Sunteți pe pagina 1din 245

Inlverxlty nI Bughdud

Cnllege nI Iunguugex
Oepurtment nI Ingllxh
1runxlutlnn Axxexxment nI 1hree
Selected Arublc 1runxlutlnnx nI
Wllllum Gnldlng'x
Lord of the Flies
A 1hexlx
Submltted tn the Cnuncll nI Cnllege nI
Iunguugex, Inlverxlty nI Bughdud ln
Purtlul IulIlllment nI the
Bequlrementx Inr the Oegree nI
Muxter nI Artx ln 1runxlutlnn
Buxhur Muurlch Mlzuul Al-ILully
Supervlxed by
Axxt. PrnI. Munthlr Munhul JPh.O.)
May, 2011

,.'` .'` ` ,.
,'` _'` ` :
= -,- : ,'

I certify that this thesis was prepared under my supervision at

University of Baghdad as a partial requirement for the degree of
Master of Arts in Translation.
Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Munthir Manhal, Ph.D.
In view of the available recommendation, I forward this thesis for
debate by the examining committee.
Name: Asst. Prof. May Stephan Rassam, Ph.D.
Head of the Department of English,
College of Languages, University of Baghdad

We certify that we have read this thesis and as examining

committee examined the student in its content and that, in our
opinion, it is adequate with standing as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Arts in Translation.
Approved by the Council of the College of Languages
Name: Prof. Talib A. Mohammed Al-kuraishi, Ph.D.
Dean of the College of Languages,
University of Baghdad

I. |\ s.| .| z( || ||\|

First and foremost, I would like to extend my thanks to my supervisor
Asst. Prof. Dr. Munthir Manhal who has helped this thesis along its ways.
His detailed comments and suggestions on the early drafts are highly
appreciated. He has assisted in sharpening and strengthening the focus the
best way possible and in pointing out errors and inaccuracies. He has helped
me to recognize my mistakes and learn from them. He has mixed his
invaluable comments with the spirit of confidence and challenge which
helped me to a great extent to face the difficulties in the course of thesis.
I would like to extend my thanks to Asst. Prof. Dr. May Stephan, Head of
the Department of English, for her help in eliminating any obstacle that
hinders the progress of the students in the postgraduate studies in the
department. My thanks go to the teaching staff whose dedication and
keenness to feed us with knowledge have led to the accomplishment of this
challenging task, to mention but few: Emeritus Prof. Dr. Abdulwahid
Muslat, Asst. Prof Dr. Riyadh Khalil, Asst. Prof Dr. Abdulhameed Nasir,
Prof. Dr. Amir Al-Hiti, Head of the Arabic Section in the College of
Languages and Prof. Dr. Alya Al-RubaiI from Al-Mustansiriyah
University. Also, my thanks go to Asst. Prof .Dr. Mahdi Falih Al-Ghazali,
Head of the Translation Department / Al-Mustansiriyah University, for his
invaluable advice. My thanks go to Asst. Prof. Dr. Abbas Lutfi, Head of the
English Department /College of Education, for his assistance. Special thanks
go to Mr. Hazim Malik for his assistance. My thanks and gratitude go to my
family who supported me to complete this work. Finally, my thanks go to
every person who helped and supported me to achieve this thesis as best as

Translation quality assessment (henceforth TQA) is a sub-field of the
translation studies. It offers a practical approach to state-of-the-art
translation criticism and evaluation In this thesis three Arabic translations
of William Goldings novel Lord of the Flies (1954) (henceforth LOTF) are
chosen among some available Arabic translations. These three translations
are -'--'' -,' by Samir Izzat Nassar (1988) , by Abdul-Hameed
Al-Jammal(1994/2000) and by Mahmoud Qasim(1991). This
thesis investigates the reasons behind the differences among the Arabic
translations and why some of them are rendered adequately while others fail
to achieve this level of adequacy. The current thesis puts forward the
following hypotheses:
1- Different translation methods could lead to different translated versions of
the same text.
2- Consistency in using the same key terms, while there is no justification to
change them, leads to a more eligible text and eliminate any inconsistency or
3- Cultural and stylistic differences between both languages seem to give
rise to mistranslations as far as the literary text under investigation is
concerned. In addition, these differences might press the translators to
manipulate some translated elements to fit the new cultural and religious
In order to test these hypotheses selection has been made to several
excerpts from different places in the novel to cover the most significant
elements required to carry out the task of assessment. In order to make use
of the collected data which cover several levels namely, text type, semantic,
stylistic and extra-linguistic levels; the model of Reiss (2000) of translation
criticism with some additions from other scholars such as Nord (1997) have
been adopted. This thesis investigates the different choices made by the
translators in rendering the same ST elements and analyzing the reasons
behind them whether they are due to stylistic choices, cultural problems,

unavailability of the appropriate equivalent, and unfamiliarity with the

subject matter, the high symbolic nature of the ST or the particularity of the
author style. This thesis found out that adopting different translation
strategies by translators leads to different versions of the same ST. Some
basic principles of translation are violated variably by the three translations
which lead, as it has been shown in this thesis, to a kind of inconsistency in
the translated texts. This thesis found out how the Arab translators have
observed the conservative traditions and ethical standards of the Arab
societies. None of the three translators has rendered any ST obscene words
directly into Arabic. This gives an indicator of how culture and social
conventions affect the translated texts.

Dedication v
Acknowledgements vi
Abstract vii
Table of Contents ix
List of Tables xiv
List of Figures xv
Key to Abbreviations xvi
Chapter One
1.1 The Problem 1
1.2 Hypotheses 2
1.3 Aims of this Study 3
1.4 Procedures 3
1.5 Plan of the Thesis
1.6 Limits of the Study 4
1.7 The Value of the study 5
Chapter Two
Basic Concepts and Approaches to Translation Studies
Introduction 6
2.1 Basic Concepts 7
2.1.1 What is Translation? 7
2.1.2 The Translator 8
2.1.3 Prose Translation 10
2.1.4 Meaning and Translation 11
2.1.6 Figurative language 15 Metaphor 16 Types of Metaphor 17 Newmarks classification of Metaphor 17 Simile 20
2.1.7 Text 20
2.1.7 .1 Cohesion and Text 21
2.1.7 .2. Ellipsis and Substitution 22
2.1.7 .2.1. Nominal Ellipsis 22 Verbal ellipsis 23
2.1.7 .2.3 Clausal ellipsis 23
2.1.7 .3. Substitution 24
Table of Contents

2.1.7 .4 Allusion 24
2.1.8 Style 26 Types of Style 26
2.1.9 Loss in Translation 28
2.1.10 Context 30
2.2 Translation Studies 32
2.3 Approaches to Translation 34
2.3.1 Linguistic-Oriented Translation Theories 34 Equivalence and Equivalent Effect 35 The Translation Shift Approach 39
Vinay and Darbelnet's Model
39 Catford and Translation Shifts 41
2.3.2 Functional Theories of Translation 42 Text Type 42 Skopos Theory 43
2.3.3 Discourse and Register Approaches to Translation Theory 45 The Hallidayan Model of Language and Discourse 46 House's Model of Translation Quality Assessment 48 Baker's Text and Pragmatic Analysis 51
2.3.4 Cultural Approaches 54 Some Culture-Related Problems to Translation 56
Chapter Three
Translation Quality Assessment
3 Introduction 59
3.1 Approaches to Translation Quality Assessment 60
Anecdotal and Subjective Approaches
Response-Oriented, Psycholinguistic Approaches
Text-Based Approaches
Functionalistic and Action and ReceptionTheory
Related Approaches
3.1.5 Linguistically-Oriented Approaches 70
3.2 A Model Applied to Translation Assessment 73
3.2.1 A model for the Analysis of the Novel 74 The Literary Category of Translation Criticism

Text Type
76 Linguistic Elements as a Linguistic Category for
Translation Criticism
Semantic Elements 79
Textual Level
Cohesive Devices
Substitution and Ellipsis
Stylistic Level: Formal vs. Informal Style
81 Extra-Linguistic Determinants as the Pragmatic Category
of the Translation Criticism.
Subject Matter
Time and Place Factors 82 The General Makeup of the ST and Its Translations 83 Application of the Adapted Model 83
Semantic Level 84
Textual Level 85
Stylistic Level 86
Extra- Linguistic Determinants (Pragmatic Level)
General Makeup of the Translated Texts

Statement of Quality
Chapter Four The Assessment of the Translations
Introduction 88
4.1 Summary of the Novel Lord of the Flies and Text Type 88
4.2 The Semantic Level 92
4.2. 1 Equivalence at the Lexical Level 92 Analysis of the Lexical Items 93
4.2. 2 Collocations 110 The Translation of Collocations 110 Analysis of Collocation 112
4.2.3 Metaphor 120 Methods of Translating Metaphors 120 Metaphor Analysis 121
4.2.4 Simile 129 Methods of Translating Simile 129 Analysis of Simile 130
4.3 Textual Level 138
4. 3. 1 Ellipsis and Substitution 138 Translation of Ellipsis and Substitution 139
4. 3.1.2 Types of Ellipsis 139 Ellipsis Analysis 140 Analysis of Substitution 143
4.3.2 Allusions 145 Translation of Allusions 146 Analysis of Allusions 146
4.4 Stylistic Analysis 152
4.4.1 Goldings Style 152
4.4.2 Analysis of Style 154
Informal style 154
Colloquial Style 156
4.5 Extra- Linguistic Determinants 158
Subject Matter 158
Audience 160
Time and place 161
4.6 The General Makeup of the Novel and its Translations 163

4.7 Statement of Quality 164

Chapter five
5.1 Conclusions 170
5.2 Recommendations 173
5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies 174
Bibliography 176
Abstract in Arabic 227

List of Tables
No. Table page
2.1 English Styles 26
3.1 Text Types Adapted from Reisss (2000) 75
4.1 English Arabic Collocational Differences of the Verb
4.2 Time and Place Information of TTs 163

List of Figures
No. Figure page
2.1 Genre and Register Relation to Language 46
2.2 Analysis and Comparison Scheme of the
Original and Translated Texts
3.1 Three-Phase System of Translating Process 64
3.2 Use-Related Variation 71
3.3 Visual Distribution of Texts According to
Reiss Text Typology Adapted from Chesterman

Key to Abbreviations
Abbreviation Term
Adj. Adjective
Adv. Adverb
DE Dynamic Equivalence
DTS Descriptive Translation Studies
FE Formal Equivalence
L Line Number in the ST
LOTF Lord of the Flies
MSA Modern Standard Arabic
N Noun
NP Noun Phrase
OALD Oxford Advanced Learners
r.f Researcher Footnote
SL Source Language
SLT Source Language Text
ST Source Text
T1 = Samir Izzat Nassars translation
T2 = Abdul Hammed Al-Jammals
T3 = Mahmoud Qasims translation
ThTS Theoretical Translation Studies
TQA Translation Quality Assessment
TTh Translation Theory
TT Target Text
TL Target Language
TLT Target Language Text
V Verb
VP Verb phrase
Line Number in the Arabic

1.1 The Problem
Literary language is one of the most difficult areas that the translator faces
since the original message should be carried into the target language stuffed
with least imaginable bit of emotion and very specific and intended structure
as well as vocabulary. The effect that the translated texts achieve in the target
culture should be, according to the equivalence notion, the same one that the
original message achieves in the original culture (Nida, 1964:159).
Lord of the Flies is one of the significant works not only for its literary
value but also for the linguistic implication indicated in the deep human
reflections and thoughts. Golding in this novel shows a compelling
imagination, a vivid realism as he describes the disintegration of the boys
civilization under the pressure of raw nature. He has been deeply infatuated
by the ambiguities of mysterious atmospheres that surrounded his childhood
as well as the post World War II period which ultimately appeared as
complex symbols in his works later on.
This particular William Golding's work, which was written in 1954, won the
Nobel Prize for literature in 1983 and translated into several languages. It was
translated into Arabic in 1967 under the title which literally
means "The Seeds of Evil". Later, the novel was translated by several Arab
translators who did their translations using a variety of techniques and
methods along with remarkable differences in style, sentence formation and
These differences which are noticeable along the translated texts represent a
phenomenon that requires investigation and careful analyses to identify the
elements that motivate the translators to prefer certain structural and lexical
choices rather than other ones. Arab translators introduced a variety of titles
no less than six titles were presented for the original title of Lord of The Flies,
they are as follows: ............................................................

1- Buthoor Alshar literally the Seeds of Evil

2- Lord Althubab the Lord of the Flies
3- Malik Althubab King of the Flies
4- Amir Althubab the prince of the flies ,-'
5- Sayid Althubab the Master of the Flies -'--'' -,-
6- Alihat Althubab the Gods of the Flies -'--'' +''
7- Ilah Althubab the God of the Flies -'--'' ''
Selected excerpts from three of them are chosen to carry out the assessment
process, namely, number 2, 4 and 6. The selection of these three translations
and their excerpts is based on the special features they have to serve as the
data needed to test the given hypotheses.
1.2 Hypotheses
It is hypothesized that:
1- Different translation methods could lead to different translated versions of
the same text.
2- Consistency in using the same key terms, while there is no justification to
change them, can lead to a more eligible text and eliminate any
inconsistency or vagueness.
3- Cultural and stylistic differences between both languages seem to give
rise to mistranslations as far as the literary text under investigation is
concerned. In addition, these differences might press the translators to
manipulate some translated elements to fit the new cultural and religious

1.3 Aims of this Study

The study aims at:
1- Providing a translation assessment of the Arabic translations of Golding's
Lord of the Flies
2- Investigating the reasons behind those differences in translations and,
3- Suggesting translations for the inadequate rendition of some parts of the
1.4 Procedures:
1- Introducing some of the substantial approaches to translation criticism
2- Developing an adequate model for assessment
3- Applying the model to the selected texts
4- Drawing up conclusions
1.5 Plan of the thesis
To approach the goal of assessing the three Arabic translations, the current
thesis is divided into five chapters; they are as follows:
1- Chapter one includes the exposition of the problem, hypotheses and the
aim of the study
2- Chapter two includes a review of literature and the most influential
approaches in the field of translation studies.

3- Chapter three includes two basic points; the first is introduction to the
most effective approaches to translation quality assessment. The second is
the choice of the most adequate model to fulfill the requirements of the
assessment process.
4- Chapter four: this chapter represents the practical part of the assessment
process. In this chapter, the ST and the TTs are analyzed and contrasted
according to the chosen model (in chapter three).
5- Chapter five: this chapter represents the valid conclusions obtained from
the previous step of analysis (chapter four). It also provides
recommendations and suggestions for further studies.
1.6 Limits of the Study
The study is limited to the assessment of three selected Arabic
translations of "Lord of the Flies" namely; a) Amir Althubab -'--'' , -'
translated by Abdul- Hameed Al-Jammal b) Lord Althubab
translated by Samir Izzat Nassar c) Alihat Althubab -'--'' +'' translated by
Mahmoud Qasim. The assessment will be based on selected elements of
evaluation on the semantic, textual, stylistic and extra-linguistic levels as
well as the general make-up of the ST and TTs.
Since it would be impossible within the limits of this study to cover all the
elements found in the selected levels of analysis, therefore, only some of the
elements are chosen. It is also very hard to analyze the whole text of the
novel, therefore, sample excerpts from different places in the novel have
been chosen to serve as data for carrying out analysis and evaluation of the

