Outline briefly the main features of the research design used in this study.
Outline briefly the main findings of the study, and comment on the robustness of those findings.
During a semi-structured historical fishing practices,how did the dugong fishers process their catch?
Explain concisely the main principles of qualitative data analysis.
Discuss critically the main limitations of the methodology used by Carter and Garaway (2014) in their study.
Presentation The 1980s saw the introduction of various ways to deal with Translation Studies (TS from this time forward) on the whole named functionalist, which achieved a change in outlook in the framework. This paper inspects the qualities and shortcomings and also the commitments of these functionalist ways to deal with the field of TS. Basically, the article begins with a short chronicled outline of the ways to deal with interpretation before the coming of functionalist approaches. At that point it examines the significant functionalist approaches, featuring their real hypotheses and the reactions against them, which will then be trailed by a general synopsis of the different commitments of the different strands of functionalism. Interpretation STUDIES BEFORE FUNCTIONALISM Throughout the years, researchers have moved toward the teach of Translation Studies from different edges to a great extent relying upon 'the overwhelming rationality of the time as well as basic originations of the idea of interpretation and how the deciphered content will be utilized' (Schaeffner 2001: c5). In any case, one problem that has beaten the hundreds of years is the choice on the best strategy for deciphering a content. This predicament of the best strategy for interpreting is a deep rooted one. Jerome (395/2004: 24) communicates this predicament subsequently: It is troublesome, when following the lines of another, not to overshoot some place and burdensome, when something is well placed in another dialect, to save this same magnificence in translation...if I decipher word by word, it sounds preposterous; it out of need I adjust something in the request or lingual authority, I will appear to have relinquished the assignment of an interpreter. Notwithstanding, Jerome and to be sure numerous other interpreter of his chance wind up not deciphering 'word by word. He cites Cicero as watching that in his interpretation of Plato's Protagoras and Xenophone's Oeconomicus, that he kept their 'implications however with their structures - their figures, as it were - in words adjusted to our saying' (395/2004: 23). He includes that 'aside from the instance of Sacred Scriptures, where the simple request of the words is a riddle - I render not word for word, but rather sense for sense' (395/2004: 25) so as not to sound ludicrous in the objective dialect. These researchers, including others like Nicolas Perrot D'Ablancourt (1640/2004), Martin Luther (1530) and John Dryden (1680/2004), may not be viewed as interpretations researchers in essence since they all had their individual employments and interpretation was what they did in the passing. Be that as it may, their perspectives and remarks shaped the bedrock on which the field of interpretation ponders was to be constructed. Phonetic based methodologies The contention over word by word or sense for sense interpretation beat the hundreds of years up till the twentieth century when Jakobson (1959/2004) presented the term 'identicalness' in the writing and Nida (1964/2004) grows it by recognizing formal and dynamic proportionality. While at the same time formal comparability goes for coordinating the message in the receptor dialect as nearly as conceivable to the distinctive components in the source dialect, including the frame and substance, dynamic equality 'goes for finish instinctive nature of articulation, and attempts to relate the receptor to methods of conduct important inside the setting of his own way of life' (Nida 1964/2004: 156). As indicated by Nida, the reasons for the interpreter to a substantial degree decide if the interpreter should go for formal equality or dynamic proportionality. One watches that these researchers are worried about the correspondence between the objective dialect and the source dialect and these methodologies were along these lines all in all called 'semantic ways to deal with's interpretation. As per Saldanha (2009: 148), the term phonetic ways to deal with interpretation considers is utilized to allude to 'hypothetical models that speak to interpretation as well as deciphering as a (principally) etymological process and are in this way educated mostly by semantic hypothesis'. Interpretation considers was subsumed under connected semantics and subsequently examined with techniques created in etymology (Schaeffner 2001: 6). Different researchers that added to look into around there are Catford (1965) and House (1977/1981). Interpretation was viewed as an exchange of data starting with one dialect then onto the next, as a movement that influences only the two dialects included. In this manner researchers were worried about endorsing strategies for making an interpretation of from one dialect to the next keeping in mind the end goal to imitate in the objective dialect a message that is proportionate to that of the source content. One such medicine was Vinay and Dabelnet's (1958/2994) seven strategies or methods for interpretation: getting, calque, exacting interpretation, transposition, balance, comparability and adjustment. The initial three they call coordinate interpretations as they include transposing the source dialect message component by component, while at the same time the