See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285523525

2015 Papers in Arabic-English Translation

Studies
Book January 2015

CITATIONS

READS

637

1 author:
Mohammed Farghal
Kuwait University
103 PUBLICATIONS 270 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Mohammed Farghal

Retrieved on: 20 September 2016

Papers in Arabic/English Translation Studies 1

An Applied Perspective

Mohammed Farghal et al.

Published by The Jordanian Translators Association (JTA)

This volume consists of 15 self-contained papers dealing with a variety of applied topics in
Arabic/English Translation Studies (TS). The aim is to bring together and update some scattered
material in one volume, which is hoped to inaugurate a series of other volumes in a scantily
researched area. This will definitely serve students, researchers, and practitioners who usually
experience difficulty in locating academic papers dealing with Arabic/English TS. The reader
can choose to read any article independently of the others according to his/her own interests. To
avoid repetition in the bibliography, a unified list of references is provided separately at the end
of the volume.
Professor Mohammed Farghal
Kuwait University

In this volume, one thing is certain: Farghal and his colleagues have gone a very long way
towards achieving the goal of encouraging and guiding practitioners to study their own
translational behavior and to determine what works best. Like all professional activities,
translating is a complex phenomenon, and there is no single right approach. But reflection is
the name of the game in what we do as translators or interpreters: We do indeed reflect on
different versions, different modes and different models, comparatively assessing the merits and
demerits of a particular strategy, and in the process reshaping past and current experiences in a
manner that can only lead to improved practices.
Professor Basil Hatim
American University of Sharjah

To the Memory of
Professor Lewis Mukkattash
&
Professor Abdullah Shakir

Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank my former as well as my present graduate students who
have been a source of inspiration for me over the years and who have contributed to this volume
both directly and indirectly. Several of them are now university professors of Linguistics and/or
Translation Studies in Jordan and abroad. My thanks also go to my colleagues at Yarmouk
University and Kuwait University whose scholarly discussions and commentaries have
contributed to the shaping of many of the ideas in this volume. In particular, I would like to
mention my teacher and colleague the late Professor Lewis Mukattash and my colleague the late
Abdullah Shakir for whom this volume is dedicated. Their love for linguistics and translation
will always be a source of inspiration for us and their memories will certainly stay with us. I am
obliged to Professor Basil Hatim for kindly accepting to write the foreword to this book. I am
also grateful to Mr. Omar Irshaidat for helping with many technical matters. Last, but not least, a
warm word of thanks goes to my close friend and colleague Professor Abdullah Shunnaq for
suggesting Jordanian Translators Association as an outlet for publishing this volume.

ii

Table of Contents
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
Preface
List of Phonetic Symbols
Foreword

1-5

1. Basic Issues in Translator Training

7-16

Mohammed Farghal
2. The Linguistics of Translation

17-40

Mohammed Farghal & Ali Almanna

3. The Translation of English Passives into Arabic

41-54

Mohammed Farghal & Mohammed Al-Shorofat

4. Translating Modals by Zero Equivalents:
The Case of Macbeth

55-64

Mohammed Farghal & Alban Beqri

5. Semantic and Syntactic Hurdles in Machine
and Student Translation

65-74

Mohammed Farghal & Adnan Gergeos

6. Translational Miscues: Poetry as an Example

75-88

Mohammed Farghal & Rula Naji

7. Audience Awareness and Role of Translator

89-98

Mohammed Farghal & Abdullah Shakir

8. Reader Responses in Quran translation

99-114

Mohammed Farghal & Mohammed Al-Masri

iii

9. Coherence Shifts in Quran Translation

115-126

Mohammed Farghal & Noura Bloushi

10. Pragmalinguistic Failure: The Case of
Arabic Politeness Formulas

127-144

Mohammed Farghal & Ahmed Borini

11. Media Translation: The Case of
The Arabic Newsweek

145-164

Mohammed Farghal & Mashael Al-Hamly

12. Collocations: An Index of L2 Interlingual
Transfer Competence

165-174

Mohammed Farghal & Abdullah Shakir

13. Explicitation vs. Implicitation: Discourse
Markers as an Example

175-188

Mohammed Farghal & Abdullah Samateh

14. Lexical Reduction in Scientific Translation

189-202

Mohammed Farghal & Mashael Al-Hamly

15. Major Problems in Student Translations
of English Legal Texts into Arabic

203-209

Mohammed Farghal & Abdulla Shunnaq

List of References

211-227

iv

Preface
This volume consists of 15 self-contained papers dealing with a variety of applied topics in
Arabic/English TS. The aim is to bring together and update some scattered material in one
volume, which is hoped to inaugurate a series of other volumes in a scantily researched area.
This will definitely serve students, researchers, and practitioners who usually experience
difficulty in locating academic papers dealing with Arabic/English TS. The reader can choose to
read any article independently of the others according to his/her own interests. Where employed
in this volume, square brackets indicate literal translation, which is meant to give a rough idea
about the propositional content of some Arabic texts. Boldface typing is mainly used to highlight
the study items within the textual data, which is given in Arabic script in some articles and in
transliteration in others. To avoid repetition in the bibliography, a unified list of references is
provided separately at the end of the volume.
The textual data is mainly drawn from published as well as student translations. It covers a
variety of discourse types/genres including the literary, the religious, the journalistic, the legal,
etc. The aim is to offer insights relating to translation activity in its professional as well as its
pedagogical sphere, hence the applied perspective of this volume. The discussion of the textual
data is not meant to offer final solutions but rather to engage the reader in what we may call
translational argumentation, where the relevance of theoretical constructs to actual translation
practice is highlighted.

List of Recurrent Abbreviations

TS

Translation Studies

SL

Source Language

TL

Target Language

L1

First Language

L2

Second Language

vi

List of Arabic Phonetic Symbols

/b/ voiced bilabial stop
/m/ bilabial nasal
/f/ voiceless labio-dental fricative
// voiced interdental fricative
// voiced interdental emphatic fricative
// voiceless interdental fricative
/d/ voiced alveolar stop
/t/ voiceless alveolar stop
// voiced alveolar emphatic stop
// voiceless alveolar emphatic stop
/z/ voiced alveolar fricative
/s/ voiceless alveolar fricative
// voiceless alveolar emphatic fricative
/n/ alveolar nasal stop
/r/ alveolar rhotic liquid
/l/ alveolar lateral liquid
// voiceless alveo-palatal fricative
/j/ voiced alveo-palatal affricate
/y/ palatal glide
/w/ labio-velar glide
/k/ voiceless velar stop
// voiced uvular/post velar fricative
/x/ voiceless uvula/post velar fricative
/q/ voiceless uvular stop
// or /c / voiced pharyngeal fricative
// voiceless pharyngeal fricative
// glottal stop
/h/ voiceless laryngeal fricative
/i/ high front short vowel
/u/ high back short vowel
/a/ low half-open front-to-centralized short vowel
/ii/ high front long vowel
/uu/ high back long vowel
/aa/ low open front-to-centralized long vowel
/ee/ mid front long vowel
/oo/ mid back long vowel

vii

Foreword
by
Basil Hatim

In presenting you with this volume of excellent collaborative work in translation theory and practice, I
want at the outset to highlight and speak to one particular theme I consider pivotal in the present context.
This is research, and the role research plays in promoting reflective practice not only in doing
translation but also and equally significantly in developing a theory of doing translation. As the editor of
the present book puts it in his introductory contribution (p. 5): translation theory is intended to refine and
sharpen the already existing level of translating theory by bringing to consciousness a set of strategies and
principles in practicing and/or prospective translators. This is just one of the many important claims
which this timely volume makes, forcibly and insightfully.

There are many reasons for my choice of thematic focus on research and the reflective practitioner, but
one particular reason stands out. In reading through the various contributions to this new book by
Mohammed Farghal et al, one feature struck me as distinctive, namely how each contribution tells
upcoming researchers the full story: from a given assumption or set of assumptions accepted so
uncritically by both practitioner and theoretician of translation alike for far too long (a problem, in
short), through a questioning which leads to new proposals put forward as possible solutions, then
through the analysis of appropriate data marshalled in support, to arrive finally at some plausible
conclusions and practical applications that translators, students of translation and, indeed, teachers and
theoreticians of translation, will find highly insightful (see Candlin, Crompton & Hatim 2015). This
reflexivity, or empowerment of practitioners to develop and execute their own research (Hatim 2012), is
one way in which unhelpful dichotomies such as theory vs practice may be re-assessed, as the present
volume does admirably.

In short, this is what I would unreservedly call quality research, and the how-to slant which threads its
way through the book and which was obviously necessitated by the authors concern with their students
and with the translation classroom within which they operated, is a most opportune addition to the
literature. I, would, therefore, want to recommend this book not only as a handbook on the theory and
practice of English/Arabic translation, but also as a research manual, a how-to guide for practitioners
trying to find their way, through the maze of reflection, towards becoming effective researchers
themselves.

To perform its role effectively, one of the aims of a theory of translating (with people like Nida),
as opposed to a theory of translation (as Catford would have it, for example), is to start by raising

awareness. Essentially, this is to promote the realization that a given problem is real and that it
is recognized as a problem by the majority of those it affects. Once a problem is defined,
solutions can be sought, a process of encouraging the kind of practitioner research that has aptly
acquired the name action research. Up to the 1980s, research in Translation Studies was
generally a matter of reflection, and practitioners looked to theoreticians almost as the sole
providers of this body of analytical knowledge that could help them expand the craft
knowledge they already possessed. But then a wind of change came and a generation of young
researcher-writers began to occupy the forefront in theorizing practice and practicing theory.
That is to say, we saw a reversal of the trend of treating practitioners as mere consumers of
research. The practitioner is now viewed as someone who is heavily involved in the
determination of the problem or the puzzle. And here, I beg the readers indulgence to allow
me relate a personal anecdote. I was on a visit to Jordan in the mind-1980s and had stopped by to
see a dear colleague, now departed (the late Professor Lewis Mukattash), when a young
professor walked in fresh from an excellent PhD from Indiana (that was Mohammed Farghal) all
jubilant with what I think must have been one of his earliest publications, and the title, if
memory serves, was the New Toy Effect. It was about how new fashions in applied linguistics
can be deceptively alluring. It was then that I saw originality and imagination, qualities that
Mohammed Farghal has demonstrated over the years, and that the present volume exhibits most
conspicuously.
But to return to the here and now, the scene for Farghal et als new volume is set with Basic Issues in
Translator Training, a major article in which Farghal focuses on translator training in the Arab World
and argues among other things for an important distinction to be drawn between a theory of translating
and a theory of translation, with the translation activity governed by what he calls a principle of
relevance the decision to render a segment (or an aspect of it) or not depends entirely on whether that
segment is relevant in any given context. The paper concludes with a re-statement of the need to view
translation as an act of communication, with considerations of comprehensibility and readability
uppermost in the translators mind.

In The Linguistics of Translation, Farghal & Almanna re-visit decision-making in translation and
demonstrate how, instead of the static, mono-level view, this process may best be undertaken at different
linguistic levels, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Syntax has pride of place
when Farghal & Al-Shorafat delve deeper into the intricacies of the English passive and examine ways of
dealing with this complex structure in Arabic. This challenges traditional, intuitive views predominant in
studies of the translation of English passives, and test these against empirical data consisting of
translations of English passive utterances as they naturally occur in an English text. A number of
strategies seem to be employed by translators in dealing with this particular structure, including
nominalization, adjectivalization, and activization. Staying with syntactic structures, Translating
English Modals by Farghal & Beqri concludes that, while English possesses a highly grammatical zed

system of modality, Arabic employs a diversity of modal expressions which can effectively capture the
various shades of meaning encapsulated in English modals.

Next, Farghal & Gergeos examine Machine and Student Translation and address some subtle English
syntactic features that tend to present formidable problems to both machine and student. There is first the
issue of recognizing variation in parts of speech, with polysemous and/or homonymous syntactic
categories likely to cause serious interpretation problems to both machine and student translators. Thence,
we have the issue of structural ambiguity at phrase and sentence level creating interpretation difficulties
in translation activity. Third, parenthetical structures in English sentences for their part may trigger
reference and focus mishaps in machine and student translation alike. Finally, the complications of word
order variation are examined and the damage that may be caused in translation due to such aspects of
message construction as marked stylistic inversion and subject deletion is identified.
From the world of machine translation, Farghal & Naji take us next into the murky area of verse
translation. The notion of miscue is central here. From a translational perspective, miscues are shown
to occur at the phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic levels, often twisting, or even
crippling, the cognitive structures communicated by poets. When culture enters the equation and
intercultural mistranslations become a fact of life, the need on the part of the translator to be aware of
the culture-bound norms of expression in the TL becomes most acute.

With Shakir (May Allah bless his soul), Farghal deals with this issue in Audience Awareness and Role
of Translator. By employing an Arabic political editorial translated into English by their MA
translation students, the authors show that to avoid deviations that can mar the translation product in
terms of micro- and macro-features, translators need to be vigilant to address features such as lexical
appropriateness, tone of presentation, and content organization.

From sensitive (poetic or political) texts, we move next to sacred texts, specifically to Coherence Shifts
in the Translation of the Holy Quran. Here, Farghal & Alblushi establish a crucial distinction in Quranic
translation, namely reader-focused vs. text-focused coherence shifts. It is suggested that the wide cultural
distance between source text and target text may cause reader-focused shifts when opting for literal
translation in handling partial and complete referential gaps. On the other hand, the translators
inadequate language competence in Arabic and the absence of consulting Quranic exegeses sometimes
trigger text-focused shifts, thus offering unintended readings.

We remain with sacred and sensitive texts in translation and survey Reader Responses in Quran
Translation, a paper in which Farghal & Al-Masri deal with the specific issue of referential gaps in the
Quranic text. The study shows that referential gaps are problematic to process in English translations of
the Holy Quran. This is an extremely subtle level of Quranic discourse, and one that, although examined
extensively in the exegetical literature by Arab jurisprudents and rhetoricians alike, has not made its mark
3

in work published in English, hence the importance of this particular contribution. The paper empirically
shows that what the target reader may think is a correct interpretation of a Quranic verse may turn out to
be a distorted reading caused by a referential gap. Thus, in the absence of a sound cultural rapport with
Quranic discourse, the target reader may project his/her own knowledge of his/her own religion on a
Quranic text and, subsequently, fall victim to a flawed interpretation.

Farghal & Borini engage with pragmatic failures and deal specifically with Arabic Politeness issues.
The paper addresses the translatability of Arabic politeness formulas into English from a pragmalinguistic
perspective. The analysis is conducted with reference to the Cooperative Principle (CP), the Politeness
Principle (PP), and the Irony Principle (IP), and argues that deficiency in pragmalinguistic competence
usually results in communication breakdown or, at best, distortion of the original message.

The crucial area of Media Translation: The Case of the Arabic Newsweek is most cogently dealt with by
Farghal & Al-Hamly. This project is a case study with a focus on two genres seen in terms of the type of
discourse employed in each, the evaluative vs. the expository type. The analysis of the data shows that the
Arabic version of Newsweek suffers from a variety of local and global perceptible errors relating to
lexical, discoursal and grammatical usage. In terms of genre analysis, these perceptible features present
themselves more frequently and seriously in argumentative/evaluative discourse than in expository/nonevaluative discourse.

Collocations (Farghal & Shakir) constitute a key component in the lexicon of natural language, and
translators/interpreters should, therefore, possess a working syntagmatic competence, alongside their
paradigmatic competence. The study further looks into the strategies adopted by the student
translators/interpreters in their attempts to render target collocations: reduction, synonymy,
compensation, paraphrasing and calquing. Failure to cope with collocations in the SLT results in
mitigating the evaluativeness parameter, thus weakening the line of argumentation in the TLT.

Terminology is dealt with next by Farghal & Al-Hamly. The specific issue examined is Lexical
Reduction in Scientific Translation, with English Reduced Forms (RLFs) seen as problematic in Arabic
translation. The translation data examined shows that professional scientific translators employ various
strategies in rendering a variety of English RLFs. While Blended Forms and Complete Form + RLF are
the most frequent RLFs in the English corpus, it is found that Translation Alone and Translation + RLF
are the most occurring strategies in the Arabic corpus.

The issue of Translation Universals, an extremely interesting and new research area that has not attracted
sufficient attention in English/Arabic Translation Studies, occupies Farghal & Samateh in Markers in
Translation. The rather bold claim by Blum-Kulka regarding TT explicitation usually being a response to
4

ST implicitation provides a launching pad for a truly insightful exploration of how three discourse
markers function in Arabic translation. Three types of correspondence are identified: explicitation to
explicitation, explicitation to implicitation, and explicitation to zero equivalent. The paper concludes that
due to the syndetic nature of Arabic discourse, there are cases of discourse markers whose sole function
is not so much to explicate as to improvise, and in the process to create, smooth and cohesive discourse.

Finally, this tour de force in the study of translation, homes in on Legal Texts in Translation dealt with
by Farghal & Shunnaq, in terms of syntactic, layout, and tenor problems posed in the process of
translation. It is revealed that syntactically parenthetical non-finite clauses in Arabic legal discourse seem
to be the single most difficult feature to handle. Layout features such as indentation, and tenor features
relating to the formality of legal lexis can also be problematic.
To conclude, the question which many of us in teaching and researching translation constantly ask, and
which this volumes attempts in a major way to answer is: Can the translator or interpreter be trained to
become a reflective practitioner in the sense of reflective practice advocated by Donald Shon (1983), for
example, and summed up in the following terms by Boud et al (1985: 19) "Reflection is an important
human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it. It is
this working with experience that is important in learning."

One thing is certain: Farghal and his colleagues have gone a very long way towards achieving
this goal of encouraging and guiding practitioners to study their own translational behavior and
to determine what works best. Like all professional activities, translating is a complex
phenomenon, and there is no single right approach. But reflection is the name of the game in
what we do as translators or interpreters: We do indeed reflect on different versions, different
modes and different models, comparatively assessing the merits and demerits of a particular
strategy, and in the process reshaping past and current experiences in a manner that can only lead
to improved practices.

Basic Issues in Translator Training:

Special Reference to Arab Contexts

Mohammed Farghal

Abstract
8

The paper addresses the status quo of student translator training programs in the Arab world by
looking at the practical and theoretical dimensions of TS as an emerging discipline. It aims to
offer a set of principles and guidelines whose presence seems indispensable. First, an introductory
word is said about nature of human communication, nature of translation, and translation
programs. Second, an important distinction is drawn between a theory of translating and a theory
of translation. Third, it is argued that translation activity should always be informed by a principle
of relevance the decision to render a segment (or an aspect of it) or not depends entirely on
whether that segment is relevant in any given context. Fourth, translation needs to be viewed as
an act of communication governed by considerations of comprehensibility and readability, rather
than an act of prescription informed by dogmatic and obsolete views about correctness. Last,
translation activity is shown to involve three stages: the pre-translating, the translating and the retranslating stages.

1. Nature of Communication
In its essence, translation is an act of interlingual communication which involves the use of
language, whether it be in the spoken form (interpreting) or written form (translating). Explaining
the nature of human communication, being the raw material for translation activity is, therefore, a
prerequisite for embarking on any pedagogical endeavor relating to translation. The production
and reception of language (be it spoken or written) is a dynamic, interactive process whereby
explicit as well as implicit propositions are smoothly produced and received. The propositional
content, or simply meaning, in human discourse embodies two main functions: the affective
(phatic) function and the referential (informational) function at varying degrees, with a
discernible dominance of one over the other in various discourses. This functional and fluid
division of labor, so to speak, captures the usually intertwined interactional and transactional
functions of human communication in its entirety (Brown and Yule 1983).

The expression of propositions in discourse by language users embraces two distinct, though
complementary, principles: the Open Principle (OP) and the Idiom Principle (IP) (Sinclair 1991).
The OP emphasizes the productive (generative) nature of human communication which enables
language users to produce and comprehend novel propositions by utilizing a finite set of rules
whose functionalization rests on already learned vocabulary items. By contrast, the IP stresses the
parroted (memorized) component of human communication which enables language users to fall
back on a huge amount of multiword units (canonically including collocational, idiomatic,
proverbial, and formulaic expressions, among others) to produce and receive previously
encountered (parts of) propositions. In this way, meaning in interlingual communication evolves
out of constructing meaning via gammaticalizing (the OP) or parroting meaning by calling up
multi-word units (the IP) based on the presence of a Source Text (SL). By way of illustration, the
propositional content of Cats love dozing under palm trees may turn out to be a novel one (being
the product of the OP) and can literally translate into an Arabic utterance that may involve a novel
proposition, viz. . By contrast, the familiar English proverb Birds of a
feather flock together (being the product of the IP) can readily be translated into a familiarly
9

corresponding one in Arabic, viz. [ Verily the birds on their forms fall]. The
translators awareness of the garmmaticalized vs. idiomatized expression of meaning constitutes
the foundation stone in translation activity as an act of human communication

2. Nature of Translation
The senses of the transitive verb to translate embodies three different, though relevant and
related, acts, viz. (1) express the sense of (a word, sentence, speech, book) in another language,
(2) express (an idea, book, etc.) in another, esp. simpler form, and (3) interpret the significance
of; infer as (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition). Examining these senses, one can
immediately see that the first sense is restricted to interlingual communication, i.e. it involves the
use of more than one language, while the second is confined to intralingual communication which
may involve explaining, paraphrasing, etc. As for the third sense, one can argue that it is relevant
to both intra- and interlingual communication. In this way, the language user (whether he is
functioning within one language or mediating between two languages) can perform an
interpretative act.

Actually, the three senses above capture much of the insight and pith of the debate and theorizing
voiced by different scholars working in the discipline of translation studies. The relatively recent
move from translation equivalence (Nida 1964; Catford 1965; Newmark 1981; House 1981) to
translation resemblance (Gust 1991), and later to skopos (Schffner 2003, 1998; Hnig 1998;
Vermeer 2000) represents a steady shift from the first sense to the third sense in the partial
dictionary entry above. To see the contrast more clearly, lets quote from Newmark (1982) and
Schffner (1998). In the words of Newmark, the translators task is to render the original as
objectively as he can, rigorously suppressing his own natural feelings (1982:389). By
contrast, Schffner views the translator as a TT [Target Text] author who is freed from the
limitations and restrictions imposed by a narrowly defined concept of loyalty to the source text
alone (1998:238). It should be clear that the limitations and restrictions are embodied in
definition (1), while the freedom is embraced by definition (3) above.

At a more theoretical level, transforming Meaning from one Form to another involves a cognitive
and a linguistic process. The cognitive process in intralingual communication consists in
generating and processing ideas (cognitive structures) and, subsequently, transforming them into
words and utterances (i.e. a linguistic code). While ideas enjoy a high degree of constancy, the
linguistic code is fluid and variable. Thus, the same idea can be clad differently in terms of
language expression by adopting variegated styles. In interlingual communication, the cognitive
aspect is mainly pertinent to processing and interpreting ideas rather than generating them (i.e. it
is a matter of text comprehension and interpretation). However, the linguistic code remains fluid
and variable, thus enabling the mediator (i.e. the translator) to offer translations that differ in
language expression (i.e. form) but essentially relay similar content. At face value, therefore, the
10

content enjoys a high degree of constancy, while the form shows a high degree of variability
(Farghal 2003).

3. Translation Programs
Translation programs at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels have become a common
feature of Arab universities and academic institutes. This recent development is due to the
increasing demand for translation practitioners on the job market. Most of these institutions were
caught off-guard in terms of the availability of competent translation trainers. Therefore, the task
of translation teaching was often assigned to bilingual academics specializing in literature and/or
linguistics.

One can find translation trainers who neither have a sufficient theoretical background in
Translation Studies (ST), nor interest or motivation to familiarize themselves with ST as an
adequately established sub-discipline of applied linguistics. These academics believe that their
formal training in literature and/or linguistics is self-sufficient for teaching translation, which is,
to them, a by-product of such training. It is sad that translation training in such contexts and with
such attitudes does not go beyond anecdotal expositions. For instance, one may cite the common
belief that translation activity is nothing more than using a bilingual dictionary effectively. To
draw on one interesting incident, the chairperson of an English department where an MA
translation program is run once assertively banned the use of dictionaries by students sitting for
the Comprehensive Examination. He was wondering what would be left of the test if the
examinees were allowed to use dictionaries.

In addition to the serious lack of competent translation trainers, many of the students admitted to
translation programs do not possess adequate language competence in the foreign language
(predominantly English), let alone competence in their first language (Arabic). This bitter reality
turns most translation courses at Arab universities into language rather translation courses proper.
While it is true that translation activity is a sophisticated linguistic exercise that can sharpen ones
language skills in the foreign as well as the native language, adequate language proficiency in the
relevant language pair is an indispensable requirement. This requirement cannot be taken for
granted based on possession of high school and/or university certification relevant to language
skills in the language pair. Based on my personal experience, many translation students (both
undergraduates and postgraduates) do not demonstrate adequate English language competence
that can live up to the taxing requisites of translation activity. Still worse, some even lack such
language competence in their native language (Arabic). One should note that translation activity
presents constraints and complications that may not occur in intralingual communication. For
example, the high degree of flexibility and freedom available to a student when he writes in
English or Arabic is tremendously reduced when engaging in translation between the two
languages, due to the formal and semantic bond/contract emerging between the original and the
11

translation product. Consequently, translation programs should base their selection of entrants on
entrance examinations that gauge translational competence in the language pair rather than
decisions that refer to general language proficiency and/or certification alone.

4. Theory of Translating vs. Theory of Translation

To many skeptics, the need for translation theory/theories in translation training is far from being
clear. The familiar argument is that, until recently, most competent translation practitioners had
never received any type of formal or academic instruction in translation studies. While such a
polemic is generally valid, it does not negate the presence of theory in translation activity, at least
at the psycho-cognitive level. In other words, the competent practitioner who has not engaged in
any kind of formal training progressively develops a set of translation strategies that are
subconsciously activated when translating. For example, when encountering a proverbial or an
idiomatic expression, he first looks for a corresponding expression in the TL. Only after failing to
access one will he opt for rendering sense independently of phraseology.

Most importantly, therefore, we need to draw a key distinction between a theory of translating
and a theory of translation. First, a theory of translating is essentially subconscious; it consists of
a set of practical principles and guidelines which are intuitively implemented in translation
practice by practitioners on the market. By contrast, a theory of translation is conscious; it
consists of a set of theoretical or abstract principles and guidelines which are formally learned and
consciously applied by translators. Second, while a theory of translating is naturally acquired
through extensive translation activity wherein the set of principles and guidelines reaches a high
degree of automatization in finished translators, a theory of translation is formally learned
through exposure to or instruction in ST wherein theoretical claims are tested against naturally
occurring or concocted translational data. Thus, a theory of translating is subconscious, intuitive
and naturally acquired, whereas a theory of translation is conscious, informed and formally
acquired. To give an example, Houses (1981, 2000) important distinction between a covert and
an overt translation is part of a theory of translation, while the formally uninformed practitioners
intuition that a translation may be reader-oriented or text-oriented is the output of a theory of
translating.

To make the distinction more down-to-earth, an analogy can be drawn between language
competence (Chomsky 1964: Hymes 1972; Canale 1983) and translation competence (2000).(1)
Native speakers of human languages gradually develop sufficient competence in their languages
which enables them to use language effectively prior to engaging in any form of formal training.
Similarly, translation practitioners gradually develop sufficient translational competence through
extensive translation activity. In both cases, a theory of x-ing (that is, communicating and
translating respectively) is subconsciously developed. A native speaker can readily judge the
linguistic and social well-formedness of sentences and utterances in various contexts. By the
12

same token, a translation practitioner can readily judge the contextual fitness and naturalness of
translations. The intuitive knowledge developed by both native speakers and translators through
natural exposure to communicating and translating respectively is subject to further refinement
and systematization by formal training and instruction, e.g. language, linguistics and translation
classes. Hence, a native speaker who has access to formal instruction in language and/or
linguistics will develop, in addition to his subconscious theory of communicating, a conscious
theory of communication. Similarly, a translation practitioner who has access to formal
instruction in ST will develop, in addition to his subconscious theory of translating, a conscious
theory of translation.

One should note that asking generalists in linguistics and/or literature to teach translation courses
is similar, based on our analogy above, to asking a layman native speaker to teach language
courses. I am quite certain that most, if not all, of those specializing in language and/or literature
would object strongly to the assignment in the latter case, but only very few would question the
assignment in the former case. This unfortunate attitude may be attributed to the common view
that translation competence alone (i.e. a theory of translating) is all that is needed for the teaching
of translation courses, whereas, rightly in this case, language competence alone (i.e. a theory of
communicating) is far from being sufficient for teaching language courses. Consequently,
scholars working within ST should struggle hard to convince other fellow scholars that a theory
of translation is indispensable and that it is not even enough to be a finished translator, let alone
an amateur one, when it comes to giving formal instruction in translation classes. Only then will
translation courses build their own legitimate reality.

Furthermore, theory/theories of translation alone cannot produce competent translators because an

adequate translation competence ought to be taken as a point of departure for formal instruction in
ST. The role of translation theory is intended to refine and sharpen the already existing level of
translating theory by bringing to consciousness a set of strategies and principles in practicing
and/or prospective translators. In this case, the practicing/prospective translator is expected to
work with many theoretical options whose practical application manifests itself in a translational
decision, which is, in the presence of a theory of translation, both practically and theoretically
motivated. In this way, translation theory aims to perfect translation competence rather than
create it. In fact, translation theory without translation competence (i.e. practical experience) may
be described as blank, while translation competence without translation theory may be described
as blind. The importance of translation theory/theories here may be likened to the importance of a
latent course of study in mechanical engineering for a practicing mechanic whose entire career
derives from his practical experience in difference garages. There is no doubt that our friend will
be a better mechanic, despite the fact that it was only a matter of Better late than never.

5. Translation as Question of Relevance

13

The notion of relevance is introduced as a major parameter of human communication (Grice

1975; Sperber and Wilson 1981; Gust 1996, and Farghal 2004, 2012, among others). Translation,
being a form of communication, can be convincingly argued to be a question of relevance. This
means that what is supposed to be relayed from the SL into the TL is what is contextually
relevant. The general implication here is that a textual and/or discourse segment which is relevant
in one context may not be relevant in another. By way of illustration, the phraseology the
Custodian of the two Holy Mosques' in reference to the Saudi monarch is essentially relevant to
the discourse employed by Radio Riyadh, whereas it is completely irrelevant in a BBC news
bulletin where King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or just the Saudi king/monarch will be most
appropriate.

Most frequently, the question of relevance arises in the context of choosing between form and
function in the process of translating. It is the translators job to decide whether both form and
function are relevant or only one of them is relevant in any given translational decision.
Translational questions relating to form and function are assessed and resolved in light of three
contextual factors, i.e. text type, audience and author. To deem one contextual factor more
relevant than the others will show in translational options. For example, the Arabic cognate
accusative is a textual feature of Arabic whose formal relevance when translating into English is
very low (e.g. compare We discussed the plan in a detailed discussion with We discussed the
plan in great detail). Nonetheless, considering the cognate accusative a relevant feature, many
translators of the Holy Quran relay this feature formally into English. M. Pickthall offers
Therefore we grasped them with the grasp of the mighty, the powerful and M. Khan and T.
Hillali give We seized them with a seizure of the all mighty, all capable to carry out what He
will as renditions of the Quranic verse [ So he took them with able mighty
taking]. Clearly, the authoritativeness and sanctity of the text in question has motivated these
translators to consider the Arabic cognate accusative as formally relevant, despite its failing to
achieve a good degree of naturalness in English.

Sometimes, the question of relevance is guided by the norms of naturalness in the TL, i.e. what is
relevant is what sounds natural and acceptable. This means that the audience assumes special
importance in terms of relevance. By way of illustration, P. Stewart (1981) considers the mention
of the Prophet in the Arabic welcoming formula [ welcome, welcome the
prophet visited us] in his translation (Children of Gebelawi) of Najeeb Mahfouzs (1959) Awlad
Haritna irrelevant and, consequently, renders it as Welcome! This is a great honor. Had Stewart
deemed the Arabic metaphor in this formula relevant, i.e. by translating it into Welcome! The
Prophet visited us instead of the rendition above, he would have twisted the implication of
intimacy and sincerity in Arabic to that of sarcasm in English, in addition to the low degree of
processability of his translation by English native speakers. So, again relevance presents itself as
a robust maxim in translation practice.

14

In some cases, the translators preoccupation with SL cultural considerations may blur
interlingual communication. This occurs when the translator is bent on adopting SL phraseologies
at the expense of TL naturalness. Situations of this kind may give rise to communication
breakdowns because the discrepancy in relevance between the SL and TL is too great to be
worked out on the basis of universal principles. To cite an illustrative example, witness how P.
Therouxs (1987) translation of the Arabic proverb [ The eye sees and the
hand is short] in Abdurrahman Munifs novel mudini-l-mal: taqaasiim al-layl wa-n-nahaar
Cities of salt: Variations on Day and Night into The eye sees far but the hand is short and
Sight is long but our hand is short. Regardless of any role that the context may play in
improvising a potential interpretation of the English renditions above, one may be able to argue
that, at best, these renditions are hard-going and, at worst, incomprehensible by native English
speakers. By contrast, considering relevance in light of TL norms would lead to renditions like
The reach falls short of the desires or The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. In this case,
the Arabic metaphor is rightly considered an irrelevant formal feature.
Finally, the issue of relevance should be related to lexical and referential voids between languages
(Rabin 1958; Ivir 1977; and Dagut 1981). In order to deal with translation voids properly, the
translator should decide the relevance of gaps in terms of incidental/casual mention versus
planned/instrumental mention. While the former does not affect the discourse of the text in
question, the latter does so to a great extent. On the one hand, the Arabic religious term may
incidentally occur in a work of fiction where the technical details of this term are completely
irrelevant. Consequently, the translator may relevantly opt for an English cultural substitute
(Larson 1982), e.g. charity or almsgiving in translation. On the other hand, the same term may
occur in a religious text where the exact technical details of the term (e.g. the fact that is
compulsory and is strictly quantified in Islam) are relevant. In this case, one should have recourse
to other translation strategies (e.g. descriptive translation, transliteration, footnoting, lexical
creation, etc.) to bring out relevant details because cultural approximation falters (for more details
about translation strategies, see Ivir 1991).

6. Translation as an Act of Communicating

Many specialists (or pseudo-specialists) in translation studies and neighboring areas often raise
the issue of untranslatability and assertively make it a central point in their discussions and
expositions. They claim repeatedly that untranslatability is a major, if not a fatal drawback in
translation practice and, subsequently, employ it as an escape-hatch to avoid serious scrutiny and
analysis. Their argument usually overlooks the fact that total communication, whether it belongs
to intralingual or interligual communication, is a mere desideratum. Thus, when one attempts
communicating a spoken or a written message in his own language, he performs the task a
varying degrees of success and/or failure. This being the case, the deficit is expected to be greater
in translation because it is second-hand rather than firsthand communication. This inherent
quality of both forms of communication should be taken for granted and should never pervade
polemics in translation circles.

15

Translation, therefore, needs to be viewed as an act of communicating in its own right. The
translator should never lose sight of the fact that he is communicating a message from one
language into another. The success of the translation product depends entirely on how meaningful
and communicative it is in the TL context. In many cases, translations establish their own
usefulness and acceptability independently of the originals. In point of fact, real-life situations
involve either the original or the translation, but rarely both. The search for the original and the
translation at the same time is predominantly an academic and/or scholarly matter.

Even when translation activity is dealt with academically, the translation critic should always bear
in mind that translating is not a static but rather a dynamic act of communicating. In this way,
priorities in translation practice are supposed to differ from one context to another depending on
the skopos of any given translation (Vermeer 2000 and Schffner 2003). Most importantly, one
should remember that an SL text is potentially capable of receiving more than one workable
translation. The differences between the TL versions and the SL text may range from linguistic to
interpretative features. Comparing translations of the same text with one another should be
communication-oriented, that is, the translation critic ought to be aware of the questions of
priority and relevance when pitting one translation against another. In the final analysis, it is not a
matter of rejecting one translation in favor of another but rather a matter of explaining why
translators may have different options in a variety of contexts that are diachronically and
synchronically juxtaposed. In this regard, an important distinction is drawn between a translation
mistake and a translation error (Pym 1992). A translation mistake may be viewed as a
translational decision that cannot be borne out in terms of priority and relevance, whereas a
translation error may be regarded as a communicatively-motivated translational option, despite
the availability of another/other option(s) that may fare better than the one opted for. In other
words, translation mistakes operate within the dichotomy of right or wrong, while translation
errors maneuver within a multiplicity of potential versions.

A final point in the context of translating as act of communication pertains specifically to

practical training in English into Arabic translation. The fact that many Arab translator trainers
still think of Arabic in prescriptive terms gives rise to dogmatic arguments regarding lexis and
phraseology in Arabic translations (TL texts). Such arguments often ignore the reality that
language is a living organism which changes over time and that that translation is an act of
communication where the linguistic code functions as a mere carrier of content in translation.
Empty arguments over whether translators can use expressions such as
[play a role, high quality, build bridges of confidence, under
arms, break the ice] and a plethora of other expressions do not get us anywhere. Such expressions
have become part of the linguistic repertoire of all educated Arabs (for more on this, see Darwish
2005, who is an example par excellence of this category). It goes without saying that when
languages come in contact, they impact one another tremendously in terms of lexis and
phraseology, with a bias in the direction of more influential languages, such as English these
days. To cite another interesting incident in this respect, I was struck to hear from some students
16

that their translation teacher insisted on having [ house of images] as the only equivalent
to cinema, which a familiar borrowing in Arabic, i.e. . One could be creative enough to
imagine how an Arabic native speaker would economically tell his interlocutor that he had a flat
tyre/puncture in Arabic without employing the English borrowing . It should be made clear
to students of translation that borrowing is a legitimate and natural word formation process in
human languages, Arabic being no exception. This important process manifests itself in two
forms: loan words, e.g. [ democracy, radio, computer,
parliament, physics], etc. and loan translations, e.g.

[ radio, computer, skyscraper, the cold war, a white coup], and so on. Both categories of
borrowings have become an indispensable component of the Arab translators linguistic repertoire
which cannot be simply erased by dictates that are completely based on illusions. In point of fact,
the sophistry associated with such matters does more harm than good, if any, to translator training
which, in the final analysis, aims to drive home the fact that translating is communicating.

7. Translation as a Multistage Process

It is not uncommon for some teachers and many students to think of translation as a one-stageprocess which starts with translating the first segment of a text, be it a word, a phrase, a sentence,
or a paragraph and ends with rendering the last segment. In this way, translation is viewed as a
mechanical exercise involving the transfer of meaning between two languages in small,
successive doses. The lack of dynamism in this orientation may result in many translational
mishaps such as disconnectedness, unnaturalness, and, at worst, communication breakdowns,
among other things. To overcome problems like these, translation activity needs to be regarded as
a multi-stage process encompassing three integrated phases: pre-translating, translating, and retranslating.

The pre-translating stage is preparatory before pen is put to paper to translate proper. It aims to
secure a good understanding of the SL text, be it a news report, an editorial, a legal document, a
poem, a novel, or any other type of text and tune oneself with the atmosphere of the text in order
to establish a linguistic and cognitive rapport with the discourse in question. This phase is
oriented toward translation rather than an ordinary reading situation. Therefore, the translator is
required to provide meticulous interlinear notes which are meant to facilitate his work at the
second stage. This exploratory mission ranges between moderately easy tasks, e.g. the
comprehension of a news report to highly challenging ones, e.g. the unravelling of symbolism in
a poem. During this stage, the translator should be forming, abandoning, and re-forming
translational hypotheses along the way. For instance, a translational hypothesis relating to the title
of a newspaper commentary may be re-formed or even abandoned after reading the first
paragraph. Witness how the Kuwaiti newspaper commentary title [ The boy takes
17

after his father] (Al-Watan 2006) may initially lend itself to the translational hypothesis
embracing the rendition 'Like father like son'. Only after reading the first paragraph will the
translator abandon this hypothesis in favor of one that supports the polemic that the sons born to
supposedly Kuwaiti fathers and non-Kuwaiti mothers may take after anyone but their presumed
fathers. Thus, a rendition such as 'Like son like mother' or even 'Like son like neighbor' would be
needed in order to reflect the content of the commentary whose title ironically tells a different
story. Similarly, a hypothesis relating to the translation of a symbolic title of a novel may undergo
numerous reformulations along the way before a sound settlement is adopted. Whatever the case
is, a good understanding of the SL text remains the first milestone of translation process. Other
things being equal, it can be argued that good comprehension begets good translation.

The second stage (the translating stage) constitutes the cornerstone in translation activity as it
involves the re-encoding of the SL material by phrasing out the source text's meaning/message in
TL semiotic signs. At this stage, the translator engages in intensive decision making regarding
form and content and, subsequently, the type of equivalence/ resemblance settled for, a process
which is always informed by contextual factors including text-type, audience and author. Thus,
the notion of equivalence/resemblance, which may be theoretically motivated, becomes a
correlative of context. Needless to say, language competence (transfer competence in particular),
cultural competence and schematic competence play a pivotal role in producing a workable TL
version during the execution of the multi-faceted task at this stage.
Lastly, we have the retranslating stage where the translator goes over the entire TL text in search
of small corrections and refinements here and there. These may range from simple amendments
relating to grammar and diction to more subtle ones pertaining to textuality and discourse.
Regardless how competent the translator is, it can be argued that the retranslating stage is
essential because it inevitably renders the translation a better one at, of course, varying degrees,
depending on the quality of work at the second stage and the level of translation competence on
the translator's part. The amendments made at this stage may be thought of as the final touches
added to different human states of affair touches which, though cosmetic in the main, may
prove indispensable in the translation profession.

7. Conclusion
This article shows that the training of student translators should start with addressing the nature of
the raw material of translation activity, i.e. language, by bringing out the fact that human
communication is realized by operating two complementary principles: the open principle and the
idiom principle. The twinning of these two principles forms the basis for the possibility of
offering more than one good translation of the same SL text.

It also shows that translator trainer programs at Arab universities still regard translation studies as
derivative rather than a discipline in its own right. This erroneous belief has led to giving the
18

assignment of teaching translation courses to generalists in linguistics and/or literature who have
no interest in translation studies beyond being bilingual in Arabic and English. To remedy this
serious problem, we should make sure that translator trainers possess an adequate knowledge of
translation studies before they are entrusted with teaching translation courses. In particular, an
important distinction is drawn between a theory translating and a theory of translation. While we
explain how a theory of translation is necessary, such a theory is argued to functionalize and
perfect translational competence rather that create it.

Equally important, the article argues that translation activity is essentially a question of relevance
and priority. Thus, contextual factors are of paramount importance when it comes to deciding
what is relevant and what is not. Regardless of differing translational decisions along the way, the
fitness of a translation is gauged against a principle of communicativeness whereby translation is
viewed as an act of communicating rather than an act of prescribing. Thus, translation mistakes,
which are described in terms of right or wrong, are differentiated from translation errors, which
are critically analyzed in terms potential TL versions.

Finally, it is shown that translation activity is a multi-stage rather than a one-stage process. While
the translating stage constitutes the backbone of the process, the pre-translating and the retranslating stages are argued to be integral to the process if cohesion and coherence are to be
catered to optimally in the translation. It is of utmost importance, therefore, to introduce this
procedural parameter into student translator training.

