivalents had the
versions were the corpus of the study: highest percent, i.e. 75%. In connection
Original text analyzed in this research: with conjunction translators tried to employ
Orwell, G. (2005). Animal Farm. Longman their Persian counterparts instead of using
fiction. other strategies. This may be because the
Translated texts analyzed in this research: Persian translators wanted to keep the style
Hosseini, S. and Nabizadeh, M. (Trans). of the original text in their translations or
(2007). Animal Farm. Doostan maybe they wanted to produce
Publication:Tehran. communicative translation and they
Baluch, H. (trans.). (2008). Animal Farm. attempted to clarify the meaning for the
Majid Publication:Tehran Persian readership. In the case of reiteration
and collocation, Persian translators kept and
Amirshahi, A. (trans.). (2010). Animal
conveyed them on all cases into their
Farm. Jami: Tehran.
translation. Thus, translating cohesive
This research was trying to identify
devices into their Persian equivalent is the
the most frequent norms in the translation
most common strategy and has regularity in
of English cohesive devices to Persian in
these three translations. So, tentatively we
2000 decades. To fulfill this aim, three
can say that it is a norm for Persian
chapters of the above-mentioned book were
translators to translate them into their
selected at random and studied from
Persian counterparts in most cases.
beginning to the end sentences-by-sentence
Considering what we stated before, and
and all cases of cohesive devices were
regarding the purpose of the present study,
underlined in the English text. Next, we
Cite this article as: Khoshsima, H. & Moghadam, M. (2017). Cohesive Devices and Norms: A Comparative
Study of an English Text and its Translated Versions. International Journal of English Language & Translation
Studies. 5(3). 01-06..
Page | 4
Cohesive Devices and Norms: A Comparative… Khoshsima Hooshang & Moghadam Masoumeh Yazdani.

and also different practical works that

researchers conducted on cohesive devices
in different languages, this study stated that
depending on the readership and standards
of Persian language, translators preferred to
keep and convey the English cohesive
devices into Persian language. Thus, one
important point which all previous studies
on cohesive devices put emphasis on was
that translators should be aware of cohesive
devices in both source language and target
language that this can help them to produce Based on the above figure, it is
coherent and comprehensible translations. crystal clear that these three translators (T1,
Here, in this study, Persian translators T2, T3) translated 54%, 75%, 88%, 79%,
applied equivalent strategies in most cases 100%, and 100% of 'reference, substitution,
this is indicative of translator’s tendency to ellipsis, conjunctions, reiteration and
preserving originality of the source text. collocations respectively into their Persian
The literature also states that cohesive equivalents. Thus, these are considerable
devices are elements which show meaning evidence for the similarity between English
relationships between sentences and and Persian in connection with cohesive
clauses, and translators should be aware of devices. The analysis
them and be able to recognize them during 5. Conclusion
translating process. The results of this study The research aimed at identifying
also supports that of other studies especially the most frequent norms in the translation
the one conducted by Fallah & Rahimpour of cohesive devices from English to Persian
(2016) who stated that translators should be in 2000 decades. To achieve the goal of the
trained to identify cohesive devices and study, this study compared an original
cohesion in the texts; moreover, this English text with its three translations. Data
research can be in agreement with Wu analysis indicated that in most cases Persian
(2014)’s study who mentions that translators tried to translate cohesive
translators should be cognizant of cohesive devices into their Persian versions. And
devices in order to achieve coherence in preserved them in the Persian translations.
both source and target language. Wu (2014) The findings of the research show the
also emphasizes that depending on the correspondence between these two
similarities and difference between the two languages on cohesive devices. So, as a
languages, cohesive devices may be used significant evidence translators can transfer
with less frequency in one language, or may cohesive devices into Persian language in
be avoided and many be used with high most cases.
frequency in other language, i.e., if the two References
language belong to the same language Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A course
system, translators can use them with high book on translation. London:
frequency during translation process, but if Routledge.
they the SL and TL belong to different Baker, M. (1993) Corpus linguistics and
language system, they can use cohesive translation studies: Implications and
devices less in one language or can avoid applications in: M. Baker, G. Francis &
them, whereas they can apply cohesive E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and
technology: In honour of John Sinclair,
devices with more frequency in the other
233–250. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
language such as English and Chinese John Benjamins.
because these two languages belong to Blum-Kulka, Sh. (1986/2000). Shifts of
different language system. cohesion and coherence in translation.
Figure 1. Percentages of the Most Frequent In L. Venuti (Ed.). The Translation
Translation Strategy (equivalent) for each Studies Reader. (2004). 290-305.
Cohesive Device by Three Translators London and NewYork: Routledge.
Bystrova- Mcintyre, T. (2012). Cohesion in
Translation: A Corpus Study of
Human-translated, Machine-
translated, and Non-Translated Texts
(Russian into English). Published
doctoral dissertation, Kent State
University - OH. Retrieved June,
16,2017, from

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org ) ISSN:2308-5460

Volume: 05 Issue: 03 July-September, 2017
Page | 5
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 03 July-September, 2017

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/docu Appendix 1: Data related to the cohesive

ment/get/kent1353451112/inline. devices in the original corpus and their
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes in Translation. translated versions
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamin Publishing.
Fallah, Sh., & Rahimpour, S. (2016). Cohesive
Devices in Translation: A comparison
between the Readability levels of
English Scientific texts Translated into
Persian [Electronic version].
International Journal of Humanities
and Cultural Studies, special issue,
Retrieved June, 16, 2017,from
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/i
ndex.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan (1976).
Cohesion in English, London:
Longman.
House, J. (2001b). Translation quality
assessment: Linguistic description
versus social evaluation. Meta, 46(2),
243-257.
Ja’fari, H. (2012). The Relationship between the
Use of Cohesive Devices and the
Overall Quality of EFL Learners’
Writing. Published M.A. Thesis, Urmia
University - Iran.
Meylaerts, R. (2008). Translators and (their)
norms: Towards a sociological
construction of the individual, In A.
Pym M. Shlesinger, & D. Simeoni,
(Eds.). Beyond descriptive translation
studies: Investigation in homage to
Gideon Toury. 91-102.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation
studies. Theories and applications.
London/NewYork: Routledge.
Pirmoraidan, E. & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2014).
A Comparative Study of the Picture of
Dorian Gray and Its Two Persian
Translations in Terms of Cohesive
Devices. Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences, 20(5), 23-73.
Ricœur, P. (2006). On Translation. London and
New York: Routledge.
Vahid Dastjerdi, H. & Taghizadeh, S. (2006).
Application of Cohesive Devices in
Translation: Persian Texts and Their
English Translation in Contrast.
Translation Studies, 12(3), 57-68.
Wu, J. (2014). Shifts of Cohesive Devices in
English-Chinese Translation. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 8(4),
1659-1664.

Cite this article as: Khoshsima, H. & Moghadam, M. (2017). Cohesive Devices and Norms: A Comparative
Study of an English Text and its Translated Versions. International Journal of English Language & Translation
Studies. 5(3). 01-06..
Page | 6