1.7 The Value of the study

It is widely known that translation plays a remarkable role in enriching
the target language culture with new kinds of knowledge and information.
Accordingly, this makes communication among different cultures more
productive and more fruitful. This fact makes it necessary to evaluate the
translated works and show their merits and demerits. Consequently, it would
be possible to provide the Arab readers with the opportunity of choosing the
high quality productions rather than leaving them blundering among the
huge amount of low quality products that are shown today. Also, no less
important is that, such studies represent a resource of worthy academic
guidance for the students of translation and for those interested in literary
translation as well.
Chapter Two
Basic Concepts and Approaches to Translation
This chapter deals with the most famous approaches to translation
studies as well as some introductory concepts that are necessary to pave the
way for a better understanding of the following chapters of this thesis.
Translation is one of the most controversial branches of Applied
Linguistics fields and it has been gaining more interest, notably in the last
few decades, from other fields. This interest in translation is one of the
most important reasons which led to the diversity of the theories of
translation. These theories have been formed to explain the nature of
translation and identify it within a certain objective frame. Given the fact
that translation process is linked to subjects as much as the human being
can deal, it could be possible then to imagine the difficulty of contriving a
unified theory of translation. Nevertheless, these theories undergo a
continuous development and progress aiming at a reasonable level of
objectivity in this regard. The growth of Translation Studies as a separate
discipline is according to Lefevere (1992:xi) is a success story which
started from the 1980s.The subject witnessed an ongoing development in
different areas in the world and will continue to develop in the future.
Translation studies bring together work in a wide variety of fields,
including linguistics, literary study, history, anthropology, psychology and
economics. The theories which are to be discussed in this chapter do not
cover all the trends in the field of translation as this would be practically
impossible, but taking useful samples would be helpful to shed light on the
areas of research in this subject as it pertains to the subject matter of the
current thesis.
2.1 Basic Concepts
2.1.1 What is Translation?
In our daily life one gets connected to each other and interact by the
most effective means which is language. Language, according to Fasold
and Linton (2006:9), is a finite system of elements and principles that
make it possible for speakers to construct sentences to do particular
communicative jobs. So the main purpose of language is to achieve a
communicative task. This holds true also for the linguistic phenomenon of
translation. Hatim and Munday (2004:3) point out that translation can be
analyzed from two different perspectives: that of a process, which refers
to the activity of turning a ST into a TT in another language, and that of a
product, i.e. a translated text. They (1997:1) define translating as an act
of communication which attempts to relay, across cultural and linguistic
boundaries, another act of communication (which may have been intended
for different purposes and different readers / hearers).
Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997:181) see that translation is a very broad
notion which opens the way to be understood in various ways. This broad
notion enables one to talk about translation as process and a product. In
addition, one can recognize sub-types of translations such as literary
translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation.
According to Ghazala (2006:1), translation refers to all processes and
methods used to transfer the meaning of the source language text into the
target language.
On this very issue of translation as a process and product; Aziz and
Lataiwish (2000:4) see that translation as a process is related to a human
activity which nearly everyone has practiced and therefore has a broad
sense. As a product, it is mainly related to the result of this human activity
in form of translated texts among different languages. Translation for them
is a replacement of one text in certain language by another text in another
language. But, they argue that such a definition does not cover some
aspects of what translation term should cover. First, it focuses on text
translation; text is a linguistic unit above the sentence and more dependable
on context and may be written or oral. The second point which they raise,
is its focus on the translation from one language to another whereas other
types are excluded, i.e., paraphrasing within the same language. A more
comprehensive view about translation is seen by Jakobson
(1959/2000:114), who distinguishes between three different kinds of
translation; they are as follows:
1) Intralingual, or rewording;
2) Interlingual or translation proper;
3) Intersemiotic or transmutation
The first of these refers to an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
other signs of the same language. In other words, the process of
translation occurs within the same language, for instance between varieties
or through paraphrasing, etc. The second kind concerns interpretation of
verbal signs by means of some other languages .The third one
Intersemiotic or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of signs of non-verbal sign systems.
According to Ilyas (1989:19), translation is an operation in which the
source text is replaced by the target text according to the equivalence
notion on different levels namely, lexical, grammatical, phonological and
What is noted from the above discussion, that the basic concept in the
process of translation is equivalence which can be established at different
levels, namely, lexical, grammatical and phonological. The subject of
equivalence will be tackled in detail in the next sections.
2.1.2 The Translator
The translator is the one who undertakes the task of communicating the
overall meaning of a stretch of language to another language. The role of
the translator, according to Leppihalme (1997:18), should be given a due
emphasis in a problem-restricted study of translation because whatever
may be written by the translation scholars; the translator who must decide
how to solve each individual problem during the translating process. This
task needs certain qualifications supposed to be available in the translator
to achieve this act of communication and problem solving competence.
Najeeb (2005:8f) suggests that the translator should have some
qualifications in order to accomplish his/her task successfully and as
1-A broad base of vocabulary of both source and target languages
2-Comprehensive knowledge of the grammar, morphology, rhetoric in both
3- Encyclopedic knowledge
4- The faithfulness in the rendition of the original text thoughts and ideas
5- Patience, because translation needs a long period of practice and
These above skills and qualifications do not mean that the translator is
that person who should know everything and can meticulously translate
any text without any help from anyone else other than him/herself.
Samuelsson-Brown (2004:2) clarifies this particular point by stating that
great number of people, including clients, has many misconceptions of
what is a skilled translator should have. Among these misconceptions are
the following:
As a translator you can translate all subjects
If you speak a foreign language you can automatically translate into
If you can make a conversation in a foreign language then you are
Translators are mind-readers and can make a perfect translation; they
need not to consult the original author.
Hatim and Mason (1990:11) confirm that familiarity with the ideas and
underlying meaning of the writer of a SL text is a vital aid to translating.
On the other hand, unfamiliarity gives rise to the lack of confidence, or
the inability to grasp the meaning when a text is in a way or another
defective, obscure or has elliptical elements. They (ibid.) believe that the
best translators in the field of literary translation are those who are in tune
with the author. This necessary understanding of both the overt message
and underlying meaning of the text as well as the emotiveness values and
stylistic features that determine the flavor and feel of the message are the
first and most obvious requirements of any translator as Nida (1964:150)
Kelly (2005:64) argues that specialists in this field and the professional
translation markets see that professional translators have to possess the
following skills:
communicative and textual competence preferably in more than two
languages and cultures
cultural and intercultural competence
subject area competence
professional and instrumental competence
attitudinal or psycho-physiological competence
interpersonal competence
strategic competence
The above raised point of cultural competence contributes to the naming
of translators as cultural mediators. The translator represents a mediatory
channel through which understanding between two different languages and
cultures can be achieved. Hatim and Mason (1990:223) view of the
translator as a mediator stems from the fact that mutual communication
might otherwise be problematic without the mediatory role of the translator
between involved parties such as the translators of patents, contracts, verse
or fiction .This mediatory role can be more direct in the case of the
simultaneous interpreter.
Translators as cultural mediators should be, according to Katan
(1999:14), aware of their own cultural identity to the extreme in order to
understand how their culture influences perception.
The ideal role of the translator as it is argued by Nida (1964:153) is to have
a complete knowledge of both source and target language ,intimate
acquaintance with the subject matter, effective empathy with the original
author and the content and stylistic facility in the target language.
Unfortunately, these ideal competences do not always found in the
translator, therefore, a lot of discrepancies are found among translated texts
and the original ones. Consequently, the aim in most of the cases is to be as
close as possible to the essence of the message meant to be conveyed.
2.1.3 Prose Translation
According to Nida and Taber (1969:132) prose comprises three main
types namely, narrative, descriptive and argumentative. In narrative text
the structure is based on series of events representing the theme of the text.
In descriptive the text based on spatial relations with a certain point that
represents the perspective from which the scene is described relative to that
point of view. Argumentative is based on logical relations.
Ilyas (1989:65) sees that literary translation does not follow word for
word translation .This is basically because it should express the authors
ideas as well as his style which are represented in his/her conscious choices
of words and their overtones, figures of speech and other stylistic elements
which inevitably do not allow that kind of literal translation. He also
stresses the position that it is unacceptable, in case of the novel translation,
to stress the content at the expense of the total structure of it. Belloc (1930)
cited in Ilyas (1989:66) has six rules suggested to the translation of prose;
they can be listed briefly as follows:
1- The translator should avoid translating his work word by word or
sentence by sentence but the work should be looked upon as a whole unit.
2- The translator should translate the S.L. idiom by an equivalent T.L.
idiom which usually differs in form but have the same function in the target
language. For example, the Greek exclamation By the dog can be
translated into English as an exclamation by using the form By God.
3- An S.L. intention should be rendered into an equivalent T.L. intention
and the translator should make up for any overbalance between both
4- The translator should avoid the pitfall of similar words in different
languages. Sometimes these similar words are called (false friends) .This
problem occurs among languages of the same origin where the same words
carry different meanings in these languages. For example, the word brutal
which signifies serious in French whereas it has a different denotation in
English as unkind or violent.
5- The translator should not be slavish to the S.L. text since languages
differ in form. Necessary changes should be made by the translator to the
target text
6- The translator should not add elements that are not in the S.L.
Bakers (1992:111) suggestion for the translators is to work on lexical
items and grammatical structures while performing the translation through
its multistage process. However, this depends largely on examining the text
as a whole before and after the translation process. The usefulness of
reading the text before starting the translating process is to understand the
text and realize its message. This will help to put the lexical items and
sentences in their due context which is realized by reading. The advantage
of the reading after the completion of translating process will help to
evaluate the target text whether it is an acceptable text in its own right. She
(ibid.) states that phraseology and the collocational and grammatical
patterning of the target version must conform to target-language norms.
2.1.4 Meaning and Translation
It is well known that language can be used to express meaning, but it is a
very difficult task to define meaning. Part of the problem is that meaning
has various dimensions which are intermingled and cannot easily be
distinguished as separate, but as Portner (2006:138) sees, there are
semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning. The first meaning is the literal
meaning of an utterance or sentence, whereas the second is what the
speaker means; for example, if one asks you the following question: can
you give me an apple? If you take the literal meaning of this question then
your answer would be yes I can because the question literally asks about
your ability. If, you take the question as a request made by the speaker to
give him an apple, then the meaning that you grasped is what intended by
the speaker to communicate. In this regard, some linguists put some
classifications to meaning for purpose of achieving more insight to the
nature of meaning and its relatedness to translation. According to Cruse
(1986) meaning can be of four distinguished types namely, propositional
meaning, expressive meaning, presupposed meaning, and evoked meaning.
With regard to the propositional meaning he (ibid.:271) sees that its
characteristics depend partly on the propositional attitude manifested by
the sentence in which it operates whether this sentence is a statement,
question, command, exclamation, etc. Propositional meaning has truth-
conditions (truth condition is defined according to Akmajian et al
(2001:589) as A condition that the world must meet for an expression that
has truth condition to be true). In the case of expressive meaning there is
no such truth conditions, see the following examples:
a- I just felt a sudden sharp pain.
b- Ouch!
It is noted that both utterances convey the same message; that is of pain but
they differ in the way the meaning is put across. The example (a) can be
challenged for its truth value by saying for example: no you just lie while
example (b) its truth value cannot be challenged because it does not make
sense to challenge its truth in the same way of that in example (a). Cruses
(ibid.: 278) third type is the presupposed meaning which is used here to
refer to semantic traits which are considered when one uses an expression,
or lexical item, in the utterance. For example, when one hears the word
drink , the first things that come to the mind are: there is something which
is liquid, potable, someone who drinks etc. All these associations are
presupposed by the hearer of this uttered lexical item unless a metaphorical
meaning is sought behind it. The fourth type of meaning according to
(ibid.:282) is the evoked meaning which plays a role in the cohesion of the
discourse and provides a further potential source of variation among
cognitive synonyms. The possibility of evoked meaning is a result of the
existence of different dialects and registers within a language.
This above classification is adopted by Baker (1992:13-5). She explains these
four types as follows:
1- Propositional meaning of a word or an utterance arises from the relation
between it and what it refers to. This type of meaning gives us the ability to
judge the truth of an utterance. For example, shirt is a piece of cloth that can
be worn on the upper part of the body so it is not accurate to use it under
normal circumstances to refer to a kind of clothes worn to the lower parts of
the body.
2- Expressive meaning relates to the speakers feelings or Attitude rather
than to what words and utterances refer to.
3- Presupposed meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions which make
us able to expect what is the following or preceding word when certain word
comes in a text. These restrictions include selectional restriction and
collocational restriction. The former depends on the propositional meaning of
a certain word, for example the word studious has the feature of (+) human,
therefore, a human may be expected to do the action. The latter depends on
the arbitrary co-occurrence of two or more words without following a logical
rule for this co-occurrence. For example, laws are broken in English, but in
Arabic they are contradicted.
4-Evoked meaning arises from dialect and register variation. The former
represents a variety of language that is used by a certain linguistic community.
The latter is a variety of language that a language user deems it as appropriate
in certain situations.
2.1.5 Collocation
A collocation is mainly a lexical relationship between words. This
lexical relationship is said to be subject more to arbitrariness arising from
common usage than from rules. An interesting example concerning the
arbitrariness of collocations is the words rancid and addled which mean
stale/rotten. When they enter in collocational relations with butter or
eggs, English describes them as rancid and addled, when they go bad,
respectively. One cannot talk about addled butter and rancid eggs because
they are unacceptable or at least unlikely collocations in English (Palmer,
1976 cited in Baker, 1992:47). Baker (ibid.) gives other examples to
illustrate this nature of collocation; English speakers typically break rules
but they do not break regulations; they typically talk of wasting time but
not of squandering time. Newmark (1988:32) states that the chief
difficulties in translating are lexical, not grammatical i.e. words,
collocations and fixed phrases or idioms. According to Bell (1993:97)
Similarity of occurrence collocation - is the basic formal relationship in
lexis A word tends to occur in relatively predictable ways with other
words; certain nouns with particular adjectives or verbs, verbs with
particular adverbials. Newmark (1988:212) considers collocations very
important for the translator. They represent most important contextual
factor but their occurrence is considerably narrower, and lexical items
basically occur into high-frequency grammatical structures. He classifies
collocations into:
1- Adjective plus noun
In this regard, two examples from Newmark (ibid.) can be taken 'hard
labour', in Arabic " " and 'economic situation' as " "
2- Noun plus noun or compound nouns
Nerve cell can be translated into Arabic as " ,'='' ,--'' " , eyeball into
Arabic " ,'' '-- "
3- Verb plus object, such as read a paper in Arabic " -,=- '-, "
And score (win) a victory in Arabic " =, " or " '-- -=, "
It is seen that collocations are evident in both languages, English and
Arabic. Accordingly, it is possible to avail of this important characteristic
of language to evaluate the three translations based on their comparison
with the ST and see how the translators manage to convey these useful
structures into the TL by using an equivalent Arabic collocations.
According to Ghazala (2006:106-22) collocations in Arabic fall into
several types. He lists twelve most important ones using grammatical
1- Adjective + noun collocations, for example: hard labour ) /
,-= (
2- Verb + noun, for example : attend a lecture ) -=, (
3-Noun+noun collocations, for example: brain drainage ( ) -=
4- Noun + noun (the of genitive ( ) ) collocations, for example:
Loss of memory ) (
5- Noun + and + noun (addition()) collocations ,for example: means
and ends (-',''', .-'-,'').
6- Adjective +adjective collocations, for example: hale and hearty (
7- Adverb + adverb collocations, for example: wholly and heartedly )
8- Noun + verb collocations (names of sounds), for example: bees buzz
( )
9- Prepositional collocations, for example:
a- Noun + preposition : A protest against ( )
b- Preposition +noun : by accident ( / )
c- Adjective +preposition collocations :full of ( )
d- Verb + preposition (prepositional verb )collocations: long for ( '--,
/ )
10- Collocations of similes (as-as constructions) : as beautiful as a lark/as
pretty as a picture ( / / --'' ',' --'' - )
11- Parts of countable nouns collocations, for example: a bouquet of
flowers ( / )
12- Parts of uncountable nouns collocations, for example: a bit (piece) of
information ( ).
2.1.6 Figurative Language
According to Cruse (2006:63-4), figures of speech are mainly linguistic
expressions that are used figuratively, if their intended meaning is different
from their literal meaning or their understanding is based on meaning
extension. In the course of studying rhetoric, it is possible to recognize
many figures of speech but the main ones that have much attracted the
attention of linguists are the following: euphemism, hyperbole, metaphor,
simile, and understatement According to Ghazala (2006:145-6) it includes
besides these some other figures and as follows:
1- Pun A figure of speech which involves a play upon words.
(Cuddon, 1999 :711).
2- Metonymy: a figure of speech tries to direct attention to an entity
through another entity related to it. For example, one can say: He read
Shakespeare to mean the works of Shakespeare. In other words, instead of
direct mentioning of the second entity, one can provide mental access to it
by some other entity (kovecses, 2010:172).
3- Personification: attributes human characteristics to inanimate objects;
common in childrens books, it is not just childs play. It can depict social
conflicts, with unions and companies as characters. (Gibbs, 2008:457). By
the figure it is possible to give deeper meanings to many subjects
encountered in life such as poverty, evil, science etc., by addressing these
subjects as if they were human beings. In Goldings novel this figure of
speech can be seen in the personification of the head of the pig as he called
it the Lord of the Flies.
4- Irony: According to Leech and Short (1981:278) it may be defined for
the fictional purposes as a double significance which arises from the
contrast in values associated with two different points of view. It could be
established through single sentence or it may include the whole novel. In
LOTF many occurrences of irony are noted, for example, the bitter irony at
the end of the story is that the same smoke that the boys use to flush
Ralph for the kill is the signal for their rescue by the army who saw the
smoke .
As well as several other subtypes; Nida (2001:5) gives examples on
metaphorical expressions such as my father was a tower of strength,
literally ( ) and history is looking back in order to look
ahead, literally ('-'-' =-, ' -','' _'' _,'-'' =-,).
In translation, the translator has to find either the corresponding figure in
the target language or a matching explanation that gives the meaning of the
ST figure of speech. In this study, the researcher chooses the most evident
figures of speech devices such as:
The choice is based on their repeated occurrence in the ST which serves as
a base to evaluate the three translations. Consequently, this choice will
provide testing criteria for the adequacy of the Arabic translations and how
they render the ST figures of speech into Arabic. Metaphor
Frequently, metaphor is used as a simile although it has sometimes
been supposed that simile is a different figure of speech from metaphor; but
in fact it is a sub-species of metaphor, which is distinct only in that it keeps
the notion of comparison explicit(ibid.:3). In this present thesis, simile
shall be considered as a separate category in order to process data in an
orderly way. Golding extensively relies in his novels, notably the most
popular one; LOTF, on the use of figurative language with its different
tools and devices. The most evident devices used by the writer, among
many others, are metaphor and simile. Concerning Allusion as a
metaphorical device, the researcher chooses to provide a separate section to
discuss and analyze it. Allusion represents a multi-facet topic; it represents
a link among different topics namely, metaphor, reference, intertextuality
and culture-specific terms. Consequently, it will be discussed within the
textual level. Other devices are excluded from this study due to space and
time limitations, nevertheless, comments here and there are found
concerning other figures of speech according to their direct relation to
some data analyzed, namely, onomatopoeia, polysyndeton, etc. The
researcher notes that they are used extensively and, therefore, provide a
concrete base for the evaluation of the three Arabic texts. Types of Metaphor
At the beginning, metaphor and simile are both comparisons; simile
uses words such as like, as while metaphor is achieved by deleting these
words, for example:
a- He is like a pig (simile)
b- He is a pig (metaphor)
According to Ghazala (2006:146) metaphor has four parts (also
simile has the same parts (see Larson, 1984:247)):
- ---'' 1- Image (the thing really being talked about)
---'' 2- Object (What is being compared with )
--'' =, 3- Sense (point of similarity between both the topic and the
4- Metaphor (the figurative word used in the expression)
Metaphors are of different types and these types differ according to
the classifications set by the specialists. In this study Newmarks
classification, supported by additional and useful points raised by
Ghazala and Larson, will be adopted. Newmarks Classification of Metaphor
Newmark (1988:106) states that whenever you meet a sentence
that is grammatical but does not appear to make sense, you have to
test its apparently nonsensical element for possible metaphorical
meaning. According to Newmark, metaphors are of six types listed
below with their corresponding translations into Arabic which are
quoted from Ghazala (2006), they are as following:,,, ,,,,
) ---' ( a-Dead Metaphors
Newmark (ibid.), states that a dead metaphor is where one is hardly
conscious of the image and for a large extent related to the universal
terms used to describe space, time, parts of the body, ecological features
and human activities, such as field, line, top, bottom, foot, mouth, arm and
many others. Ghazala (2006:147) defines dead metaphor as a metaphor
which is not felt by language users. They use it unconsciously as an
ordinary, direct expression, but it is not. This is the reason for calling it
dead. The following examples are from Ghazala (ibid.) and as follows:
) ( 1-hands of the clock
) ( 2-field of knowledge
) ( b- Clich Metaphors
Newmark (1988:107) states that these metaphors perhaps temporarily
outlived their usefulness, that are used as a substitute for clear thought,
often emotively, but without corresponding to the facts of the matter.
Ghazala (2006:148) defines this type of metaphor as that kind of
metaphor that is popular and frequently used and mostly informal, for
example: ala (ibid.)......
,'+- 1-at the end of the day
) ,-- -=' _-= -' - ( 2- head over heel in love
) ,',-'' -''--`' ( c- Stock or Standard Metaphors
Newmark (1988: 108), states that it is an established metaphor
which in an informal context is an efficient and concise method of
covering a physical and/or mental situation both referentially and
pragmatically. It has according to Newmark (ibid.) emotional
warmth and cannot be deadened by overuse.
The following examples are from Ghazala (2006:150) as follows:
) ,- / ,-- / ( 1-ray of hope
) -', / _'= -,-'' ='-, (... 2- throw light on
d- Adapted Metaphor ) ( :
Newmark (1988:111) explains that this type of metaphor should be
translated by an equivalent adapted metaphor or in other cases the
translator reduces it to its sense. In this type one can see examples such
as: the ball is a little in their court, sow division; get them in the
door. Concerning the definition of this type of metaphor, Newmark does
not provide a definition. According to Ghazala (2006:151) those adapted
metaphors which are originally taken from English do not pose a difficult
challenge to the translator since they are retained as they are in the source
language and the same image be maintained in Arabic. The following
examples are to illustrate this kind of metaphor and as follows:
1- The ball is in their court now ) +-'- -'' (
2- To sow division between them ) +-,- '--'' _, / (
): ---=' ~','-~7' ( e- Recent Metaphors
According to Newmark (1988: 111), it is a metaphorical neologism
often anonymously coined, which has spread rapidly in the SL, such as
pissed for drunk, groovy for good, spastic for stupid. They are,
according to Ghazala (2006:152), newly coined in both languages. The
following examples are for illustration and as follows:
) / -,-= ' / / ( 1- wooden talk
) ='' _'= -' / / --,-='' _'= ( 2- he is skint
: ) -~7' ~','-~7' ( f- Original Metaphor
This kind of metaphor contains the core of an important writers
message, his personality, and his comment on life (Newmark, 1988: 112).
He considers such metaphors as the source of enrichment in the target
language. Ghazala (2006:153) gives the following examples:
) / / ( 1-A window of opportunity
) ( 2 - The fire green as grass
g- The last type is mentioned by Ghazala (2006:151); he calls it the
cultural metaphor which is culture-specific metaphor. The following
examples are quoted in Ghazala (ibid.) as metaphors used by English
communities through their cultural experience of the cricket game and
as follows:
1- To field a question ) ''-- _'', / -=-'' ='-- _'= ''-- _=, (
2- To keep a straight bat ) '-,- '-,= ='-, / -,- ( Simile
Simile, like metaphor, is commonly looked upon as a figure of speech,
which is employed by writers for intensifying or heightening an emotional
effect on the part of the recipient. According to Punter (2007:147), simile is
but a form of metaphor which is the simplest one by using words such as
like or as.
As such Metaphor can be seen as simile without using the words like
or as. But, according to Punter (ibid.:12), the omission of these words is
what gives metaphor the greater power over simile because it brings the
two compared entities closer to one another which poses a kind of
challenge to the hearer or reader to make sense of this alleged or assumed
comparison .
In Arabic, simile ) ,---'' ( can be achieved by four lexical items,
namely; " '=.`--- " .The following examples are from Caspari (1974:76,
80,210-11) and as follows:
1- As if it were a glittering star - -, '+-'
2- It puts forth (something) like two horns ,--'' --
3- They have wings like (those of) bats '-='' .`- =-=' '+'
4- And the ancients have cut out in the mountain (something) like steps (or
a stair) by which one can ascend ,'= --, _- -- .-='' ,',`' -=-,
2.1.7 Text
According to Halliday and Hassan (1987:1), text can be defined in
linguistics as any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does
form a unified whole.They (ibid.: 2) consider a text as a semantic unit i.e.
a unit of meaning and it is related to a clause or sentence not by size but
by realization, the coding of one symbolic system in another. Now it is
possible to ask the following questions; what makes related sentences a
text? The flowing of information is easy to follow? And each part of the
text is integrated with other parts of the text? The answer is simply by
using cohesive devices, which maintain the cohesion of the text.
2.1.7 .1 Cohesion and Text
Cohesion according to Baker (1992:180) represents a network of lexical,
grammatical, and other relations which links between the various parts of
the text. These relations and ties help the reader to recognize the meaning
of words and expressions by the help of surrounding words and expressions
which stand as the context by which the words and expressions can acquire
their specific meaning. In this regard cohesive relations are classified by
Haliday and Hasan (1976) into five main types mainly, reference, lexical
cohesion , conjunction, substitution, and ellipsis. Cohesion distinguishes
text from non-text by interrelating linguistic elements across sentences. As
far as coherence is concerned, it is distinct from cohesion but shares with it
a crucial characteristic of creating sequences of meaning that bind the text.
The differences between coherence and cohesion are summed up by Hoey
by assuming that cohesion is a property of the text while coherence is a
facet of the readers evaluation of a text. Consequently, it could be possible
to consider cohesion as objective and coherence as subjective and differs
from one reader to another (Baker, 1992:218).
Cohesion means according to Bailey (2003:55) linking phrases together so
one can get the whole text as clear and readable.
It can be achieved by several methods, such as linking phrases and
sentences by the use of conjunctions, by the use of words such as he, they
and that which refer back to something mentioned before.
According to Larson (1984:394), cohesion of the text can be achieved by
devices such as pronouns, substitute words, verb affixes, deictic, pro-
verbs, conjunctions, special particles, forms of topicalization, and so forth.
She (ibid.) sees that the best way to translate these devices is to look for the
appropriate devices in the receptor language and keep away from rendering
these devices one-for-one from ST into TT, because the result almost is the
deformation of the meaning intended by the original author.
2.1.7 .2. Ellipsis and Substitution
According to Reiss (2000:53) the most inviting openings for the critic is
the area where the translator uses arbitrary additions and omissions which
lead to incongruity between ST and TT. But this does not lead us to
generalize that every addition or omission is a mistake on the part of the
translator because in many cases these are justified due to differences
among languages which make it necessary, in some cases, to make such
changes in the TT. According to Hatim and Mason (1990:12), translation is
always a motivated choice and procedures such as omissions, additions and
alterations may only be justified in case that they preserve the intended
Ellipsis according to Palmer (1984:38) is related to the feature of pro-
formation (the use of pronouns and similar forms that replace verbs and
other parts of speech.). Ellipsis is, according to Hatim and Mason
(1990:240), an omission (for reasons of economy) of linguistic items
whose sense is recoverable from context. According to Hatim and Mason
(ibid.: 94) ... the notions ellipsis and redundancy are seen to be pragmatic
variables, entirely dependent on assumptions concerning the mutual
cognitive environments of ST and TT users. The main use of such device
is not to repeat what has been already stated or said and established in the
discourse, for example, Jack and Simon pretended to notice nothing. They
walked on (Golding, 1954/1987: 26), in this example both underlined
names are replaced by one pro-form they.
Quinn (1982:27) argues that ellipsis phenomenon conceived variably
according to the reader and culture What to one culture is elegant
economy, or even just normal expression, to another can be enigmatic
brevity or even perverse obscurity. And this suggests that translators
should take care of this aspect and try to make their translation as clear as
possible depending on the rules and conventions of the target language.
2.1.7 .2.1. Nominal Ellipsis
Ellipsis within the nominal group (noun phrase). Nominals according to
Crystal (2003) refer to words which have some of the attributes of nouns
but not all, e.g. the poor are many, where the HEAD word of this Phrase
does pluralize... (314, emphasis in the original).According to Salkie
(1995:57f) one should be specific about the kind of modifier that allows
ellipsis of the rest of the noun phrase after it.Nominal phrase may start with
an article such as the, or a word such as some, other(s), or all. After these
words an ellipsis can be done provided that the preceding text makes it
clear what is meant by the ellipted words. Ellipsis can occur after cardinal
numbers, for example; Here are thirteen cards.Take any (-)
. Now give me
any three(-). The other example of ellipsis that takes place after the ordinal
numbers, for example; Smith was the first person to leave. I was the second
Comparative and superlative forms of adjectives can have ellipsis after
them,whether they are formed by putting -er and es on the end, or by
using more and most (ibid.). Verbal Ellipsis
Halliday and Hasan (1976:167) states that verbal Ellipsis means ellipsis
within the verbal group.Consequently, according to Halliday and Hasan
(ibid.) An elliptical verbal group presupposes one or more words from a
previous verbal group.the hearer or the reader resolves the meaning of the
elliptical verbal group and makes the correct presupposition.
According to Salkie(1995:58), there are two basic kinds of verb ellipsis
and as follows:
1- the first kind leaves out the verb and any modifiers to the right of the
verb. For example, international force was not used in the past,he agrees.
It should have been(-).
2- the second type of ellipsis, the subject and the finite verb are left out. For
example,what Ahmad is doing now?Ill tell you what he is doing now.(-
)Playing football ,thats what (-). In this example it is noted that the
subject Ahmad and the finite verb is are left out before the word
2.1.7 .2.3. Clausal Ellipsis
According Halliday and Hassan (1976:211,316) clausal ellipsis is
most commonly found in question-answer sequences and WH-question.
(r.f.) The symbol (-) is used by the researcher to refer to the place of the elliptic elements or
substitution throughout the analysis for easiness.
Salkie (1995:59-60) states that most of the clause is left out and all that
stays behind is a question word like what or why.
The following examples are to illustrate this type of ellipsis:
a - many countries managed to make use of space technologies, we need to
know how (-).
b-Has John arrived?(-) Yes, he has.
When did John arrive?(-) yesterday.
2.1.7 .3. Substitution
Substitution is used where a speaker or writer wishes to avoid the
repetition of a lexical item or a phrase and is able to draw on one of the
grammatical resources of the language to replace the item or a group of
items. Halliday and Hasan (1976:88) define substitution in simplest terms
as the replacement of one item by another. This device, according to Salkie
(1995:35), is a cohesive device that contributes to the cohesion of a text by
substituting for words that have already been mentioned and it includes the
use of special words such as one, do (or one of its other forms such as
does, did, done and doing ) and so.
Salkie (ibid.: 57) states that there is a similarity between ellipsis and
substitution since they both refer back to something mentioned earlier in
the text. Ellipsis is an example of substitution by zero.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) list three types of substitution namely nominal,
verbal, and clausal. Examples of each are given below:
1- Which shirt do you want? - I want the red one. (Nominal)
In this example one is the substitute for the noun shirt.
2- You wash the dishes. I'll do the pans. (Verbal)
In this example do is the substitute for the verb wash.
3- John loves sailing. - So do I. (Clausal)
In this example so is the substitute for the clause I love sailing
2.1.7 .4.Allusion
Allusion, according to Hollander cited in Lennon (2004:4), is
etymologically related to illusion and both words are of Latin origin from
Latin ludo 'play', and the Latin rhetorical term allusio which means word-
play. According to OALD (2010) allusion is what is said or written that
refers to or mentions another person or subject in an indirect way.
In modern literature, allusions are one major form of intertextuality; they
are usually made to significant events, places or people who have very
well-known qualities that the speaker or writer wishes to highlight in
his/her new text. Allusions are borrowed from history, from myth or from
any previous text for the purpose of recalling the qualities of the alluded to
text in the present moment of the speaker or writer. According to Hatim
and Mason (1990:129), each intrusion of a citation in the text is the
culmination of a process in which a sign travels from one text (source) to
another (destination).
Intertextuality is defined by Hatim and Mason (1990:10) as the
tendency of text producers to be influenced by other texts they have
experienced. According to them (1997:17 ), based on the basic notion,
various surface elements of a text including their underlying conceptual
meaning potential are signs and take their part in the process of
signification. This semiotic process enables text users to identify a given
text element or sequence of elements depending on their experience and
knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts or text
elements.This dependency on a prior text is usually expressed by
linguistic and/or nonlinguistic means at any level of text organization:
phonology, morphology, syntax or the entire compositional plan of the
text. As an example is the lexical item Job as in the phrase the
patience of Job. When this lexical item occurs in a text it provides a link
to the well-known story of the prophet Job and many other texts that made
use of this semiotic sign. Consequently, this helps to introduce a text that is
highly enriched with extra meanings that are mostly implied but understood
by a given linguistic community. Such lexical items are considered by
Hatim and Mason (ibid.) as sources of intertexual references and termed
them as sociocultural objects.
According to Mills (2001:73) Literary texts are, also, perhaps the most
intertextual of all texts, referring to other texts in terms of literary
allusion Based on this important role played by allusion in linking texts
with other texts to provide the reader with an economic means to receive as
much knowledge as possible through few subtle allusions, the researcher
chooses this figure of speech as a good base for evaluation. Lord of the
Flies is known as an allegorical novel where mostly names, characters and
things carry symbolic references to some real and imagined referents
whether contemporary to the time when Golding wrote his novel or to
historical figures and events in the past. Consequently, the use of allusions
is designed by the writer to carry a message and provide his novel with
extra space represented in the huge amount of related knowledge those
allusions carry with them.
2.1.8 Style
According to leech and Short (1981:10 ) there are many definitions for
the word style, but, in its most general meaning, can be defined as the way
in which language is used in a given context, by a given person, for a given
purpose, and so on .Writers, it can be said, each has his own style,i.e.
each has his own linguistic habits. Given this understanding, it is possible
to talk about the style of Dickens, of Faulkner and so on. Among the
numerous definitions of style the following is the Cuddons (1999:872)
definition of style and as follows:
The characteristic manner of expression in Prose or
verse; how a particular writer says things. The analysis
and assessment of style involves examination of a
writer's choice of words, his figures of speech, the
devices (rhetorical and otherwise), the shape of his
sentences (whether they be loose or periodic), the shape
of his paragraphs indeed, of every conceivable aspect of
his language and the way in which he uses it.
According to the above definitions of style, it seems that style is no longer
seen as a mere dress of meaning and has nothing to do with meaning but, as
Ghazala (2006:222) states, it is considered to be as part and parcel of
meaning. These choices made by the author of the origin text would
doubtlessly suffer of some kind of change when translated into other
languages due to the linguistic and cultural differences. According to Aziz
(1990:278-81), there are two changes in the style between ST and TT. The
first change is ascribed to the nature of both languages and the second is to
the cultural frame of both linguistic communities. The first can be called
the linguistic change and the second as the cultural change. Types of Style
According to Joose (cited in Ilyas 1989:67), style in English can be
classified into five types, namely; the frozen, the formal, the informal, the
casual, and the intimate style. Ilyas (ibid.) sees that it is not always
possible to establish a one- to- one correspondence between ST and TT due
to the situation differences. For example, a casual style in English may
have an Arabic formal equivalent style. This is related to the cultural
differences, which may cause shifting of style from one type to another
because of these differences.
To illustrate with examples the above types of the English styles and their
Arabic translations, Ghazala (2006:224) presents a set of examples as they
are listed in table 2.1 below:
Table 2.1 English styles
style Example
Frozen '-= _,- Be seated
Formal _,- Have a seat
Informal _,- ,= Sit down, please
Colloquial Feel at home / _,--'
Vulgar or slang Sit bloody down! /
Knowing the difficulty of recognizing the borders of each classification,
these five types are reduced to only two main types, namely; formal and
informal styles. Consequently, as Ghazala (ibid.) states, frozen and formal
styles would be considered as formal, whereas the other three types
namely; informal, colloquial and Vulgar (slang) would be included within
informal style classification.
On the other hand according to Ghazala (ibid.:226), Arabic has four styles
and as follows:
1- Classical Arabic used in the language of the Holy Quran and Traditional
literature and can be used to translate the English frozen formal style.
2- Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) used in the formal writing of today and
can be used to translate the English formal and informal styles.
3- Colloquial Arabic used in the language of conversation and can be used
to translate the English colloquial style.
4-Vulgar or slang which is basically the street language used mixed with
unkind and bad language and can be used to translate the English vulgar or
slang language style.
These four Arabic styles can be reduced into two main familiar Arabic
styles of formal and colloquial where the first covers both classical Arabic
and MSA while the second covers both colloquial and Vulgar (or slang)
2.1.9 Loss in Translation
According to Newmark (1988:7), translation is a craft that attempts to
replace a message in a written form by the same message in another
language. But loss of some kind of meaning is inevitable due to some
factors pertaining to each language characteristics and the nature of the
message. This loss of meaning happens when there is a kind of continuous
overtranslation by adding more details or undertranslation by increased
generalization. Translation whether process or product is done by the
translator who shoulders the burden of this process. The role of the
translator in finding equivalents is difficult but what is more difficult is to
choose the most suitable one among a wide or strict range of choices.
The loss is that the translator has to choose one of these possibilities
making it impossible to bear in mind all the others.
Bassnett (1991:30) sees that once one accepts that no sameness between
languages does exist then it is reasonable to talk about loss and gain in
translation. She (ibid.) directs the attention to the fact that as much as one is
concerned with loss in translation he should also pay attention to the gain
one could achieve from translation when it helps to clarify the SL text.
According to Aziz and Lataiwish (2000:75-77) gain and loss in
translation can be either related to signal or semantic information. For the
former the loss and gain can be on any of the three linguistic levels,
phonology, syntax or morphology. On the phonological level, when
translation occurs among languages which have different structures of
consonant clusters there would be a loss on the cluster level. On the
morphological level, languages in general make use of some general
processes to form words .These general processes include: (a)
prefixation, (b) - infixation, (c) - suffixation, (d) - conversion and , (e)-
compounding. Arabic makes use of (a, b, and c and rarely e ). English, on
the other hand, makes use of (a ,c ,d and e).The different use of word-
formation processes among languages would cause the original text to lose
some of its aesthetic effect intended by the author when he/she uses certain
form of word. With regard to signal loss and gain this can be seen in the
number system differences among languages. English and Arabic show no
one to-one correspondence with regard to number system. The former has
two number system, namely singular and plural while Arabic has three
number system, namely, singular, dual and plural. It is necessary according
to Aziz (1990:94) to observe this difference in number system between
English and Arabic when a translator faces sentences like the following:
The dogs were sleeping
The boys are playing outside.
The first thing which might occur to the mind of the translator is that dogs
and boys are plural and should be translated as such in Arabic. This might
be correct or might not .Dogs and boys in the above two examples may
refer to two or more than two. In English the plural form is used whereas
Arabic distinguishes between dual and plural. The two examples may be
translated into Arabic as follows:
_'='' '-', '-','' _'='' ,-',
This difficulty could be overcome if the context provides the necessary
information about the number of the referents in the text.
Another area in which loss can occur is the gender problem. According to
Aziz (1989:123), Arabic has two genders, masculine and feminine. It is
noted that correspondence between gender and sex in Arabic is almost
complete. This division into masculine and feminine in Arabic covers
inanimate things also according to their morphological markers. In Arabic
the most obvious marker is " " at the end of the feminine nouns and
adjectives such as " " . Nevertheless, Arabic has some nouns which are
feminine but do not have such markers, for example, " " .
English, according to Aziz (1989:120), has three genders namely,
masculine, feminine and neuter. Aziz (ibid.: 124), explains that English
shows very few nouns marked for gender, for example, god: goddess; hero:
heroine. Thus gender is more relevant to pronouns. Verbs and adjectives
have no gender or are not involved in gender agreement ( ibid.).
In translation, if a translator faces a sentence such as the doctor came,the
translator would be uncertain about the suitable gender that should be used
in Arabic whether should it be -,-='' -'= or -,-='' --'=. This problem could
be solved only be contextual information provided by the text itself or
extralinguistic information.
In fact the area of differences among languages is so vast and none can
claim the ability to cover more than the most appropriate aspects of it. Nida
(1964:156) believes that no two languages are identical whether in the
meaning related to corresponding symbols or how these symbols are
structured in phrases and sentences. This belief pushes him to deny the
existence of fully exact translations.
As it is clear from the above discussion of Nida, what is hoped from a
translation is to achieve as close as possible version of the original. Loss
can occur in other areas where the translators are not blamed for certain
loss of the characteristics of the original text. For example, the translators
of the classical works, as Balmer (2006:185-6) explains, there is not only
no author to ask but no author to dictate. This gap between the author and
the translator has mutually exclusive consequences. From one side, it
causes the lack of information about the author and the context in which his
work had been created and, on the other hand, it gives more freedom to the
translator to provide his own interpretation to a given text and, therefore,
loss on the part of the intended meaning of the author. Other kinds of
losses can occur in other aspects such as grammatical structures, tenses,
demonstratives..etc., which are tackled according to their relevancy and
occurrence in chapter four.
2.1.10 Context
Robison (2003:112) believes that while words and meanings are
undoubtedly important, however, their importance for the translator and
as for the most of people stems from their use in the context. This fact is
confirmed by the philosopher Wittgenstein when he states that the
meaning of a word is its use in the language (Wittgenstein, qtd. In ibid.).
Context, according to Cruse (2006:34), is An essential factor in the
interpretation of utterances and expressions. The main aspects of the
context are as follows:
(1) What comes before and after a given utterance or an expression and this
is called co-text (2) the immediate situation, (3) the situation in its wider
aspect which includes social and power relations, and finally; (4) shared
knowledge presumably exists between speaker and hearer.
This importance of contexts is clearly confirmed by Nida (2001:11) who
believes that the choice of particular words and their meanings depend
basically on variety of context aspects; he mentions some of them as
other nearby words, the subject matter, the
presumed audience, and especially the meanings of
those words that so often do not mean what they
say, for example, figurative expressions, indirect
responses, and proverbs.
He (ibid.:14) compares grasping of the appropriate meaning of a
nonlinguistic event through knowing the context of who does what, when,
where, and why. For example, in order to know the different meanings of
the word run there is a need for the help of the contexts in which it occurs
: the dogs were running ) -`'' --' - ( , the salmon are running ) =--
_--, ,-'-'' ( , he is running into debt ) ,-'' _-, ( , his nose is running ) --'
.,-, ( . Consequently, the senses of the word run vary with the diversity of
contexts and produce distinct concepts.
According to Anderman and Rogers (1999:7), Nida considers the task of
the translator as a multifaceted one in which many interacted factors affect
the translators choices. These factors are seen by Nida from a wider
perspective. He sees context in terms of different syntagmatic,
paradigmatic contexts within the text, text type, language variation, prior
translations, subject matter, style of the author, the publisher, the editor, the
reader and the medium of the translation. Newmark (1988:193) sees that
the meaning of words is influenced by certain linguistic, referential,
cultural and personal contexts.
With regard to the linguistic context, words may be limited in their
meanings by the constraints of collocation, the use of the word throughout
the text or its repetition for certain effects. As for the referential context,
Newmark (ibid.) believes that the topic of the text defines most of the
meanings within certain limits, i.e., the topic would identify certain words
to be used within a certain semantic field. The cultural context, on the other
hand, related to ways of thinking and behaving within specific linguistic
community. Certain cultural words have no equivalent in other cultures for
example kuffiah ,, / ''' ( ) in Arabic has its context and use which
is not the same for some other cultures. The last type of context is the
personal one which concerns the peculiar use of language by the individual
writer or speaker which forms his/her own unique idiolect. Newmark
(1991:87) sees that words are visibly and linguistically put into context
through the collocational relations, their grammatical functions and their
position in the word order of a sentence. Whereas invisibly and
referentially through their occurrence in a real or imagined situation, the
cultural and experiential background as well as the topic shared with the
After introducing the above main concepts that the current thesis will
analyse and evaluate according to their occurrence in the source text and
the three Arabic translations, the following section will provide a survey on
the most well known trends in the field of translation.
2.2 Translation Studies
The study of translation history emphasizes the fact that translation is a
human activity. This activity has been going on since language began to
evolve and undoubtedly be affected by all kinds of external events and
factors that have their impact on language.
In order to provide the theoretical background for the main influential
approaches intended to theorize the translation phenomenon whether as
process or product, which translation theorists term as translating and
translation respectively, a brief historical background of translation studies
will be provided. This background tackles the critical turning points in the
history of translation and main theories. This would be fruitful to our
subject matter without going into details as this would be the role of the
rest of this chapter.
What is today known as translation studies has occupied the scholars
minds for thousands of years and is not a recently discovered topic. Cicero,
in one century B.C., articulated a specific theory of translation when he
introduced his own translation of the speeches of the Attic orators
Aeschines and Demosthenes :
And I did not translate them as an interpreter,
but as an orator, keeping the same ideas and
forms ,or as one might say, the figures of
thought ,but in language which conforms to our
usage .And in so doing ,I did not hold it
necessary to render word for word ,but I
preserved the general style and force of the
language .
(Cicero, qtd. in Hatim and Mason, 2004:19)
In this respect it is noticed that Ciceros approach is the sense for sense
translation rather than word for word along with other scholars like Horace,
Quintilian in the 1
Century A.D. and St. Jerome in the 4th Century. The
reason is that they wanted to achieve the goal of introducing an
aesthetically pleasing and creative text in the TL.
Another period that witnessed a changing step in translation evolution was
marked by St .Jerome (the fourth century CE) whose approach to
translating the Greek Septuagint Bible into Latin would present its effect
on later translations of the scriptures (Munday, 2001:7).
Newmark (1988:46f), introduces two approaches semantic and
communicative translation. Semantic translation: is personal and
individual, follows the thought processes of the author, tends to over-
translate, pursues nuances of meaning, yet aims at concision in order to
reproduce pragmatic impact. Communicative translation, on the other
hand, attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in
such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and
comprehensible to the readership.
On the other hand, the notions of formal and dynamic equivalences also
play an important part in the work of the still very influential Nida who
points out that translation is mainly to reproduce in the target language
the closest natural equivalent to the message in the source language,
first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. (Nida and Taber,
The realization that translations are never produced in a vacuum, regardless
of time and culture and the desire to explain the time- and culture-bound
criteria which are at play, results in a shift away from a normative and
prescriptive methodology towards a descriptive methodology for the study
of the subject. This tendency within translation studies becomes noticeable
from the early eighties onwards. Varieties of linguistics continue to
dominate the field in the 1990s; Linguistic-oriented theorists such as Hatim
& Mason (1990), Baker (1992) and some other linguists draw on text
linguistics, discourse analysis and pragmatics to conceptualize translation
on the model of Gricean conversation.
According to the functionalist approach translation is viewed as adequate if
the translated text is appropriate for the communicative purpose defined in
the translation brief. Any translation skopos may be formulated for a
particular original and there are no limits on the translators license to
move away from the source text. However, Nord (1997:63) makes the
point that the skopos rule is a very general rule which does not account for
specific conventions prevalent in a particular culture community.
Then Even-Zohar's polysystem theory which was developed in 1970s
moves the study of translation out of a static linguistic analysis of shifts
and obsession with one-to-one equivalence into an investigation of the
position of translated literature as a whole in the historical and literary
systems of the target culture (Munday, 2001:109).
Then emerged as powerful as ever in the translation studies the cultural
studies in translation. These cultural approaches superseded the linguistic
theories of translation. They see translation as cultural transfer and
investigate the interface of translation with other growing disciplines
within cultural studies (ibid.: 163).
In her book Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach (1988), Mary
Snell- Hornby reviews and attempts to integrate a wide variety of different
linguistic and literary concepts in an overarching integrated approach to
In more recent years, translation studies have gone beyond purely linguistic
approaches to develop its own models, such as Toury's descriptive
translation studies.
In General, the second half of the twentieth century witnessed a
turning point specially in outlining the translation studies as a distinct
discipline thanks to James S. Holmes whose seminal paper the name and
the nature of translation studies, was accepted as the founding statement
for the field. Holmes (2000:175) discusses in his paper the new name for
the field of translation. He does not go with those who name the field as
science of translation as some areas, such as literary translation, do not
follow scientific criteria. He suggests the name translation studies as a
comprehensive name that includes all activities and researches in this field.
He believes that this name seems to be an excellent choice of all other
terms exist in English and, in case of its adoption as a standard term for
this discipline, will remove a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding.
Consequently, these developments in translation studies gave more focus
and importance to translation among other fields of knowledge. It has
changed the old idea about translation as a secondary field, or the idea that
its main purpose is to help in the language learning process, or as part of
the comparative literature and comparative linguistics curricula.
2.3 Approaches to Translation
2.3.1 Linguistic-Oriented Translation Theories
Translation is a process of transforming a text originally in one language
to an equivalent text in another language. Consequently, the use of
language and its categories is essential to the study and evolution of
translation theory. The linguistic approach to translation theory focuses on
the key issues of meaning, equivalence and shift. This branch of linguistics
represented by the works of Roman Jakobson, Eugene Nida, Newmark,
Vinay, Darbelnet, Catford and van Leuven-Zwart and others.
35 Equivalence and Equivalent Effect
Equivalence is the most famous issue in translation theory yet the most
controversial one. Wilss (1982:134) argues that this notion is not only
essential in translation theory over the last 2000 years, but it is so in the
modern translation theory. Nevertheless, no other notion has presented as
many contradictory and set off as many attempts to achieve an adequate
definition as equivalence. Venuti (2000:5) in his argument of the term
equivalence argues that this notion has been understood in terms of
accuracy, correctness, correspondence, fidelity or identity which gives a
variable nature to this elusive notion with regard to the kind of relation
between the translation on one hand and the ST on the other hand.
However, these perceptions of the term equivalence do not represent
always a positive indication to a good translation. The translations of the
Arabian Nights show that literary translations produce varying
representations of the same foreign text and culture, and their veracity or
their degree of equivalence is always in doubt, regardless of their impact or
effect. The eighteenth-century version made by Antoine Galland is the least
faithful, but has become the most read version. Kenny (2009:96)
considers equivalence as a concept of key importance in translation theory.
Approaches to the concept of equivalence can differ fundamentally while
some theorists based their translation definition according to equivalence
relations such as Catford (1965); Nida and Taber (1969), others stood
against the theoretical notion of equivalence, doubting its relevancy such as
Snell-Hornby (1988) or considering it as damaging to translation studies as
Gentzler (1993). Gentzler (1993:95) discuss Holmess point of view
towards the notion of equivalence and quoted Holmes suggestion to
conduct the following test :
Put five translators onto rendering even a
syntactically straightforward, metrically unbound,
imagically simple poem like Carl Sandberg's "Fog"
into, say Dutch. The chances that any two of the
five translations will be identical are very slight
indeed. Then set twenty-five other translators into
turning the five Dutch versions back into English,
five translators to a version. Again, the result will
almost certainly be as many renderings as there are
translators. To call this equivalence is perverse
From the above quotation, it is clear that Holmes insists on the necessity of
focusing on the process of translation in the Translation Studies and not on
the equivalence as such. It is then necessary that all choices made by the
translators should be analyzed. Yet other theorists seem to be in the middle
between these positions: Baker uses the notion of equivalence for the sake
of convenience - because most translators are used to it rather than because
it has any theoretical status (1992:5f). In earlier work on translation
equivalence, Catford (1965: 20) defines translation as the replacement of
textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in
another language (TL). He distinguishes textual equivalence from formal
correspondence. The former is any TL text or portion of text which is
observed on a particular occasion to be the equivalent of a given SL text or
portion of text and the latter is any TL category (unit, class, structure,
element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as
possible, the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category
occupies in the SL (ibid.: 27). Thus equivalence is a controversial concept
ranging from being a necessary condition for translation, a useful category
for describing translations, or an obstacle that hinders the progress of
translation studies.
Proponents of equivalence-based theories of translation usually define
equivalence as the relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text
(TT) that allows the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the
first place. Catford's approach to translation equivalence bears differences
from that of Nida, simply because Catford was interested in a more
linguistic-based approach to translation which is based on the linguistic
work of Firth and Halliday. The central contribution to the field of
translation theory is his introduction of the new concepts of types and shifts
of translation. Catford (1965:21-4) lists three criteria representing as wide
as possible range of translation types:
1- The extent of translation (full translation vs. partial translation)
this distinction is related to the extent of the SL text which may vary
between a whole library of books to a single phrase. In full
translation the whole text is submitted to the translation process
which means that every part in the source text is replaced by a part in
the target language. In partial translation some part or parts of the ST
are left without being translated but they are transferred into TL text
to give, for instance, local colour to the text.
2-The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs.
restricted translation).
In total translation all levels of the ST are replaced by TL material.
In restricted translation only one level of the ST textual material is
replaced by equivalent TL textual material.
3- The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is
established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation)
In rank-bound translation the equivalents in TL, are sought at the
same rank of the ST. Word-for-word translation is an example of
such kind of translation. In the case of unbounded translation the TL
equivalences shunt up and down the rank scale and tend to include
higher units than the word i.e., sentences and above.
Equivalence relationships are also said to hold between parts of STs and
parts of TTs. The above definition of equivalence is not unproblematic,
however. Kenny (2009:96) discusses Pyms position as he refers to the
circularity of the definition of equivalence. While equivalence is supposed
to define translation, translation, in its turn, defines equivalence. The result
of this circularity is the availability of only few attempts to give a
definition to equivalence in translation in order to avoid this circularity.
Theorists who maintain the predictability of translation upon some kind of
equivalence have focused on establishing typologies of equivalence with
their concentration on the rank (word, sentence or text level) at which
equivalence can be achieved. Or on the type of meaning whether
denotative, connotative, pragmatic, etc. which is said to be held constant in
translation (ibid.).
Nida (1964: 159) presents equivalence as formal vs. dynamic equivalence'
where formal equivalence concentrates on the content and form of the
message itself and very much oriented towards the ST structures. On the
other hand Dynamic Equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent
effect, where the relationship between receptor and message should be
substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors
and the message.
Practically, however, the criterion for the similarity of response, which is
presented for dynamic equivalence, does not seem to yield itself to
empirical research. It is more likely that a text, in a certain language, may
evoke different responses among different readers of the same discourse
community. The impact that a message may have on a particular discourse
community cannot be measured against a different discourse community
with some distance in time and space.
" IJAL 20, 4, 335- 340
Newmark (1981: 38) states that opinion swung between literal and free,
faithful and beautiful, exact and natural translation, depending on whether
the bias was to be in favour of the author or the reader, the source or the
target language of the text. He proposed two types of translation in his
book Approaches to Translation, namely, communicative translation and
semantic translation. The former tries to make on its readers an effect that
is as closer as possible to that made on the readers of the original text. The
latter, tries to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structure of
the target language allow, the same contextual meaning of the original text
(ibid.: 39). In this regard, an example can be cited to illustrate these
approaches and as follows:
a) semantic translation into English: This dog bites
b) communicative translation into English: beware of the dog (Ilyas,
Baker (1992:217) sees equivalence at a series of levels: at word, above-
word, grammar, thematic structure, cohesion and pragmatic levels. Hatim
and Mason (1990:67) see equivalence in translation from semiotics or
semiology point of view. They define semiotics as the science which
studies signs in their natural habitat society. Semiotics main focus is on
what constitutes signs, their regulation and the ways that bring them into
being or decay. Jakobson (cited in Hatim and Mason, 1990:67) sees that
each message is made of signs, and the science that studies these signs is
called semiotics. As this approach tackles whatever sign a discourse entails
then the interactive dimension of language use operates not only on the
level of individual lexical items but it may also involve larger units.
Consequently, a semiotic equivalence can effectively be achieved by
retaining, modifying or even omitting whole sequences within a text (ibid.:
In fact, the concept of equivalence in the recent translation studies is no
longer associated only with linguistic aspects of the translation unit; it goes
beyond to include whatever tiny bit of related aspects that affects the
message which supposed to be transferred from one language into another.
Consequently, more discussions and researches have been carried out to
reach as close as possible an agreement on the nature of equivalence sought
after in the translation process.
39 The Translation Shift Approach
As Hatim & Munday (2004: 29) point out, it seems that Catford who has
been the first to use the term shift in translation. What are shifts? They are
basically small linguistic changes that occur between ST and TT (ibid.).
Here, a discussion of two models that of Vinay and Darbelnet's and of
Catfords will be presented. Vinay and Darbelnet's Model
Through their holding of a comparative analysis of style of French and
English, Vinay and Darbelnet look in their book Stylistique compare du
franais et de langlais (1958) at texts in both languages, identifying
differences and drawing up strategies and procedures for translation.
They compare differences between English and French and identify two
translation techniques namely; Direct (literal) translation and oblique
translation that somewhat resemble the literal and free methods (Vinay and
Darbelnet, 2000:84-93). They suggest for the translator to choose which
strategy would fit more to the nature of the text involved:
Generally speaking, translators can choose from
two methods of translating, namely direct, or literal
translation and oblique translation. In some
translation tasks it may be possible to transpose the
source language message element by element into
the target language, because it is based on either (i)
parallel category, in which case we can speak of
structural parallelism, or (ii) on parallel concepts,
which are the result of metalinguistic parallelisms.
But translators may also notice gaps, or lacunae,
in the target language (TL) which must be filled by
corresponding elements, so that the overall
impression is the same for the two messages.
(Vinay and Darbelnet, 2000:84)
Direct (literal) translation shows three possible strategies:
1- Borrowing: The direct transference of the SL word to the TL. This
grouping covers words such as the Russian rouble, glasnost and perestroika
that are used in English and other languages to fill a semantic gap in the
TL. Sometimes borrowings are employed to add local colour.
2- Calque: this is special kind of borrowing in which the expression or
structure of the SL is transferred literally to the TL. What is noted by Vinay
and Darbelnet is that borrowings and calques often become thoroughly
integrated into the TL despite the fact that they sometimes have some
semantic change which may cause them to be false friends. False friends
according to Baker (1992:25) are words or expressions share the same form
in two or more languages but the meanings they convey are different.
Historically or culturally related languages such as English, French, and
German, are often rich of these false friends. However, they also abound
among totally unrelated languages such as English, Japanese, and Russian.
3- Literal translation: according to Vinay and Darbelnet this is word-for-
word translation and it is very common among languages of the same
family (Munday, 2001:57). According to Vinay and Darbelnet (2000:86) it
is a direct transfer of a SL text into a grammatically and idiomatically
appropriate TL text. In this translation the role of the translator is restricted
only to conform to the linguistic servitudes of the TL.
Oblique (free) translation covers four strategies:
1) Transposition: interchange of the parts of speech that do not affect
meaning, a noun phrase (aprs son dpart) literally ( --'- --) for a
verb phrase (after he left)( )
2) Modulation: reversal of point of view (it isnt expensive / its cheap) )
,= -' / -' ,' ,''= (
3) Equivalence : the same meaning conveyed by a different expression,
which is most useful for proverbs and idioms (vous avez une
araigne au plafond literally(you have spider on the ceiling ) is
recognizable in English as you have bats in the belfry). These two
idioms if translated into Arabic literally as ) ---'' _'= -,--= =,-' (
and ) = '-= =,-' -,-'' ( will not make sense ,but giving the
meaning of this idiom by using an Arabic idiom or the general
meaning of the foreign idiom will solve the problem .The above
idiom may be translated into Arabic as ,-='' - =,= ,-'
4) Adaptation: cultural references may need to be altered to become
relevant (ce nest pas juste literally (`-= ,') for its not
cricketliterally (- -' --,' '+-')) (Vinay and Darbelnet 2000: 84-
Two other important features arise from the work of Vinay and
Darbelnet. The first of these is the idea of servitude, which refers to the
compulsory changes from ST to TT; and option, which refers to the
personal choices the translator makes, such as the modulation example
above. Option is an important element in translation because it allows for
possible subjective interpretation of the text, especially literary texts
(Munday, 2001: 59-60). Catford and Translation Shifts
In 1965, the term shift was first applied to the theory of translation by
Catford in his work A Linguistic Theory of Translation. He states that
shifts are departures from formal correspondence in the process of going
from the SLT to the T LT. Two major types of shift occur: level shifts
and category shifts (Catford, 1965:73). Here, he discusses two types of
1- Level shifts: in which a SL item at one linguistic level has a TL
translation equivalent at a different level (ibid.: 73). Examples are
many in this regard an example of aspect in Russian being translated by
a lexical verb in English: e.g. igrat' (to play) and sigrat' (to finish
playing) (Munday 2001:61).
2- Category shifts, according to Catford (1965:75), refer to unbounded
and rank-bound translation. Unbounded is approximately normal or
free translation in which SL-TL equivalences are established at
whatever rank is appropriate.
There are four types of category shifts structural shifts (in French the
definite article is almost always used in conjunction with the noun); class
shifts (a shift from one part of speech to another); unit or rank (longer
sentences are broken into smaller sentences for ease of translation);
selection of non-corresponding terms (such as count nouns). His systematic
linguistic approach to translation considers the relationship between textual
equivalence and formal correspondence. Textual equivalence is where the
TT is equivalent to the ST, while formal correspondence is where the TT is
as close as possible to the ST (Munday, 2001:60f).
2.3.2 Functional Theories of Translation
This approach, also called skopos theory or action oriented theory. In
this approach, the importance of real world circumstances is strongly
acknowledged. Here, the translators choice is always conditioned by the
client. This approach sees the translation process as a profession.
Consequently, the notion of equivalence is seen as irrelevant and forces of
society which have dominant power overwhelm and guide the translation to
its ultimate purpose. Therefore, social systems are very important as they
influence translation through macrolevels. Objective or skopos is the
central element of any translation and the final text has to attain in the
target culture.
This approach is followed by translation theorists such as Katherina Reiss,
Justa Holz-Mntri, Christiane Nord and Hans Vermeer (Venuti 2000:43). Text Type
In the 1970s, the work of the German linguist and translation theorist
Katharina Reiss which draws on the concept of equivalence focuses on
the text level as the level at which communication is achieved and at which
equivalence must be sought rather than word or sentence (Reiss, 1977/89:
113-14 cited in Munday, 2001:73). Reiss suggests that the most important
invariant in translation is the text type to which the source text belongs; as
it determines all other choices a translator has to make. She proposes three
basic text types on the basis of Buhler's three language functions: content-
oriented, form-oriented, and appeal-oriented texts (House, 2001:198).
Reiss (2000:26-7) classifies text types according to their main
characteristics as:
1- Informative: when a text is used to convey basically, information, facts,
opinions, etc. In this text type the language dimension that is used to
convey information is logical or referential and the main focus is the
2 Expressive: the focus of the author here is on the aesthetic dimension
of language. Both author and form of the message are foregrounded.
3- Operative: the function is appellative to persuade the reader or receiver
of the message to act or behave in a certain way. The usual form of
language is dialogic.
4 -Audiomedial texts supplement the other three functions with visual
images, music, etc., such as films and visual and spoken advertisements.
Reisss (ibid.:27) addition of a fourth group of texts which she calls them
audiomedial type is to represent texts that are written to be spoken or
sung so they are just heard by their audience and not read. This requires
some extra-linguistic medium which is in its turn represents another factor
that integrates with that complex of literary blend.
The main problem of the idea of text types is that it can often be difficult to
decide which function a text serves, since most texts are a combination of
them. Reiss accepts the existence of such blended texts, but she says that
one should translate a text based on its predominant function, but this is
may also be difficult to find and decide. But, as Munday writes, Reiss's
work is important because it moves translation theory beyond a
consideration of lower linguistic levels [...] towards a consideration of the
communicative purpose of translation (Munday, 2001:75). Skopos Theory
Skopos is a Greek word whose basic meaning is aim or purpose. This
word was introduced into translation theory in the 1970s by Hans J.
Vermeer to represent a technical term that denotes the purpose of a
translation and of the action of translating. Grundlegung einer allgemeine
Translations theorie ( Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation) is
considered as the major work on Skopos theory that Vermeer co-authored
with Reiss in writing it (Reiss and Vermeer cited in Munday,
2001:80f).This theory can be regarded as a part of the Holz-Manttari's
theory of translational action. It deals with a translational action which is
ST-based and has a purpose and a result in which the action has to be
negotiated and performed. The main focus of Skopos theory is on the
purpose of the translation, which specifies the translation methods and
strategies to be implemented to produce a functionally adequate
(Munday, 2001:78f). According to Hatim (2009:39f), the
skopos or function in this theory, which is intended to the target context, is
the determinant factor to the way in which the target text is shaped up. This
strategy does not go in the same direction of equivalence-based procedures;
what is important is the end no matter what is the means. This attitude is
based on two key concepts in pragmatics namely, intention and action,
which are represented as two skopos rules and as follows:
Skopos Rule1: interaction is determined by its purpose.
Skopos Rule 2: purpose varies according to the text receiver.
According to Anderman (2007:55) Vermeers Skopos theory considers the
purpose laid down by a client or the translators themselves as a dominant
factor on the translation which is always accompanied, implicitly or
explicitly, by a set of specifications .These specifications are pertaining to
the method through which the source text should be rendered whether it
should be translated faithfully, paraphrased or completely re-edited.
The main rules of this theory according to Reiss and Vermeer are:
1 -A translatum (or TT) is determined by its skopos.
2- A TT is an offer of information (Informationsangebot) in a target culture
and TL concerning an offer of information in a source culture and SL.
3-A TT does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way.
4- A TT must be internally coherent.
5- A TT must be coherent with the ST.
6- The five rules above stand in hierarchical order, with the skopos rule
(Reiss and Vermeer cited in Munday, 2001:79)
As other translation theories , Skopos theory faced criticism in respect to its
claim of being a general theory for translation because as seen by some
critics it is only valid for non literary texts while literary texts have either
no definite purpose or are very much stylistically sophisticated .On the
other hand it faced also some criticism for its negligence of some aspects of
the linguistic nature of the source text and its micro-levels which in fact
produce inadequate stylistic and semantic reproduction of the ST in TT.
Vermeer defends her theory by stressing that the purpose already exists in
every action even in the case of a poem for example ,the poet may aim
through which to gain money or introduce his work for arts sake
(r.f) The TT which is the result of the translating action
(Munday, 2001:81). According to Venuti (2000:217), Vermeer considers
the translators skopos or aim as a decisive element in any translation
project. What he tries to argue is that the skopos is an intention which is
complexly defined. The divergence between textual realization and the
source text is likely to happen if to reach a set of addressees in the target
language and culture. The most important factor conducive to the success
of a translation is its appropriateness to the addressees situation and, in
such a case, there are no entirely predictable responses to a text since this
will depend on the type of audience and potential addressees.
As an ethical limitation to radical functionalism, Nord ( 1997: 124ff)
introduced the idea of loyalty, arguing that translators as mediators
between two cultures have a special responsibility with respect to the
following parties: (1) source-text authors (who have a right to demand
respect for their personal choices and intentions), (2) commissioners (who
want a particular type of translation), and (3) target-text receivers (who
expect a particular relationship between source and target texts). The
translators special responsibility results from the fact that very often, the
commissioner, the source-text author and the target-text receiver are not
able to check whether the translation is compatible with the authors
intentions; they have to trust the translator.
2.3.3 Discourse and Register Approaches to
Translation Theory
Discourse analysis emerged as prominent in translation studies in the
1990s.It looks at the way language communicates meaning as well as
investigating the influences of social and power relations. Halliday's
systemic functional model is the main model which influenced the works
of known linguists such as Juliane House's (1997) Translation quality
Assessment: A Model revisited ; Mona Baker's (1992) In Other Words ;
and the two works by Basil Hatim and Ian Mason: Discourse and the
Translator (1990) and The Translator as Communicator (1997) (Munday,
2001:89f). It studies an extensive range of different activities, varies from
examining and analyzing words such as oh or well and their use in
daily talk, to the investigating of the ideologies prevailing in certain
cultures and their manifestation in the practices of a society on the
educational and political levels. Investigating the structure of the discourse
would tell us what are the main characteristics of a well formed text, the
cohesion, coherence and what makes this text type distinctive from other
types (Yule, 1996:83f). Based on this mounting importance to the study
and analysis of translation according to this approach, there will be a
review of the most pertaining models to the current research starting with
the main one of Hallidays on which the other models are based. Linguists
such as Juliane House, Mona Baker, Basil Hatim and Ian Mason have
basically adopted discourse and register approach to build up much more
developed theory of translation. The Hallidayan Model of Language and Discourse
According to the Hallidayan approach, three macro-functions of
language are involved and they account for content (ideational), the
relationship between speaker and addressee (interpersonal) and the
cohesive links necessary to achieve text cohesion (textual) (Anderman,
Language according to Halliday is an interplay of action and reflection
and of the interpersonal and the experiential metafunctions". He states that
whenever one speaks or writes in every daily practices he forms certain
aspect of experience and enacts a kind of interpersonal force (Halliday,
This vision of Halliday to language has shaped his model of discourse
analysis which is based on systemic functional grammar. It focuses on the
study of language as communication. He sees that interrelation between the
surface-level realizations of the linguistic functions and the sociocultural
framework which imposes a considerable influence on the process of
translation (Munday, 2001:90).
This new approach was developed by Michael Halliday and his colleagues
in Britain during 1960s and 1970s which addresses language as a text.
Halliday (1981: 326) states, in the description of his approach, that what he
means by a functional theory of language is the attempt to explain the
linguistic structure and linguistic phenomena through the role language
plays in certain aspects of our lives and therefore it is required to meet
certain universal types of demand.
This social theory of language owes its existence to a variety of sources.
But the main contributors to its formation were Malinowski (1923, 1935)
who believed in the crucial importance of the cultural context; Malinowski
referred to this as the context of situation; Firth (1935) who sees that
meaning is the ground on which linguistics is based and should be viewed
in terms of function in context (Hatim and Mason, 1990:36f).What is
seen here is a new vision to the way by which one should approach his
subject matter .Language is no more seen as a static and a mere defined
structures submissive to the fixed rules of grammar and syntax. But it is
flexible and perceived properly under certain contexts and situations
influenced by a huge system of cultural norms and social conventions
which are definitely variable. In this case as one approaches his translation,
it is necessary to study and analyze the environment besetting the discourse
to adequately rendering the linguistic signs along with their socio-cultural
associations, as much as possible, from one language into another.
Halliday (1985) suggests three contextual features which can be realized by
the functional components of the semantic system: field, mode, and tenor.
Each of these variables are related to one of the three metafunctions of the
semantic discourse, namely; ideational, interpersonal and textual (Munday,
These realizations are stated by Eggins cited in (ibid.) as follows:
a. The field of discourse which is expressed through the ideational function
has the general sense of what the discourse is all about.
b. The tenor of discourse which is expressed through the interpersonal
function, concerns itself with the social relationships of the participants in
the discourse.
c. The third contextual feature is the mode of discourse. It is realized by the
textual function of language and reflects the medium of the interactive
process of language.
The influence of social and cultural variables on the process of translation is
illustrated through the following diagram in which the sociocultural elements
occupy the top of the figure:
Sociocultural environment