The Linguistics of Translation

Mohammed Farghal & Ali Almanna

Abstract
The paper demonstrates through the use of ample textual data that translation involves
significant decision-making at different linguistic levels, including phonology, morphology,
syntax, and semantics. The translator's awareness of the linguistic mismatches in the language
pair constitutes a foundation stone in his work. Hence, this study discusses various strategies of
handling linguistic parameters in the hope of bringing them into the consciousness of practicing
translators, as well as translation teachers.
19

1. Overview
Despite the fact that human languages share general rules in the sense of Chomsky's universal
grammar, it remains true that parametric variation between languages involves a lot of
mismatches at the different levels of linguistic description. In this respect, Farghal (2012) holds
that languages phonologize, morphologize, syntacticize, lexicalize, phraseologize differently
within general parameters. This fact rightly motivated Jakobson (1959) to say that translation
between languages is a matter of replacing messages in one language with messages in another
without getting trapped by surface linguistic features. Krazeszowki (1971:37-48) argues that
there are few, if any, congruent structures between languages. One-to-one strict
correspondence is, therefore, the exception rather than the rule in translation. In most cases,
the translator is confronted with one-to-many or many-to-one correspondences while working
with any language pair. Despite the numerous linguistic mismatches between languages, Kachru,
(1982:84) claims: Whatever can be said in one language can be said equally well in any other
language. While Kachrus statement may be true in a qualified manner, we believe that the
disparities between languages are a matter of asymmetric equivalence or resemblance. In this
way, similarity can be detected within difference.

Newmark (1991: 8) stresses that due to differences in frequency, usage, connotation and the
like, the meaning of any lexical item in Language A cannot be identical to that in language B.
Such linguistic differences at lexical or phrasal level, for instance, prompt translators to adopt
certain strategies to minimize such 'linguistic inequivalences' (Al-Masri 2004: 74). This is in line
with Hatim and Mason (1990: 23) who highlight that translation involves overcoming the
contrasts between language systems: SL syntactic structures had to be exchanged for TL
structures; lexical items from each language had to be matched and the nearest equivalents
selected. Translators, being charged with such constraints imposed on them by virtue of the
differences between the linguistic systems of the interfacing languages, i.e. the lack of a one-toone relationship between lexical and grammatical categories, opt for different strategies, such
as addition, omission, paraphrasing, elaboration, adaptation and so on.

When discussing linguistic and/or textual considerations in translation activity, one needs to
distinguish between obligatory features and optional features. On the one hand, obligatory
features involve choices that must be followed by the translator in order to satisfy the rules
imposed by the TL system, without which the translation will be ungrammatical. Optional
features, on the other hand, represent cases where the translator can exercise real choice by
deciding on one translation option rather than another/others. By way of illustration, let us
consider the following English sentence along with its Arabic translation:

20

(1) The two black boys quarreled while they were playing in the narrow alley.
.) 2(
[quarreled the black(dual) boys(dual) and they(dual) were playing(dual) in the
narrow alley]

Examining the Arabic translation in (2), we can readily see that the translator implemented four
obligatory features, viz. using the dual form ( for the two boys), marking an adjective, a
pronoun and a verb (// )for the dual number, and marking the adjectives for
definiteness (/). Here the translator has no choice but to follow these adjustments
because they are imposed by the language system in Arabic. The violation of any obligatory
feature would produce broken or 'pidgin' Arabic. One should note that obligatory features such
as these are taken for granted as part of language competence, hence not deserving any further
discussion in translation activity.

In contrast, it is in the domain of optional features that translators exercise decision-making and
flexible choice. That is why translation criticism flourishes in this area apart from obligatory
features. To look again at the translation in (2), one can imagine other linguistic options that
could have been followed, albeit subject to criticism, as can be illustrated in (3) below:
(3) a. .
[The two black boys quarreled and they were playing in the narrow alley]
b. .
[The two black boys quarreled when they were playing in the narrow alley]
c . .
[The two black boys fell out while they were loitering in the narrow street]

As can be seen, each of the choices in (3) follows a linguistic option which is different from the
one adopted in (2). The first rendering (3a) changes the word order from Verb-Subject to
Subject-Verb while maintaining the choice of conjunction (coordination) and lexis. The second
rendering maintains the word order and lexis while changing the conjunction into subordination.
For its turn, the last rendering (3c) extensively changes the lexis ( for , for ,
and for )while preserving the word order and the choice of the category of
conjunction, i.e. subordination albeit a different subordinator (' when' vs. ' while').
21

Let us now look at an authentic example from Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea (1952),
along with its Arabic translation in Baalbakis ( 1985):
(4) The boy was sad too and we begged her [the fish] pardon and butchered her
promptly.
) 5( .
[And the sadness overwhelmed the boy, so we begged pardon from the killed fish
and slaughtered it]

Baalbaki, as can be observed, has followed some optional decisions. Firstly, he has rightly
changed the word order in order to offer an unmarked structure comparable to the English one.
Secondly, he has decided to elevate the style in Arabic by choosing highly formal lexis, viz. ,
, , and , thus altering Hemingways simple narrative into stilted narrative.
Thirdly, the translator has decided to employ an Arabic synonymous lexical couplet, viz.
[ pardon and forgiveness] in an attempt to offer more natural discourse. Finally, he has
committed two lexical errors, viz. using the adjective ' the killed' to post-modify the fish and
'chopped' when
employing the Arabic verb ' slaughtered' instead of the correct verb
referring to the fish as if it were a sheep or a camel. In fact, fish are not slaughtered the way
other animals are; they are just taken out of water before they undergo chopping or anything
else, nor are they killed like other animals. Below is a suggested translation that takes care of
these critical points:

.
) 6(
[The boy was sad too, so we begged pardon from the fish and chopped it
promptly]

It is within the bounds of these translation options that the translation critic can exercise his/her
profession by showing how and why one option is preferable to the other options. In the rest of
this section, we will look at translation options relating to different linguistic levels, namely
phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.

2. Phonological Features

22

Phonological features become an important aspect of translation when form comes to the fore
in discourse and presents itself as inseparable from content. This is where phonological features
emerge as part and parcel of content that need to be taken care of by the translator. The
clearest manifestation of phonological features occurs in poetry (e.g. alliteration, rhyme, meter,
paralleled repetition, etc.) where defamiliarization and the creation of new paradigms are
embodied in such features (Fowler 1996). Hence, translating verse into verse is the most
challenging task in translation; it may require, as many believe, a poet translator in order to
render the formal properties that improvise poeticness which legitimates the discourse in this
genre. A comparison between a verse rendering and a prose rendering of a Shakespearean
sonnet is a case in point (Farghal 2012: 208-209)
(7) Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore
So do our minutes hasten to their end;
Each changing place with that which goes before,
In sequent toil all forwards do contend.

) 8(


.
[Like the waves heading for the awesome shore
Minutes hasten in our age towards sunset
They exchange roles in wondrous pattern and consecution
Toiling towards their target in adverse competition]
) 9(

[Like the waves heading towards the pebbled shore
Minutes hasten in our age towards their end
Each exchanges the place with the one before it
Toiling towards the front in true competition]
It is true that the prose translation in (9) is more reflective of the content of (7), but it is
seriously lacking in poeticness because it ignores phonological features, namely rhyme
and meter. When compared with the translation in (8), which differs in small ways as to
content in (7) while keeping the same thematic thread, one can appreciate the discrepancy
between the two. It is the phonological features that qualify (8) as poetic discourse on the
one hand and (9) as commonplace discourse on the other. The mere layout of material in
poetry translation would in no way make up for improvising key phonological features.
23

In fact, it is a trade-off between form and content, where form needs to be given priority
in poetry translation.
One should note that poeticness is a matter of degree in human languages; it is not an allor-nothing phenomenon. Different discourses manifest different degrees of poeticness
and, apart from literary discourse, everyday language is full of figurative expressions
where phonological features usually occupy a position. For example, such features play a
key role in the creation of proverbs which mirror social life in different cultures. These
proverbs often function as background for the formation of remodeled expressions (for
more details, see Farghal and Al-Hamly 2005). By way of illustration, consider the two
remodelings below:
(10) A smile a day keeps misery away. (twitter)
(11) A laugh a day keeps the doctor away. (Daily Strength/Cyndi Sarnoff-Ross, Oct. 21,
2011)
Both remodelings, as can be observed, fall back on the familiar English proverb 'An apple
a day keeps the doctor away' in order to communicate fresh messages that have nothing
to do with food as such. The tendency for investing existing phraseologies in the creative
formation of new ones is mainly motivated by a desire to bring phonological features to
spotlight in order to consolidate the message and make it more appealing to the audience.
For instance, being a psychotherapist, Sarnoff-Ross in (11) above has succeeded in
choosing a title that functions as a semiotic sign which summarizes her entire article.
From a translational perspective, the translator needs to fall back on his cultural heritage
in order to find a rhythmic phraseology or to create his/her own remodeling which dwells
on a similar theme. In this case, a creative translator would offer a title like
'Laughing makes you healthy', thus remodeling the familiar Prophet Mohammeds hadith
(saying) ' Fasting makes you healthy'. A commonplace title like
' The importance of laughter for health' would be far less effective and appealing.
Again, it is the phonological features that make the difference.
Last, phonological features present themselves as a significant issue in borrowing and
transliteration, which are important translation strategies. Borrowing, which is a key
translation strategy from English into Arabic, manifests itself in two forms: loan words
and loan translations. While phonological features are not relevant to loan translations
where the concept of the word is borrowed independently of the form (e.g. ' radio'
and ' computer'), they are at the heart of the process of loan words where both the
form and concept of the word is borrowed. This necessitates taking account of phonetic
gaps between English and Arabic when naturalizing a word, e.g. replacing a vowel with
another or a consonant with another, viz. for 'radio' and for 'computer'. In
some cases, the process is not straightforward, that is, the English sound may be replaced
by more than one sound depending on the Arab region. For example, the /g/ sound may
variously be replaced with //, //, or // (//, /j/, /k/, respectively).
Thus, in terms of phonological representation there may be cases where there are
competing forms, e.g. the two authors of this article used different forms of a recurrent
24

word while recently editing a book in Arabic about translation. Subsequently, they had to
negotiate the issue and finally settled for the English Language rather than
the English Language. Sometimes, familiarity and frequency may override
well-established norms. For example, Farghal (2011), when translating a Croatian novel
'The Ministry of Pain' by D. Ggresi (2008) from English into Arabic, decided to render
the recurrent name Goran as , being aware of the familiarity of this name in the Arab
media among sport circles, thanks to Goran Invanievi, the well-known Croatian
professional tennis player. Surprisingly, however, the reviewer and/or commissioner
changed the said name to , the one which now appears in the published translation
without consulting the translator, hence the importance of opening a dialogue between
those in charge of translation quality control and the translator (for more details, see
Almanna 2013).
Competing phonological representations may also involve ideological moves (Farghal
2010; Farghal 2012; Farghal and Al-Manna 2014). Historically, most Christian names
designating places or personalities in the Arab Middle East receive Anglicized
phonological representations that now compete with more transliteration-oriented
representations. For example, the choice between Al-Khalil and Hebron or Al-Quds and
Jerusalem may be instigated by the ideology of the translator. One can also notice a
tendency to avoid the originally Greek and later on Anglicized phonological
representations of names of Arab Muslim medieval scholars such as Averroes and
Avicenna in favor of more phonologically faithful forms, viz. Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina,
which may carry ideological moves. When it comes to rendering Arabic proper names
into English nowadays, the tendency is to transliterate them by sometimes simplifying
phonetic gaps, e.g. Ali, Tareq, and Amman and sometimes preserving them, e.g. Khalid
and Dhafir. Likewise, some English names are adjusted phonologically such as for
'Mary' and for 'Peter' and some maintain the same pronunciation such as for
'John' and
for 'Sandy'. In few cases, one might find domesticated phonological
representations that occur in the translation of some literary genres (mainly in dramas)
such as for 'Mary' and for 'Peter'.
3. Morphological/Word-formation Features
English and Arabic represent two contrasting morphologies. While English morphology
is predominantly analytic, Arabic morphology is largely synthetic. To explain, an English
word like writers can be readily analyzed into a root, the doer morpheme and the plural
morpheme, whereas the corresponding Arabic words ' writer' and ' book' do not
lend themselves to such a linear analysis, viz. the doer morpheme and the plural
morpheme consist of vowel changes within the abstract triconsonantal root /ktb/ 'a
prelexicalized form that has to do with writing', which becomes /kaatib/ 'writer' and
/kuttaab/ 'writers', respectively in this case. In the two morphologies, the root functions
differently. In English derivation, the root functions as input for prefixes and suffixes
which may change word class, e.g. rewrite, writer, writing, written, writable, etc. In
Arabic, by contrast, the root functions as input for semantically related verbs which in
turn function as input for other derivation processes, ' He wrote', ' He
corresponded with', ' He dictated', ' He underwrote', ' He asked to write',
etc. Each of these semantically related verbs can be input for other derivation processes,
25

e.g. from we can derive ' the one who asked to write', ' the one who
was asked to write', ' asking to write', etc.
In terms of translation, most semantically related Arabic verbs would usually require
morphologically unrelated verbs. By way of illustration, consider the following examples,
along with their English renderings:
)12(
a.
b.
c.
d.

.
.

.
.

Ali killed two soldiers in the battle.

Ali fought in several battles.
Ali quarreled with several people.
Ali made every effort to get the job.

As can seen in (12), the four Arabic verbs that are derived from the same root require
different renditions in English. This morphological difference may cause problems to
translators, as can be illustrated in the authentic example below:
) 31(
(The Arabic Newsweek, February 4, 2003) .
[As the Japanese economic success after the Second World War was a solid example
copied by other countries in East Asia, so an average success in Iraq may strengthen
the arm of reformers in the region]

Apparently, the translator has confused the two semantically related Arabic words
' reformers' and ' liberals' (which share the same root) when rendering
the word 'liberals' in the English ST. This confusion has skewed the coherence of the
text, that is, the Arabic translation incoherently talks about 'social reformers' instead of
'liberal politicians' in a political context.
For its turn, English prefixal and suffixal derivation may present some challenges to
terminologists and translators. Notice, by way of illustration, how English morphology
can readily account for fine semantic distinctions via suffixation, e.g. legitimacy vs.
legitimization and secularism vs. secularization. While it is usually easy to find Arabic
corresponding terms for the English nouns designating states, viz. for 'legitimacy'
and for 'secularism', it is more challenging to lexically account for nouns
designating processes, viz. for 'legitimization' and for 'secularization'. In many
cases, such nouns are paraphrased into Arabic, as can be illustrated in the following
example:
(14) The industrialization of Europe started in the late nineteenth century.
. ) 31(
[The process of the industrial shift started in Europe in the late nineteenth
century]
For lack of an Arabic term, as can be seen, the English process noun in (14) needs to be
paraphrased into three Arabic words in (15). Below are some authentic examples where
the translator has opted for two strategies (deletion and paraphrase) when encountering a

26

morphological gap, namely the English -able in this case: (Khalid Hosseinis novel The
Kite Runner, 2003, translated by Manar Fayyadh, , 2010)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)

She did blood tests for every conceivable

.
hormone. (p.200)
We Afghans are prone to a considerable degree
.
of exaggeration (p. 153)
Baba's cancer was advanced. Inoperable. (p. .
168)
.
But theft was the one unforgivable sin. (p. 172)

.

As can be observed, the translator has unjustifiably opted for deletion of the -able words in the
translations of (16) and (17). The translator has either deemed them unimportant (which is not
true) or found them problematic, so she has decided to drop them. She could have rendered
them as follows:
.) 20(
[She did a blood test for every conceivable hormone]
.) 21(
[We Afghans are prone to a high degree of exaggeration]
In (18) and (19), however, the translator has succeeded in paraphrasing the -able words
correctly by adopting the paraphrase strategy. Inflectional morphology may also present some
translational problems. To give an example relating to gender, in English a shark has a masculine
gender (a 'he'), while in Arabic, being a fish, a shark has a feminine gender (a 'she'), viz.
. Therefore, Baalbakis translation ( 1985) of Hemingways 1952 novella 'The Old
Man and the Sea' has rightly changed the recurrent 'he' in reference to the shark to a recurrent
feminine noun or a recurrent feminine pronoun clitic. In fact, there is no natural way to
maintain the masculine gender in Arabic. However, there are cases in the translation where the
coherence of gender cannot be preserved, as is illustrated in the following example:
(22) He [the shark] took the bait like a male and he pulled like a male ...
... ) 23(
[She took the bait as if it were a male, and she is pulling as if it were a male ...]
As can be seen, the gender issue causes a coherence problem, viz. while the ST talks about a
male 'he' behaving like a male in eating the bait and in pulling, the TT talks about a female fish
'she' behaving as if it were a male. In this way, the ST and the TT present two different world
views. One might argue that it would be more coherent in the translation to refer 'a female fish'
behaving like 'a female fish' rather than as if it were 'a male fish'. This might be more congruent
with the wise decision to change the 'he' to 'she' in the Arabic translation. Gender, therefore,
may present itself as a problematic issue between English and Arabic because there is no oneto-one correspondence in gender specification. Nouns like teacher, nurse and translator are
27

gender underspecified in English, whereas they are gender specified in Arabic, viz. /
'male/female teacher', /' male/female nurse and /' male/female
translator'. The translator may go a long way in his/her translation before discovering, for
instance, that the referent of a referring expression like 'Johns teacher' is a 'she' rather that a
'he'.
Number marking may also present itself as a problematic matter in translation. In the prepublished version of his translation of C. McCarthys novel The Road (2006), Farghal (2009)
decided to replace the recurrent marked dual form in the Arabic translation with the plural
form. Being mainly a story about a father and his little boy, the Road makes frequent narrative
use of the pronoun 'they' in reference to them. The translator, in this case, has two options:
either to use the Arabic formal correspondent throughout, i.e. the marked dual form or to
replace the dual form with the unmarked plural form. Farghals decision was to employ the dual
form only in a few cases where intimacy is communicated. Otherwise, the unmarked plural form
is to be used for ease of articulation and naturalness, thus giving priority to the smoothness of
the flow of discourse over the grammatically prescribed form. Again, the reviewer and the
commissioner, without consulting the translator, decided to awkwardly preserve all the dual
forms in the published version. The dual form numbers in thousands in the translation as it is
not only verbs but also nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs must have it when reference is
made to the father and his little son. Below is an excerpted sentence (24) from the translation
(p. 19) where there are five dual forms, which can be compared with (25), where the marked
dual form is replaced with the unmarked plural form:
) 24(
.
[(They) left-dual the cart in a groove covered with the linoleum and found-dual their
way-dual to the top of the slope through the standing charred trunks of trees to a
place with protruding rocks, where the sat-dual in the shade of a rock and watcheddual the rain drops pouring through the valley]
(25)

.
[(They) left the cart in a groove covered with the linoleum and found their
way to the top of the slope through the standing charred trunks of trees to
a place with protruding rocks, where the sat in the shade of a rock and
watched the rain drops pouring through the valley]

Given the high frequency of the dual form in (24) and in the entire translation in question for
that matter, the Arab reader would not feel at ease encountering the marked dual form so
frequently in the narrative and, one can argue, would feel more comfortable with it being
replaced with the unmarked plural form, whose referential value is readily recoverable from the
28

novels macro-context, i.e. being a story about a father and his little son. Here, once more, we
have inflectional morphology interfering with decision making in translation.
Apart from derivation and inflection, other word formation processes may present some
translation problems. For example, whereas conversion is a highly productive word formation
process in present-day English, it is completely missing in Arabic where changing the part of
speech of a word must involve a formal change. In many cases, English verbs resulting from
conversion need to be paraphrased when rendered into Arabic, as can be illustrated in the
following examples:
(26) Before water is bottled for human consumption, it is thoroughly checked in highly
specialized laboratories.
. ) 22(
[Before water is filled in bottles for human consumption, it is tested closely in
specialised laboratories]
(28) The first step in researching a topic nowadays is to google it.
.) 29(
[The first step in researching a topic these days is to search for it in the electronic
Google net]
Other English word formation processes such as compounding, blending and
acronymy/abbreviation may also cause some translation problems when rendering them into
Arabic because Arabic is much less receptive of them than English. English technical compounds
where the first syllable of the first word is usually prefixed to the complete second word to form
a compound, for example, may demand a different lexicalization process in Arabic. To explain,
while Arabic manages to form a few compounds when rendering cases such as electromagnetic
, Anglo-American and Afro-Asiatic , it often resorts to
paraphrase in rendering compounds such as biodiversity ' biological diversity',
geopolitics ' political geography', ecosystem ' ecological system' and
psychoanalysis ' psychological analysis'. English technical compounds, therefore, can
be broached using two strategies in Arabic: borrowing the compound (which may involve
translation as well) or paraphrasing the compounds content (which may involve borrowing as
well). The choice between the two options often depends on level of technicality and
acceptability (for more on the translation of English reduced forms, see Al-Hamly and Farghal,
this volume).
For its turn, Arabic has a few religious initialisms that must be unpacked into full English
sentences in translation. The procedure involves employing verbs featuring the most salient
and/or important sounds in a phrase/sentence such as for the act of uttering the sentence
' There is no god but God', for the phrase ' God the greatest', and for
the phrase ' In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful', among
29

a few others. Thus, an Arabic sentence like needs to be

rendered as 'He rose out of bed and testified to the oneness of God when he observed the light
of day' or 'He rose out of bed and said "There's no god but God" when he observed the light of
day'.
4. Syntactic Features
Syntactic asymmetries between Arabic and English require special attention from translators.
Most importantly, the translator needs to be aware of the mismatches at the sentence level
which involve word order variation. English (which relatively has a fixed word order), for
example, overwhelmingly employs the unmarked 'Subject Verb Object/Complement' word
order. By contrast, Arabic (which is more flexible in word order) uses the unmarked 'Verb
Subject Object/Complement) word order as well as the less unmarked 'Subject Verb
Object/Complement' word order, which, at face value, corresponds to the unmarked English
word order. The competent translator, however, needs to dismiss this superficial
correspondence as inappropriate, as the Arabic word order corresponding to English S V O/C is
the V S O/C rather than the S V O/C, which coincides with the English word order. Note how
Munir Baalbaki (1985) and Nabil Raghib (2004) in (31) and (33) below respectively are aware of
this structural mismatch in their translations of Hemingways The Old Man and the Sea:
(30) The fish just moved away slowly and the old man could not raise him an inch.
.) 31(
[moved away the fish slowly and the old man could not raise her one inch]
(32) The old man went out the door and the boy came after him.
.) 33(
[went out the old man and followed him the boy]
In some cases where prominence is sought, however, a match between the two word orders
obtains. For example, when translating English newspaper headlines, the S V O/C should be
maintained in Arabic. Thus, an English newspaper headline such as 'Barak Obama arrives in
Damascus' translates into ' Barak Obama arrives in Damascus' rather than
' arrives Barak Obama in Damascus'. The competent translator, however,
would switch to the V S C Arabic word order in his/her first sentence detailing the news story,
viz. ... ' arrived the American president Barak Obama in
Damascus ...'. This functional shift between the two word orders in Arabic is very significant in
translation activity. It is a syntactic means to improvise prominence through word order
variation.
Grammatical resources employed to achieve major semantic functions like negation and
emphasis may be similar in some cases but different in others. Let us first consider negation
which can be syntactically accomplished by the use of negative particles like not in English and
// in Arabic depending on the category of Tense. This will usually cause no difficulty for
translators, e.g. the sentence 'John will not try to get a PhD' is straightforwardly rendered as
30

 . However, notional (implied) negation involving an adverb

like 'too' will be more challenging to translators who need to render the meaning of negation
rather than be trapped by the form of the sentence, e.g. the negation in the sentence 'John is
too old to get a PhD' should be unpacked when rendering it into Arabic, viz.
' John will not be able to get a PhD because he has
progressed in age' or ' John's age has progressed
and he will not be able to get a PhD', etc. This kind of negation in English may cause problems
for student translators as well as professional translators. Note the erroneous renditions of (34)
and (36) in (35) and (37), which are extracted from two different published Arabic translations:
(34) I think you've been too busy to notice where I've been.
.) 35(
[(I) think that you were very busy to notice where I am]
(36) ... but his hands were shaking too hard to pin it on.
. ... )32(
[... but his hands-dual were-dual shaking-dual strongly to pin the bouquet
on the dress]
The renditions in (35) and (37) can hardly make any sense in Arabic because they confuse
implied negation with emphasis. The interpretation of the negation marker 'too' as the emphatic
marker 'so' does irreparable damage to the meaning.
Working from Arabic into English, the translator may also encounter several syntactic hurdles.
One interesting example is the emphatic cognate accusative where an act is emphasized by
deriving a masdar (present participle) from the verb predicator instead of employing an
adverbial, as can be illustrated below:

)32(
.
(38) * The boy shook the branch shaking.
(39) a) The boy shook the branch indeed.
b) The boy did shake the branch.
In terms of translation, as can be noted, the cognate accusative constitutes a grammatical gap in
English (note the ungrammaticality of 38) and, consequently, it needs to be rendered as an
adverbial (39a) or a grammatical emphatic marker (39b), (for more on this, see Farghal 1991,
1993a, 1993b).
To observe the loss that may result from overlooking the cognate accusative in translation, let us
consider the following excerpt taken from Elyas (1982:105) translation of N. Mahfouzs (1923)
novel The Thief and the Dogs, along with a suggested translation (41) that
maintains the role of the cognate accusative, among other things:

31

(40) My father was able to understand you. You have avoided me until I thought you were trying
to get rid of me. With my own free will I came back to the atmosphere of incense and to
anxiety. That's what the homeless and the deserted do.

(41) My father was able to understand you. So many times did you avoid me that I thought you
were dumping me indeed! With my own free will I came back to the atmosphere of incense
and to anxiety. That's what the homeless and the deserted do.

Note how the translators disregard of the exclamation (a taxing construction in this case) and
the cognate accusative in the original has compromised the emotiveness of the text. The second
sentence in (40) is unduly under-emotive and relatively detached when compared with its duly
highly emotive and involved counterpart in (41). Unfortunately, this kind of loss can go
unnoticed for long, as the inadequate translation may read smoothly and relevantly, hence the
urgent need for sensitizing translators to the fact that grammar is meaning-bearing, just like
lexis.

Another area where there is a syntactic asymmetry that needs special attention from translators
is the definite article. Both languages use the definite article referentially with plural and noncount nouns. However, only Arabic may employ it generically with both categories of nouns, in
which case English must use the zero article. This mismatch may pose problems, even to the
most professional translators, as can be illustrated by the translations in (43) and (44) of the
Quranic verse in (43) below:

) 42(
)133:(

(43) So We sent on them: the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, and the blood (as a
succession of manifest signs), yet they remained arrogant, and they were of those people
who were Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists, sinners, etc.). (Al-Hilali and Khan 1993)

(44) So We sent down on them the flood, the locusts, the vermins, the frogs, and the blood;
these were clear miracles, but they were arrogant and guilty people. (Al-Hayek 1996)

32

As can be seen, the five bold-faced nouns (3 plural count nouns and 2 non-count nouns) in (42),
which all involve generic reference in the Quranic verse, are rendered erroneously as nouns
involving specific reference. This comes as an immediate consequence of the translators not
being sensitive to a syntactic asymmetry at the level of definiteness. Thus, instead of correctly
using the zero article with these nouns, they employ the referential definite article.

Epistemic modality, which constitutes the ways speakers view the world around them in terms
of (un)certainty (Halliday 1970 and Lyons 1977), also involves mismatches between English and
Arabic. In fact, one cannot assume a one-to-one correspondence between English and Arabic
modal verbs. A grammatical gap may sometimes cause a translator to use an inappropriate
translation correspondent. For example, the English modal verb 'must' and 'should' are bi-valent,
as they can be employed deontically to express strong obligation and epistemically to express
strong conjecture, whereas their formal Arabic correspondents and may express
strong obligation only. This problematic mismatch is illustrated in the translations in (47) and
(48) of the bold-faced segments in (45) and (46):

(45) They [the fish] are moving out too fast and too far. But perhaps I [the old man] will pick
up a stray and perhaps my big fish is around them. My big fish must be somewhere. (The
Old Man and the Sea).

(46) I wonder what he [the fish] made that lurch for, he thought. The wire must have slipped on
the great hill of his back. (The Old man and the Sea)

)42( .
[Verily my big fish has to be somewhere]
) 48(. (Baalbak 1985)
[The metal wire has to have slipped on her back (which is) like a mountain]

Baalbakis (1985) translations in (42) and (48) erroneously express the fishs obligation to be
somewhere and the wires obligation to have slipped on the fishs back respectively. In both
cases, however, we have epistemic modality expressing a strong conjecture/possibility. To
communicate the intended epistemic readings, the translator should have employed the
modalized verb , which can, in contrast to and , be used to convey both epistemic
33

and deontic modality in light of the context it occurs in. In this way, what is a bi-valent modal
English verb (must) corresponds to two different modalized verbs in Arabic, i.e. / vs. ,
depending on whether the modality is deontic or epistemic respectively.

In some cases, what is a predominantly structure-based pattern in the SL may turn out to be a
mainly semantics-based pattern in the TL. A good example here is English basic passive
structures which lend themselves to translating into many Arabic alternatives including basic
passive structures, basic active structures, nominalization, passive participles, and active
participles. Therefore, the general claim that an English basic passive structure needs to be
translated into an Arabic basic active structure (Al-Najjar 1984; Mouakket 1986; Saraireh 1990;
Farghal 1991; Khalil 1993; El-Yasin 1996) accounts for only one translation alternative among
many (Farghal 1996; Khafaji 1996). Following are some illustrative examples, which were all
excerpted from an article titled 'Soviets in Space' published in Scientific America (Vol. 260, No. 2,
1989) and its Arabic translation which appeared in the Kuwait-based Majallat Al-Oloom (Vol.6,
No. 8, 1989):

(47) Buran (the Russian word for snowstorm) was lifted into orbit by the world's largest
rocket.
(48.) ( )
[Buran (which means snowstorm in Russian) was lifted to its orbit by the
biggest launching rocket in the world]
(49) New-generation space stations would be needed to house assembly workers.
(50. )
[There will occur the need for a new generation of space stations for housing
assembly workers]
(51) The space-endurance record was systematically extended.
(52) .
[The record number for staying in the space rose a systematic rising]
(53) Salyut 7 was equipped with a redesigned docking adapter.
(54) . 2
[Salyut 7 was supplied [passive participle in Arabic] with a docking unit
(which) was redesigned]
34

As can be noted, the authentic translation examples above instantiate agentive passivization
(48), nominalization (50), activization (52), and the passive participle (54) as workable
alternatives to render English passives. This empirical fact led Khafaji (1996:37) to conclude
"Hence Arabic, as has been demonstrated in this section, does not avoid passivity but only
expresses it differently".
Finally, let us examine the progressive aspect as a micro-syntactic feature in order to see how
the two languages can handle it in translation. English mainly expresses the progressive aspect
grammatically by verb to 'be' + the marker -ing (e.g. John is writing a book). In contrast, Arabic
usually expresses the progressive aspect lexically, e.g. ' John is busy
with authoring a book now' or ' John is engaged with authoring a book
now'. Therefore, translators need to be aware of this grammatical mismatch. To see how subtle
this asymmetry is, witness how Ali (1934/2006) and Arberry (1955/1996) fall short of rendering
the progressive aspect properly in the following Quranic verse, respectively:
.) 55(
(56) So glory be to Allah when you enter the evening and when you enter the morning.
(52) So glory be to God in your evening hour and in your morning hour.
One should note that the combination of the time marker and the verb /
gives a sense of progressiveness in the Quranic verse, which is missed out in the two
translations, viz. Ali renders the combination as a punctual act, whereas Arberry renders it as a
state. To capture the sense of the progressive aspect, the translator needs to choose a similar
strategy where a time marker interacts with a verb to bring out this progressiveness, viz. 'So
glory be to Allah as you progress/move into the evening and as you progress/move into the
morning'.
5. Semantic Features
The semantics of a language mainly consists of lexical as well as phraseological features.
Together, they cover both meaning that is compositional in nature as well as meaning that is
unitary in nature. The former follows the Open Principle (Sinclair 1991) and accounts for
meaning compositionally by deriving it from individual lexical items which are strung together
according to the grammar of a given language. For example, the meaning of the sentence 'The
boy chased the cat' is compositionally derived from the meaning of the content words boy,
chase and cat combined with the function words/markers. The latter, in contrast, follows the
Idiom Principle (Sinclair 1991) and derives a unitary meaning from the entire multi-word
phraseology. For example, the meaning of the bold-faced idiomatic expression in the sentence
'In her attempt to convince John, Mary is flogging a dead horse' cannot be derived from the
literal meaning of the words in it. Rather, it has a conventional unitary meaning which comes to
mind once encountered in communication. Mismatches between Arabic and English that need

35

careful decision making exist at both word level and phraseology level as this section will
demonstrate.
5.1 Word Level
At word level, the semantic blankets of languages are never complete; there are always gaps
involving both lexical and referential gaps (Rabin 1958; Ivir 1977; Dagut 1981). To start with
lexical gaps, they represent holes where, in a language pair, one language lacks some lexemes
that stand for shared concepts while the other language has compressed lexically those
concepts in single words. Despite the fact that both English and Arabic are highly lexicalized (e.g.
in terms of nominalization and verbalization) when it comes to familiar concepts, some lexical
gaps do exist between them. Therefore, when translating an SL lexeme corresponding to a
lexical gap in the TL, the translator needs to unpack the sense of that lexeme if s/he is to render
the sense correctly. Working from Arabic into English, for example, four of the names of the
fingers of the human hand, viz. usually undergo lexical
unpacking when rendered into English, viz. thumb, the index finger, the middle finger, the ring
finger and the little finger, respectively. In many cases, Arabic lexemes corresponding to lexical
gaps in English undergo lexical approximation, e.g. ' paternal uncle' and ' maternal uncle'
are usually rendered as uncle and ' paternal aunt' and ' maternal aunt' as aunt. While this
may work in many contexts where the side of kinship is not important, it may seriously fail in
instances where this kind of thing is significant. In such cases, the lexical unpacking of the
kinship term becomes necessary.
To see how lexical gaps can present formidable problems to even highly professional translators,
let us cite an example from fiction translation to observe how rendering an Arabic lexeme by
approximation can be damaging to the coherence of the text. In his translation of AbdulRahman Munifs : , 1992 (Cities of Salt: Variations on Night and Day,
1993), Peter Thereoux translates the Arabic proverb [ Tow thirds of the boy for his
maternal uncle] as 'Two thirds of a boy are his uncles'. The fictitious encounter involves the
citation of this proverb by one of the characters to claim more influence for maternal kinship
than paternal kinship on children. Unfortunately, the English translation obliterates this culturebound schema by neutralizing the distinction between the Arabic lexemes ' paternal uncle'
and ' maternal uncle' in a context where the discrepancy constitutes the intended message.
The TL reader will definitely fall prey to the incongruence brought about by a rendition that does
not cohere with the surrounding co-text and context. Following are some target reader
responses (American native speakers responses) to the English translation above in its context
(reported in Farghal, 2004):

(58) - Family is everything.

- Apples dont fall far from the tree.
- A boy learns from his family around him.
- People trust their uncles
36

- People follow their masters, etc.

As can be observed, the above English native speakers responses obscure the intended
message and consequently, on a closer examination, render the TLT seriously incoherent.
This incoherence is an immediate consequence of replacing the culturally determined,
specific role of maternal kinship with a universally determined, general role of family
relatedness in the context of the formation of childrens future behavior. To capture the
intended message in such cases, where lexical approximation alone does not work, the
translator needs to be an insider in both cultures: the SLC and TLC, i.e. s/he needs to
unpack the Arabic kinship term, viz. 'A boy is his maternal uncles by two thirds' or 'Like
maternal uncle like boy', which remodels the English proverb 'Like father like son'. Only
in this way will the text make sense (see Chapter Two for more details).
Working from English into Arabic, there also exist some English lexemes that correspond
to lexical gaps in Arabic. Depending on context, among these we find words like 'spouse'
which translates into ' husband' or ' wife', and 'parent' which translates into
'father' or ' mother'. In some cases, the translator has to read a sizeable portion of a
text (e.g. a novel) in order to decide 'which is which' in the treatment of a lexical gap. To
cite a real example, the first author of this book has recently translated the novel entitled
'Maps' (1986/ 2013) by the celebrity Somali writer Nurrdeen Farah in which there
is a recurrent reference to Askars (the protagonists) two uncles (Uncle Orrax and Uncle
Hilal). Starting to translate the novel without having read far through the text, the
translator chose the Arabic paternal option for rendering both of them, viz. and
, respectively. It was not until having gone past halfway in the translation that he
discovered that the latter referred to a maternal rather than paternal uncle. This being the
case, an order was made to the computer to replace all the occurrences of by
. Without having done that, the Arabic translation would have offered a distorted
world of kinship relations.
In the following example, the translator has opted for awkward paraphrase based on
dictionary definition because the lexeme 'affidavit' is not lexicalized in Arabic:
(15) In the words of a Lonrho affidavit dated 2 November 1988, the allegations .
3588 2 ) 06(
(printed in Baker 1992: 38; emphasis hers)
...
[And according to the text found in a testimony accompanied by an oath presented by
Lourho corporation dated 2 November 1988, the claims ...]

While it is true that the term 'affidavit' is not lexicalized in Arabic, the wordy
definition is not justified in the Arabic rendering. A more acceptable and economical
rendition would involve modifying the Arabic hyperonym ' testimony' by one
word without falling prey to wordiness (60 above) as in (61) below:
3588 2 ) 03(
...
[And according to the text found in a judicial testimony ....]