last four they call slanted in light of the fact that they include an irritating of the syntactic request of the source dialect. One noteworthy deficiency of phonetic methodologies is that they don't take cognisance of the commitment of the setting in which an articulation is utilized to the comprehension of the entire message or content. Schaeffner (2001: 8 - 9) watches that Studies directed inside an etymological construct way to deal with interpretation amassed in light of the methodical relations between units of the dialect frameworks, yet regularly disconnected from parts of their logical utilize. A picked TL-shape may well be right as indicated by the guidelines of the dialect framework, yet this does not really imply that the content in general properly satisfies its informative capacity in the TL circumstance and culture. Taking a shot at the interpretation of the Bible, Nida's refinement amongst formal and dynamic identicalness presented parts of sociolinguistics and culture into interpretation considers. He says that any dialog of equality, regardless of whether formal or dynamic, must consider sorts of relatedness 'dictated by the etymological and social separation between the codes used to pass on the message' (1964/2004: 157). He pronounces that a characteristic interpretation or dynamic proportionality 'includes two central regions of adjustment, to be specific, language and dictionary' (2004: 163). In any case, his hypothesis has been censured for being limited in application and extension as it seems, by all accounts, to be implied for the most part for Bible interpretations and to center around simply lexical and syntactic correspondence. A couple of years after the fact, Koller (1979: 215f) proposes five categorisation of the idea of proportionality to be specific: textralinguistic certainties/situation (denotative comparability); type of verbalisation, including meanings, style and (obvious identicalness); content standards and dialect standards (content regularizing equality); TL-content gathering of people (businesslike equality); and particular tasteful, formal , trademark highlights of content (formal-stylish proportionality) (cited in Schaeffner 2001: 9) This too gets a considerable measure of reactions which obviously illuminate its survey by the creator throughout the years. Pym (1997: 1) watches that four versions of Koller's book Einführung in pass on Übersetzungswissenschaft (Introduction to Translation Studies/Science) has been distributed as at 1995, with an article condensing the principle focuses showing up in English in Target. For sure the idea of identicalness was (and still is) exceptionally disputable even right up 'til today. Textlinguistic approaches In response to the clear rather confined phonetic extent of these methodologies, a few researchers at that point contend for a content semantic or logical way to deal with interpretation, whereby the entire content is viewed as the unit of importance and interpretation, as against the dictionary and language which was the focal point of etymological methodologies. Katharina Reiss' (1971/2004) content typology is fundamental in this regard, being about the first to bring into TS a 'thought of the informative motivation behind interpretation' (Munday 2008: 74). As indicated by Reiss, the informative capacity of a content in its source culture decides its capacity in the objective culture and how it will be interpreted. She characterizes content write into enlightening (conveys content), expressive (imparts imaginatively composed substance) and agent (discusses content with an enticing character) (Reiss 1971/2004: 171). In her view, a content that is pronounced 'useful' ought to be interpreted such that a similar substance in the source content is moved into the objective content; an expressive content ought to hold the 'masterful and imaginative' highlights of the source message in the objective content; while at the same time an agent source content ought to educate an objective content with a comparable or closely resembling impact on the intended interest group. In circumstances where a content shows highlights of in excess of one content write, the interpreter should worry about foregrounding the superseding content compose and back-establishing the rest if the need so emerges. Reiss completes a great deal to pressure the significance of content assortment or classification in interpretation considers. She watches that class traditions are culture particular and the interpreter ought to consider the refinements in sort traditions crosswise over culture 'so as not to jeopardize the utilitarian equality of the TL message by innocently receiving SL traditions' (1971/2004: 173). Neubert (1985) and its spin-off co-wrote with Gregory Shreve (1992) have completed a considerable measure to underscore the significance of sort examination in interpretation thinks about. In the introduction to Translation as Text, they watch the decrease in impact of semantics in interpretation contemplates and the development towards interdisciplinarity: Interpretation ponders has relinquished its resolute worry with entirely etymological issues. It has been animated by new thoughts from different controls. Interpretation researchers never again dither to embrace new thoughts from data science, psychological science, and brain science. (Neubert and Shreve 1992: vii) Researchers that support this approach concentrate a great deal on setting up models of classifications, or as Corbett (2009: 291) puts it, these researchers 'concentrated on the portrayals of exceedingly unsurprising, custom, value-based content>GET ANSWER