(field, tenor, mode)

Discourse semantics
(ideational, interpersonal, textual)

(transitivity, modality, theme-rheme/cohesion)
Figure 2.1 genre and register relation to language from (Munday 2001:90)
In this respect Hatim and Mason (1990:49) explain that the mode of
discourse is the manifestation of the language code nature and how it is
used whether speech or written or other related permutations such as
written to be spoken, etc.
The close links between the lexicogrammatical patterns and the
metafunctions make it clear that the analysis of patterns of transitivity,
modality, thematic structure and cohesion in a text shows undoubtedly
how the metafunctions are working and how the text means (Munday,
2001:91). House's Model of TQA
The effect of the Hallidayan model enabled Juliane House to put
forward one of the first functional-pragmatic models for evaluating
translations quality in 1977/ 1997, focusing on a retrospective comparison
of source and target texts. She attracted the attention to the importance of
ST in order to hold a comparison between the ST and TT. In this way she
rejected the more target-audience oriented notion of translation
appropriateness as fundamentally misguided and considered the right
way to achieve a good assessment of translation is through ST-TT
comparison (Munday, 2001:92). Houses systemic-functional translation
evaluation model has not only [...] shed light (often for the first time) on a
number of important theoretical issues (Hatim, 2001: 96), but has also
[...] provided translation [...] practitioners and researchers with a useful
set of tools (ibid., emphasis added).
One of the earliest applications of the concept of register to translation was
provided by House (1981), who showed how register parameters such as
medium and social role relationship support the two major text functions
(ideational: conveying ideas, and interpersonal: relating author, text and
reader) and how a translation can be based not only on a semantic match
but also on a degree of register match or mismatch. In this way it is easy to
present a simplified model of register with three parameters namely; tenor
which refers to who is taking part[],the nature of the participants, the
addresser and the addressee ,and the relationship between them in terms of
social power (House, 1997:108). The mode which represents the channel
through which the communication is carried out and can, in this way,
identify the degree of participation of the reader in the text, and domain
which generally links in some way between function and genre (Baker,
2001:123-4). House (1997:39-42) proposes, for the purpose of translation
quality assessment, a model called situational dimensions model on the
basis of which the quality of translations can be assessed. Basically, the
model is based on Crystal and Davy's (1969:66) system of situational
dimensions which is eclectically adapted to serve as a tool for translation
quality assessment. The situational dimension model as presented by House
is illustrated below:
A. Dimensions of Language User:
1. Geographical Origin
2. Social Class
3. Time
B. Dimensions of Language Use:
1. Medium { Simple
2. Participation { Simple
3. Social Role Relationship
4. Social Attitude
5. Province
These above dimensions are incorporated into an adapted Hallidayan
model of register analysis of field, tenor and mode and the figure 2.2 below
shows this revisited model which can be applied to analyze both ST and TT
to provide an assessment for the quality of the translation.
Figure 2.2 Analysis and comparison scheme of the original and translated texts (House 1997:108)
(Generic Purpose)
Subject matter
and social action
Participation relationship
-authors provenance and
- social role relationship
- social attitude
- Medium
- Participation
As suggested by House (1997), the functional pragmatic model focuses
on three aspects of that meaning which are particularly important for
translation: semantic, pragmatic and textual aspects. In this way translation
is viewed as the recontextualization of a text in one language by a
semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in another one.
For the purpose of TQA, House (1997: 29, 66-71) makes a distinction
between two types of translation, overt and covert, based on the kind of
texts translated. She uses the notion overt translation of a translation which
is source-culture-specific, tied to the source language culture, and has a
second level function for the contemporary addressees as a window into
another culture. Overt translation maintains the features typical to the
original, and thus enables observation of the source culture from the target
culture via language. Overt translation is desirable for instance in works
that are culturally highly esteemed. Covert translation, on the other hand,
produces translations that are not tied to the source language culture, but
are target-culture-specific and maintain the function of the original text.
Functional equivalence is attainable only in covert translation.
Accordingly, in overt translation the translator is a mediator, and in covert
translation he/she recreates the function of the original in the target culture
(ibid.: 163). This is done with the help of a cultural filter, with which
changes along various pragmatic parameters are conducted (ibid.: 29, 74-
75). The change can involve, for example, the marking of social role
relationship between author and reader in such a way that it follows the
expected level of formality in the target culture.
Houses model revisited (1997) is commonly applied in translation quality
assessment by doing the following chronological steps:
(1) Doing a register analysis to get the source text profile
(2) Describing source text genre realized in register
(3) Giving a statement of function to the source text related with ideational
and interpersonal meaning
(4) Doing the same thing to the target text as the source text was treated
(5) Comparing the two texts profiles to produce a statement of
mismatches which is categorized according to the genre and the
situational dimension of the genre and register. The errors found are
categorized into covertly erroneous errors and overtly erroneous
(6) Providing a statement of quality with reference to the translation result
(7) Categorizing the translation result into two kinds: overt translation and
covert translation (Munday, 2001:93).
House (2009:36) states that translation involves the movement of texts
across time and space. Each movement of a text results in a shift from
one discourse world into another which ultimately relates to a different
sociocultural reality. If the movement occurs when the original
sociocultural frame is left intact as possible one can say that this kind of
translation is an overt translation. In this kind of translation the translated
text is obviously a translation and not as it were a second original because
it has a different functional equivalence or at best a second level of
functional equivalence. The reason is that the equivalence in this case is
made to merely give the new readers an access to the function of the
original but with new language and new discoursal world. The example set
by House for this kind of translation is the historic speeches delivered by
famous persons in different times and situations where readers know that
those speeches were not meant to them but for other addressees. The
equivalence in this case would be only partial and second-hand (ibid.: 37).
As for the second kind of translation namely, the covert translation; House
(ibid.) sees that the translator should try to recreate an equivalent
sociocultural event. The translation in this case should be read as if it were
an original and not a translation. In this kind of translation the full
equivalence is sought, therefore, the original text may be manipulated to fit
in the new culture by using a cultural filter. The new text may appear of a
considerable distance from the original but share the same genre and
individual texts functional profile. An example of this kind of translation
is the translation of advertisements which should act as if they were
original to convey the same persuasive function in the target culture. It is
clear from the above discussion that the covert translation equivalence of
Houses is similar, as Newmark (2009:30) states, to the functional
equivalence of Nidas and communicative translation of Newmarks but
with much emphasis on the culture differences on the part of Houses.'s Text and Pragmatic Analysis
Halliday & Hasan (1976:2ff) take the view that the primary determinant
of whether a set of sentences do or do not- constitute text depends on
cohesive relationships within and between the sentences. These cohesive
relationships create texture that is a characteristic of a text whereas non-
text has no texture. These cohesive relationships within a text are set up
where there is a kind of dependency of an element, in the discourse, on
another for its interpretation. The relation would be of presupposition; one
presupposes the other for effective decoding. Halliday and Hasan (ibid.:4)
consider cohesion as a semantic concept and refers to relations of
meaning which exist within the text and by these relations a certain stretch
of language can be considered as a text.
Baker (1992:10,82,119,217), discusses the notion of equivalence at
several levels, inclusive of the word level, the grammatical equivalence, the
textual equivalence, and the pragmatic equivalence. Pragmatics according
to Baker (ibid:217) is the study of language in use. It is the study of
meaning, not as produced by the linguistic system but as presented and
manipulated by those who participate in a given a communicative
situation. Consequently, pragmatics is seen as the study of the relationships
between linguistic forms and the users of those forms. In this three-part
distinction, only pragmatics allows humans into the analysis. The
advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk about
peoples intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and
the kinds of actions (for example, requests) that they are performing when
they speak (Yule, 1996:4). The big disadvantage is that all these very
human concepts are extremely difficult to analyze in a consistent and
objective way.
Baker (1992: 5f,12-15,19-42) views equivalence as a relative concept
influenced by linguistic and cultural factors. She distinguishes referential
and propositional aspects of communication from speaker attitudes and
other elements of the utterance situation. Translation strategies are
described for communicating implicit attitudes, as well as for dealing with
culture-specific referents and language-specific constraints on
lexicalization and grammaticalization. The value or significance of
expressions is linked to the principle of markedness: the speakers choice
of expression from among sets of terms. Equivalence in translation is
illustrated with a broad range of linguistic phenomena: at the level of lexis,
collocation, syntax, theme and information structure, and cohesion and
She (ibid.: 222-240) also draws attention to the fundamental centricity
which appears to distinguish pragmatic theory: Grices maxims seem to
reflect directly notions which are known to be valued in the English-
speaking world, for instance sincerity, brevity, and relevance. These do not
necessarily have the same value in other cultures, nor should they be
expected to represent any ideal ground for establishing communication.
Interpreting the implicatures conveyed in rational, cooperative
communication is understood to mean exploiting each and every maxim
available in that community.
What Baker (ibid.:121f) sees is that linear arrangement of linguistic
elements has a significant role in organizing messages at text level. This
arrangement allows for, according to Bakers terms, information flow.
Her suggestion is to think of a clause as a message rather than as a string of
grammatical and lexical elements for the clause has, in addition to its
propositional organization represented in the elements such as
subject/object and agent/patient, an interactional organization which
identifies the relationship between the addresser and addressee.
According to systematic functional grammar model; language is said to
fulfill three functions: the ideational macrofunction, the interpersonal
macrofunction, the textual macrofunction. The textual function expresses
the discoursal meaning by drawing on the system and network of theme to
create text in actual communicative event. Baker makes use of the
Hallidayan model and the systemic functional terminology in her focus on
the thematic structure. Clause can be analyzed into (a) thematic structure
and (b) information structure. In this regard the Hallidayan approach makes
these two structures as separate while they are regarded as combined in the
same description according to Prague School Linguists. According to the
Hallidayan approach a clause consists of two segments one is called the
theme which is what the clause is about and the rheme which is what the
speaker says about the theme. Both theme and rheme are unlike the
subject-predicate distinction they can be used to account for the
acceptability rather than grammaticality of a given sequence in a certain
context (ibid.: 124). This means it happens that a sequence in a text
although grammatically correct but the same text can be arranged in
different ways ,without affecting its propositional content, to give different
attitudes and different interpretations. This particular point is very
important in translation practices. In an example cited by Baker
I had nothing against
I saw how Brian Basham of
I saw how the well-documented material containing the truth
This repetition of the pronoun I serves as a thematic focus and definitely
has an impact and effect on the receivers of the message. But while the
same thematic representation is possible in many languages that are close
to English in terms of structures that allow to put the independent pronoun
in the beginning such as French, the thematic focus and impact is to a large
extent different in languages such as Arabic which rarely use independent
pronouns (verbs in Arabic are inflected for person, number, and gender).
So despite that inflected verbs in languages such as Arabic, Spanish, and
Portuguese carry the same content of information but the effect of placing
them in theme position is not the same.
Thematic organization appears to be exploited by speakers/writers to
provide a structural framework for their discourse, which relates back to
their main intention and provides a perspective on what follows (Brown
and Yule, 1983:143).
Baker (1992: 160-7), in order to address the problem of the Hallidayan
English-oriented model of thematic analysis, accepts this and outlines the
alternative functional sentence perspective model of thematic structure,
which, because it takes into account communicative dynamism as well
as word order, may be more applicable for languages with a frequent VS
order. Nida (2001:96) states that In Other Words by Mona Baker (1992) is
exactly what its subtitle indicates, namely, a course-book on translation.
The titles of the major chapters indicate quite clearly the linguistic
Hallidayan approach to different levels and types of structures and texts:
equivalence at word level, equivalence above the word level, grammatical
equivalence, textual equivalence (thematic and information structures),
textual equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence.
2.3.4 Cultural Approaches
House (2007:8) states that in several linguistic schools of thought,
culture has been seen as strongly linked with language. In this regard
Venutis study of the ideological consequences of translator choices, cited
by Hatim and Mason (1997:145), shows that kind of normalization and
neutralization effect of the source text values and effects. It shows how
these values were being domesticated in the favor of the dominant Anglo-
American translation tradition of the last three centuries. That tradition
tried to strip the ST producers of their voice and sacrificing the ST and
foreign culture to the interest of the dominant culture.
Venuti (1995:19) believes that a translator may choose a domesticating,
assimilationist approach conforming to the values of the receiving culture,
or adopt a foreignizing strategy. He quotes Schleiermachers Lecture in
1813 as he argues that there are only two translation strategies:
There are only two. Either the translator leaves the
author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the
reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in
peace, as much as possible, and moves the author
towards him.
The domesticating strategy can be traced back to the appropriation of
Greek texts by Latin translator-poets. Venuti describes the Latin tendency
to delete culture specific referents, add Roman cultural allusions and
replace the names of the Greek poets with their own in order to pass
translations off as original. Venuti uses the term invisibility to give a
description to the translators situation and activity in the contemporary
Anglo-American culture. He states that the more fluent the translation, the
more invisible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer
or meaning of the foreign text(ibid.: 1f). He argues that using each of the
two strategies namely; domestication or foreignization is sometimes
culturally, politically and even economically determined. It is
acknowledged that, according to Lefevere (1992:6), not all features of the
original would seem acceptable to the receiving culture, or to those who
decide how the text should be translated, or the patrons who commission
a translation and publish it or those who follow up its distribution.
The interrelation between culture and language has led some
anthropologists and linguists to investigate the nature of this relation and
how it affects our perception of the world. Kramsch (1998:12-3) discusses
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which postulates that our realization and
understanding of the world is judged by the language one uses. The very
structure of the language we use influences the manner in which we think
and behave. This entails, according to this hypothesis, that universal
validity of scientific discoveries contingent upon the language in which
they are expressed(ibid.:12). This hypothesis has been criticized fiercely
because it leads to racism and prejudice and most importantly it makes the
translation across cultures and languages an impossible task; which is not.
Culture and its impact on translation is acknowledged fact, therefore,
translation theorists such as Bassnett and Lefevere dismiss most of the
translation theories that do not take the cultural factor into consideration
(Munday, 2001:127). Balcom (2006:126) sees that in order to translate
from one language into another the translator needs to be like a researcher.
He has to be acquainted with different areas of knowledge in order to find
the optimal way to translate the culturally specific content which varies
from text to another. This culturally specific content is of a little occurrence
in sci-fi and more occurrence in historical fiction, regional and dialect
In this context the cultural approaches to translation sees language and
translation as part and parcel of the whole sociocultural activity and cannot
be isolated. This idea elaborated by Hatim and Mason (1990:37-8) in their
discussion of Malinowskis context of situation theory. Malinowski had to
face the problem of the best method to interpret and portrait the cultural
activities of Melanesian peoples in the Trobriand Islands of the Western
Pacific. This is considered as a remote culture to the English speaking
community. He chose translation with commentary as the only method that
provide the text with its cultural environment. Consequently, the text would
be eligible since it would be provided with its situational context through
commentaries. This provides a proof that text alone sometimes is difficult
to be interpreted without the context in which it occurs. Some Culture-Related Problems to Translation
It is believed that culture has its acknowledged effect on translation and
continually poses some translational problems. Aziz and Lataiwish
(2000:90-9) list some of the cultural problems and put them as follows:
1- Geographical Culture: cultures may have different perceptions to
things such as climate, plants and animals. For example, summer as a
season has different cultural perception according to the geographical place
at which certain community or culture exists. A bird such as the Owl is
perceived as good omen in the western culture while it has bad omen in the
Arabic culture.
2- Religious Culture: societies differ in their religious orientation and
commitment. Generally, East cultures are stronger in their religious
commitment than the western cultures. This difference is shown clear in the
use of religious words in terms of their recurrence or their sanctity.
3- Social Culture: this is represented in the attitude of different societies
and cultures towards different issues in life, for example, love, marriage,
respect, etc.
4- Linguistic Culture: it is related to the way at which people perceive the
external world and how to distinguish its parts. The linguistic differences
among different linguistic communities are manifested in the different
number systems, different gender references. For example, Arabic has
three number system namely, singular, dual and plural whereas English has
only two namely, singular and plural. Arabic has two genders whereas
English has three namely, masculine, feminine and neutral.
All these culture-specific problems have their impact on the translation
from one language into another. They require attention of the translator as
how to bridge the gap between two languages; the source and the target
languages to achieve the communicative role.
These factors of socio-cultural nature or textual situations guide the
translation behavior according to what is called norms. Toury (2000:199),
explains how that norms have long been regarded by sociologists and
social psychologists as the translation of values or ideas that are shared
by a given community. These values are related to what is right and wrong,
adequate and inadequate, what is allowed and what is prohibited in a
certain behavioral dimension and according to particular situations.
Regularities of behavior in certain situations would help in studying them
as norms. Translation is an activity; therefore, it is also affected by the
norms and constraints of the culture in which it is conducted. This activity,
involves two languages and two cultural traditions. Toury (ibid.) lists two
elements to the value of translation:
1- being a text in a certain language, and hence occupying a position, or
filling in a slot, in the appropriate culture, or in a certain section thereof;
2 - Constituting a representation in that language/culture of another,
preexisting text in some other language, belonging to some other culture
and occupying a definite position within it.
However, norms are unstable in that they change with the situations and
elapsing of time. According to Toury (ibid.:204), At times, norms change
rather quickly; at other times, they are more enduring, and the process may
take longer. This cannot be taken as a flaw in the notion of norm or that
norms do not exist but it is an indicator of the complexity of life and its
Another cultural approach to translation is outlined by Itamar Even-Zohar
through the polysystem theory. Zohar (2000:192ff) sees that historical and
literary studies neglect for some extent the role of translation and its
position in culture and literature. Because of that, as he states:
one hardly gets any idea whatsoever of the
function of translated literature for a literature as
a whole or of its position within that literature.
Moreover, there is no awareness of the possible
existence of translated literature as a particular
literary system.
The selection of sources texts to be translated is based on certain
requirement set up by the target culture and its literary system. In addition,
the translated texts adopt certain norms, policies and behaviors which are
correlated with other home co-systems. This approach to translation does
not see translated texts as isolated from other related activities in specific
and other general aspects of culture and literary activities. It investigates
the position of the translated text within a more general multi- tier system.
The position of the translated texts may ranging according to this theory
from the center of the polysystem when both principles and elements of
the source literature are introduced into the home literature which did not
exist there before. In case of the works of translation which do not bring
innovative touches to the target literature they take a peripheral position in
the polysystem.
Chupter 1hree
Translation Quality Assessment
Assessment or evaluation of something is to examine it thoroughly and
finally give the concluding result as an opinion whether subjective or objective
based on certain approved scales and measures. TQA in this sense presupposes
a theory of translation which in this case provides these acknowledged rules and
measures on which the evaluation process runs its course. Thus, different views
of translation itself lead to different concepts of translation quality, and
different ways of assessing it. It is until recently translation criticism largely has
been anecdotal and spontaneous rather than systematically configured and to a
large extent based on presuppositions which vary from one critic to another
(Willss 1982:216). According to Newmark (1988:181-2) evaluation of
translation is seen to achieve five purposes:
(a) To improve the standards of translation
(b) To provide an object lesson for translators
(c) To throw light on ideas about translation at particular times and in
particular subject areas
(d) To assist in the interpretation of the work of significant writers and
significant translators
(e) To critically assess semantic and grammatical differences between
SL and TL
This field is not new among the fields of enquiry and what distinguishes it is
the increasing interest of a broad range of practitioners, researchers and
organizations. Honig cited in Williams (2004: xiiif) explains why various
groups need TQA. He classifies those groups concerned into the following:
1- Users: they want to know if they can trust the rendition of the translators.
2- Professional translators: to ensure their superior market of high quality
translations rather than being unable to sell their products because of the
amateur translators who work for very little money.
3- Translatological research: to get an esteemed position among the practicing
translators by having established criteria for TQA.
4- Trainee of translation: to evaluate their work according to valid and
systematic procedures and criteria.
In this chapter there will be a review of the most relevant influential
approaches pertaining to TQA, their merits and demerits and consequently
choose the most appropriate model to be applied to the assessment of the
selected three Arabic translations, the subject matter of the present thesis.
3.1. Approaches to TQA
There are different TQA models, each introducing new ideas and novel
ways to assess the quality of a translated work. These models, however,
approach this task differently based on those theoretical frameworks to assess a
translated work integratively, discretely, or a mix of them. Approaches to TQA
are seen according to House (2009a:43-57) as comprising a number of
identified categories: Anecdotal and subjective, including neo-hermeneutic
approaches which focus on the process of interpretation in translation; the
response-based behavioral view and the different target-text views of
translation evaluation, are in the same line with approaches that emphasize
the individual, social, cultural, and ideological variables involved in
interpreting texts; the linguistically-oriented views of translation that focus on
the original text are closely linked to the analytic framework for text analysis
and comparison.
3.1.1 Anecdotal and subjective approaches
Anecdotal and subjective views have long been offered to the quality of
translation by translators, philosophers, philologists, writers and many others
through the course of their work and practical experience. What is seen in this
regard is that each and every one who practices the task of translation prescribes
a list of recommendations to be followed by the new translators. These are
basically based on subjective evaluation and individual taste of what a good
translation should look like and what it should not. Here the core problem in a
treatment of such kind as stated by House (ibid.: 43) is the prevalence of
concepts such as faithfulness to the original, or the natural flow of the
translated text. Such intuitive treatments of translation quality are theoretical in
nature, and the possibility of establishing general principles for translation
quality is generally not applicable. The quality of a translation based on this
view is basically dependable on the ability of the translator to realize the
intention of the writer through the text and the interpretation of the reader to it.
Proponents of this approach tend to see the quality of a translation as dependent
on the translators personal knowledge, intuitions and artistic competence.
Snell-Hornby (2006:6) discusses the role of Schleiermacher and his
contribution to this approach. She believes that his works and writings have
not got the deserved attention, therefore, most of them are not well-known. She
(ibid.) cited Salevsky as he gives a summary of the basic ideas of this
hermeneutic approach as they were outlined by Schleiermacher and as follows:
A. Any utterance can only be understood from the
perspective of the entire life context to which it belongs, as
an aspect of the speaker's life that is dependent on all other
aspects of his life, and the latter can only be determined by
taking into account the sum total of the settings which
determine his development and future existence.
B. Any speaker can only be understood through the prism
of his nationality and the age in which he lives.
(Rubberdt and Salevsky cited in Snell-Hornby, 2006:6)
Schleiermacher, according to the above two points, confirms the subjective
experience and cultural context in which the speaker and the receiver live and
their role in the overall understanding of the message being conveyed. House
(2009b:222) discusses the subjective and intuitive view of TQA adopted by
the neo-hermeneutic approach in the recent years by some scholars such as
Stolze. In this view, the hermeneutic interpretation, of the whole process of
translation including the source text and the translated versions, is individual,
creative and does not obey systematization, generalization and the development
of rules. A good translation is achievable when the translator identifies
himself/herself with the text and the author (ibid.). Stolze (2003: 11) has
pointed out that translation studies so far have foregrounded models of the
translation process. Consequently, she suggests tackling the problem of
translation according to a hermeneutic point of view which means the point of
view represented by the translator. The focus should be on the way the
translator approaches his text, and on the theoretical motivation for the expert
translational action (ibid.). She expresses her regret that different proposed
models in translation studies (process-, action-, thought-oriented, etc) have
only considered the implicit factors whereas the translator, the doer
himself, as a person, has not been regarded in these models (ibid.: 31). Even
that we agree upon the fact that translator plays the main role in this
complicated process of translating but what is not clear is how can we measure
the quality of translation where no objective measures can intervene to provide
clear cut distinctions between these ramified subjective evaluations, basically
because it is mostly based on individual assessments extracted from individual
experiences. House (2009a:44) sees as mutually exclusive those stated below
requirements by Savory (1968) for TQA of a good translation. These
requirements cannot produce a good evaluation for the quality of the translated
1 -A translation should be a word for word rendering of the original.
2 -A translation should give the ideas of the original.
3 -A translation should read like an original work.
4- A translation should read like a translation.
5 -A translation should reflect the style of the original.
6 -A translation should reflect the style of the translator.
7- A translation should read like a contemporary of the original.
8- A translation should read like a contemporary of the translator (House,
House (1997:2) criticizes this trend of attitude and sees that this view does
not strive to set up criteria for the assessment of translation that can be
empirically verified or at least approximating something like intersubjective
reliability. Instead, the adherents of this approach believe that human factor is
the main player regarding the quality of translation. The comprehension and
interpretation of the original, the competence and knowledge are all the
properties of the translator as is seen by the neo-hermeneutic approach. In this
approach the hermeneutic understanding and interpretation of the original text
and the woven texture of the translated text are but individual, creative acts
that principally recalcitrant to systematization, generalization and rule giving
3.1.2 Response-Oriented, Psycholinguistic Approaches
This approach is based on determining the dynamic equivalence (DE), the
famous notion introduced by Nida (1964) between source and translation. Nida
(1964:120) sees that language consists of more than mere meaning of symbols
or their combinations but rather a code in operation. The code functions for a
certain purpose and therefore the transmission of a message should by in terms
of a dynamic dimension. He (ibid.) suggests five factors as necessary in any
communication process and as follows:
1- The subject matter
2- The participants who engage in the communication
3- The speech act or the process of writing
4- The code used (the language in question)
5- The message (how the subject matter encoded into specific symbols) (ibid.)
In order to communicate a message according to Nida (1964:122) there are
two processes, namely, the process of producing a message and the process of
receiving a message. The relationship, as Nida (ibid.: 159) argues, Between
receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed
between the original receptors and the message.
According to Snell-Hornby (2006:8), Nida and the skopos theorists who
followed him look at language as part and parcel of culture, words are
representations of symbols of cultural phenomena. Consequently when there are
differences of the symbols between cultures, and hence languages, translation
no more can be considered as a process of producing exact equivalents of words
in the target language. In this effect Nida and Taber (1969:12) confirm that
translating mainly is a process by which the closest natural equivalent of the
source-language message is reproduced in the receptor language in terms of
meaning and then in terms of style. This undoubtedly will lead to radical
departures from the notion of formal equivalence (FE), leading to what Nida
calls dynamic equivalence. Pyme (2010:8) illustrates the two notions of
Nidas namely, FE and DE by giving an example in the Spanish martes 13.
(in Spanish it is culturally connotes that Tuesday 13 is a bad-luck day ) which
might either be translated into English as Tuesday 13 (formal equivalent) or
Friday 13 (dynamic equivalent since in the English culture the Friday 13 is
the bad-luck day).
Another illustration of how DE might work is given by Snell-Hornby
(2006:8) who cited Pruncs example: Give us this day our daily bread; bread,
here represents the staple food for the culture and community in which this
request is made but in other cultures where the staple food is something else it
might be rendered by fish or rice if these are the staple food. Accordingly,
formal equivalence seeks the exactness of reproducing the SL surface structures
in the TL; whereas dynamic equivalence focuses on evoking a similar response
in the TL as that obtained in the SL (Nida and Taber, 1969: 24).
According to House (2009a:44), proponents of these views seek more reliable
and verifiable ways of determining when and why a translation is good. The
psychological school of behaviorism has exerted its influence on these views. In
this sense translation evaluation is linked to the effect a translation is supposed
to have and adopts The claim that a translation is good when it arouses in its
recipients the same effect as the original hada demand which is at first sight
dauntingly difficult to verify empirically.
Newmark (1988:132-3) considers the principle of equivalent effect as becoming
superordinate both in translation theory and practice and the basic guide for
translators in their work. He criticized those who either biased to stylistic or
content side of the message. Communicative orientation is well considered by
Response-Oriented Approaches in the evaluation of translations where the focus
is on determining the DE (Nida, 1964) between source and translation, i.e. the
manner in which receptors of the translated text respond to it must be equivalent
to the manner in which the receptors of the source text responded to the source
Nida (1964: 182) suggests three criteria for an optimal translation: general
efficiency of the communicative process, comprehension of intent, and
equivalence of response. Nida and Taber (1969:173) propose another set of
criteria: the correctness with which the message of the original is understood
through the translation, the ease of comprehension and the involvement a
person experiences as a result of the adequacy of the form of the translation.
They (ibid.:33) see the system of translation as consisting of a more elaborate
procedure and comprising three stages: (1) analysis, in which the surface
structure i.e., the message as it is given in language A, can be analyzed in terms
of (a) the grammatical relationships (b) the meanings of the words and
combinations of words, (2) transfer, in which the analyzed material is
transferred in the mind of the translator from language A to language B, and (3)
restructuring, in which the transferred material is restructured to achieve the full
acceptability of the final message in the target language.
This approach may be illustrated in the following diagram:
Fig.3.1 three-phase system of translating process adapted from (Nida &Taber 1969 :33)
But the tests suggested for implementing such criteria, such as cloze tests or
elicitation of a receptor's reactions to different translations, are not rigorous
enough to be considered theoretically valid or reliable (House, 2009a:45), (see
House, 1997:4ff). According to Nida and Tabers (1969:169) Cloze test is
administered as follows:
In its written application the Cloze Technique provides the
reader with a text in which every fifth word is deleted and a
blank space is left in its place. The reader is then asked to
fill in those words which seem to fit the context best.
Obviously, the greater the number of correct guesses, the
easier the text is to comprehend, for the greater is its
predictability [ ]. In general, one only needs about fifty
such blanks in any text [] to provide a very satisfactory
guide as to the relative comprehensibility of the text.
The predictability here is tackled on the side of the translation only, which
means negligence of the original text which may be of a little predictability.
Consequently, what is obtained is a test of the comprehensibility of the text in
isolation and not a test of translation equivalence at all (House, 2009a:45).
A (SCu8CL) 8(8LCL1L8)
Generally, this ignorance of the essence of any translation which lies in the
existence of an original text leaves this approach with nothing to say with
regard to the relationship between ST and TT , whether the text is a translation
or another version, an adaptation or another secondary textual product derived
from an original one (House, 1997:6).
3.1.3 Text-Based Approaches
Since Text-based approaches consider text as the main focus of its analysis
and study, therefore, linguistics, comparative literature or functional models can
provide the tools and material for these approaches.
House (1997:6) argues that these approaches may be informed by comparative
literature, philosophy and sociology, theories of action and reception and
linguistics. Literature oriented Approaches: Descriptive Translation Studies
In fact the term translation studies was introduced by Holmes in the Third
International Congress of Applied Linguistics (Copenhagen,1972), in his paper
entitled The Name and Nature of Translation Studies in which he outlined a
full-scale scientific discipline which should concern itself with all issues related
to translation (Toury, 1995:7). According to Holmes (2000:176) translation
studies has two preliminary objectives:
(1) To describe the phenomena of translating and translation.
(2) To establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be
explained and predicted.
These objectives can be realized by what he calls Descriptive Translation
Studies and theoretical translation studies (ThTS) or translation theory (TTh)
He (ibid.) defines Descriptive Translation Studies, as follows:
the branch of the discipline which constantly maintains the
closest contact with the empirical phenomena under study.
There would seem to be three major kinds of research in DTS,
which may be distinguished by their focus as product-oriented,
function-oriented, and process-oriented.
According to Angelelli and Jacobson (2009:1), Toury establishes a frame work
to refer to two types of translations by using two terms namely, adequacy to
refer to the translation which closely adheres to the norms of the source culture,
and the second term acceptability to denote translations that respond to the
norms of the target culture.
According to House (1997:6), researchers in this approach see literary
translation as a part of the polysystem of the target culture literature. Toury
looks at translations as facts of one system only; which is the literary system of
the target culture. According to him, it determines how the issue of TQAis to be
tackled by criticizing the translated text without reference to the source text.
Toury (1995:1) believes that real life rather than theoretical preconceived
hypotheses that constitutes the subject matter of a proper discipline of
translation studies. He thinks that the position or function of a translation within
the target culture should be considered as a powerful governing factor of the
very make-up of the product, whether in terms of underlying models, linguistic
representation, or both. He (ibid.: 12) states that translators and their products
are strongly guided by the requirements of the target culture and its linguistic
system. Even when there are some features in the source text that have some
importance and therefore should be retained, he sees these features as important
not because they have inherent importance but because they are important from
the recipient vantage view.
However, this position of Toury of playing down the importance of the source
text is not taken by all the theorists in the DTS paradigm. According to House
(1997:7), Broecks work has combined text linguistic and discourse analysis
with literary concerns and his evaluation of translation is based on comparative
analysis of both the source text and target text which would be more
comprehensive and more promising if it could find its way to more than
programmatic statements.
3.1.4 Functionalistic and Action and Reception Theory
Related Approaches
This approach focuses on the translation purpose or Skopos of the translated
text as the yardstick for both translation and evaluation. Proponents of this
approach according to House (2004:83) argue that the purpose of a translation, the
manner and extent to which the cultural norms of the target language be heeded
represent the yardstick to the process of translation evaluation. Vermeer (1994) cited
in House (1997:14) states that in translating, priority has to be given to one
factor and the others have to be subjected to it - because one cannot serve two
masters at the same time. In this view he denies the existence of the source text
because the purpose of the translation should be served whatever it takes.
This is very much criticized by House (ibid.) as incompatible with the
guidelines and ethics of empirical-inductive field of inquiry.
Nord (1997:23) states that translation is carried out in concrete, definable
situations which involve members of different cultures. She has placed some
more emphasis on the ST as she realizes that a ST analysis can help the
translator decide on which method to employ. Some of the features for review
are subject matter, content, presupposition, composition, illustrations, italics,
and sentence structure. According to Nord (ibid.: 25) language is an intrinsic
part of culture. She defines translating as translational action based on some
kind of text. In her view this some kind of text is a general term includes
both verbal and non-verbal elements, situational clues and hidden or
presupposed information within this certain situation. The different cultures
may differ in their ways of verbalizing a particular text part. She gives an
example of saying, in one culture for instance, thank you the members of other
cultural community may prefer using gestures (such as putting their hands
together) instead. These views of Nord provide the translator or the critic alike
with useful tools to evaluate a given text and see how certain elements should
be tackled when certain cultural differences are critical in deciding the quality
and acceptability of a given text.
Nord in her book Text Analysis in Translation (1988/91) cited in (Munday,
2001: 81f) introduces two types of translation:
1) Documentary where the reader knows that the text has been translated
2) Instrumental where the reader believes that the translated text is an original.
She (1997:47) sees that the first has the goal of producing in the target language
a kind of a document in which a communicative interaction is communicated
between a source culture sender and a source culture audience via the source
text under source-culture conditions. The second, has the goal of producing in
the target language a kind of an instrument aims at a new communicative
interaction established between the sender of the source-culture and the
audience in the target-culture through the use of the source text as a model.
She (ibid.: 47ff) calls the function of the text, that is a result of using a
documentary translation, as a metatextual function. The kinds of translations
that fall under this type of translation are dependent on which aspect that is
more important to be observed in the target text and as follows:
1- word- for- word interlinear translation when the focus on the morphological,
lexical or syntactic features of the source-language system, e.g., translation of
comparative linguistics, etc.
2- Literal or grammatical translation when observing the structures and
idiomatic use of vocabulary according to the target language, e.g., reported
speech of foreign politicians and newspaper articles.
3- Philological and learned translation when reproducing the source text rather
literally and providing footnotes and glossaries, e.g., translation of the Bible.
4- Foreignizing or exotic translation, for example, if the translation of fictional
texts leaves intact the source culture settings of the story which gives the
target reader a feeling of the foreignness of that fiction.
On the other hand, texts which are the result of instrumental translations,
according to Nord (ibid.: 50ff), may have the same functions as those of the
original texts. In this regard Nord (ibid.) distinguishes under this type of
translation three types of translations according to the functions they perform in
the target language and as follows:
1- Equifunctional translation: if the functions of the source text and the target
text are the same such as technical texts. This corresponds to what Reiss calls it
communicative translation.
2- Heterofunctional translation: if there is a difference between the source and
target text functions.
3- Homologous translation: if the literary status of the target text within the
target- culture text corpus corresponds to that of the source text within the
source-culture text corpus. The target text in this type of translation might be
supposed to have the same degree of originality as the source text with regard to
the respective culture-specific corpora of texts. For example, the translation of
the Greek hexameter into English blank verse rather than English hexameter,
because the blank verse is more common in English poetry as the hexameter in
the Greek poetic literature.
3.1.5 Linguistically-Oriented Approaches:
According to Newmark (1988:184) translation criticism represents an
essential link between translation theory and its practice. It is an enjoyable task
when analyzing and criticizing someone elses translation or holding
comparisons between two or more translations of the same text.
He suggests (ibid.) that in order to carry out a comprehensive criticism of a
translation five topics have to be covered:
(1) A brief analysis of the SL text stressing its intention and its functional
(2) The translator's interpretation of the SL texts purpose, his translation
method and the translations likely readership;
(3) A selective but representative detailed comparison of the translation
with the original;
(4) An evaluation of the translation - (a) in the translators terms, (b) in
the critics terms;
(5) Where appropriate, an assessment of the likely place of the
translation in the target language culture or discipline.(ibid)
Concerning these five points it is noticed that they have strong connection with
the most effective models of translation assessment such as Houses model in
which an analysis of the source text is carried out, and a comparison between
the translated text and the origin. The purpose is connected with Skopos theory.
Point 5 in Newmarks list is clearly an addition from Polysystem theory
presented by Toury (1985:19).
Another advanced step in the translation theory and, by extension, the
evaluation of translation is the discourse and register analysis which examines
how language conveys meaning in a social context.
One of the proponents of this approach was Michael Halliday, who bases his
work on Systemic Functional Grammar the relationship between the language
used by the author of a text and the social and cultural setting. Halliday
(2002:227) believes that the text type influences the register of the language
the word choice and syntax. He also says that the register can be divided into
three variables:
1) Field the subject of the text
2) Tenor the author of the text and the intended reader
3) Mode the form of the text
Hatim and Mason among those who make use of the Hallidayan model of
language to examine and analyze translation as communication governed and
framed by a sociocultural context. According to Hatim and Mason (1990:3)
translating is ... a communicative process which takes place within a social
context. They (ibid.: 38) further examined and deeply investigated into those
factors of situational dimensions, namely, Register, Dialect and Ideology and
regarded them as vitally important to the analysis and development of
They (ibid.) see texts as expressions of such variation, according to two
dimensions of Dialect and Register following Halliday in his distinction.
Register is the term employed for the kind of variety which is distinguished
according to the use while dialect is distinguished according to the user i.e.
user-related varieties. Registers or Use-related varieties differ from each other
mostly in language form, for example, in grammar and lexis as it is shown in
the following example:
Distinction between
(1) I hereby declare the meeting open
(2) Shall we make a start now? (Hatim and Mason, 1990:39)
the difference is use-related while the difference in voice quality or the way a
certain vowel is pronounced when uttering (1) and (2) by an Australian, an
American or an Englishman is one of phonic medium and consequently is user-
related(ibid.). Halliday sees language varies according to the user and
according to use (see Halliday & Hasan, 1985/89: 41).
Hatim and Mason (1990) represent the distinction in language use and its
relation to translation in the following diagram:
Language variation
Use User
Register, etc dialect ,etc.
1- field of discourse 1- geographical
2-mode of discourse 2- temporal
3- tenor of discourse 3- social
4-(non- ) standard
5- idiolectal
Figure 3.2 Use-related variation (Hatim &Mason 1990:46)
Hatim and Mason (1990:39), deal with both kinds of varieties, presenting
illustrative examples connected with the activity of translation. They clearly
illustrate that User-related varieties, namely, dialects, are linked to who the
speaker or writer is. In case of language from the perspective of the user it
seems that they believe of its variation with respect to various aspects, namely:
geographical, temporal, social, (non-) standard or idiolectal factors. Indeed
these features present considerable problems to the translators who have to
tackle them with certain techniques and strategies to account for the
sociocultural consideration and their links with the linguistic aspect of the
discourse in order to take acceptable decisions for an adequate translation.
House (1997:20) sees that Hatim and Masons approach closely follows the
path which is taken by linguistics and applied linguistics by extending its scope
to include context and discourse.
In linguistically-based approaches, the comparison is held between pairs of
source and target texts. The aim is to discover syntactic, semantic, stylistic and
pragmatic regularities of transfer. House (1997:17) considers Reisss approach
(1971) as an early and influential text-based approach to translation quality
assessment. Reisss view is that the most important invariant in translation is
the text type to which the source text belongs because it controls all other
choices a translator has to make. She believes that the translator can establish
the authors intention depending on the major assistance given by the text type
which channels the process of communication (Reiss, 2000:161).
According to Nord (1997:40), Reisss work on text types makes use of, as her
starting point, Buhlers organon model of language functions namely, the
informative (referential), expressive (form-focused) and operative (appellative).
Reisss (2000) fourth typology is called audio-medial texts which supports other
three functions with visual images, music, etc., (2000:43) (see House,
2001:198). However, exactly how language functions and how source text types
can be determined, and at what level of delicacy, is left unexplained and nor the
exact procedure for source text analysis is given in another influential
publication, namely; Wilss (1982:130-2), which stresses the importance in the
textual analysis of norms of usage in the two languages communities and
argues that deviations from these norms can be taken as indicators of translation
But as it is clear that most of the texts do not follow just one text type, but in
most of the cases, it is possible to see an expressive text includes in certain
parts of its structure informative features or vice versa. Based on the above, we
cannot apply very strict determinants that exactly delineate the borders of each
text and say that this text is purely belongs to this text type or another.
Practically, in most cases a text is a mixture of text typologies. Nevertheless, it
is so helpful for the translator to know the text type or types which he/she deals
with to choose the effective method of translation .This also would be
applicable to the evaluation process since knowing the text type will help in
selecting the most significant points of each text which serve as a yardstick for
the evaluation process.
3.2 A Model Applied for Translation Assessment
It has been seen throughout this display of the most prominent models of
TQA that we still far from achieving the ultimate goal of a comprehensive,
totally objective model for assessment. This is simply because translation
phenomenon is a very complex one which in order to be identified it would be a
must to study and analyze all links and relations that create this phenomenon;
starting from, to name few, the study of language, culture, environment and all
human activities. This fact is found through most of the books, theories and
approaches dedicated to the study of translation and its assessment. Despite the
relatively different procedures and elements of assessment used by theorists and
the different amount of focus from one theorist to another, yet they share some
common grounds; they all target the goal of finding the optimal method to
assess translation. What is seen clearly is that most of the assessment theories
share, for the most part, certain vital points can be listed below:
1- Text type
2- Semantic analysis
3- Stylistic analysis
4- Extralinguistic factors which represent the pragmatic category of the analysis
5- The General Makeup of the Novel and its Translations
The first four above levels can provide the required criteria to carry out the
process of evaluation. In addition to these levels which are basically selected
from Reisss (2000) model, which is characterized by comprehensiveness and
viability, another useful level has been added namely, the general make up of
the novel and its translations which is adapted from Nord (1997). This
includes the comparison between certain features in both ST and TTs such as
italics, illustrations, the size of the translated texts in comparison with the
origin, the division of the ST and its translated texts, whether they follow the
same or different organization of the ST. All these factors are added to the
adapted model. On the other hand, the procedures which are to be followed in
the application also adapted to include the suggestions and recommendations of
most prominent translation scholars namely, Baker (1992), Newmark (1988),
Nida (1964,1969), Leppihalme (1997), Ghazala (2006), Najeeb (2005) and a
few other scholars. This is an adapted model in terms of being selective for the
most required criteria to be covered in the analysis of this particular novel.
Knowing that choosing more criteria and other levels would give undoubtedly
more insight to the nature and essence of evaluation but this, however, would be
very hard due to the scope of the study and time limitations. It is possible now
to proceed to explain these points as much as relevant to the subject matter of
this present study.
3.2.1 A Model for the Analysis of the Novel
Reiss (2000) presents a model of translation critique with specific criteria for
evaluating translations. This is divided into two main sections: the linguistic
components within the text and the extra-linguistic determinants beyond the text.
Linguistic components are defined as semantic equivalence, lexical adequacy,
grammatical correctness and stylistic correspondence, while the extra-linguistic
determinants are the immediate situation, the subject matter, the factors of time,
place, audience and speaker, and finally affective implications.
Giving the attempt of the researcher to achieve an acceptable level of objectivity
in this study, observing at the same time the limitations imposed by constraint of
time and scope of the study, only relevant levels and analysis elements have been
chosen from Reisss (2000) model. Nevertheless, relevant reference to other levels
will be made as appropriate in order to get a deeper insight in the nature of texts
chosen in this research. Admittedly, Reiss (2000:86) states that it is evident that a
comprehensive evaluation addressing all factors that influence a translation is
impossible. In the following sections an explanation of this adapted model
supported by additional information from other scholars will be provided.
Basically the adapted model will cover the following levels:
A) Text type as the literary category of translation criticism
B) Semantic level, the following elements of analysis will be discussed:
1- Lexical equivalence
2- Collocations
3- Metaphor
4- Simile
C) Cohesive devices at the textual level
1- Ellipsis
2- Substitution
3- Allusion as an intertextual device
D) Stylistic level: formal vs. informal style
Semantic, textual and stylistic elements represent the linguistic category for
translation criticism.
E) Extralinguistic determinants as a pragmatic category of translation criticism
F) The general makeup of the novel and its translations.
76 The Literary Category of Translation Criticism
Text Type
The present thesis is addressing the issue of carrying out an assessment of
three Arabic translations of the well-known William Goldings LOTF. Reiss
(2000:16) sees that it would be a mistake to judge pulp fiction and serious
literature using the same set of criteria. Also she (ibid.:17) sees that the
development of some typologies on the basis of translation techniques is self-
evident that translation methods should not be determined only by certain target
audience or the special purpose behind the translation. In his classification of
the expressive text types Newmark (1988:39) puts the novel among the first
category of serious imaginative literature along with lyric poetry, short story,
plays but he considers lyrical poetry as the most intimate expression. The
other categories include the authoritative statements like political speeches,
documents etc., and the last category include autobiography, essays, personal
correspondence. The main characteristic of the expressive type is that the
author or writer uses the utterance to express his feelings.
According to Reiss (2000:26) texts are classified into three major types with
their functions and as the following table illustrates:
Table 3.1 Adapted from Reisss text types (2000:26)
Representation Expression Persuasion
Logic Aesthetics Dialogue
Text type Content focused
(informative )
These three main types are : first, is the content-focused type (representation-
informative) which includes, press releases and comments, news, commercial
and correspondence, inventories of merchandise, instructions directions for
equipment operation and use, inventions specifications, agreements,
documents of official nature, educational works, non-fiction books of different
kinds, essays, dissertations and thesis humanities, the natural sciences, and
technical fields (ibid.: 27). In this type, i.e. informative type, the translation is
considered to be satisfactory if the topic and its essential substance are
thoroughly represented in the translation. She (ibid.:30f) suggests two criteria to
evaluate translation of this type:
1- The linguistic form of the translation can be adapted without reservation to
the requirement of the target language to guarantee the full conveying of
information content.
2- The second criterion suggested by Reiss is the thoroughness of the translation
orientation to the target language which means its dominance in this process
since information is what the reader seeks.
Second, is the form-focused type (expression-expressive): generally form
is related to how an author expresses himself which is distinct from content
that is related to what an author says (ibid.: 31). Third, Operative in which
the function is appellative to persuade the reader or receiver of the message to
act or behave in a certain way. The usual form of language is dialogic. A fourth
additional text type is called an audio-medial text. It includes texts that are
assigned to either one of the three main types, depending upon their
communicative function. It supplements the other three functions with visual
images, music, etc., such as films and visual and spoken advertisements (ibid.:
Reiss (2000:18) sees that the language used in texts other than literary texts is
a means of communication and of conveying information while in literary
prose and poetry is a tool of artistic creativity, conveying aesthetic values.
Accordingly, we can say that non-literary texts use a language that can be
characterized as being denotative while literary texts the language used is
characterized as being connotative.
Newmark (1981: 15) states that in any work of art of moral seriousness the
expressive function is most important. He also sees that this text type needs the
focus on the source text.
Reiss (2000:31-8) argues that the formal elements are exploited by the author
whether consciously or not to achieve certain aesthetic effect established by
artistic expressions. These can only be reproduced in the target language by
some analogous form of expression. These expressions include figurative
manners of speaking, proverbs, idioms, metaphors, deviations in style and
normal use of grammar and syntactic elements. She sees that, in case of
translating an artistic device such as pun, it is important as a strategy in
translating form-focused texts to create a comparable device in the target
language to convey the aesthetic function. However, it is not necessary in
content focused texts which may be satisfied with only conveying the
information content. She believes that even a single sound, even a syntactic
trait, tempo of style can constitute an important art forms. With regard to the
form-focused texts they convey, in addition to their focus on form, certain
amount of informational content but this would be secondary to the demands for
similarity of form and an equivalent aesthetic effect.
It is clear that text type for the most part not only dictates the strategy to be
followed by the translator but also paves the way for the critic to be on the same
ground with the translator. Admittedly, this does not entail that the texts obey
these typologies mentioned above but in many cases a given text is a mixture
of more than one text type with one type as being more dominant than the other
in the structure of the text.
Chesterman (1989) (cited in Munday, 2001:74) presented visually the
distribution of different texts according to Reisss text typologies. The figure
shows that reference work exemplifies the highest level of informativeness, the
poem is the highest level of expressiveness and advertisement is the highest
level of operativeness whereas the other texts ranging between these extremes
and as the following figure shows:
Expressive operative
Fig. 3.3 visual distribution of texts according to Reisss text typology adapted from
Chesterman (1989): cited in Munday (2001:74)
Llectoral speech
keference work
1ourlst brochure
Clllclal speech
Cperatlng lnstructlons
In a nutshell, knowing that novel is a narrative text with expressive function
then the focus in our assessment of the three Arabic translations would be on
their representations of the original text structures whenever possible.
According to Georges Mounin cited in Reiss (2000:48) modern translations
attempt to represent a foreign language word for word, construction for
construction, and figure for figure whenever possible. Newmark (1988:73)
states that we have to get the words right. The words must stretch and give
only if the thought is threatened But the real problem as Reiss (ibid.) believes
is when this becomes impossible. Her solution is, in case of form focused text,
is to pay more attention to the structure of the text. Linguistic Elements as a Linguistic
Category for Translation Criticism
(1) Semantic Elements
According to Crystal, semantics is A major branch of LINGUISTICS
devoted to the study of MEANING in LANGUAGE. (2003: 410, emphasis in
the original). Portner (2006:137), on the other hand, states that it focuses on
the literal meanings of words, phrases, and sentences; it is concerned with how
grammatical processes build complex meanings out of simpler ones. In
translation, in order to determine semantic equivalence, it is necessary
according to Reiss (2000:53), to examine the linguistic context and also to
understand what is intended by the expression in the source text in order to
render it into the target language. Linguistic context in its turn is of two types
according to its scope and the perspective from which a text can be seen; it is
micro-context if one starts looking from the lexical item level and up while it is
macro-context if one looks to the equivalence at the whole text level. Reiss
(ibid.) sees that the borders between both linguistic contexts are not clearly
identified. In this thesis, equivalence, for reasons of objectivity, will be sought
starting from the lexical item level and up including sentences or a series of
sentences. Fowler (1989:5) suggests that in order to analyze a text in a novel
linguistically it may be useful to utilize the analogy found between sentence and
text, he states that:
A sentence is an element, or unit ,or constituent of a text; a
text is made out of sentences in a quite ordinary sense of
made out of the categories of structure that we propose
for the analysis of individual sentences (in linguistics) can
be extended to apply to the analysis of much larger
structures in texts.
These structures i.e. lexical items, sentences and linguistic context each has
its share in carrying meaning which is to be conveyed by the translator
accurately and faithfully. Semantic analysis of both ST and TT is very
important in the evaluation of how adequately the translator has rendered the
ST into the TL. This can be seen clearly in two models introduced by
Newmark (1988:185-92), Reiss (2000) with focus on the linguistic context
that gives the lexical items their intended meaning and reduce the amount of
potential equivalents as Reiss calls them.
Reiss (2000:53) considers the semantic component of a text as a critical factor
in maintaining the content and meaning of the original text.
In this level of analysis the main focus will be the lexical, collocation,
metaphor and simile elements. The choice of these semantic elements is
justified by the fact that LOTF is famous for its literary value where lexical
items were chosen carefully and charged with huge power of description.
These lexical items carry additional symbolic meaning along with their
referential meaning which entails a due attention by the translator. Failing to
choose the right equivalent lexical item, collocation or the closest metaphorical
image in the target language would put the aaesthetic value of the original text
as well as the unique style of the author at risk. The criterion in judging the
rendering of the lexical items from the source text to the target one is, according
to Reiss (2000:57), the adequacy. This does not entail using word for word
translation to achieve a kind of literal accuracy because this would produces
some awkward target text ,because, vocabularies among languages are not in
one-to-one equivalence relation.
In a nutshell, the evaluation of the three Arabic translations on this level will
be the investigation of the semantic elements for equivalence, lexical elements
for adequacy and grammatical elements for correctness.
(2 ) Textual Level: Cohesive Devices
a- Substitution and Ellipsis
Out of five cohesive devices (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction,
and lexical cohesion) discussed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), two of them,
namely, substitution and ellipsis, have been chosen. Ellipsis is, according to
Hatim and Mason (1990:240), an omission (for reasons of economy) of
linguistic items whose sense is recoverable from context. Salkie (1995:35)
defines substitution as a cohesive device that contributes to the cohesion of a
text by substituting for words that have already been used. The most important
of these special words are one, do (or one of its variants) and so.
Knowing that English and Arabic have different tendencies with regard to how
they form a cohesive text that stands as a well formed unit, therefore, ellipsis
and substitution will be evaluated according to their function in the target
language whether their preservation would produce a good TT or not.
According to OALD (2010) allusion is what is said or written that
refers to or mentions another person or subject in an indirect way.Since
its use in the original text is to provide as much as information and
cultural context to the reader by least words, therefore, it is a very useful
device used by writers to affect the readers and set their imagination to
remote times and places. Being an intertexual device, allusion, is a very
important tool used by writers to keep their texts linked to wider sources of
enrichment from other texts by referring to historical events, geographical
places, great persons and etc. Consequently, this device is included in this level
of analysis.
(3) Stylistic Level: Formal vs. Informal Style
It is acknowledged that rendering the style of the origin is in the best of its
conditions an approximation and this has been debated by some stylisticians
such as Murry ( 1976:122) who sees that Style is organic not the clothes a
man wears, but the flesh, bone, and blood of his body. According to Leech and
Short (1981:10), there are many definitions for the word Style, but in its most
general meaning it can be defined as the way in which language is used in a
given context, by a given person, for a given purpose, and so on. Reiss
(2000:63) sees that it is very important to notice whether the translation
observed duly the differences between colloquial and standard or formal usage
of the original text. As an example, LOTF has two main styles namely informal
used by the narrator and colloquial or sometimes slang used by the characters
which represents the language used among children. The evaluation should also,
according to Reiss (ibid.), takes into consideration whether the authors stylistic
creativity deviates in certain aspects from the normal use of language.
82 Extra-Linguistic Determinants as the Pragmatic
Category of the Translation Criticism.
As seen by Reiss (2000), they radically affect both the form of the origin
and also the version in the target language. On this level of analysis, three
most influential determinants that are relevant to the subject matter are chosen
and they are as follows:
1- Subject Matter as Cato (cited in ibid.: 70) says know your subject,
and the words follow. Reiss (ibid) also agrees with Mounin who believes
that in both tasks of translation and evaluation it would not be enough to
merely know the words what is of great importance is to know what these
words are all about.
2- Audience: it is normally, according to Nord (2005:62), that the
producer of a text will exert as much effort as possible to live up to the
expectations of the addressed audience. The writer, according to Millar and
Currie (1977:17) writes for somebody or a class of people. In this regard it is
possible also to talk about the translator and his translated text as directed to
somebody or a class of people. The language quality and level and its
expressions inevitably will be affected by the type of audience.
3- Time and Place Factors
With regard to time factor, Reiss (ibid.: 71) states the following:
the translation of a 19
-century text made about the same
time cannot be judged by the same standards as a more
recent translation of the same text, because the language of
the original may not have changed, but the target language
has been developing in the meanwhile
Crystal and Davy (1969:67) see time factor as focusing on those features of
an utterance of exclusively diachronic information. This factor can provide
interesting evaluating data notably when the time gap is big between the
original text and the translated one.
On the other hand, place factor has even a greater influence on the decisions of
the translator because place factor includes many facts and features of a country