37

In fact, most English lexemes corresponding to Arabic lexical gaps need to be unpacked
naturally and economically, viz. 'alibi' is rendered as ' defense by absence' and
'date' is rendered as ' a love appointment'. Because lexical gaps relate to
familiar, but unlexicalized concepts in the TL, the most important step is to locate the
relevant hyperonym, and then to modify it by a lexical descriptor in order to
communicate the unlexicalized sense component.
For their part, referential gaps, which represent partially shared or completely unshared
concepts, i.e. those concepts that exist in one language but they are only present partially
or they are completely missing in the other, are more challenging in translation activity.
To start with partial referential gaps, one can refer to the many religious concepts that are
partially shared between Islam and Christianity, being the relevant religions when
translating from Western Christian cultures into Arab Muslim culture. Among these
terms we find 'charity' vs. / , 'pilgrimage' vs. /, and 'ablutions' vs. / .
As can be seen, for each of the English terms we have two Arabic terms that come under
a hyperonym, e.g. the hyperonym 'giving to the poor' has one form in Christianity
(charity), whereas it manifests itself in two functionally different forms in Islam
(which is compulsory) vs. ( which is optional). In terms of translation, such partial
referential gaps usually lend themselves to the strategy of approximation in casual
mentions (e.g. the rendition of as 'charity' in fiction translation) and to other
strategies, including approximation, in technical/religious texts. Below are five excerpted
translations of a Quranic verse featuring this partial referential gap:


) 62(



110 / The Cow, 110)
(63) And be constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues; for, whatever good deed you send
ahead for your own selves, you shall find it with God: behold, God sees all that you
do. (110) (Asad, p. 32)
(64) Establish worship, and pay the poor-due; and whatever of good you send before (you) for
your souls, you will find it with Allah. Lo! Allah is Seer of what you do. (110) (Pickthall, p.
18)
(65) And be steadfast in prayer and regular in charity: And whatever good ye send forth for your
souls before you, ye shall find it with God. For God sees Well all that ye do. (110) (Ali, p.
48)
(66) And perform the prayer, and pay the alms; whatever good you shall forward to your souls'
account, you shall find it with God; assuredly God sees the things you do. (110) (Arberry,
vol. 1, p. 42)
(67) Keep up prayer and pay the welfare tax; you will find any good you have sent on ahead for
your own souls' sake is already [stored up] with God. God is Observant of whatever you do.
(110) (Irving, p. 9)
As can be observed, the translation strategies adopted include approximation (charity/alms) and
descriptive translation (the purifying dues/the poor-due/ the welfare tax). On the one hand,
one should note that in the SL culture the concept of is very specific and is associated with
38

obligatory giving, so the approximating terms charity/alms, which are associated in the TL
culture with voluntary giving, are too general. Moreover, in the SL culture voluntary giving is
associated with another term, that is , thus 'charity' and 'alms' technically become more
appropriate renditions for rather than . In this way, Ali and Arberrys translations
seriously diverge from what is meant by the Islamic concept and, without a footnote, the
relevant features required for the full and coherent interpretation of the term are lost in
translation.
On the other hand, descriptive translation employs the headwords 'due(s)/tax', i.e. something
that is required, to denote the obligatory sense of . This decision succeeds in conveying the
main, general aspect of the term (i.e. its being obligatory); however, the translators differ in the
choice of the modifying word to render the more specific meaning. Asad derives his rendition
from the spiritual connotations of ;he states in a footnote that its main function is to purify
a persons capital and income from the taint of selfishness (p.18), thus basing his translation on
the connotative meaning of the term. By contrast, Pickthall derives his translation from the
category of people who are eligible to receive it, so he renders it as the poor-due. In this way,
both translators attempt to explicate the concept to TT readers within the text as well as in
footnotes. For its part, Irvings translation 'Welfare tax' may give rise to different implications. It
pertains generally to the amount of money paid by all people, the rich and the poor alike, to the
government for the advancement of society as a whole. Without a footnote, target readers are
likely to interpret this term in a different way from that intended in the source text. For
example, without specifying that is obligatory and levied on the well-to-do for the welfare
of the poor, the readers might infer that it is required of the rich as well as the poor. This
inference does not serve the intended message, which aims at compassion and social justice
rather that placing an extra burden on the poor. Added to this are the pejorative associations
which the term tax may arouse in tax payers. The above different renditions give us an idea
about how challenging the treatment of referential gaps in translation can be in authoritative
texts like the Holy Quran.
Referential gaps in less authoritative texts may also involve a variety of translation strategies
including transliteration, approximation, descriptive translation, definition, omission, etc.
Following are examples extracted from Ramses Awads translation titled 'The Beginning and the
End' (1985) of Najeeb Mahfouzs novel ( 1949), where different strategies are employed
to render referential gaps:
(68 :)
. :
. :
. .( p. 40)
39

[Because of this one of them said before the beginning of playing:

- We don't want cheating.
Hasan said:
- Of course.
The youth said:
- Let's read al-faatiah.
And they read al-faatiah in an audible voice and perhaps Hasan learnt it
around that table]

(69) Thus before they started the deal, one of them said, "No cheating".
"Of course not", answered Hassan.
The young man said, "Lets recite the opening exordium of the Koran".
They recited Al Fatihat audibly; it was possible that Hassan had learned it at that
gambling table. (p. 53)
(p. 51) ...
) 06(
[And Fareed Affandi was wearing a julbaab and an overcoat. As for his wife,
she wrapped (herself) in a (bathroom) robe ...
(73) ... Farid Effendi wearing an overcoat over his gown, and his wife a dressing gown.
(p. 66)
) 22(
:
)46 (. [Then reached their ears knocking on the door, so one of them stopped talking
and Nafeesa went to it (the door) and opened it. So the servant of Fareed Affandi
Mohammed entered carrying a basket covered with a white cover, placing it on
the table and saying:
- My mistress greets you with peace and says this is pastry of graveyard]

(73) A knock on the door interrupted their conversation. Nefisa hurried to open it. The
servant of Farid Effendi Mohammed entered carrying a basket with a white cover
and placed it on the table. "My mistress sends you her regards, madam," she said,
"and she sends you mourning pastry." (p. 59-60)

40

As can be observed above, the translator has used different strategies for dealing with
referential gaps. In (69), the referential gap is defined in the first mention and
transliterated in the second one. This is a successful strategy where a contextual and/or
co-textual link is established between definition and transliteration. In (70), the first gap
( a title of address indicating respect for and superiority of addressee or referent) is
transliterated in (71) and elsewhere in the text. The title is constantly employed as an
absolute social honorific when referring to Farid (Farid Effendi). One should note that
this title may be used relationally (interactionally) in Arabic (for more on absolute and
relational social honorifics, see Farghal and Shakir 1994), in which case it should be
approximated to something like 'sir', 'man', 'guy', 'big fellow', etc. depending on the
context it occurs in. The other two items ( a loose garment covering the body from
neck to feet) is successfully approximated to 'gown' in English, while ' robe', which
is a borrowing in designating the kind of gown worn when taking a bath, is unjustifiably
approximated to 'a dressing gown'. To bring out this cultural nuance, the translator could
have maintained the same lexeme (robe), adding a modifier, viz. 'a bathroom robe', in
order to capture the extreme informality of that encounter. Last, the gap [ pastry
of graveyard], which is a kind of Egyptian pastry offered at the graveyard when visiting
the dead, is rendered as 'mourning pastry', thus substituting a more general term for a
specific one. In this case, the reader is introduced with the function of the pastry
independently of the location, i.e. the pastry, according to the translation, may be served
in any place, which is not the case. To render the gap more accurately in terms of culture
transfer, the location at which the pastry is served needs to be pointed out, viz. 'graveyard
pastry'. One should note that the function of the referent here is incorporated in the
location.
In some cases, several referential gaps belonging to different cultures become, through
the passage of time, familiar internationalisms. Examples like 'Rock and Roll' ,
'hamburger' and 'MacDonald' ( American), 'pizza' and 'pasta'
(Italian), 'Allah' , 'Imam' , 'hummus' and 'falafel' ( Arabic) have become
largely familiar worldwide. The translator is not expected to struggle with
internationalisms in translation. Once recognized, they should be formally borrowed. A
good clue for the translators judgment would be Wikipedia, where such items are usually
illustrated and many of them are displayed in pictures.
5.2 Phraseological Features

At the phraseological level, collocations and idiomatic expressions stand out as two
important types of multi-word units that often necessitate special attention from
translators. They are a major component of the lexicon and constitute an indispensable
element of lexical competence (Alexander 1978; Yorio 1980; Nattinger 1980, 1988;
Aisensadt 1981; Cowie 1981, 1988; Strassler 1983; Benson et al. 1987; Baker and
MacCarthy 1987; Sinclair 1987, 1991; Farghal and Obeidat 1995; Farghal and Al-Hamly
this volume, 2007, among others). In terms of translation, Farghal and Shakir (this
volume) argue that collocations are more communicatively useful than idioms because
they are more familiar in discourse and can only be hardly replaceable by individual
lexical alternates. For example, the English collocation 'public support' and its Arabic
counterpart are only awkwardly paraphraseable in translation. By contrast,
idioms are less common in discourse and are usually replaceable by lexical alternates, for
41

instance, the Arabic idiomatic expression [ ink on paper] and its English
counterpart 'dead letter' can be replaced (albeit at the expense of reducing the degree of
the texts emotiveness) by and 'unimplemented' in the two languages,
respectively.
Collocations, to start with, manifest the behavior of words when they combine or keep
company with each other. Word company may be derived predictably from the primary
meaning of a word, in which case semantic correspondence would often obtain between
languages. For example, the English verb 'pay' can collocate freely with words relating to
money, viz. pay wages , pay debts , pay the ransom , pay the
rent , etc. In all these collocations, the collocator 'pay' maintains its primary
meaning, hence the ease of rendering them into Arabic. However, the verb 'pay'
predictably collocate with a few other items that have nothing to do with money, viz. pay
attention [ lend attention], pay a visit [ perform a visit], pay a
compliment [ express admiration], and pay respect [ express
respect]. In all these cases, the verb 'pay' has acquired collocational/secondary senses that
largely differ from its primary sense, hence semantic correspondence rarely obtains
between English and Arabic in collocations that sail away from primary sense.
Collocations that feature secondary rather than primary senses may present the most
problematic area for student translators (and even for practitioners) because of two
reasons: firstly, they are mostly lexicalized differently between any two languages and
secondly, they do not usually lend themselves to acceptable paraphrase in the TL (for
more details, see Farghal and Shakir (this volume); Farghal and Obeidat 1995; Farghal
and Al-Hamly 2007). Consequently, the only guarantee to deal with collocations
appropriately is the translators possession of a good bank of them in the language pair.
By way of illustration, following are some English collocations juxtaposed with their
Arabic counterparts:
(74)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

heavy rain
heavy sleep
heavy meal
heavy fog
heavy smoker

[ pouring rains]
[ deep sleep]
[ fatty meal]
[ condensed fog]
[ person
extreme in smoking]

f.
g.
h.
i.

heavy sea
heavy industry
heavy traffic
heavy bread

[ wavey sea]
[ heavy industry]
[ traffic crisis]
[ bread
from unleavened dough]

A close examination of the above English collocations points to three possibilities when
rendering them into Arabic. The first possibility, which is the least likely, is to have
42

semantic/formal correspondence in lexicalization, as in (74g) where the primary sense of

the collocator 'heavy' is maintained. The second, which is the most likely, involves
corresponding collocations where the collocator 'heavy' is lexicalized differently in
Arabic as in (74 a, b, c, d, f, h). The translators ability to call up TL collocations that
differ in lexicalization but have the same communicative value is a foundation stone as
regards naturalness of the translation product. Some translations may sound unnatural
simply because the translator fails to access correct collocations in the TL by either
imposing the first possibility or unjustifiably resorting to paraphrase, which is the third
option. This option may be appropriately followed when the SL collocation does not
correspond to a TL collocation (whether formally or functionally) as in (74 e, i). Thus,
the paraphrase strategy in rendering a collocation is necessitated when the TL does not
have a familiar lexicalized collocation.
To observe actual problems that may arise from a mishandling of English collocations,
following are some Arabic examples extracted from published translations:
( .) 25
[The organization intended its decision to give the award to Mr Obama]
.) 26(
[It was a last moment flight]
) 22(
...
[The officer of public relations who worked on maintaining the damage resulting
from persons unleashing their whims like ... started ...]
. ... )28(
[ ... and the electric wires were attached to their sex organs]
To explain, the English collocations 'make a decision' [ take a decision], 'have a narrow
escape' ' escape miraculously', 'repair the damage' [ repair the damage],
and 'sex organs' [ reproduction organs] in (75)-(78) respectively have been
erroneously translated into Arabic. Except for (75), which is an erroneous paraphrase 'It was a
last moment flight' of the English collocation 'have a narrow escape', the Arab reader would be
struck by the unnatural Arabic collocations in the examples above.
Idiomatic expressions, for their part, are frozen expressions whose unitary meaning cannot be
worked out from the dictionary meaning of the individual words in them. Such idiomatic
expressions usually render the text more emotive. In terms of translation, however, the tinge of
emotiveness furnished by idiomatic expressions can be maintained only when they
appropriately lend themselves to rendering into corresponding TL expressions (whether in form
or function). Otherwise, their communicative import is rendered apart from the idiomatic
phraseologies (for more details on strategies to translate idioms, see Newmark 1988 and Baker
1992). Following are some illustrative examples:
(79) It started raining cats and dogs when Peter met his blind date at the park.
43

.) 80(
[It started raining like mouths of goatskins when Peter met his girl whose
identity is unknown to him at the park]
.) 81(
[The strikers had to hold the white flag and accept an unfair settlement
with the company]
(82) The strikers had to throw in the towel and accept an unfair settlement with the
company.
(83) The Syrians are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea - their leaders cause great
suffering , but an invasion would bring many other problems.
) 84(
.
[The Syrians fell between a pair of pincers; while their leaders cause much
suffering, a foreign invasion would bring many problems]
. ) 85(
[From a historical perspective, Ibn Khaldun is considered a theorist whose dust
cannot be penetrated in sociology]
(86) From a historical perspective, Ibn Khaldun is considered a past master theorist in
sociology.

Except for the idiomatic expression blind date in (79), which is paraphrased because a
corresponding idiomatic expression does not exist in Arabic, the other idiomatic expressions in
(80)-(86) travel idiomatically (functionally) between the two languages. One should note that
the major challenge for translators here is to recognize the idiomatic expression as well as
understand its meaning before starting to search for a rendition. While the maintenance of the
emotiveness in the SL text needs to remain a priority in rendering idiomatic expressions, there
are cases when paraphrase may be the only available option. Witness how the two English
idiomatic expressions in (87) and (89) may have to be paraphrased into Arabic in (88) and (90),
respectively:

(87) The gap between the haves and have-nots still shows up clearly at the parliamentary
elections.
.) 88(
[The gap between the rich and the poor is still clearly visible in the
44

Parliamentary elections]
(89) The officials went through the roof when a local newspaper published a report about
corruption.
) 90( .
[The officials became so angry when a local newspaper published a report
about corruption]
Sometimes, idiomatic expressions correspond formally between English and Arabic while
maintaining the same communicative value or, alternatively, are employed with different
imports. Note how the idiomatic expressions 'be all ears' and 'mop/wipe the floor
with somebody' correspond both in form and meaning, while
'Cinderella' and 'wash one's hand of somebody/something' /
convey different imports in the two languages. To explain, the former 'Cinderella' indicates bad,
unfair treatment in English, but it signifies outstanding beauty in Arabic; the latter meaning
disassociating with someone/something in English (i.e. to stop dealing with the entity in
question), whereas it means stopping pinning hopes/relying on someone/something in Arabic.
Translators, therefore, need to be wary of formal similarity between idiomatic expressions as
they might turn out to be idiomatic false friends (for more details, see Taylor 1998; Al-Wahy
2009).
Following are two authentic examples from the Arabic version of Newsweek where the two
strategies of calling up a TL idiomatic expression and paraphrasing the idiomatic expression are
employed, respectively:
(91) The Fayeds have turned the pre-bid House Fraser strategy on its head.
.) 92(
(93) Many Americans thought that Hillary Clinton would be the democratic nominee for
president, but a dark horse, Barak Obama was instead.
) 94(
.
Apart from the general quality of the translation, the English idiomatic expression 'turn
something on its head' in (91) is correctly rendered into the Arabic idiomatic expression
[ turn the thing's head on its bottom] in (92). By contrast, for lack of a
corresponding Arabic idiomatic expression, the English idiomatic expression 'a dark horse' in
(93) has been reduced to sense in (94), viz. [ who is a person who was not
wee-known].
6. Conclusion
Being fundamentally a linguistic exercise, the translation process needs to involve a close
consideration of all linguistic aspects of the text, including phonological, morphological,
45

syntactic, and semantic features. The present chapter has selectively explored, with ample
illustrative examples, linguistic features that translators need to be alerted to in their work. In
particular, various strategies of handling linguistic parameters have been investigated in the
hope of bringing them into the consciousness of practicing translators. The discussion also offers
insights into further investigations of linguistic considerations in translation activity. Together
with other considerations including textual, pragmatic, cultural, stylistic, etc. (see Farghal and
AlManna, 2014; other articles in this volume), the translator's work will definitely become an
informed act.

The Translation of English Passives into Arabic

Mohammed Farghal & Mohammed Al-Shorafat

46

Abstract
The study aims to check the intuitions reported in studies on the translation of English
passives into Arabic against empirical data that consist of translations of English passive
utterances as they naturally occur in an English text. It examines the linguistic strategies and
resources that translators from English into Arabic employ when encountering passive utterances. It is shown that translators use many strategies with this order of frequency:
nominalization, adjectivalization, passivization, activization and pseudo-activization. It is also
argued that the claim that Arabic does not tolerate agentive passives is inadequate, since
translators employ a variety of formal markers in rendering English agentive passives. The study
concludes that English passivization is predominantly structure-based, whereas Arabic
passivization is predominantly semantics-based.
1. Background of Study
1.1 Types of Translation Equivalence
In its essence, translation is a feat of transferring meaning as manifest functionally in a certain
context from one language to another. This transfer involves ipso facto phonetic, lexical,
structural, pragmatic and textual decisions (for more details, see Farghal 2012). Such decisions
are meant to bring forth equivalence. Within the context of translating, equivalence is viewed as
a dynamic parameter that constitutes a correlative of text type, author and audience. That is, any
discussion of equivalence independently of these three variables is doomed because it is these
contextual factors that direct the translator's options during the search for natural/appropriate
equivalence.

Being a correlative of contextual factors, translation equivalence may differ from one context to
another. This has prompted translation theorists to distinguish between different types of
translation equivalence: dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964), formal equivalence (Catford 1965),
functional equivalence (de Waard and Nida 1986) and ideational equivalence (Farghal 1994). For
instance, a creative metaphor in a work of art may call for formal equivalence, while a decorative
metaphor in a newspaper editorial may call for functional equivalence or, more practically,
ideational equivalence. It can be noted that while these kinds of equivalence address translation
equivalence in its entirety by placing their primary emphasis on meaning as it is derived from the
syntagmatic interrelations in discourse, they give minimal attention to the structural machinery
(linguistic competence in Chomsky's terminology) that functionalizes such syntagmatic
relations.

For the purposes of this paper, we shall adopt Widdowson's (1971) trichotomy of equivalence:
structural, semantic and pragmatic equivalence, not because of its comprehensiveness and
validity in the context of translating, but rather because of its relevance to the structural
machinery which is largely overlooked in other theories of equivalence. Firstly, structural
equivalence makes direct reference to surface forms at the sentence level. For example, the English
47

sentences in (1) and (2) are viewed as structurally equivalent to the French sentences in (3) and
(4), respectively (Widdowson 1971: 61):
(1) The postman opened the door.
(2) The door was opened by the postman.
(3) Le facteur ouvrit la porte.
(4) La porte fut ouverte par le facteur.

Secondly, semantic equivalence captures the propositional content of sentences independently

of their surface forms. Accordingly, other sentences expressing the same propositional content
may stand as semantically equivalent to (1)-(4) above despite the differences they exhibit in surface
forms as illustrated in (5)-(8) below (ibid., p. 63):
(5) It was the postman who opened the door.
(6) It was the door that was opened by the postman.
(7) Ce fut le facteur qui ouvrit la porte.
(8) Ce fut la porte qui fut ouverte par le facteur.

Thirdly, pragmatic equivalence relates to the illocutionary effect of utterances and therefore
cannot be established in relation to isolated sentences but rather by making references to what
utterances count as in context. However, while leaving due room for contextual variation, we
may consider (9) and (10) pragmatically equivalent to (1) and (2) above (ibid., p. 62):
(9) Le facteur a ouvert la porte.
(10) La porte a ete ouverte par le facteur.

This being the case, structural and semantic equivalents, while being relevant to theoretical
analyses, can be of only limited practical value in the process of translating. That is, structural
equivalence may not capture the communicative functions between the source language (SL) and
target language (TL) as demonstrated by (1) and (3), on the one hand and (2) and (4), on the other.
Similarly, semantic equivalence is based exclusively on propositional content regardless of
significant differences in topicalization (Fillmore 1968), or in focus (Chomsky 1968), or in
evaluativeness (Farghal 1991, 2012). By contrast, pragmatic equivalence lies at the core of the
translating process because it views equivalence in terms of communicative value as relating to
utterances or kinds of message rather than sentences in isolation. In a few cases, however,
semantic, or even structural equivalence, may coincide with pragmatic equivalence.
48

1.2 English Passives and Their Arabic Counterparts

The translation of English passives into Arabic has attracted several studies in the existing
literature in translation studies and contrastive linguistics. Al-Najjar (1984: 158-160) points out
that English agentive passives can be restructured in Arabic in two ways: either as an agentive
passive or as an active voice clause in the word order (Object - Verb in the active voice + object coreferential pronoun - Agent) as in (11) and (12) below:
(11) He will study the plan which was presented by his advisor.
(12)
a. sa -yadr usu -l -xi at a [llati quddimat
min qibali mustaaar-hi]
will-study-the-plan
which was-presented by
advisor-his
.

b. sa-yadrusu-l-xiata [llati qaddama-ha

will-study-the-plan
.

mustaaaru-hu]

which presented-it advisor-his

However, judged by the intuition of speakers of Standard Arabic, Al-Najjar argues, the active
voice structure is preferable and more well-formed.

It should be noted that Al-Najjar confines his discussion to passivized relative clauses in
English which can be readily translated into embedded topic-comment structures in Arabic
(12b), rather than the clumsy agentive passive in (12a) above. In this way, he arbitrarily avoids
the more serious problem regarding the translation of matrix passive sentences in English into
Arabic. El-Yasin (1996) pushes Al-Najjar' s analysis a step further by arguing that English
passives should be translated into Arabic topic-comment structures in order to capture both form
and meaning, as illustrated in (13) below, which was originally used in Farghal (1991) for a
different analysis (see below):
(13)

a. The president was assassinated by the leftists.

b. 'ar-ra'iisu
'itaala-hu-l-yasaariyyuuna
the-president assassinated-him-the-leftists
.

According to El-Yasin, the topic-comment or theme-rheme representation is

maintained in translating (13a) into (13b), i.e., 'the president' and `ar-ra'isu occupy the topic
position in both sentences, while the rest of either sentence occupies the comment position.

While discussing evaluativeness, Farghal (1991: 144) deals briefly with passivization arguing
that "Passivization is a matter of optional thematization where all arguments are usually
mentioned in English, but it is a pragmatic choice in Arabic, where an argument, namely
the agent is obligatorily dropped; otherwise, an active sentence is chosen" as can be illustrated
in (14) below:
49

(14)

a. 'itaala-1-yasaariyyuuna-r-'aiisa
assassinated-the-leftists-the-president
.
`The leftists assassinated the president'.
or
`The president was assassinated by the leftists'.
b. 'itiila-r-ra' iis-u
assassinated-the-president
`The president was assassinated'.
.

Thematization, Farghal argues, belongs to natural evaluativeness, which is brought about by

obligatory Move , a rule whose output is a focused constituent. As for topic-comment
structures, they also feature natural evaluativeness as they are argued to be generated by PSrules in both English and Arabic as can be illustrated in (15) and (16) below:
(15) As for the novel, Ali read it.
( 1 6 ) a . 'amma-r-riwaayatu fa-qara' a-ha aliyy-un
as for-the-novel
.

?-read-it

Ali

b. 'ar-riwayatu qara'a-haa aliyy-un

the-novel

read-it

Ali-NOM

This being the case, El-Yasin's (1996) analysis confuses thematization with base-generation
by suggesting that Arabic topic-comment structures be natural equivalents for English
passive sentences.
Other studies (Mouakket 1986, Saraireh 1990, and Khalil 1993) reiterate the argument that
English agentive passives should be translated into Arabic active sentences. For instance,
Mouakket (1986: 140) writes: "In the Arabic passive sentence the agent must be deleted. If the
agent is to be mentioned, an active sentence must be used". However, Saraireh (1990: 186)
points out that "there are cases in which the agentive passive structure of an English sentence
could be maintained in the Arabic translation" as can be illustrated in (17) and (18) below:
(17) It is believed that the common cold .. .
(18) yutaqadu 'anna-z-zukaama-l-aadiyy-a .. .
50

is believed that-the-cold-the-common . ..
...

Obviously, Saraireh is interested in the syntactic rather than semantic properties of English
passives of this kind, as the grammatical subject of (17) is not agentive and functions merely as
a pleonastic slot filler.

For his part, Khalil (1993) bases his conclusions about Arab students' translations of individual
English agentive passive sentences and Arab experts' intuitions about such translations on
the dogmatic assumption that the only variety of Arabic that is relevant to translation is
Classical Arabic, i.e., the Holy Quran and Classical Arabic literature, among other
traditional sources. He concludes (p. 179) that "the Arab translator's tendency to render
English agentive passive sentences into corresponding Arabic agentive passive sentences
originated under the influence of translation out of European languages which allow passive
sentences with expressed agents. Moreover, the frequent use of Arabic agentive passive
sentences in the media and modern literature has created the impression that these
constructions are acceptable in CA [Classical Arabic]".

2. The Present Study

As is clear, the above-mentioned analyses of translating English passives into Arabic are mostly
based on concocted, individual sentences. In the best of worlds, such analyses may instantiate
structural and/or semantic equivalents which can be of only limited practical use to the actual
process of translating, because they make minimal reference, if any, to the communicative
value of passive utterances as naturally occurring segments of discourse/text. This being
so, the present paper aims to check the alleged intuitions reported in such studies against
empirical data that comprise translations of English utterances containing passive forms into
Arabic as they naturally occur in an English text. Put differently, this study investigates the
linguistic strategies and resources that translators from English into Arabic fall back on when
encountering passive utterances. Further, the present study seeks to substantiate that
grammatical equivalents established at the sentence level may be at variance with
translation replacements established at the discourse level in the same sense that dictionary
equivalents may be different from translation replacements (Tabakowska 1990). Thus, the
pragmatic rather than the sole semantic import of an utterance becomes a focal point in
the process of translating naturally-occurring discourse. Subsequently, it is hoped that translation replacements will gradually find their way toward acquiring the status of translation
equivalents.

51

2.1 Material and Subjects

The translation task consisted of an English text containing 13 passive forms: 3 agentive and 10
agentless passives (see appendix). As announced in the book from which the text was
taken (A Modern Course in English Syntax by H. Wekker and L. Haegeman (1985)), the text
was an adaptation from A. Hosain and S. Pasricha's Cooking the Indian Way, which may render it
a bit unnatural, in terms of density of passive forms. This being the case, the more experienced
subjects might have been able to guess what the aims of the experiment were.

The subjects consisted of two groups. The first group comprised 11 Jordanian MA
translation students enrolling in a course labeled 'General Translation from English into
Arabic' in their first semester. They were asked to translate the English text into Arabic in class
with a forty-minute time limitation. The second group consisted of 5 Jordanian translation
professors who had been teaching translation courses at both the undergraduate and the
graduate levels. They were asked to translate the English text into Arabic in their free time
with practically no time limitation. The subjects of both groups were asked to hand in a final
version, since tracing the emergence of a translation replacement was not one of the aims.
The experiment was also subject to some practical constraints regarding the small
number of subjects, especially professors (not only was the number of avail able professors
not large enough, but their willingness to do the experiment was also an important factor) and
the conditions under which the two groups performed the translation task (for instance, it was
inconceivable to have the professors do the experiment with a time limitation imposed).

2.2 Hypotheses
Prior to selecting the translation task and collecting the empirical data, the present study had
set the following hypotheses:
1. When translating English passives into Arabic, translators would probably seek pragmatic
equivalence where structural equivalence falters.
2. Student translators are likely to pay more attention than translation professors to structural
equivalence when translating English passives into Arabic.
3. The empirical data are likely to instantiate formal markers of Arabic agentive passive

equivalents other than the oft-cited, and perhaps criticized, formal marker min qibali.

2.3 Results
The results of this study showed that the two groups of subjects employed translation
replacements as manifest in five main strategies when translating English passives into Arabic
(cf. Khafaji 1996). These are:

passives into nominalization (verb + verbal noun),

passives into adjectivals

52

passives into passi ves,

passives into actives, and
passives into pseudoactives.

Table 1: Frequency of each strategy for both groups of subjects

Strategy

No.

Nominalization
Passives
Adjectives
Actives
Pseudo-actives
Total No. of renderings

61
48
39
34
16
198

30.80
24.24
19.69
17.17
8.08
100%

Table 2: Frequency of each strategy for translation students

Strategy

No.

Nominalization
Passives
Adjectives
Actives
Pseudo-actives
Total No. of renderings

36
34
28
26
10
134

26.86
25.37
20.89
19.40
7.46
100%

Table 3: Frequency of each strategy for translation professors

Strategy
Nominalization
Passives
Adjectives
Actives
Pseudo-actives
Total No. of renderings

No.
25
14
11
8
6
64

%
39.06
21.87
17.18
12.50
9.37
100%

Table 4: Frequency of each formal marker in agentive passives

Formal
Marker
bimin qibali
li-ri1d
biwaasiat

Both groups
No.
%
15
31.25
13
27.08
10
20.83
2
4.16

Students
No.
%
11
33.33
10
30.30
5
15.15
2
6.06

Instructors
No.
4
26.66
3
20.00
5
33.33

53

Zero (Active)
Total No.

8
48

16.66
100%

5
33

15.15
100%

3
15

20.00
100%

of renderings

The four Tables above relate to the validity of the three hypotheses in 2.2. The Tables 1-3
indicate the frequency of each strategy for both groups, for the students and for the
professors, respectively. Table 4, in turn, indicates the frequency of formal markers of Arabic
agentive passives for the two groups combined and separately.

2.4 Analysis and Discussion

As can be seen from Table 1, translating English passives into nominalization (verb + verbal
noun) in Arabic is the most frequent strategy, viz. 30.80% of the subjects' renderings
featured this strategy. The frequency of translating English passives into Arabic adjectivals
and actives is similar, being 19.69% and 17.17%, respectively. The lowest frequency, as can
be noted, is that of translating English passives into Arabic pseudo-actives.

The results shown in Table 1 strongly verify our first hypothesis regarding the employment of
strategies that furnish pragmatic equivalence independently of structural equivalence. Arabic
linguistic strategies and resources appropriately catered for the semantics of passivization
in English, thus moving from structure-based to semantics-based correspondence. The following discussion will shed light on each of these strategies, giving examples and
explanations.
2.4.1 The Five Main Strategies
1. Nominalization
Nominalization turned out to be the most useful strategy for translating English passives into
Arabic, viz. 30.80% of the renderings involved Nominalization. Formally, this strategy
features a pleonastic verb (a verb that is mostly devoid of semantic content) plus a verbal
noun that is derived from the matrix verb in the English passive structure. In this respect,
Arabic seems to possess two categories of pleonastic verbs: one category always goes with
semantically based passives, while the other goes with actives. Semantically based passives
are structures that are passive in meaning but not in form. By way of illustration, consider
(19) and (20) below:
( 1 9 ) qama-l-mudiiru bi-ziyaarati-l-manai

made-the-manager in-visiting-the-factory
`The manager visited the factory'.
.
( 2 0 ) t aarr a a-l -ma nau l i -l -huj uumi
exposed-the-factory to-the-attack
54

`The factory was attacked'.

.

As is evident, qama is a pleonastic active verb, whereas taarraa is a

pleonastic passive verb. These two verbs are used only to improvise
nominalization in Arabic, and are void semantically. Interlingually, verbs of this sort may
create structures featuring what is termed 'effected objects' in English such as 'make an
attempt', 'pay a visit', 'give an interview', etc., bearing in mind the existence of two
different categories of such verbs in Arabic.

Empirically, our data demonstrate the successful employment of pleonastic passive verbs in
nominalization for rendering English passives in Arabic, as illustrated by the English
passives in (21) and their respective Arabic counterparts in (22) below:
(21) a. Since the earliest times the sub-continent has been invaded by many tribes from
the North.
Only recently was the region divided into the independent countries of India
and Pakistan.
c. Nowadays Indian food is esteemed all over the world.
b.

(22) a. famunu uuurin mubakkiratin taarraat ibhu-1-qaarati

since

ages

early

exposed

semi- the-continent

'ilaa azwi qabaa'ila mutaaddidatin min-a-arnaal

to invasion tribes
many
from-the-North
.
b . wa-munu ahdin qariibin tamma taqsiimu

and-since

time

'ilaa dawlatayni
to

tilka-l-maniqatu
recent completed division that-the-area

mustaqilatayni humaa-l-hindu wa-l-baakistaan

two countries independent

they -the-India and-the-Pakistan

55

c.

wa-fi-l-waqti-1-air i
yaa--aamu-1-hindiyyu bi-t-taqdiiri
and-in-the-time-the-present enjoy-the-food-the-Indian with-the-esteem
fi jamii 'anaa'i-l-aalami
in all
parts-the-world
.

As can be seen, the English passive verbs 'has been invaded', 'was divided' and 'is esteemed'
have been translated into the Arabic nominalizations taarraat 'ilaa azwi, tamma
taqsiimu, and yaaa bi-t-taqdiiri, respectively. It should be pointed out that the Arabic
translations above sound natural. They therefore constitute very suitable pragmatic
equivalents for the English passives in (21). Nominalization should no doubt be singled out
as an important strategy when addressing the translation of English passives into Arabic.

It should be mentioned that some Arabic translations (by 5 out of the 11 students only) of the
English sentence involving the non-dynamic verb 'is esteemed' exhibited evaluative topiccomment structures (cf. Farghal 1992b and El-Yasin 1996). By way of illustration, consider
the translation of (21c) above in (23) below:
(23) wa-fi haaihi-1-'ayyaam fa-'inna--aaama- l-hindiyy-a yaaa
and-in these-the-days

?-that-the-food-the-Indian-enjoy

bi-t-taqd-ir-i fii jamiii 'aqaari-l-aalam

with-the-esteem in all
countries-the-world
.
Note that the Arabic sentence in (23) is a topic-comment structure (the topic is italicized and the
clause that follows the topic is the comment) that has been rendered evaluative by the
employment of the emphatic particle 'inna in introducing the topic. (For more on
evaluativeness, see Farghal 1991)

2. Passives
The translation of English passives into Arabic passives came second in frequency, viz.
24.24% of the renderings featured passivization. The English examples in (24) and their
respective empirical translations in (25) below are illustrative:
(24) a. Since the earliest times the sub-continent has been invaded by many tribes
from the North.
b.
c.

The art of the presentation of food was also developed in these countries.
Silver or gold leaf is often used for decoration.

(25) a. wa-munu 'aqdami-l-uuur fa-qad

uziyat

ibhu-1- qaarati

and-since earliest-the-ages ?-verily was invaded semi-the-continent

56

min qibali qabaa'ila kaiiratin min-a-amaal

by
tribes
many
from-the-North
.

b. wa-qad tuwwira
fannu ard-i--aaami
'ayan fii haaayniand-? was developed art
presentation-the-food also in thesel-baladayn
the-countries
.
c. wa-yustamalu--ahab-u wal-fiattu
and-is used-the-gold

fi-t-tazyiin

and-the-silver in-the-decoration

3. Adjectivals
Adjectivals proved to be the third most common strategy for rendering English passives in
Arabic, viz. 19.69% of the renderings used adjectivals as equivalents of English passive verbs. It
should be noted that English passive verbs that are subject to adjectivalization in Arabic are
stative or non-dynamic in nature, i.e., verbs that involve minimal action, if any. Consider the
English examples in (26), along with their respective empirical translations in (27) below:
(26)

(27)

a. The consumption of beef is forbidden to the Hindu, and the consumption of

pork is not allowed for Muslims.
b. Nowadays Indian food is esteemed all over the world.

a . . . min dalika 'anna lama-1-baqari mamnuuun ladaa-l-hinduusi

from that that meat-the-beef forbidden
to-the-Hindu
wa-tanawuli lami-l-xinziiri muarramun ala-l-muslimiin
and-eating meat-the-pork forbidden
on-the-Muslims

...

.
b. wa-li--aaamu-l-hindiyyi-l-'aana

qiimatu-hu fii jamiii

and-for-the-food-the-Indian-the-now value-its
57

in all

'anaa'i-l-aalam
parts-the-world
.

Syntactically, the Arabic translations above are verbless, that is, the English sentences in
(26) have been rendered into Arabic equational sentences in (27), which enjoy a strong
presence in the grammar of Arabic and are traditionally considered topic-comment
structures (however, see Obeidat and Farghal 1994). This strategy proves useful when
encountering non-dynamic (non-action) English passive verbs. It should be noted that
verblessness is not a necessary condition on the Arabic sentence for inclusion in this
category, because Arabic sentences may alternatively feature linking verbs as can be
illustrated in (28) as a translation of (27b) above:
(28) wa-fii haihi-1-'ayyam 'abaha-1-' akl-u-hindiyyu aa qiimatin
and-in these-the-days became-the-food
with value

fii jamiii 'anaa'i-l-aalam

in all
parts-the-world
.

4. Actives
The frequency of translating English passives into Arabic actives came fourth, viz.
17.17% of the renderings exhibited actives. As we have already seen in Section 1.2., the
existing literature overestimates the use of this strategy by translators from English
into Arabic, particularly for English agentive passives. By way of illustration, consider
the English examples in (29), along with their respective Arabic empirical translations in
(30):

(29) a. Later on it was occupied by the British.

b. The art of the presentation of food was also developed in these countries.
(30) a. umma- talathaa-l-biritaniyytina fii waqtin laiq
then
occupied-it-the-British
in time later
.

b. wa-qad tatawwara fannu taqdimi-t-taami fii haa ihi-dand-? developed art presentation-the-food in these-the
duwal
countries
.

5. Pseudo-Actives
The low frequency of pseudo-actives, viz. only 8.08% of the renderings featured this strategy,
may suggest that pseudo-actives are insignificant when it comes to translating English passives
58

into Arabic. This is not the case, however, as pseudo-actives constitute an important strategy in
translating certain English passive verbs such as 'be influenced' and 'be divided', which are in
fact the only instances in the translation task in this study that may call for this strategy.
Interestingly, 16 of the 32 renderings i.e. a full 50% of these two cases employed
pseudo-actives. Pseudo-actives are those Arabic verbs that are active in form but passive in
meaning. By way of illustration, observe the English examples in (31) along with their
respective empirical Arabic translations in (32):
(31)

(32)

a. The eating habits of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent are influenced by

historical and geographical factors.
b. Only recently was the region divided into the two independent countries of India
and Pakistan.
a. tata'aaru aadaatu-1-' akli- fi ibh-i-l-qarrati-1-hindiyyati
be influenced habits-the-food in semi-the-continent Indian
bi-awaamila taariixiyyatin wa-jarafiyyah
by-factors

historical

and-geographical

b. wa-lam tanqasimu-il-maniqatu 'ila baladayni

and-not divided-the-area

to two countries

mustaqillayni huma-l-hindu wa- 1-bakistan-u 'iliaa

independent they-the-India and-the-Pakistan except
mu' axxaran
recently
.

While (32a) is probably the most natural equivalent for (30a), (32b) is acceptable as an
equivalent for (31 b) only insofar as the anonymous agency in (31b) is overlooked. The
dropping of the agent in (31b), however, should not be taken lightly or coincidentally; rather,
as Bolinger (1980: 29) puts it, "The most useful and dangerous function of the passive
(in English) is to enable the speaker to keep silent about who performs the action". To illustrate
this point, consider (33) below in which agency, though anonymous, plays a significant role:
(33)

wa-lam tuqassam-il-maniqatu 'ilaa baladayni

and-not was divided-the-area to two countries
mustaqillayni huma-l-hindu
wa-l-baakistan-u 'iliaa
i nd epe nde nt t h e y -t he -In d i a n and-the-Pakistan except
59

mu' axxaran.
recently.
.

2.4.2 Translation Students vs. Translation Professors

Having discussed the five main strategies for translating English passives into Arabic, let us turn
to the significant performance differences between the two groups of subjects (Tables 2 and 3):
translation students vs. translation professors. The second hypothesis in this study states that
student translators are likely to pay more attention than translation professors to structural
equivalence when translating English passives into Arabic. This hypothesis is particularly
borne out by the significant difference in the employment of the strategy of nominalization:
it accounted for 26.86% for students vs. 39.06% for professors. Bearing in mind the obvious
usefulness of this strategy in translating English passives into Arabic, it can be deduced that
translation professors give much more attention to translation replacements that achieve
pragmatic equivalence than translation students.
Further, the medium discrepancy of the strategy of translating English passives into Arabic
passives between students and professors 25.37% for students vs. 21.87% for professors
lends more support to our hypothesis by indicating that translation students attended to
translation replacements that achieve structural equivalence more than translation
professors. It can be argued here that professors are more experienced and probably more
competent in translation; hence they give precedence to pragmatic (illocutionary) import over
formal (structural) import for the purpose of furnishing more natural equivalents.
Finally, the results showed that student translators resorted to the strategy of adjectivals more
than translation professors: 20.89% vs. 17.18%, respectively. Likewise, student translators
used Arabic actives as equivalents for English passives more than translation professors:
19.40% vs. 12.50%, respectively. Obviously, the greater part of the differential in these two
strategies went to nominalization, which has been argued to be an important linguistic
resource for translating English passives into Arabic, thus furnishing further support for our
hypothesis.
2.4.3 Formal Markers of Arabic Agentive Passives
The third hypothesis is also borne out as the empirical data have instantiated formal markers of
Arabic agentive passive equivalents other than the oft-cited formal marker min qibali. As can be
seen from Table 4, bi- 'by' was the most used formal marker in Arabic passive equivalents, viz.
31.25% of the renderings featured it. As the results showed, it was used more by students than
by professors: 33.33% vs. 26.66%, respectively. min qibali 'by' came second scoring 27.08%
of the renderings; again, it was used more by students than by professors: 30.30% vs. 20%. li/'ilaa 'to' came third in frequency, comprising 20.83%; it was used much more by professors
than by students: 33.33% vs. 15.15%, respectively. As a fourth formal marker, biwaasiat 'by
means of' was used only twice by students, comprising 4.16% of the renderings. Finally, a

60

zero marker was sometimes used, by translating English agentive passives into Arabic
actives; this accounted for 16.66% of the renderings.

Contrary to common claims in the literature, these results show beyond doubt that translators
into Arabic fall back on many formal markers to indicate agentive passive equivalents. In
most cases, these formal markers sound so natural in Arabic that one can trace no foreign
influences. Therefore, the common directive to avoid agentive passives when translating English
passives into Arabic should be reconsidered, if not rejected altogether. In the extreme case,
min qibali should be tolerated in Arabic because, contrary to claims that ascribe it to the
influence of translating from European languages into Arabic, it is used natively in Arabic in
both the mass media and modern literature, among other genres of discourse. Consequently,
the oft-cited instruction to translate only into Classical Arabic is, we believe, ill-conceived
as translation is, after all, an act of communication that should be pertinent to language in use
rather than to prescriptive and/or rather obsolete varieties of Arabic that are only of
relevance for historical purposes.

3. Conclusion
The present paper has departed from available treatments of passivization as a structural
property in an attempt to reach for pragmatic parameters that govern the translator's
decisions during the process of translating English passives into Arabic. It has been shown
that translators fall back on various linguistic strategies and resources in their endeavor
to search for Arabic natural equivalents for English passives. Thus, it has been argued that the
communicative value of an utterance should be given precedence over the semantic and/or
structural value for the purpose of furnishing pragmatic rather than frequently unfitting
semantic or structural equivalents.

Most importantly, the present study sends a clear message to translation practitioners and
theorists alike that translation should essentially be viewed as an act of communication; hence
it should be practiced independently of dogmatic and/or prescriptive tenets that frequently
crop up on the linguistic scene of Arabic. For instance, the claim that Arabic does not tolerate
agentive passives has been proved to be inadequate, as translators have a variety of formal
markers at their disposal when phrasing out Arabic agentive passives.

Further, this paper points clearly to the different nature of passivization in English and Arabic.
While passivization in English proves to be predominantly structure-based, Arabic
passivization turns out to be semantics-based, viz. more than 75% of the translations of
English passives in this study employed linguistic strategies and resources irrespective of
61

the verb form. That is, the interpretation of an utterance in Arabic as passive may stem from
nominalization, adjectivals, and pseudo-actives, in addition to passivization proper.

Last but not least, this research offers implications for translator training programs. In particular,
translator trainers should alert their students to the intriguing nature of passivization in Arabic.
They should point out that Arabic has its own linguistic resources that can handle all cases of
English passivization pragmatically as they occur naturally in discourse. Most importantly,
students should be sensitized to different types of translation equivalence in general and
pragmatic equivalence in particular.

Appendix
The Translation Task
The eating habits of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent are influenced by historical and
geographical factors. Since the earliest times the sub-continent had been invaded by many
tribes from the North. Later on it was occupied by the British. Only recently was the region
divided into the two independent countries of India and Pakistan.
The influence of all the different invasions can be found in the culture and the eating habits
of the sub-continent. Indian and Pakistani food are very similar, but regional and religious
influences can be observed. The consumption of beef is forbidden to the Hindu, and the
consumption of pork is not allowed for Muslims.
The art of the presentation of food was also developed in these countries. Silver or gold leaf
is often used for decoration. The metal is beaten very fine: it can almost be blown away.
Nowadays Indian food is esteemed all over the world.
(Adapted from A. Hosain and S. Pasricha, Cooking the Indian Way)

Translating English Modals by Zero Equivalents

in Arabic: A Case Study of Macbeth
Mohammed Farghal & Alban Beqri
Abstract
The present paper aims to show the discrepancy brought about when translating English modals
by Arabic zero equivalents. It is a case study of Macbeth, whose English modals comprise the
corpus of analysis. Within the 166 modals in the play, 39 (23.5%) have undergone deletion in
Arabic translation. In the bulk of these cases, the failure to render English modals has seriously
marred Arabic renderings, e.g. when shifting from epistemic possibility to epistemic certainty.
This practice often results in the loss of significant nuances introduced by English modals. The
62

study concludes that, while English possesses a highly grammaticalized system of modality,
Arabic employs a diversity of modal expressions which can effectively capture the shades of
meaning encapsulated in English modals. The translator, therefore, should pay utmost care when
translating modality from English into Arabic, and should view zero equivalents as adequate only
in few cases where the import is not affected.
1. English and Arabic Modals
The verb constitutes the most important element in a sentence because its main function is to
relate the arguments in the sentence together in order to produce meaningful propositions, which
are considered the backbone of discourse. While lexical verbs do this function quite
straightforwardly, auxiliary verbs, including modals, are employed in verb groups to add nuances
of meaning which relate to the entire state of affairs in the sentence. Thus, the task of rendering
the meaning of sentences involving auxiliary verbs becomes more challenging to the translator.
This challenge is most manifested when rendering English modals because these modals
introduce a subjective parameter to the referential meaning whereby the speaker/writer includes
his/her own attitude toward the proposition in terms certainty and/or necessity. Halliday
(1970:335) maintains that modality is "a form of participation by the speaker in the speech event.
Through modality the speaker associates with the thesis an indication of its status and validity in
his own judgment, he intrudes and takes up a position. In this way, the speaker/writer becomes
an evaluator of the transmitted information in the process of communication.
Essentially, most authors (Halliday 1970; Lyons 1977; Perkins 1983; Coates 1983; and Palmer
1986, among others) divide English modals into two basic categories: epistemic and deontic
modals. On the one hand, epistemic modality involves the speaker's/writer's judgment of the
proposition he is putting forward in terms of certainty, which ranges between factuality (e.g. The
flight leaves at midnight) and possibility (e.g. The flight may leave at midnight). On the other
hand, deontic modality views the proposition at hand in terms of necessity, which ranges between
strong obligation (e.g. John must leave now) and permission (e.g. John may leave now). Thus,
while epistemic modality looks at language as "information", deontic modality views language as
"action" (Palmer 1986).
In addition, the above authors usually address the issue of indeterminacy in English modals. This
indeterminacy is so clear when dealing with decontextualized sentences but often disappears
when locating utterances within their relevant contexts. For example, the individual sentence 'The
road may be closed' may trigger an epistemic or deontic interpretation. The context of the
utterance, however, would indicate which reading is intended.
Moreover, the interpretation of English modals is largely affected by the grammatical category of
time reference, which adds to the degree of their indeterminacy. For example, the modal may
denotes permission when used deontically (as in 'He may turn the TV on'). However, the same
modal will have an epistemic reading when the time reference is past (as in 'He may have turned
the TV on'). The same is true for the modal must, which denotes obligation when used deontically
(as in ' He must do his assignment'), whereas it takes an epistemic reading when the time
reference is past (as in 'He must have done his assignment'). In contrast with the modals may and
63

must, the modal should maintains the same nuance of meaning when the time reference is
changed to past. For example, the deontic interpretation is preserved in the sentences 'He should
do his assignment' and 'He should have done his assignment'.
Accounts of English modality overwhelmingly focus on grammatical rather than lexical modality.
This is reasonably justified by the fact that English has a neat system of English modal verbs
which manage to grammaticalize meaning in an efficient manner. However, this does not mean
that English lacks lexical modal resources: it just means that the grammatical category of modals
is more efficient and handier than the lexical counterpart. In fact, one may find a lexical
counterpart for every modal auxiliary. Examples may include 'I can do it vs. I'm able to do it', 'I
have to go vs. I'm obligated to go', 'John may come in now vs. John is allowed to come in now',
etc. Therefore, the notion of modality in English can be said to be predominantly grammatical in
terms of usage.
Unlike English, Modality in Arabic involves a mixed bag of modal expressions rather that a neat
category of modal auxiliary verbs. This bag includes modal verbs such as yajibu ' must',
yumkinu ' may/might', and yanbaii ' should', particles/prepositions such as qad
'may/might', la alla ' may/might' and alaa ' must', prepositional phrases min-l-mumkini
' may/might' and min-l-waajibi ' should', lexical verbs such as yutamalu ' be
possible' and yastalzimu ' require'. This elaborate array and mixed bag of Arabic modal
expressions may have been the reason why modality had not been a subject of grammatical
analysis in the otherwise comprehensive medieval Arabic grammar (for more details, see ElHassan 1990).
This being the case, most recent studies of Arabic modality (Zayed 1984; El-Hassan 1990;
Farghal and Shunnaq 1999/2011; Abdel-Fattah 2005; Al-Qinai 2008; Wided 2010) take the neat
system of English modals as a point of departure when approaching Arabic modality from a
linguistic and/or translational perspective. The general conclusion of these studies is that Arabic
lacks a highly grammaticalized system of modals although it possesses the lexico-grammatical
means to capture all modal nuances in discourse. The authors usually engage in listing English
modal verbs and their possible Arabic counterparts (e.g. See Abdel-Fattah 2005 and Al-Qinai
2008) in terms of epistemic and deontic modality.
A more holistic approach (Zayed 1984) reduces the epistemic parameter in English and Arabic to
may vs. must and rubamaa vs. laa budda , respectively, and the deontic parameter to may
vs. must and yumkinu vs. yajibu , respectively. De Haan (1997: 50) rightly improves on
zayed's typology by presenting each two items on separate continua, thus making it visible that
the two types of modality exist in different degrees from weak to strong, as can be seen below:

a.
b.

Epistemic modality
Weak __________________________ Strong

Deontic modality

64

Weak ___________________________Strong

Clearly, this approach is based on modalistic generalizations without going into the details. For
example, yajibu is taken to be exclusively deontic, whereas laa budda is viewed as
exclusively epistemic. While this is true in the former case, it is not in the latter case, because laa
budda can function both epistemically and deontically (compare laa budda anna-hu majnuun-un
' He must be crazy' with laa budda an adrusa-l-yawma ' I must study
today' (for more details, see Farghal 2012: 102-104)).
To conclude this section, and regardless of the way we approach modality, we must realize the
fact that modal expressions inject our utterances with a personal perspective that incorporates
context-dependent nuances of the notions of certainty and necessity. Therefore, the addition or
deletion of a modal expression in an utterance will most likely result in marring the intended
meaning in translation activity. Further, the shift from one modal in one category to another
modal in a different category in translation usually distorts the nuanced import of an utterance
(for more details, see Badran 2001). This does not mean that we cannot use more than one modal
expression for the same purpose; on the contrary, it is the case that multiple modal expressions
sharing the same nuance (whether epistemic or deontic) may replace each other both
intralingually (within the same language) or interlingually (across two languages). For example,
the English modal may in the sentence John may be at home may be rendered by many Arabic
modal expressions, including yumkinu, qad, la ala, min-al-mumkini, etc.
2. Corpus and Procedure
The present paper is a case study of the rendition of English modals in Macbeth into Arabic by
zero equivalents. The choice of Macbeth has been motivated by the length of the play (being the
shortest of Shakespeare's plays), the intensive use of modals, ease of reference (the translation
being bilingual) and the relative recency of the publication. The study will confine itself to the
English modals that have been lost in Arabic translation. In this way, it does not aim to examine
the accuracy of rendering English modals by Arabic modal expressions in this play. Rather, it
aims to show the discrepancy created when overlooking an English modal in an Arabic rendition.
The Arabic translation was made by Abdurrazak Al-Khaffaji (2008) by Dar Al-Bihar, Beirut,
Lebanon. It was published along with the English text where the Arabic translation is given on
the opposite pages of the English original.
3. Results
The play contains 166 English modal verbs. The number of Arabic zero equivalents for English
modals is 39 (23.5%) in the corpus. The following Table shows the frequencies and distribution
of English modals and Arabic zero equivalents:
English Modal
Shall
must
Should
Would

Frequency
35
28
25
20

%
21%
16.8%
15%
12%

Zero Equivalent
7
7
6
7

65

%
17.95%
17.95%
15.38%
17.95%

Can
Will
May
Could
Might
Total

20
14
11
9
4
166

12%
8.4%
6.6%
5.4%
2.4%

6
2
0
2
2
39

15.38%
5.12%
0%
5.12%
5.12%

4. Discussion
The above table shows that the modal verbs shall, must, and should are the most frequent
in the play accounting for almost 53% of the total number. They are followed by would
and can which account for 24% of the total. The rest of the occurrences are claimed by
will, may, could and might, which account for almost 23%, with will being in the lead and
might the least occurring. In terms of translation, shall, must and would (which register a
high frequency of occurrence in the data) account for a little more than 50% of the
number of Arabic zero equivalents. The following discussion will examine some
examples of zero equivalents of English modal verbs to see the impact they leave on the
Arabic renditions. The main concern will be on the study items (i.e. English modal verbs
and their Arabic renditions) and other segments in the translation will be relevant only if
they relate to the rendering of modal verbs, which are highlighted in boldface.
4.1 shall
The modal verb shall displays a high degree of certainty that comes very close to factuality. That
is why the translator can readily omit it and have the Present Simple form replace the English
verb group without seriously affecting the translation in Arabic. This can explain the translator's
option for the Arabic zero equivalents (7/35) for this epistemically strong English modal. It
should be noted that the use of the Arabic Present Simple form shows a negligible epistemic extra
strength than the English counterpart, as can be illustrated below:
But I shall crave your pardon; that which are my thoughts cannot transpose; angels are still
bright, though the brightest fell (p. 219 / Malcolm to Macduff).
...

: .

Thus, the English segment 'But I shall crave your pardon' is rendered as laakinni astamiiuka
uran ' But I crave your pardon'. This rendering sounds as natural as laakinni saastamiiuka uran ' But I shall crave your pardon', and the loss in epistemic
modality is negligible.
4.2 must
The modal must is the second most frequent in the play (16.8%) and is translated by Arabic zero
equivalents seven times (7/28). The deletion of this modal in Arabic translation seriously impacts
the meaning. In the following example, the deontic modality exhibited by the modal must is
erroneously omitted in the Arabic rendition, as can be seen below (Back translations are squarebracketed):

66

If charnel-houses and our graves must send those that we bury back, our monuments shall be
the maws of kites. (p.163)
.
[If our charnel-houses and our graves bring back those that we buried, our
monuments shall become in the maws of kites]
In this example, Macbeth (addressing the ghost of Banquo) embeds deontic modality that
involves strong obligation in a conditional clause. The translator opts for omitting the nuance
added by the embedded deontic modality within the hypothetical conditional clause while
keeping the clause itself. Thus, the sense of obligation is completely lost, which distorts the
nuanced meaning. To capture the combination of hypothetical conditionality and obligation, the
translator should employ either the deontic Arabic yajibu or laa budda in the hypothetical
condition, as can be seen below:

.
[If our charnel-houses and our graves had to bring back those we buried, ]
.
[If our charnel-houses and our graves had to bring back those we buried, ]
4.3 should
This modal claims 25 occurrences in the play (15%), 6 of which are translated by Arabic zero
equivalents. Consider the following example which includes a subtle use of should:
[Aside] Were I from Dunsinane away and clear, profit again should hardly draw me here. (p.
271)
][ .
[[Aside] Were I from Duninane away and free, no profit brings me
back here again]
The above example involves a subtle interaction between the modal verb should and the negative
adverb hardly in order to signal a hypothetical state of affairs which is less definitive than a
negated proposition without should. The translator, however, opts for a definitive, negated
proposition which can be back-translated into 'no profit brings me back here'. As can be seen, the
modality in the translation amounts to factuality (the highest degree of epistemic modality). This
contrasts with the less assertive degree of modality in the source text (ST). To capture this nuance
by Macbeth, the clitic Arabic particle la along with the rendition of the negative adverb hardly
can be employed as below:
.
[Were I from Duninane away and free, hardly should any profit bring me
back here again]
The hypothetical proposition in this translation parallels the degree of assertiveness in the source
text. It would leave some room, albeit very little, for Macbeth to be tempted by profit, whereas
this room is completely eliminated in Khaffaj's translation, i.e. profit would not tempt Macbeth to
come back. Hence, the accompanying nuance is rendered adequately.

67

4.4 would
The modal verb would occurs 20 times in the play (12%) and claims 7 zero equivalents out of the
39 instances (17.95%). Taken its frequency in the play into consideration, it emerges as the modal
that undergoes deletion more than any other modal (7/39) if we exclude might, which only occurs
4 times in the play, of which two receive zero equivalents. The frequent deletion of would may be
explained by the fact that it occupies a weak position on the scale of epistemic modality.
However, it does nuance the import of a proposition by significantly lowering the degree of
certainty. Therefore, the deletion of this modal will seriously distort the intended message, as can
be witnessed in the Arabic rendition of Malcolm's statement below:
Though all things foul would wear the brows of the grace, yet grace must still look so. (p. 221
/ Malcolm to Macduff)
.
[Though the foul things wear the brows of grace, yet grace remains intact and does not
change]
Unjustifiably, the Arabic translation changes the weak degree of epistemic modality introduced
by would into factuality introduced by the Simple Present form (tatalabbasu ' wear') instead
of the nuanced (qad tatalabbasu ' may wear'), thus marring the modality in the text. The
modal would in this context allows some room for the non-realization of the proposition in
unspecified circumstances, meaning that there might be a situation where 'some foul things do not
wear the brows of grace'. A logical reason for such a thing to happen would be that such foul
things have grown so powerful and influential that they fear nothing and no one. Consequently
they do not need to wear the brows of grace because grace would become what they say or do.
Below is a suggested translation where the modality of would, as well as the modality of must
(which is not the study item here) is captured:
.
[Though the foul things may wear the brows of grace, yet grace must remain preserve itself[
A simple comparison between Khafajis rendition and the one suggested here can clearly show
the translation loss caused by rendering English modal verbs by zero equivalents.
4.5 can
The modal verb can shows the same frequency as would in the play (20 occurences) and lags only
by one instance in the number of zero equivalents (6/39). This modal is often ambiguous between
a deontic ability/permission reading and an epistemic possibility reading in which the context
plays a key role in preferring one reading to the other. Arabic also manifests the same kind of
ambiguity in the use of the modal verbs yumkinu and, to a lesser extent, yastatii u 'can/may' and
their kin modal expressions. In negative sentences, both English and Arabic employ can and
yumkinu respectively to indicate prohibition (deontic modality) and impossibility (epistemic
modality). Thus, the nuances added to the import of propositions by this modal should be
maintained in translation. Witness how the nuance of impossibility introduced by the modal can
in Macduff's utterance is erroneously disposed of in the Arabic translation below:

68

Not in the legions of horrid hell can come a devil more damn'd in evils to top Macbeth.
( p.223)
.
[Not in the legions of horrid hell exists a devil damned in evils more than
Macbeth]

*
*

While Macduff conveys the message that the state of affairs in his utterance is impossible to take
place, the Arabic translation neutralizes the message by asserting that the state of affairs simply
does not exist. In this way, the Arabic rendering dampens the argumentative tone in Macduff's
utterance as a result of deleting the modal can. To capture the proper tone, the translator should
relay the modality in the ST, as can be seen in the renderings below:
.
.

Both renderings can be back-translated as [Not even in the legions of horrid hell can appear a
devil that surpasses Macbeth in his evils]. This back-translation reflects the modality-nuanced
tone in the ST, which is completely missed in Khaffajs translation above.
4.6 will
The modal verb will is comparable to shall in its epistemic strength. It occurs 14 times in the play
and receives zero equivalents only in two cases, in which the Present Simple form or the Present
Participle form is employed. Both forms can functionally replace this modal with a negligible
difference in the degree of epistemic modality. Following is an illustrative example:
What will you do? (p. 115 / Malcolm to Donalbain)

[What you doing?]
The use of the present participle form faa ilun ' doing' nearly captures the use of will in the
ST's utterance, which alternatively translates into maaaa sa-taf alu ' What will you do?'
Both renderings capture the intended meaning of the utterance. In this way, will (just like shall)
may be replaced with other forms (i.e. the present simple and the present participle) that exhibit a
slightly higher degree of epistemic modality.
4.7 could and might
The modals could and might have 9 and 4 occurrences respectively in the play and both undergo
deletion two times. In the subjunctive mood, could usually carries a combination of ability and
possibility reading, whereas might normally takes a possibility reading alone. Both modals
significantly shade the propositions in which they are employed, each in its own way, and,
therefore, should be rendered in Arabic translation. The following extract instantiates both
modals, which receive zero equivalents in the Arabic rendering:
69

 if the assassination could trammel up the consequence, and catch with his surcease success;
that this blow might be the be-all and end-all here (p. 67 / monologue by Macbeth)
...
[ if the assassination was trammeling up the consequence, and reap with his
surcease success; and if this blow is the be-all and the end-all here]
It is unfortunate that the ability/possibility reading of could in the English conditional clause is
lost in the Arabic rendering. Therefore, the hypothetical condition is rendered as a real condition
in Arabic, thus allowing room for its realization in the future, which can be back-translated as 'If
the assassination trammels up the consequence'. To capture the hypothetical condition, the modal
could should rendered in Arabic as: ... . Notably, the Arabic modal
encapsulates a combination of ability and possibility reading just like the English modal could.
For its turn, might in the above extract carries a possibility reading which is completely lost in the
Arabic translation; it has been changed into a factuality reading, thus moving from slight
possibility to complete certainty. The nuance introduced by might can be captured by a variety of
Arabic modal expressions, as can be seen below, among others:

The availability of a host of Arabic modal expressions that can relay the slight possibility in the
English segment leaves no reason for the translator to render it by zero equivalent whereby the
degree of epistemic modality is seriously distorted.
Interestingly, the modal may, the twin member of might, which occurs 7 times more than might
(i.e. 11 occurrences) in the play does not receive any zero equivalents. It could be that the
translator felt that the epistemic degree of may is higher than that of might, hence it must be
preserved in Arabic. While it is true that the location of might is lower than that of may on the
epistemic English scale, this does not justify the deletion of might in Arabic. As a matter of fact,
Arabic does not distinguish between may and might in translation: they both indicate slight
possibility.
5. Conclusion
Despite the fact that Arabic modality is not as grammaticalized as English modality, Arabic
proves to possess a myriad of modal expressions which enhance stylistic variation in translating
from English into Arabic. This fact, however, is of minimal value if the translator fails to
properly understand the modal system of English and the fine distinctions that each modal
displays in context. The data analyzed in this study shows clearly how damaging the nuances of
English modality can be when the translator fails to capture them in Arabic translation. In this
way, the zero equivalent strategy, which is employed in 39 instances (23.5%) in the play, proves
70

seriously inadequate in most cases when put under close scrutiny. The only exceptions are the
epistemic English modals will and shall, which may be replaced by the Arabic Present Simple or
Present Participleforms without affecting modalistic realities.

71

Semantic/Syntactic Hurdles in Machine

and Student Translation
Mohammed Farghal & Adnan Gergeos
Abstract
The present article addresses itself to some subtle English syntactic features that present
formidable problems to both Machine Translation (MT) and Student Translation (ST)
into Arabic. First, it deals with the recognition of variation in parts of speech, showing
that polysemous and/or homonymous syntactic categories may cause serious
interpretation problems to both machine and student translators. Next, structural
ambiguity at phrase and sentence level is shown to create interpretation difficulties in
translation activity. Third, parenthetical structures in English sentences are argued to
trigger reference and focus mishaps in MT and ST alike. Finally, the paper offers ample
evidence from MT and ST indicating that word order variation affecting the basic English
word order SVO may cause fatal damage to both machine and student translators. In
particular, marked stylistic inversion and subject deletion prove problematic in this
respect.
1. Introduction
Despite the tremendous progress that has been made in the field of Machine Translation (MT), or
what is commercially known now as Translation Software (TS), in the past 50 years or so, human
aid by professional translators is still required to post-edit and revise poor quality outputs of MT
texts that are not suitable for publication (Meijer 1993, Feder 2003). It is well known that
computer-aided systems of translation cannot aspire to gain authenticity and universal
acceptability without the help of professional human translators (Hutchins 2001); hence the initial
skepticism and fear of MT replacing and discarding human translators is by far a mere illusion.
With the-state-of-the-art technology and progress made in the domain of information and
computer sciences, it has become a necessity to make use of the available tools to save time and
cost by utilizing MT to produce draft assimilated compatible versions of the original texts in the
Source Language (SL) that still need the expertise of the human translator to revise and make
them ready for publication.

This paper doesn't aim to analyze or evaluate the mechanisms and shortcomings of the existing
systems of MT; neither does it try to find answers and solutions to the difficulties faced by such
computer-aided systems of translation. Rather, it aims to survey and show the semantic/syntactic
complexities and subtleties of natural language that may obstruct the perfection of advanced
systems of MT and hinder the performance of student translators trying to find their way into the
profession of translation. Therefore, wherever possible, a comparison is made between the
73

machines output and the student translators output in English into Arabic translation. The
corpus in this study is drawn from MT outputs of some Internet online services that provide
immediate translations of miscellaneous short sentences and texts (e.g. www.ajeeb.com,
www.akuwait.net), and authentic translations made by senior Arab students in the College of
Languages and Translation at King Saud University and the Department of English at Kuwait
University.
Despite the fact that computer-aided systems of translation may be able to implement tools to
handle difficulties related to compounding, idiomatic expressions and metaphors by treating them
as fixed units (Hutchins 1991), some syntactic features are still causing interpretation problems
for computers and student translators alike (Lewis 1997). It is interesting to note that the
capability of MT can be compared to the developing translational competence of student
translators. It will be shown that subtle syntactic knowledge involving parts of speech,
structurally ambiguous phrases and sentences, parenthetical structures and word order variation
can pose serious problems to both MT and student translators.

2. Parts of Speech
The successful identification of parts of speech (i.e. N, V, Adj, Adv, etc.) in English discourse is
an important aspect of reading comprehension, which is a pre-requisite for professional
translation activity. Conversion, which is a highly productive word formation process in English,
doesnt involve the introduction of affixes when changing the part of speech of a word, e.g. dirty
(adj) and dirty (V), call (V) and call (N), etc. The recognition of the part of speech in English
discourse, which is dependent on the accompanying co-text and context, proves impenetrable to
MT and some student translators. Consider the example in (1) below, along with its MT in (2) and
student translation (ST) in (3):

(1) And H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations,
ambitions and sense of humor.
(2
( 3 ) H
.

. )

As can be seen, both renditions fail to recognize the correct part of speech of the word covers and,
as a result, give an inaccurate translation. The confusion comes from the fact that the word covers
can potentially function as a plural noun or as a verb in the present tense form. However, the
syntax of the sentence in (1) makes it clear that covers is used as a verb rather than a noun.
Syntactically, there should not have been any sort of confusion since the conjunction and
precedes the word covers, giving rise to the paralleled coordinated verbs H represents and
covers. It should be noted that while the ST adopts an erroneous linear/literal rendition of the
74

phrase covers self-esteem, the MT takes the second item as the head noun, hence the
impossibility of the MT rendition of the said phrase. This may point to a serious need to sensitize
MT systems to the iaafah construction in Arabic whereby the impossible MT rendition above
would be replaced with a possible, though erroneous, rendition, viz. .

The failure to identify the correct part of speech resulting from conversion as in (1) above may be
further complicated by the existence of English homonyms, which are identical word forms that
do not relate to each other in meaning. The following example in (4), taken from a newspaper
political article, along with its identical MT and ST in (5), bears witness to this:
(4) Much lies behind those words.
(5.

On the one hand, the word lies may function as a verb and a noun (which mean not to tell the
truth and the plural noun of lie, respectively), just like covers in example (1) above. However,
both interpretations are irrelevant in example (4). On the other hand, the relevant interpretation
stems from a homonym of both forms, viz. lies, meaning is found, which comes from a
completely different semantic field. Clearly, this further complicates the task of MT and ST,
which were entangled within one of the irrelevant interpretations, being insensitive to the syntax
of the sentence. The syntax of (4) calls for three consecutive steps on the part of the interpreter,
whether it is a machine or a human analyzer. First, the sentence should be broken down into a
Subject and a Predicate. Second, the analyzer should be aware of selectional restrictions rules
which require a non-count noun after the quantifier much in order to rule out the interpretation
of lies as a noun. Finally, the verb (head) in the predicate should be assigned the correct sense,
i.e. is found. It should be noted that human professional translators have managed to automate
such conscious syntactic knowledge in translation activity. However, much work is still needed in
both MT and ST in this area.

Further, problems may arise within the same part of speech rather than across parts of speech as
in the examples above. For example, capitalization, which is an important layout feature in
English, may neutralize the difference between a proper name (which is always written with a
capital initial regardless of its position in a sentence) and a common noun (which can be written
with a capital initial only at the beginning of a sentence). The example in (6), along with its MT
and ST in (7) and (8), illustrates this point:

(6) Bush fires raging around the Australian capital Canberra have killed three people
and destroyed hundreds of suburban homes.
(7
.
75

(8

As can be noted, the coincidence between the common noun bush with a capital initial at the
beginning of the sentence and the popular proper name Bush (the present President of the United
States) creates serious confusion for both the machine and student translators. Both MT and ST in
(7) and (8) above base their translations on an irrelevant interpretation of the noun Bush, being
misguided by the capital letter in the noun. The MT output, accepting things at face value
regardless of congruence with world knowledge, suffers solely from that fatal decision. The ST
output, however, runs into more serious problems as a result of rejecting a literal rendition of the
lexeme fires in combination with the erroneously selected proper name interpretation because of
its clear oddness insofar as world knowledge is concerned. Consequently, the student translator
creatively improvises a far-fetched, though sensical, metaphorical interpretation of the lexeme
fires, something which is, apparently, inaccessible to the machine translator. Interestingly, when
given the sentence with an initial small letter of the noun bush, the machine produced a fine
output as shown in (9) below:
(9
.

3. Structural Ambiguity
Structural ambiguity manifests itself at both phrase and sentence levels in natural language. At the
phrase level, noun compounds in English may contain head nouns modified by other nouns
functioning as quasi-adjectives. Problems may arise from the lack of explicit markers of such
relationships, because in many other languages like Arabic these relationships are usually
expressed by case endings or prepositions. For example, in the English sequence adjective-nounnoun in (10), the adjective can modify either the first noun (11) or the second noun (12).

(10) New computer software

(11) [ [New computer] [software] ] (i.e. software for a new computer)
(12) [New [computer software]] (i.e. new software for a computer)

In languages which are highly inflectional like Arabic, such phrases are usually not ambiguous
because they are often clearly marked for number and gender as follows:

(13) baraamija

aasuub-in

jadiid-in
76

software-f-pl computer-m-sg-gen new-m-sg-gen

"Software for a new computer"
aasub-in

(14) baraamija
software-f-pl

jadiid-at-in

computer-m-sg-gen new-f-pl-gen

"New software for computers"

As can be seen, the gender agreement on the Arabic adjective disambiguates the phrase above by
indicating gender agreement with either the singular noun or the plural noun, hence the two
readings.

Another ambiguity-creating sequence in English is the phrase featuring Adjective-nounconjunction-noun, e.g. tall boys and girls. Although it is possible to resolve certain ambiguities
in the SL by semantic features and roles as well as syntactic information, some cases still require
the knowledge about the things and events being referred to. The context and our knowledge of
the world around us are extremely important tools for the translator that may help clarify certain
rather ambiguous situations. Predictably, basic world knowledge proves accessible to student
translators but opaque to machine translators. The example in (15), along with its MT and ST in
(16) and (17), illustrates this point:

(15) Pregnant women and men (of course only women can be pregnant)
(16)
(17)

However, lack of more sophisticated world knowledge and insensitivity to the context may cause
some student translators to produce far-fetched, even ridiculous, translations, as can be illustrated
in (18), along with its ST in (19) below:
(18) The Occupied West Bank
(19)
In a passage talking about Palestinians and their occupied lands, the denotation of the phrase in
(18) above should be crystal clear. Lacking appropriate interlingual socio-political world
knowledge in the said context, however, these student translators fell victim to fatal translational
mishaps.

77

At the sentence level, it is a well-known fact in modern linguistic theory that grammaticality is
never determined by meaning, yet meaning is highly dependent on grammar. Translation, be it an
art, a skill or a science, is mainly concerned with the process of transferring relevant meaning
(Gutt 1996; Farghal 2004) from a SL into a Target Language (TL). Aside from the mastery of the
two languages involved in the process of translation, prior syntactic knowledge constitutes an
essential element. Although a given context may illustrate the required meaning, it may, however,
fall short of explaining certain types of ambiguity which need a great deal of experience in
translation activity.

Structural ambiguity at the sentence level is not always captured by machine and student
translators. In many cases, polysemous and/or homonymous words enter into ambiguous syntactic
relations in sentences, as can be illustrated (20) below:
(20) We can fish.
Both student and machine translators managed to offer a translation congruent with the more
common reading of the sentence, i.e. We can go fishing rather than the less common
interpretation, i.e. We put fish in cans.

However, MT as well as many student translators could not cope with the relevant interpretation
when the sentence was disambiguated, as can be illustrated in (21) below, along with the elicited
translation in (22):

(21) We can fish in a small factory.

. ) 22(
Despite the fact that the co-text in the sentence in (21) rules out the interpretation We can go
fishing, the MT and many student translators were not able to grasp the difference between can
as a modal verb, and can as a lexical verb; hence the wrong translation.

Syntactically, the source of ambiguity in (20) can be schematized in (23) and (24) below
(Georges & Barakat 2000):

(23)

We

can

fish

Modal V

Lexical V

can

fish

Lexical V

NP

(24) We
S

78

These two different structural representations give rise to two different semantic interpretations as
well. In (23) can (a modal auxiliary verb) and the lexical verb fish form the combination meaning
the ability to go fishing, whereas in (24) can is a transitive lexical verb that subcategorizes a
direct object fish, hence the meaning putting fish in tins or cans. Despite the fact that fish in
both interpretations occupies the same structural position after can, yet it is part of the verbal slot
in (23) and outside the verbal slot in (24), occupying the nominal object position. This clearly
shows that words occupying similar structural positions do not necessarily have the same
grammatical functions. This example indicates that it is in fact possible for homonyms to be
disambiguated by syntactic analysis, i.e. without using any semantic information.

Apart from structural ambiguity proper, syntactic operations may render sentences opaque to both
machine and student translators. Consider the syntactic operation affecting the English
collocation pay a visit in (25) below, which proved problematic for MT (26) and many student
translators (27) and (28):

(25) This came during a field visit paid by Sheikh Mohammed to the General
directorate for patrols and the General Security Sector
(26) ...
(27)

...

(28)...

However, when an active voice sentence (29) involving the same collocation was administered to
the machine and student translators, the output was correct, as can be seen in (30) below:
(29) He paid a visit to his neighbors.
( 30.)
Apparently, the syntactic operations of passivization and relative clause reduction in (25) are to
blame for the erroneous renditions in (26)-(28) rather than the collocation pay a visit itself, as (29)
and (30) clearly show. Once again, syntax interferes with the interpretation of semantic units that
are otherwise straightforwardly understood.

4. Parenthetical Structures

79

The corpus shows that reference interpretation in sentences including parenthetical structures may
be problematic to both MT and some student translators. The example in (31) gives rise to
misinterpreting reference relating to a non-defining adjective phrase relating to the subject of the
main clause, as is clear in the sample translation (32):
(31) Al Saqqaf, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Yemen Times, which is seen as
vanguard of press freedom in the country

(32...

the

,)) (

As can be seen, the relative pronoun which is mistakenly interpreted as referring back to the
antecedent Al-Saqqaf, which lies outside the parenthetical phrase, instead of the correct
antecedent Yemen Times, which is found within the parenthetical phrase. Also, this reflects lack
of semantic knowledge on the part of machine and some student translators that the relative
pronoun which can only refer to inanimate referents such as Yemen Times.

Further confusion may be induced by the erroneous use of the subject of the parenthetical phrase
as the subject of the main clause in both MT and ST. Consider the MT in (34) and the STs in (35)
and (36) of the sentence in (33) below:

(33) The tea, first discovered in China 5000 years ago, has long been thought to be
beneficial to health.
, 1666 , )
(34.
(35. 1666
(36. 1666

Other things being equal, both the MT and the sample STs above twist the focus in the packaging
of information by using the non-finite verb in the subordinate phrase, i.e. discovered as the verb
of the main clause instead of the correct verb has been thought. These examples show clearly
that both MT and ST still need further work in the area of subordinated structures.

Before closing this section, below is an example in (37), along with its MT in (38) and a sample
ST in (39), which shows that subordinate clauses may cause wrong gender agreement in MT, but
not in ST:

80

(37) The baby's father, she said, would soon travel to Brazil to offer scientists proof
that the baby's DNA was identical to that of a deceased sibling.
(38 .. , ,)
.

(39 ) " "

.
Because of the intervening clause, there was a gender agreement or concord mismatch between
the subject and the verb of the main clause in the MT in (38). Being transparent to native speakers
of Arabic, however, gender agreement was not affected by the parenthetical clause in the ST in
(39).

5. Word Order
English is mostly a configurational language in which the position of the constituent mainly
indicates the grammatical function; hence the major claim by Transformational Grammar that
functional labels such as Subject, Predicate, Direct Object, etc. are effectively derivable from
categorial labels such as NP, VP, PP, etc. (Chomsky 1965 and his subsequent works). Therefore,
any change in the English basic word order, i.e. SVO is the result of transformations that belong
to the transformational component which supplements the base component in generating English
grammatical sentences. Among these transformations, inversion constitutes one of the more
common syntactic operations in English. On the one hand, inversion is highly standardized and
straightforward in Yes/No questions and Wh-questions; hence it poses no challenge to MT and
ST. On the other hand, inversion applies less frequently in stylistically marked constructions
including conditionals and negative expressions, and consequently creates serious challenges to
MT and ST alike. Similarly, informal subject deletion in declaratives and initial gerundive and
participial phrases may create serious interpretation problems in both MT and ST.

First, Type II and Type III English conditional sentences may stylistically delete the conditional
marker if and, as a result, Subject-Auxiliary Inversion (SAI) obligatorily applies. This syntactic
operation confuses both MT and ST, as can be illustrated in (40) and (42), along with their MT in
(41) and ST in (43), below:

(40) Had it not been too late, I would have accompanied you.
(41. )
(42) Had the president known this, he wouldn't have given them the permission to do
81

so.
(43.)

As can be seen in (41) and (43), the if-deletion and the subsequent SAI confused the machine as
well as some student translators, resulting in nonsensical renditions of the first part of the
conditional sentences.

Predictably, conditional sentences with the ordinary word order created less serious problems to
the machine and student translators. By way of illustration, consider the MT rendering in (45) of
the conditional sentence in (44) below:

(44) If he had known this in advance, Kofi Anan wouldn't have agreed to send the fact
finding team to Jenin camp.
(45. )

Although the MT translation in (45) suffers many grammatical and lexical errors, it can be readily
edited into an acceptable Arabic translation, as the rendition makes it clear that the SL text is a
conditional sentence. By contrast, it would be so difficult for the editor to figure out that the
translations in (41) and (43) above are conditional sentences. As is clear, the cause is the
inversion in (44).

Second, sentence initial negative expressions obligatorily trigger SAI. This contrasts with the
unmarked position of negative expressions which are attracted by the auxiliary verb in the SVO
word order. The MT rendering in (46) of the sentence in (44) is only illustrative:

(46) No longer able to sustain her story, she admitted owning two more buildings in working
class districts of the capital, acquired over a lifetime of begging in the streets.
47)
.

Other things being equal, the gender agreement confusion at the beginning of the Arabic
translation is an immediate consequence of the sentence initial negative expression in (46). That
82

is, the negative expression no longer able to is not marked for gender in English the way the noun
phrase her story is, later on in the fronted adverbial phrase no longer able to sustain her story.
As for the erroneous inversion performed by MT in (47), it may have to do with the presence of
the non-finite subordinate clause. This may explain why MT does not operate inversion in (41)
above where a finite subordinate clause is employed. However, inversion proves fatal to MT in
both cases.

Third, sentence initial gerundive and participial phrases can cause problems to both MT and ST.
The following participial phrase in (48), along with its ST in (49) and MT in (50), bears witness
to that:

(48) Given their supernatural powers, it is not surprising that jewels have deep
religious significance in India.
(49. )
(50. , )

Both the ST and MT above misinterpreted the cataphor their by failing to cater for correct gender
agreement with the referent in the main clause, i.e. jewels. Even worse, the ST, having committed
the said mistake, fell victim to another interpretation problem whereby gender agreement is
erroneously created in the main clause, i.e. on the basis of the misinterpretation of their
in the sentence initial participial phrase, thus offering a worse interpretation than the MT.
Apparently, the ST was sensitive to congruence in gender agreement in the participial phrase and
the main clause, whereas MT was not. This may be explained by the fact that humans can
backtrack and subsequently interpret forthcoming segments relevantly, while machines can do
things consecutively with little or no backtracking taking place in interpreting pronominals in
discourse, hence the incongruence between in the participial phrase and in the
main clause in (50).

Further, it should be noted that anaphoric reference is more natural and common than cataphoric
reference in Arabic discourse. As a result, it would be a good idea to instruct both MT and ST to
change cataphoric reference to anaphoric reference when translating from English into Arabic.
This discoursal mismatch may have caused some, if not most, of the confusion in the reference
interpretation in (49) and (50) above.

83

Finally, informal subject deletion in English declaratives/interrogatives may bewilder both

machine and some student translators. The example in (51), along with its MT in (52) and some
sample STs in (53), (54) and (55), illustrates this:

(51) Sounds complicated? Actually, it isn't as difficult as it may seem.

(52.
(53.

) ( )

(54. )
(55.

Ignoring the second part in the text above, the deletion of the dummy subject it in the declarative
Yes/NO question rendered it incomprehensible to the machine as well as the student translators.
Looking at the poor quality of the translations in (52)-(55), the drastic change in the word order
seems fatal. In the case of MT, the machine should be made aware of subjectless
declaratives/interrogatives, in addition to the familiar imperatives. As for student translators, their
trainers should bring to their attention such marginal structures that can be optimally natural in
conversational English. Such informal features, it should be noted, are more relevant to
interpreting than translating.

6. Conclusion
This paper has addressed itself to some syntactic areas with which MT and ST may experience
difficulties. It has been shown that polysemous and/or homonymous parts of speech, structural
ambiguity at phrase and sentence level, reference interpretation in parenthetical structures and
word order variation may cause serious translation mishaps in MT and ST alike. In many cases,
these problems produce incomprehensible renditions where heavy post-editing is needed.

An important finding of this study is the striking similarity between the syntactic errors committed
by the machine and student translators. Apparently, both groups seriously lack sufficient syntactic
knowledge relevant to syntactic operations which affect unmarked constructions in English, thus
rendering them stylistically marked and, consequently, impenetrable to the interim translational
competence in MT and ST. Whereas future technological development induced by human
intervention is expected, in theory at least, to remedy the MT deficiencies in this regard, translator
trainers should shoulder the responsibility of bringing such syntactic subtleties to the
consciousness of their student translators.

84

Finally, this study may offer us some insights into the modes of human reasoning and mechanical
(machine) reasoning in translation activity. On the one hand, subtle syntactic processes proved
fatal to both MT and ST. On the other hand, student translators demonstrated an awareness of
basic grammatical and world knowledge such as gender concord and primitive coherence which
proved opaque to machine translators. Apparently, the human brains ability to backtrack opens
some reasoning avenues that are not yet available to MT. Therefore, any genuine development in
future MT must take this important mismatch into consideration.

Translational Miscues in
Modern Arabic Verse

Mohammed Farghal & Rula Naji

Abstract
This paper addresses itself to the notion of miscue from a translational perspective. In particular,
it constitutes a case study dealing with miscues in translating Modern Arabic Poetry into English.
It is argued that oral reading miscues during the decoding process in translation manifest
85

themselves in written traces which may be called translational miscues. In effect, the paper
systematically demonstrates that translational miscues may occur at the phonological,
morphological, syntactic, and semantic levels, giving ample examples from the translation of
Arabic poetic discourse into English. Throughout, it is emphasized that poetic discourse may fall
victim to translational miscues, which may twist, or even cripple, the cognitive structures
communicated by poets. This being the case, the translators ability to establish an informed and
intimate rapport with the poem s/he is translating remains the sole possible guarantee for genuine
translatability.

1. Concept of Miscue
Historically, the term miscue was first employed by Goodman (1962) where he develops a
system for comparing expected oral reading responses with observed oral reading responses. His
system is concerned with meaning and how it changes when miscues occur both at the word and
sentence levels. To show the importance of miscues, he argues that the written language becomes
parallel to the oral language in a literate society. To him, reading (the process through which
miscues occur) is a psycholinguistic process involving the use of language in its written form to
get to meaning, which may be twisted by misreading a word or a sentence.

Subsequent work has focused on the interaction between different cue systems in the reading
process (i.e. phonetic, graphic, syntactic, and semantic systems). Chafe (1970) views the
reconstruction of meaning as the function of all these systems together, arguing that attempts to
separate them are merely a linguistic tradition. Similarly, Burke (1976) explains that it is
impossible to deal with any of these systems without addressing the others since they are
interrelated. For his part, Sims (1976) states that substitutions, insertions, omissions, or reversals,
which cause the most frequent miscues, may occur at the sound, morpheme, word, phrase, and
clause levels, arguing that (p.49) In order to gain a fuller understanding of the reading process
and of the miscue phenomena, one must examine miscues, not simply as changes involving
individual words, but as phenomena which occur in a total language context (cf. Montoro 1976).

Also, there has been emphasis in the existing miscue research on the interaction between the
reader and the text. Rousch (1976) argues that words in the reading process possess a semantic
relationship in the mind of the reader in a way such that he will anticipate the forthcoming word
from the previous one, with the possibility that the reader may come up with a substitution that
has no semantic relationship with the expected response. He concludes that (p.55) The
preservation of meaning through restructuring plus substitutions that vary from zero to close
semantic relationship with the original reflects a strong awareness of meaning without close
attention to individual words. Along the same lines, Page (1976) considers reading as a process
in which the reader attempts to reconstruct the authors meaning. According to him, meaning in
the context of miscue analysis is treated as analogy, or the relationship between the readers idea
86

and what the idea represents, emphasizing the interrelation between meaning and knowledge
during the comprehension process. Finally, Durkin (1978) considers any deviation from what is
printed as a miscue because deviation alters the meaning of words and sentences. She divides
miscues into four types: substituting one word for another, inserting a word, omitting a word, and
inability to identify a word.

2. Translational Miscues
Translating involves many types of problems, some of which relate to reading, which is,
according to Encarta 97 Encyclopedia, An activity characterized by the translation of symbols or
letters into words and sentences that have meaning to the individual. Therefore, the ultimate goal
of reading is to be able to understand written material, to evaluate it, and to use it for ones own
needs. Translational miscues may be viewed as the written traces of what is assumed to have been
oral miscues during the reading process. They may be phonological, morphological, syntactic, or
semantic. It should be noted that the area of translational miscues is still virgin ground as the
existing miscue literature is dedicated to examining miscues in terms of education rather than in
terms of translation. This paper, therefore, is meant to bridge this gap by systematically
presenting a translational account of miscues, which are posited to form a subcategory of
translational mistakes (i.e. mistranslations) and a completely different category from translational
errors (Pym 1992: 178-9).

The question that poses itself now is: How do translational miscues form a special subcategory of
translational mistakes? To answer this query, one must look for a procedural distinction. On the
one hand, translational mistakes result from conscious decision-making while the translator is not
aware of the fact that s/he is committing a mistake. Translational miscues, on the other hand, are
due to an accidental and/or subconscious phenomenon that involves minimal decision-making
while the translator is not aware of the fact that s/he is committing a miscue. In this way, a
translational miscue must be based on a mistaken oral response during the decoding process in
reading, while a translational mistake may result from a host of other factors such as deficiency in
language competence and inability to grasp a proposition.

Translational miscues may occur both at the word and the phrase/clause levels. At the word level,
they may result from misreading one letter or more in a word, or from misassigning phoneticallyunrealized vowels within a word, or from calling up a sense of the word that is incongruent with
the context in question. The situation at the phrase/clause level is similar as miscues may bring
about serious distortions of the meaning by assigning erroneous grammatical relations which are
usually signified by phonetically-unrealized case markers in Arabic or by invoking irrelevant
composite senses of phrases/clauses.

87

The present study addresses itself to translational miscues in modern Arabic verse, namely in a
collection of poems entitled Victims of a Map, which consists of a select group of poems by three
renowned contemporary Arab poets, viz. M. Darwish, S. Al-Qasim, and A. Adonis as translated
into English by Abdullah Al-Udhari (1984). While translational miscues may turn out to pertain
to translating from Arabic into other languages in general as Arabic is highly rich in phoneticallyunrealized voweling and/or case-assignment and an elaborate network of lexical ambiguity
(among other sense relations), the translating task will even be more complex and challenging
when it comes to modern Arabic poetry. Ismail (1967: 174) has the following to say about this
complexity: [our translation of quotations below]
The orientation of the neo-poetic movement experience deals with
language in a special and innovative way.

Such a creative use of language in modern Arabic verse is expected to furnish rich soil for
translational miscues. In this spirit, Pickering and Hoeper (1982: 570) write that No word in
great poetry can be moved or replaced without harming or changing the whole and that (p. 568)
This careful use of language [in poetry] is the most significant difference between ordinary prose
and poetry.

Moreover, modern poetry is viewed as a new experience. The modern poem, argues Adonis
(1978), is a case rather than a mere group of words and meanings. Similarly, Lewis (1969: 113)
contends that The modern poet then is faced with a difficulty of communication as great in its
way as the difficulty presented by his subject matter. Thus, unlike non-poetic discourse, the
importance of Manner may greatly exceed the importance of Matter in verse. To this effect,
Boutlon (1977: 152) writes:
Poetry is made of words and obviously, the choice of words is important
in poetry; indeed, in a sense it is the whole art of writing poetry.

3. Phonological Miscues
Sims (1976: 46) defines submorphemic (i.e. phonological) miscues as those which involve
changes of one or two phoneme sequences within a word. The reader may substitute one vowel
sound for another, e.g. care for car and gave for give, or one phoneme sequence for another, e.g.
kisser for killer, or omit or add a sound, e.g. right for bright and see for seed, or make a reversal
of the phonemes, e.g. skate for steak and kiss for sick.

This type of miscues is very common in reading Arabic, especially in vowels where we have long
and short vowels enjoying a wide distribution. Consequently, we find a large number of words
featuring the same radicals but different vowels. For instance, the word ilm means patience,
88

forbearance, discernment, and gentleness, while the word ulm means, a dream. It should be
noted that such vowel differences are mostly unrealized phonetically and if they are phonetically
realized, they will be superscripted or subscripted depending on the intended lexical meaning.
Vowel miscues may seriously distort the intended meaning in the translation of verse as can be
illustrated by the following example taken from Adoniss poem Psalm, along with its
English translation:
.