and culture of a certain source language. It also includes associations of the
scene where the actions described take place. Let us imagine what if one
received a text to be translated from as far place as Antarctica to be read to
people in the remote desert of the Sahara?! Indeed, the situation would be
difficult to explain many of those place-related vocabularies since most of
things described would be beyond the perception of those. In novel in
particular, imaginary or real worlds are described and while it is acknowledged
that imagination of the writer poses certain difficulty to the translator as regard
the imaginary things described. But it is also difficult for the translator with
limited knowledge about the real world to render thoughts, things and events
into the target language when he lacks information about them. In LOTF while
the whole story is imaginative but it imitates the real world and the one who
knows a lot about the life on the tropical islands would see the description of
the island, trees ,water and so on, as real things and would have no difficulty to
understand and enjoy the story. On the other hand, lacking of such information
would pose a real problem basically on the referential aspect of the meanings
not to mention the connotative aspect. The General Makeup of the ST and Its
The general make-up of the source text and the translated one would give us
another angle for evaluation. This is a kind of a useful tool can be used by both
the translator and the critic in doing their tasks of translation and evaluation
respectively. Nord (1997:23) suggests some features for review such as subject
matter, content, presupposition, composition, illustrations, italics, and sentence
structure. In this regard the researcher, based on these suggestions, has chosen
some related elements such as the size of the translated texts as compared to the
original text, illustrations, divisions of the chapters, contents of the ST and the
translated one and punctuation marks. This is considered to be an addition to the
main model of Reiss (2000) and will serve as another level of evaluation. Application of the Adapted Model
In this section the procedures to be followed in the application of this
eclectic adapted model to the evaluation of the three Arabic translations will be
outlined. The explanation of these procedures represents the steps in the process
of evaluation while the next chapter will provide, as much as necessary,
theoretical and application data which help better understanding of the analysis
and evaluation process. This eclectic model focuses largely on examining the
choices made by the three Arab translators and stating the merits and demerits
of each. The selected excerpts have been chosen carefully from various pages
throughout the novel. The selection process takes into consideration the
provision of satisfactory range of data to cover the following levels of
evaluation :
First) Semantic Level:
On this level, the following aspects will be evaluated:
Lexical equivalence, collocation, metaphor and simile. Samples are carefully
chosen to cover the above aspects of semantic level and as follows:
Lexical equivalence: the choices are made here based on the significance the
lexical items represent in the text, i.e., they are key to the sentences in which
they occur. The measure adopted to evaluate the choices of the translators is
based on considering lexical items as integrative units of meaning to the other
parts of the text. This means that a lexical item is considered here as part and
parcel of the whole text, therefore in order to give an objective judgement on
these choices the researcher resorts in some cases to examine the recurrence of a
lexical item in various places in the novel to see whether the translator changes
his rendition into another equivalent Arabic word or sticks to the same rendition
throughout or most of the translated text and why. To evaluate the equivalent
lexical items both referential meaning and connotative meaning are checked by
first; examining the immediate context in which the lexical item occurs whether
it matches the meaning intended by the writer, second, resorting to specialized
English and Arabic dictionaries to check different senses of the lexical item and
third, cases of synonymies, hyponyms and mistranslations are evaluated.
Collocations: on this level of semantic analysis above word level, the
collocations in the ST and their rendition in the Arabic translations are
examined. It includes the examination of the strategies adopted by the
translators in terms of realizing these ST Collocations in the TTs; do they
manage to provide equivalent Arabic collocations? In case of no corresponding
Arabic equivalent collocation is available; do they render the collocation
literally or functionally? All these questions will be answered in the next
chapter. The importance of collocation lies in the fact that realizing them will
make the text more cohesive and smooth while failing to render them will lead
to a less cohesive text and somewhat awkward one.
Metaphor and Simile: these are the most important devices used by William
Golding in this novel which represent the rhetorical level in the analysis though
they are included as a part of the semantic level. In this level excerpts from
different pages from the novel are chosen and the selection is made to the most
significant ones due to their contribution to the message of the text. A sufficient
explanation of metaphor types and simile has been provided in chapter 2
whereas their methods of translation will be explained in chapter 4. The
importance of the rhetorical level and its realization in the target texts lies in the
fact that what makes literary writings distinguished from other genres is their
special language which is based on the use of expressive function of language.
Realizing these devices in the Arabic texts will give them that literary status and
expressive function and bring about an effect on the Arab readers as close as
that of the original text. On the other hand failing to provide the similar devices
in the Arabic text will strip the text of its aaesthetic and literary status and turn
the translated text to mere narrating of events like a report in a newspaper. The
equivalence on semantic level is based on Cruse (1986) types of meaning
namely, propositional meaning, expressive meaning, presupposed meaning and
evoked meaning (see section 2.1.4).
Second) Textual Level
On this level, three cohesive devices namely, Ellipsis Substitution and
Allusion are selected.
The rendition of these three important cohesive devices, which contribute to the
cohesion of the text as well as to its economy, will be evaluated. According to
Hatim and Mason ... the notions ellipsis and redundancy are seen to be
pragmatic variables, entirely dependent on assumptions concerning the mutual
cognitive environments of ST and TT users (1990: 94, my emphasis).
The omission of a part or an item when there is no place for it with regard to the
reader or hearer of the TL, depends on the situation. According to Nida (1964:
227), though ellipsis occurs in all languages, the particular structures which
permit such omitted words are by no means identical from language to
language. The same thing for the substitution when instead of repeating what
we have already said we substitute for it by words like do, so, one etc. The
evaluation on this level examines the three translations for their preservation or
recovery of the elliptical or substituted elements. The types of both cohesive
devices and their translations are explained based on the classification set up by
Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Salkie (1995).
On the other hand, allusion is treated in this thesis as a special case because it is
basically used as a metaphorical device, and it also related to the cohesion of the
text. The use of Allusion in the novel provides links to other texts no matter
how far they are. In LOTF several allusions (references) to literary works,
historical figures, and geographical places are made. These references provide
(basically they are well-known to most native readers) a cultural background
and huge informational resource for the reader when just reads these allusions
and contemplates their associations and references. For the Arab reader these
allusions are mostly vague, i.e., the Arab reader does not know most of what
these allusions refer to unless be informed by a footnote or a classifier or even a
glossary to bridge the gap between the two cultures. For example Berengaria in
the LOTF is an allusion to a historical figure in the source culture but for most
of Arab readers she is unknown. In the source text this allusion is used to
comment on certain event in the novel and presupposes that the hearer or the
reader knows about it. In the evaluation process the researcher examines how
Arab translators manage to convey the meaning associated with these allusions
and how they bridge the gap between both cultures and what are the strategies
used to overcome this difficulty.
Third) Stylistic level
Informal Style vs. Colloquial: on this level, the source text will be examined
for the language used in this novel and how the translators render these two
styles into Arabic. In LOTF two main styles are distinguished, the first is the
informal one used in the narration and the other one is the colloquial
(sometimes slang) used by the characters of the novel who are children. The
evaluation of the three Arabic translations will focus on the way the Arab
translators render these two styles. In this regard some scholars such as Ilyas
(1989:67) advise the translators to pay attention to the appropriate equivalent
style because stylistic equivalent is not usually established in a one-to -one
relation between S.L. and the T.L. styles, with regard to different situations.
On the other hand, Newmark (1988:40) sees that idiolect or personal dialect, as
opposed to ordinary language including unconventional syntax; neologisms
strange words all these and other personal components, form the expressive
element of an expressive text and should not be normalized in translation. This
can be seen in the Cockney dialect used by Piggy (one of the main characters in
LOTF) in this novel. The evaluation will examine how these important elements
have been rendered into Arabic, and what are the strategies adopted to perform
this task.
Fourth) Extra- Linguistic Determinants (Pragmatic
This level deals with the following factors: subject matter of the novel, its
vocabulary and how the translators deal with it .Time and place and their effect
on the original text and the translated texts. Audience and its effect on the
translators in terms of manipulating the translated texts to fit in the new cultural
context and meeting the expectations of the new audience.
Fifth) General Makeup of the Translated Texts
In this level an evaluation will be carried out for the general makeup of each
Arabic text and their commitment to the original text in terms of arrangement,
listing and division of chapters, illustrations, drawings, paragraphs division and
punctuation marks. The publishing time will also be addressed for its
importance in the evaluation. The last point will be the problem of misprinting
and its effect on the translated text in general.
Sixth) Statement of Quality
This is the final step that represents the statement of quality based on
the previous five steps of analysis.
Chupter Inur
The Assessment of the Three Arabic Translations
This chapter represents the practical step at which the various levels of the
suggested model, in the previous chapter, will be applied to the data collected from
the source text and their corresponding data collected from the three Arabic
translations. This process of comparison between the source text and the translated
texts will provide us with the necessary evaluation markers required to make the
statement of the translations quality. In order to make the procedures followed in
the presentation of the analyzed data as easy and clear as possible, a sufficient
theoretical background will support each level and element of analysis. In addition,
the most effective translation strategies suggested by scholars will be presented
opposite to each level. This theoretical background represents the base on which
the evaluation will be carried out. In some cases, when the three Arabic
translations fall short to achieve the acceptable rendition, alternative translations
will be suggested when necessary. According to this eclectic model, the first step is
to investigate the text type (a comprehensive theoretical background has been
provided in the previous chapter (see section which provides the
guidelines to the strategies supposed to be followed by the translators and the
evaluation process. The next steps will include the analysis of the semantic level,
textual cohesion, stylistic level and extralinguistic factors.
4.1 Summary of the Novel Lord of the Flies and Text Type
This novel was written in 1954 by William Golding and it is about a group of
British schoolboys whose plane is shot down over the Pacific during an
unspecified time of war in the future. The pilot of the plane is killed, but many of
the boys survive the crash and find themselves deserted on an uninhabited island,
where they are alone without adult people to take care of them. The first two boys
introduced are the main protagonists of the story: Ralph is among the oldest of
the boys, handsome and confident, while Piggy, as he is derisively called, is a fat
and asthmatic boy with glasses who nevertheless has a keen intelligence. Ralph
finds a conch shell, and when he blows it as Piggy advises him, the other boys
gather. Among these boys is Jack Merridew (the main antagonist ), an aggressive
boy who marches at the head of his choir. Ralph, whom the other boys elect as a
chief, leads Jack and another boy, Simon, on an expedition to explore the island.
On their expedition, they discover that they are on a deserted island and decide that
they need to find food. The three boys find a pig, which Jack prepares to kill but he
cannot actually stab it. Later, Jack manages to attract the other boys to join his
hunting group which later turns into savages and behave in an uncivilized manner.
As the aggressiveness of Jacks group intensifies, they try to kill Ralph and Piggy
because they refuse to join them. They manage to kill Piggy by throwing a big rock
on his head and start to chase Ralph through the forest until they corner him
between their spears from one side and the beach water from the other. They just
about to kill him when a naval officer arrives with his ship. He thinks that the
boys have only been playing games, and he scolds them for not behaving in a more
organized and responsible manner as is the British custom. As the boys prepare to
leave the island for home, Ralph weeps for the death of Piggy and for the end of
the boys innocence.
Golding makes his novel (LOTF) alive with a creative use of symbolism,
physiological development, and general truths. He manages to convey a deep
subject with simple style. He uses a relatively simple story to convey a brilliant
idea (int1.2011). In the LOTF, one can see a huge number of different words,
synonyms and foreign words such as effulgence, suffusion, decorum,
belligerence, ululation etc. Golding also utilizes the language of characters to
express their identity, for example ,the littluns use short, paratactic sentences and
expressions typical of children, like beastie instead of beast (int2.2011).
LOTF is an allegory and parable as Fowler (1985:559) states; when one reads a
tale, and concludes that under its surface meaning another is discernible as the true
intent, one can say that this is an allegory .On the other hand, when one has a
lesson to teach, and finding direct exposition ineffective then he may try the
parable to achieve the lesson. Now, what is an allegory? Dickson (1990:1) defines
allegory in its general sense as a form of extended metaphor in which objects,
persons, and actions in a narrative, either prose or verse, are equated with
meanings that lie outside the narrative itself.This may be the reason why Golding
novels, notably LOTF, have that special charm on the audience because they
provide a mixture of reality and imagination. Goldings fiction is a kind of an
extraordinary mixture of realism and fable. What makes his novels as such is that
they mix both the recognizable qualities of realistic fiction with a consistent system
of symbolism, which pave the way for the allegorical meaning. Despite that fact
that some other terms are set to describe the novels of Golding such as being
parable, fable and myth but the central idea that continued from the sixties up to
the present time is that Goldings novels encapsulated a kind of moral allegory
(Dickson, 1990: ix).
According to Honig, cited in Dickson (1990:5f, 16), there are four techniques that
contribute to the allegorical personification; they can be listed briefly as follows:
1- Analogy through the use of names (Piggy: the victim, Simon: Christ-like, etc.)
2- The correlation of a state of nature with a state of mind, involves the process of
humanizing nature.
3- The implied comparison of an action with an extrafictional event, outside the
novel itself.
4- Correspondence of a state of mind with an action depicted in the narrative. In
LOTF, a series of hunts, for either pigs or humans, symbolically demonstrates the
boys gradual deterioration into savages.
The isolated island (ibid.: 12f) represents not only an appropriate stage for the
survival story of the deserted boys but it also symbolically represents the
background for a universal, timeless backdrop for symbolic action. The isolated
desert is a symbol of a microcosm where events represent symbolically the events
in the real world. This procedure is commonly used by allegorists and satirist. They
achieve their dual purpose of amusing the audience on one side and deliver their
didactic and moral lesson on the other. The isolated island quickly develops from
Eden into a nightmare is a symbolic comparison to the destruction of the outside
world through atomic warfare. The dead parachutist, who was mistakenly
described as the Beast by the children, is a terrible message from the world of the
grownups and is literally and figuratively a fallen man.
Coles (1986:7) states that Golding in this novel makes his characters and the
experience on the island as realistic i.e., it could happen. Like all authors, he uses
his life experience and times as reference points in his works, he draws
significantly on the social-religious-cultural-military ethos dominant in his times.
LOTF is an allegorical microcosm of the world in which Golding lived and
participated. The island and the boys and many other objects and events in his
novel manifest his general view to the world and humankind and special view to
the values and culture of British society in specific. The world created by the novel
is believable. In this particular point Golding manages to present his novel as
parable, that is, its characters and plot exist not just to make believable real life
situations, but also to form a commentary on the real world. This work of
literature has received a considerable attention of both the critics and audience and
in 1983 had granted the Nobel Prize for literaturefor its creativity and intellectual
value it represents. On the other hand, a novel at this level of importance needs
extraordinary attention by the translators as they try to introduce this work of art
into Arabic. In chapter three (see section an extensive explanation has
been provided in detail about the text type and how considerably it dictates the
strategies that should be followed by the translators. Also it has been explained
how Newmark (1988:39) puts the novel among the first category of serious
imaginative literature.
Reiss (2000:18) sees that literary prose and poetry is a tool of artistic creativity,
conveying aesthetic values.In translation, these aesthetic values and their
representation should be adequately conveyed in the translated texts. Based on this
explanation, the levels suggested to be analyzed, after the identification of the text
type, are the following:
1- Semantic level: this level consists of four elements namely, lexical items,
collocations, metaphor and simile
2- Textual level: this level consists of three elements namely, ellipses, substitutions
and allusions.
3- Stylistic level: this level deals with two types of styles namely, the informal and
colloquial styles.
4- Extralinguistic determinants: this level consists of some extralinguistic factors
that affect the translations and choices. They are namely, subject matter, audience,
time and place.
5- General make-up of the ST and the translated texts: At this level the general
make-up of the ST and the TTs are discussed and evaluated. It includes points of
comparison namely, chapter divisions, paragraph division, quotation marks,
punctuation, size of the translated texts and illustrations.
6- Statement of quality
Before starting with analysis according to the levels stated above, some
abbreviations will be used for the purpose of brevity and easiness; they are as
T1= translated text by Samir Izzat Nassar, henceforth will be called T1
T2= translated text by Abdul- Hameed Al-Jammal, henceforth will be called T2
T3= translated text by Mahmoud Qasim, henceforth will be called T3
L : the line number in the original text in the appendix that includes excerpts from
the novel LOTF
In addition, an Arabic letter () is used to refer to the line number of the translated
text that is found in each corresponding appendix.
4.2 The Semantic level
At this level of analysis, the following categories will be analyzed and evaluated
by comparing the three Arabic texts with the original text to find out how the
translators manage to introduce equivalent Arabic versions of the original text.
4.2. 1 Equivalence at the lexical level
Baker (1992:12f) sees that the lexical meaning of a lexical item has some
specific value in specific linguistic system through which it acquires its unique
personality. There are several types of meaning in which the propositional
stands as opposite to expressive meaning (this terminology might differ for other
linguists terminology but the core issue is the same). What she means by
propositional meaning of a lexical item is the referential relation between the
lexical item and what it refers to, for example the propositional meaning of shirt is
that it is a piece of clothing which is worn on the upper part of the body. It is not
accurate to use this lexical item in normal conditions to refer to something else.
Nevertheless, in expressive meaning, or as it is called by some other linguists as
connotative meaning, lexical items are used to express feelings of the speaker
rather than what these lexical items refer to. What associations of feelings and
realizations these lexical items are carrying play the major role in expanding the
meaning of lexical items beyond the mere denotational role (Crystal, 2003:79).
93 Analysis of the Lexical Items
At this level of analysis, the researcher has chosen 15 lexical items selected
carefully from the novel to work as a sample data on which the evaluation of the
three Arabic translations will be carried out. The choices are based on the fact that
they represent key words in the contexts they occur in and also on the their
distribution within the text. LOTF is written with a language in which the lexical
items themselves have in most cases both an explicit referential meaning and a
symbolic meaning. This characteristic feature of the novel makes it necessary to
take this level of analysis into our serious consideration for its overall contribution
to the intended meaning of the author and his message. These lexical items are
analyzed according to their occurrence in the selected excerpts from the novel. The
method of analysis will take into consideration both denotational and connotational
meanings of each lexical item within their immediate context as well as their
realizations in the text as a whole to achieve the objectivity of the evaluation. The
procedure to be followed is to list each ST lexical item and their corresponding
Arabic translations.
A discussion will be conducted to each translation marking its merits and
demerits, whether the translation manages to be an adequate rendition or falls short
of achieving this goal. In each case of analysis, when necessary, the researcher will
suggest his translation to give a full account as much as possible to this process of
evaluation. The procedure, which is followed to carry out the analysis, is to present
the ST lexical item within its context followed by the three corresponding Arabic
translations to make the contrasting process as easy as possible.
(ST) 1- Shell
(in the title of chapter one ) The sound of the shell (L2)
() :
() :
() :
T1: the sentence is " " , literally the sound of the conch. The translator
uses this word in both the headline of chapter one and most of its occurrences in
the novel which represents a kind of close commitment to the use of the words in
the original text. If the occurrence of this word in other places in the novel is
examined, it is possible then to compare this commitment of the translators. The
following excerpt illustrates this:
(ST )Astone."
No. A shell. Suddenly Piggy was a-bubble with decorous excitement.Sright.
Its a shell! I seen one like that before. On someones back wall. A conch he called
it. He used to blow it and then his mum would come. Its ever so valuable
(L37-41) (Golding, 1987:16 my emphasis)
( - .
. . - (
.'=-`' -=' -,-= '-= _'= ..- - '+'`- --=', -,'. '+-' ._,=-- (
.'-= -, '+-' .-,- '+-- _=, '+, _--, ' . ( '+,--,
T2: this word has been rendered as " " in the title of chapter one and in
the excerpt above .This means that the translator uses one word only to stand
for two words in ST which can be considered as an example of mismatches
since the author makes the above dialogue between Ralph and Piggy based
on choosing the right word to name that thing whether to call it a shell or
a conch. This situation has not been made clear to the Arabic reader .
( - -' .
. '+-' ` - (
)) =,- (( --,-; -,- :
-'='' ,-'' --= .- - '+'`- --'- ' ' -- --' ! '+-' .. _,=- '- -(
'-' '+, _--, ', (()) -' '+,'= '=, ', . (
( --'', -'=---' -'' .. ,''' -`'' ,''= , .
T3: the translator uses three names to refer to the shell namely, " " , " "
and " " . Again, this use of an additional synonym is a kind of inconsistency
with the ST.
( - ,'
. . '+-' . - (
-''' _-, -=' -'' --,-,- :
(())-' '+,'= ,-'=,, '-'' - --= =-'= , -'- '+-,' --'.. ` '+-' - (
( ,-'- `= '+, _--, '---= -' .'-,, -' -,- '+--, ' .
Golding uses the lexical item conch in most of the rest of the novel. This failure
by the translator to show the reader the different names used makes the reader
unaware of that development in the events of the novel whether " " or " "
are synonyms or referentially different. To sum up, the word shell has occurred in
the original text in different places. The Arabic translations do not render it the
same. The most important occurrence of this word is in the title of chapter one the
sound of the shell. The importance of the analysis of occurrence of this word is to
highlight the importance of consistency between the synonyms of the original text
and the Arabic translations. In the ST, the writer uses only two words to refer to
the shell namely, shell and conch throughout the novel. The Arabic
translations should provide two corresponding synonymous words to stand as
equivalents to that of the original text to achieve a kind of consistency .
The suggested translation in this case is to render the word shell as " "
which is more general and it is more related to the knowledge of the children in the
novel who cannot differentiate between types of the shell. The extract above
could be rendered as follows:
'+- ..."--+- '-= -, ,- _---,
-,' '+'`- --=', -'='' _',-'' _'=
-,-` , -' ,-'- '+, _--'' _'= '-'-- ', '+,--,
--- "
(ST) 2- lagoon
The boy with fair hair lowered himself down the last few feet of rock and L3)
began to pick his way toward the lagoon.
='~' -,-=- ,=- -=- ,==, -=', -=- - '-' _-- =' :
) - (
: -=-'' - ,----'' ','-'' '-`' -= --- --`' -'' ,- -','' .-' ,=- -,= -, '--,
() (())
() ,=- =-', -,=`' -=-'' , - --`' --'' .- :
T1: the word lagoon is translated into " -,=- " which matches the definition
of the meanings of this word according to the below mentioned dictionaries and it
gives the reader more information about the location of that shallow lake though he
used a two-word equivalent to translate the one-word original lexical item.
T2: the translator renders it as " " which is a transliteration of the word
lagoon. Transliteration is a process of conversion of one writing system into
another. In this process each character of the SL is given an equivalent character in
the TL. Normally it is used to represents the names of people, places, institutions
and inventions (Crystal, 2003: 474). According to Najeeb (2005:27-8) the
translation of concrete nouns is easy when there is a consensus on the meanings of
them such as chair " " and cat " " . But the difficulty lies when our
discussion deals with the types of cats or their species. For example it is easy to
translate Siamese cat as " -',- = " , but what about the other types such as Manx,
Chinchlla, etc. where the name carries the differentiating characteristics among
nearly 36 types of cats. The suggestion according to (ibid.:28) is to transliterate
these names according to the Arabic easiness of pronunciation and these above
names can be like " " , " `,--,- " . This may be used when there is no equivalent
in the target language but in our case, here, the equivalent word or words are
available. So using the word " " is not justifiable unless a misunderstanding on
the part of the audience would occur of what lagoon is, which is not the case here
because the equivalent is already available, as it has been seen in the T1.
T3: the translator here renders the word lagoon into " " . The problem with
this rendition is that " " gives negative connotation to the reader about the
lagoon in the novel since in Arabic, according to Alwaseet (1972:948), " "
means the place where water collects and stay for a long period i.e, stagnant water,
and this is not the case because the continuous movement of water on the beach
through the ebb and flow tides makes the lagoon or the pond always full with that
kind of freshwater. Lagoon refers to a shallow lake or pond, especially one
connected with a larger body of water .It also refers to the area of water enclosed
by a circular coral reef, or atoll (Webester, 1995). In Arabic lagoon means
" - '=- -,=-, " (Al-Mawrid, 2005). In this respect, T1 is almost adequate.
(ST) 3-Sweater
Though he had taken off his school sweater and trailed it now from one
...-'-'' -,- ' `' ,-, ,-=' - ==, ---- * _'= - ' -' _-,. :
) (
-,- ' ,- -=' - ---,= =, - '='' ---'' (( ,--;~')) _'= - ' -' =-, :
... ) (
() `' , '+= =, ,-, =--, ,, ,-- _-, -,= :
T1: the translator renders the lexical item sweater as " " and supported his
rendition with a footnote explaining the meaning of it. The word " " is used in
Arabic to mean a kind of cloth worn to absorb the sweat of the body (Alwaseet
1972:596). Sweater has several meanings according to the context, which should
be clear for the translator who indulges himself in such a difficult task of
translating this novel. The Webester Dictionary (1995) tells us that the primary
meaning of this word is a person or thing that sweats especially to excess. The
second meaning is a knitted or crocheted outer garment for the upper part of the
body, with or without sleeves, styled as either a pullover or a jacket. In Arabic this
word means, according to Al-Mawrid (2005), in its primary meaning " "
which is the medication or work that causes one to sweat. The other meaning
which is relevant to our subject matter is " : ,,- -- ,' ---
=,'= " . Here the original word sweater which is a noun rendered into an
equivalent one word noun. But according to the above, the English definition of
word sweater is a cloth that CAUSES things to sweat, while " " in Arabic
means the cloth that absorbs sweat; unless he extended the primary meaning,
mentioned above which means medication or work that causes one to sweat , to
include the cloth that causes one to sweat. The word " " considered to be
etymologically wrong since it refers to the opposite. However, If this justification
is adopted then the translator here achieved an adequate translation.
T2: the lexical item sweater is rendered into " -,,-'' " which is a transliteration
of the foreign word. Again, this method of translation is not justified since, as we
have seen, an Arabic equivalent is already available. The use of foreign words in
the Arabic translation despite that an Arabic effective equivalence is available
seems to be an indication of either the translators lack of knowledge concerning
the Arabic available equivalents or it is a strategy followed by the translator for a
certain purpose. The researcher noted that T2 has adopted this type of rendition
wherever there is, for some extent, a lack of exact equivalent lexical item in the
target language. However, this is not justified because there are some other ways to
achieve that required equivalence. Knowing that using foreign terms in the daily
colloquial Arabic or slang is not a justification for using them in the translation of
literary works unless there is a need to reflect a kind of literary effect found in the
original text and supposed to be reflected in the target text.
T3: the lexical item sweater is translated as " " which is a
translation of the meaning of the word sweater as it is stated in Webester
(1995).This translation managed to convey the required meaning to the reader.
Both T1 and T3 are adequate translations in this respect with more preference to
T1 since it uses one Arabic equivalent word " " , though it is not much known
among ordinary audience, and supplying a footnote to explain the meaning of it is
a good strategy by the translator. According to Najeeb (2005:8) the translator has
to make it clear for his/her reader but at the same time is required to spread the use
of Arabic words whether original, newly coined or blended to avoid as much as
possible the Arabicized words unless this could not be possible or lead to
deviation from the intended meaning.
(ST) 4- trailed
Though he had taken off his school sweater and trailed it now from one
() ...-'-'' -,- ' `' ,-, ,-=' - ---- *- _'= - ' -' _-,. :
-,- ' ,- -=' - ---,= - '='' ---'' (( -,,-'')) _'= - ' -' =-, :
... ) (
()`' , '+= ,=- -,-'' - --- ,-, =--, ,, ,-- _-, -,= :
T1: the translator renders the lexical item trailed into Arabic as " " according
to the inflectional form " " , instead of " " of the form " " , literally
(wearily dragged it) which implies intensiveness " " or extensiveness " ,`-''
" which originally implies that an act is done with great violence (intensive) or
during a long period of time (temporally extensive) (Caspari 1981:31).
Unfortunately, the verb " " is not a standard Arabic form for the verb " " , the
meaning of the verb " " , according to most Arabic etymologies such as
Almunjid (1973:84), Alwaseet (1972:114), is the sound of gargling mainly
produced by camel. The use of the verb " " has no standard Arabic basis.
T2: the translator rendered the word trailed into " " literally (dragged it).
Although this rendition is acceptable but it does not show the exact way of
dragging and the atmosphere in which the action of dragging occurs which the
writer intended to convey.
T3: the translator rendered the word trailed into " =, " literally (was dragging)
using the imperfect form " =, " to refer to the past and then expressing the relative
tense since the point of reference is the main verb " " which is in the past
according to the sentence "...=, -,-'' - ---... =--, ,, ,-- " (Aziz
1989:49). Again the translator fails to some extent to reach the meaning intended
by the writer in ignoring the connotations of the verb trail and just rendered it into
" =, " .
Both translations T2 and T3 are acceptable but are not the optimal ones.
The word is the past form of the verb trail. The meaning of this verb is according
to Webster (1995) is to drag or let drag behind one, esp. on the ground. In
addition, this verb has the connotation of performing this action of dragging in a
wearily, heavily or slowly way (ibid.), and this manner is very relevant to the
meaning intended by the writer as he describes how Ralph dragging his sweater in
one hand.
The suggested translation for the verb trail can be either one of these two
suggestions with preference to the suggestion number 2:
1- To render it into the Arabic standard form " "
2- To use the construction of the cognate object; the translation could be like : ,,
'= =,
(ST) 5- Scar:
All round him the longscar smashed into thejunglewas abath of heat.(L6)
. : -'= '-= -'+='' _,-= - - =,=-'', .=-'' .='- _'' ---'' ) (
. : - -=-'' ',,='' --=--'' --' -,`'' -''' =-, --+-'', ',-''- `,' -,--''
-'='', -,=-'' -- _-- '-= .`- ) (
Omitted :
T1: In this translation, the word scar is rendered into " " which literally means
(scars). In this rendition, the basic theme has been fragmented into more than one
and eventually deprived the basic theme of its content. The writer refers to one scar
while the translator refers to many and this contradiction is one of the weak points
that makes the translation loses these tiny, but decisive, threads of ideas that the
writer aimed at.
T2: in this translation the word scar rendered into " " in the following
sentence: "- ',,='' --=--'' ". In Webster (1995); scar is mainly a
marring or disfiguring mark on anything. The secondary meaning of this word is
according to Webester (ibid.), Almawrid (2005) is a precipitous rocky place or
cliff. Scar, in this sense, is a polysemous word. Polysemy is defined in (Crystal,
2003:359,emphasis in the origin) as a LEXICAL ITEM which has a range of
different meanings, e.g. plain = clear, unadorned,obvious;, and this would
create an ambiguity concerning which one of these meanings is intended by the
writer since the immediate context supports both meanings on equal footing. To
solve the problem the researcher has counted the number of occurrences of the
word scar and what the other contexts should provide of information to know the
intended meaning. The number of occurrences is 40 times. Golding uses the word
symbolically to convey the idea of the destruction caused by man to the island.
The scar is a gash in the jungle caused by the passenger tube of the airplane when
it crashed onto the island. The choice of the word scar implies an injury probably
symbolizing the effect of humans on the previously uninhabited pristine island.
Consequently, the meaning of the scar should be translated into " " in order to
convey the message that the writer wants to convey. In this regard the translator
fails to select the correct equivalent. The reason can be the negligence of the
contextual meaning of the lexical item, not thoroughly reading the novel to
examine the word in its various contexts and not recognizing that this word is a
polysemous one.
T3: the translator left the whole sentence that includes the word scar
The three translations fell short to render the intended meaning. This word has a
central theme in the novel its connotations refer, among other things, to the
human abuse of nature and the damage man causes to it. The suggested
translation for this word in this context is " " .
(ST) 6- Jungle
All round him the longscar smashed into the|ungle was abath of heat(L6)
() -'= '-= -'+='' _,-= - - =,=-'', . :
----' -'' =-, --+-'', ',-''- `,' -,--'' - -=-'' ',,='' --=--'' -=-''. :
-'='', -,=-'' -- _-- '-= .`- ) (
Omitted :
T1: the word is translated as " " , which is an adequate translation.
T2: the word is translated as " -,`'' -''' literally (dense wood) it is also an
adequate translation. The translator added " -,`'' " aiming at giving more
information about the nature of the wood.
T3: left the lexical item untranslated.
According to Webster dictionary, (1995) jungle is a land covered with dense
growth of treesand inhabited by predatory animals. According to Alwaseet
(1972), the dense growth of trees where it is possible for someone to hide and
lurk to ambush others is called " " . Despite the fact that both " " are
close in meaning to each other but T1 succeeded in choosing the most
appropriate word which is " " since it is more related to the theme of the novel
where danger and fear is dominating in its events.
(ST) 7- Broken
He wasclambering heavilyamong the creepers andbroken trunks when a
bird, avision of red and yellow(L7)
() -'' -'-'--'' ,- -,-- '--, ' :
() ... _,-='', -'---'' -'-'--'' ,- -,-- -,= -,, '--, ' '--,-,. :
()-'--' :
T1: the word broken is rendered into " " from the form " " which serves
extensiveness. This translation is adequate but it lacks that sense of musicality
that Arabic translation should show.
T2: the word broken is rendered into " " it is the normal rendition of the
word broken, and it is adequate.
T3: in this translation, the word broken is rendered into " . " ''+--'' In Arabic the
word " =''+-- " is derived from the verb " =''+- " which has the meaning of extreme
keenness and eagerness for something. Consequently, the translator fails in
choosing the write Arabic equivalent word.
Broken is the p.p. of the verb break and it is used as a modifier in the noun
phrase: broken trunks, literally " " . Broken in Arabic according to
Almawrid (2005) can be translated into basically, according to the context
constraints, " -+- ,-- " . The suggested translation is to render the word
broken as " --+- " and the noun phrase can be like " --+-'' _,-='' " ; knowing that
T1 and T2 are both adequate.
(ST) 8- Multitude
The undergrowth at the side of the scar was shaken and amultitude of
raindrops fell pattering.(L8-9)
: -=- -`'---'' -,-='' -',=-'' --' ,''''
() -----
--''' ---'' '= --= -''' -,--'' ,--'' -'-'--'' --' ` :
() ' ,~=7
() ,=~' ~'--,; Q- ~77' -=--, -'-='' -'-,,'' --' :
T1: the word multitude in the phrase multitude of raindrops is rendered into
" --,-= " which according to Alwaseet (1972) and Almunjid (1973) is used for
things that can be counted. Giving the fact that the original text has the word
multitude to mean a great many of raindrops then the translator should use an
equivalent which reflects that amount which is in fact countless.
T2: the translator succeeds in rendering the meaning of the word multitude in this
context, supported by the general knowledge most people know about the nature
of rain in the tropical regions where it is abundant. He chooses the right sense of
the lexical item and translates it with an Arabic idiomatic expression " '+' -=` "
which is so elegant in Arabic text.
T3: the translator here renders the lexical item multitude into " " . In this
regard we can ask the following question: why not millions?! This rendition is
not accurate since it decides the number while the ST talks about countless of
raindrops. In addition to that, the translator has rendered the word raindrops into
" -'-,, " which is apparently mistranslation.
The word according to Barnhart Dictionary (1953), means A great many of
crowd, army, swarm, etc., in Almawrid (2005), the main meanings are
" " .In this regard, T2 is more accurate and adequate translation than the
other two.
(ST) 9- wind-breaker
The owner of the voice came backing out of the undergrowth so that twigs
scratchedon a greasywind-breaker. (L10)
-,-~- --= -,-~- -,-'' --=' -',=-'' - '=-, ,, -,-'' -='- _= :
_-= - -=-'' -,--'' -'-=`' - -,-'' -='- '=-, :
() .-' _-,
: --'- -'' -,-'' '-=`', ,''' -'-= - -', '-='- -,-''
() ~----
T1: the translator renders the compound noun wind-breaker into " ,-'= --- "
which is an adequate translation.
T2: the translator renders this compound noun into " _,'' " which is literal
translation and make no sense to the Arabic reader. Consequently, the translator
fails to convey the correct meaning and gives a deformed meaning of the whole
sentence, which based on the meaning of this compound noun. He translates the
sentence as follows:
" _,'' '='= "
T3: renders this compound noun into " ,- " which is literally (shirt) which does
not conform with the context and sense relations between the words wind-
breaker, greasy and scratches. These denotative crucial mistakes are not
justified since the context, the availability of valid and adequate Arabic lexical
items can provide a very interesting and faithful rendition of the original text.
Lexical items can be combined to form compound nouns. These are very
common, and new combinations are invented almost daily. They normally have
two parts. The second part identifies the object or person in question (man, friend,
tank, table, room). The first part tells us what kind of object or person it is, or
what its purpose is (police, boy, water, dining, bed). Wind-breaker is a compound
noun structured of noun plus agentive or instrumental noun (see Quirk et al.,
1973:445).Wind-breaker, according to Barnhart Dictionary (1953), means a
short sports jacket of wool, leather, etc. According to Almawrid (2005), it means
" -,- --- ) "( . Consequently,T1 is an adequate translation and gives the
intended meaning of the original.
(ST)10- Snout
"I saw you. Right bang on hissnout--Wheee!" (L77)
() . --~-=-- --'-- -- --- .=-,' - :
() ! -;=,= _'= --- --- -- .=--'- --'. - :
() .', . -== .'-' =-,' --' - :
The three Arabic translations refer to the snout of the pig by using these
synonymous lexical items, namely; " -,=- ,== == " according to T1, T2 and
T3 respectively. The only thing that can serve as an element of preference of one
translation over another is the level of language used in the translations. We
notice that the lexical item " -,=- " in T1 is not quite understood by most of the
ordinary readers since it is an archaic and not used a lot. On the other hand, the
two other words are quite understood and widely circulated among Arab
speakers. The suggestion is to render the word snout into one of the two other
words, namely; or . Snout according to Webster (1995) is a
projecting nose and jaws, or muzzle of an animal. According to Almunjid (1973)
the three lexical items can be used to refer to the snout of a pig "
-,=- " . Consequently, T2 and T3 are more acceptable with preference to T2.
(ST) 11- Sunned
Hesunned himself in their new respect and felt that hunting was good after
() '- . -- '-,= ' -,-'' ' =', -,-='' +-'-='- --- :
()-- . =- _-' .-= -,-'' ' =', ' -,-='' +-'-=' =,-- --- :
: -,-= +=-- ---, '-- -`-' =,, -- . = '--= ,-, -,-'' ) (
T1: the translator renders the verb sunned into " " which is literal rendition of
the ST lexical item. What is noticed is that the Arabic sentence is awkwardly
presented " -,-='' +-'-='- --- -- '- . -- '-,= ' -,-'' " .
T2: the translator renders the verb sunned into " --- " which is a translation
of the metaphorical sense of the verb sunned. This translation is adequate since it
reflects the meaning intended by the writer. Adding to that it is well known that
each language has its ways to form images and figurative expressions to convey
feelings, information and many other things.
T3: left this lexical item untranslated.
While T2 is successful in approaching the intended meaning, the researcher
suggests the following translation: " --- '+=` '-=`' - '-,- '-,= -,-'' '-
(ST)12- Walloped
"I walloped him properly. That was the beast, I think!" (L80)
: - -,~'-- -,~ --,~ . =,'' , ' . ) (
: - =-=~ ----~ -,~ --,~ =,'' , ,-='' ='- ' -'--=' , ! ) (
: - -', -,~ --,~ . =,'' , -' .. ) (
T1: the translator renders it as " " , " " is the rendition of
the adv. of manner properly, the translator uses the cognate object to express the
intensity of the action which is the commended rendition in such cases but the
connotation of violent action which the verb connotes has not been expressed.
T2: the translator renders it as " =,=- " in which he uses also the cognate object
to express the intensity of the action. He renders the lexical item walloped into
" --,-- -- --- " which is still missing the aspect of violent action the lexical
item connotes because " --,-- " does not suggest a connection to a violent action.
His rendition of the adv. properly is not successful since in these contexts it
means the accuracy of the action of walloping. It should be rendered as " " .
T3: the translator renders the verb " " , which is the same structure
used by the first translation, but, it differs in the translation of the adv. properly
and both translations are acceptable. Nevertheless, the three Arabic translations
have not shown clearly the connotations of the violent action the verb wallop has.
The suggested translation supposed to take into consideration, in some cases, that
one needs not to translate a lexical item if other lexical items share or imply the
same meaning or close to it. Consequently, the adverbial phrase can be like
" -,-= -- --- " . According to Webster (1995), wallop means in the colloquial
usage of it to strike with a very hard blow. Here, the context in which the
language of the children is presented in the novel makes this meaning more likely
the one meant by the writer. In Arabic the verb can be translated according to
Almawrid (2005) as " --- --, " .
However, T1 is more adequate than the other two translations.
(ST) 13- Boar
"Why didn't you grabhim? I tried--"
Ralph's voice ran up.
L82)"But a boar!"
Jack flushed suddenly.
() .,- ,-,-= -' - :
() !,-- ,- ,-,-= -', - :
() .,-,-= -' - :
T1: renders the word boar into " ',- ',-= " , T2 into " - - ,-= " and T3 into
" ,-= " . T2 provides more details about the exact meaning of the word boar
better than the other translations. According to Aziz (1989:111), gender in
language corresponds to sex in the outside world. In English, the main system
used to refer to nouns is by using pronouns, because nouns in English show very
few gender distinctions. In Arabic, gender markers are so clear which means
inevitable problems might occur when translating from English into Arabic and
vice-versa. In English, boar is the marked noun for the uncastrated male hog or
pig. In Arabic, it means " - - ,-= " or " " or the generic noun " ,-='' " .
The female of the boar is called sow; in Arabic " -,-='' " . The suggested
translation could be " " with either a classifier " - - ,-= " or a footnote
in order to kill two birds in one stone firstly; to use an Arabic one word
equivalent and secondly; to keep up with the style of the original text. Note that
the suggested word has the same final sound.
T2 is more accurate than the other translations.
(ST) 14- Do
You said he'd do us. What did you want to throw for? Why didn't you
() _-''- - - --- '-'-. ~--~ -' -' - :
()=--- ' '-'-', '- =', -', - --+- -- '-'- '---=- - -' -' --' - :
()=--- ' '-'-' -='' ,'= --'=' '-'-' -' .'--='- -' .,-- --' - :
The three translators fell short to convey what exactly the word do means in this
context. The translations are " '--='+, '-- -'-,- '-=-=, " according to T1, T2 and T3
Do in the sentence You said hed do us. What did you want to throw for? is an
example of homonymy. Homonymy is defined according to Ilyas (1989:118) as
two linguistic signs happen to share the same form but differ with regard to
meaning. According to Webster (1995) and Barnhart (1953) is to kill. In this
context, the sentence could be translated into '----~ -' -' -'' "
" .
The three Arabic translations fail short to render the exact meaning.
(ST) 15- Tusks
"He did that with his tusks. I couldn't get my spear down in time." (L84)
(). .--'-- '- . - :
() -'--'- '- . --' - :
().,' = . - ' '- '- - :
T1: the translator renders the word tusks into " ,-'- " which is referentially incorrect
because a boar has four tusks not two.
T2: the translator renders the word tusks into " -',-'- " he successfully uses the
plural form which is correct in this context.
T3: the translator renders the word tusks into " --,'--- " in which the translator
liberates himself from the literality of translation of the lexical item tusks to convey
the result of the action without mentioning the agent (in this case the tusks of the
boar). It is recommended to follow the writer in his use of referentially important
lexical items whenever it is possible to convey the intended meaning and symbolic
value these lexical items intended to convey. A boar has four continually growing
tusks that can be extremely sharp. This external information should be taken into
consideration when translating the word tusks. Tusk in Arabic means " " its
dual " " , and its plural " -',-' " . In this regard, T2 is more adequate than the other
two translations.
From the above analysis of 15 samples taken from the novel LOTF and their three
Arabic translations, T2 is more adequate than the other two translations at this
level of analysis as the analysis above shows.
4.2. 2 Collocations
Halliday and Hasan (1987: 286) state that In general, any two lexical items
having similar patterns of collocation - that is, tending to appear in similar contexts
- will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences. This
importance of collocations in producing a well-knitted text affirmed also by Hatim
and Mason (1997:205). They discuss the rhetorical purpose that the collocation
plays. In translation, the collocations should in general be neither less unexpected
(i.e. more banal) nor more unexpected (i.e. demanding greater processing effort)
than in the ST. (ibid.). They focus on the balance that the translator should
achieve between the ST and TT in order not to detract the translated text from the
purpose the original writer aims at. The Translation of Collocations
When one looks at English and Arabic from the perspective of collocation he
could find that each lexical item has its range of collocates. This means even
when an equivalent lexical item is found in the TL this does not mean they have
the same collocational range. This problem causes in many cases, especially for
non-professional translators, awkward rendition. Let us take the example
presented by Baker (1992:48f): In Arabic the dictionary equivalent to the verb
deliver is " '-, " . Let us now see the collocational relations of these two equivalent
Table 4.1 English Arabic collocational differences of the verb deliver
English Arabic
deliver a letter/telegram
deliver a speech/lecture
deliver news
deliver a blow
deliver a verdict
deliver a baby
'-'== '-, /
'-'== -', /
-- =,,
'-= --,
It is not always that easy to translate English verb plus object collocations into
Arabic. English verb plus object collocations may be translated into Arabic by an
equivalent collocation, the verb of which is not a literal translation of the verb into
What is noted here is that each of the equivalent words deliver and " '-, " has its
own collocates which the other does not have. Moreover, in the above example,
deliver a baby, the focus is on the baby in the process of delivery while in Arabic
the focus is on the woman which means, according to Baker (ibid.), that
differences in collocational patterning among languages are not only a matter of
using a different verb with a given noun but they may involve completely
different ways of describing an event.
Baker (1992:47-78) suggests some strategies to translate collocations. Here, it is
important to outline some of them as follows:
1-Taking account of collocational meaning rather than substituting individual
words with their dictionary equivalents. Here, one can make use of, but not
limited to, the dictionary information to reach the intended sense of the word
by making use of the context in which it occurs in the text.
2- As long as a collocation can be found in the target language and conveys
the same or a similar meaning to that of the source collocation then it could be
used, e.g., break the law literally " ,-'-'' -, " is an unacceptable collocation in
Arabic, the common collocation being, literally, contradict the law " -''=,
" .
3- Using paraphrasing in case the target language lacks of the corresponding
collocation specially in the case of culture specific collocations e.g., lesser-
known languages in Arabic would be something like "
" .
4- Marked collocations should be also marked in the target language since the
writer aims at conveying certain idea behind using such strange or odd
5- Using literal translation of words in case no corresponding collocation is
found in the TL. For example, warm reception can be rendered into " "
It is also noticed that in some cases there are collocations in English can be
rendered simply by using one equivalent Arabic word e.g., to commit a suicide
" " , to tell a lie " " . This idea is well expressed by Baker (ibid.:68) in stating
One language may express a given meaning by means
of a single word, another may express it by means of a
transparent fixed expression, a third may express it by
means of an idiom, and so on. It is therefore unrealistic
to expect to find equivalent idioms and expressions in
the target language as a matter of course. Analysis of Collocations
Data related to collocations are collected from the novel LOTF and the three
Arabic translations. The order of these collocations is arranged according to their
occurrence in the novel. These selected collocations serve as samples taken from
the texts in order to provide a criterion on which the evaluation is carried out as
(ST) 1- to pick his way towards the lagoon(L3)
._='-'' -,=- ,=- ,-=- ;==- :
) (
--,= _~- -=-'' - ,----'' ','-'' '-`' -= --- --`' -'' ,- :
)) (( ) (
() =-'; -,=`' -=-'' , - --`' --'' .- :
T1: the translator is successful in the rendition of this collocation according to
the intended meaning " -=- ,==, " but he renders the ST collocation into non-
formal equivalent i.e., v+ adverb. However, he successfully conveyed the
message intended by the writer.
T2: the translator renders the phrase into " -,= -, " . He managed to translate
the English collocation into Arabic well-known collocation and thus meeting
both the formal correspondence and the intended meaning since the Arabic verb
" -, " connotes the difficulty one encounters and effort exerted in his way
(Almunjid, 1973:396).
T3: the translator rendition is " =-' " which is neutral i.e., has no connotation as
that intended by the writer, hence, it is less adequate. According to Webster
(1995), to pick ones way is to progress slowly by choosing each move with care.
According to the information provided by the text, it can be said that being in a
very new environment represented by the jungle pushes one to be careful and
watchful for some kind of imminent danger. Accordingly, the phrasal verb pick
his way gives that connotation in the original text. Consequently, both T1 and T2
are successfully managed to convey the intended meaning of the collocation. The
preference, however, goes to T2 since it provides both the intended meaning and
the formal correspondence.
(ST) 2- Jack and the others Paid no attention,(L50)
() '-'--' -,- :
() ->-- (()) ;-- :
() '-'--' , - :
The three translators are almost very close in rendering this collocation; pay no
attention into Arabic according to T1,T2 and T3 as " '-'--' , ", "
" -`- (()) -+, and " '-'--' , " respectively. T1 and T3 keep
the form of the collocation which is V+N in Arabic despite that T3 deletes the
subject of the sentence Jack and be satisfied with substituting Jack and others as
simply the others; which the researcher thinks it deprives the text of some
elements of cohesion that the writer establishes through the use of names. On the
other hand, T2 renders the English collocation into one lexical item " -+, " which
compelled the translator to compensate for the absence of the object by adding the
prepositional phrase " -`- " which is not mentioned in the original text; he should
use the already available Arabic collocation that is totally accepted and matches
the style of the original text. Consequently, the most adequate translation is T1.
(ST) 3- He stumbled over a root and the cry that pursued him rose even higher.
He saw a shelter burst into flames and the fire flapped at his right shoulder and
there was the glitter of water. (L101)
-- ,=--- . :
(-) .-'- ,'`- ='- ', -,`' -- '-'' -=-=, ~' -~'
,=--- '=, -'- .`', `' `' --- -'' =,-'' :
_--,'' -- --= ',-'' -, ',-'' -'-''- ='- --', . ) - (
'-- --,-; ;-- Q',--' . . :
(- )..'--- ',-'' -,-, _'= ,' .Q',--' Q- Q'~
This phrase is an idiom structured of v+ preposition+ n. It is rendered into Arabic
according to T1, T2 and T3 as follows:
T1: the translator renders it as " -+''' --'' , ". In this translation, the
translator pays attention to this idiomatic phrase and renders it into Arabic
idiomatic phrase keeping the collocational relations found in the original phrase in
his Arabic translation. The verb burst according to Webster (1995), Almawrid
(2005) gives that connotation of suddenness and surprising action; in our case, the
fire suddenly burnt the shelter. In Arabic the verb " " gives that connotation of
a prompt action. What is good also in this rendition is that he renders the lexical
item shelter into " " which is adequate.
T2: the translator renders the phrase burst into flames into "=--, '=, -'-". This
literal translation of the word burst, without paying attention to its collocate i.e.,
flames, gives wrong impression to the reader as if the shelter being bombed and
exploded while it is simply an idiom used to express the speed of burning.
T3: the translator renders the phrase burst into flames into " +-'- ',-'' ".
It is an acceptable translation since the Arabic verb " +-'' " gives that connotation of
speed action and it collocates with the noun " " . But, concerning the translation
of flames, the translator fell short to convey the image set by the author and
minimizes the image into just "Q',--' Q- Q'~ '-- --,-;" while it should be "
-+''' " . From the above discussion, it seems that T1 is more adequate than the other
two translations.
(ST) 4- Fun and games, said the officer. (L103)
: : ,+', -' . ) (
) ( : : - -''', _-'', ,+'''
: : - ... ) (
T1: renders the collocation fun and games as " ,+', -' " which is an equivalent
translation to the ST both in meaning and form; the form of the original collocation
is N+N, the translation is also N+N.
T2: renders it as " -''', _-'', ,+''' " adding the word " " which is just
tautology where there is no need to add it since its meaning is implied within the
other two words. Adding to that, ST has a collocation consists of two words and
the already available Arabic collocation has also two words and in order to convey
the writers style and special uses of language tools, the translator should have paid
attention to this issue and keep away from adding unnecessary additions to the
translated text.
T3: the translator renders the collocation fun and games as " " literally
(you are making fun). It is obvious that the meaning in general is conveyed in all
these three translations but if one is only after the information content of these
phrases then he can construct too many translated phrases with similar meaning,
though it is not the case. The translator here renders the collocation of the form
N+N into V, which is not corresponding formally since the original phrase has
two nouns and the writer wants to show the position of that officer who mocked
the situation in which the kids were found. The suggested translation could be " ,+'
" which fits in the context and convey the meaning of the ST as well as its
form. It is obvious that T1 is successful in providing an adequate Arabic equivalent
(ST) 5- He saw a shelter burst into flames and the fire flapped at his right
shoulder and there was the glitter of water. (L102)
: . , =--- ,,'-
() . 4'- Q'-; -,`' -- '-'' -=-=, -+''' --''
: `', `' `' --- -'' =,-'' ---', ,-='' -=' , `-, . '=, -'- =--,
() .-'--' ~'-'- 4'- ~-'-; _--,'' -- --= ',-'' -,
: . . +-'- ',-'' _-' '+-- _--,, _',`' -='
() .J'~-- -'--' ---- _- ', .',-'' - '-'
The collocation above takes the form of N+N. Arabic translations have rendered
it as follows:
T1: the translator renders it as " " , here the translator renders water as an
indefinite noun which does not express the intended meaning because the
water is simply the water of the sea which is identified by the context. As a
collocation the lexical item " " is a good collocate with " " in this
T2: renders it into " ',-'' -'-' " . Here, the translator translates glitter into . " "
The use of this noun in its countable sense does not reflect the image the writer
wants to convey since the writer wants to shock his readers of that immense sight
of the pearl-like sparkling of the sea water.
T3: the translator renders it as .'--- ',-'' " " literally (water flows) which is not
suitable here and deviates from the ST meaning. The suggested translation could
be " ',-'' ,'`- " just to give that picture of the huge scene of the sea water or "
" both are suitable and effective Arabic collocations equivalent to the English
one. It seems from the above discussion that T1 is more adequate translation.
(ST) 6- A herd of pigs, came squealing (L95)
---', =,--'' -'= -'-='' '=-`' -=-- - '='= _-, ,, ,-,'-=' Q- -=- :
. ) (
=,--'' -','' -'= ','' -'-='' -'-'--'' ,- - _'- ,-,'-=' Q- -=- :
) (
() -''' =-, ---=' ` --'= -'=- '=- , -'-='' =-, ,-,'-=' Q- _-,- :
According to T1 and T2 the collocation is rendered as " ,'-='' - _,= " which is
an adequate Arabic collocation equivalent to the ST collocation. On the other
hand, in T3 the translator renders it as " ,'-='' - , " which is not the usual
Arabic collocation. According to Alwaseet (1972:686) the lexical item " , " is
used to denote a host of people, therefore, it is not the usual word to collocate
with " ,'-='' " .
According to Ghazala (2006:119), an equivalent collocation in Arabic is " _,=
,'-='' - " since the lexical item herd collocates with cattle which includes,
among other kinds of animals, pigs.
(ST) 7- "A school of tiny, glitteringfish flicked hither andthither." (L26)
( -) .='-, '- -'`-- ---- 4'-~' Q- ~,~ :
() ='-, '- -= =-- ,-~' 4-~' Q- ~,~ .. :
(-) .-,-= - '+-',- -'-`' '-'' +- -`'' -,-~' 4'-~7' ~7'; :
The three Arabic translations of the above collocation are as follows :
" -,- ,-'' -,-'' " according to T1,
T2 and T3 respectively. While translations T1 and T2 try to give an Arabic
collocation, T3 clearly falls short of giving a convincing rendition when the
translator gives a random statistics of the number of fish when he translates it
as " " literally (thousands of fish). According to Ghazala (ibid.:120) the
lexical item " " is used with any group of insects and birds. On the other hand,
the lexical item " _,= " can be used with any group of animals. Also he (ibid.)
suggests a solution to solve the problem of confusion that the translator might face
in choosing the right Arabic lexical item by the use of a generic word () or
() to precede a group of any countable; such as ( /
).. Both T1 and T2 are acceptable translations in terms of meaning but
unacceptable as far as collocationaliy is concerned. In our case, the normal
collocation in Arabic should be " =--'' - _,= " .
(ST) 8- The pig-run kept close to the |umble of rocks that lay down by the
water on theother side and Ralph was content to follow Jack along it( L76)
'--`- -=--'' ,'-='' '-- -- :
. ) (
_'= ',-'' ',=- -'-'-'', ;'=--' ,-- - - '-, ,'-='' ,= .= :
-', ,-'' )) (( ,='' '- .,= _'= . ) (
`' +='' - -'-'' '= _-= -=-- -'' --+''- =,=- -,'--' ,;=~' :
-'' _,-, `, -,= ,- ='= _--, -'' ', . ) (
In the three Arabic translations this collocation appears as
" ='-=-'' ,=-'' .- -'+--'' ,=-'' ,= " according to
T1,T2 and T3 respectively. It is noticed that T1 and T2 depend heavily on the
dictionary meaning of the word as it occurs in the English dictionary and translate
the definition of the word into Arabic as if there is no Arabic equivalent word. In
T1: the word " " literally (scattered) does not give the sense of confused
mixture which the word jumble connotes.
T2: the translator uses paraphrase to render the meaning of Jumble.
T3: falls short to render the correct meaning because " -'+--'' ,=-'' " literally
means (collapsed rocks) which does not give the intended meaning. According to
OALD (2010) the word jumble means an untidy or confused mixture of things;
jumble of rocks in this sense means randomly intermingled rocks. In Arabic the
root verb " " means to mix things confusedly, (Almunjid, 1973:372).The
suggested translation is which gives that sense intended by the
(ST) 9- He wasclambering heavily among the creepers (L7)
() --'' -'-'--'' ,- -;~- _~-- :
()-'---'' -'-'--'' ,- -;~- --,= _~-; _~-- :
() :
This collocation is structured of v + adverb. It noticed in the Arabic translations
that the three translations render the collocation clambering heavily into:
" -,-- -,= -,, '--, -,-- '--, " according to T1,T2 and T3
respectively. In T1, it is noted that the verb clambering is rendered as '--, "
literally (climbing) without that implied connotation of difficulty and effort
accompanying the performance of the action of clambering; in this case the
emphasis on the action is not rendered adequately.
In T2, the translator adds " -,= -,, " to express the implied meaning of the verb
clambering but again he does not fit his rendition to the neatness of the writers
style and gives longer sentences than the original where necessity does not oblige.
In T3, the translator gives a different rendition to the verb clambering as " "
literally (hanging on ) which gives the sense of stillness and immovability to the
action of the boy in the novel; which is not the case. Generally, T1 and T2, with
preference to T2, manage to express the meaning of the collocation but fails to
express the implied emphasized meaning of the verb clamber. T3 fails to express
the intended meaning and then fails to give an Arabic equivalent collocation. The
verb clamber according to OALD (2010) means to climb or move with difficulty or
a lot of effort, which means that the focus on the difficulty of climbing is doubly
expressed by the verb itself, and the adverb that supposed to be taken into
consideration. According to Najeeb (2005:59), the translation of the adverb can be
either by using the cognate object and a suitable adverb of manner like "
'-'-- '--, " or by using a prepositional phrase like " '--, '
" .
(ST) 10- Piggy was looking determined, and began to take off his shorts (L35)
: ,--'' '',- _'=- -=', ) (
: )) =,- (( ;--~-' -- ;--- -,'=-- _'= '-- ) (
: -', --,-,- '-- ''=-- _'= ='--'' -'' '-- ) - (
The structure of the collocation is v + adjective. Since the aspect is progressive in
the past which means duration that provides a base for another action, the Arabic
translation should express this aspect. Arabic translations are as follows:
T1: " ,--'' '',- _'=, -=', " literally (seemed determined),this
rendition while collocationally correct but skips the rendition of the
progressive aspect into Arabic which, according to Aziz (1989:60), can be
obtained by using imperfect aspect, relative past tense, e.g., " -,-- -
,', '-, ,, ='-'' " (I visited my friend yesterday. He was reading a novel).
T2: the rendition is " ,---'' ,'= ,--, =,- ', -,'=-- " in which the
translator manages to express the progressive aspect by using the verb " "
with the imperfect aspect.
T3: " - -', --,-,- '-- ''=-- _'= ='--'' -'' " literally (Porcinet seemed
as if he had decided ), also skips the rendition of the progressive aspect into
Arabic. As far as the collocation is concerned the three Arabic translators managed
to provide acceptable collocations. However, some grammatical points need to be
taken into consideration.
The suggested translation is ,- ,--, '',- _'=- '-- '---- ,--'' "
From the analysis of collocations selected from the novel LOTF and their
corresponding Arabic translations, it has been shown that T1 is more adequate than
the other two translations.
4.2.3 Metaphor
The origin of the word Metaphor is from the Greek verb that means to carry
over. Through metaphorical process one field of reference is carried over or
transferred into another. For example, the famous poet Wordsworth (in Resolution
and Independence) Cited in Bradford (2005:22) states that The sky rejoices in the
mornings birth. In this metaphorical use he carries over two very human
attributes to the non-human phenomena of the sky and the morning: the ability to
rejoice and to give birth.(ibid.). Metaphorical language is, according to Ghazala
(2006:145), an indirect, non-literal language. Ghazala (ibid.) sets an example to
show the difference between the normal (non-metaphorical) language and the
metaphorical (figurative) language as follows:
1- He is cunning '- ,
2- He is a fox -'` ,
The first sentence describes the person with direct and clear adjective, which is
attributed normally to human beings. In the second sentence, this relation becomes
indirect i.e., the person is described as a fox which figuratively means that the
person has those attributes of the fox which is famous for its artfulness and
cunningness. In this case, the figurative language gives deeper effect on the
audience better than the direct one. In his definition of metaphor, Punter (2007:2)
states that metaphor is a process, to use the most common definition of all, by
means of which one thing is made to stand in for another thing. Methods of translating metaphors
Metaphor as seen from the above explanation is a device that can be used
effectively by writers to convey a far-reaching ideas and images by using direct
comparisons to known ideas and images. In this respect, the translator has to be
aware of such devices and exert effort to convey those images of the ST into the
same or equivalent images in the TT to transfer adequately the meaning intended
by the writer. According to Reiss (2000:58) a metaphor in a form-focused text,
regardless of its type whether long established one or newly coined by a writer,
should be translated by an equally idiomatic metaphor of similar value or
significance. Ghazala (2006:154) acknowledges the importance of distinction
between the types of metaphor but he, at the same time, acknowledges also that
it is not crucial to translation. He (ibid.) adds that it is not necessary to translate
each metaphor type from English into its Arabic equivalent strictly in this way
but when possible. The procedures suggested by Ghazala (2006:154-5) to
translate metaphors can be outlined as follows:
1- Looking for the Arabic equivalent whether this equivalent is metaphor or not
for example, foot of the page into " =--'' .,- "
2- Using all possible means to translate the English metaphor into Arabic
metaphor which does not necessarily carry the same image but carries the
same idea. For example, he is a fox into Arabic " --- -=- - ,= "
3- Rendering sense in case no plausible Arabic equivalent is available. For
example, a window of opportunity into Arabic -,- - " .
But he (ibid.) states that one should be careful when using the direct
translation of sense with some types of metaphor such as dead metaphors,
clichs and avoid using it completely with cultural metaphors.The rest of the
metaphor types can be successfully managed by this direct method of sense
translation. Metaphor Analysis
The next step is to analyze the three Arabic translations and see how the
translators deal with the rendition of this important literary device in the LOTF.
This analysis would provide a reliable ground to evaluate these translations as
(ST) 1- All round him the long scar smashed into the jungle was a bath of
-'+='' _,-= - - =,=-'', .=-'' .='- _'' ---'' ,=-'' -,-- --',. :
) (
: - -=-'' ',,='' --=--'' -=-'' -,`'' -''' =-, --+-'', ',-''- `,' -,--''
(-) -,',='; -;=~' -- ~- ;'-= J--
Omitted :
T1: the translator renders this metaphor bath of heat as a metaphor " "
which is a literal translation that imitates the form of the metaphor of the ST.
T2 : the translator renders it as " -'='', -,=-'' -- _-- '-= .`- " literally (like a bath
from which a heat and heat are emitted), here the translator renders the metaphor
into simile with some unnecessary tautology by rendering the word heat as
" " while they are synonymous words in this context and no need to
put them together. This long rendition of the source metaphor somewhat dilute the
image the writer wants the reader to realize.
T3: skipped the rendition of this metaphor which represents a break in the flow of