.

He comes unarmed like a forest, like a destined cloud.

Yesterday he carried a continent and changed the
position of the sea.

He paints the back of day and creates daylight out of

his feet, borrows the nights shoes and waits for
what will not come.

He lives where the stone becomes a lake, the shadow a

city - he lives and fools despair, wiping out the
vastness of hope, dancing for the soil so it can yawn,
for the trees so they can sleep.

And here he is speaking of crossroads, drawing the

magic sign on the forehead of time.

89

In this poem, Adonis intratextually (for more on inter-, intra-, and contratextuality, see Martin
1985, Lemke 1985, and Hatim 1997a) creates a vivid image where his subject performs
extraordinary actions, viz. carrying a continent, painting the back of day, creating daylight
out of his feet, fooling despair and wiping out the vastness of hope, among others. This
intratextual weaving of the image culminates in his subjects drawing the sign of daybreak on
the forehead of time, thus intertextually establishing an oft-cited association between a physical
phenomenon (daybreak) and a spiritual phenomenon (hope), which, together, function as a
declaration of freedom in the Palestinian context. Being unaware of this poetic discourse, the
translator fell victim to a phonological miscue (substituting [i] for [a] whereby he misread the key
word [ al-sa ar] daybreak as [ al-sir] magic, and subsequently missed the intended
meaning altogether in his translation.

Sometimes, the phonological miscue constitutes the replacement of a consonant with another, as
can be illustrated by the following stanza from Adoniss poem A Song, along with its
English translation:

Who will give me

and sandalwood,

piece

of

paper

Adorn it with dots like a brides make-up, polish it,

Bless it with the Korans praise of the Madonna,
Shake my roots of longing and dreams over it
And send it to the loved ones,
Full like an apple,
Fine and green like Khadirs colt.

90

to

wrap

incense

In this stanza, the translator fell victim to a phonological miscue by replacing the pharyngeal
consonant [c] with [r], thus translating juuuc branches as juuur roots, and consequently
disrupted the coherence of the poetic discourse, which is established through intertextualizing
with the highly celebrated Quranic verse in which Allah asks Maryam [Virgin Mary] to shake the
branch of the palm tree in order to get fresh dates, viz.
(Maryam: 25). Not only did the translator obliterate this intertextual web, but he also failed to
furnish coherence in the poetic discourse as, in the most creative poetic context, one cannot
imagine the shaking of roots over something, for roots are not to be shaken and if ever they were,
the possibility of shaking them over something else is eliminated due to their being located
underground and/or deep inside.

The same phonological miscue occurs in Al-Udharis translation of the following stanza from
Darwishs poem We Travel Like Other People, where a metaphor that is developed
intratextually is disrupted:
.

.
:
.

We travel like other people, but we return to nowhere. As if travelling

Is the way of the clouds. We have buried our loved ones in the
darkness of the clouds, between the roots of the trees.
And we said to our wives: go on giving birth to people like us
for hundreds of years so we can complete this journey
To the hour of a country, to a metre of the impossible.

It should be noted that the poet in the above stanza wants to communicate the message that the
action at hand is not an ordinary burial in that the loved ones are not buried underground (i.e.
between the roots of trees) but rather in the darkness of clouds and between the branches of trees.
This creative poetic metaphor is designed to show that formal attributes of human activities may
not signify their authentic nature, e.g. travelling as a human activity would be genuine only and
only if the traveler would return to a free homeland, which does not obtain in the Palestinian
context, to which the poet is schematically making reference. In effect, it is the intratextual
twinning of the out-of-the-ordinary poetic image and the socio-cultural realities of the
91

communicative context that brings meaningfulness to the above text. This being the case, the
translational miscue in this poem amounts to offering a fleshless skeleton insofar as poetic
discourse is concerned.

Our last example of phonological miscues comes from Adoniss poem (

)3582 The Desert (The Diary of Beirut Under Siege, 1982) and involves the
substitution of the glottal stop [] in al-amal hope for the [r] in al-raml sand, as can be
illustrated below:

.
Trees bow to say goodbye
Flowers open, glow, lower their leaves to say goodbye,
Roads like pauses between the breathing and the words say goodbye,
A body wears hope, falls in a wilderness to say goodbye,
The papers that love ink,
The alphabet, the poets say goodbye,
And the poem says goodbye.

The stanza above demonstrates the poets deep pessimism by making everything bid farewell as if
an imminent, overall disaster were to take place. In such an atmosphere, there is no room for
hope, viz. A body wears [wearing] hope, which can only be an indication of a vision of life,
despite the fact that the original phrase, viz. A body wearing sand can only be an indication of
death. This being the case, the phonological miscue inadvertently replaces a thought-world of
death with a thought-world of hope.

92

4. Morphological Miscues
The morphological miscues discussed in this section belong exclusively to inflectional
morphology. It should be noted that inflectional morphemes may constitute an integral part of
poetic discourse in that they may be thematically employed to communicate ideological moves.
Consequently, the translator of verse must be aware of the nuances of meaning deployed by such
grammatical elements. To get started, let us examine two translational miscues relating to
singularity vs. plurality in poetic discourse. The following extract is taken from Darwishs poem
If I were to Start All Over Again.

:
.

If I were to start all over again Id choose what I had chosen: the roses on
the fence.
Id travel again on the road which may or may not lead to Cordova.
Id hang my shadow on two rocks for the fugitive birds to build a nest on
my shadows branch,

As can be seen, the translator inadvertently rendered the plural the roads as the singular
the road and consequently caused serious damage to the poetic discourse. That is, by
speaking about many roads, the poet intends to communicate the message that he has many
options where some lead to Cordova and some do not. In contrast, by restricting this state of
affairs to one road, the translator obliterates the proposition of choice and, as a consequence,
distorts the conveyed meaning.

Later on in the same poem, Al-Udhari had another translational miscue by rendering the singular
my rose and my step as the plural my roses and my steps, respectively, as can
be seen below:

.
I will return if I have to return to my roses, to my steps,

93

But I will never go back to Cordova.

It is unfortunate that the translator erased the symbolism embodied in the uniqueness of the
signifieds which the poet deploys, viz. my rose and my step by translating them
into my roses and my steps, respectively. It should be clear that the poet is making reference to
unique entities, that is, my rose to symbolize his occupied homeland (Palestine) and my step
to symbolize his infancy, but the translation, sadly, betrays the poetic discourse by dispensing
with the encapsulated intimacy and uniqueness, thus reducing the symbolism to mere reference to
ordinary belongings.

Another area for morphological miscues is possessive markers in poetic discourse as can be
illustrated by the following example from Darwishs poem
A Gentle Rain
in a Distant Autumn):
A gentle rain in a distant autumn

And the birds are blue, are blue,

..

And the earth is a feast.

The birds have flown to a time which will not

return.

Youd like to know my country?

And whats between us?

My country is the joy of being in chains,

A kiss sent in the post.

All I want

From the country which slaughtered me

Is my mothers handkerchief

..

And reasons for a new death.

The translational miscue in the above stanza impersonalizes a personal entity, viz. my kiss
is rendered as a kiss and consequently marginalizes the poets intimacy to his homeland, for
the poet is identifying occupied Palestine with his own kiss rather than with a kiss understood
generically.

94

Further, Arabic comparative and superlative forms may constitute a major area for translational
miscues. The following poem ( The Golden Age) by Adonis is an illustrative
example:
Take him away, Officer ...

"... " -

Sir, I know the gallows

Are waiting for me

But Im only a poet worshipping my fire

"-

And I love Golgotha.

."

Take him away, Officer!

Tell him: The Officers boot

Is handsomer than your face.

" -

."

Age of the golden boot

You are the handsomest and most expensive.

The translator, being insensitive to the significance of comparative and superlative forms in
poetic discourse, relayed the comparative more expensive as the superlative most
expensive and the comparative handsomer as the superlative handsomest. Notably, the
poets diction is based on a comparison of two items and should not be construed in an absolute
sense or as relative to choice among a multiplicity of items. Therefore, the translators option for
the superlative instead of the comparative forms amounts to a major distortion of the message,
that is, the juxtaposition of power (i.e. the golden shoes representing the occupiers) with
weakness (i.e. the poets folks under occupation) is completely erased in the translation.

An equally interesting translational miscue relating to comparatives and superlatives comes from
the translation of Al-Qasims poem End of a Discussion with a Jailer as can
be shown below:

From the window of my small cell

I can see trees smiling at me,

95

Roofs filled with my people,

Windows weeping and praying for me.

From the window of my small cell

I can see your large cell.

Most importantly, the poets use of the superlative forms and must be construed in
an absolute rather than relative sense if it were to communicate the schema the poet is working
with. The translator, however, inadvertently relayed the superlative forms in question into
gradable adjectives, viz. small and large, respectively. As a result, the translators option
distorts the poetic thought-world by interpreting these superlative forms, which are supposed to
be taken in an absolute sense, i.e., micro-cell and macro-cell respectively, in a relative sense.
The movement from ungradability to gradability, i.e., micro- and macro- vs. small and
large cripples the poetic discourse encapsulated in the symbolism of the poem, that is, the
macro-cell represents the entire occupied homeland (Palestine). In effect, the poetic schema
takes a concrete entity (the macro-cell) as a point of departure for initiating a symbolic entity
(occupied Palestine). Unfortunately, this area of cognitive correspondence between the two
entities is lost altogether in the translation above.

5. Syntactic Miscues
Translational miscues in the area of syntax manifest themselves at the phrase and clause levels.
At the phrase level, miscues in poetic discourse relate mainly to the Arabic phrase called
Construction of Addition, which is sometimes interpreted inadvertently as adjectival
rather than additive by translators. Following are illustrative examples from Darwishs poem
When the Martyrs Go to Sleep.

:

.

When the martyrs go to sleep I wake up to guard them against

professional mourners.
96

I say to them: I hope you wake in a country with clouds and trees, mirage
and water.
I congratulate them on their safety from the incredible event, from the
surplus-value of the slaughter.
I steal time so they can snatch me from time. Are we all martyrs?

The translator, who was miscued by the Construction of Addition, rendered lovers of
mourning as professional [amateur] mourners. It should be noted that while both renditions in
English may carry the intended pejorative nuances, only the rendition taking the Arabic phrase as
a Construction of Addition proper may refer to all categories of mourners (i.e. professional,
amateur, or otherwise). As a matter of fact, the poet intends to harshly criticize those writers
whose tacit profession is to compose insincere elegies upon the falling of Palestinian martyrs in
the occupied Arab land. Similarly, the translator was miscued by the phrase ( a
Construction of Addition) in the above extract by translating it as the incredible event instead of
the event of the incredible. This miscue twists the reference from the incredible as an event (by
way of metaphor) to the event that took place though it was thought to be incredible, thus
mitigating the mood of melancholy and despair cast by the original phrase.

At the clause level, translational miscues may involve tense and voice, among other grammatical
categories. Following is an extract from Darwishs poem Is it in Such a Song?,
whose English translation features a syntactic miscue relating to tense:

.. ..

. ..

What does life say to Mahmud Darwish? You have lived, loved and those
you loved are dead?
Is it in such a song we cushion a dream, hold a victory sign and the key to
the last door
So as to shut this song from us? But we will live because life goes on.

97

It is clear that the replacement of the future verb form ( you) will love with the past verb
form you loved in the translation has erased the paradox intended by the poet, that is, all those
you will love are dead, which is meant to convey the totality of loss, inclusive of the future.
Notably, the paradoxical inclusion of the future in the past is an integral part of the poetic
discourse, but is, unfortunately, completely missing in the translation.

The translator may sometimes fail to assign the correct voice, as can be illustrated by the
translation of the following extract from Adoniss poem (
)3582 The Desert (The Diary of Beirut under Siege, 1982):

A star was drowned in blood,

The blood a boy was talking about

And whispering to his friends:

Only some holes known as stars

Remain in the sky.

...

The syntactic miscue above involves the rendering of an active verb form drowned [sank]
as a passive verb form was drowned [was sunk], thus initiating the counterintuitive poetic
metaphor A star was sunk in blood instead of the creative poetic metaphor A star sank in
blood. As a matter of fact, the poet, on the tongue of a child, is establishing cognitive
correspondence between the massive killing of civilians and the disappearance of stars, i.e. hope.
It should be noted that the translator committed a translational mistake in addition to this
translational miscue as he erroneously used the English verb drown instead of the correct
English verb sink in his translation.

6. Semantic Miscues
Semantic miscues occur both at the word and clause/sentence levels. In either case, a semantic
miscue involves the translators assignment of a contextually incongruent but a lexically related
sense or proposition. Contexts (both linguistic and physical, Yule, 1985) play a vital role in the
assignment of meaning through an indispensable interrelation between linguistic meaning and
world knowledge (Page, 1985). However, abstract paradigmatic lexical relations may sometimes
intervene during the process of translation such that syntagmatic and/or semiotic lexical relations
are disrupted - a situation which gives rise to a semantic miscue. Following is a semantic miscue
at the word level in the translation of the first stanza of Darwishs poem The
Wandering Guitar Player:
98

He was a painter

But pictures

Usually
Dont open doors

Nor break them

..

Nor turn the fish away from the face of the moon.

The words whale and fish are hyponyms since both are sea creatures belonging to
the class of fish, yet they stand for referents that carry different associations in Arabic, viz. the
whale is associated with monstrosity, while the fish is invariably associated with positive
connotations. The translator, being unaware of this important distinction, was miscued into
rendering as the fish instead of the whale, thus obscuring and distorting the poetic
discourse, as pictures [paintings] cannot combat monstrosity (i.e. occupation). It should be noted
that the moon in this poem is a symbol of freedom for the Palestinians living under the yoke of
occupation, while the whale is a symbol standing for the occupiers. It seems the poet is
communicating the message that it is not by painting and the like, but by getting up in arms that
Palestinians can restore their occupied homeland.

Sometimes, semantic miscues at the word level may relate to collocational meaning rather than
lexical sense proper, as can be illustrated by the closing stanza of Adoniss poem The
New Noah:

We have an appointment with death,

We have become familiar with our shores of despair,

We have grown to accept its frozen sea with iron water,

And we sail through it to its end.

We carry on moving and never listen to that God,

We long for a new god.

The translator, being insensitive to collocational meaning, was miscued into rendering as
iron water, which may not make sense in English at all, instead of the potential English
collocation numbing water, which captures the intended meaning. As a result, this semantic
99

miscue disrupts the poetic coherence of the text, leaving the target reader confused as to what
iron water signifies.

In some cases, semantic miscues may stem from dialectal differences in the lexicon, as can be
demonstrated by the following stanza from Adoniss poem (
)3582 The Desert (The Diary of Beirut under Siege, 1982):

You will see

Say his name

Say I painted his face

Stretch your hand to him

Or walk like any man

Or smile

Or say I was once sad

You will see

There is no homeland ...

...

As can be seen, the translator was miscued into relaying as man, which is a sense specific
to Egyptian colloquial Arabic, instead of pedestrian, which is the sense in Standard Arabic. In
fact, the poet is conveying the message that there are many ways to affiliate with a homeland, one
of which is to walk [to it] like any other pedestrian. Consequently, the rendition of as
man distorts the poetic discourse as it is not only men who affiliate with the homeland, but also
women and children. However, the search for a homeland, Adonis argues, is a futile enterprise
because there is no homeland in the first place.

Let us now turn to some examples featuring semantic miscues at clause/sentence level rather than
at word level. Following is an example from Darwishs poem Athens Airport, where
the presence of an ambiguous clause miscued the translator:

An employee said: Where can I invest my money?

100

An intellectual said: Your money and mine?

Clearly, the translator misinterpreted the expression by translating it into Your money
and mine, when it actually means This is none of my business! Not only was the translator
insensitive to the poetic context where his generic referents expounded differing points of view
toward Palestinian socio-cultural realities, but he was also unaware of the poetic utilization of two
different varieties of Arabic: Standard Arabic vs. Colloquial Arabic. The translator, not being
cognizant of this symbolic poetic shift in style, viz. the abrupt employment of colloquial instead
of standard Arabic, committed a semantic miscue, and consequently missed the point altogether.
It should be noted that the poet invests two discourses or thought-worlds, i.e., the one of the
Employee, which is predominated by material interests, and the one of the Intellectual, which is
supposed to be free of such interests. It is unfortunate that the translation fuses the two polar
discourses into one by equating the Employee with the Intellectual in terms of interests. This
being the case, the poets schema, which can be argued to be deeply rooted in the Palestinian
socio-cultural reality in particular and the Arab one in general, is absolutely incongruent with that
of the translator. However, it is needless to say that the poetic pun, which is doomed in
translation, adds to the aesthetic value of the text in Arabic.

Another semantic miscue at the sentence level occurs in the translation of Darwishs poem
We are Entitled to Love Autumn, as can be illustrated below:

:

.
. .

We are entitled to love the end of this autumn and ask:

Is there room for another autumn in the field to rest our bodies like
coal?
An autumn lowering its leaves like gold. I wish we were fig leaves, I wish
we were an abandoned plant.
To witness the change of the seasons. I wish we didnt say goodbye to the
south of the eye so as to ask what

101

Our fathers had asked when they flew on the tip of the spear. Poetry and
Gods name will be merciful to us.

By examining the translation closely, one can see how the translator was miscued into relaying
the sentence

as involving a purpose relationship

rather than a circumstantial relationship. It should be noted that the autumn is employed as a
symbol of death with leaves falling all over, saving no room even for a new death. Therefore, the
sentence above may be relayed as Is there any room for a new autumn with us resting our bodies
in it like coal?, where the question is rhetorical in nature. However, this rhetorical question is
rendered erroneously in the translation above such that it is still begging an answer.

Our last example of semantic miscues at the sentence level is drawn from the translation of
Darwishs poem
A Gentle Rain in a Distant Autumn, as can be shown
below:

A gentle rain in a distant autumn

And the birds are blue, are blue,

..

And the earth is a feast.

Dont say I wish I was a cloud over an airport.

All I want

From my country which fell out of the window of a

train

Is my mothers handkerchief

And reasons for a new death.

As can be noted, the rendition of the sentence Dont say I wish I was a
cloud over an airport is semantically miscued, as there is no indication of wishing to be a cloud,
which is a negative symbol in this poem, on the part of Darwishs subject. This sentence, in fact,
is merely a request by the poet of his subject not to say that ;she is only a cloud over the airport',
thus unjustifiably belittling herself, for he will be asking for nothing but his mothers
handkerchief and reasons for a new death, which is not asking for too much. However, the
translation does not communicate such a message; on the contrary, it causes a breakdown in the
coherence of the poem by bringing in a wish that is completely incongruent with the subsequent
modest demands.
102

7. Conclusion
The present study constitutes a contribution to miscue analysis, which is originally a readingbased orientation, from a translational perspective. It has been shown that the discussion of
translational miscues, which are argued to be the printed traces of oral miscues in reading, gives
an insight into the nature of translational problems in general and miscued translational responses
in particular. Thus, an elaborate examination of translational miscues in Modern Arabic Verse as
exemplified by three celebrity Arab poets (M. Darwish, S. Al-Qasim, and A. Adonis) has been
followed. Throughout, it has been pointed out that poetic discourse may be seriously twisted or
even be crippled by the translators falling victim to phonological, morphological, syntactic, or
semantic miscues. That is, if the translator is miscued during the process of translating, s/he may
end up presenting a thought-world that markedly conflicts with the one communicated by the
poet. To minimize miscues, therefore, the poetry translator needs to first establish a cognitive
rapport with the text; as such a thing would be the only guarantee for capturing schemata as they
manifest themselves in creative poetic discourse.

103

Audience Awareness and Role of Translator

Mohammad Farghal & Abdullah Shakir

Abstract
The paper demonstrates that the translator needs to be aware of the culture-bound norms of
expression in the TL if s/he is to offer a translation which is accepatable to target readers. By
employing an Arabic political editorial translated into English by MA translation students, it
shows that English native speaker informants are readily cognizant of deviations from TL
textual norms. Such deviations appear to mar the translation product in terms of micro- and
macro-features. Hence, student translators need to be alerted to features such as lexical
appropriateness, tone of presentation, and content organization when engaging in translation
activity.

1. Introduction
Texts manifesting culture-bound features of expression tend to pose communicative problems
to both the translator and the recipient of the target language (TL). The recipient approaches
104

the translated version of the source text (ST) with background knowledge and longestablished conventions of expression and processing most often dissimilar to those of
the original ST recipient. When the ST is translated into another language, the TL
recipient evaluates and sometimes modifies the in-coming message within a frame of
reference in which his cognitive knowledge structures and convention-based nouns of
address play a determining role. Thus, processing the content of the translated text
tends to be contingent upon the recipient's ability to glean the message and
appropriate it. Komissarov (1987) argues that this can best be achieved if the cognitive
knowledge extracted from the TL text coincides with that of the SL text producer. This implies
that processing the content of the TL text can be subjective in a number of ways, and that
since the recipient is not a passive reader, the power of the text is not invariant and,
therefore, the 'truth' of the content is not 'enshrined' (Rayor 1987).
An SL text is normally addressed to an audience who, presumably, share with the text
producer his/her cognitive knowledge structures, cultural values, and conventions of address.
Contextual elements, which shape the message at both its micro - and macro -levels, are
usually catered for in such conventions. The text, according to this view, complies
with norms of rhetorical logic of address (Kaplan 1982) shaped by the culture in
which it has developed. Among the contextual elements that determine the degree of
processiblity, naturalness, and acceptability of address are the 'who' (recipient), the 'what'
(the socio - linguistic occasion), and the 'how' (the style of address favored by the TL
recipient). Consequently, it is not uncommon for a literal translation of an SL text to be
rejected by the TL discourse community (Swales 1990) as being incongruent with their long established forms and strategies of address. One, in this case, can speak of communicative
failure wherein the translator fails to realize translation equivalence (1E) in its multidimensional
sense (cf. Saedi 1992).
2. The Present Study
This study aims to investigate the role of the TL audience in determining the communicative
acceptability of a translated version of an SL text. The investigation will be informed by the
audience's interaction with and reaction to the predications manifested in the surface
structure of the TL version of the text. Addressing the above notion will, inevitably lead us to
look into other relevant notions, particularly the notion of the Equivalent Effect Principle,
(Cauer 1896 and Koller 1978 cited in Newmark 1981) to see what or who determines
the equivalence sought by the translator.

The notion of audience and its role as a determinant of interlingual acceptability has
been emphasized by translation theorists, e.g. Nida (1964), de Ward and Nida (1986), Jackobson
(1957), Wilss (1982), Sa'deddin (1987). The essence of the notion is that translators (like
successful writers) address, on behalf of the SL writer, TL recipients whose beliefs, traits,
attitudes and modes of thinking need to be taken into account when translating. The
105

translator, according to this view, assumes the role of a mediator who first explores the SL
text for elements which may handicap accessibility of the message and therefore may
interfere with positive interaction on part of the TL audience.

The consideration of the TL audience emanates from the translators awareness that the
TL reader/recipient is not a passive target. Viewing the TL recipient as a passive target is, in
fact, an oversimplification of both the translating and reading processes. Both the translator
and the TL audience are engaged in a text -negotiating process (Hatim 1985),
especially when the SL text incorporates culture - specific features. The TL audience
processes the verbal input and transforms it into conceptual codes that can be integrated,
modified, or totally rejected as being deviant from acceptable norms of address.
Taking the TL text as the medium of interlingual communication, the translator gets engaged in a
'decentering' process ( K r o l l 1 9 8 4 ) w h e r e i n a n e f f o r t i s ma d e t o e l i mi n a t e t h e
'egocentricisms' of the SL text that may impede communication. In so doing, the translator
attempts to make the text 'efficient' (effort -saving for the TL audience) and 'effective'
(achieving sought results) (de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981). However, such a role is often
constrained by considerations related to the degree of freedom that the translator can enjoy, and
the bi- polarity of semantic as opposed to communicative or functional translation (Newmark
1981).
Egocentricisms of SL texts crop up at two levels: the micro level (mainly lexis) and the macro
level (content organization). At the micro level, egocentricism may unfold in lexical items
blending into their sense components experiences unexchangeable in a given
sociolinguistic event. To minimize such egocentricisms and divergent experiences,
translators need to establish "... equivalence in the experiences of the participants (de
Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216). To realize this, translators may expand, reduce, or
modify textual components. In a similar argument, Geertz (1973) describes the translator as
an 'ethnographer': he is the locus of contact between two cultures where each is equipped with
its own linguistic, literary, and rhetorical techniques of articulating a message.
Experiences are encoded in the memory of the SL writer and are, revealed in the surface structure of
the text. Their decoding by the TL recipient hinges upon their availability to him. When the
translator (informed by his analysis of both the SL text and the TL audience) perceives such
experiences as opaque to TL audience, the translation process takes on the role of an
approximation process whereby gaps are bridged. Rendering a replica of the SL text may,
then, lead to pragmatic failure and communication breakdown.

2.1 Material
This paper is based on translated versions of an Arabic recommendation letter (See
Appendix 2). Thirteen MA translation students translated the letter into English. Their
106

translations were then given to eight native speakers of English doing advanced Arabic
courses at Yarmouk University, Jordan. These courses include three translation courses from
and into Arabic. The eight native speakers were asked to read the translations and record their
comments, notes, and suggestions as regards the style in which the letter in its TL version
was written. Their comments were collected, analyzed, and categorized under the

following headings:
1. semantic load of lexical expressions
2. tone of presentation
3. content organization

Under the 'semantic load of lexical expressions' and 'tone of presentation', the
following comments were noted:
a. unduly intimate expressions
b. awkward in this context
c. hyperbolous
d. exaggerative
e. inappropriate in this kind of text
f. more of a personal letter than a recommendation letter
g. more persuasive than descriptive or reporting
h. looks like a recording of an argument between writer and reader
Under content organization, the following general comments were received:
1. text lacks focus
2. confusing ordering of sentences
3. awkward structure
4. sentences too long
5. difficult to follow the thread of thoughts
2.2 Analysis

Before dealing with the analysis, we wish to make it clear that the present text (the
recommendation letter) was not selected as representative of Arabic style of
writing recommendation letters. Rather, it is introduced here as a text incorporating
stylistic features likely to pose translating problems at both the micro- and macrolevels. The argument and discussion, therefore, are generalizable only to texts
manifesting comparable features.
2 .2.1 Lexical Expressions

Lexical items play a key role in conveying attitudes, dispositions, emotions, and beliefs.
As content bearers, they play a significant role in the present study. They project at
the forefront of the discourse as spots of attraction and audience-enchanting
elements. However, the force inherent in them in their SL version seems to have
failed to elicit the intended response (i.e. appreciation) when transferred into TL
equivalents. Some key lexical items were unanimously rejected as being awkward,
contextually dissonant, and unduly hyperbolous. To illustrate, the following lexical
expressions were literally translated in the thirteen TL texts and were marked as
107

awkward by the TL group:

- tilmiiii wa-bnii [my pupil and my son]
- a-aalib-u-l-c aziiz [the dear student]
- risaalah aaqqah [arduous mission]
- yanhau bi-haa [undertake it (with utmost courage and forebearance)]
- siwa-r-rijaal [except those men]
- laa yuaqqu la-hu ubaar [his dust cannot be penetrated]
The above lexical expressions lend themselves to two semantic categories:

a. unduly intimate
b. hyperbolous
'ibnii (my son) and al- c aziiz (the dear) fall into category (a), i.e. unduly intimate
expressions. The two items are not, however, uncommon in teacher -student discourse.
Teachers in Arab culture tend to look on their students as 'sons'. But in recommendation letters,
such an intimate and personal tone tends to give way to a more distanced and neutralized
descriptive tone wherein the recommended academic or professional achievements, traits, and
potentials for future research are described. The 'I-You' or 'I-He' relationship (Moffette 1968)
is not unusual in recommendation letters, but its occurrence is entailed by discoursal
necessities, viz. mention of the 'participants' (Grimes 1976) in the text. Matters relating to
the personal relationship between the writer of the letter and his/her student (e.g. he was/ is as
dear as my son) are usually of no significance to the party to whom the letter is addressed.
Category (b) of the lexical items in this text incorporates into their semantic make-up elements of
exaggeration (when viewed within the contextual frame of the text and its text type) and a flavor
of Classical Arabic where chivalric decorative style was a characterizing feature. Such a style
was marked by proclivity for exaggeration, metaphoric expression, fondness of sonorous and
penetrating lexical items, and a clear inclination for grandiloquence. Such stylistic features were
used (and to some extent are still in use) to hold sway over the audience. Though pleasing in
chivalric prose and poetry, such features would sound rather dissonant to most educated
Arab readers when they occur in a text of a function similar to the one we are dealing with.
They would sound as empty expressions void of convincing power.
In order to indentify the senses each of the target lexical items invokes in the SL (Arabic in
this case), we will provide below componential analysis of each.
risaalah [mission/message]
+ religious association
+ arduous effort
+ endurance
108

+ devotion to a cause
+ counter resistance
yanhau bi-haa [undertake it (with utmost courage
and forbearance)]
+ acceptance of challenge
+ acceptance of responsibility
+ serious enterprise
+ voluntary undertaking

ar-rijaal [the men]

+ strong masculinity + courage
+ sturdiness
+ allegiance to a cause
+ chivalric traits
laa yuaqqu la-hu ubaar [his dust cannot be penetrated]
+ extreme (physical) effort
+ excellence
+ competitiveness
+ championship
+ extreme speed
+ chivalric traits
A look at the analysis shows how the above lexical items are overloaded with senses usually
uninvokable in this verbal event. A recommendation letter does not absorb all those exalting, luring,
and hyperbolous senses. When these SL items were rendered literally in the TL, they were
rejected as being dissonant, resonant and transgressive. Rejection of the literal renderings of the
above items indicates that the translating process in the case of this text (and perhaps other
comparable ones) is regarded as a process of mediation and subsequently communication
rather than as a process of 'sensu stricto' and subsequently cultural accommodation. The
translator needs to take into account that realizing the Equivalent Effect Principle (Nida 1964) in
the TL can be unachievable, and that a process of approximation (Holes 1984) ought to be sought
in this case. In such a process, two contextual elements play an informative role; these are:

a. anticipating the TL audience's response to the senses conveyed

b. the text type of the translated material.

109

Attention in such a process should be given not only to problems of language codification (e.g.
lexicalizing of the SL vocabulary items), but also to problems emanating from cultural
divergences and modes of thinking and address relevant to the SL and TL texts.

Further, the translator should be aware of the fact that text type lies at the core of the
translating process. Consequently, the translator's option for one type of equivalence rather
than another is constrained by the type of the text, among other things. The text we have in this
study is in principle meant to pass on information about a student by his professor in the form of a
recommendation letter, hence its being a blend of exposition and instruction. Armed with this
awareness, the translator needs to relay the message independently of form in order to
approximate the effect, thus adopting Functional Equivalence (Kachru 1984 and De Waard & Nida
1986) or Textual Equivalence (Catford 1965), or at least Ideational Equivalence (Farghal 1994)
rather than opting for Literal/Formal equivalence blindly. The inevitable tug of war between
Form and Function in the translating process should always be informed by text type, that
is, in a reader-centered text, priority should be given to function, whereas in an author-or
text-centered text, priority ought to be given to form at the risk of sounding awkward and/or
unnatural.

2.2.2 The macro-structure of the text

Our central aim here is to identify those textual features responsible for promoting or
impeding sense-continuity in the text as viewed by the TL audience. In other words, we are
concerned with how content is mapped onto the text. The way it is mapped activates in the
TL audience (and the SL audience) text-experiential strategies which function as a frame of
reference for judging the communicative acceptability of the SL text (and the TL version).

An audience processing strategies of a given text type are governed largely by those
previously activated in processing texts of comparable function. Part of the experience of the
TL audience is their experience of strategies (linguistic and non-linguistic) employed to
produce such a text (see Kress 1982 for more details). Thus, one could argue, in the case of
conflicting strategies of text production and text processing - both being nurtured over centuries
of practice - interaction is expected to be crippled, or at best, impeded.

A look at the comments provided by the group of native speakers of English (see section
2.1.) shows that 'lack of focus' in the text can be attributed to the 'confusing organization of
content' and 'the awkward structure of the text'. In order to see how the SL text is organized and
how that reflects upon the TL versions advanced by the student translators, we will have a
quick survey of its macro-components (see Appendix 1).

The text begins with an evaluative and affective sentence which expands to incorporate three
clauses with referential items (the recurrent definite article 'al' and the pronoun allaii (which)
which unduly assume shared knowledge with the reader who still doesn't know what
almasra (the theater) refers to, nor is he informed of how this masra is 'extremely
110

lacking in theoretical studies based on practical experience'. The second sentence is

obtrusive in its tone as indicated by the sentence initiator wa-aalika ma (and that was
what ...), which is an emphatic and concluding Arabic instrument. Its obtrusiveness derives
from the function it performs in the discoursal environment it normally exists in. Often, it
comes as a concluding and assertive statement in a tension-laden argument.

The third sentence is also an evaluative and obtrusive statement, passing judgmental views on behalf
of the reader, and leaving him with no chance to evaluate or appreciate the 'student's effort'.
The fourth sentence reveals a tone similar to that in the previous sentences. In addition to its
obtrusive and assertive tone, the sentence suffers two referential ambiguities signaled by the
reference markers wahwa (and it is) in clause (a), and allatii (which) in clause (b). The
reader is provided with little clue as to what these two elements refer to in the text.

In response to the comments we received in section 2.1., the content of the SL text was
reorganized and sentences were broken down into smaller and manageable units. (see Appendix
3). The new SL version, together with the old one, was shown to three professors of Arabic. The
new version was judged as 'more compact', 'more acceptable', 'more coherent', and 'more
representative' of an Arabic recommendation letter than the old version. The new version
was then translated (see Appendix 4) by one of the present researchers and shown to the same
group of native speakers of English. Their comments stressed that the TL text now 'sounds much
more English ' than the versions they read previously.

The main macro features of the new SL version relate to the reorganization of the content.
The first sentence sets the scene, providing background information that identifies the
relationship between the participants (teacher and student), together with the occasion that
prompted the verbal event (a recommendation letter by a supervisor of an MA thesis). The second
sentence, being contextualized by the first one, offers an assessment of the student's work and
provides more context to the information introduced in sentence 1 as regards the student's
subject of study. The third and fourth sentences substantiate the assessment set forth in
sentence 2. The fifth sentence plays down the assertive and obtrusive tone of the one in the old
version (sentence 3). The concluding and assertive tone has been mitigated by subordinating the
predication of the statement through introducing it as shared and given information marked by the
subordinator ca1a-r-rami min (although), thus giving prominence to the student's 'academic
achievement' and his research abilities. Sentences 6 and 7, being warranted by the preceding
ones, fit very well into the hierarchic structure of the text by introducing the writer's conclusion and
recommendations (for the modifications at the micro level, see the section below).

3. Conclusions and Implications

111

A close look at the modified version of the SL text shows that drastic changes have been made
to its topographical structure and mode. The text was negotiated, but with an obvious 'bias'
toward the TL audience. Two terms of reference informed the modification: the first was the
views and comments of the group of native speakers of English, and the views and
comments of the three professors of Arabic who read the original SL version. The second was
the assumption that the translator is not a machine translator; rather, he/she assumes the role
of reader and writer who is well aware of the TL audience culture, modes of thinking and
conventions of expression. The translator, in light of the role he/she is entrusted with, can
remap the SL text to fit it into the TL audience formal and content schemata (for more details,
see Carrell 1982 and Farghal & Shakir 1992).

Remapping the content of the SL text entailed changes at both the micro- and macrolevels. At the micro level, metaphoric, hyperbolous and grandiloquent expressions were
played down, and the emotive charge was dwindled. Some constituents were even deleted
e.g. 'ibinii [my son], al- c aziiz [the dear], and urriftu [I was honored, as being awkward
in this context of situation. At the macro-level, the text underwent a process of constituent
transposing wherein sentences shifted positions and made up new paragraphs which emerged
as a result of restructuring the content.

A couple of points emerge from the discussion:

1. It is important for translator trainers to import to their students that translating is a process
that is promoted not only by the translator's linguistic knowledge, but also by his
knowledge of the TL culture, the audience modes of thinking, and the rhetorical and
social function of the text. Experiential matching should be considered, and factors
leading to acceptability or rejection of the translated version need to be monitored and
taken into account

2. A pre-translating phase should be stressed, and student translators need to be engaged in

an exploratory process wherein matters related to the function of the text (i.e. its
text type) and the relationship between the writer's choice of lexical items in the SL text
and their convincing power when rendered in the TL need to be carefully studied, making
decisions informed by the translator's knowledge of the TL cultural conventions and modes
of expression. In this spirit, practical translation courses need to be founded on a solid
base of socio-linguistics, discourse analysis, and text linguistics.

112

Appendix 1
)(The SL Text

-----------
. -----------
( )
.
----------- ---------
- ------------ .
----------
.

Appendix 2
)(A sample of the student translations of the SL text

A Certificate of Merit
With all the best, I would like to mention the efforts of my student and son in t h e f i e l d o f
t h e a t e r a n d it s co n n ec t i o n w i t h s c i e nc e i n t h e interest of drama especially acting
which lacks a great deal of theorization connected with practical expression in the area of
creativity. That was what the dear student achieved as he mastered the movements
of acting and scripting in Jordan (historically, professionally, artfully, and theoretically) in a
methodological attempt to enlarge the circle of drama by means of science. This is in fact an
arduous mission which only matchless and unparalleled men can a c co mp l is h . This in
reality has been performed b y t hro u gh perseverance and analytical mentality, persistence and
113

great achievement in the two branches of theater in University -------------- and University -------------- b o t h i n his undergraduate studies and in his preparation of his M.A. degree. In fact it
was a real honor for me to supervise him and enjoy his performance which was mostly
analytical and sometimes descriptive. This is a matter which is worth the concern of the
officials of the college of Education and Fine Arts in
University by motivating and
urging him to complete his studies whose benefits will be achieved in five years.
Appendix 3
(The modified SL version)

-----------
.
.

. .

. ---------- ---------

----------
. . -----------

Appendix 4
(A translation of the modified SL version)
I have supervised Mr. X's thesis which he submitted for the M.A. degree in Theater and I have
been aware of his approach which is basically analytical, though descriptive at times. In this
context, I would like to highly commend his endeavors in the field of Theater to put
theatrical technology to the service of theatrical arts in Jordan.
Mr. X has demonstrated in-depth knowledge of the historical, professional, and theoretical
aspects of the movement of acting, as well as the movements of directing and scripting in Jordan.
Equipped with this knowledge, he attempted in a systematic approach to expand the sphere of
theatrical art by making use of relevant technologies. Though a hard enterprise undertaken only
by those who are well-qualified, his efforts proved to be a real success - thanks to his
perseverance a n d analytical approach during his study at University -------------- and -----------University.
On the basis of my knowledge of his efforts in the field of Theater, especially in Acting
which is lacking in theoretical studies based on practical and creative experience, I believe that
114

Mr. X should receive due attention from the academics in the Faculty of Education and Fine Arts
at University -------------. I also believe that he should be encouraged to pursue his studies
which, I am sure, will yield fruitful results in the near future.

Reader Responses in Quran Translation:

The Case of Referential Gaps
Mohammed Farghal & Mohammed Al-Masri

Abstract
This article deals with reader responses to select translations of Quranic verses that involve
referential gaps. Based on the results obtained from two types of questionnaire (an open form and
a closed form), the study shows that referential gaps may cause serious problems to native
speakers of English when they interpret Quranic messages in translation. Further, open form
questionnaires prove to be more indicative of readers' comprehension of Quranic translation than
their closed counterparts because participants, as this study substantiates, may overestimate their
understanding of Quranic messages when responding to closed form questionnaires.
1. Background
There seems to be a consensus that translation leaves the door wide open to gain and loss in
communication. The fact that we need to translate is in itself the proof that different language
communities possess different cultural repertoires and, consequently, there is an inevitable
possibility that cultural elements are changed in translation. However, the potential for a
communicative gain or loss is not only present interlingually but also intralingually. We are
unlikely ever to find two individuals having absolutely the same experience of any event or
action. Thus, absolute communication remains a desideratum (cf. OShea, 1996:238). De Waard
& Nida (1986:42) maintain that translation loss is due to the fact that sources and receptors
never have identical linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Catford (1965:94) links the possibility
115

of untranslatability to the circumstance when it is impossible to build functionally relevant

features of the situation into the contextual meaning of the TL text. He thus places paramount
importance on the pursuit of a functional equivalent for a suitable rendition of the SL message.
However, one should not overlook the possibility that the pursuit of a functional equivalent,
independent of other factors, the most important of which is the faithfulness to the SL message,
does not significantly add to the SL message but it only employs a target language equivalent of
something which is found in the source language context.
Nida (1994:148) points out that although it is unlikely that there may be untranslatable
languages, it is not unlikely that in certain languages there are idols of words as well as idols of
wood, and he adds that the translating of religious texts can be a good testing ground for the
limits of translatability. We have to tolerate some inevitable loss, especially in religious texts,
but this should not discourage translators from searching for strategies that make translation
possible; at worst, they may resort to footnoting.
This article discusses the degree of similarity in the responses of source language and target text
readers. Since the former is taken for granted, the latter assumes maximal importance, as target
language readers response will be important for deciding whether a translation is successful or
not. That is to say, by studying the target language recipients responses, a given translation can
be validated. Theoretically, a translation can be successful or valid when it is likely to bring about
on the TL receiver effects similar, to a reasonable degree, if it has an effect on the recipient
similar to that the source language text had on the source language recipients. Nida and Taber
(1982:1) believe that correctness must be determined by the extent to which the average reader
for which a translation is intended will be likely to understand it correctly. Most translations
should target the average reader and the understanding of the texts should be basically tested by
means of responses from average readers.
This orientation implies that recipients are not passive targets, as some terminology would
suggest; their role is integral to the whole process (cf. Waard de & Nida, 1986:33). It also argues
that translators have to be sensitive to readers response, which, in turn, concerns their ability or
readiness to translate. Translators, especially those who deal with culture-specific texts, must
have enough intellectual capacity to overcome the chasms of languages and cultures. In order to
enable people to comprehend the message, translators should be able to draw aside the curtains
of linguistic and cultural differences (de Waard de & Nida (1986:14).
Another important factor is the translators attitudes towards the message communicated. All
translators would agree on the importance of rendering the SL message faithfully, but most may
not be able to do this successfully. The translators own interpretation, for example, should not
affect his rendition adversely. The fact that the original text may lead to different interpretations
allows for what Farghal (1993:262) calls extrinsic managing, i.e. managing which serves the
intentions of the translator rather than those of the original author (For more on this, see Shunnaq
1994; Farghal 2010, 2012). Admitting that Difficulties arising out of differences of culture
constitute the most serious problems for translators and have produced the most far-reaching
misunderstandings among readers (cf. Farghal and Borini, this volume), Nida and Reyburn
116

(1981:2) concede that the translators attitude towards the languages involved can, in fact,
dominate over his knowledge of languages and their cultural interpretations because of his
emotional identification with these languages. So, translators need to be sensitized to the crucial
strategies by which the SL texts communicate.
In the case of the Holy Quran, there is a principal trichotomy of loads namely, (a) the didactic
load, (b) the informative/expressive load, and (c) the evaluative load. Thus, a TL rendition should
not inform, for example, when the SL text intends to preach or dictate. This feature imposes a
choice between furnishing translations proper or interpretations, where needed, to provide the
right information to the TL audience. In the Holy Quran, translators will frequently be obliged to
resort to interpretations because of the nature of the text. As far as referential gaps are concerned,
translations are vulnerable and they may jeopardize reasonable comprehension. The verses of the
Holy Quran are woven in intricate and sharp ways. In addition, the presence of culture-specific
terms and images augments the problems.
Translation of religious discourse poses a large number of problems. In particular, religious
discourse often has cultural and linguistic gaps that defy bridging. Religious language deals with
supernatural events that lack finite or solid bases, i.e. they do not refer to any extralinguistic
reality, which is a prerequisite for solid comprehension (Ivir, 1991:53). Consequently, religious
language is subject to different interpretations; this implies that utterances translated today, for
example, may develop new connotations and associations in the SL without influencing TL
renditions. Religious language also reflects transcendental experiences for which ordinary
language seems to be so inadequate (Waard de & Nida, 1986:21). In addition, religious
discourse is timeless, which means that it may gradually come to have new connotations a
situation that gives rise to possible future paradoxes and inconsistencies. De Ward and Nida argue
that religious language generally recognizes the failure of words to communicate truth, since
there is always something unutterable in the words that can be uttered repeatedly. In other
words, religious language often has connotations that can be rendered by specific equivalents at
one time but, as time goes by, these equivalents may fail to render new connotations of the SL
term brought about by, for example, a new exegesis.
2. Referential gaps
Gaps in languages range from discoursal gaps to phonetic gaps. Since languages are different,
there is not necessarily a one-to-one or even a one-to-many correspondence in semantic or
syntactic relations between languages. The relations, as Nida (1994:147) puts it, are always
many-to-many, a fact that opens up for ambiguities, obscurities, and fuzzy boundaries.
Referential gaps are at the heart of such ambiguities. Rabin (1958: 127) defines them as blank
spaces in the field of reference, corresponding to referents outside the ken of the language
community. Dagut (1981: 63) asserts that ... we shall mean [by voids] that there is no single
English [TL] designator which provides the required equivalent encapsulation of the situational
features. In this respect, Ivir (1991:50) explains that these gaps are created by different
extralinguistic realities in different cultures, for instance, when one culture lacks an element
117

which the other culture has. This leads to further gaps in the linguistic mapping of different as
well as similar extralinguistic realities, a fact which makes for conceptual incompatibility
between members of different linguistic communities. Long before Ivir, Catford (1965:94)
distinguished between two types of gaps in respectively linguistic untranslatability and cultural
untranslatability. Dagut (1981:64) regards the former as voids resulting from intralinguistic
factors and the latter as voids resulting from extralinguistic factors.
Along the same lines, Farghal (1995:198) explains that referential gaps are experiential, that is,
they are missing entities in a certain culture, as they enjoy no existence in the language
community in question. Dagut (1981 64) argues convincingly that certain languages are better
equipped with the compressed power of designator than other languages, implying that some
languages have well-defined terms for designating referents that correspond to more than one
term in the TL, that is, a relation of one-to-many. In such instances, translators often resort to
transliteration to overcome the gap, a strategy which, in effect, amounts to a confession that the
gap is untranslatable. In addition, being completely alien to the TL recipients, transliteration
offers no information since the transliterated term is not comprehensible by itself but only by
means of the linguistic and the ideational context. Thus, the communicative value (Saedi,
1990:390) conveyed to the TL recipients is greatly impoverished.
To sum up, competent translators need to realize these dimensions when handling texts with
cultural or linguistic peculiarities. This endeavor is here examined by having TL recipients judge
to what extent the TL text is comprehended. And, consequently, we hope that this article will
shed light on some dimensions in translation in general and Quran translation in particular.
3. Methodology
3.1 Subjects and Corpus
The participants in this study were 43 native speakers of English, 20 of whom responded to
questionnaires in Jordan while on holiday and the rest responded to the questionnaires in the
United States. They represented different age-groups, backgrounds, nationalities and professions
and comprised both men and women. The translation corpus consisted of a total of 16 carefully
selected translations of Quranic verses that were thought to cause some comprehension problems
and were taken from the translations of Ali (1934), Arberry (1980), and Pickthall (1980). All
these verses involve referential gaps (namely 22, partial and complete gaps).

3.2 Procedure
The translations of 16 Quranic verses were set up in two questionnaires. The first questionnaire
(Appendix I) checked the degree of comprehensibility on a scale of 5 levels, ranging from
straightforwardly understood to makes no sense at all. The second questionnaire (Appendix
II) arranged the 16 Quranic verses so that each verse required a different response, which allowed
the participants to use their own words and to express their own attitudes and motives. The study
thus has two dimensions: a receptive tool (the closed form) and a productive one (the open form).
Twenty participants responded to the open form and the twenty others to the closed form. In order
to check the validity of the answers to the closed form, a third group of 3 readers were asked to
118

respond to both questionnaires so that we could compare the same readers response to the closed
form with that to the open form.
3.3 Data Analysis
First, the corpus will be examined in light of the translation strategies adopted in the rendition of
Quranic referential gaps into English (Ivir 1991). Then, the findings of the open form and the
closed form will be presented and compared. Next, the match and mismatch results in the third
group (3 subjects) will be discussed. Finally, the education variable will be examined to see
whether it had any bearing on the results attained by means of the two different types of
questionnaire.
4. Results and Discussion
Table 1 illustrates that the linguistic corpus in the present study bears witness to many different
strategies in the translation of Quranic referential gaps.

Table 1. Distribution of translation strategies in the corpus

Strategy

Frequency

Found in examples

Literal translation

11

2, 3, 4, 11,15, 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28

Definition

5, 14, 17, 18, 19, 25

Substitution

1, 6, 9, 13, 23

Addition + Literal translation

8, 20

Substitution + Addition

12

Definition + Literal translation

29

When we turn to Table 2, which is an overview of comprehension, it becomes obvious that native
speakers of English have problems in comprehending Quranic referential gaps in translation, at
least according to this study. When we exclude the column "satisfactory sense" as not indicative,
we find that 48.13% of the participants thought that they comprehended the verses in general,
whereas about only 28.13% found the verses difficult to comprehend. Table 3, however, reveals
that in the questionnaire with the open form, only 19.83% of the participants demonstrated a
good understanding of the translations vs. 70.17% who were either unable to make sense of the
translations in question or did not respond. This suggests that native speakers of English may
overestimate their comprehension of Quranic translation.

119

The third group of readers furnishes evidence that the responses to the closed form presented in
Table 4 are unreliable as a measure of genuine comprehension, since only 29.17% of their
answers to the two forms match as opposed to a 70.83% mismatch. It therefore seems as if
participants in studies like the present one tend to believe that they fully comprehend passages
which are, in reality, only partially understood. Further, closed questionnaires always leave room
for erroneous correspondences between source language and target language concepts. For
example, many participants thought that the Islamic term zakat corresponded exactly to the
Christian term alms, and they were not aware that in Islam, there are two terms for 'giving to the
poor' namely: zakat and sadaqah, the former being compulsory and the latter optional. Such
misconceptions can only be detected in an open questionnaire

Table 2 . Results of the closed form questionnaire

A
Verse

No sense at all

Very little

Satisfactory

sense

sense

No.

A lot of sense

Straight-

forwardly

understood
No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

1.

30

12

60

2.

30

45

15

10

3.

10

50

30

10

4.

15

25

12

60

5.

25

25

35

15

6.

10

20

25

45

7.

10

30

11

55

8.

15

20

20

15

30

9.

10

25

20

15

30

10.

35

25

20

20

11.

20

10

10

12

60

12.

25

20

20

30

13.

30

25

20

25

14.

40

10

50

15.

15

35

15

30

16.

30

30

20

15

120

Total

10.11

32

57

18.02

76

24.02

44

108

13.93

34.20

Table 3. Results of the Open Form (The Solid line indicates verse boundary).
A

No
response

No sense
at all

Very little
sense

Satisfactory
sense

No.

A lot of
sense

F
Straightforwardly
understoo
d

The SL Term in Translation

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

1.

10

50

10

50

And He has enjoined...

2.

14

70

20

Purify ...

Pickthall

3.

15

20

12

60

bow down...

Pickthall

4.

15

20

12

60

prostrate...

Pickthall

5.

10

12

60

10

10

Be as my mothers back

6.

12

60

20

unclean...

Pickthall

7.

13

65

25

10

purify

Pickthall

8.

15

45

15

10

15

reached their period

Arberry

9.

25

11

55

10

10

defiled

Arberry

10.

25

11

55

10

purify

Arberry

11.

35

40

10

pilgrimage

Pickthall

12.

10

12

60

15

10

visit to Mecca

Pickthall

13.

25

45

15

10

gifts

Pickthall

14.

30

15

15

15

20

private parts

Arberry

15.

10

50

25

15

what their right hands own

Arberry

16.

20

10

10

10

45

contact with women

Ali

17.

10

35

15

30

10

take for yourselves clean sand

18.

40

11

55

vow ye vow

19.

20

25

15

15

15

10

no sense of the shame of sex

20.

10

35

30

15

ceremonial impurity

21.

25

20

15

35

have had contact....

Pickthall

22.

25

25

25

20

to clean, high ground and rub

Pickthall

121

Arberry

Arberry

Ali
Pickthall
Ali
Ali

23.

15

35

30

10

10

expenditure

Arberry

24.

13

65

20

10

vow you vow

Arberry

25.

15

15

13

65

monthly course

Arberry

26.

15

30

20

15

have cleansed themselves

Arberry

27.

17

85

10

God has commanded you...

Arberry

28.

35

45

15

put away women..

Pickthall

29.

40

40

20

legal period...

Pickthall

Table 4. Results of the Third Group (Closed and Open Forms)

Verse No.

Match

Mismatch

Verse No.

Match

Mismatch

1.

9.

2.

10.

3.

11.

4.

12.

5.

13.

6.

14.

7.

15.

8.

16.

Total

16

Total

18

Match = 14 = 29.17%
Mismatch = 34 = 70.83%

In order to illustrate the readers' response, let us consider terms 4 and 6 on the open form "And
if ye are unclean, purify yourselves" (Pickthall 1980: 135) and "If you are defiled, purify
yourselves" (Arberry 1980:1:128) in order to see how the participants in the study responded
respectively to the instructions "Give examples of people who are unclean" and "Give
examples of 'people' who are in a state of being defiled. How and with what would they
purify themselves? It should be noted that no native speaker of Arabic will miss the message
of the Quranic verse in the original "wa'in kuntum junuban faahharuu" (al-maa'idah: 6)
since the predicates junub (= having semen on oneself due to ejaculation by any imaginable
122

means) and taahhara (= to take a bath) both belong to the general, unmarked register in
Arabic.
From a translational perspective, Pickthall and Arberry both use substitution, that is, 'unclean'
and 'defiled' for junuban, and both translations use a literal rendition, namely, 'purify', for
faahharuu. Unfortunately, these decisions seriously distort the meaning of the terms of the
original. Consequently there is a breakdown of communication in these translations. This can be
clearly seen from the participants' interpretations of 'unclean' and 'defiled' and the way
they thought one could purify oneself as indicated below:
a) Sample interpretations of 'unclean' and 'defiled':
1. atheists, worshippers of idols, murderers, common criminals and thieves.
2. possibly sinners - those who have done wrong against society or others.
3. eaten the wrong food, unwashed, morally corrupt.
4. criminal people, atheists.
5. any sinner in a Biblical sense, anyone from a leper or a whore to an outcast or a low class
person.
6. have touched certain criminals, dead people, etc.
b) Sample interpretations of the ways in which one could purify oneself:
1. washing and obtaining forgiveness.
2. doing good and repenting their sins or wrongdoings.
3. asking forgiveness and seeking to lead a better life.
4. through prayer and worship.
5. prayer, godly acts, renouncing their sins.
It is clear that the distortion of the messages in the translated terms is caused by the shift from a
specific, material sense to a general, spiritual sense. This being the case, junuban, which is the
natural consequence of a specific, material happening that is completely unmarked for religious
appropriateness (which would qualify it in terms of the virtue vs. sin dichotomy), is construed
in a general, spiritual sense that is denotatively related to sin. This twist in denotation amounts to a
major difference in meaning between the original and the translation that impedes the
understanding of the intended message. Similarly, most participants interpret faahharuu in a
spiritual sense, which runs counter to the intended material sense of the original, namely, to
remove the ejaculated semen by means of bathing.
The findings of the closed form (in Table 5) show that holders of a Bachelor's degree ranked
highest in the rating of comprehensibility of Quranic verses at 16.41% ("a lot of sense") and
41.41% ("straightforwardly understood") vs. 13% and 32% for the Master's and Ph.D. degree
holders, respectively. High school students lagged negligibly behind at 18.75% and 25%,
123

respectively. There is, therefore, no positive correlation between the level of education and the rating
of comprehensibility in this study.

Table 5. Results of the Education Variable (The Open Form)

Degree

No sense at
all

Very little
sense

Satisfactory
sense

A lot of
sense

Straightfor
ward ly
understood

Total

No.

No. of
subjects

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

1.

High school
(1)

16

20

17

21.25

12

15

15

18.75

20

25

80

100

2.

Bachelors D.
(8)

3.13

20

15.62

30

23.43

21

16.41

53

41.41

12
8

100

3.

Masters D.
(6)

12.5

13

20.31

14

21.88

14.06

20

31.25

64

100

4.

Ph. D. (4)

12.5

10.42

15

31.25

12.5

16

33.33

48

100

The education variable can, however, also be examined in the open form questionnaire,
which was, as mentioned, more reliable for uncovering participants' responses (Table 6).
Although the figures are more indicative of the participants' comprehension than those of
the open questionnaire, it is not enough to be statistically significant, especially when
considering the generally poor performance of the participants in all groups.

Table 6. Results of The Education Variable (The Open Form)

Degree

No
response

No sense at
all

Very little
sense

Satisfactory
sense

A lot of
sense

Straightforwardly
understood

Total

No
.

No. of
subjects

N
o.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

1.

High
school
(1)

10

34.48

27.58

13.79

10.34

6.89

6.89

29

99.97

2.

AA. (1)

10.34

11

37.93

6.89

20.69

24.14

29

99.99

3.

Bachelor

53

22.84

64

27.58

43

18.53

17

7.33

18

7.74

37

15.95

23

99.99

124

(8)

4.

Masters
(6)

47

27.01

53

30.46

26

14.94

14

8.05

19

10.92

15

8.62

17
4

100

5.

PhD (4)

6.90

53

45.69

18

15.52

5.17

6.03

24

20.69

11
6

100

5. Conclusion
This study has tried to explore the problem of referential gaps in the translation of
unmatched cultural elements by drawing evidence from select translations of Quranic
verses. We assumed that such gaps impeded cross-cultural communication; reader
responses proved this to be the case. This fact calls for immediate, practical solutions. Even
when it is kept in mind that perfect communication is impossible both intralingually and
interlingually, it is thought-provoking that most of the translations used in the study failed to
convey the source language message into the target language. Accordingly, they introduce
false conceptions about the Holy Quran which is an extremely serious fact. For instance, one
Western PhD holder participating in the study did not understand the following translation
correctly "... If you have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for
yourselves clean sand and earth" (Ali 1934:242), commenting that "it may be helpful to
notice that as a Westerner and a woman, I find the idea that I am considered unclean and a
source of pollution offensive." It must be explained that the Quranic verse is not offensive
to anybody, man or woman; it simply states that a man has to clean himself with earth if he
had been in contact with women and finds no water before performing prayers.
It can be concluded that readers' response should be considered a key variable in translation. In
this study we have used passages from the Holy Quran. We can therefore claim that our findings
apply to Arabic religious discourse in general and the Holy Quran in particular. The claim that
the authoritativeness of the religious text is the determining factor when it comes to decisionmaking in translation should be reconsidered in light of the reader response variable because,
in the final analysis, a translation is an act of communication. As such it cannot operate in a vacuum
in which messages are blocked, regardless of how formal, poetic, elevated, and refined the style of
the original. Translators should endeavor to convey the communicative value of the referential
gap by any means, and not use problematic paraphrase and literal translation, such as those used
by Arberry who rendered 'private parts' for "genitals" and 'what their right hands own' for "their
woman servants" (Arberry vol.1 1980: 128). Consequently, when semantic translation (Newmark
1988) and semantic equivalence (Widdowson 1971) fall short of comprehensibility, translators
should opt for `communicative translation' (Newmark 1988), or 'functional equivalence' (de
Waard and Nida 1986), or 'ideational equivalence' (Farghal 1994) by employing one or more of
the translation strategies at their disposal when they encounter referential gaps.

125

Last but not least, it should be borne in mind that theory may sometimes be far from practice.
We wish to emphasize that this study is not meant to depreciate the efforts of the renowned
translators whose work we have used. However, it serves to bring into focus reader response
as an important variable in the translation of religious discourse and even on a small scale, as
shown in this study. The mission of translating the meanings of the Holy Quran will invariably be
in for more criticism than praise. All the same, we have to pay homage to those outstanding
translators of the Holy Quran whose efforts and contributions are highly acknowledged
throughout the world.

Appendix I
Dear Friend/Colleague,
This questionnaire is intended to be the basis for a study on translation problems. It deals
basically with the translation of certain elements from the Arab-Islamic culture into English. The
study takes evidence from the Holy Quran for completely academic purposes. The questionnaire
involves a number of selected translations of certain Quranic verses. You are kindly requested to
tick () the box that best fits your understanding of the verse that corresponds to it. While trying
to understand the content of each verse, focus on the meaning of the words in bold type. Notice
that you should deal with each utterance as a completely independent entity. Be sure that your
responses to this questionnaire will not be circulated and that they will only be used for purely
academic purposes. Please be informed that you may not consult references in the course of
responding to this questionnaire.
Personal information:
Name (optional):_______________________________________
Nationality:___________________________________________
Age:_________________________________________________
Sex: Male

Female
Bachelors Degree

Education: High School or below

Masters Degree

PhD or more

General field of Study: _______________________________

126

The verse translated

Makes
no sense
at all

Makes
very little
sense

1- And He has enjoined me to

pray, and to give the alms, so
long as I live.
2- Purify [Abraham and
Ishmael] My house for those who
go around and those who
meditate therein and those who
bow down and prostrate
themselves (in worship).
3- And those who say, regarding
their wives, Be as my mothers
back, and then retract what they
have said, they shall set free a
slave.
4- And if ye [before prayers] are
unclean, purify yourselves.
5- O Prophet ! [Mohammad]
when you divorce women,
divorce them when they have
reached their period. Count the
period, and fear God your Lord.
6- If you are defiled, purify
yourselves.
7- Perform the Pilgrimage and
the visit (to Mecca) for Allah.
And if ye are prevented, then
send such gifts as can be obtained
with ease.
8- Prosperous are the believers,
who in their prayers are humble,
and from idle talk turn away, and
at almsgiving are active, and
guard their private parts save
from their wives and what their
right hands own.
127

Makes
satisfactory
sense

Makes a
lot of
sense

Staightforwardly
understood

9- ... If you have been in contact

with women. and ye find no
water then take for yourselves
clean sand or earth..
10- Whatever alms ye spend or
vow ye vow, lo ! Allah knoweth it
all.
11- And say to the believing
women that they should lower
their gaze and guard their
modesty,.... and should not
display their beauty except to
their husbands, their fathers,.. or
small children who have no sense
of the shame of sex.
12- If you are in a state of
ceremonial impurity, bathe your
whole body.
13- O ye who believe! when ye
rise up for prayer, wash your
faces, and your hands... . And if
ye are sick or on a journey, or one
of you cometh from the closet, or
ye have had contact with
women, and ye find no water,
then go to clean, high ground
and rub your faces and your
hands with some of it.
14- And whatever expenditure
you expend, and whatever vow
you vow, surely God knows it.
15- They will question thee
concerning the monthly course.
Say: It is hurt; so go apart from
women during the monthly
course, and do not approach them
till they are clean. When they
have cleansed themselves, then
come unto them as God has
commanded you.

128

16-O Prophet! [Mohammad]

when ye (men) put away women,
put them away for their (legal)
period and reckon the period.

Appendix II
Dear Friend / Colleague,
This questionnaire is intended to be the basis for a study on translation problems. It deals
basically with the translation of certain elements from the Arab-Islamic culture into English. The
study takes evidence from the Holy Quran for completely academic purposes. The test involves a
number of selected translations of certain Quranic verses. You are kindly requested to write in
simple English what you understand from the verses, giving special attention to the word(s)
written in bold type, when the utterance seems too long. When it involves one or two short
sentences, try to paraphrase it in your own words. Along with some utterances, you will find
certain questions. Try to make sure that you entirely depend on the utterance when you kindly
answer them. Notice that you should deal with each utterance as a completely independent entity.
Be sure that your responses to this questionnaire will not be circulated and that they will only be
used for purely academic purposes. Please be informed that you may not consult references in the
course of doing this task.
Personal information:
Name (optional):_______________________________________
Nationality:___________________________________________
Age:_________________________________________________
Sex: Male

Female

Education: High School or below

Masters Degree

Bachelors Degree
Ph.D. or more

General field of Study:______________________________________.

1. And He has enjoined me to pray, and to give the alms, so long as I live.
129

Arberry, vol.1 (1980: 333)

* Is almsgiving optional or compulsory?
2. Purify [Abraham and Ishmael] My house for those who go around and those who meditate
therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).
Pickthall (1980: 23).
* How would purification take place? What would one use to purify Allahs house?
* Differentiate between meditate, bow down, and prostrate.
3. And those who say, regarding their wives, Be as my mothers back, and then retract what
they have said, they shall set free a slave.
Arberry, vol.2 (1980: 263).
* Does this make their wives divorced? Explain.
4. And if ye [before prayers] are unclean, purify yourselves.
Pickthall (1980: 135).
* Give examples of people who are unclean.
5. O Prophet! [Mohammad] when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached
their
period.
Count
the
period,
and
fear
God
your
Lord.
Arberry, vol.2 (1980: 284).
6. If you are defiled, purify yourselves.
Arberry, vol.1(1980: 128).
* Give examples of people who are in a state of being defiled. How and with what would
they purify themselves?
7. Perform the Pilgrimage and the visit (to Mecca) for Allah. And if ye are prevented, then send
such gifts as can be obtained with ease.
Pickthall (1980: 37).
* Differentiate between Pilgrimage and visit (to Mecca).
* Give examples of gifts and how/where they can be sent.
8. Prosperous are the believers, who in their prayers are humble, and from idle talk turn away,
and at almsgiving are active, and guard their private parts save from their wives and what
their right hands own.
Arberry, vol.2 (1980: 37).
130

9. ...If you have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves
clean sand or earth...
Ali (1934: 242).
* Does the phrase contact with women involve sexual moves?
* How would one take for himself/herself clean sand or earth?
10. Whatever alms ye spend or vow ye vow, lo! Allah knoweth it all.
Pickthall (1980: 56).
* Give examples of vows you vow.
11. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty,
... and should not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, ... or small
children who have no sense of the shame of sex.
Ali
(1934: 905).
12. If you are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body.
Ali (1934: 242).
* Give examples of one who is ceremonially impure.
13. O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands...... . And if
ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact
with women, and ye find no water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and
your hands with some of it.
Pickthall (1980: 135-6).
14. And whatever expenditure you expend, and whatever vow you vow, surely God knows it.
Arberry, vol.1 (1980: 68).
* What may expenditure involve?
15. They will question thee concerning the monthly course. Say: It is hurt; so go apart from
women during the monthly course, and do not approach them till they are clean. When they
have cleansed themselves, then come unto them as God has commanded you.
Arberry, vol.1 (1980: 59).
* What exactly is the monthly course?
* How would women cleanse themselves?
16. O Prophet! [Mohammad] when ye (men) put away women, put them away for their (legal)
period and reckon the period.
Pickthall (1980: 747)

131

132

Coherence Shifts in Quran Translation

Mohammed Farghal & Noura Alblushi
Abstract
This paper aims to shed light on reader-focused and text-focused coherence shifts in Quran
translation. The data consists of selective examples involving potential problems related to such
shifts, which are excerpted from five well-known English translations of the Holy Quran. The
results show that Quran translators sometimes fall victim to such shifts. On the one hand, the
wide cultural distance between source text and target text may cause reader-focused shifts
when opting for literal translation in handling partial and complete referential gaps. On the
other hand, the translators inadequate language competence in Arabic and the absence of
consulting Quranic exegeses sometimes trigger text-focused shifts, thus offering unintended
readings. The study concludes that coherence shifts constitutes a serious problem in Quran
translation, which calls for remedial work in future endeavors.

1. Introduction
Blum-Kulka (2004: 291) defines coherence as a covert potential meaning relationship among
parts of a text, made overt by the reader or listener through processes of interpretation. She
equates coherence with the text`s interpretability, thus considering general changes or loss in
meaning of the Source Text (ST) through translation as affecting its coherence. More
interestingly, she divides coherence shifts into two categories; the first results from the Target
Text (TT) readers failure to make sense of the ST because of different world views, which leads
to reader-focused coherence shifts, while the second involves text-focused shifts of coherence
which result from mistranslations.

When examining coherence shifts, Blum-Kulka argues that distinguishing the two types of shifts
is important because it helps in having a better understanding of what translation can and cannot
do, or, in other words, to better understand the true limits of translatability (p. 297).
Translatability can be defined as the capacity of some kind of meaning to be transferred from
one language to another without undergoing radical change" (Alpert, 2001: 273).

Being the Arabic Word of God verbatim, the Holy Quran constitutes the most important source of
authority for Muslims. Hence, Quran translation into foreign tongues has always been a
controversial issue among Arab/Muslim scholars since Medieval times (for more details, see
Mustafa, 2001). However, there is a consensus nowadays that existing Quran translations should
be taken as interpretations of the sacred text rather than exact translations. In particular, this issue
was resolved when religious bodies, such as Al-Azhar (Egypt), gave permission for translating the
Quran provided that Quran translators explicitly state that their translations are not replacements
134

of the ST and that they are merely rephrasings based on the agreed upon meaning of the original.
Despite this, one can readily observe that most Quran translations are source-oriented and hardly,
if at all, take the needs of the target audience to access the intended meanings into consideration
(for more details, see Mustafa, 2001).
The present study will draw selectively on examples excerpted from 5 translations of the Holy
Quran as follows:
(1) The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad, 1980/2003.
(2) The Koran Interpreted by A. J. Arberry, 1930/1996.
(3) The Qur'an; Text, Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali,
1934/2005.
(4) The Quran the Noble Reading by T. B. Irving, 1985/1993.
(5) The Glorious Quran by Muhammad M. Pickthall, 1930/2006.

2. Reader-focused Coherence Shifts

Blum-Kulka states that reader-focused coherence shifts occur as a result of a text being read by
culturally different audiences (2004: 305). She argues that this kind of shift is unavoidable
because, in most cases, a TT is likely to be new to the TL readers. Because of this cultural
distance, TL culture might not share the same cultural assumptions, beliefs and value system
recognized in the ST. This creates a void in translation, and in this case, the translator`s task is to
fill any cultural voids that may impede the TT readers` interpretability of the TT; failure to do so
may result in ineffective translation.

In the case of the Quran, in a text that is deeply rooted in the source culture, the translator will
often be confronted with culture-bound expressions that are difficult to convey to the TT readers
(The TT reader is assumed to be the average Western reader). The Quran translator Mohammad
Asad (2003: vii) notes that the linguistic gap between Arabic and English is a source of coherence
shifts to a TT reader because the coherence of the Quranic world view and its relevance to the
human condition escape him altogether and assume the guise of what, in Europe, is frequently
described as incoherent ramblings. Therefore, examining potential reader-focused coherence
shifts is a way towards rendering a more coherent Quran translation.

Blum-Kulka (2004: 298) also notes that the normative system dominating the translation process
can contribute to creating reader-focused coherence shifts in translation. In Quran translation, this
normative system, being overwhelmingly source-oriented, hardly accommodates to the needs of
TT readers. However, in their endeavors to supplement translations, most Quran translators resort
135

to long introductions to suras and a great amount of explanatory notes to bridge the cultural gap
where potential reader-focused coherence shifts might arise. The following discussion will reveal
that most reader-focused coherence shifts are found in translations that opt out of using
parenthetical material and/or footnotes (for more details on strategies to deal with culture-bound
items, see Newmark 1988 and Larson 1998), while those that employ them reduce the number of
reader-focused coherence shifts.

The area of reference is the primary source of this kind of shifts; unawareness of a referential item
is likely to impede the TT reader`s comprehension and ability to interpret the TT coherently.
These culture-bound expressions in the translation of the Quran constitute either partial or
complete cultural/referential gaps that need to be filled in the process of translation, in order to
prevent the occurrence of reader-focused shifts.

A partial referential gap in translation, as the name indicates, relates to a referential item that
exists in both languages and cultures with different implications. A familiar Islamic concept
which constitutes a partial referential gap is the concept of zakat . This refers generally to a
certain amount of money gathered from the well-to-do and paid to the poor; it is also obligatory
and constitutes the third of the five pillars of Islam. The principles and rules encompassed in this
term make it a challenging concept to render fully in translation. In the following verse, people
are urged to pay zakat and are assured that, by doing so, God will reward them. Consider the
verse and the translations:

And be constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues; for, whatever
good deed you send ahead for your own selves, you shall find it with God:
behold, God sees all that you do. (110) (Asad, p. 32)
Establish worship, and pay the poor-due; and whatever of good you send
before (you) for your souls, you will find it with Allah. Lo! Allah is Seer of
what you do. (110) (Pickthall, p. 18)
Both translators employ the word due(s), i.e. something required, to denote the obligatory sense
of zakat in the TT. This modification succeeds in conveying the main aspect of the term;
however, the translators differ in the choice of the generic word chosen to render it. Asad derives
his rendition from the spiritual connotations of zakat: he notes in his footnote that its main
function is to purify a person`s capital and income from the taint of selfishness (p.18), thus
basing his translation on the connotative meaning of the term. By contrast, Pickthall derives his
translation from the category of people who are eligible to receive it, so he renders it as the poordue. In this way, both translators attempt to approximate the concept to TT readers by defining it
136

in their footnotes as an obligatory tax and provide sufficient amount of technical information
about it, in order to prevent a reader-focused shift.

For his part, Ali employs charity as an equivalent for zakat:

And be steadfast in prayer and regular in charity: And whatever good ye send
forth for your souls before you, ye shall find it with God. For God sees Well all
that ye do. (110) (Ali, p. 48)
It should be noted that in the SL culture the concept of zakat is very specific and is associated
with obligatory giving, so the term charity, which is associated in the TL culture with voluntary
giving is too general. Moreover, in the SL culture voluntary giving is associated with another
term, that is sadaqah, thus charity becomes a more appropriate rendition for sadaqah but not
zakat. In this way, Ali`s translation seriously diverges from what is meant by the Islamic concept
of zakat, and without a footnote, the relevant features required for the full and coherent
interpretation of the term are lost in his translation.

Similar changes can be found in Arberry and Irving`s renditions of zakat. Consider their
translations:
And perform the prayer, and pay the alms; whatever good you shall forward
to your souls' account, you shall find it with God; assuredly God sees the
things you do. (110) (Arberry, Vol. 1, p. 42)

Keep up prayer and pay the welfare tax; you will find any good you have
sent on ahead for your own souls' sake is already [stored up] with God. God
is Observant of whatever you do. (110) (Irving, p. 9)
Arberry employs alms as an equivalent for zakat. Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner`s
Dictionary defines alms as gift of money, clothes, or food to poor people (2003). This lexical
item is too general and does not have the same denotative meaning of the Islamic term. In
addition, the nature of these alms, defined above as being gifts, i.e. given with free will,
diverges from the obligatory nature of zakat.
Likewise, different implications might arise from Irving`s translation. He uses Modern American
English in his translation of the Quran and renders zakat as welfare tax. Target readers may
derive different implications from this rendition since it carries different associations from those
of zakat in the Islamic context. Welfare tax pertains generally to the amount of money paid by all
people, rich and poor alike, to the government for the advancement of society as a whole. Without
a footnote or any other means of explication, these readers are likely to interpret this term in a
different way from that intended in the source text. For example, without specifying that zakat is
obligatory for the well-to-do and not the poor, the readers might infer that it is obligatory for the
137

rich and poor alike. This inference does not serve the message of zakat which aims at compassion
and social justice rather that burdening the poor. Both Arberry and Irving`s translations may lead
to reader-focused coherence shifts.
Let us now examine the translation of a complete referential gap uddah to see how it can lead to
reader-focused coherence shifts. The term uddah is a Quranic euphemism referring to the
legally prescribed waiting period before a divorced woman can remarry; the legal period is
prescribed to rule out pregnancy. Consider the following verse along with Asad`s translation:
)

O Prophet! When you intend to divorce women, divorce them with a view to
the waiting period appointed for them, and reckon the period [carefully].
(1) (Asad, p. 994)

Asad approximates this concept to TT readers by explicating its meaning of the first occurrence
of the term through using a descriptive phrase, thus rendering it as the waiting period appointed
for them. He also supports his translation with sufficient information in a footnote to clarify the
meaning of this Islamic concept. Having defined uddah in the first instance, he then renders the
second instance generically as the period to ensure the consistency of his translation. Ali and
Pickthall also explicate this meaning of this term in their translations by rendering it as the
prescribed period and (legal) period, respectively.

However, a significant reader-focused coherence shift can be found in Irving`s translation. His
translation lacks clarity and consistency as he translates the first instance as [legal] number
while the second as amount of months as can observed below:
O Prophet, whenever you [and other Muslims] divorce women, send them
away according to their [legal] number and count up the amount [of months
carefully]. (1) (Irving, p. 332)

This translation is vague for two reasons. Firstly, neither renditions conveys the full sense of
uddah, so both lack equivalence. Secondly, the translation lacks consistency because Irving
translates the two occurrences of uddah in this verse differently. Therefore, it is very unlikely
that TT readers will get the intended message, the result being a reader-focused coherence shift.

For his part, Arberry employs the word period as an equivalent for the term uddah, but his
translation can be misleading, too, as can be observed below:

138

O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached
their period. Count the period. (1) (Arberry, Vol. 2, p. 284)
Farghal and Al-Masri (this volume) note that using period as an equivalent for uddah may lead
target readers to confuse it with the menstrual cycle in women because when the text was given
to a group of 20 American native speakers, about 75% of them provided interpretations relating to
the monthly period rather than the intended legal sense (p.151). Without explicating the
meaning, this translation will certainly cause a reader-focused coherence shift.

To sum up, when a text involves a partial or a complete cultural gap, on the one hand, target
readers will most likely interpret the message according to their own culture and experience of the
world. The translator`s task is, therefore, to bridge the gap, as failure to do so may result in a
reader-focused coherence shift. Notably, cultural gaps are unavoidable because language systems
and cultures do not share the same reference networks. When dealing with such gaps in Quran
translation, it is vital for translators to address them by employing appropriate strategies,
including borrowing and paraphrase combined with descriptive modification and, in several
cases, footnotes.

On the other hand, when literal translation is employed, it usually fails to deliver the complete
meaning of the cultural item, thus affecting the meaning of the Quran and its coherence in
translation. Literal translation often fails because Arabic and English are two languages that are
radically different, and the non-existence of equivalent concepts usually leads to incongruity in
the meanings offered by English translations of Quranic culture-bound expressions.

3. Text-focused Coherence Shifts

Whereas reader-focused coherence shifts are mainly incurred to fill any cultural void that may
impede TT readers` interpretability of the translation, text-focused coherence shifts result
primarily from the translation process and affect the STs meaning potential in translation. These
shifts occur as a result of particular choices made by a specific translator, choices that indicate a
lack of awareness on the translator`s part of the SL text`s meaning potential (Blum-Kulka, 2004:
301). Consequently, the TT will offer an interpretation that is not intended by the ST because of a
mistranslation committed by the translator.

Some text-focused coherence shifts may be caused by the translator`s unconscious interventions
in the ST`s meaning potential, as can be seen in the translation of the following verse which
involves an Islamic teaching:


)
139

[Hence,] behold, As-Safa and Al-Marwah are among the symbols set up by
God; and thus, no wrong does he who, having come to the Temple on
pilgrimage or on a pious visit, strides to and fro between these two: for, if
one does more good than he is bound to do - behold, God is responsive to
gratitude, all-knowing. (158) (Asad, p. 42)

Safa and Marwa are some of God's waymarks. Anyone who goes on
Pilgrimage to the House or visits [it] will not be blamed if he runs along
between them. With anyone who volunteers some good, God is Appreciative,
Aware. (158) (Irving, p. 13)

Al-Safa and Al-Marwah are two hills between which Muslims are required to travel back and
forth seven times during the annual pilgrimage and the Lesser pilgrimage. Therefore,
(Literally go round them) signifies running, or pacing, between these two hills. This is rendered
accurately by Asad and Irving in the above translations because they opt out of literal meaning in
favor of intended meaning.

However, text-focused coherence shifts occur in the translations below:

Behold! Safa and Marwa are among the Symbols of Allah. So if those who
visit the House in the Season or at other times, should compass them round,
it is no sin in them. And if any one obeyeth his own impulse to good,- be sure
that God is He Who recogniseth and knoweth. (158) (Ali, pp. 62-63)

Safa and Marwa are among the waymarks of God; so whosoever makes the
Pilgrimage to the House, or the Visitation, it is no fault in him to
circumambulate them; and whoso volunteers good, God is All-grateful, Allknowing. (Arberry, Vol. 1, p. 48)

Lo! (the hills) Al-Safa and Al-Marwah are among the indications of Allah. It
is therefore no sin for him who is on pilgrimage to the House (of Allah) or
visiteth it, to go around them (as the pagan custom is). And he who does
good of his own accord (for him), lo! Allah is Responsive, Aware. (158)
(Pickthall, 158, p. 24)

140

In these translations, Ali, Arberry and Pickthall render respectively as compass them
round, circumambulate them and go around them. These renditions create a reality that is
completely different from the intended one, viz. going round two hills vs. traveling back and forth
between two hills. This text-focused coherence shift committed by these translators distorts the
meaning in the TT and is likely to conjure up completely different pictures in the minds of TT
readers as to how this ritual is performed. Furthermore, Pickthall`s bracketed addition of the
phrase (as the pagan custom is) detracts from the meaning and is completely irrelevant. To avoid
similar text-focused shifts, translators have to invest contextual elements (e.g. It would be too
difficult for pilgrims to go round two hills) or, if the context does not help, resort to exegeses.

In addition to inaccurate decisions by translators, Blum-Kulka (2004) also indicates that the most
serious text-focused coherence shifts occur as a result of the translator`s failure to realize the
functions a particular linguistic system, or particular form, plays in conveying indirect meanings
in a given text (p. 301). To demonstrate this point, consider the following verse which employs
the comparative structure to explain a specific Islamic teaching:

)

O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for
those before you, that ye may achieve piety; (183) (Fast) a certain number of
days; and (for) him who is sick among you, or on a journey, (the same) number
of other days; and for those who can afford it with hardship there is a ransom:
the feeding of a man in need - but who does good of his own accord, it is better
for him: and that you fast is better for you if you did but know. (184)
(Pickthall, p. 27)
The above verses order Muslims to fast during the month of Ramadan and permits those who are
unable to fast or are ill to make up for the days they have missed by either feeding the needy or
fasting the same number of days later. Although Muslims are given two options, the comparative
and if you fast it is better for you to demonstrate that
structure is employed in
making up for the days missed in Ramadan by fasting on other days is better than the other
option. This specific instruction is rendered accurately in the above translation by Pickthall,
whereas Asad`s failure to preserve the comparative relation that holds in the ST distorts the STs
meaning in his translation below:
O you who have attained to faith! Fasting is ordained for you as it was
ordained for those before you, so that you might remain conscious of God:
(183)[fasting] during a certain number of days. But whoever of you is ill, or
on a journey, [shall fast instead for the same] number of other days; and [in
such cases] it is incumbent upon those who can afford it to make sacrifice by
feeding a needy person. And whoever does more good than he is bound to do
141

does good unto himself thereby; for to fast is to do good unto yourselves if you but knew it. (184) (Asad, p. 49)

English does not lack the tools to construct a comparative structure, but the shift was caused due
to the translator`s failure to realize the role of the comparative relation in delivering the
proposition in the ST. As a result, Asads translation fails to deliver what the verse conveys.

Similarly, the translator`s failure to realize the function of a preposition may result in a textfocused coherence shift. The following examples demonstrate how a literal translation of the
preposition in changes the intended meaning of the ST and leads to different implications.

) (

) (

Lo! [while lost in the desert] Moses said to his family: Behold, I perceive a
fire [far away]; I may bring you from there some tiding [as to which way we
are to pursue], or bring you [at least] a burning brand so that you might warm
yourselves. (7) But when he came close to it, a call was sounded: Blessed
are all who are within [reach of] this fire, and all who are near it! And
limitless in His glory is God, the Sustainer of all the worlds . (8) (Asad, p.
643)

Behold! Moses said to his family: "I perceive a fire; soon will I bring you
from there some information, or I will bring you a burning brand to light our
fuel, that ye may warm yourselves. (7) But when he came to the (Fire), a
voice was heard: "Blessed are those in the Fire and those around: and Glory
to God, the Lord of the Worlds. (8) (Ali, p. 979)

Exegeses explain that the preposition must not be understood literally, so the phrase

Lit. Blessed be those in the fire means those who are within the area illuminated by the fire
or within reach of it, an import that is rendered accurately by Asad. A literal translation like the
one offered by Ali, as well as Pickthall, Arberry and Irving (not quoted here to avoid repetition),
may lead to the wrong inference, possibly to the interpretation that those doomed to Hell are
blessed by God. This mistranslation diverges from the intended meaning of the ST and is likely
to result in a text-focused coherence shift.

Sometimes, the phonological similarity between two function words may cause a text-focused
coherence shift. The following example involves two heteronyms: the demonstrative adverb
142

amma there and the temporal conjunction umma then, which are identical in the absence of
voweling. Whereas Aberry is sensitive to the orthographical cue signaled by the first vowel, thus
rendering them appropriately, Irving is miscued by the apparent phonological similarity, thus
producing a text-focused coherence shift, as can be observed in the two translations below.


( )
Then We revealed to Moses, 'Strike with thy staff the sea'; and it clave, and
each part was as a mighty mount. (63) And there We brought the others on,
(64) and We delivered Moses and those with him all together; (65) then We
drowned the others. (66) (Arberry, Vol. 2, p. 67)

So We inspired Moses as follows: "Strike the sea with your staff!" It opened
up and each section was like a huge cliff. (63) We brought the others up next,
(64) and saved Moses and all those who were with him. (65) Then We let the
rest drown. (66) (Irving, p. 201)

The mistranslation committed by Irving changes the relation holding between verses 63 and 64
from an indication of a place into a temporal relation.

Referral to exegeses could have prevented the shift caused by heteronyms in the above example,
but the translation of the Quran could involve other linguistic phenomena which, combined with
the translators lack of awareness of the ST`s meaning potential, can be a potential source of
text-focused coherence shifts. The following example involves lexical homonymy, a linguistic
phenomenon where lexemes share the same spelling and pronunciation but have unrelated
meanings. Arberry`s translation of witness in the verse below fails to deliver the accurate
meaning because he confuses it with the Arabic word for martyr , which is also spelled and
pronounced the same way. The translations given by Irving and Pickthall deliver the accurate
meaning, but the one offered by Arberry is erroneous:

) (


) (

You who believe, take your precautions and march off in detachments, or
march off all together. (71) Among you there are some who procrastinate. If
any disaster strikes you, they say: God has favored me, for I was not a
witness along with them. (72) (Irving, p. 45)
143

O you who believe! Take your precautions, then advance in groups, or

advance all together. (71) Lo! among you there is he who loiters; and if
disaster overtook you, he would say: Allah has been gracious unto me since I
was not present with them. (72) (Pickthall, p. 78)

O believers, take your precautions; then move forward in companies, or move

forward all together. (71) Some of you there are that are dilatory; then, if an
affliction visits you, he says, 'God has blessed me, in that I was not a martyr
with them.' (72) (Arberry, Vol. 1, p. 110)

The word in the above example is an exaggerated form derived from , i.e. witness
or be present, but it shares a relation of homonymy with the Arabic word for martyr due
to the transformation undergone during the derivation process. It is rendered accurately by
Irving and Pickthall, but Arberry mistakes it for , the Arabic word for martyr. This
results in a mismatch of the denotative meaning between the ST and the TT.