the images and events. This incomplete rendition of the subtly woven net of
metaphorical expressions which are linked with each other would minimise, to a
considerable extent, the aesthetic value of the literary work and also risks its
overall understanding.
The writer aims through this metaphor to convey the scene in which the events
take place. He describes how the atmosphere around is inimical like a bath which
is too hot to be endured by the children. At the same time bath of heat can be
considered as an expression of exaggeration to reflect also the delicacy of the little
children within this horrifying atmosphere, which is very new experience for
them. It is obvious that T1 is better than the other two translations despite the fact
that the translator renders the metaphor literally but it still acceptable and matches
the style of the author. Here, the researcher suggests an adequate translation by
looking up into our Arabic reservoir for the most probable collocation with the
word " " which is " " to read like " " which has the same
metaphorical image and effect. Consequently, this rendition would be adequate
and keep us away from the literality in T1, the tautology in T2 and the omission in
(ST) A school of tiny, glittering fish flicked hither and thither. Ralph
spoke to himself, sounding the bass strings of delight. Whizzoh!(L26-
=-' ~'-,-; ~;~ _=- ;; ~-- ~', ~-=.='-, '- -'`-- -,- ='-- :
. -,-='
(-)-;,,-; -
(()) ='-, '- -= =-- ,-'' =--'' - -- -'--', .. :
:-;~ _- =-';
(-) ! ' '- -
: ,''' '=-'' ','', _'-'' ,, _,-- =-- ,'- ',-'' --- . -,-'' ='--`' -`',
() . .-,-= - '+-',- -'-`' '-'' +- -`''
T1: the translator renders the above metaphorical expressions as " ,, --- -'' --=
-,+='' =+-'' -',-, -,- '=, " . In fact the metaphorical expression the writer
introduces is an original one and supposedly should be easy for the translator to
convey; because the original metaphors are considered as the easiest in translation.
The translator renders this expression literally to convey the same metaphorical
image of the original but without some necessary adaptation for the overall
structure of the phrase which makes the translation appears somewhat awkward.
He does not pay attention to the structure of the ST sentence; in fact the event in
the ST sentence is only one which is that sound of delight that Ralph makes. In this
translation two actions are seen; the first, Ralph spoke to himself and second Ralph
sounding the strings of delight. Whizzoh, on the other hand, is onomatopoeia
which is according to OALD (2010) is the fact of words containing sounds
similar to the noises they describe, for example hiss; the use of words like this in a
piece of writing. The translator renders the onomatopoeic word by transliterating
it as " ,,, " which is recommended in this case as it describes the same sound
represented in the original text.
T2: the translator renders this metaphorical expression as " )) ((
-,- _'= =+-'', : - +''', "! , literally (Ralph spoke and the delight and joy were
apparent on his voice :- Oh, my God!). The translator here does not match the
image presented by the writer but instead he gives some of the meanings implied
by the original metaphor. The onomatopoeic word Whizzoh is rendered by the
translator as " +''', "! which is not recommended here because it gives another
image rather than the sound image the writer intends.
T3: the translator renders it as " " literally (then Ralph
shouted of ecstasy and happiness) which has some contradictory image to the
original metaphor; first, Ralph did not shout; the verb bass does not give this
implication according to OALD (2010). Second, he skipped the translation of the
onomatopoeic word Whizzoh which makes the metaphorical image incomplete.
The context in which this metaphorical expression occurs is so romantic, peaceful
and dreamy. The metaphor given by the writer as if someone is playing on strings
of a certain musical instrument to sound " Whizzoh!" by his bare mouth.This
image is very expressive to affirm the extent of delight that Ralph, a character in
the novel, feels as a culmination to this paradisiacal atmosphere. According to
OALD (2010) bass means the lowest tone or part in music, for instruments or
voices. For example, He always plays his stereo with the bass turned right up.
Bass in Arabic means, according to Almawrid (2005), " ,-'', ,-='' -,-'' " .
From the above discussion, it is noted that the image set by the author is not
conveyed adequately by any of the three translations. The suggested translation has
to convey the same image if possible with the same effect. Arabic has the verb
" " when someone makes a low and not understandable tunes. Accordingly, this
verb fits into this case and Ralph spoke to himself means in Arabic " --- _- --- " .
The above metaphorical expression can be rendered into Arabic equivalent as "
--- _- -'' _'= _-- -, -', -,-- ,-,-,- ,-=, ). ,,, ! ( .
Consequently, the image has been saved in the Arabic text and some necessary
additions are made to convey the meaning of the original metaphor.
(ST) 3-The beach between the palm terrace and the water was a thin bow-stave,
endless apparently . ( L18-19)
,'+-'' '= ,= '-~;- '=-,~ -'-'', .,=-'' '=-' -=-- ,- _='-'' '-- :
,'+-`'' =-- -'' '-, _'= -'-'', _='-'', .,=-'' ) - (
_-~ =-,~ -'`-- ' =-'' ',-, ,,---'' ---'' .,=-'' ' ,-'- _-, -'' (()) :
,--, '- _'= -'+- ) - (
+' ,'+-` --'- - _--, ;- .- _'= .='-'' ,=- ',,-'- ',-'' - -,-'' .,=-'' ' :
) (
T1: the translator renders this metaphorical expression as:
" -=-- ,- _='-'' '-- ,'+-'' '= ,= ',-, '=,- -'-'', .,=-'' " . What is taken on
this translation is that the image is not clear for the following reasons:
a- The word " " is not the right equivalent for the English word terrace
at least in this context; knowing that it is not an Arabic word and is used in
the informal Arabic to mean bench.
b- The Arabic phrase " ',-, '=,- " is not an accurate equivalence to the
English phrase thin bow-stave.
T2: the translator renders the metaphorical expression as " )) (( ,-'- _-, -''
",--,'- _'= -'+-` ,- =,- -'`-- ' -'' ',-, ,,---'' ---'' .,= . It is noted
in this rendition that the translator uses a foreign word " " instead of the
Arabic word " " which is not justified. The lexical items palm terrace on the
other hand are rendered by the translator as " ---'' .,=-'' ' " , literally (the
highland of the palms); but at the same time he renders the following phrase
" =-'' ',-, ,,---'' " as literally (which is even with the level of the sea water) which
is contradictory. The problem here is the mistranslation of the word terrace which
has no definite equivalent lexical item that fits completely in the Arabic
translation. Consequently, this causes bewilderment in choosing the acceptable
equivalent lexical item. This problem also casts its shadows on the T3 in which the
translator renders the above metaphoric expression as:
" '+' ,'+-` --'- - , , .- _'= .='-'' ,=- ',,-'- ',-'' - -,-'' .=-'' ' " literally
(the palms near the water were bent towards the inside on a form of a delicate bow
of an endless circle) which is a clear mistranslation of the original text for the
following reasons:
The translation mistakenly conveys that the palms are bent inwards which is not
the case. In the ST the writer describes the shape of the beach and how it was
bent like a bow. The translator also gives an awkward image by attributing the
adjective " , " literally ( delicate) to the bow which somewhat deviates from
the image the writer tries to convey. The writer tries to describe the perspective
from which Ralph was looking and how the narrowness of the beach, limited by
the sea from one side and the palm terrace from the other, is seen.
From the above discussion, it is noted that the three translations do not adequately
manage to render the metaphor; basically because of unavailable exact equivalent
of the word terrace on one hand and misunderstanding of the original text i.e., T3,
as well as using foreign words as T1 does.
The writer gives, in the above metaphor, a very expressive description to the scene
where he metaphorically likens the space left between the palm terrace and the
water of the sea as a thin bow stave. In this description he makes the reader feels as
if he were there and looked from a high place to that long shore which seemed
endless. The suggested translation will try to keep the same metaphorical image
and effect by looking for the optimal Arabic equivalent. The above metaphor can
be rendered as . " '- ,--, -'-'', .,=-'' -,-- ,- ,-=-'' _='-'' ' , , ,'+-` '+' "
In this suggested translation the optimal equivalent of the original image is
maintained in the target language which is very necessary to maintain the aesthetic
as well as the symbolic aspect of the novel. The bow in Goldings symbolic
language is a premonition to the inimical atmosphere which the kids were going to
pass through. Consequently, ignoring such invaluable metaphorical symbols by the
translators would risk the value of such important work and present a deformed
version which is not related to the original work only in part.
(ST) 4- He lost himself in a maze of thoughts that were rendered vague by his
lack of words to express them. (L68-69)
,, ,=' -- .,'= .'+-= -- -'-' _'' '--` --'= -=--' --- _'-' :
-,-= -=-, . ) - (
,-' ,,''' -'---'' -- ---- '+-`', ,-'' --- -'' ,'--7' ~''-- -'- --, :
'`' ='- = ,--'' _'= -,- -'' -'-''' . ,=' -- '' ,=-- +=- .,'=, . ) -
() .-'-' _'' '+--=- _=--, ' -'' ',-'` -'' -- :
T1: the translator renders this metaphor as " -'-- ---
'+-= -- -'-' " , literally (he made himself lost in the fog of thoughts
which became vague because he lacked for words to express them). In this
rendition the image of the maze is rendered by another image; the image of fog
when no clear sight is possible. What is commended in this translation is the
translation of the metaphor into an acceptable metaphorical expression.
Nevertheless, the translator should render the same image whenever possible since
the images here represent symbols, which provide a kind of development to the
whole structure, coherence and theme of the novel. Moreover, the translator
translates the phrase he lost himself as " --- " which gives the sense of a
deliberate action by Ralph to be lost which is not the case because Ralph is like a
victim of those confused thoughts that made him lost among them.
T2: renders it as -'---'' -- ---- '+-`', -''-- -'- --,"
,-' ,,''' ='- = ,--'' _'= -,- -'' -'-''' ` " , literally (he lost himself in
mazes of thoughts which exposed to ambiguity and obscurity due to his lack of
vocabulary, because words that would help him to express those thoughts ). In
this translation the image of the maze was conveyed into Arabic as " -''-- "
which is the same form of the metaphor in the ST but in a plural form. What is
taken on this rendition is the rest of the sentence to which he adds a kind of
explanation to the translation. This is considered to be a kind of tautology which is
not appropriate since it is not justified in the first place and violates the conformity
to the conciseness of the original metaphor. In a nutshell, this rendition succeeds
only in the rendition of the phrase maze of thoughts while falls short in giving an
accurate equivalence to the rest of the sentence.
T3: renders it as " - =,- ',-'` -'' -- '+--=- _=--, ' -'' " ,
literally (Ralph was abstracted again in a wave of thoughts which he could not
render them into words). In this rendition the original image maze of thoughts is
replaced by the image of a wave of thoughts which does not have the same
implications of confusion and bewilderment that a maze has, otherwise this
translation is better than the above two translations for its conciseness and
smoothness in Arabic.
Through this metaphor, Golding likens Ralphs lack of words to deliver his speech
correctly as someone being lost in a maze; where one loses the ability to find the
right way. The same as for Ralph where many thoughts are knocking in his mind
and was unable to decide upon them. The suggested translation takes into
consideration all above mentioned merits and demerits of the three above
translations focusing on providing the optimal equivalence and preserving the
metaphorical and symbolic value in Arabic as follows:
" - '-- '-'- -- '--` -+--'' '+-= ---'' -'-''' "
(ST) 5- You're a beast and a swine and a bloody, bloody thief! (L94)
: - ,-- ,-- ', ,-=, =, --' . ) (
: - =,-- --' ,-=, ,--, -'-`'- ,-=, ,-- ', ! ) (
: - . . . ) (
T1: the translator renders the metaphorical expressions in the above sentence as:
" ,-- ,-- ', ,-=, =, --' "
In this translation, the metaphor is rendered directly into Arabic, which gives us
the same image and function of the original text. He keeps the images of the origin
as well as paying attention to the use of the conjunction and as a rhetorical device
called polysyndeton. Polysyndeton is defined according to Cuddon (1999:685) as
the repetition of conjunctions. Common in poetry and prose. The most frequently
used conjunction in English is 'and'. This rhetorical device can be used sometimes
to move from the less important to the more important, sometimes from the
general to the specific. (Quinn, 1982:11). Golding in his use of this device in the
above sentence tries to give that sense of tension that his character Ralph felt
and his anger with Jack which pushed him to launch a series of continuous
descriptions started with a beast to end up with the a thief. The only flaw that
the translator made is changing the order of the last two descriptions, namely;
bloody, bloody thief into " ,-- ,-- ' " which is literally (bloody thief bloody).
The researcher thinks that the order should be kept to give that sense of hesitation
on the part of Ralph when he said the word bloody then with some delay
expressed in the original text by the use of comma then he said the most insulting
word to Jack bloody thief. In a nutshell, the translator is successful in his rendition
to the image of the original with the metaphorical device.
T2: the translator renders the above metaphor as:
" ,-- ',-'-`'- ,-=,,-=,,--,=,-- "!
What is noticed in this rendition the following:
a- that the translator renders the noun beast in the original into an adjective in the
Arabic version and this shift lessens the effect of the original metaphor and its
shocking image.
b- Changing the order of the original text into unjustified new order by placing
the word " " in the sentence away from its normal position without paying
attention to the purpose of the original text.
c- Adding the phrase " -'-`'- ,-=, " , literally (contempt worthy ) which is not
found in the original text. However, sometimes additions are needed to complete
the translated text when problems of misunderstanding are expected or some
implicit meaning in the origin should be made explicit. In this case the translator
uses tautology excessively. Consequently, the translator is not successful in
providing the optimal translation.
T3: the translator renders the above metaphor as " _, =- ,,- --' . . - ' ".
Literally (You are but an impertinent person. Dirty. Dirty thief). If the sense of the
metaphorical image in the ST is compared with the sense of this translation, it is
possible to find a clear gap between them.
The sense of the word beast is mainly the meaning of savagery and barbarity.
The sense of the word swine, though not in all cultures, is the meaning of dirtiness
and sometimes to mean gluttony according to the culture for which the text is
translated. In this translation, the translator resorts to translating, though not
accurate, the sense of the metaphors in the original which is not recommended
unless no plausible Arabic equivalent is available. It is also noticed that he uses the
periods as punctuation marks which hinder the flow of the metaphorical imagery
and provides some different image and emotive meaning from that of the origin.
Generally, the translator fails to choose the suitable lexical equivalents and
provide a deformed image from that of the original by not paying attention to the
metaphorical elements the writer uses, namely; polysyndeton.
The suggested optimal rendition could be as follows: " ' ,-- , ,-=, =, --'
! " the adding of the exclamation mark to the last noun phrase is necessary
to make the reader aware of some implicit meaning which Arabic translation may
prefer to keep implicit.
Concerning the word bloody has several meanings in addition to the above
meaning of " " , such as " ,' =,-- " but the choice of " " is to fit the
context and to foreshadow the coming bloody events in the novel.
As seen from the above samples that it is possible in the most of cases to
provide optimal translations of metaphorical images into Arabic. It needs only
some serious effort to comprehend the ST meaning and figuring out the most
appropriate equivalent in the TL. At this level, T1 is more successful than the
other two translations in rendering most of the images of the ST into the Arabic
language, which help the reader to imagine and feel the beauty of the original
images and descriptions.
4.2.4 Simile
Simile, according to Punter (2007:147), is a form of metaphor which is the
simplest one by using words such as like or as. Methods of Translating Simile
Larson (1984:254) lists five methods to translate metaphors and similes.
Similes would be translated according to methods 3, 4, and 5 as follows:
1. The metaphor may be kept if the receptor language permits (that is, if it sounds
natural and is understood correctly by the readers.
2. A metaphor may be translated as a simile (adding like or as);
3. A metaphor of the receptor language which has the same meaning may be
4. The metaphor may be kept and the meaning explained (that is, the topic and/or
point of similarity may be added); and
5. The meaning of the metaphor may be translated without keeping the
metaphorical imagery.
She (ibid.) gives the following example: no man is an island to illustrate the use of
the above methods as follows:
l. No man is an island. -,= '--' - '-
2. No man is like an island. -,= .`-
3. No man is a mountain peak.
4. No man is an island. An island is by itself, but no person is isolated from
others. -,= '+-,-=- ',- -,='' .-- ,, ` '--`' '-' ,=`'
5. No man is isolated from all other people ,, ,=`'
In LOTF there are many occurrences of this rhetorical device throughout the novel.
Consequently, it is necessary to examine the Arabic translations with regard to the
strategies adopted by the translators and how they manage to convey the images
introduced by the ST. Analysis of Simile
Out of many examples of simile, the researcher chooses only six samples of
simile to provide a base for analysis and evaluation of the Arabic translations.
(ST) 1- Ralph danced out into the hot air of the beach and then returned as a
fighter-plane with wings swept back, and machine-gunned Piggy. (L22-24)
'=', -'='' _'' ,---- ,='-=- -'= ` ='-'' _='-'' -', -'' :
. ) - (
_'' -=-='- _-'' -, _`-'' ='-'' -',+'' '-' (()) :
_'= -- '=', -','' )) =,- .(( ) - (
Omitted :
T1: the translator renders the above simile as ='-'' _='-'' -', -'' "
" -'='' _'' ,---- ,='-=-
In this translation, the translator uses a literal translation to render the images of the
original text. The translator renders the hot air of the beach as " _='-'' -',
" which is an adequate Arabic collocation " ='-'' -',+'' " . He translates the
verb return as " " which is a literal translation; it is better to be translated into
" --' " in order to give that image of the fighter airplane when it swoops down to
assault its target which is the exact image that the writer wants to picture in this
simile. He succeeds in translation the simile of as a fighter-plane into a simile in
the Arabic text as " " . On the other hand, he renders the adjective in with
wings swept back as " ,---- ,='-=- " which better be translated as ,---"
" . Then the translator translates the metaphor machine-gunned Piggy
literally " " which is better to be translated into simile to give
the image of resemblance between what Ralph was imitating and the actual world
of violence. In fact this rendition gives the reader an impression that Ralph indeed
was using a machinegun to shoot Piggy which is not. Generally, this translation,
despite the slight shortcomings, manages to some extent to provide approximate
image of the original.
T2: the translator renders the above simile as ='-'' -',+'' (()) "
" .((=,-)) _'= -- -=-='-
In this translation, the translator uses the metaphorical expression of " ... "
which is an elegant Arabic metaphor and gives aesthetic aspect to the Arabic text.
He uses the Arabic word " " to hold simile between Ralph and the air fighter.
T3: omitted
Both translations T1 and T2 are adequate translations with preference to T2.
(ST) 2- The three boys walked briskly on the sand. The tide was low and there
was a strip of weed-strewn beach that was almost as firm as a road. (L52-53)
. :
(-) . _-,=
: . - =,- ='- ',
) - (
: ',- ```'' '- - ='=,-,- -'' .'-'' , =,-- -',==- . ) (
T1: the translator renders the above simile as " .
". ,= -`- -'- _='-''
Here, the translator translates the simile by using a simile with the omission of the
Arabic letter " " which turns the simile into metaphor giving more weight to the
image expressed. The important notice in the above rendition is the use of
indefinite noun " ,= " to match the use of the indefinite article in the original
sentence a road which does not reflect the meaning appropriately. The reason is
that Arabic can use the definite article to prefix nouns and refer to generic or
specific reference (Aziz 1989:104). Consequently, the translator should notice this
point and provide a smooth translation to the above simile with the addition of the
definite article to the word " ,= " to become " ,='' " .
T2: the translator renders the above extract as "
. -`'---'' -'-=`'- '-,-- _='-'' - =,- ='- ', '--=-- ='', --'' ', "
The simile is omitted
T3: the translator renders the above extract as " ',- ```'' '- ='=,-,--'' -
.'-'' , =,-- -',==- "
The simile is omitted
T1 manages to maintain the same image of the original text into the Arabic text,
therefore, it is an adequate rendition.
(ST) 3- There, where the island petered out in water, was another island; a rock,
almost detached, standing like a fort, facing them across the green with one bold,
pink bastion.(L55-56)
-,= ----' -,='' , --=- -'' '-'' , :
(-) ., -, -= --='' -= ++=',,
.- ,=' -,= -=,- --' -'-'' -,='' -'+--' :
(-) . ='--'' -= +-+=',-
Omitted :
T1: the translator renders the above simile as " -'-'' -,='' , --=- -'' '-'' ,
-= --='' -= ++=',, -,= ----'
The translator here translates the simile into simile in Arabic, but he separates the
point of similarity " " from the image " " by a comma which is not
justified and break up the integrity of the image.
T2: the translator renders the above simile as " -,= -=,- --' -'-'' -,='' -'+--' --=,
In this translation, it is noticed that the translator misuses the right collocation
when he renders standing like a fort as " " whereas " " is not the
appropriate collocate with " " . On the other hand, he pays attention to the
generic reference of the Arabic definite article and renders a fort as " " .
Generally, he manages to convey the simile into Arabic by using simile through
the use of the word " " .
T3 :omitted
The suggested translation to this image is the following:
'-,-- '---- -=- -,= ='- --' -'-'' -,='' _-`-- -,=,
. '- --='' -= ++=',, - '-'-
(ST) 4- They gazed intently at the dense blue of the horizon, as if a little
silhouette might appear there at any moment. (L64-65)
. ,' ='- +=- - -,-~* -= -,;~ Q' ; '-- '' ,-'' `' ,-- ',-= :
) - (
* -= -,;~ : ~-;-~ .
.==' ,' --~ -= -,;~ ,;= Q;-;-- ';-'- ; '-- '' -,--'' `' ---- ',-'-=, :
) - (
.-,-'' `' '- ---~ ,;= Q;,=--- ;-'- -,`'' `' =-'' -- ,=`' --' :
) - (
T1: the translator renders the above simile as '' ,-'' ,-- ',-="
" ,' ='- +=- - -,- * ,'= -,-
In this translation, the simile in the original sentence is introduced by using the
lexical items as if; in Arabic, the translator uses " " which is an adequate
equivalent to the ST. He uses a footnote in which he explains that " , " is
the " -,,'- " which is the transliteration of the English word silhouette. This extra
information is necessary for the reader who does not know the meaning of this
lexical item.
T2: the translator renders the above simile as '' -,--'' "
" ',-- ,'= -,- ,+= ,,-, ',-'
Also the translator uses the structure " " to express the simile in the
Arabic text. He adds the verbal phrase " ,,-, ',-' " literally (they were expecting )
to his translation to make explicit some implicit information but he skips without
translation the adverb of place, namely ;there.
In both translations above, the point of difficulty is the word silhouette which
has no one- to -one Arabic equivalence i.e. no one word equivalent is available nor
the two word dictionary meaning as " ,'= -,- " provided by the above two
translations provides fully understandable meaning for the reader.
T3: the translator renders the above simile as " ,=`' =-'' -- -,`''
"-,-'' '- -,-- ,+= ,=--, +-'
In this translation, the translator manages to translate the simile in the original text
by a simile but with a change in the image of the target text by using the lexical
item " " . In the ST the image is the silhouette while the image in the TT is the
" -,-- " in order to overcome the difficulty of the lexical item silhouette which has
no one- to- one Arabic equivalence. He prefers to translate the sense of the image
into Arabic and provide a smooth Arabic sentence. However, the translator
mistranslates the adverb of place there as "'-" literally (this) in the phrase '- "
-,-'' " . Also he uses the adjective " -,`'' " to postmodify the " " whereas it
supposes to postmodify the " " ; he supposes to render this phrase as " `'
-,`'' " .
The suggested translation is as follows: " =- '=-'- -,-- '--'-
_-- ', -,`'' ,- -,--' ='- +=, ,' "
T3 is more adequate than the other two translations. It is smoother and more
eligible than the other two translations.
(ST) 5- The crowd was as silent as death.(L66)
() ,= : -
() ,-'='' ,+-= _'= --- =-+ :-
() -, --- -'- : -
T1: the translator renders the above simile as" ,="
The simile in the ST translated into a metaphor by deleting the letter " " which
denotes the simile in Arabic because the meaning before deleting is "
" . This metaphorical expression " " is a known Arabic metaphor
and thus the image of the ST has been conveyed with its connotations. The
translator is successful in providing the optimal collocation between " " and
the verb " ,= " to give a smooth well structured Arabic sentence .
T2: the translator renders the above simile as ,-'='' ,+-= _'= --- =-+"
In this translation, the translator renders the simile of the origin into simile in the
Arabic text as " " ; the image is preserved in the TT. But, concerning
the collocation between the verb " =- " and " " , the researcher does not see it
as the appropriate collocation because it makes the whole sentence appear
somewhat awkward.
T3: the translator renders the above simile as" -, --- -'-"
In this translation, the simile of the original text is translated into a metaphor "
-, --- " literally (a horrible silence has prevailed). The image of the ST is not
preserved but the new image carries most of the connotations and associated
images of the origin, notably, by the addition of the adjective " -, " which post
modifies the noun " " . In addition, the collocation between " " and " " is
well-known collocation which helps the smoothness of the Arabic sentence.
T1 and T3 are adequate translations with preference to T1 for its faithfulness to the
original image.
However, another translation could be suggested as follows:
(ST) 6- He swung to the right, running desperately fast, with the heat beating on
his left side and the fire racing forward like a tide. (L99)
-,=- ;'-7' _! ---- ,'-'; ,~-7' --'= _-'- -'='', --', =-- '-' ,-,'' _'' .'- :
(-) .
: ,-,'' _'' --'= _'=
() .-,'=' -'--' ,'-- J-- ;'-> _-'~-- Q',--' ~-'- '- -,`'
'-'- _-',=' ~--,'; '-, -`- ' -'='' --', .-, ','' '==' -, '-,-, -'' -=-' :
() .
T1: the translator renders the above simile as" " literally
(and the fire was pushing forward as a movement of tide)
In this translation, the translator renders the simile of the ST into a simile in the TT
by using the letter " " to hold this simile .What is taken on this translation is that
the image of racing is not rendered adequately to give that image of racing
between Ralph and the fire. It is possible in Arabic to use metaphorically some
parts of fire, for example " -+''' " or " ',-'' --'' " . The verb " " does not
reflect the metaphorical sense of racing as it should be where the comparison is
held between fire and tide. The verb " " should reflects the movement of the
tide waves. Another point which is repeated in many places throughout the
translated texts is the use of zero article (nunation ) in Arabic to render the
indefinite noun of English a tide into " -- " ignoring the fact that Arabic uses the
definite article " " to express specific reference and generic reference.
Consequently, the image and simile of the original is rendered with less
metaphorical and emotive content.
T2: the translator renders the above simile as ',-'' ',- .`- -'--- ',-'' "
",'='' .
In this translation, the image of competition and racing is conveyed by using the
imperfect verb " " with " " which is in perfect tense as a reference. The
image of comparison is rendered by using the word " " ; i.e. the translator renders
a simile into simile. Again the word tide is translated with less than its intended
meaning by the writer who compares the enormity of the fire with something that
so huge like great waves of the sea that sweep everything in their way. These
aspects of this image should be rendered into Arabic, but the translator uses the
image of ordinary flowing water which does not reflect exactly what the writer
T3: the translator renders the above simile as _='~ -- '-'- " . In this
translation, the translator manages to translate the above simile, therefore, the
image and metaphorical comparison are conveyed. What is taken on this
translation is the absence of the image of racing; otherwise, he manages to give a
close image by rendering the sense of it; notably by the rendition of tide into "
" which pictures exactly the severity of the situation that Ralph has to face.
From the above discussion, the suggested translation that takes into consideration
all the above raised points could be like:
" -'--- ',-'' --'' --', ,-- =,- '+-' ,-'= "
From the above analysis and evaluation of similes it is obvious that T1 is more
successful in rendering the similes of the original text into Arabic.
4.3 Textual Level
Halliday and Hasan (1976) believe that there are certain objective factors
involved to distinguish whether or not a series of sentences constitute a text. There
are certain features which are characteristic of texts but not of non-texts. Halliday
and Hasan lists these features as 1. Reference 2. Substitution 3. Ellipsis 4.
Conjunction 5. Lexical Cohesion. As previously stated the analysis at this level
will deal with Ellipsis and Substitution for the reason of specific choices in this
current research and its limitation.
4. 3. 1 Ellipsis and Substitution
Ellipsis according to Palmer (1984:38) is related to the feature of pro-
formation (the use of pronouns and similar forms that replace verbs and other
parts of speech.) It is mostly used to avoid repetition of what is already mentioned
which is similar to the role of substitution; it is a substitution with zero for
example: John arrived on Sunday. - And 0 went the next day. Substitution is,
according to Salkie (1995:35), a cohesive device contributes to the cohesion of a
text by substituting for words that have already been used. of Ellipsis and Substitution
In translation, it is not necessarily that these textual cohesive devises be in
one-to- one corresponding relationship. Each language has its own preference
whether to prefer ellipsis or substitution or to make explicit in the target text what
is implicit in the ST, as Baker (1992:183) states each language has what we might
call general preference of certain patterns of reference. Consequently, a process of
modification and replacement would inevitably be carried out on the target text to
achieve the acceptability and eligibility. According to Hatim and Mason (1990:12),
translation is always a motivated choice and procedure such as omissions,
additions and alterations may only be justified in case that they preserve the
intended meaning. Quinn (1982:27) argues that ellipsis phenomenon is conceived
variably according to the reader and culture. This would suggest that what is
considered to be elegant economy in one culture can be considered as ambiguous
and not understandable brevity in other culture. Consequently, what is sought after
here is to evaluate the three Arabic translations whether they keep the same devices
in the Arabic texts or recover them and, whether these translations are rendered
clearly and acceptably to the Arab reader.
4. 3.1.2 Types of Ellipsis
According to Halliday and Hassan (1976:90), Ellipsis falls into three types as
1- Nominal 2- Verbal 3- Clausal Ellipsis Analysis
1-Nominal Ellipsis
(ST) 1- Doubtfully, Ralph laid the small end of the shell against his mouth
and blew. There came a rushing sound from its mouth but nothing more (-)
_--- -,- '+-, - ._--, - _'= -,-'' ,-'' ,'+- -'' _-, ,'-, =-'',:
_--, - _'= -'=-'' ,-'' -='' (()) :
(-)`' , - -
-'= '+-', (( )) _--, - _'= --,-,- '+,'= :
(-) .
T1: the translator retains the same ellipsis found in the original text after the
comparative degree form which is represented by the word more in the phrase
nothing more which he translates as " " literally (no more ). This rendition
maintains the same stylistic effect of the source text in the Arabic one. This is
recommended whenever it is possible to convey such stylistic factors into target
language without causing ambiguity or illegibility.
T2: the translator also retains the same ellipsis in the Arabic text by rendering the
comparative degree in the phrase nothing more as " `' ,' " . It is noted that this
translation and the one above achieved the same thing which is the maintenance of
the ellipsis of the original text and each translator has used different lexical items
to achieve the same goal. T2 uses a collocational structure that gives more rhetoric
to the text.
T3: the translator fails to convey the elliptic elements of the source text into Arabic
and he just conveyed the sense of the elliptic elements. Consequently, the
translated text loses some of its meaning and stylistic effects.
Both T1 and T2 manage to provide an adequate rendition of the ST ellipted
elements with preference to T2 which is more elegant and smoother than T1.
(ST) 2- "Nobody killed, I hope? Any dead bodies?"
"Only two (-). And they've gone." (ellipted elements dead bodies)
The officer leaned down and looked closely at Ralph.
"Two? Killed?"(L104-105)
: - -`= -=,- ..-' '- _'=-=' .--, '
- . ) - (
: - -=,- . -=' .- - ,, ,' -`=
- ,,- .--, ' '-'-`= ---=' -, =- ,-`' .. ) - (
: - -`=`, ','=- ='- ,,
- . '-,' '-+-' '- . ) - (
T1: the translator recovers the elliptic elements after the cardinal number two i.e.,
two bodies of the original text into " " literally (two dead bodies). Although
the translator recovers the elliptic elements but he manages to give a very concise
and economic recovery of the elliptic elements and then preserves as much as of
the original style and achieves acceptability.
T2: the translator makes a long paraphrasing to the elliptic elements and then
risking the conveyance of the original text style into Arabic.
T3: the translator tries to imitate the original ellipsis by literally translating the
phrase only two as " " which is supposed to be " " because it
refers to " -`= " which has a feminine singular " " therefore " " should be
feminine since numbers from 1-2 concord with the gender.
T1 is the best of the three translations with almost optimal rendition.
2- Verbal Ellipsis
(ST) 3- All them other kids, the fat boy went on. Some of them must have got
out. They must have(-), mustn't they? (ellipted elements got out)
()='- ,'' +-' . +-- .,=`' -:
+-- ' --` +-- ' -,-'' -, ,--'' - ',-= ',-' -:
(-) ,''..
: - _'= +--- ) (
T1: the translator recovers the ellipted verb of the original text got out and
translates it as " " . However it is possible to maintain the same ellipsis effect by
saying " +-' ) - ( .. ,'' " and the reader would understand the meaning of the
ellipted element from the immediate context since the previous sentence provides
this clue to the reader .
T2: the translator recovers the ellipted verb got out as " "
While he renders the verb got out in the previous sentence as " "
This tautology is not appropriate here since the aim is to imitate as much as
possible the style of the author and if ellipsis is not possible in some cases then the
translator should be as economic and concise as possible. It is clear for the Arabic
reader that the verb " " implicitly means to survive from death.This translation
while it is clear and convey the meaning of the original text but does not match the
style of the author.
T3: the translator renders the general meaning of the above extract and renders it
all in one brief sentence. He does not stick to the writers very sentences.
Consequently, as far as ellipsis is concerned, the translator fails to convey this
stylistic device into Arabic.
Another point is mostly related to the way in which Piggy (the fat boy), second
most important character in LOTF, talks; he uses wrong grammar, double negative
and hesitation. These characteristics of Piggys way of talking supposed to be
taken into consideration by the three translators for their importance to the
effective rendition. No one of the translators tries to reflect this odd way of talking
to the Arab reader. What is seen is only normal character talks as normal as any
other child in the novel. This would deprive the translated text of one of the most
important stylistic features the writer wanted through which to reflect the character
of Piggy, his geographical origin, social status etc.,.
The suggested translation takes into consideration maintaining the same ellipsis in
the TT as well as other stylistic features such as Piggys odd way of talking as
,--'' -','' .-', ": .. =-',' .. ,=`' .. " " '=- - +-- ' --` . +-' --` .. ='- ',-,''
(ST) 4- He took off his glasses and held them out to Ralph, (-) blinking and
smiling, (ellipted elements he was)
() '-----, ,-,- ''=-''' '--, -'=- _'= :
() ---,, ,-,- -, ,, (()) _'= '+-=, -'=- _'=, :
() '-'-='- ,-,= = -'=- _ `:
As it is seen above that T1 preserves the same ellipsis and then preserving the
stylistic effect of the origin )" ,, ( ''= ,-,- '-----, " .
T2 recovers the ellipted subject " , " .
In T3 the translator mistranslates the present participle blinking as " " literally
(winked) whereas the meaning of blink is " -= - " which is the involuntary
movement of eyeled whereas " " is a purposeful act . Consequently, T1 is more
accurate and closer to the original text in terms of meaning and style.
3- Clausal Ellipsis
(ST) 5- Merridew turned to Ralph.
"Aren't there any grownups?"
"No." (48-49)
,''- -=,, `' -:
(-) -
' -=,, - :
(-) -
.'-- '--, - ='- ,'. - :
(-) . -
It is clear from the examination of the three Arabic translations T1,T2 and T3
that all three translators have preserved the ellipsis of the original text in their
Arabic translations . They rendered the lexical item no as " " , " " and " "
respectively. What is noted also is that elliptic elements in the Arabic translations
are all understood and therefore they manage to convey this stylistic device used
by the writer to the Arabic reader. Analysis of substitution
1- Nominal substitution
(ST) 6- "Samneric. Get me a coconut. An empty one." (L67)
() . -- -,;= .-- -,;= .=,', '--:
() . .--+'' ,= --` .samneric =,--'- -:
() . (-)-- ,= --` = ' '`=-' ...,':
T1: the translator recovers the substitution element of the ST one into . " -- -,= "
Generally, according to Baker (1992:189-90) grammatical structure of Arabic
favors pronominal reference as a common device for tracing participants and
establishing cohesive links in general. However, the lexical repetition can be used
in order to eliminate any ambiguity which occurs as a result of using pronominal
reference or to give more cohesion to the text. In the above translation, he repeated
the compound noun " -- -,= " to meet such above-mentioned demands. What is
taken on this translation with regard to the grammatical mistakes is the use of the
verb " " which is used in the plural form to mean that the referent is more
than two, whereas they are only two namely, Sam and Eric, and the correct form
should be in dual since Arabic has three number system: singular denoting one,
dual denoting two and plural denoting more than two. Consequently, the verb get
should be " " .
T2: Golding uses the name Samneric to refer to Sam and Eric to symbolically refer
to their intimate relation as twin but he never refers to them as singular.
Consequently, the translator mistranslates the dual reference (in English plural) to
Sam and Eric and renders the verb as " " which is in the singular form. With
regard to the substitution, the translator recovers one element of the nominal group
" " and this recovery of the substituted element is necessary to eliminate the
ambiguity and to make a good cohesive text.
. (-)-- ,= --` = ' '`=-'.. .,':
T3: the translator deletes the substituted element and makes one sentence in which
no repetition of the nominal group or one of its elements. The repetition in the
original text serves as a kind of hesitation on the part of the speaker or just to be
more specific on what coconut they should bring him. In this translation, the
sentence appears straightforward with no such connotations. Consequently, the
translation in terms of the general meaning is acceptable but in terms of specific
features the writer wants to convey through the use of certain stylistic devices it
can be said that this translation missed these features. In addition to that,
misprinting of the name Eric as " .,' " and reverse order of the twin names which
should be preserved in Arabic. From the above discussion, T1 is more adequate
than the other two .
2- Verbal Substitution
(ST) 7- "That's right--favor Piggy as you always do--" (L70)
() '--'- _,=- '- - :
() ((=,-)) .. ='- ,, -:
Deleted from the translation with more several lines :
Both translations T1 and T2 maintain the same substitution of the original text do
and translated it as " " . They do not recover the substituted elements, therefore,
they matches the stylistic choices of the author. T3 omitted the sentences of the
above extract.
3- Clausal Substitution
(ST) 8- "Aren't there any grownups at all?"
"I don't think so."
: - ,''-'' - ' -=,, `'
(-) .'- Q=' 7 -
: - ='- -=,, `'
(-) . -
: - _'= '-- '--, - -=,,`'
(-) . -
T1 and T2 managed to maintain a similar clausal substitution by rendering the
original sentence I don't think so (there are any grownups). into :
"'- " and " " respectively. Both translators use demonstaratives
namely, " '- " and " " to stand for so in the ST.
T3:the translator renders the sentence I dont think so as " " literally (I
dont think), the translator does not provide an equivalent lexical item for the
substitute word so, nevertheless the answer is understood by the reader
according to the information provided by the previous sentences but it does not
match the stylistic effect of the original text.
As the analysis of ellipsis and substitution above shows, T1 is more adequate than
the other two translations.
4.3.2 Allusions
Allusion has two senses according to the literary scholars. In its broad sense, it
may be any reference to past literary or historical material. While in its narrow
sense, can be defined as a brief, unexplained reference to a figure, object, event,
place, or action from literature or history which aims at evoking a certain
emotional response because of the already existing associations within a reader's
mind (Brown, 2008 :unnumbered page ). of Allusions
At the beginning, allusions presuppose, as Leppihalme (1997:4) states, a
particular kind of receiver participation. The words of the allusion function as a
clue to the meaning. Consequently, in order to overcome the cultural barrier
when translating allusions, the receiver should have a high degree of
biculturalization. In fact, it is acknowledged that translator, as Leppihalme (ibid.)
states, should not only be bilingual but also bicultural. But, is it necessary that the
reader of the TT should also be bicultural? Alternatively, in case the answer is no,
would these allusions be, as Leppihalme (ibid.) calls them, culture bumps when
they occur in the translated texts? Culture bumps is, According to Leppihalme
(ibid.), is a reference for a situation where the reader of a TT has a problem
understanding a source cultural allusion.
In order to translate allusions there are some strategies that can be used according
to the type of allusion and the cultural gap between SL culture and TL culture.
These strategies, according to Leppihalme (ibid.:25), include: literal translation
method, replacement by target cultural material, or footnote technique. Analysis of Allusions
Following are samples taken from the LOTF as follows:
(ST) 1- Lord of the Flies (throughout the novel; the title on the cover and
within the body of the novel)
This proper noun allusion has been translated differently. This name occurred as a
title on the cover of the translated Arabic versions and as a character within the
body of the novel. There is inconsistency in the use of the translated name between
the title on the cover and within the body of the novel text. Consequently, the
researcher lists both translations for each.
: ) ,','' -- , (
: ) ( -'--'' ,-' ) -=--'' ,','' -- ( -'--'' -,- ) (
: ) ( +'' ) -=--'' ,','' -- ( -'--'' '' ) - (
T1: the translator transliterate the word lord into Arabic " " . The cover title
and the rest of occurrences of this name in the novel as . " " What is noted,
that one may lose the symbolic reference in this mixed Arabic English name to
the symbol meant by the writer which is a reference to Beelzebub, the biblical
name of the Satan.
T2: the translator renders it into two translations in his version; the title reads as
" ,-' " literally (The Prince of the Flies) whereas he uses " -'--'' -,- " literally
(the Master of the Flies) in the rest of the translated text. The translators use of
two different names for the same referent is not recommended since it causes a
confusion to the reader as whether these two names refer to one referent or two and
why there are two different names?!. It is clear that the original text has one name
on the cover of the novel and through its body, therefore, the writers symbol is
the same throughout the novel which is not the case in the translated version.
In both translations T1 and T2 it is obvious that both translators tried to avoid
translating the word lord into, for example, " " or " '' " which raise a religious
sensitivity in the mind of the Arabic reader since words like these above should be
used carefully and only in positive connotations and this is clearly understood by
the Arabic reader.
However, in T3, the translator is bold enough to translate Lord of the Flies as
" +'' " literally (the gods of flies) on the cover page whereas he translates it as
" -'--'' '' " literally (the god of the flies) in the rest of the novel. Both names are
raising religious sensitivity in the mind of the reader and since better options are
available to translate the name, therefore, it is less adequate translation. Lord of the
Flies is a translation of the Hebrew Baalzevuv (Beelzebub in Greek)
(Vaidyanathan 2009:19). It is used by Golding allusively; Lord = sign of a
Christian, civilized society. Flies = decay. Since this novel is both allegory and
parable, the title acts as a warning. The order of words in the title mirrors the
structure of the novel and what it has to say about a civilized society that is
breaking down. Basically, Goldings title is a translation to that Hebrew name and
then Arabic may have a privilege to reach the Hebrew name better than the English
to Hebrew and the title can be both understood in terms of meaning and
symbolically because it alludes to the biblical name of Satan if it is Naturalized
into Arabic as " " or by referring directly into the Arabic name of the Satan
as " '=,-'' " . However, T2 uses two translations to the name Lord of the Flies
but it is still more adequate than the other two translations.
(ST) 2- At once there was a clamour.
"Treasure Island--"
"Swallows and Amazons--"
"Coral Island--" (L63)
() . Q'=,-' -,-,= - :
() --'=,-' ~~' -,-,= - :
() . - :
T1: the translator renders Coral Island as " '=-'' -,= "
T2: the translator renders it as " ,-'=-'' --'' -,= "
T3: the translator renders it as " ,, ,---, "
It is noted that T1 is more accurate in choosing the equivalent to the name of the
story because the word coral is translated into Arabic as " " . T2 is literally
(the island of coral reefs) which is somewhat not accurate because the translator
renders Coral as " ,-'=-'' --'' " literally (coral reefs) which if it is back
translated into English gives some different allusion or refer to some other story.
T3, in this translation the translator sets himself free from the original text and
names the Coral Island after the name of other famous story that is Robison
Crusoe. It is not successful rendition since the writer alludes to these certain
stories of Coral Island and Treasure Island due to the resemblances between
their characters and that of LOTFs. Coral Island, is an allusion, a literary
reference, to a book by R. M. Ballantyne (1857) of that name (Coles, 2007:4). It
is a romantic adventure story with a successful conclusion used by Golding to
achieve a kind of irony for though both stories talk about a group of boys
marooned on an isolated island but their endings are contradictory. The allusion to
this story is ironic because the end of the story is happy while the situation in
which the children in LOTF is tragic one. So mere translation of this allusion to
Arabic reader does not reflect the irony behind it. On the contrary, the audience of
the original text would figure out this irony due to the fact that this story and
others are part of the heritage of that culture and therefore most of them have read
or heard about these stories. To bridge the gap between these cultural allusions and
the Arabic reader, the translators should provide some footnotes to briefly inform
the reader of such cultural backgrounds in order to achieve the goal of cultural
communication behind the translation process.
(ST) 3- "But Merridew."
"He's always throwing a faint," said Merridew. "He did in Gib.; and Addis; and at
matins over the precentor." {L46 -47]
_'=, ,-'--'' .,--'' -',= , --' ~-= ,'= _-- =--, '--'- -' -:
,'--'' ,= --' - ) - (
-'-=`' - ' ' -- -- -'-=`' -, '--'- -' :((,-,,-)) :
(-) . ,'--'' ,= --' ',=- -,-''- =-'' -`- , '-'-' --'
: - '- ',` ,=, ---, . ) (
T1: the translator transliterates the names as ",-', -,=" without any further
information to the reader as what is meant by these geographical names. In fact
such abbreviations represent a real problem for the translator. It is clear that the
translator has no information about these abbreviations so he uses the direct
rendition of these names without further information since the text does not
provide extra information to help the translator to infer what these geographical
locations refer to.
T2: the translator is successful in rendering these abbreviated names into Arabic
basically due to his knowledge about such informal abbreviations in the SL and
then renders these geographical allusions as " ,-' " . This
geographical allusion presents an image about the stations where they stopped to
refuel the plane in their way from England until their plane crashed near the
tropical island. In this successful translation the reader gets more extra
information about the context of the novel and its events through some useful
clues provided here and there. These are abbreviations for Gibraltar ( )
and Addis Ababa ) ,-' ( , respectively; refueling stops the evacuation plane
made before crashing on the island. Golding uses this geographical reference to
give hints about the route the plane followed through its flight (int3.2011).
T3: skipped this allusion
T2 is the most adequate translation of the other two.
(ST) 4- That's a wound," said Simon, "and you ought to suck it. Like
Berengaria. (L86)
() .'-,'=-,-- .`- ---- ' -=,, _= '- - :
: - ,-= _= ='- =--- ---- ' --,, . ) (
(). --- Q' ~=- Q'- . -' - :
T1: the translator renders the word Berengaria as " ','=-,,- " in the sentence " -'
','=-,,- .`- ---- ' -=,, _= " . In the source text, the author uses this allusion
to say something and the culture of the source text has that amount of information
about what Berengaria is; while in the target language the reader lacks for such
information. Consequently, the Arabic reader will ask the question who is
Berengaria? What its relevancy to the story? The translator should put some
footnote to inform the Arabic reader about this name in order that events and
meanings get clear and the writers purpose be understood.
T2: the translator does not translate the word Berengaria and he renders the
sentence Thats a wound, said Simon, and you ought to suck it. Like
Berengaria. into " )) ,-,- : (( ,-= _= ='- --, =--- ---- " . Simon in this
novel is a kind of character that has some Christ-like resemblance, his words has
weight in the events and theme of the novel, therefore, when this character
mentions certain name it means that this name or word of important value. The
translator satisfied himself with rendering a general meaning without paying
attention to such elements in the text, which have to be considered carefully.
T3: the translator fails to address this allusion by skipping this allusion. He frees
himself from the ST sentence by adding some extra meaning which is not found in
the ST causing a clear deviation from the writers intended meaning. The sentence
Thats a wound, said Simon, and you ought to suck it. Like Berengaria.
Rendered by the translator as _= -' . -=, ' '--- " . According to Bassnett and
Harish (1999:23) many of the differences between ST and its translation are not
easy to escape .The reason is that both languages the source language and target
one impose their constraints and obligatory features on the translated text. Other
constrains have a cultural basis; where the decision should be made by the
translator on the appropriate way to handle features of the source culture. Such
features include objects, customs, historical and literary allusions that are different
or unknown to the target audience. He must recourse to certain techniques such as
adapting, modifying of the source text or even an explanation, but all these
methods should be in line with the intended meaning presented by the writer.
According to Oxford Journal (int4.2011), this reference made by Simon when
Jack is cut slightly on the arm by the boar's tusks and begins to bleed. Simon
attributed this action to Berengaria, queen of Richard I, while it was supposed to be
performed by Eleanor of Castile, wife of Edward I, who saved her husband by
sucking his poisoned wound. H
(ST) 5- Piggy
: =,-
: --,-,-
T1: the translator uses the old Arabic name for the little pig as " " . This name
is not known for the most Arab readers and, therefore, the reason behind the
laughing of Ralph and the others at this name is not clear. Consequently, the
Arabic translation does not convey this effect to the Arab reader. The translator
should at least put a classifier next to the name or a footnote to clarify this
T2: the translator uses the transliteration of the name Piggyas " =,- " , it is also
possible to transliterate the sound or letter G into Arabic as " _ " . The translator
provides a classifier next to the transliterated name as " ,-'' ,-='' " . This
transliteration process and classifier provide the reader with the connotations of the
name and explain why the children laugh when Piggy is mentioned. This
translation is the optimal one.
T3: the translator does not use transliteration neither an Arabic equivalent name to
render it. He translates Piggy as " --,-,- " which is a transliteration of the French
word for piglet porcinet. This translation fails to convey the irony effect meant
by the writer and also puts the Arabic reader in a place which is too far from
realizing the connotational and symbolic nature of this name. According to Gazala
(2006:176) proper names should, in most of the cases, be transliterated and never
be translated into Arabic.
This name carries a kind of irony for the fact that in the novel: boys kill and eat
pig, therefore, using this name hints that Piggy will also be killed (Vaidyanathan
2009:68). This name acquires great importance in the novel since it is one of the
major characters in its events. Piggy is a childs word for a pig and it means the
little pig which causes children to laugh at the bearer of this name. From the above
discussion it seems that T2 is the optimal one.
T2 is better than the two other translations at this level of analysis.
4.4 Stylistic Analysis
4.4.1Goldings Style
According to Vaidyanathan (2009:41), Goldings style is characterized by being
simple, clear, graceful, chaste and poetic. Golding is famous for his decorative
devices such as the use of metaphor, simile, imagery as well as the use of symbols
to convey his message, which is so evident in his first novelistic work LOTF. What
is fascinating about his style as Miss Diana Neil observes (quoted in, ibid.) is the
use of words chosen for their pictorial value or their strange disturbing sense of
Biber and Conrad (2009:136f) acknowledge that LOTF integrates whatever
available of information sources to its characters. Golding mixes both fictional
narrative with extensive dialogue in a kind of unique balance in which you see the
events through the eyes of characters, you feel them and interact. This is in
particular what distinguishes this novel from other fables whose audience do not
care much about its characters for they, i.e. characters, only representations of
symbols, their role is only to give a kind of a moral lesson. On the contrary, in
LOTF as an allegory the audience interacts emotionally with its characters on one
side and grasp the moral lesson of it on the other. Golding style has both the main
characteristics of the dialogue which are manifested in the occurrences of
present tense verbs, modal verbs, contractions, ellipsis, and questions which are
typical of conversational style. The other is the narration style which is
characterized by the frequent use of the past tense verbs and third person pronouns,
typical of prose narration. In general, according to Crystal and Davy (1969:102-3)
the language of conversations is characterized by inexplicitness due to the
participants extreme reliance for much of their information on the extra-linguistic
context in which the conversation is taking place.
Following is an example to illustrate the use of conversational style through direct
speech between characters:
"What was that?" (question)
The fat boy glanced over his shoulder, then leaned toward Ralph.
He whispered.
"They used to call me 'Piggy.'"
Ralph shrieked with laughter. He jumped up.
"Piggy! Piggy!" (Repetition)
Piggy clasped his hands in apprehension.
"I said I didn't want--" (contraction) (ellipsis)
"So long as you don't tell the others--" (present tense )
(LOTF 1954:p11-2)
Golding uses two completely different styles of sentence structure. The narrative
parts of the novel are written in an informal English style in which he uses short,
simple and clear sentences to narrate the story. He also uses simple vocabulary
with carefully selected words. His second type of sentence structure is colloquial.
All of the boys on the island are under twelve years of age and to make this part
believable, he had to use dialogue that resembles that of a twelve-year-old. He
uses, in this colloquial style, simple words, slang, and usual grammatical mistakes
for kids in this age notably, the mistakes made by Piggy who is a Cockney and
speaks incorrect grammar.
4.4.2 Analysis of Style
(1) Informal style
The following excerpt is narrated in an informal style characterized by the use
of contraction and phrasal verbs:
(ST) Ralph turned away to the red cliff. They were waiting behind him in the
long grass, waiting to see what he would do. He noticed that the sweat in his palm
was cool now; realized with surprise that he did not really expect to meet any
beast and didn't know what he would do about it if he did. (L71-75)
-', ,=--, ',-' . -='' -,- =-, ,, :
'-= _,-, , ' -' '-----=-, -=' '' ==` .'-,- '- ',,' ,=--,
( -). -' '-' '-,- '- -, , ' '- =,
,=--- ..'-'' ,=- '+=-- (()) :
-- ,-, =' -,=,-'' '' ' ==`,..'-,- '-'- ',,' ,=--- .,,=''
.-,- '-'- -, , ' -',..=, ' +=',- .-''- _,-, , ' -' -,-
' ==` .==-, ,=--, . =--,. :
'-'- -, .=, -=-, -' -, ' ,+ -, -=- ` .--= '--
(-).'-', '---= .-,-
It is noted in the ST excerpt that Golding uses simple vocabulary and informal
style. According to Ghazala (2006:229), due to the difficulty of identifying the
exact Arabic equivalent to the English style on the stylistic scale, it is
recommended that One or two symbolic features of informal Arabic are sufficient
to give a hint at the informal tone of the English informal origin. Moreover,
Ghazala (ibid.) considers that the most acceptable solution is to translate all
English tones into MSA, despite the fact that this solution would prevent the reader
from the unique features of the original text. However, it is mostly the practical
solution since translating ST informal style or colloquial into Arabic informal and
colloquial style would limit the accessibility of text only to limited audience and
being characterized by locality and individuality i.e. limited to certain communities
and cultures.
It is evident that the three translations use the MSA in the rendition of the informal
style of the ST and this is acceptable for the message to reach the Arabic audience
though losing some of its aesthetic features.
However, there are some notes on the three translations can be outlined as
T1: the translator translate the verb realized as " " which is not successful
because according to the narrative point of view the narrator tells the story as an
omniscient one then the verbs used are mental ones, that is, expressing the inner
feelings of the characters. Consequently, this rendition deviates the narration point
of view from the original one. The right rendition is " " . The translator also
violates the original punctuation marks and adds unjustified commas which break
the smoothness of the original text and give some different image from that of the
original. Note the addition of commas "...-' '-----=-, ..." whereas the original
sentence has only one semicolon ...was cool now; realized with.... Undoubtedly,
this abuse of punctuation marks would affect the translated text and causes some
loss of the characteristics of the style of the text.
T2: the translator translates red cliff into "'-'' " skipping the
translation of the word red. He also makes a grammatical mistake by rendering
the phrase waiting to see what he would do into " '-,- '-'- ".. which supposed to
either be complemented by making explicit the subject " " and be " '-,- '-'-
" or positing a connective noun to refer to Ralph " '-,- -'' '- " . Another
grammatical mistake is his rendering the phrase the sweat in his palm... as "
" ,-, =' which is not correct because the writer talks about one
palm and the translation should be " -, =' '' " . However if we accept that the
writer figuratively talks about two palms then the translator should make concord
in number between " " and " ,-, " as dual in Arabic and the phrase should be
" ,-, -=' " .
T3: the translator uses to a large extent the free translation (some time loose
translation) and he tries to keep the sense of the original text. However, this
liberation from the original text affects the writers delicate images and his style in
writing; then many decisive scenes are missed from this kind of translation. Note
his rendition of cliff into " " literally (rock). His rendition of the phrase
the sweat in his palm... into " --= '-- " where he renders palm into "
"--=. Also he uses a period mark in the phrase " -, `, .=, = " which is not
used in the original text. This undoubtedly, affects the quality of the translated text
and gives an awkward and mismatching version .
The three translations rendered the informal style into MSA which is an
adequate translation. But some of the features in the ST are lost in the translated
texts due to the following:
1- Loose commitment to punctuation marks (especially T1)
2- The absence of a structure in Arabic to match the contraction found in the ST
(e.g., didnt know)
3- Grammatical mistakes (T2)
T1 is better than the other two translations on this aspect of informal style.
(2) Colloquial style
Following is an excerpt from the novel which provides the base for analysing the
three Arabic translations:
(ST) Piggy took off his shoes and socks, ranged them carefully on the ledge, and
tested the water with one toe.
"It's hot!"
"What did you expect?"
"I didn't expect nothing. My auntie--"
"Sucks to your auntie!" (L29-34)
: =-'' -'' _'= ,'-- '-+-- -'-=, -,=
,-='- ,-- .
- '= -' .
- '-,- .
- =--- ,=='' _'' . ) - (
,=-'' '='' _'= ,'-= '-+--, , ((=,-)) :
.,-- ',-'' --=, _',
- -='- ',- - '+'', !
- '+-'
- . ) - (
: -,=, -'-= --,-,- _'= ` . '-+-- . _-,, '+-' -'-'' --
- -'- ',-'' .
- ',--- -- -,
- ..
- - . . ) - (
Colloquial style is mainly represented in the direct conversations between
characters. Golding uses the double inverted commas to indicate these
conversations. These conversations occur between children; the oldest is just over
12 years and the youngest are the twin Sam and Eric who act as one person so
they are called Samneric. Consequently, the conversations are written by Golding
to match the way the children talk with grammatical mistakes, interruption and
misuse of the proper words to describe the strange situations they were in. All
these stylistic effects add a unique taste to this novel. On the other hand, this style
poses a real problem to the translators who want to translate this particular style
and its features. Adding to that the problem of rendering slang language and
taboos, which push the translator to use some strategies to make his version of the
novel accepted by the publishing houses as well as its final target, which is the
reader. The next step is to analyze the above excerpts in comparison with the
original text as follows:
T1: with the acknowledgeable difficulty of rendering colloquial style, the
translator uses the modern standard Arabic with both the narrator part and the
dialogue between Ralph and Piggy. What is noted on this translation is the
The translator skips the exclamation mark in it is hot! " - -' " . which in fact
strips the situation of its matter and becomes an ordinary statement said by Piggy
rather than facing a surprising situation to which he reacts immediately by uttering
the above utterance. The other note is that some dialect specific words in the
original text namely, these said by piggy, for example, auntie to express the
affection and love piggy feels towards his aunt are unfortunately, not effectively
addressed in the translated text. In addition, it is noted that the last sentence, in the
above extract from the original text, is written in the slang language sucks to your
auntie which is a slang swear word containing bad connotation. In the T1, the
translator uses the standard Arabic cursing words " =--- ,=='' " literally (to hell
with your aunt).
T2: the translator manages to translate adequately the sentence It's hot!
as " " - -='- ',- - '+'', ! by using the known Arabic exclamation form with the
exclamation mark . This is necessary to provide the exact meaning intended by the
writer when he puts such marks. However, the translator uses the wrong
preposition when he translates the sentence ...ranged them carefully on the
ledge,... as" ,=-'' '='' _'= ,'-= '-+--, " the preposition "" is not the
accurate rendition in this context it is supposed to be " " as " ,'-- " . A misprint
error occurred in the sentence "... ',-'' --=, _',... " the pronoun "" in the word
" --=, " ; it supposed to be " --=, " . The translator uses standard Arabic neutral
words " in the rendition of the swear words sucks to your auntie!
(L34) of the ST.
T3: the translator incorrectly translates the word hot into " " literally warm.
He also skips the exclamation mark from his rendition and unjustified deletion of
the word auntie. The deletion of this word causes the loss of its related emotive
value and presents the reader with some different effect from that of the origin.
It is noted that the colloquial /slang style is rendered into modern standard Arabic.
This actually strips the translated texts from the liveliness and uniqueness of the ST
characteristics, which mainly represents the language told by children. While it is
difficult to preserve the whole style of the original text, yet it is possible to provide
some useful solutions to this difficult area of translation as follows:
1- Translating the word auntie into, for example, " " which is acceptable
and understood to the Arab reader and also conveys the emotional aspect
connected to this word when uttered by children.
2- With regard to the use of euphemism, differences between cultures play a
significant role in deciding what is acceptable and what is not for a certain cultural
community, as Baker (1992:234) states that in some translation contexts, being
polite can be far more important than being accurate. However, appropriate
alternative should be sought.
T2 is more adequate than the two other translations on this aspect of colloquial
4.5 Extra- Linguistic Determinants
1- Subject Matter
According to Reiss (2000:70), what the words are about is considered as
necessary to guide the translator throughout the translation process. This belief had
been stressed by Nida (1964:153) who thinks that it is very important for the
translators to have the complete knowledge of both source and receptor languages
as well as intimate knowledge of the subject matter. Golding in his novel LOTF
uses the allegory as a means to convey his message. The novel is written as a
narrative fiction that makes use of the subjects of adventure, castaway, survival
and sci-fi. To all these characteristics, Golding adds an implied didactic moral
lesson. This subject has its net of vocabularies and special techniques used by the
writer. The use of symbolic names to refer to some implied meanings and
connotations to deepen the lesson and experience one can get from the novel. For
example, piggy refers connotatively to pig, which is the game animal in the
island. Consequently, piggy as a name foreshadows the tragic fate of its bearer
Piggy. On the other hand, Jack, the name of the main antagonist, is one of the
Satans names. Therefore, while Jack acts as a character in the events of the novel,
there is a hidden theme symbolically refering to the satanic behaviour of Jack. This
satanic behavior is set in contrast to the moral behavior of, say the behavior of
Ralph or Piggy as, human beings. To approach such an intricate subject, Golding
uses the language of Sense Impression such as the expressions that appeal to the
sense of hearing, sight. He uses metaphor, simile, allusions, pun, personification,
new coinages of words such as Littluns (used to refer to the younger boys),
Biguns (used to refer to the older boys), Samneric (a coined name for the twin Sam
and Eric) etc. Accordingly, there are many tools that the author employed in order
to convey his subject, the content itself, the language of sense impression, figures
of speech and neologisms, etc.
As far as the Arab translators are concerned they performed their translations
variably, i.e., their knowledge of the subject matter is not at the same degree of
quality. According to the above-analyzed data namely, lexical items, collocations,
metaphors, simile, allusions and other levels of analysis, it is noted that translations
could be listed according to the overall commitment to the subject matter as
The translator of T1 shows more efficiency in recognizing the intended meanings
of the words. This result has been reached by collecting analysis results of all
levels of analysis. This means that the translator is well- acquainted with the field
of narrative texts and knows what has to be done to handle such a text type. The
translator of T2 comes next with regard to the overall knowledge and acquaintance
with the subject matter. He shows some referential mistranslations, which affected
his translation as the analysis above shows. Translator of T3 seems to have some
difficulties in his translation manifested in skipping and mistranslating some
important sentences and phrases of great importance to the translated text. Most of
these elements skipped and mistranslated, as it has been noticed by the researcher,
are those of some kind of ambiguous structure or those that have no exact Arabic
equivalents which entails the professional translator to figure out the appropriate
strategy to cope with.
2- Audience
It is normally, according to Nord (2005:62), that the producer of the text will
exert as much effort as possible to live up to the expectations of the addressed
audience. However, sometimes the case would be the deliberate ignorance of the
audience expectations for purpose, for example, to make the audience pay attention
to certain patterns of thinking, etc. It is clear that Arabic translators faced while
translating this novel, at least, two crucial points that they have to address,
namely, the cultural conventions and religious sensitivity. With regard to the
cultural conventions and traditions, Arab culture prohibits explicit sexual
expressions and deems them as offensive. In the Lord of the Flies there are many
obscene phrases that have to be bowdlerized, euphemized, modified or at least
softened in order to become acceptable for the Arabic reader. They mostly refer
to the body and bodily functions. See the following example:
(ST) Robert stabilized the thing in a phrase which was received uproariously.
"Right up her ass!"
"Did you hear?"
"Did you hear what he said?"
"Right up her ass!"
: -- .,` =- -`,`' ==`, =- -=-- ,=, -=' . '-'- ',-- '=', _-'' ,=, ',
- '+-=,- _-= -- .
- '' '- ---'
- '+-=,- _-= . ) - (
: )) (( -=-'', _,=-'' - --'= ,=--, _,-='' -'= -'-= -`' '- .
- --'-- '+,- _'=
- --- .
- '' '- --- .
- --'-- '+,- _'= ) (
: :
- -=,- ---- !
- --- .
- -' '' '- --- .
- -=,- . ) - (
Cultural expectation and the audience factor inevitably will cause the translator
in most cases to manipulate the text to fit into its new culture and live up to the
expectations of the audience. The three Arab translators used the words " '+-=,- "
according to T1, the word " '+,- " according to T2 and the word " -=,- "
according to T3 respectively. The meaning of all these three translations is the
backside, which is a euphemized expression for the English offensive word ass.
The other crucial issue is related to the religious sensitivity which has been
explained above in the analysis of the title of the novel Lord of the Flies and its
Arabic translations.
3- Time and Place
LOTF was written in 1954. That period was dominated by the tragic
consequences of the WWII, which ended in 1945, and the fears of a new nuclear
warfare. When it was published, after being refused by several publishing houses
at the beginning, became a brilliant success. The reason is that its theme and
subject are very close to the concerns of the public. In addition, given the fact that
the novel talks about British school boys and the place where it was first published
was Great Britain, the novel found its direct audience who effectively interact with
its new subject and message. In order to contrast the original text information with
the Arabic translations, below a table lists the available information about each as
Table 4.2 time and place information of the TTs
no The name of the
The title
in Arabic
Year of
Place of
T1 Samir Izzat Nassar
'-- -= ,--