Arberry`s erroneous rendition would also lead TT readers to derive implications other than
those intended in the ST. In the above verse, the believers are urged to be careful during
battles by advancing in consecutive groups or advance all together in a single group. The
verses then warn believers of the hypocrites who join them in battles but loiter behind in an
attempt to avoid fighting. The verses then narrate the hypocrites thanking God for staying
behind and not being present at the time of the fight. However, Arberry`s translation presents
a different understanding; his rendition of as martyr gives the impression that they
were present in the battle ground, which implies an opposite understanding from that present
in the ST. This translation leads to a text-focused coherence shift.

Usually, any ambiguity surrounding homonymy can be resolved through context, but
homonyms can be problematic if they occur in a context that tolerates ambiguity, a case in
point is the above example, where the verse that involves a battle might have contributed to
confusing with the Arabic word for martyr. The same confusion causes a text-focused
coherence shift in the following example which also involves homonymy.

In the verse below, refers to any town or place as Ali accurately renders it. However,
Arberry (below) and Asad (pp. 20 21) mistakenly understand it as a reference to Egypt, as
the lexical item is homonymous. Witness the translations below:

144

) ) ( (

And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food
(always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth
groweth, its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said:
"Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye
shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery;
they drew on themselves the wrath of God. This because they went on
rejecting the Signs of God and slaying His Apostles without just cause. This
because they rebelled and went on transgressing. (61) (Ali, pp. 32-33)

And when you said, 'Moses, we will not endure one sort of food; pray to thy
Lord for us, that He may bring forth for us of that the earth produces - green
herbs, cucumbers, corn, lentils, onions.' He said, 'Would you have in exchange
what is meaner for what is better? Get you down to Egypt; you shall have
there that you demanded.' And abasement and poverty were pitched upon
them, and they were laden with the burden of God's anger; that, because they
had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that,
because they disobeyed, and were transgressors. (61) (Arberry, Vol. 1, p.
36)

The text narrates an incident involving the Children of Israel during their journey after fleeing
Egypt. In verse 57, we are told that God sent down unto the Children of Israel food consisting of
manna and quails to sustain themselves after they fled Egypt. Nevertheless, in the
above text they complain to Moses about having to eat the same food everyday and ask him to
pray for God to send unto them other kinds of food. They are reprimanded for not showing
gratitude and Moses refuses to ask for this kind of food through prayer since it is considered
lowly and is available in any city or town. Therefore, as a punishment they were told to seek any
city or town to find the food they wanted. They were not told to head to Egypt (the place they
were fleeing from) to seek this food. Hence, the translators' misinterpreting as a reference to
Egypt changes the meaning of the ST in the TT. Moreover, this shift could have been avoided if
the translators were aware of the morphological clues; the fact that a town/district here is
inflected indicates that it is the singular of towns/districts. Hence, it needs to be
translated as any town or place. If the reference denoted Egypt, by contrast, it would be the
usually uninflected noun .

145

Finally, let us consider the example below where the source of confusion is polysemy (the
presence of related senses of the same word). The translator's unawareness of the polysemous
nature of the word in the verse below causes a text-focused coherence shift. This word
refers to tillers or husbandmen in the verse, but it was misinterpreted by some translators as a
reference to unbelievers, which also has the same spelling and pronunciation in Arabic. Witness
the translations below:

) )
.)(

Know that the life of the world is only play, and idle talk, and pageantry, and
boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children; as the
likeness of vegetation after rain, whereof the growth is pleasing to the
husbandman, but afterward it dries up and you see it turning yellow, then it
becomes straw. And in the Hereafter there is grievous punishment, and (also)
forgiveness from Allah and His good pleasure, whereas the life of the world
is but matter of illusion. (20) (Pickthall, p. 545)

Know that the present life is but a sport and a diversion, an adornment and a
cause for boasting among you, and a rivalry in wealth and children. It is as a
rain whose vegetation pleases the unbelievers; then it withers, and thou seest
it turning yellow, then it becomes broken orts. And in the world to come
there is a terrible chastisement, and forgiveness from God and good pleasure;
and the present life is but the joy of delusion. (20) (Arberry, Vol. 2, p. 260)

Know that worldly life is merely a sport and a pastime [involving] worldly
show and competition among yourselves, as well as rivalry in wealth and
children. It may be compared to showers where the plant life amazes the
incredulous: then it withers away and you see it turning yellow; soon it will
be just stubble. In the Hereafter there will be both severe torment and
forgiveness as well as approval on the part of God. Worldly life means only
the enjoyment of illusion. (20) (Irving, pp. 315-316)

the plural of , is used

The above verse is the only instance in the Quran where the word ,
in its original sense tiller of the soil (Ibn Katheer, 2006, Vol. 3, p. 282; Asad, p. 954). Through
semantic change, this word has come to be known primarily as reference to unbelievers, and in
146

both senses the connotation of covering or concealing something exists. In this way, the above
verse employs allegorically in its original sense to compare unbelievers to tillers or
husbandmen, i.e. (those who cover or conceal things). This imagery is preserved in Pickthall's
translation, which renders the relevant sense. However, Arberry and Irving`s choices depart from
the intended ST meaning and results in a text-focused coherence shift.

4. Conclusion
The paper establishes that coherence shifts in Quran translation result in mismatches that
seriously affect Quranic meaning potentials. Some mismatches may arise from the cultural
distance between ST and TT audience, thus resulting in reader-focused coherence shifts, while
others may stem from inaccurate decisions on the translator`s part, thus leading to text-focused
coherence shifts.

The discussion shows how reader-focused shifts pose a challenge for translators, and we have
concluded that paraphrase and footnotes are the most adequate strategies to bridge both partial
and complete cultural/ referential gaps in translation. This exegetical strategy helps Quran
translators avoid jeopardizing Quranic meanings.

Text-focused shifts help identify another problem underlying the transfer of the ST meaning into
the TT. This kind of shifts is not directly linked to the translatability of the Quran; it is linked to
the translator`s interpretation of the ST and his choices in translation. Most importantly, the
discussion of text-focused shifts reveals that serious skewing of meaning does exist in some
professional translations of the Quran. Most of these shifts could have been averted if sound
linguistic competence in both Arabic and English is secured on the translators part, in addition to
subsequent consultation of major Quran exegeses, in order to derive and provide the accurate
underlying meaning of Quranic text.

Pragmalinguistic Failure: Arabic Politeness

Formulas in Translation

Mohammed Farghal & Ahmed Borini

Abstract

147

This paper addresses itself to the translatability of Arabic politeness formulas into English from a
pragmalinguistic perspective by examining 15 politeness formulas from Najeeb Mahfouzs
(1959) novel Awlad Haritna. It sheds light on the important role of illocutions, the Cooperative
Principle (CP), the Politeness Principle (PP), and the Irony Principle (IP) in understanding the
pragmatics of politeness and subsequently translating it appropriately into the TL. The paper
argues that deficiency in pragmalinguistic competence usually results in communication
breakdown or, at best, distortion of the original message. This claim has been supported by the
poor performance of 20 MA translation students on a translation task of the 15 politeness
formulas in this study, along with some serious problems with several of these formulas in
Stewarts (1981) translation of Mahfouzs novel. Finally, the model translations of Arabic
politeness formulas have been checked against the intuitions of a group of six native speakers of
English.

1. Introduction
The present study examines the translatability of politeness formulas from a pragmalinguistic
perspective, where things like performatives and illocutions (Austin 1962, Searle 1981, etc.), CP
and its maxims (Grice 1975, Levinson 1983, etc.) and the PP and IP of Leech (1983) play an
important role. Pragmatic knowledge includes the ability to know the relationship between
propositional content (i.e. semantic meaning) and illocutionary force (i.e. pragmatic function) of
any politeness formula. Sometimes, the relation between the two is very clear and easy to
determine as in the case of English Good luck, which corresponds to Arabic aan saciidan and
Arabic ukran, which corresponds to English Thank you. In other cases, however, it is not
possible to relate the propositional content to its pragmatic function. For instance, one may
need to learn the convention and conditions of use of a politeness formula like yislam raasak,
which literally means May your head be saved, but it has an illocutionary force of offering
condolences.

Davies (1987:82-83) assumes that formulas may seem restricted to the kind of speaker who
may use them, the kind of addressee to whom they may be used, the medium through which
they may be expressed and various aspects of the setting in which they are used. In particular,
a difficulty may arize when the same formula is conventionally used to perform more than one
illocutionary force in different situations. Farghal (1995b) contributes a study on the pragmatics
of inaallah [If God permitted] in Jordanian Arabic. He demonstrates that this expression has
drifted extensively from its semantic import by acquiring a wide spectrum of illocutions, thus
becoming a pragmatically multipurpose expression. By way of illustration, this formula may
function as a threat as can be illustrated in (1) below:

148

1. inaallah btilmis-it-tilvizyoon!
touch+you-the-television
I dare you to touch the TV set!
It may also be uttered by an interlocutor to implicate unsatisfaction as in (2) below:
2. xer inaallah!
good
Whats the matter with you?

One of the serious obstacles that a translator may face is the ironic usage of some politeness
formulas on certain occasions. More specifically, a speaker may use the following politeness
formula to insult a person not participating in the interaction as in (3) below:
3. allah yiram abuuh !
God have mercy his father
May God have mercy on his father!
In example (3), the politeness formula has been ironically used to perform a conflictive act of
insulting. This is what Arndt and Janney (1985:285) call politeness from an interpersonal view,
i.e., being impolite in polite ways.

In other cases, it is not easy to determine the performative verb of the illocutionary act assigned
by uttering certain formulas, especially in expressing various kinds of wishing. To demonstrate
this, consider the following examples:
4. cafwan
forgiveness (as a reply to thanking)
Youre welcome.
5. aaala allaahu cumrak
prolong God your age
May God prolong your life!
6. tawakkal cala-llaah
149

depend

on-God

Put trust in God.

Applying pragmatic analyses to problems of translation is based on Levinsons (1983:326)

assumption that despite the probable universality of processes like implicature, there are likely
to be significant differences not only in the structure of languages but in their use. Even in the
case of underlying universals, as in the construction of politeness formulas in Brown and
Levinson (1987), there are certain peculiarities of every culture, which constitute one of the
most serious challenges to translators; hence, there will always be considerable room for
pragmalinguistic misunderstanding.

Pragmalinguistics is the study of the linguistic ends of pragmatics. It deals with the appropriacy
of encoding the pragmatic force of an utterance. Thomas (1983) introduces pragmatic failure as
a kind of communication breakdown by second language learners due to the lack of
pragmalinguistic competence. It occurs when the pragmatic force mapped onto a linguistic
token or structure is systematically different from that normally assigned to it by native
speakers.

Politeness formulas tend sometimes to show some kind of divergence between the two
languages in question. For instance, one very noticeable difference between English and Arabic
formulas is the frequency of religious references in Arabic, which the corresponding English
polite formulas may lack (Bentahila and Davies 1989:100). By way of illustration, a formula that
may functionally correspond to English Goodbye in Arabic is allah macak (May God be with you)
in a variety of contexts.

A problem may also arise when the translator is faced with interjections such as English Oops,
which may correspond to Arabic lah in some contexts. Ameka (1992:101) points out that
interjections - those little words, or non-words which can constitute utterances by themselves are another word class found in all languages. Some interjections can be used as politeness
formulas in a highly language-specific manner as can be illustrated in (7) below:
7. dastuur (said by a person entering a house to draw attention to his arrival and/or
intrusion).
This Arabic attention getter interjection is uttered in this context to attract the attention of
people inside a closure, e.g. a house very politely, while in the same context in English, one may
150

not use an interjection for a similar situation. Instead, an English speaker may use formulas such
as Hello! Or Anybody here?

2. Research Methodology
2.1 Research Design
This study examines 15 Arabic politeness formulas identified by the researchers as involving
potential pragmalinguistic difficulty to translators of Arabic texts into English. These formulas
are taken from Najeeb Mahfouzs (1959) novel Awlad Haritna, which was translated by Philip
Stewart (1981) into Children of Gebelawi.

The study was carried out by means of two questionnaires. The first questionnaire, which
consisted of 15 underlined Arabic politeness formulas in their original contexts, was given to 20
MA translation students in Jordan. The participants were asked to translate only the underlined
formulas and to take enough time to do so (see appendix 1). The second questionnaire, which
aimed to consult native speakers of English with regard to suggested equivalents, included the
source English contexts (from Stewarts translation), along with literal translations of the Arabic
politeness formulas. In addition, this questionnaire offered six suggested alternatives in each
case: three selected from the participants responses, the translation used by Stewart, one
rendition to demonstrate non-equivalence, and finally a blank alternative for any other
appropriate translation (see appendix 2).

2.2 Participants
For the purpose of this study, the first 20 MA translation students met by the researchers while
distributing the questionnaire were selected. All of them were native speakers of Arabic, holding
a BA in English language and literature and then working toward their MA in Translation.
Another group of informants consisting of six native speakers of English who had been working
for the British Council in Amman for at least two years was selected. These educated people
were somewhat familiar with the Arab culture through their daily contact with Jordanians. They
were instructed by their director to check the acceptability of the translations relying on both
context and their intuitions.

3. Results
The translations of 15 Arabic politeness formulas by Stewart and the participants in this research
have been analyzed and categorized in light of some theoretical considerations and suggestions
of English native speaker consultants. The following table (Table 1) summarizes the results by
151

giving the percentage of inappropriate renditions of each politeness formula and the model
translations of the politeness formulas.
TABLE 1
No

Arabic Famula

Percerntage

Model Translation

yislam famak

40%

Well said!

alamr minkum wa ilaykum

45%

Its all up to you!

waidu-l-laah

45%

For Gods sake, be tolerant!

tacabak raaah

25%

Dont mention it!

inaallah

35%

I hope so.

jabal yalub-il-qurb minak

20%

I want/would like to marry

your daughter.

laa tuaaxina ya bunay

30%

Excuse me!

faqul calaykum-is-salaam

35%

You wont get much peace!

mubarakah
adaqah

40%

Bless this great friendship!

alayka

haaih-i-

10

adam muaxaih

20%

before that thing

11

rabbana yifa maqaamak

25%

Im afraid to say.

12

yaa saatir

20%

Hello, anybody here?

13

iim

75%

(cough)

14

bilhana wi ifa

60%

I hope youll enjoy it.

15

taslam yadayki-l-jamiilah

40%

Bless your beautiful hands.

4. Analysis and Discussion

This section addresses itself to the major pragmalinguistic problems in translating the Arabic
politeness formulas in the questionnaire by distinguishing different levels of analysis in an
attempt to account for the main sources of pragmalinguistic failures in the participants
renditions and Stewarts translation. These levels refer to pragmalinguistic failures stemming
from illocutionary force, indirectness, irony, euphemism, and interjections.
152

4.1 Illocutionary Force

The analysis of the data shows that one source of pragalinguistic failure in translation is that the
illocutionary force of most Arabic politeness formulas is not always visible in the surface
structure as can be illustrated in (8) below :
8. Atris said, following on from the story about Gebelawi, There was some good in
the world; even Adham was never hungry, not even for a day.
The old woman appeared at the door and said to Atris!yislam famak. [May
your mouth be saved!]

Many student translators could not appropriately assign the intended force to this formula.
While the speaker (S) intended to perform an act of complimenting, which is not obvious in the
surface structure, 40% of the respondents did not express this force in their renditions, as can
be seen in (9) below:
9. May God keep your mouth safe!
In this case, the student translator did not conform to the pragmalinguistic norms of English. In
fact, such an utterance would likely be perceived as sarcastic or hostile rather than polite.
Therefore, on the basis of theoretical considerations and the intuitions of native speakers of
English, we may suggest translating this formula into (10):
10. Well said!
As can be noted, (10) observes formlaicity and preserves the intended illocutionary force in
translation. Thus, it seems pragmatically adequate, as it does not convey the force directly, i.e.
Thank you!, because this would constitute an under-translation.

In some cases, the student translators managed to assign the intended illocutionary force, but
they could not encode it appropriately in English as can be demonstrated in (11):
11. Huda turned to Gebel:
Have you anything to say, Gebel?
He looked at the ground and said:
alamr minkum wa ilaykum ... [The matter is from you and to you ...]
153

Unfortunately, 45% of the subjects and Stewart mistranslated the above formula by ignoring the
intended polite act into:
12. Its your problem.
To maintain the intended force of the formula in (11), the translator may opt for:
13. Its all up to you.

One should note that maintaining the propositional content of many Arabic politeness formulas
in English would, in many cases, sacrifice politeness. That is, literal translation may fail to convey
the illocutionary force of the polite formula and subsequently distort the message as can be
seen in (14):
14. Farhat shouted to the crowds,
Come and hear what people are saying, and see the latest game thats being played
with the honor of Gebels people.
Abda shouted wretchedly : waidu-l-lah! [Say Allah is One]
45% of the participants translated the formula in (14) literally by maintaining its semantic
import, as can be illustrated in (15):
15. a) Be a monotheist!
b) Say that God is one!

The TL reader may interpret (15) as utterances said by a preacher who requests his audience to
reassert their believing in God; while, according to the context in (14), the intended illocutionary
force in the Arabic formula is a polite piece of advice to calm down. In other words, such
renditions manifest an ambivalence of function that makes the TL reader unable to grasp the
conveyed meaning of the utterance.

Sometimes, translators may fail to pragmalinguistically grasp the implicit performative verb of a
politeness formula, which makes it difficult to assign its illocutionary force. By way of
illustration, 25% of the student translators in this study failed to understand the implicit
performative of the formula in (16):
16. A sweet voice roused him: Coffee Mr. Qassem.
He turned and saw Badria holding out the cup to him.
154

He took it and said, Why the trouble, dont bother yourself for me.
Badria : tacabak raah. [Your tiring me is a relief]

In this politeness formula, Badria expresses her pleasure to be at the service of the superior
hearer. The act performed comes as a reply to thanking. However, some renditions fail
pragmalinguistically, as can be illustrated in (17):
17. a) Anything for you, sir!
b) Your demands dont bother me!
Pragmatically, Badria intends to communicate something like Dont mention it, sir!, which also
goes against Stewarts translation that overstates the implicit performative (18):
18. Its pleasure to take trouble for you.

Finally, it needs to be emphasized that a difficulty may arise when the same formula is
pragmatically used to perform more than one illocutionary force in different situations. For
example, Farghal (1995b) shows that the frequent formula inaallah [If God permitted] has
drifted extensively from its semantic import by acquiring a wide spectrum of illocutions, thus
becoming a pragmatically multipurpose expression. The example in (19) bears witness to this:
19. Balkiti: You are very cagy, but youll soon get used to me and tell me all your secrets.
Gebel: inaallah. [If God permitted]
The analysis shows that 35% of the respondents translated the above formula maintaining its
conventional semantic import thus:
20. God willing.
Pragmatically, however, this tends to go against the producers intentionality and the readers
acceptability. The speaker (Gebel) intends to perform a polite act of expressing possibility of and
hope for complying with Balkitis wishes. Hence, it is more appropriate to render this formula as
what most of the informant English native speakers of went for in (21):
21. I hope so!

4.2 Indirectness

155

Closely related to the notion of politeness is the notion of indirectness, which is a

multifunctional linguistic phenomenon. It has been assumed that politeness is one of the main
motivations for people to adopt the strategy of indirectness (Brown and Levinson 1978; Thomas
1993; Farghal and AlManna 2014). An important justification for this view stems from the fact
that indirect polite utterances might have more than one plausible interpretation, which enables
the speaker to avoid the responsibility of having committed a certain act (Sifiano 1993:70).
Viewed in this way, indirect polite utterances may be problematic in translation, which may lead
to pragmalinguistic failure.

In their renditions, many student translators failed to make a clear distinction between direct
and indirect speech acts. Therefore, 20% of them could not properly relay the indirect marriage
proposal expressed by Gebel when uttering the politeness formula in (22):
22. Gebel said with an impetuousness (while he was thinking of Sayyeda, Balkitis
daughter): Gebel yalub-il-qurb minnak. [Lit. Gebel wants to be related to you]
Balkiti: Youre the man Id gladly give my daughter to.

Most inappropriate renditions of the formula in (22) are similar to the overly direct expression in
(23):
23. Gebel asked to marry your daughter.
Although the student translators attempted to relay the implicated meaning of the utterance
into English, this undoubtedly sacrificed the polite message conveyed by the strategy of
indirectness.

Stewart, by contrast, goes too indirect by translating the formula in (22) into:
24. Gebel wants to be your son-in-law.
Interestingly, this may suggest that there are limitations for indirectness in both the SL and TL in
accordance with the pragmatic norms of Arabic and English.

More subtly, to translate an indirect Arabic formula into English either very directly or too
indirectly could relatively distort the message and subsequently delude the recipient regarding
politeness. However, we agree with Leechs (1983:231) argument that some politeness formulas
in one language can be more polite than their equivalents in the other only in the sense of

156

relativizing them to pragmalinguistic strategies such as indirectness. Therefore, we respect the

intuitions of the English native speakers who went for translating the formula in (22) into:
25. a) I would like to marry your daughter.
b) I want to marry your daughter.

Further, some Arabic formulas expressing polite requests may look more direct than they really
are. By way of illustration, consider (26):
26. Hanoura said, You are nothing but worthless hashish addicts. If Khonfus came
now, youd fall at his feet. Then to Rifaa: laa tuaaxina ya bunay [Dont
blame us my son]. A hashish smoker has no inhibitions.

An examination of the students renditions of the formula in (26) shows that 30% of them
tended to translate it more directly and less politely as can be illustrated in (27):
27. a) Be lenient with us!
b) Dont blame us!
Not only do the renditions in (27) ignore to convey the appropriate illocutionary force of the
Arabic formula, but they are also too direct to express a polite request. In light of the context of
this formula, the speaker intended to express some kind of excuse, i.e. something like (28):
28. a) Excuse me!
b) Pardon me!

4.3 Irony
By way of conversational implicature (Grice 1975), some Arabic politeness formulas are
ironically used to perform a conflictive act of insulting. In other words, we can be impolite in
polite ways, which is called by Arndt and Janney (1985) politeness from an interpersonal view.
According to Leech (1983: 142), the IP operates in human interaction alongside the CP and the
PP. That is, the speaker may exploit the PP in order to uphold the CP though he/she seems to
infringe it superficially.

157

In terms of translation, maintaining the IP in the TL can be considered one of the most serious
linguistic obstacles the translator may encounter in relaying Arabic politeness formulas into
English, as can be illustrated in (29):
29. Ali: Rifaa has friends. They attacked Batikha, and he disappeared from view.
Yasmine frowned and said: Batikha is not Bayyumi. If you defy Bayyumi, faqul
c
alaykum-is-salam. [Say peace be upon you]

In their renditions of the formula in (29), 35% of the subjects failed to maintain the IP in English,
because they could not differentiate between the implicated ironic use of this formula and its
conventional semantic meaning. Note the inappropriate renditions in (30):
30. a) Peace be upon you.
b) Say you are in peace.
c) Youll be safe.

Clearly, the inappropriateness of the translations in (30) bears witness to the fact that some
student translators were not aware of the pragmatic norms of encoding Arabic ironic formulas.
More specifically, such literal renditions ignore the fact that, in the case of ironic uses, the
speakers intended meaning on the one hand and sentence meaning on the other can be
seriously at variance. This being the case, the ironic meaning may be maintained in the TL by
paraphrasing it as follows:
31. You wont get much peace!

Further, a contextualization of ironic formulas seems necessary to give the translator a chance
to grasp the conversational implicature in such cases. Therefore, according to Levinson
(1983:126), ironies require particular background assumptions to rule out the literal
interpretations. Roughly speaking, ironies are pragmatically indirect speech acts that are used
to perform various kinds of illocutions. By way of illustration, consider the formula in (32):
32. Abda said anxiously: Lets just remember that Khonfus is the ruler of Gebels people
and that his familys friendship is an answer to prayer.
Rifaa: mubarakah calayk haaihi--adaaqah [May this friendship be blessed upon
you]

158

Used ironically, the formula in (32) is intended to be offensive and sarcastic. To observe the PP,
however, the speaker adopts the strategy of irony to avoid being impolite. The context of (32)
reveals that Rifaa does not intend to perform a congratulatory act as many respondents (40%)
and Stewart opted for in their translations, as can be illustrated by the respective renditions in
(33):
33. a) Congratulations.
b) Congratulations on this friendship.
Notably, both translations do not observe the IP in English. That is, the ironic force of the
utterance in Arabic is clear from its exaggeration in being overpolite, which is something that
can be relayed in English using the same strategy, thus:
34. Bless this great friendship!

4.4 Euphemism
One of the main problematic areas in relaying Arabic linguistic politeness in English involves
euphemistic formulas, which begin as polite formulas but soon acquire the implicated sense of
being impolite. Pragmatically, the producer utters some expressions euphemistically to disguise
unpleasant subjects, e.g. taboos, by referring to them by means of apparently inoffensive
formulas (Leech 1983:147).

As a strategy of politeness, euphemism in Arabic may present much confusion to the translator
in his/her attempts to find English equivalents (see Farghal2012; Farghal and AlManna 2014).
Based on the data in this study, many student translators could not render appropriately the
Arabic euphemistic formulas. By and large, the problem seems to be twofold.

First, the relative culture specificity of some linguistically taboo expressions tends to confuse the
translator and force him/her to shift from respecting the euphemistic norms in the TL to giving
more importance to the intended meaning in the SL formula. By way of illustration, note the
Arabic formula in (34):
34. Arafa with boundless confidence (as he introduces a medicine for sexual weakness to
the Trustee): A grain of that in a cup of tea, two hours before cadam muaaxaih
[without blame], and afterwards either youll be pleased with me or you can chase
me away with your curse.

159

Notably, 20% of the student translators who seemed to understand the implicated meaning of
the euphemistic formula above (i.e. making love) attempted to apply the Arabic strategy of
euphemism literally to English, thus offering renditions like:
35. a) before excuse me!
b) before pardon me!
c) before without blame!

By contrast, many respondents as well as Stewart translated this formula by clarifying the
implicated meaning, as can be illustrated in (36):
36. before making love!
This explicitness may be due to the translators thinking that mentioning making love in Arabic
is a taboo, whereas it is relatively not in English. We believe, however, that the euphemistic
strategy should be maintained in translation, as can be seen in (37):
37. a) before you know what!
b) before that thing!

Secondly, a difficulty may arise when some euphemistic formulas are parenthetically used right
after the mention of what is assumed to be a taboo expression. For example, the Arabic formula
in (38) was left out in the English translation by 25% of the student translators as well as
Stewart:
38. Kadri the Trustee asked him: Any news of your wife?
Arafa answered as he sat down beside him: Stubborn as a mule, rabbana yifa
maqaamak. [May God protect your status!]

One should note that the deletion of this euphemistic formula distorts the pragmatics of the
original message, as the inclusion of this euphemistic expression is meant to save the superior
hearers face (Brown and Levinson 1978). Therefore, it is essential to maintain politeness
through euphemism by rendering this formula into something like:
39. a) Im afraid to say!
b) Excuse my language!

160

4.5 Interjections
Interjections are another significant yet neglected area of linguistics that may interrelate with
politeness phenomena. As they are usually highly conventionalized and may be used in different
situations to perform polite acts, interjections can be considered one kind of politeness formulas
that may create obstacles to translators. Being highly language-specific, interjections, according
to Kryk (1992:195), lack exact equivalents across languages. Therefore, the question arising here
is how to overcome the difficulty of finding the English equivalent for the Arabic interjection,
especially when the latter is used for politeness purposes.

One of the main roots of the problem of translating interjections from Arabic into English seems
to be the lack of theoretical linguistic research in Arabic regarding this area. Further, a close look
at the participants translations revealed that many of them could not grasp the intended
meaning behind the pragmatic use of some Arabic interjections. By way of illustration, consider
the interjection in (40):
40. Qassem went into Qamars courtyard to collect the ewe, calling out: ya saatir
[O, veiler!]
Then he heard the door creaking open, and her voice saying: Good morning,
come in.

The interjection in (40) is meant to be a permission-taking formula to enter the house uttered by
the man in an attempt to get the attention of the females inside before he could be let in.
Unfortunately, 20% of the subjects translated this formula literally, ignoring the intended
implicature, as can be illustrated in (41):
41. Oh, God!
The problem here stems from the respondents inability to abide by the pragmatic criteria and
failure to match linguistic choice with pragmatic functions. Adopting Stalkers (1989:183)
hypothesis that Pragmatic choices are guided by communicative needs, we can argue that
these respondents do not possess the needed communicative competence to select the
pragmatic system of using interjections in English as a TL.

It should be noted that such an interjection is a complete utterance that performs a polite
speech act. In their translations, 35% of the participants adopted a deletion strategy toward this
161

interjection, thus neglecting the context and the performance of a fully-fledged speech act that
contributed to the understanding of the entire context of situation. Similarly, other participants
(25%) demonstrated a different kind of communication breakdown in their renditions by trying
to paraphrase the illocutionary force at the expense of politeness, as can be noted in (42):
42. a) Im coming!
b) Im coming in!
c) Im here!

Although the renditions in (42) may express some degree of politeness as the speaker can get
the attention of those inside, this may be insufficient at the politeness level and unsatisfactory
on the part of the hearer. The intuition of the native speakers of English stressed formulaicity
and approved greeting Hello, the question form Anybody here?, or a combination of both as a
polite attention getter for the interjection in (40). Only a small number of participants (20%)
managed to render this interjection of politeness appropriately as:
43. Hello! Anybody here?

More opaque to translating are primary interjections as opposed to secondary ones. Ameka
(1992) defines a primary interjection as a little word or non-word that can constitute an
utterance by itself, such as English Oops! and Ouch! A primary interjection can be used as a coutterance with other units as in (44):
44. Ouch! I have been stung by a bee!

Likewise, Arabic possesses a similar class of interjections, which is still virgin ground insofar as
research is concerned. By way of illustration, consider the Arabic interjection in (45):
45. Rifaa found the door ready, open for him. To get their attention to his arrival, he said:
iim [an attention getter sound similar to coughing].
Then, she asked him to come in.
Many student translations of this formula (60%) ranged from paraphrasing to deletion.
However, some renditions (15%) offered inappropriate interjections such as Hum! English native
speakers, by contrast, tended to opt for the idea that the speaker in this context should cough,
which can be considered an appropriate equivalent.

162

5. Conclusion
The primary concern of this paper has been to investigate the main pragmalinguistic problems
that may hinder the process of translating Arabic politeness formulas into English. By examining
some problematic areas that may have led to communication breakdown, we have attempted to
explain possible sources of pragmalinguistic failure. Most importantly, it has been shown that
the lack of linguistic and pragmatic competence will, most often, cause communication
breakdown and distortion of the source message. That is, student translators may fall victim to
pragmalinguistic failure as they attempt to convey the illocutionary force of politeness formulas.

It has been argued that mistranslating Arabic politeness formulas reflects erroneous
understanding of the pragmatic norms of English politeness on the part of translators. In some
cases, they may ignore the way a certain politeness formula is used in its English context of
situation. Further, they may apply the pragmalingistic norms of Arabic to English in an attempt
to maintain the meaning of the Arabic formula. An Arab may adopt the strategy of euphemism,
for instance, in certain formulas on some occasions, while the same situations may not call for
the use of any euphemistic expressions in English. Therefore, translators need to identify
pragmatically the way native speakers of English handle politeness and the way they operate the
CP and the PP, even in cases of irony, threatening, or insulting.

Also, it has been shown that student translators unfamiliarity with formulaicity of English has
contributed much to the occurrence of inappropriate renditions, because some English formulas
have fixed forms in accordance with context. Many student translators could not grasp the
distinction between what is formulaic and non-formulaic. Hence, they have either maintained
the Arabic formulaic expression or just paraphrased it into English.

Finally, the analysis has indicated that student translators often adopt literal translation as a
solution when they encounter difficulty in translating any formula. Thus, they try to maintain the
semantic import of the Arabic formula at the expense of the intended illocutionary force, which
makes their renditions opaque and unintelligible to English readers. What these translators need
to do is, in Hatim and Masons (1990: 32) terminology, to situationalise the text by relating it to
its environment.

163

Appendix 1

:
.1 :
. () .... :
- .

.2 () :
... . :
164

 - .

.3 :
. : .

.4 :
. "" :
: .

.5 : .
: .

( ) ... . 6 :
. :
.2 : . " :
" .

.8 : .
:
- .

.9 : ... ...
.
165


.
:

.10 ( ) :
" " . .11 :
: .

.12 " : " ... : !

.13 :!

.

.14 () :
. : .

.15 ....
: !

Appendix 2

Choose the most appropriate Politeness Expression to fill in the blank relying on both context
and your intuition as an English native speaker. For each blank, we first provide the Literal
Meaning (LM) of the Arabic politeness expression. Secondly, we suggest five translations, so that
you can choose the equivalent in English, if there is any. Otherwise, you can fill in (6) with your
suggested rendition.

166

1. Atris said, following on from the story about Gebelawi,

There was some good in the world ; even Adham was never hungry, not even for a day.
The old woman appeared at the door and said to Atris :
(LM) : May your mouth be saved !
1. Bless you!
2. Youre right!
3. Well said!
4. Thank you!
5. (No comment)
6.
2. Huda turned to Gebel,
Have you anything to say, Gebel?
He looked at the ground and said :
(LM) : The matter is from you and to you, Madam.
1. Its your problem.
2. Its up to you, Madam!
3. The matter is in your hand.
4. Its all up to you.
5. (No comment)
6.
3. Farhat shouted to the crowds :
Come and hear what people are saying, and see the latest game thats being played with the
honour of Gebels people.
Abda shouted wretchedly :
(LM) : Say Allah is One
1. For Gods sake!
167

2. Believe in the One God.

3. Take it easy .
4. Stop it, please!
5. (No comment).
6.
4. A sweet voice roused him : Coffee Mr. Qassem.
He turned and saw Badria holding out the cup to him. He took it and said : Why the trouble,
dont bother yourself for me.
Bedria :
(LM) : Your tiring me is a relief.
1. Not at all.
2. Dont mention it.
3. Its a comfort to serve you.
4. Its a pleasure to take trouble for you.
5. (No comment).
6.
5. Balkiti : You are very cagy, but youll soon get used to me and tell me all your secrets.
Gebel :
(LM) : If God permitted
1. God willing.
2. Perhaps so!
3. I hope so.
4. I will, hopefully.
5. (No comment)
6.

168

6. Gebel said with an impetuousness (while he was thinking of Sayyeda, Balkitis daughter) :

Balkiti : Youre the man Id gladly give my daughter to.

(LM) : Gebel wants to be a relative of yours.
1. Gebel wants to be your son-in-law.
2. I want to marry your daughter.
3. Ill be honoured to marry your daughter.
4. I ask for your daughters hand.
5. (No comment)
6.
7. Hanoura said :
You are nothing but worthless hashish addicts. If Khonfus came now, youd fall at his feet.
Then to Rifaa : . A hashish smoker has no inhibitions.
(LM) : Do not blame us my son
1. Dont blame us, my boy.
2. Forgive them son.
3. Please, forgive us.
4. Im sorry for that.
5. (No comment).
6.
8. Ali : Rifaa has friends. They attacked Batikha, and he disapeared from view.
Yasmine frowned and said :
Batikha is not Bayyumi. If you defy Bayyumi,
(LM) : Say peace be upon you
1. Yo wont get much peace.
2. Youll be defeated.

169

3. Peace be upon you.

4. You are losers.
5. (No comment).
6.
9. Abda : Zakia, Khonfus wife, visited me ... They became very rich... Lets just remember that
Khonfus is the ruler and that his familys friendship is an answer to a prayer.
Rifaa said :
(LM) : May this friendship be blessed upon you!.
1. Congratulations on this friendship.
2. Bless this friendship.
3. You should be pleased with this friendship.
4. I should congratulate you.
5. (No comment).
6.
10. Arafa with boundless confidence (as he introduced a medicine for sexual weakness to the
Trustee) :
A grain of that in a cup of tea two hours before and afterwards, either youll be
pleased with me or you can chase me away.
(LM) : without blame
1. making love
2. excuse me.
3. you know.
4. you do it, exuse me.
6.
11. Kadri (the Chief) asked Arafa : Any news of your wife?
Arafa answered as he sat down beside him :
Stubborn as a mule, .
170

(LM) : May God protect your status!

1. sorry to say that before you.
2. excuse me!
3. God preserve you.
4. thanks!
5. (No comment).
6.
12. Qassem went into Qamars courtyard to collect the ewe, calling out:
.
Then he heard the door creaking open, and her voice saying :
Good morning, come in.
(LM) : O, veiler!
1. Anybody here?
2. Can I come in?
3. Excuse me !
4. Im here !
5. (No comment)
6.
13. Rifaa found the door ready, open for him. To get their attention to his arrival, he said :

Then, she asked him to come in.

(LM) : ihim (an attention getter sound.)
1. Anybody here!
2. Hello!
3. Can I come in ?
4. (He coughed)
171

5. (No comment)
6.
14. Sekina came back with a package which she gave to the guest saying : A pancake,
.
(LM) : With happiness and being very well
1. enjoy it!
2. I hope youll enjoy it .
3. I wish you a good appetite.
4. please!
5. (No comment).
6.
15. Awaatif brought Santouri a cup of coffee.
Santouri took a sip and said (thanking her) :
(LM) : May your beautiful hands be saved!
1. Bless your beautiful hands.
2. Thank you!
3. Preserved be your lovely hand.
4. Thanks!
5. (No comment).
6.

172

Media Translation:
The Case of the Arabic Newsweek

Mohammed Farghal & Mashael Al-Hamly

Abstract
The present project is a case study of the Arabic Newsweek, namely the translation of two
constant features: a main column page and a stars news page. The purpose is to examine the
two features from a translation assessment perspective over a period of about four months. The
selection of the two genres is informed by the type of discourse employed in each, that is, the
evaluative vs. the expository type (Hatim & Mason 1990). The corpus will be subjected to a close
examination aiming at detecting perceptible errors (Hickey 2003), which, being lacking in
naturalness, draw attention to themselves in the target language. The errors are first divided
into general categories such as structural, lexical and discourse features, then they undergo finer
classification and subsequently assigned to sub-categories like grammatical usage, collocations,
cohesive ties, etc. The analysis of the data shows that the Arabic Newsweek version suffers from
a variety of local and global perceptible errors relating to lexical, discoursal and grammatical
usage. In terms of genre analysis, these perceptible features present themselves more
frequently and seriously in argumentative/evaluative discourse than in expository/nonevaluative discourse.

1. Introduction
Traditionally, emphasis has been placed on the translation of authoritative texts such as literary
works and religious books (for example, see Nida 1964 and Newmark 1981; 1988). However,
with the emergence of translation studies as a legitimate branch of the larger discipline of
applied linguistics, the focus has been modified to include a plethora of discourse genres. These
include journalistic material (both editorials and news reports), advertisements, and manuals,
among other things (for example, see Hatim and Mason 1990 and Hatim 2000).

Despite some methodological differences, most authors view translation as transferring the
message or meaning of a source text into a target text (Jackobson1959; Nida 1964, 1969, 1977;
Kachru 1982; Newmark 1981, 1988; De Waard and Nida 1986; Larson 1984; Farghal 1993a).
Notably, the disagreements do not relate to the content but rather to the vehicle (form) by
174

which the message is conveyed, i.e., the type of equivalence which the translator adopts, for
example formal (Catford 1965), functional (De Waard and Nida 1986), or ideational (Farghal
1994).

Debates on various types of equivalence soon lose their appeal if they are not supplemented by
a theory of context. The option for one type of equivalence rather than another is regarded as a
correlative of the dynamic nature of contextual factors, including text type, audience and
author, among other things. For instance, a creative metaphor should be relayed intact when
translating a poem, regardless of the fact that it may be hard to process in the target language.
The same metaphor, however, will call for a different treatment when encountered in a
newspaper editorial, where the audience rather than the text type comes in as the most
relevant contextual factor.

As an act of communication, translation or interlingual communication, just like intralingual

communication, involves, ipso facto, the presence of two parties: a producer and a receiver. The
receiver, who is either a hearer (in the case of interpreting) or a reader (in the case of
translating), may make judgments as to the quality of the oral or written input he/she receives.
In most real-life situations, these judgments are passed independently of a source text, that is,
the target text is evaluated on its own right as an existing text that communicates meaning
autonomously in relevant contexts. Some receivers may not even perceive that what they have
heard or read had involved translation activity, simply because the act of communication often
overrides, and sometimes even omits, the tacitly superimposed translational intervention.

However, the communicatively suppressed translational action comes to the forefront in

scholarly and/or academic endeavors. As a result, systematic translation quality assessment
has emerged as an important area in translation studies. Given the nature of translation activity,
one may not be surprised by the fact that existing models of translation assessment are sourcetext oriented (Tirkkonen-Condit 1989). This orientation often manifests itself in correspondence
between forms (Catford 1965), effects (Nida 1964), or text-types (Reiss 2000), among other
things. Taking the source text as a point of reference, Newmark (1988), for example, bases
translation quality on the referential and pragmatic accuracy as key parameters of the target
text. Similarly, House (1997) offers a model of translation assessment founded on a doublebinding relationship between the target text, on the one hand and the source text and the
target culture, on the other. Clearly, priority is given to the source text and its cultural
environment within these models (fore more details, see Burkhanov 2003:108-113).

175

Taking the English source text as a point of departure, Abdel-Hafiz (2002) selectively surveys the
Arabic Newsweek for translational mismatches. Some of his examples come under
imperceptible errors because they sound natural in Arabic despite the fact that they may
deviate from the intended meaning in the source text. Some others are wrongly analyzed in the
heat of searching for faults with the translation. As for the methodology, it confuses concepts
with types of errors, e.g. error analysis sections are presented under rubrics such as formal
equivalence, functional equivalence, managing, etc. as well as error types including linkage and
grammatical problems. Added to this is the fact that there is no genre and statistical analysis of
the data in this study.

In a more practical development, Hickey (2003) presents a model of translation assessment

based on potential judgments of lay readers. He divides translation features into imperceptible
and perceptible. Imperceptible features escape the attention of the reader either because of
their high quality in terms of accuracy and/or appropriateness or because of the reader's
inability to access the original. By contrast, perceptible features are those which a lay reader
would, or could, consciously notice and suspect of being erroneous because they somehow or
other draw attention to themselves (p.22). Perceptible and imperceptible errors may seem to
correspond to overt and covert errors (House 1922, 1992) but, in fact, they differ from them
in that they do not represent a double-binding relationship between the target text and the
source text. That is, lay readers can figure out perceptible errors without making reference to
the source text. Based on this important distinction, we have opted for Hickeys rather than
Houses dichotomy.