T2 Abdul- Hameed Al-
.'-='' -,-='' --=
,-' 1994/2000 ,--'' '-''
,-'--''' - -'-''
T3 Mahmoud Qasim

-'--'' +'' 1991 .`+'' '-
It is noted that the time gap between the ST and the target texts is 40 years at the
maximum and 34 years at the minimum. This period of time has some effect on the
audience interest because the fears of a third WW is not like those fears of the
years in which Golding wrote his novel and formed the theme ideas he wanted to
convey. However, the interest in translating this novel came vehemently after
wining Nobel Prize for literaturefor literature in 1983, though some translations
into Arabic introduced in the sixties. Concerning the effect of the time gap,
between the original text and the translations, on the language, it seems of a very
little effect, because in the first place, the time gap is not a vast one to sustain
tangible changes to the source language or the target one and secondly, the
original text mentions very little about the social life of the society at that time and
focuses on the description of the life on the island (the place in the novel) which
does not pose a difficulty to the professional translators. Time gap can pose a real
problem if the novel was written, for example, in the 17
century or even 19
century where real differences in the structures and styles of writers would be a
matter of challenge to modern translators. What is noted in this novel is that it has
no specific time, the time simply in the future and this open ended time represents
a suspense element in the novel which attracts the audience up to this time because
the events and the dangers expected could happen any time in the real life.
4.6 The General Makeup of the Novel and its Translations
1- Chapter Divisions: There are chapter divisions in LOTF, the chapter
number is written in letters and then the title of the chapter. Two translations
preserve this structure namely; T1 and T3 whereas T2 presents the chapter number
in a separate page with illustrative drawing. No list of contents in either one of the
three translations.
2- Paragraph Division: There are the same paragraph divisions in T1 and
T2 except in T3 in which the translator omitted and truncated several sentences
from each chapter, which then caused his version to mismatch the paragraphing of
the original.
3- Quotation Marks: Direct speech is indicated by means of double
quotation marks in Lord of the flies. In the Arabic translations, the direct speech is
marked with the use of dashes -.
4- Punctuation in the original text plays an important role in the smoothness
of the text, and plays an important role in managing the pictorial images and their
flow. In the Arabic translations, some loose commitment to this important textual
device notably in T3 is seen.
5- Size of the Translated Texts
The size of the translated text gives an indicator of some strategies used by the
translator in case that a considerable difference in length is identified. The three
Arabic translated texts vary in their length as follows:
a- T1: has 259 pages which is the closest number to the original text which is
made up of 223 pages. And this simple difference is normal since translated texts
tend to be somewhat longer than the original texts.
b- T2: falls into two parts: part 1 has 229 pages (from 208-229 introduction to
Goldings life) Part 2 has 192 pages
The total pages minus the long introduction will be 400 pages which represents
an indicator of tautology as it has been identified in the analysis of above levels. In
addition to the marked tautology it is possible to ascribe this lengthy version to the
page setup which tends to be brief pages with limited lines for each in order to be
easy to follow by the reader.
c-T3: has 181 pages which is shorter than the original text. It indicates that the
translator has truncated his version by deletion or conveying the senses of the
sentences rather than committing to the original texts structures and forms and this
is identified by the analysis above.
6- Illustrations and Drawings: it is noted that the original text has a
drawing on the cover of the novel. T1 imitates the original book by putting an
image on the cover. T2 has several drawings on the cover and before each chapter
to give a kind of visual affect on the reader as he reads.
At this level of the general make up of the TTs, it is obvious that T1 is better
committed to the original text make-up, which marks this version as more
adequate and reliable.
4.7 Statement of Quality
The statement of quality is based only on the collected samples and therefore it
focuses on the most characteristic features of each translation. After analyzing the
selected excerpts from the source text and their corresponding excerpts from the
three Arabic translations at the levels discussed above, which included semantic,
stylistic and extralinguistic elements, it is possible now to conclude a statement of
quality for each translation as follows:
T1: this translation has been made by Samir Izzat Nassar in 1988, after five
years of granting Golding the Nobel Prize for literature in 1983 for this particular
novel and 34 years when first published. Nassar in his translation shows clear
efforts to find Arabic equivalents to most of the ST lexical items, and this is
recommended since the equivalent Arabic lexical items achieve the goal of
conveying the message of the original text into Arabic adequately. This keenness is
shown in the most samples discussed above. However, some mistranslations
occurred on both levels of meaning, connotationally and referentially but their
occurrence is less than the other two translations. He shows a good competence in
rendering the foreign collocations into Arabic ones and almost he is successful in
all samples collected at this level. At the rhetorical level, i.e., metaphors and
similes, he is successful in maintaining the images of the original text as much as
possible, which is very helpful in conveying both the style and intentions of the
author. At the textual level, namely, ellipsis and substitution he manages to tackle
this aspect successfully in retaining the ellipsis or substitution when it is possible
and recover the elliptical or substitutes when it is necessary for Arabic text to be
more cohesive. At the stylistic level namely, informal and colloquial styles, the
translator renders both into modern standard Arabic, therefore much is lost
regarding the style of the author and ultimately much loss of the meaning
accompanying to the use of these particular styles. The other crucial point is the
translation of allusions, which is included within the textual level. Allusions
analysis includes some of the most symbolic proper names that mix both their
ordinary reference and their symbolic value. Consequently, the observance of the
special characteristics of these allusions would help the translator to produce a well
coherent text which carries both values. Nassar in his translation is not successful
in tackling this issue as the samples analyzed above show; he renders the title of
the novel in awkward structure that mixes both transliteration of the word Lord
with the translation of the word flies as " " which is not a valid method
of translation. Moreover, he fails in the translation of the personal name of Piggy
into " " which is not recommended method because this name represents
besides its value as one of the main characters in the novel, it has also a symbolic
value which is completely lost in the Arabic text. Within this very aspect of
translation he shows little knowledge concerning the referents of these allusions
and he mostly translated them by transliteration as Gib and Addis as " -,= ,-', "
which gives nothing to the Arabic reader only the prompt question; what are they?!
At the grammatical level, though no a separate section is dedicated to discuss the
grammatical structures but comments throughout the analysis wherever necessary
are provided. The translator makes some grammatical mistakes but their
occurrence is very low, nevertheless he could have eliminated such mistakes by
reviewing the text after being translated. Also there are several violations of the
punctuation marks notably, some incidents of neglecting exclamation marks which
change the attitude of the character in the novel. Also misprinting is seen in several
places in the translated text. The text, despite its general accuracy and intelligibility
as an Arabic text, needs more refurbishes to eliminate some points of awkwardness
in it to appear more cohesive and smoother to the Arabic reader.
T2: this translation has been made by Abdul-Hameed Al-Jammal in 1994, after
eleven years of granting Golding the Nobel Prize for literaturein 1983 for this
particular novel and 40 years when first published. Al-Jammal in his translation
shows, in some samples, less accuracy in rendering some lexical items into Arabic
for example, the compound word wind-breaker into Arabic " _,'' ='= " as it is
explained and discussed above. This kind of mistranslation will affect the quality
of the product because the translation is mistakenly refers to something else other
than that referred to. He also transliterate some foreign words into Arabic rather
than translating them, although Arabic equivalent can easily be found, for example
the words lagoon , sweater into Arabic as " -,,- , " respectively. This is not
recommended by Arab linguists unless no Arabic equivalent is available, which is
not the case. As far as collocations are concerned, it is clear from the above
analysis that he does not render most of the collocations into Arabic collocations
but he manages to give an acceptable translation which is adequate but not that one
which lives up to the readers expectations of what a literary text should be. At
the rhetorical level, i.e., metaphors and similes, the translator in most of the
samples collected, is not successful in rendering these two literary devices when he
adds in some of the samples some additions to the original metaphor as if he
explains what have been already said which is not justified. This ultimately brings
about some sort of dullness to the translated text. He also fails in some samples
within this aspect of analysis, i.e., metaphors and similes to give acceptable
collocations, within these metaphorical expressions, causing the whole image to be
awkward. At the textual level, namely, ellipsis and substitution he manages to
tackle this aspect successfully in retaining the ellipsis or substitution when it is
possible and recover the elliptical or substitutes when it is necessary for Arabic text
to be more cohesive. At the stylistic level namely, informal and colloquial styles,
the translator renders both into modern standard Arabic, with some simple attempts
to bring some colloquial words mostly foreign words into the text to show this
colloquial style features. It is recommended according to Ghazala (2006:229) that
One or two symbolic features of informal Arabic are sufficient to give a hint at
the informal tone of the English informal origin. This strategy used by the
translator decreases the loss of the stylistic features of the origin but, unfortunately,
as it has been said previously, most of the words used to reflect this aspect are
foreign words and not Arabic. The other important point is the translation of
allusion that is included within the textual level. Allusions analysis includes some
of the most symbolic proper names which mix both their ordinary reference and
their symbolic value. Consequently, the observance of the special characteristics of
these allusions would help the translator to produce a well coherent text which
carries both values. Al-Jammal in his translation is very successful in most of
the samples analyzed save two samples; the first of which has been inadequately
rendered by giving two different translations to the same referent that is the title of
the novel Lord of the Flies. He renders the title as " -'--'' ,-' " on the cover page
of the novel whereas he renders it as " -'--'' -,- " elsewhere in the novel. This is not
recommended as it has been explained in the section of allusion analysis above.
Concerning the other sample is the allusion of Berengaria. While he transliterated
the name, which is a good procedure, he does not bridge the gap between the
foreign culture and the Arabic reader. He should provide a classifier at least to
inform about that name to make the text understandable. In the other examples he
shows accurate treatment of these allusions he provides a classifier next to the
proper name of Piggy as " =,- ) ,-'' ,-='' " ( to keep both the name as
reference to the person and the classifier which gives the connotation of the
English name to the Arabic reader. He also manages to render the abbreviated
geographical allusions Gib and Addis as " '-'-' ,-' , '= .-= " . At the grammatical
level, although no separate section is dedicated to discuss the grammatical
structures but comments are made throughout the analysis wherever necessary.
The translator makes some grammatical mistakes but their occurrence is very low,
nevertheless he could have eliminated such mistakes by reviewing the text after
being translated. Also there is low occurrence of violations to the punctuation and
exclamation marks which preserves the attitude of the character in the novel. The
text is better than the T1 in terms of its smoothness and intelligibility which is
attributed largely to keen concerns by the translator to produce a good well formed
Arabic text. Misprinting is seen in several places in the translated text.
T3: this translation has been made by Mahmoud Qasim in 1991, after 8 years of
granting Golding the Nobel Prize for literaturein 1983 for this particular novel and
37 years when first published. Qasim in his translation is, for the most part, not
successful in providing the appropriate Arabic equivalents. His translation has a
very high rate of mistranslations and mismatches as the analyses in the previous
sections above show. There is no consistency in his translation, to name but a few,
the title of the novel has changed the symbolic value intended by the writer when
Lord of the Flies which is a biblical symbol for the Satan turned into " -'--'' +'' "
literally (the gods of flies) and elsewhere in the novel as " -'--'' '' " literally (god of
the flies). There is also a high rate of mistranslations, which cannot be compared
with the other two translations. These mistranslations spread all over the levels
analyzed in the previous sections; at the lexical, collocational, metaphorical, and
stylistic levels. The translator resorts to deleting a considerable number of phrases
and sometimes the entire paragraphs. He generally frees himself from abiding by
the source text and, therefore, a high rate of mismatches is clearly shown.
However, he is successful on a very small scale by giving the required sense in
some cases. Generally, the translator goes far from the original text not by
producing a truncated version of the novel but mainly because he is not accurate in
providing the usual equivalent in Arabic. The translator makes some grammatical
mistakes but their occurrence is very low, nevertheless he could have eliminated
such mistakes by reviewing the text after being translated. Also there are several
violations of the punctuation marks notably, some incidents of neglecting
exclamation marks which change the attitude of the character in the novel. Also
misprinting is seen in several places in the translated text.
To conclude, Nassars translation is the best with regard to the overall evaluation
which based on the evaluation conducted to the various levels of analysis. It is
more accurate in terms of its faithfulness to the original text. However, this
translation could have been better than this if more attention is paid to the overall
structure of the translated text. Some sentences need to be restructured to be more
acceptable to the Arabic reader, and also to get rid of the literal rendition of some
ST structures into Arabic which seem awkward.
As far as Al-Jammals translation is concerned, he successfully manages to
provide a well-formed text by paying attention to ST structures and, at the same
time, paying attention to the rules of Arabic to produce a well-structured text that
meets the expectations of the Arab readers. The overall evaluation puts this
translation next to Nassars.
Qasims translation seems to be a more truncated version, more liberated from
the source text. Most of the images and situations in the novel are lost. With
acknowledgeable efforts made by the translator but the strategy adopted by him in
the translation of this novel caused the loss of many aesthetic feature of the
original text. It might be the constraints of the publishing houses that compel the
translator to truncate the novel size to meet the demand of the market; or any other
reason. However, this translation falls short in most of the cases to live up to this
hard task of translating this important worlds masterpiece of Art. His translation
needs to reflect the original text by choosing the adequate equivalents and keep the
integrity of the original text. This translation came third according to the overall
evaluation at the various mentioned levels.

Chupter Ilve
Conclusions, Recommendations and Suggestions for
Further Studies
5.1 Conclusions
William Goldings LOTF is one of the 20
century world masterpieces.
Goldings style, which can be identified through the unique use of
vocabulary, collocations, metaphor, simile, informal and colloquial styles,
neologisms and many other characteristics, imposes a high degree of
difficulty on translators. The images he pictures and describes, and the sense
appealing scenery, all these literary devices need the translators to be more
acquainted with his tools of how he presents his message through this work
of art. Finding the right method to translate such a work of literature will
inevitably lead to a more adequate translation that finds its way as a high
standard translated version with most of the brilliant characteristics of the
After analyzing the ST and the three Arabic translations and carrying out
the evaluation process several conclusions and results have been obtained
and can be listed as follows:
1- Adopting different translation strategies by the three translators resulted
in three different versions of the same ST. In T1, the translator is keen to
be faithful to the original and at the same time observes the Arabic
language rules and conventions. He tries to provide, as possible, the
optimal Arabic equivalents at all levels of analysis even at the general
make-up of the Source Text. This makes his version exceeds the other
two translations. In T2, the translator is so close to achieve the first
position had it not been for some flaws that rendered his translation as the
second. He resorts to the foreign terms in several positions in the novel
where there is no need for doing so since the Arabic equivalents are

available, such as " -,,-'' _`-'' " etc. This strategy of using
foreign words can be of negative implication on the part of the reader if
he ignores such foreign words. The translator also adds to his translation
more than that exists in the original text, which makes his version
permeated with tautology that is not needed in most of the cases. With
regard to T3, the translator tries to be free as much as possible. He does
not follow the writer in many examples in the ST. He resorts to briefing
of many events in the novel to provide what might be called a general
meaning of these events. Consequently, a lot of scenes where truncated
and even deleted from his version. His strategy is to adopt free translation
with as much brief version as possible of the ST. Based on this, his
version cannot serve a wide spectrum of audience, notably those who
want to taste the literary work that is as much a reflection of the original
as possible.
In a nutshell, the different strategies adopted by the translators contribute to
the shape of the final product and its value among its new audience.
Consequently, this verifies hypothesis no. (1).
2- Some basic principles of translation are violated variably by the three
translations which lead, as it is believed, to a kind of inconsistency in the
translated text. In T1, for example, the translation of the proper noun
Piggy into " " deprived the text of one of its significant symbolic
element utilized by Golding. In T2, two names are used to refer to the
Lord of the Flies. He used " ,-' " on the cover of the novel and " -,-
" elsewhere in the novel. This can be said also on T3 which reads
two names for the Lord of the Flies. The first on the cover as " -'--'' +'' "
and " -'--'' '' " elsewhere in the novel. Consequently, this has verified
hypothesis no. (2)
3- The three translations show some grammatical mistakes related mostly to
gender, number and tense. Printing mistakes also are noted. These
mistakes basically need a kind of reviewing and proofreading. It is
admitted that it is a difficult task to translate such a brilliant piece of art
without some shortcomings. These shortcomings could have been
decreased to a minimum had the translators reviewed their work and the

publishing houses provided experts to check the whole work to

diagnose such mistakes and conduct the corrections.
4- As Arab translators, they observe the conservative traditions and ethical
standards of the Arab societies. None of the three translations renders
any ST obscene words directly into Arabic. Euphemism is used to adapt
those obscene words into an acceptable expressions for the Arab reader.
This gives us an indicator of how culture and social conventions affect
the translated texts. However, some geographical places, historical
allusions either skipped or mistranslated, or transcribed as they are, due
to the cultural gap which presents unavoidable difficulty, in some cases,
to the translator. This conclusion has verified hypothesis no. (3)
5- It is believed that in most of the cases the translated text is larger than the
original text. The reason is clear because there is no one-toone
corresponding lexical items between the ST and the TT. Consequently,
one word in the original might be translated by a complete sentence or
vice versa. However, the size of the translated text should not be more
than the normal average size for similar texts in certain language. What
is noted is that T1 kept this normal difference of size from the original
.This means its accuracy, faithfulness and closeness to the original. In
T2, it is noted that the number of pages far exceeded the number of the
pages in the original text. This means that the translator might have
faced a kind of difficulty to find as much optimal equivalents as
possible to the source text. This may account for the additions the
translator made to the translated text. These additions took the form of
elaboration and explanations to some phrases which he thought needed
an additional clarification for the sake of the reader. T3, is shorter than
the original text which contradicts the normal situation of the ST and its
translation. The translator resorts to deletion, generalization of the
meaning of many parts of the novel. What is noted also in this regard
that most of the deleted parts or paragraphs from the novel are those
which posit a difficulty in terms of their vagueness, ambiguity or no
clear Arabic equivalent is available.

6- The use of two styles in the ST namely, the informal and colloquial styles
presented a real problem for the translators due to the absence of one-to
one corresponding equivalent style. Consequently, the three translators
differed on how to present these two styles into Arabic. They resorted
to translating both styles into Modern Standard Arabic with some
sporadic hints to colloquial style. For example, T2 resorted to the use of
some foreign words such as " " etc., to denote the colloquial style.
This has verified hypothesis no. (3)
7-Some referential mistranslations are noted in the three translations they can
be attributed to some difficulties of the subject of the novel which
occurs in an imagined tropical island that presents a real problem for
the Arab translator who could be unfamiliar with elements of life there.
8- The researcher as part of his evaluation and assessment has provided
some alternative and suggested translations when necessary. These
suggested translations serve two goals:
First, to provide as adequate translations as possible to serve as fourth text of
comparison with the ST.
Second, to prove that in most of the cases it is possible to provide better
translations than some of those available when the translator concerned is
more aware of the seriousness of his task and has theoretical knowledge in
the field of translation mixed with biculturalismand professional experience.
5.2 Recommendations
From this current thesis, a set of useful recommendations can be outlined
as follows:
1- Translators of literary works should be acquainted with the authors to
whom they translate. They have to be acquainted with their previous
works, their lives, their philosophy and their way of presenting their
beliefs and messages. This will be of great importance to the translator
who will be, in this case, standing on a solid ground when embarking on
this difficult task. They also have to be well equipped with a theoretical

knowledge about the methods of translation in order to achieve a kind of

consistency throughout the translated text.
2- The main goal is to achieve verifiable objective results that can be of use
to the translators and would-be translators. Consequently, most of the
data collected is based on the semantic choices of the translators since
they can be verified and contrasted with the original text. However, the
extra-linguistic determinants have also their share in the evaluation
since they represent the limits and constraints that affect the choices in
some cases. In a case in which the extra-linguistic factors play a more
effective role in the process of translation then the most relevant
pragmatic elements should be highlighted in addition to those
mentioned in this thesis.
3- Translation quality assessment is a very useful and fruitful field of study
and conducting more studies will help to lay down the right foundation
for a more objective translational studies whether theoretically or
practically and also enrich our libraries with more analytical studies
that they in dire need for.
5.3 Suggestions for further studies
1- The original text is written in 1954 which is linguistically a close period
of time. It is possible to take a novel written in a remote period of time,
for example, in the 19
century. In this case the translator would face
new challenges such as the difference between the lexical items
meaning in that period with what they mean now. Other difficulties
may be faced would be linguistic, cultural, audience difficulties.
2- The nature of the literary text and its prominent features highlight some
levels and elements rather than others. In case of LOTF, the text type,
semantic and rhetorical levels are highlighted. In case this eclectic
model to be considered for other text types, other levels and elements
may be highlighted.

3- The scope of the study is limited to the evaluation of the three Arabic
translations through examining them in terms of their ability to render
the most prominent features of the original text. In this research, the
syntactic category of the linguistic analysis is not included because each
language has its own syntactic features. It is possible in further studies
to conduct a comprehensive syntactic analysis in order to identify other
features and elements which are not covered in this research.
Akmajian, Adrian; Demers, Richard A.; Farmer, Ann K.; Harnish, Robert M.
(2001). Linguistics: An introduction to Language and
Communication. 5
edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Anderman, G. and Margaret, R.(eds.) (1999). Word, Text, Translation. Liber
Amicorum for Peter Newmark. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Anderman, G.(2007). Linguistic and Translation. In Kuhiwczak, P. and
Littau, K. (eds.), A Companion to Translation Studies(pp 45-62).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Angelelli, C.V. and Jacobson, H. E. (eds) (2009). Testing and Assessment in
Translation and Interpreting studies: A Call for Dialogue
Between Researchers Practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Aziz, Y. (1989). A Contrastive Grammar of English and Arabic. Mosul:
Higher Education Press.
Aziz, Y. and Lataiwish, M. (2000). Principals of Translation. Benghazi: Dar
Al-Kutub Al-Wataneyyah.
Bailey, S. (2003).Academic Writing: A Practical Guide for Students. London
and New York: Routledge.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation,
Routledge. London and New York: Routledge.
----------- (ed.) (2001). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.
London: Routledge. E-book.
Baker, M., Saldanha, G. (eds.) (2009). Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. Routledge. E-book.
Balmer, J. (2006). What Comes Next? Reconstructing the Classics. In
Bassnett, S. and Bush, B. (eds), The Translator as Writer
(pp184-1195). London and New York: Routledge.
Bassnett, S. and Bush, P.( eds.) ( 2006). The Translator as Writer. New
York: Continuum.
Bassnett, S. (1991).Translation Studies: Revised edition. London and New
York: Routledge.
Balcom, John (2006). Translating Modern Chinese Literature. In Bassnett,
S. and Bush, B. (eds), The Translator as Writer (pp119-134).
London and New York: Routledge.
Bell, R. (1993).Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London
and New York: Longman.
Biber, D. and Conrad, S.(2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bradford, R. (2005). Stylistics. London: Routledge.
Brown, D. (2008). Inside Prince Caspian a Guide to Exploring the Return to
Narnia. U.S.A : Baker Books.
Brown, G., and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Caspari, C. P. A (1974). Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3d ed.
VII.Translated and edited by William Wright. 3d edition revised
by William Robertson Smith and Michael Jan de Goeje. Beirut:
Librairie du Liban.
-----------------(1981) Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3d ed.VI. Translated
and edited by William Wright. 3d edition revised by William
Robertson Smith and Michael Jan de Goeje. Beirut: Librairie du
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford
University Press.
Coles Notes (1986) .Golding: Lord of the Flies.New Delhi: Chaman
Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English Style. London:
Dickson, L. L. (1990). The Modern Allegories of William Golding. Tampa:
The University of Florida Press.
Doherty, M. (2006).Structural Propensities: Translating Nominal Word
Groups from English into German .Amsterdam: John
Even-Zohar, I.(2000). The Position of Translated Literature within the
Literary Polysystem. In Venuti, L., The Translation Studies
Reader (pp 192-197). London and New York: Routledge.
Fasold, W. and Connor-Linton, J. (2006). An Introduction to Language and
Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fowler, R. (1989). Linguistics and the Novel. London and New York :
Fowler, H.W. (1985). A dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd edition,
revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Gentzler, Edwin C. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories. London:
Ghazala, H. (2006). Translation as Problems and Solutions: A Coursebook
for University Students and Translators, 7th edition. Beirut: Dar
wa Maktabat Al-Hilal.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.), (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of
Metaphor and Thought. New York, NY, US: Cambridge
University Press.
Golding, W. (1987). Lord of the Flies. Boston: Faber and Faber.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
--------------- (1985). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a
Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong, Victoria, Australia:
Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and Education. In J. J.Webster (Ed.),
The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol. 9. London and
New York: Continuum.
------------------- (1981). Linguistic Function and Literary : An Inquiry into
the Language of William Golding's the Inheritors. In Freeman,
D. C. (ed.), Essays in Modern Stylistics (pp. 325360). London:
------------------- (2002). On Grammar. London: Continuum.
Hatim, B. (2001). Teaching and Researching Translation. Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
-----------(2009). Translating Text in Context. In Munday, J. (ed.), The
Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (pp 36-52).
London and New York: Routledge.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London and
New York: Longman.
------------------ (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London and New
York: Routledge.
Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advanced Resource
Book. New York: Routledge.
Holmes, J. S. (2000). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In
Venuti, L., The Translation Studies Reader (pp172-185).
London and New York: Routledge.
House, J. (1997).Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
----------(2001). Quality of Translation. In Baker, M. (ed.), The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp197-200). London:
Routledge. E-book.
---------- (2009a). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-------(2009b). Quality. In Baker, M., Saldanha, G. (eds.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp 222-225). Routledge. E-
House, J., & Rehbein, J. (2004). What is Multilingual Communication?. In
id. (Eds.), Multilingual Communication: Hamburg studies on
Multilingualism (pp 1-17). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ilyas, A. (1989).Theories of Translation: Theoretical Issues and Practical
Implications. Mosul: University of Mosul.
Jakobson, R. (1959/2000). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In Venuti,
L. (ed.),The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 113-18). London
and New York: Routledge.
Katan, D. (1999).Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators,
Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kelly, D. (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers: A Guide to
Reflective Practice. Manchester: St Jerome.
Kennedy, M. John.(2008) Metaphor and Art. In Gibbs, Raymond W.,
Jr.,(ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought
(pp. 447-461). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, D. (2009). Equivalence. In Baker, M., Saldanha, G. (eds.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 96-100).
Routledge. E-book.
Kovecses, Z. (2010).Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, Claire (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford University Press:
Kuhiwczak, P. and Littau, K. (eds.). (2007). A Companion to Translation
Studies. Clevedon. Buffalo. Toronto: Multi Lingual Matters Ltd.
Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-
Language Equivalence. Lanham, New York and London: University
Press of America.
Leech, G. and Short, M. (1981). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction
to English Fictional Prose. London and New York: Longman.
Lefevere, A. (ed.) (1992). Translation, History, Culture: A Sourcebook.
London and New York: Routledge.
Lennon, P. (2004). Allusions in the Press: An Applied Linguistic Study.
New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the
Translation of Allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millar, R. and Currie, I. (1977). The Language of Prose. London and
Edinburgh: Heinemann Educational Books.
Mills, S. (2001). Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and
Applications. London: Routledge.
----------- (2009) (ed.). The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies.
London and New York: Routledge.
Murry, J. Middleton (1976). The Problem of Style. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York:
---------- (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice
--------- (1991). About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters:
Cromwell Pres Ltd.
---------- (1993). Paragraphs on Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
--------- (2009). The Linguistic and Communicative stages in Translation
theory. In Munday, J. (ed.), The Routledge Companion to
Translation Studies (pp.20-35). London and New York: Routledge.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist
Approaches Explained. Manchester: St.Jerome.
-------- (2005).Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Nida, E.A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: With Special
Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible
Translating. Leiden: Brill.
----------- (2001). Context in Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nida, E. A. and Taber, C. R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Palmer, F.R. (1984). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Portner, P. (2006). Meaning. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Connor-Linton, J.
(eds.) An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Punter, D. (2007). Metaphor. London and New York: Routledge.
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. London, New York:
Quinn, A. (1982). Figures of Speech: 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase. Salt Lake
City: Peregrine Smith.
Quirk, R. Greenbaum, S. Leech, G. and Svartic, J. (1973). A University
Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Reiss K. (2000). Translation Criticism: Potentials and Limitations.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Riccardi, A. (ed.) (2002). Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging
Discipline. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salkie, R. (1995). Text and Discourse Analysis. London and New York:
Samuelsson-Brown, G. (2004). A Practical Guide for Translators. Great
Britain: Cromwell Press.
Savory, T. (1968). The Art of Translation. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988) (2nd edition 1995): Translation Studies: An
Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
---------- (2006).The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stolze, R. (2003). Hermeneutik und Translation.Tbingen: Narr.
Toury, G. (2000). The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation. In
Venuti, L. (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp198-211).
London and New York: Routledge.
--------- (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam:
Benjamin Translation Library.
Tymoczko, M. (1999). Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation. In
Bassnett, S. and Trivedi, H. (eds.), Post-Colonial Translation:
Theory and Practice (pp.19-40). London and New York: Routledge.
Vaidyanathan, G. (2009). William Golding: Lord of the Flies. Delhi: Rama
Brothers India PVT.LTD.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation.
London and New York: Routledge.
---------- (ed.) (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New
York: Routledge.
Vinay, J. and Darbelnet, J. (2000). A Methodology for Translation. In
Venuti, L. (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (Translated by Juan
C. Sager, M. J. Hamel) (p 84-93). London and New York: Routledge.
Wilss, W. (1982).The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods.
Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Williams, M. (2004). Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-
Centered Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics: Oxford Introductions to Language Study.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
English Dictionaries Consulted
Barnhart, Robert K.(ed.) (1988). Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology. H.W.
Wilson Co.
Barnhart, C.L. (Ed.). (1951). Comprehensive Desk Dictionary. New York:
Doubleday & Company.
Cruse, D. A. (2006).A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.5th Ed.
Oxford: Blackwall.
Cuddon, J. A. (1998).The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and
Literary Theory. London: Penguin.
Delahunty, G., Dignen, S. & Stock, C. (2001). The Oxford Dictionary of
Allusions. Oxford University Press.
Guralink, B.D.(ed.) (1995). WebstersNew World Dictionary of the English
Language. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Oxford Advanced LearnersDictionary, 8
ed. (2010). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English, 2
ed. (2009).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shuttleworth, M. and M. Cowie (eds) (1997). Dictionary of Translation
Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.
--,' ,-'~-'
,-- ) ( ) ( ~'--' -,; .
-,-='' --= ) ( ) ( ,-'--''' ,--'' -'-'' .
) ( ) ( -'-'' .`+'' '- .
-,=- --=- ,-'' = ) ( ,,'=-`' - -=-'' = ''-, ,-'' --,-
'-,- -' --- -'-'' .
,= --,, .,-,, ) ( -,---7' Q- -=,-' -'-- _! --,' ,+-='' -=-
--,' --';-'
) ( ,---' -,- ;-'- -,,- ,,`-'' ''' '- .
,-- ) ( -,- ,---' ;-'- ,,`-'' ''' '- -,,- .
,'-' -`-, _-=-- ) ( =-~;' ;=-' '+= .
,,' ) ( ' - -=--' '+= .
.` ) - ( -;' _;,-' .-'- --=- ,-',= _-,, ,'= '=
,,= ,-''' --'' '- .
) - ( _'=~' ,'-=-
-,,- .
Web Resources
Tripod .(n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2011, from, (int 1.2011)
Lord of the flies.(n.d.) .Retrieved February 15, 2011, from , (int 2.2011)
Iron maid commentary.(n.d.) Retrieved February 15 ,2011 ,from
Lord of the Flies, (int3.2011)
Oxford Journal. (1966). Retrieved February 15, 2011, from , (int4.2011)
In these appendices the page numbers of the original texts are stated above
each excerpt to make easy for the reader to follow the excerpt whether in this
appendices or in the original texts in case more contextual information is
With regard to the original text, i.e. LOTF, to follow the selected sentences
and lexical items in considerable accuracy, each line (henceforth L) that
includes selected lexical items, sentence or a set of sentences is numbered. In
case of a line that has no selected lexical item, no number is given but it
serves as a supported contextual information for a given excerpt.
Concerning the Arabic indices the number of lines and pages are stated. The
page number represents the actual page number in the original translated text.
The lines are numbered separately to each one of the three translated text, for
example T1 ,T2 ,T3 which means Line 1 in T1 index , Line 1 in
T2 and Line 1 in T3 respectively.
Appendix No.1
The novel Lord of the Flies By William Colding 1954
L1) Lord of the Flies (Cover title)
Page 7
L2)The Sound of the Shell
The boy with fair hair lowered himself down the last few feet of rock and
L3)began topick his way toward thelagoon. Though he had taken off his
L4)school sweater andtrailed it now from one hand, his grey shirt stuck
L5)to him and his hair was plastered to his forehead. All round him the
L6)long scar smashed into the |ungle was a bath of heat. He was
L7)clambering heavily among the creepers and broken trunks when a
bird, a vision of red and yellow, flashed upwards with a witch-like cry;
and this cry was echoed by another.
L8)The undergrowth at the side of the scar was shaken and amultitude
L9)of raindrops fell pattering.
The owner of the voice came backing out of the undergrowth so that
L10)twigs scratched on a greasywind-breaker.
Page 8
L11)"All them other kids," the fat boy went on. "Some of them must
L12)have got out. They must have, mustn't they?"
The fair boy began to pick his way as casually as possible toward the
water. He tried to be offhand and not too obviously uninterested, but the
fat boy hurried after him.
L13)"Aren't there any grownups at all?"
L14)"I don't think so."
Page 9
L15) He took off his glasses and held them out to Ralph, blinking and
L16)smiling, and then started to wipe them against his grubby wind-
L18)The beach between the palm terrace and the water was a bowstave,
L19)endless apparently, for to Ralph's left the perspectives of palm and
L20)beach and water drew to a point at infinity; and always, almost
visible, was the heat.
The fat boy glanced over his shoulder, then leaned toward Ralph.
He whispered.
L21)"They used to call me'Piggy.'"
Ralph shrieked with laughter. He jumped up.
"Piggy! Piggy!"
Page 12
L22)Ralphdanced out into the hot air of the beach and then returnedas a
L23]fighter-plane, with wings swept back, and machine-gunned
Page 13
It was clear to the bottom and bright with the efflorescence of tropical
L26)weed and coral. A school of tiny, glittering fish flicked hither and
L27]thither. Ralph spoke to himself, sounding the bass strings of
L29]Piggy took off his shoes and socks, ranged them carefully on the
L30]ledge, and tested the water with one toe.
L31]"It's hot!"
L32]"What did you expect?"
L33]"I didn't expect nothing. My auntie--"
L34]"Sucks to your auntie!"
L35) Piggywas looking determined and began to take off his shorts.
L36)"Sucks to your ass-mar!"
Page 16
Ralph had stopped smiling and was pointing into the lagoon. Something
creamy lay among the ferny weeds.
L38)"No. Ashell."
Suddenly Piggy was a-bubble with decorous excitement.
L39)"S'right. It's a shell! I seen one like that before. On someone's back
L40)wall. A conch he called it. He used to blow it and then his mum
L41)would come. It's ever so valuable"
Page 17
L42)Doubtfully, Ralph laid the small end of the shell against his mouth
L43)and blew. There came a rushing sound from its mouth but
L44]nothing more. Ralph wiped the salt water off his lips and tried
L45)again, but the shell remained silent.
Page 22
"But Merridew."
L46)"He's always throwing a faint," said Merridew. "He did in Cib., and
L47]Addis, and at matins over the precentor."
Merridew turned to Ralph.
L48]"Aren't there any grownups?"
Page 26
L50)Jack and the others paid no attention. There was a general
dispersal. Ralph, Jack and Simon jumped off the platform and walked
along the sand past the bathing pool. Piggy hung bumbling behind them.
Page 27
L51)The three boys walked briskly on the sand. The tide was low and
L52)there was a strip of weed-strewn beach that was almost as firm as a
L53]road. A kind of glamour was spread over them and the scene and
theywere conscious of the glamour and made happy by it.
Page 31
L54)There, where the island petered out in water, was another island; a
L55)rock, almost detached, standing like a fort, facing them across the
L56)green with one bold, pink bastion.
L57)"Nobody knows where we are," said Piggy. He was paler than before
L58)and breathless. "Perhaps they knew where we was going to, and
L59]perhaps not. But they don't know where we are 'cos we never
L0]got there." He gaped at them for a moment, then swayed and sat
down. Ralph took the conch from his hands.
Page 38
"While we're waiting we can have a good time on this island."
He gesticulated widely.
"It's like in a book."
At once there was a clamor.
L61)"Treasure Island--"
L2]"Swallows and Amazons--"
L3]"Coral Island--"
Ralph waved the conch.
Page 47
L64)They gazed intently at the dense blue of the horizon, as if a little
L5]silhouette might appear there at any moment.
Page 51
"That little 'un--" gasped Piggy--"him with the mark on hisface, I don't see
him. Where is he now?"
L]The crowd was as silent as death.
Page 69
L67)"Samneric. Get me acoconut. An emptyone."
Page 83
L68)He lost himself in a maze of thoughts that were rendered vague by
L69)his lack of words to expressthem. Frowning, he tried again.
Page 100
"Piggy's got the conch."
L70)"That's right--favor Piggy as you alwaysdo--"
Jack's voice sounded in bitter mimicry.
"Jack! Jack!"
Page 115
L71]Ralph turned away to the red cliff. They were waiting behind
L72]him in the long grass, waiting to see what he would do. He
L73]noticed that the sweat in his palm was cool now, realized with
L74]surprise that he did not really expect to meet any beast and
L75]didn't know what he would do about it if he did.
Page 120
L76)The pig-run kept close to the |umble of rocks that lay down by the
water on the other side and Ralph was content to follow Jack along it.
Page 125
"I hit him," said Ralph again, "and thespear stuck in a bit."
He felt the need of witnesses.
"Didn't you see me?"
Maurice nodded.
L77)"I saw you. Right bang on hissnout--Wheee!"
Ralph talked on, excitedly.
"I hit him all right. The spear stuck in. I wounded him!"
L78]He sunned himself in their new respect and felt that hunting
L79]was good after all.
L80)"I walloped him properly. That was the beast, I think!" Jack came
L81)"That wasn't the beast. That was a boar."
"I hit him."
"Why didn't you grab him? I tried--"
Ralph's voice ran up.
L82)"But a boar!"
Jack flushed suddenly.
L83)"You said he'd do us. What did you want to throw for? Why didn't
you wait?
He held out his arm.
He turned his left forearm for them all to see. On the outside was a rip;
not much, but bloody.
L84)"He did that with histusks. I couldn't get my spear down in time."
Attention focused on Jack.
L85)"That's a wound," said Simon, "and you ought to suck it. Like
Jack sucked.
Page 150
L87]Roger began to withdraw his spear and boys noticed it for the
first L88]time. Robert stabilized the thing in a phrase which was
received uproariously.
L89]"Right up her ass!"
L90]"Did you hear?"
L91]"Did you hear what he said?"
L92]"Right up her ass!"
Page 152
The pile of guts was a black blob of flies that buzzed like a saw. After a
while these flies found Simon. Gorged, they alighted by his runnels of
sweat and drank. They tickled under his nostrils and played leapfrog on
his thighs. They were black and iridescent green and without number;
L93)and in front of Simon, the Lord of the Flies hung on his stick and
Page 198
His temper broke. He screamed at Jack.
L94]"You're a beast and a swine and a bloody, bloody thief!"
He charged.
Page 219
L95]A herd of pigs came squealing out of the greenery behind the savage
L96)and rushed away into the forest. Birds were screaming, mice
L97)shrieking, and a little hopping thing came under the mat and
Page 220
He swung to the right, running desperately fast, with the heat beating on
L99)his left side andthe fire racing forward like a tide. The ululation
rose behind him and spread along, a series of short sharp cries, the
sighting call.
L100)He stumbled over a root and the cry that pursued him rose even
L101)higher. He saw a shelter burst into flames and the fire flapped at his
L102)right shoulder and there was the glitter of water. Then he was
down, rolling over and over in the warm sand, crouching with arm to
ward off, trying to cry for mercy.
Page 221
L103)"Fun and games," said the officer.
Page 222
The officer inspected the little scarecrow in front of him. The kid needed a
bath, a haircut, a nose-wipe and a good deal of ointment.
L104]"Nobody killed, I hope? Any dead bodies?"
L105]"unly two. And they've gone."
The officer leaned down and looked closely at Ralph.
"Two? Killed?"
Appendix two

,'~- ~,- ,--~

( ) (
( ,=- -=- ,==, -=', -=- - -,-=-
( . _'= - ' -' _-, * ---- ,-, -'-'' -,-
( -+-=- - --'' '- - --'' . =,=-'',
( -'+='' _,-= - - . -;~- _~-- Q'- --'' -'-'--'' ,-
-'= '=-' ,= -='- =-- +,-- =-
=-'' - ,--
( -=- -`'---'' -,-='' -',=-'' --' ,''''
( -=-=- ,=-' Q- ----- ~',=- ~=-~; .
( * : =,'= ,,- -- ,' --- ) (
( )
( --=' -',=-'' - '=-, ,, -,-'' -='- _= -,-'' --= -
( -, -,-~- . ,-'--- ,-', ,-- -'-=-' ' =',-' '-+- --'=, '-+---=, .
'---' ` ,'-- =,-'' . '-,--, .
,---' ,-- -'=- .`= .
( `,-= ,--'' -','' _-'- :
( - Q-,=7' . -- ;~- . ;-! -'
( - -=;- Q-'-' Q-
.'- - ( ( )

( '--, -'=- _'= ~---; ---- '-,'= ~', ---'' ,-'='' ---- '+,---= _--, -=' ` .
-='-'' +=, ''- '='- -- ,-, '' ,-- , . _-, - .-=, ,--=, = '' _--
=-- --' _'= -'=- .

( ,- '=-,~ -'-'; J-=-' -' ,'= ,-- '-~;- -'
( ,'+-`'' =-- -'' '-, _'= -'-'', _='-'', .,=-'' ='-- -'='' --'
-'=' -,, -, -'' -,=,'' '-,-- .

( - -,=-, )) : (( .
( ='~' -'; - ~', -, Q----- Q-='-=-
( .

( '='-, =-'' _' _-= ','- ' ''- '=-, ,'-- .
( 4'-; '- ->-- ---- . ~'-,-; ~;~ _=- ;; ~-- ~', ~-= -,-=' =-' .
( - -;,,-;

( -'-=, -,= =-'' -'' _'= ,'-- '-+--,
( ---- .
( - ,'= -' .
( -
( - '--~ . -
( - 4--- ;-==' .
( ,-~-' ';,~ =- -='; '--~-

( - .
( - . .
( - _,=- . '+-' . -,' .- - '+'`- --=', . -=' -,-= '-= _'= . '+,--, '
( . -,- '+-- _=, '+, _--, ' . '+-' '-= -, .

( ,'-, =-'', _--, - _'= -,-'' ,-'' ,'+- -'' _-, ~;~ '-;- Q- ,-~
( . -- .,'=, ,--- = _'-'' -'- -'' _-- --'~ ~--- -;-' .

- ,-,,-', ' .
,-,,- .' :
( - _-- =--, '--'- -' ,'= -; ~-= --' ,-'--'' .,--'' -',= ,
( ,'--'' ,= --' _'=, -
( - Q;'- -=;-
( -

( 4'= -,- ; '-'--' . -,-'' = ,-,-, ='=, -'' -, -,--'' ---,
. '-+-+- +-'= .

( .
( -;~--; _-,= ->~ .

( -,='' , --=- -'' '-'' , -,=
( ++=',, .

,, -- '-,=- :
( - ~,- -=' 7 Q-' . Q-' Q--'- '-- ';-,- ; '--,; . Q;-,-7 ;--
( Q-' ~--~ '-- -' Q'--' -! .
=-, ,, =='' ' +,'' '=, .,'-- ` . ,-, ,- - -'=-'' -'' -=' .
- -,= -, -'- _,=--- =--- =- '-,, -,='' .
',` ,-,- :
- -'- --=, '-
_,=- :
( - ,--' -,-,= .
( - ,;-= ~'--;,'-7'; .
( - Q'=,-' -,-,= .

( - ,--,-- ';--= ; '-- -,,' _--' -= -,;~ * -' - 4'- ,=- -- -,-~
( .
( * -= -,;~ : ~-;-~ .

'`` :
- -'' ='- ,-'' -','' ='- +=, _'= -`= .-=, . ,' ,
( _- ;-=

( - =,,', '- . -- -,;= . -,'- -- -,;= .

( ~'-~ - ~-- '-- ,-- ~'-- .
( -,-= -=-, ,, .

- _,=- '- (
- .
-'-- -'' -,- ','=- ='= -,- '=-' .
- .

( ,-=7' ~,=' ~;~ =-- ;; '---- ~', ,'--~' . - --',; Q;,=--- ';-'-
( '- ';,- Q;,=--- --~ . '-,'- Q'- -=', - _,'
( ~--- '- ~,- Q-- ; '-- =; ' -'- '-= -;-- Q-- ; -'
( - '-! --~ .

( '--`- -=--'' ,'-='' '-- --
- `,' , _-'' -', ---' .
-'- .
-'- ,,- '-,' :
( - =-,' . --'-- -- --- -~-=-- - .
_',-'- -` -'' .-', :
- ---' . , _-'' -', . -== --' .
( ---=' ;-',-='- ~-- -~ '- J- -- '--= Q'- --~' .
( - -,~'-- -,~ --,~ . =,'' , ' .
( - =,'' , ' . '-,- ',-,-= .
- ---' .
- -','= - =--- ' '
( - -- ,-,-= .
='= =, -=' :
( - -' -' ~--~ . =--- ' ' _-''- - - --- '-'-
='- -- :
- .
-,`' ',' _,-='' . -- ,'= ' , -' '-,-= ',-'- ' .
( - '- . --'-- . .
='= _'= '--`' - :
,-,- .' :
( - _,= '- ~=-; '-,'=-,-- J-- ~--- .

( ==`, =- -=-- ,=, -=' =- . ,=, ', (
'-'- ',-- .
( - '-,=;- _-= --- .
( -
( - '-
( - '-,=;- _-= .

. ,-,- _'= -'--'' `===' -- .
'+-- --, ='-'' = .,'-= - . _---'' -- -' -', ,=-- -=- =-=-
( ,-= _'= . --'' ,` --='' _--- -,-' ' ,-,-
-'--' .

-'-=' . :
( - ;-- ;-- ; ,-,-=; =; .
= .

( ,-,'-=' Q- -=- -=-- - '='= _-, ,,
( . _-,~ _,~-; _-~- ,;-='
( =-=, ,- -,-='' -=- .
( ,-,'' --'= _-'- -'='', --', =-- '-' -,`'
( . ----- ----', -'= -'
-,,- ,-=-, --'= -'=- .

( .
( ~' -~' -- -- '-'' -=-=, -,`' -'- ,'`- ='- ', .

( ;; .
( - -=' J--- ; ~-= -=;- J
( - .
Appendix three
--'-' -=,-'
J'-=' ---=' --- -=,-
~-- -=,-' -- Q-',=-
( ,--'

( ) (
( -= --- -=-'' - ,----'' ','-'' --,= _~-
( )) (( _'= - ' -' =-, )) ,--;~' (( - '='' ---'' - ---,=
( -+-=- - --'' '- --=- --'' -'-'' -,- ' ,- -=' .
( -;=' - -=-'' =-, --+-'', ',-''- `,' -,--'' ----'
( -;=~' -- ~- . ' '--,-, _~-- -;~- --,= _~-; -'---'' -'-'--'' ,-
( ,''' - '- .- ,-,'' -='= =--
=,- .`- =,- -= ---, . =,- =,-'' -'-, :
. - )) ' .. `,' =--' (( '= --= -''' -,--'' ,--'' -'-'--'' --' `
( ' ,~=7 ~',=- '+='-- ,-' '-,-= '= `-=- .
( -=-'' -,--'' -
( _-, ',='= . -'---'' -'-'--'' _- -'---, -'--- ,-- ,''' -'-'-`-`' --',
--'-- '---', ,'-=, = .
,''' '-,-- ', ,---- ',=, --' _-',- = -=-, ,,
,--'' -'=- .`= - =-,' -- _ ---

,--'' -','' -=--', :
( - --~' Q- '--= ';-'- ~;-' Q- ~-'; '=- -- ;~- Q' --;-' Q-; ;~-
( .. -'
( ... 4'- -=;-7'
( ... .

( _- '~,-; -,'=- =; )) (( ;~---; ---- -,- ;; '+=--,, '+-=-, _' `
- '='' _---'' _,'' ='= -',-- '='-'' ,-'', =,=='' ,,-
,-= = '' _--, -=', +=,' -='-'' ,='=''

( ,''', .,'='' )) (( ,' Q--'- -- -'
( _- -'- 7 _-~ =-,~ -'--- Q'- ,=-' -'--; -;-~-' --,-' J-=-' ;---
( -` '-, _'= )) (( ',-'', .,=-'' =-- ' )) (( -'--'' --=,
,-'+-`'' '---'- ,-- ,- -'- -,=-'', -'='' .

- -`' ='- ,'-,
-='= -=- ,--'' -','' -- , - )) (( `-' -, :
)) ,-'' ,-='' (( Piggy - ( -,--, )) =-- (( ..
( )) (( >- Q='~' -';' - '~-',
( -=-='- _- --- )) =-- .((
( - !

-'-''-, --'' ,-',--`' ,-'-'' -'-'--''- -'`--, _'-'' _-= ,'- =-'' ',- --' --'
( ,-'=-'' .. ~-=-- 4'-; '- -= - -,~- ,-~' 4-~' Q- ~,~ ~'~-'; )) ((
( -;~ _- =-'; ,;,~' '--; :
( - ' '- !
( )) =,- (( ,=-'' '='' _'= ,'-= '-+--, ,,=, -' --=, _',
( -='- ',-'' -- .

( - -='~ -'-- Q- ''- !
( -
( - '-! .
( - .
( )) =-- (( ;--~-' -- ;--- -;=-- = - '--- -,=-- ','=

( - -' .
( - '+-' .
)) =,- (( --,-; -,- :
( - _,=- '- .. '+-' ! --'- -'='' ,-'' --= .- - '+'`-
'-' '+, _--, ', (()) ( ) -' '+,'= '=, ', . (
( --'', -'=---' .. ,''' -`'' ,''= , .

( )) (( _--, - _'= -'=-'' ,-'' -=''
( - -- Q- ---- ~;~ )) (( -=, _' ` ,--- = =''-'' ',-'' _--,
( .

- ', ', )) ,-,,- ...((
( )) ,-,,- :(( -, '--'- -' ' -- --
( --' ,'--'' ,= --' ',=- -,-''- =-'' -`- , .
* )) ,-,,- (( )) .((
( - -=,,
- ( ( )

( ;-- ;; )) (( ->-- '= ---- ='- ', . )) (( )) ((
)) ,-,- (( '-=--`' - -'= .'-'' -= ','-, -,-'' , - ,=-' . )) =,- ((
`'- -,, =, ,, -', .

( . =-,~ 4'- Q'-;

( -,= -=,- --' -'-'' -,='' -'+--' --=,
( ='--'' -= +-+=',-
( .

( - J;~; ~-- '-- -' Q'--' Q;-,- ';-'- '--, -! 4- ';-,- ; '--,; ;--;
( -- -=;- -' Q'--' Q;-,-7 ; _- 4'- .
'=, .,'-- ` -'=='' ' '=' +, '-=, .. )) (( ,-, - -'=-'' ..

- '---,, -,='' - _'= '-' `,-= '-, --- .
'-'- -,- --'-,' '-,', -` :
- --'' '-' '- --- + ..
-'-,-'', -=-'' - -- += ,-'' _'=, :
( - ,;--' -,-,= .
( - ;-;-~' ,;-= ~'--;,'-7'; .
( - ~~' -,-,=
( )) ((

( ; '-- -,,' ---~' - --~ -= -,;~ ,;= Q;-;-- ';-'-
( -' .

+-, )) =,- (( .,-, ,, :
- -=' ' +=, _'= -`= ' -'' ,-'' -','' ='- . ,' ,

( ,;--' ~-~ J-- Q-,~'=' ,;-= _- ~-~ =--

. --' ,;= -,-- . . samneric - ( =,--'-

-- ~-~- ;'-('; ; ,'--7' ~''-- - -'- ---; (
( -- -;' ~'-,--' 4- Q- ,---' _- --- -' ~'--'
( . ,=-- +=- .,'=, .

)) =,- (( :
( - ='- ,, .. )) =-- (( .
- !
)) (( :
- )) )) ! (( !((
( )) (( _'~' ,=~' ,-=--' ;=- '=-- .. Q-,=--- ';-'- --
( J-;=' ~~' _;- --',; --~ '-'- ';,- Q-,=--- ..
( --- =', - -;=;-' -;-- Q-- ; -' -,--- ~- -
( =; ' =';- J-'- .. J--~ '-'- ~,- Q-- ; -';
( .
J'-=' ---=' --- -=,- -'-' -,='

( - '-, ,'-='' ,= .= ;'=--' ,-- - ',-''
-', ,-'' - ',-- -'' ', )) (( ,='' '- .,= _'= .

- '-,-,' )) (( :
- --- --' -'-', ..
='=- -' --=', ', -- _'= ,-+-, :
- ---'- . -,-' =-- ,-=''
)) ,,- (( :
) ( - . =--'- --' . -;=,= _- ~-- --,~ ! )) (( :
- -', -,~ --,~ -=''- --=, . ---' !
) ( ---=' ;-',-=' =--- ~-- ~ -~ J- ;-,- -', J-- --~' .
) ( - =-=~ ----~ -,~ --,~ =,'' , ,-='' ='- !
)) : ((
- =,'' , ='- , ' .. ,+ ,- ,-,-= .
- --- --' .
- -','= --' - =--- ' '-'-', .
)) :((
) ( - ,-- ,- ,-,-= --; !
=, -'--'' ---' )) (( :

( - - -' -' --' '---=- =--- ' '-'-', '- =', -', - --+- -- '-'-
='- --, .
- .
-,`' ',-'-, ' ',-= ,=- .
- ='- ', -,- --'' ='-- - ', =='- '+-',
( - '- . --' -'--'-
)) .((
)) ,-,- :((
( - _--- _,= 4- ---; 4--- ~--- .
)) (( .

( )) (( '- _,=-'' - --'= ,=--, _,-='' -'= -'-=
( .
( - -,~'-- '---, _-
( - ~-~ J
( - '- ~-~ J '-
( - -,~'-- '---, _-

_'= -'--'' `= - --, )) ,-,- (( =- -'-, +- .' ' --
)) ,-,- (( . -' -',, --' -=- -=- _-=-, -'--'' _', )) ((
,-= _'= ,,'=-`' . ,''' -,-' -'--'' '- ', '+' -= ` '-' -'-='-, .
) ,-,- ( (Lord Of The Flie) ( )) ,-,- (( --~
'---' ',=', )) ,-,- (( -'-,-'' '--`' -'
,----'' ,-,'',

=, _-, '='- --'' =-- )) :((
( - ,-,-=; ,--=; !
,=+''- ', .

( ,-,'-=' Q- -=- -','' -'= ','' -'-='' -'-'--'' ,- - _'-
( - ,;-=' ~-,'~;
( .==,, '--, ,- -- .=-, '--- `=, -,-='' -=-
( '= =--, -'---' ,=, ,-,''
.-,'=' -'--' ,'-- J-- ;'-> _-'~-- Q',--' ~-'- '-- -,`' --'= ( ( )

( --- -'' =,-'' . ,=--- '=;- -'~
( _---' --- --- Q',--' ~-,-,; - 4'- ~-'-; -'--' ~'- .
',-=--, -='-'' .'-'' ,- '==--- -, '', -'--- -

( - ~'; _,-'; ;'
( - -=;- J -=' J-- -- Q;-- -'
( - =-- Q---' ;~ J--- ; '-'--= ~--=' --; ..
=, '-=, )) :((
Appendix four

( -' '
( ) (
( -,=`' -=-'' , - --`' --'' .- - =-'; ,, ,-- _-, -,=
( ,-, =--, ,=- ~;~' Q- -,-~ `' , '+= --=- --'- -'-'' -,-
( -+-= -'' _== -'--' ,'=~7' _;-=;
='-- '-=`' -, -=' ,--= -'--'' ,--, -,`' - -,- _-- '--,-
'-- ---, =' -'-- :
)) -,- =--' .((
( -'-='' -'-,,'' --' ,=~' ~'--,; Q- ~77' ~=-~; . .
--'- -'' -,-'' '-=`', ,''' -'-= - -', '-='- -,-'' -='- _= `
- =',-`' _-, `,' _-=-' .-=' - =',-`' --+-'' -, .- ','-` , ~---- (
-=- -- '-,-- - -' -' : .==
,--'' ,-='' -'=- _'= -'= - ,-,= _ ` ,---' .
.-'-, _''- '--'- --+'' ...
( - _- ;-~-
( - _- '-~ '-,--- Q- -=;-
( -

( = -'=- _ ` ---- '-'-='- -,- '+-=-, -=' ` -''' ..
( _'= .='-'' ,=- ',,-'- ',-'' - -,-'' .,=-'' -'-7 -,-'- Q- _--, ;- J-~ ' .
) ( .,=-'' . =---- -'' ',-'', _='-'', ,'+- `'-
,'''' -'='', ='-'' --'' -,-- '- . , .

( ,-- '+-- '=-'' '--, --`-
- ---'' =,'= ,-'=, ' '-'-
'--' -'' _'= ,--'' _--'' _-=-' :
( - ~--~,;- .

.-'-, -=', -=--'' ,=- ,= ='- ` -=--'' _'= ,-,=-'' -,-+'', --='' .-'-, -'' '=
( . =-- ,'- ',-'' --- ,''' '=-'' ','', _'-'' ,, _,-- .
( ---- -, '-'-,~ -'--' Q'--' ,- ->' -,-~' . .

( -,=, -'-= --,-,- _'= ` . '-+-- . _-,, '+-'
( -'-'' -- :
( - --'- -'--' .
( - ',;~-- ~-- ~--
( - ..
( - -- Q- Q- ~- ..
* ' --- ,-,= '=-' -'-'' _=- -=- -'' == ` '+-', -- '= .
( . ,'= ='- - '-, ',-- '-,- ', +=, . --,-,- '-- -'-;
( '=-- =- ='-~' - ~', -,'~- ,,- .

( - ,'
( - . '+-' . .
-''' _-, -=' -'' --,-,- '-' _'= -'-''' --='- :
( - '+-' .. -' '+,'= ,-'=,, '-'' - --= =-'= , -'- '+-,' ))
( (( `= '+, _--, '---= -' .'-,, ,-'- -' -,- '+--, .

( - _'= --,-,- '+,'= )) (( '--;
( .

'-'' -- -' -, ,-,,- .' ` --+'' :
( - '- ',--- --; ---- .
,-,,- ,--'' ,-- - +- ,,- .-, ' =,-=-'' - ,=-,
-','' --' -', =- -,-,, -=- -= '-, -,-' -'=
-'' ,='- .
,-,,- --'-'' .' .
( - . '-~ '-,--- Q- 4'- -- .
( :
( -
( - -=' -,- ; '-'--' . --+'' - +-``` - -,= +--- --,-,- ' .'-'' .
-=---, ,- _==- ```'' '- . ,'= ,-,- ', -, - -',== - _-,
',-'' _'= ='=,' .

( Q'--- ->-' ,'~ - Q;--~ J'-,' _;- =-~- ~';==-

,=-''- ,--'='' - ='=- -,--- --' -,='' --' .
. -=-- ,='' .,=- +-'-', , . , ,---, --='' ,'- ,'' . -=,- -=--'' '- .--',
( -,`'' -''' . Q;' --,;' ,;,' .

. .' ` -=--- ,'' -'--' -'=, :
( - -'=-7' _- '--,- Q;-,- ';-'- -- . ; '--7 _-,= '- ';-,- Q ;--
( ;-- ~;,-' '--- ---, - +,'' =- ` . .
,-, ,- ,-'' -'' .

- ,='-' . .
=-, _',- '-'' = .
( - ,--' -,-,=

( - .

( ,=`' -,`'' ;-'- ---~ ,;= Q;,=--- '-
( -,-'' .

- -`= ' -'' ,-'' `'' '- ` +=, -,- . ,' .
( -;-=-' =~; ~-, ~-~ -'~ :

( - .,' . . -- .

( '--=,- =-~- ; -' ,'--7' Q- =;- - '--'- ~', -,~ .

( . -,=--- . Q;,=---
4,=-- ( . -~= ;'~- - -,- -- _,' Q' ==7 . -; ~=- ;- ,--- ; ;-
~=-- -' ( . ,- 7; -'-- '---- J--~ '-'- .

( -,'--' ,;=~' -=-- -'' --+''- =,=- `' +='' - -'-'' '= _-=
-'' _,-, `, -,= ,- ='= _--, -'' ', -=--'' .

,,- -'- .
( - =-,' --' . -== . ', .
- ! . ---' . , -='' ---', . -== --' .
( -~ J- ;-, '-~= ,-~- --~' Q' ->-, =;- Q' ---= ,=-- ~,~-- '-- :
( - -', -,~ --,~ . =,'' , -' ..
( - =,'' , ,' . , ' ,-,-= .
- ---' .
- ,'= --- ' '-'-', .
--= ---' - -'' -,- ' .
( - -' ,-,-= .
( - -' '--='+, . -='' ,'=

_,-='' ,, ='- -= . '+-' . '-,-= '-,- --,' . '+-' .
( - '- '- - ' --;'--- . ,' = .
. ,-,- .' :
( - -' . ~=- Q'- --- .

( :
( - ---- -,=;- !
( - --- .
( - . ''
( - -,=;- .
,- ', =- ---- =- -'' -'--'' - ,- --'= . -- ,-,- ,=-
( +=, `= -'' '' . '+-' ,-= _'= =-'' -'-, ,=-- .
( . ' ,=-- ==-, . ,-,- _-= ',=' =-, ,, '+,''

( - . . .
--='- ;---; .

( ,-,'-=' Q- _-,- '=- , -'-='' =-,
( . ,,='' --'= . ~'-';-= ~='~; -'' - '-, _--=,' ,- ,'=- -'=, .

,-= . -'-' '+--= --'-' ',-'' . -, '-,-, -'' -=-'
( ','' . '-, -`- '-'-
( . . -=' ;-- Q',--' --,-;
( Q',--' Q- Q'~ '-- . -,-, _'= -'--' .

( - ...
( - '-'=~ 4'- Q;-- 7' _---'
( - . '~- '--- '- .
-'' '+, =- -'' ,='-'' .
- .

, ,,--'' ,-=-'' -' . --, _-'' '- '=+-- ','-= '`,-=

,,--'' . ',-= '- ,,-= ,','
,', " -,- " ,
) ( ,--' -='' -,-='' --= =--'' ) / ( '
) ( . ,
-=- '+ '-, - ,,---'' '- ,',---'' .
- _'= -',--'' , '- :
- _'+--' -,-, - --- .
- `' -,, -,-'' ='-
- ,'-`'' ,-,'-`', ,- --+'
,-=-'' =, '- . -
,-=--''- ,,=- _'' -,=- ,-,-'', ,'-`'' -'',-'' --,-='' .
_, -',--'' - - ,-'----- --= _'= ',-=`' ,','' -
,-'-=- - '+'-'-,'-, -'-= ='-- =-' ,-= ,-+- ,'-- ',-'' ,,-, ,,--'' .
-',=-'' ,-',,--- =- -'', '-=---'' _,- --=
) ( ,'
) ( ) .( - ,=--
-'-=-'' -'',-=`' ,-, -'' ' ,-=--'' '+- '-,'
,.,'=-- ,,-,'-' .'-- - '+-='-,'-, ,'-`
''-'' - -'-,- -,''-' -,, ,+= -,'---
--- . -' ,-=--'' -''=- ,-'-`' -,,
. -,''--'' ',=' - ```'' -'' ,-=--''
,,'-'', ='=-'' ,`=`' -=' =-, ' ,-'' -'--=-'' ---'-'' +-- ,'
-,, '-, -=--'' ,--'' ,-'' ''' '-,'
,--=-'' ,`'-'' . .......................................

~'' --
-,---7' ' ;~-
;-; -';, --,- ~'-=,- ~>- -=,-' --~
--;- ;-; ~-'- ~'--'
'- ;---
-'-- -'= - ~'' -- =-
- -,= ; --'~ J-- ~'-=-- Q ,--~='-

--' J-,- ,'- ,'~-

J-- ,-
,'-' - -