2. Objectives of Study
The present study aims to examine media translation into Arabic from a translation assessment
perspective. Specifically, the study will examine the Arabic translation of two recurring
Newsweek features in 15 issues of the Newsweek in Arabic (published by Kuwait Dar Al-Watan
in collaboration with Newsweek international). The two features, a main column page and a
stars news page, are meant to represent argumentative and expository discourse, respectively.
It should be noted that the Newsweek news material is essentially evaluative, as this publication
is a weekly magazine rather than a daily newspaper, where expository news reporting and news
evaluation are quite common. This being the case, the closest segment to expository genre we
could find is the stars news page. It is hoped that this contrast, though atypical, will bring out
important insights into the type and frequency of perceptible translational errors in the two
genres.

The survey intends to lay hand on perceptible translation features as perceived by the two
researchers functioning, so to speak, as lay readers. These perceptible errors are assumed to be
176

the cause of the oft-heard complaint made by the Arabic Newsweek readers about the quality of
the Arabic used in terms of accuracy and/or appropriateness. The purpose is multi-faceted. First,
the perceptible features will be specified and divided into general categories of errors, including
grammatical, lexical, and discoursal problems. Second, each general category will be presented
in sub-categories, for example, lexical problems will be sub-divided into errors relating to
individual word meaning, collocations, and circumlocutions, among other things. Finally, a
statistical analysis will be presented to show the frequency of each general category and subcategory in the two genres.
3. Significance of Study
Much work has been done on theory building in translation studies in general (Nida 1964;
Catford 1965; Newmark 1981; Larson 1982; De Waard & Nida 1986; Hatim & Mason 1991; Bell
1991; Neubert & Shreve 1992; Baker 1992; and Hatim 2000, among others). Similarly, a large
amount of research has been conducted with respect to English/Arabic/English translation. In
this vein, some studies have focused on researchers' intuitions, which are based on specific
contextualized or de-contextualized material from the two languages (Al-Najjar 1984; Mouakket
1986; Saraireh 1990; and Farghal 1991, 1992, 1993c, 1994, among others). Others have drawn
insights from empirical data stemming from student translations (Shunnaq & Farghal, this
volume; Khalil 1993; Farghal & Shakir, this volume; Farghal 1995a, 2003; and Hatim & Mason
1997, among others). Some other studies have had recourse to existing translations, especially
literary ones as a source of translation criticism (see, for example, El-Yasin 1996; Aziz 1999;
Farghal & Naji, this volume).

Clearly, there has been a great deal of research about theory-oriented translation models and
more practice-oriented translation criticism. The presence of media translation in this
voluminous literature does not go beyond anecdotal reference to de-contextualized segments
from here and there, despite the fact that media translation is probably the most practicable
type of translation in this age - the age of technology, news agencies, internet and globalization.
From here comes the serious need for a fully-fledged study on media translation in order to
explore its norms and quality. As for the choice of the Newsweek, it need not be explained, for
this widely distributed international weekly is one of the more influential magazines in the
world.
4. Methodology
4.1. Material
The input material for this project consists of two constant full-page features: a main column
page 'World View' written regularly by Fred Zakaria, who is a native speaker of American English
and a stars news page, which is anonymously compiled. In the first magazine feature, the picture
of the columnist is conspicuously displayed in the top right-hand corner in the English original
and in the top left-hand corner in the Arabic translated version (See Appendix 1). The second
feature clearly displays pictures of the stars on top of their news segments (See Appendix 2).
177

The choice of the first segment is motivated by the fact that editorials of this type usually
involve argumentation that necessitates the employment of a language density not required in
straightforward news reports. Therefore, column features, being highly evaluative, are potential
ground for translation problems, a prediction that has been confirmed by pilot browsing into
some copies of the Newsweek in Arabic by the present researchers. As for the selection of the
second segment, it is meant to represent expository discourse in the absence of non-evaluative
news reports in the Newsweek. The assumption here is that stars news genre, largely being nonevaluative, may involve less language density and subsequently a different picture of perceptible
errors.
4.2. Procedure
After the acquisition of 15 recent issues of the Arabic Newsweek along with their English
originals, the Arabic corpus was carefully examined for perceptible features, which then
underwent categorization and statistical analysis. In the course of analyzing the data, reference
was made to the English versions only when need had arisen to strengthen arguments and draw
further insights.

Perceptible features were categorized into three main categories: lexical, discoursal and
grammatical. Lexical errors include wrong collocations and idioms, wrong words, and
circumlocutions and repetitions. Discourse errors fall within two categories: conjunction errors
and phraseology errors. Grammatical errors feature problems with prepositions or pronouns,
subject verb agreement, word form, and articles, among others.
4.3. Translators Background
Two teams of translators are involved in the translation process; the first is the Washington DC
team. This team consists of a group of Arabic native-speakers who are not necessarily based in
Washington but are in charge of a first draft translation of the Newsweek. The second team is
based in Kuwait and consists of translators who are also Arabic native-speakers with a bachelor
degree in Arabic language and Literature. This team is responsible for proofreading/editing the
first draft version of the Newsweek. Kuwait-based translators are not concerned with
correctness of the English-Arabic translation but more with the correctness/grammaticality of
the Arabic text.
5. Results
The number of perceptible errors in the whole corpus is 266. The World View page claims 214
(80.45%) errors while the Stars News page contains only 52 (19.55%) errors. The maximum
number of errors per page in the World View data is 22 against 6 in the Stars News data. A
relatively similar ratio obtains regarding the minimum number of errors per page, viz. 7 errors in
the World View data against only 1 error in the Stars News data. The overall breakdown of
errors shows that discoursal features are the most frequent at 43.8%, lexical features come in
second place at 35.7%, and finally grammatical features account for 20.5%. Bar graph 1 shows
178

this distribution.
Overall Disribution of Types of Errors in the Corpus

21%

43%
Discoursal errors
Lexical errors
Grammatical errors

36%

Bar graph 1.
However a different pattern of distribution of features obtains across the two genres, both in
terms of typology and frequency. Typologically, discourse features come first in the World View
data at 48.13%, while lexical features are the most frequent in the Stars News data at 48.1%. By
contrast, discourse errors occupy second place in the Stars News data at 28.86% while lexical
errors assume second place in the World View data at 32.7%. As for grammatical features, they
come third in both genres at 19.17% in World View data vs. 23% in Stars News data.

In terms of frequency in the corpus, features in the three categories are remarkably more
frequent in the World View data than in the Stars News data, viz. discourse features account for
38.72% vs. 5.64%, lexical features for 26.3% vs. 9.4%, and grammatical features for 15.41% vs.
4.51, respectively. The distribution of errors across the two genres is shown in Bar graph 2
below.

179

Breakdown of Errors

120

100

80

World View
Stars News

60

40

20

0
Lexical errors

Discoursal errors

Grammatical errors

Bar graph 2.
Within the category of lexical errors, wrong collocation/idioms score the highest frequency at
48.42%, wrong words come second at 42.11%, and finally lag circumlocution/repetition at
9.47%. Across the two genres, however, wrong words are more frequent than wrong
collocations/idioms in the Star News data, viz. wrong words account for 56% while wrong
collocations/idioms score 32%. Bar graph 3 below indicates the breakdown of lexical errors
across
the
two
genres.
Breakdown of Lexical Errors

40

35

30

25
World View
Stars News

20

15

10

0
Wrong collocations/idioms

Wrong word

Circumlocution/Repetition

Bar graph 3.

180

The breakdown of discourse errors shows two main sub-categories: missing conjunctions and
wrong phraseologies. Missing conjunctions are more frequent than wrong phraseologies in the
corpus at 69.49% vs. 30.5%, respectively. Across the two genres, the distribution of discourse
features is quite different, viz. missing conjunctions in the World View data score 66.95% while
they only account for 2.54% in the Stars News data. As for wrong phraseologies, they score
20.34% against 10.17% in the Stars News data. The Bar graph below represents the breakdown
of discourse errors across the two genres.
Breakdown of Discoursal Errors

80

70

60

50

40

World View
Stars News

30

20

10

0
Wrong phraseology

Missing conjunction

Bar graph 4.
As for the data on grammatical errors, they contain seven subcategories including a
miscellaneous one. Excluding the miscellaneous subcategory, the most frequent type of error
involves prepositions at 30.19% and the least frequent error involves pronouns at 7.55%. Across
the two genres, wrong/missing prepositions maintain the highest frequency at 29.27% in the
World View data against 33.33% in the Stars News data. Similarly, pronoun errors maintain the
lowest frequency at 5.66% in the World View data against 1.89% in the Stars News data. Bar
graph 5 below shows the breakdown of grammatical errors across the two genres.

Finally, a word should be said about zero versus near-zero translatability as represented by
citing culture-sensitive material in source language versus transliteration. The expository text
(i.e. the stars news page) featured a noticeable employment of zero-translation when the text
included names of T.V. programs (e.g. West Wing, The Simpsons, Rock Talk), music albums (e.g.
It had to be you, 8 Mile, Get rich or die trying), and/or movies (Lion King, Hulk, X Men), as well as
titles of books (e.g. When the women come out to dance) and/or plays (e.g. Cabaret, Les
Misrables). In some instances, Arabic translation or transliteration would accompany the
English text, for example Pattern Recognition would be accompanied with the Arabic
181

translation in brackets , and Halloween would be followed by

)(.
Breakdown of Grammatical Errors

12

10

World View
Stars News

0
Wrong/missing
preposition

Wrong/missing
pronoun

Wrong word form

Wrong/missing
article

Wrong agreement

Micellaneous

Bar graph 5.

The argumentative text (i.e. world view page), on the other hand, featured the use of
transliteration mainly when need had arisen. Names of magazines, organizations and airplanes
are all transliterated; for example
16. Only two instances of the combined use of both the English and Arabic texts
were found in the argumentative text under study, for example The Gathering Storm was
accompanied with ) ( and Ending the Vietnam war with )) .

6. Analysis and Discussion

6.1. Overview
As sampled by the Arabic Newsweek, media translation from English into Arabic suffers from a
variety of perceptible errors that seriously affect the quality of translation. Being
uninterpretable and/or unnatural, these problematic features draw attention to themselves
and, subsequently, cause the target reader to pause reluctantly and think hard in an attempt to
reconstruct the linguistic reality in terms of form and/or content. Alternatively, the reader may
opt out by abandoning the engagement altogether. On the one hand, problems in form, despite
their being local errors (Hendrickson, 1980), may represent a serious source of annoyance
during the decoding process. For example, the employment of a wrong preposition, which is a
182

matter of accuracy, or an odd collocation, which is a matter of appropriateness, in a text may

create irritation, confusion or bad impressions on the part of the reader. On the other hand,
content problems, being global in nature, often create dismay in readers because the reader
cannot come to terms with the meaning of a certain part of the text. In this case, the readers
inability to figure out meaning is usually caused by the translators failure to phrase out or code
message properly. In many cases, however, form and content problems interact within some
segments, thus effecting more confusion and dismay in target readers.
Looking globally at the data across the two genres, it can be readily observed that evaluative
discourse (represented by the World View page) presents more challenging ground to media
translators than non-evaluative discourse (exemplified by the Stars News page), viz. perceptible
errors in the World View page are four times more than those in the Stars News page (80.45%
vs. 19.55%). This interesting finding may be attributed to the fact that evaluative discourse
involves a language density that correlates with setting the tone rather than setting the scene
(as in non-evaluative discourse) for the expression of propositions/ideas. Tone setting, it should
be noted, necessitates a heavy use of conjunctions, collocations and hypotactic structures in an
attempt to persuade the reader and bring about a change in his/her attitude. Scene setting, by
contrast, is less demanding linguistically, as it mainly involves mere monitoring of states-ofaffairs; hence the emphasis is on conveying rather than evaluating information (for more
information, see Hatim and Mason, 1990; Renkema, 1993)

6.2 Lexical Errors

Lexical features come in second place claiming 35.7% of the errors in the entire corpus. In terms
of genre, lexical errors are the most frequent in the Stars News data at 48.1%, whereas they
score second place in the World View data at 32.7%. The frequency of sub-types, namely wrong
collocations/idioms and wrong words, also differs in terms of genre, viz. wrong
collocations/idioms come in first place scoring higher than wrong words which come in second
place in the World View data, whereas the converse order obtains in the said sub-types in the
Stars News data. As has been said above, this discrepancy may have to do with the language
density across the two genres, where collocations are expected to play a more important role in
argumentation or evaluative discourse (for more details, see Johnstone, 1991) than in
expository or non-evaluative discourse. The following subsections will illustrate the types of
lexical errors committed in the Arabic Newsweek with elaborate examples from the data.

6.2.1. Wrong Collocations/Idioms

Collocations and idiomatic expressions are two important categories of English multi-word units.
In fact, they constitute a major element in the make-up of the lexicon and, in effect, a significant
part of lexical competence (Alexander, 1978; Aisensadt, 1981; Yario, 1980; Nattinger, 1980,
183

1988; Cowie, 1981, 1988; Strassler, 1983; Benson et al 1986; Baker and MacCarthy, 1987; anf
Farghal and Obeidat, 1995, among others). In terms of translation, Shakir and Farghal (this
volume) argue that collocations are more communicatively useful than idioms because they are
more common in speech and are rarely replaceable by lexical substitutes, e.g. the collocation
public support is only awkwardly paraphraseable. By contrast, idioms are less common in
speech and are readily replaceable by lexical substitutes, e.g. the idiomatic expression bury the
hatchet is replaceable by the lexical alternate end the dispute. Consequently, the translators
failure to operate the Idiom principle in the target language will inevitably result in erroneous
collocations but not necessarily erroneous idiomatic expressions, as lexical substitutes are
always there as a workable solution in the case of idioms. That is, the Open Choice Principle
does work as an alternate in the translation of idioms but it is practically ruled out in translating
collocations (for the discussion of the two principles, see Sinclair, 1991).

The results of the present study lend further support for the argument that collocations are
more problematic than idioms in translation. As a matter of fact, there are only few cases of
mistranslated idiomatic expressions in the data, namely 4 errors out of 38 errors in the World
View data and none in the Stars News data. This being the case, we have decided to combine
the two categories.

The most frequent error in collocations is the choice of an inappropriate collocate for a word,
which results in an awkward or unnatural combination in the target language. Assuming that
translation is done by caring native speakers of the target language, as is the case in the
Newsweek, the question that poses itself is: Why would translators sanction the presence of
erroneous collocations in their translations? Or more pragmatically: Why would translators not
reread their translations and subsequently naturalize such collocational deviations?

The answer to the first question has something to do with the translators option for literal
translation in cases where it does not work. It should be noted that while literalness
remains one of the main methods of translation, it is of little use in the area of
collocations, as collocations rarely correspond between different languages. This does not
mean that some languages are richer in collocations than others, but it simply indicates
that words may choose different collocates in different languages. For example, the [
dense] feature of a drink in English is collocationalized in terms of the features [strong]
and [weak], hence the presence of the collocations strong tea and weak tea, whereas
the same feature is collocationalized in terms of the features [ heavy] and [ light] in
Arabic, hence the presence of the Arabic collocations and .
The response to the second question may suggest two further indications. Firstly, it may
be the case that translators rarely regard their translations as fully-fledged texts away
from the source language texts; hence they overlook such deviations in the heat of
184

considering the translation an immediate reflection of the original in terms of content as

well as form. In this case, the absence of appropriate translator training may be to blame.
Secondly, it is possible that the translator is not adequately competent in the area of
collocations in his first language, i.e., she/he does not possess an adequate feel that
enables her/him to call up appropriate/natural collocations in the target language in the
context of translation activity. This does not mean that some native speakers may lack
collocational competence as it is part and parcel of general linguistic competence, but
rather that this collocational competence may not be optimally functionalized in the
process of translating. Thus, the translators collocational proficiency should be regarded
as part of her/his translational competence rather than her/his linguistic competence in
general.
Below are five excerpts from the corpus featuring erroneous collocations as a result of
choosing a wrong collocate and one excerpt (No. 6) involving an erroneous idiom. From
now onwards, underlined material represents relevant erroneous segments, while
bracketed material represents corrections which are not relevant to the discussion at hand
(For more examples of erroneous collocations and wrong words, see Appendix 3):
[ ] .1
(November 26, 2002) .
8 . .2
.
(December 3, 2002) .
[] . [] .3
.
(December, 10 . .
2002)
: .4
.
(November 12, 2002).
.5
(November 5, 2002) .......
.6
(November 14, 2002) .

Other things neutralized (i.e. ignoring bracketed material which relates to other types of errors(,
the excerpts in (1) (5) do not read well because of the erroneous collocations that feature
wrong collocates. By way of illustration, the Arabic preposition does not collocate with the
185

noun in (1) and similarly the Arabic noun does not collocate with the verbal noun in
(2). To solve these problems, the translator should have naturalized the two collocations by
choosing appropriate collocates such as etc. for and the verbal
noun for . Moreover, naturalizing the collocation in (2) should involve a further step by
abandoning the corresponding Arabic collocation altogether for lack of naturalness in the text
and subsequently opting for a more function-oriented Arabic collocation such as
or . As for the excerpt in (6), it does not read well because of twisting the
Arabic idiomatic expression in a way that distorts the flow of discourse and
puzzles the target reader.

In some cases, the problem occurs because of the translators failure to employ a necessary
collocate in the target language. The excerpts below illustrate this:

12 ] [ .2
(December 3, 2002) .
[] .8
(February 4, 2003) .
.9
( December 24, 2002) .
In each of the underlined expressions above, there is a missing collocate that would not escape
the attention of the lay Arab reader. Arabic discourse does not tolerate these expressions
without post-modifying collocates, viz. the natural expressions are (
) and in (7), (8) and (9), respectively. It is the job of the translator to
employ such natural expressions even when the source text segment does not manifest
collocational behavior. To illustrate, consider the English text corresponding to (7) above:

10. Earlier this month Saddam gave a remarkable interview his first in 12 years - to
an Egyptian weekly.

As can be seen, the translator managed to relay the English collocation gave an interview
correctly into but, unfortunately, failed to properly incorporate the attributive
adjective remarkable into the Arabic text because she/he was unable to call up the collocation
that constitutes the natural habitat for the corresponding Arabic adjective, i.e., .

In other cases, though fewer in the corpus, the collocational problem shows a different
directionality. To explain, some Arabic expressions in the data feature superfluous collocates,
which are an immediate consequence of rendering English collocations literally. Below are two
excerpts showing this kind of problem:
186

11. (

.() " February 18,

2003)
12.
.( December 10, 2002)
It is clear that the erroneous Arabic expressions ... in (11) and in (12)
are literal renditions of the English collocations watch..very closely and globalized world,
respectively. In other words, the translator was not aware of the constraint that, in contrast with
English, the Arabic collocation cannot be modified by an intensifier; in fact, the
lexeme , which enjoys no existence in Arabic independently of the above collocation, is
inherently emphatic, hence the impossibility of emphasizing it by an intensifier, i.e. the
attributive adjective . Similarly, the translator has fallen victim to the pleonasm
instead of the familiar Arabic term .

6.2.2. Wrong Words

Among lexical errors, the use of a wrong word is the second most frequent type of error at
42.11%, which is close to the frequency of wrong of collocations/idioms at 48.42% . It may be
argued that this kind of error is a clear indication of a deficiency in the translators lexical
competence. In many cases, this deficiency manifests itself in the translators inability to
distinguish cognitive and/or near-synonyms in terms of lexical usage. Following are four excerpts
involving lexical usage problems:

. .13
[ ]
(November 12, 2002) .
14. . () ()
. " .15

. (November 5, 2002) ."
.16

.
As can be noted, the erroneous choice of the underlined words is very clear. The fact that the
Russians are the top dog while their subjects, the Chechens, are the underdog renders the use of
the Arabic word in (13) inappropriate the correct cognitive synonym is . In (14), the
187

employment of the Arabic adjective to modify is inappropriate the

correct adjectives in this context are the cognitive and/or near-synonyms or . For its
part, (14) suffers from an erroneous use of the introductory Arabic verb , which is a
cognitive synonym of the correct introductory verb . Similarly, the last excerpt involves a
mistaken use of the verb instead of the correct verb ;the two verbs may be argued
to be near-synonyms. These examples, among others, point to a serious deficiency in the
translators lexical competence, especially when it comes to differentiating between cognitive
and/or near-synonyms in terms of correct lexical usage.

In other cases, the phonological similarity between two Arabic words may be the source of
creating confusion in translators. Once again, the translators insensitiveness to phonological
form is a clear indication of premature lexical competence. Consider the following excerpts from
the corpus:

" .12
(November 18, 2003) ."
.18
(February 4, 2003) .
" " " : .19
(January 21, 2003)
In (17) above, the translator mistook the Arabic adverbial finally for the correct adverbial
recently/lately, which may have been caused by the similarity in phonological form.
Similarly, the translator confused the sociological term / reformer/reformers with
the political term / liberal/liberals in (18) , probably due to phonological
similarity. Likewise, the translator employed the Arabic verb committed wilfully
erroneously instead of the correct verb approached/came near in (19). Once again,
phonological similarity may have been a factor. It must be noted that solid lexical knowledge in
translational competence should enable translation practitioners to neutralize phonological
similarity between Arabic words and subsequently call up the correct lexical item in the process
of translating.

6.2.3. Circumlocution
Circumlocution is a lexical strategy whereby the translator falls short of coding meaning
efficiently and effectively in the target language by describing or exemplifying the target word or
phrase as a result of the translators being unable to maintain the same degree of lexical
specificity between the source and target texts (Brown 2000;Cruse 1986). The resulting
188

rendition, though understandable, is usually awkward and repetitious. In terms of frequency,

this type of error accounts for only 9.47% in the data. The two examples below are illustrative:

.20
(December 3, 2002).
. .21
(February 11, 2003)
As can be observed, the messages in (20) and (21) above are coded awkwardly and repetitiously.
To illustrate this point, consider the same messages encoded efficiently and effectively in (22)
and (23) below, respectively:

. .22
. .23
6.3. Discourse Errors
Discourse features are the most frequent in the corpus claiming 43.8% of the total number of
errors. They fall within two sub-categories: conjunction errors and phraseology errors. The
following sub-sections shed more light on the nature of these types of errors.

6.3.1 Conjunction Errors

Arabic discourse is well known for its explicit paratactic nature, with a heavy use of conjunctions
(Kaplan, 1966; Johnstone, 1991). The main function of Arabic conjunctions, wa nd and fa so in
particular, is to make the text stick together and furnish a natural flow of discourse.
Consequently, the translator from English, in which discourse relations are primarily asyndetic
and hypotactic, into Arabic should be careful enough to cater for this discourse mismatch. That
is to say, an Arabic translation should feature more conjunctions than the English original and,
conversely, an English translation should include fewer conjunctions than the Arabic original.
Apparently, the Newsweek translators are not adequately aware of this rhetorical fact,
especially in evaluative discourse where the employment of conjunctions accounts for 69.49%
within discourse errors. Following are two illustrative paragraphs:

[ ] . [ ] .24
[ ] .
(February 4, 2003) .
189

 .25
. ][ . . .
(January 21, 2003) . [] .
The Arab reader will immediately notice the restrained flow of Arabic discourse in (22) and (23)
above, as a result of the translators failure to optimize the use of conjunctions. Also, the lack of
an adequate number of conjunctions constrains the impetus of the evaluative tone and
consequently weakens the impact of the argument. To shed more light on the significance of
this discoursal mismatch between Arabic and English, let us examine the English paragraph
corresponding to (23) above (The null sign indicates the place where a conjunction and/or a
discourse marker is needed in Arabic):

26. The only short-term solution is to start talking to North Korea about the benefits
of de-escalating and starting a new relationship. We want this regime to do
something or rather to stop doing something. Pressure might work, so might
incentives. We have no option but to try both. (January 20, 2002)

Clearly, the asyndetic ordering of the sentences in the English paragraph is appropriate and
natural, as it conforms to the discourse norms in English, where it is possible to leave the
intersentential relations implicit or suppressed (for more details, see Hatim 2001). In Arabic
discourse, by contrast, these suppressed formal features are needed in order to render the
discourse natural and appropriate. Note that the translator of (26) as (25) managed to fill the
first gap with the emphatic particle , which makes up for the lack of a conjunction (e.g.
cliticized to the pronoun to give instead of the combination of the emphatic particle and
the clitic ). However, she/he failed to fill in the other two discourse gaps with the conjunctions
and , respectively and, in effect, offered an asyndetic text which natural Arabic discourse
does not tolerate.

6.3.2. Phraseology Errors

In terms of frequency, phraseology errors are less common than conjunction errors (30.5% vs.
69.49%, respectively). However, they are definitely more serious than conjunction errors
because they jeopardize the conveyance of meaning in its primary existence. That is to say, the
translators failure to code the intended meaning clearly and/or properly may cause a
breakdown in communication, whereas his/her failure to employ conjunctions discoursally may
only affect the flow and tone of the text, independently of its basic or primary meaning.
Consequently, both types of errors affect the text globally but in different ways. To see how
serious phraseology errors are, let us examine the four excerpts below:

190

 .22 .
[] (November 12, 2002) .
.28
.
(November 24, 2002) .
.29 (January 28, 2003) .
.30 ( ) , " : ()
"....
)(December 24, 2002
In (27), the reader may wonder how to interpret or make sense of the Arabic text. It is clear that
the translator has failed to convey the intended message given in (31) below, which corresponds
to the English text in (32).
.31 .
(November 12, 2002) .
32. Thank goodness for moral clarity. President Bushs black-and-white picture of
the war on terror has apparently made sense of Russias complicated struggle
with the Chechens.

The situation in (28) is not any better because the way the intended message is phrased out by
the translator befogs the editorialists attack on the Mullas in Iran, as can be contrasted with the
correct coding of the message in (33) below:

.33 ()
.
.
For its part, the phraseology of (29) is awkward and hard to process by the reader. To see this,
compare (29) with the correct coding of the message in (34) below:

.34 .
Similarly, the last excerpt in (30) suffers from a phraseology problem. Mobis words are meant
to spell out the motive behind the attack but the translators rendition can hardly convey the
intended message. Examine the rendition in (35) as a possible coding of the message:

.35 ( ) " :
191

 !
(December 24, 2002)".....
6.4. Grammatical Errors
Grammatical errors are the least frequent in the corpus at 20.5%. Being local in nature,
grammatical errors affect the meaning of the text in specific ways and can be readily corrected
by the careful reader. The fact that the Newsweek translators make some grammatical mistakes
points to a deficiency in their grammatical competence (Canale, 1983). The following
subsections throw some light on the types of grammatical errors in the data.

6.4.1. Wrong/Missing Prepositions

The most frequent type of grammatical errors is the translators failure to employ a correct
preposition by either using a wrong preposition or omitting the employment of a preposition
altogether. This kind of error accounts for 30.19% among grammatical problems. Following are
some examples from the data:

" " .36

( December 17, 2002) .
.32
(February 18, 2003) ....
(October 1, . .38
2002)
As can be observed, examples (36) and (37) include wrong prepositions, i.e. should be
and should be . As for (38), the translator has failed to employ a preposition,
i.e., should read .

6.4.2. Agreement Errors

Errors in agreement came second in grammatical errors accounting for 15.1%. Below are two
illustrative examples:

(February 18, .) ( " " .39

2003)
10 100,000 .40
200,000
.
192

In (39), the numerical phrase does not agree in gender with the head noun ,
which is [ human] and [ masculine]. To observe gender agreement, the phrase should read
. As for (40), the lexical subject does not agree in number with the
subsequent verbs in the text. Apparently, the translator omitted number agreement on the
basis of the absence of such agreement between the verb and its lexical subject in ,
which is sanctioned in Arabic. However, the number agreement rule must be applied when the
agreement is between a verb and a resumptive pronoun; hence the correct forms of the
subsequent verbs should be and , respectively.

6.4.3. Wrong Word Form

Sometimes the translator fails to derive the correct form from a particular word. Errors of this
type account for 13.21% among grammatical errors. To illustrate, consider the two examples
below:

[] . .41
(January 21, 2003) .
.42
(January 28, 2003) ....
In (41), the passive verb form is inappropriate; the correct verb form is , which is
active in form but passive in meaning (for more details, see Farghal and Al-Shorafat, this
volume). As for (42), the error is in the plural form of First Lady, which erroneously
occurs as , instead of the correct form . In both cases, as we can see, it is a
matter of deriving the correct word form by the translator, whether it involves derivational or
inflectional morphology.

6.4.4. Wrong/Missing Definite Article

Errors that involve wrong or missing definite article account for 9.43% among grammatical
problems in the data. To illustrate, below are two examples:

.43
(December 10, 2002) .
.44
(February 18, 2003) .

193

In (43) the translator wrongly used the Arabic definite article with the proper noun denoting the
Palestinian Islamic Movement Hamas. In (44), the translator failed to employ the Arabic
definite article with the underlined generic noun, that is, the correct form is the majority
rather than majority.

6.4.5. Wrong/Missing Pronoun

Errors in pronouns score 4 occurrences (7.55% among grammatical problems). Consider the two
examples below:

.45
(November 26, 2002) .
]] [ .46
(November 5, 2002) . []
In (45), the cataphoric resumptive pronoun cliticized to the emphatic particle redundantly
duplicates the anaphoric resumptive pronoun ;hence it should be deleted. For its part, the
example in (46) lacks the pronoun in the place of the underlined null symbol. Without this
pronoun, the text does not sound Arabic.

6.4.6. Miscellaneous Errors

This subcategory contains a mixed bag of grammatical errors which accounts for 24.52% in the
data. Among these miscellaneous errors, we find problems relating to tense, negation,
punctuation, complementizers, copula, etc. Following are four different types of miscellaneous
errors:

. 1991 ! .42
(January 28, 2002)
.... .48
(December 10, 2002) .
.49
(January 14, 2003) .
. .50
(November 5, 2002)

194

In (42), there is a tense problem. The verbal Arabic Adjective can only make a reference to
the present time. However, the reference in the text relates to January 1991; hence a finite
Arabic verb in the past tense form must be used, viz. . In (48), the placement of the
negative particle is awkward and hard going. To solve this problem, the negative particle may
be placed immediately after the complementizer . For its part, the example in (49) features a
redundant complementizer the underlined . In order for the text to sound Arabic, the said
complementizer must be deleted. Finally, (50) includes a punctuation error the underlined
comma should be replaced with a period.

7. Conclusion and Implications

Based on an examination of the Arabic Newsweek, it is clear that professional media translation
from English into Arabic suffers from a variety of perceptible problems including lexical,
discoursal and grammatical errors. These errors, which draw attention to themselves, often
create irritation, and even dismay, in Arab readers. In terms of seriousness, the errors range
between rectifiable local problems such as odd collocations and erroneous grammatical features
and more subtle, global problems like the translators employment of an unnatural flow of
discourse and hard-going, or even uninterpretable, phraseologies. Collectively, such perceptible
errors affect negatively the overall quality of translation activity, especially when we are dealing
professional media translation, which, we believe, cannot be represented by a caliber higher
than that of the Arabic Newsweek, given the well-known international status of the source
English publication.

In terms of genre analysis, evaluative/argumentative discourse proves to be more challenging

than non-evaluative/expository discourse as indicated by both the quality and volume of
perceptible errors in the corpus. This finding points to the argument that this would be an
extremely serious problem in the case of the Newsweek because, in contrast with nonevaluative news reporting which is predominant in daily newspapers, the bulk of the Newsweek
material is inherently evaluative. Lagging in time with respect to news coverage, weeklies are
built around managing rather than just monitoring news, which renders their task more taxing in
creating and subsequently translating discourse.

What implications can be drawn from this study? First and foremost, native language
195

competence in Arabic should not be taken for granted in Arab translators. The Arabic Newsweek
case shows clearly that the Arabic native speaker translators who are employed to do
translation activity at two stages (primary translation in Washington and translation editing in
Kuwait) are seriously deficient in Arabic language competence at various levels: discourse, lexis
and grammar. This may have to do with the special status of Arabic, where a diglossic situation
predominates the linguistic scene in all Arab countries. Arabic diglossia involves a Low Variety
(any given local dialect) and a High Variety (Standard Arabic). It can be argued that educated
Arabs speak their dialects natively and standard Arabic, so to speak, as a second language which
is pseudo-natively acquired through formal education and continuous contact with spoken and
written material within the Arab culture. Vernacular Arabic, therefore, may occasionally
interfere with performance in the standard written variety. The degree of competence achieved
in standard Arabic may vary greatly from one individual to another and from one Arab country
to another. This depends on the efforts exerted by individuals to excel in the standard variety as
well as the degree of attention given to the role of standard Arabic in different Arab countries.
This being the case, Arab translators' knowledge of standard Arabic should be carefully checked
before entrusting them with translating into Arabic, as is the case with the Arabic Newsweek.

A second important implication is that media bodies should ensure the presence of translator
training on the part of candidate translators. It is not enough for a candidate to be a university
graduate of a foreign languages department. Prospective translators should receive extensive
translator training in order to develop their translational competence at the level of structure,
lexis and discourse. It should be noted that translational competence may not replicate general
language competence in any language pair. Consequently, a candidate who is highly proficient in
Arabic and English may prove a failure in translation activity because interlingual communication
involves skills that go well beyond general language proficiency. Such skills, we believe, are the
output of professional translator training.

Finally, but equally important, target language texts, which are the output of translation activity,
should be treated as fully-fledged texts in their socio-cultural environment. To accomplish this
goal, they should undergo optimal naturalization in terms of discourse and diction,
independently of their corresponding source texts at the hands of professional editor
translators. At the end of the day, a media translation should not sound as a translation; it
should sound as a native text created for a public readership in the target language culture.

196

197

Collocations: An Index of L2 Interlingual

Transfer Competence

Mohammed Farghal & Abdulla shakir

Abstract
Collocations constitute a key component in the lexicon of natural language. Translators and/or
interpreters should, therefore, possess a working syntagmatic competence alongside their
paradigmatic competence. The results of this study show that collocations are a problematic
area where student translators/interpreters frequently stumble when working into L2, viz. the
percentage of inappropriate renderings of target collocations is 48.2% in translating and
66.8% in interpreting. The higher percentage of inappropriate collocations in interpreting is
argued to be relevant to the time factor. The study further looks into the strategies adopted by
the student translators/interpreters in their attempts to render target collocations. The
strategies of reduction, synonymy, compensation, paraphrasing and calquing are shown to
play a significant role. The unnaturalness of the product, the paper argues, comes as a
consequence of the translators/interpreters inability to call up the relevant collocations in
the target language. The failure to cope with collocations in the SLT results in mitigating the
evaluativeness parameter, thus weakening the line of argumentation in the TLT.

1. Introduction
Multi-word units in general and collocations in particular constitute a key component in the
lexicon of natural language (Alexander 1978; Aisenstadt 1981; Yorio 1980; Nattinger 1980, 1988;
Cowie 1981, 1988; Baker & McCarthy 1987; Sinclair 1987/1991; among others). Conventionally,
multi-word-unit taxonomies variously include canonical forms such as idioms, proverbs, clichs,
formulaic discourse markers, etc. and non-canonical forms best represented by collocations.
Cowie (1981:224) defines a collocation as, "a composite unit which permits the substitutability of
items for at least one of its constituent elements". An idiom, on the other hand, is "immutable
in the sense that its parts are unproductive in relation to the whole in terms of the normal
operational processes of substitution, transposition, expansion, etc". (Mitchell 1971:59). It
should be noted that collocations are more communicatively useful than idioms for the simple
reason that they are more common in authentic speech and/or materials and are rarely
replaceable by lexical substitutes, e.g. 'to harbor evil thoughts' and 'public support' are only
awkwardly paraphraseable; whereas, idioms are less common in authentic speech and/or materials
and are readily replaceable by lexical substitutes, e.g. 'kicked the bucket' and 'bury the hatchet' are
198

replaceable by 'died' and 'end the dispute', respectively. Yorio (1980:440) rightly notes, "I think
it is time we gave up exercises that ask students to 'use the following expressions in a sentence'.
Most of the idioms that we ask our students to use are not, in fact, really necessary".
The special status of collocations brings them to the fore in the teaching of translation and/or
interpretation classes. While highlighting the supremacy of the Idiom Principle over the Open
Choice Principle, Sinclair (1987:7) writes, "Most normal text is largely delexicalized, and
appears to be formed by exercise of the idiom principle, with occasional switching to open choice
principle". Consequently, natural language should be looked upon as fundamentally
constituting syntagms rather than paradigms, thus viewed as being highly prefabricated or
preconstructed rather than original or creative. The translator and/or the interpreter needs to possess
a working syntagmatic competence in the TL, here L2, before being entrusted with the task of
translating and/or interpreting into it. This syntagmatic competence embodies a good knowledge
of multi-word units, particularly collocations. In point of fact, the translator's and/or the
interpreter's internalization of the collocational restrictions in L2 constitutes a fundamental
prerequisite for providing idiomatic/natural product.
To bring the discussion to focus, we have to distinguish between translation and simultaneous
interpreting. The translator has the entire discourse at his disposal when translating, whereas the
simultaneous interpreter has access only to the current unit of interpretation. Levi (1967:1172)
writes, "The process of translating has the form of a game with complete information - a game in
which every succeeding move is influenced by our knowledge of previous decisions and by
the situation which resulted from them". The simultaneous interpreter, by contrast, can only access
the temporally relevant unit of interpretation which makes his task more challenging and,
according to Alexieva (1990:2-3), more creative. Further, the translator has sufficient time to
ponder the translation units ranging from the lexical item to the entire discourse, while the
interpreter has only a few seconds to render the unit of interpretation. The simultaneous
interpreter needs to be both quick-minded and quick-tongued, in order to optimize the use of his
syntagmatic repertoire while working under great pressure of time. Lederer (1973), cited in
Lederer (1978:328), talks about two psychological processes in interpreting : interpreting through
primary meanings, i.e. using the word that comes first to mind as an equivalent to the SL word,
and interpreting by the deliberate calling-up of a specific term to match a given word. It can be
argued that the first psychological process is more common to interpretation in its first stages
and often proves successful, while the second strategy affiliates mostly with professional
interpreters, who can operate at a high level of lexical specificity.
Due to the foregoing complications in simultaneous interpreting, many scholars argue for
capturing sense or message meaning rather than linguistic or language meaning (Pergnier
1978; Seleskovitch 1978; Uhlenbeck 1978, among others). Put differently, form should be played
down in favor of content in interpretation, for non-semantic information decays more rapidly
than semantic information, that is, the message is retained while the form is forgotten (Le Ny
1978). This argument, however, collapses in the case of collocations where form and content
become inseparable in that the interpreter cannot capture a collocation in the SL if he is not
capable of calling up its counterpart in the TL. The interpreter's failure usually results in his
199

adoption of strategies of lexical simplification, namely, reduction, synonymy, compensation,

paraphrase, and transfer/calquing. Other things being equal, it is assumed that the above
strategies are used at a higher rate by the interpreter than by the translator owing to the time
factor. The higher the rate of these strategies the less effective the translation and/or the
interpretation is, and, consequently, the less natural the intended communication will be.
The goal of achieving naturalness in modes preferred by the TL community can be achieved by
means of building up a memory bank of collocations and other multi-word units which can be
called up, activated, and functionalized as the verbal situation may require. This can be attained
mainly through deliberate exposure to certain text types. Exposure to various text types is a
basic step in the process of building awareness of how pertinent collocations and other multiword units can serve the purpose of the SL writer/speaker and how they can satisfy the
anticipations of the TL receiver. This awareness-building process is a reflection of the process
the human memory employs for internalizing and patterning incoming information so that an
expectancy mechanism is developed and consequently activated each time a collocant is
uttered. This expectancy mechanism enables the language user to activate his memory bank the
moment a collocant is uttered so that the pertinent counterpart is called up to fill in a semantic slot
in the particular discourse. Immediate activation of the memory bank and recall of relevant
collocants are characteristic of LI discourse users. However, this immediacy is not always
within the reach of L2 users.
This awareness-building process is perhaps most relevant to translator and interpreter training
programs. Student interpreters and translators need to be aware of how particular lexical items
stored in isolation in memory can be synthesized in patterns where the occurrence of one item
predicts the occurrence of the other. Unless such collocational patterns become part of the
memory bank of the student interpreter/ translator, communication is certainly doomed to falter.
In this context, we can speak of opaque and transparent collocations. Opaqueness and transparency
here do not relate to unawareness of the meanings of individual lexical items comprising the
collocation under consideration; rather, they relate to the student interpreter's/translator's inability to
recognize how one lexical item restricts the co-occurrence of other lexical items that may
collocate with it in a particular verbal setting. They involve the failure to recognize the
collocational behavior of one lexical item within a given verbal setting as represented in the text
type in question.
2. The Present Study
2.1 Subjects
The sample is comprised of thirteen senior MA translation students who had completed most of
the practical and theoretical translation courses in a translation program.
2.2 Material and Method
The study is based on an Arabic newspaper editorial dealing with a topic of political appeal,
viz., the Gulf War and the American-Iraqi relations. The editorial argues against the 'American
200

embargo on political dialogue with Iraq'. The text was recorded by one of the present
researchers, and the subjects were asked to interpret it simultaneously in a language lab. Four
months later, the students were provided with the same text to be translated in writing. Because
of the long period between the interpretation session and the translation session, most of the
subjects did not recall doing it previously. The students were not allowed to use dictionaries in
the translation session. The rationale behind that was to urge the students to rely only on their
memory bank in the process of searching for equivalent English collocations.
Twenty-four collocations in the editorial were selected, and the subjects' renderings of these
were noted both in the interpretation and the translation sessions. The subjects' renderings of
the collocations were noted, analyzed, and categorized (see section 3 below). The analysis
focused upon the problems the subjects faced in rendering equivalents of the target collocations
while interpreting and translating, in addition to the strategies they adopted. A frequency count
of each type of rendering was obtained and the equivalents provided were categorized in
accordance with the strategies adopted.
2.3 Purposes of the Study
The study attempts to answer the following research questions:

1. Does the time factor, inherent in the process of interpreting, influence the
quality? and completeness of the target collocations provided in the interpretation
session?
2. What strategies do student interpreters adopt in their attempt to overcome the
influence of the time factor and fill in semantic gaps when they come across an
opaque collocation
3. Do the student interpreters and translators adopt the same strategies in their
attempts to compensate for shortage of equivalent target collocations?
3. Analysis and Discussion
The results show that the performance of the subjects differed significantly as they switched from
interpreting to translating. Whereas they rendered only 33.2% of the target collocations
appropriately in interpreting, they rendered more than fifty percent of them (51.8%)
appropriately in translating. This is understandable when the following factors are taken into
consideration:

The time factor: The time lapse allowed in simultaneous interpreting is usually short and the
student interpreter has to perform more than one operation during it. He has to comprehend
the semantic unit on hand and simultaneously search for equivalents in the TL. Unless
equivalents are readily accessible and retrievable from the memory bank, the interpreter will
inevitably provide lexical items that may not appropriately do the intended job, but which
first come to his/her mind.
2. The insufficient interpreting experience of the students, taking into account the fact that graduate
translation programs at Arab universities focus on teaching translation rather than
interpretation (usually one or at most two courses are offered in a translation program).
1.

201

Apart from this finding, the student interpreters/translators seem to have resorted to the same
cognitive strategies in their attempts to compensate for a shortage of readily accessible and
retrievable L2 collocational patterns. The following strategies were adopted in both the interpreting
and translating sessions.
3.1 Reduction
This applies to cases where either an incomplete or a non-equivalent rendering of the target
collocation is provided. This strategy scored a higher frequency (23.8%) in the interpretation
session than in the translation session (17.2%). It includes three sub-strategies : generalization,
deletion, and message abandonment (see Tables 1 & 2).

Strategy
Generalization
Deletion
Message Abandonment

Percentage
8.7%
11.6%
3.5%

Table 1. A Breakdown of the responses provided via reduction strategies in

simultaneous interpreting.
Strategy

Percentage

Generalization

9.2%

Deletion

4.3%

Message Abandonment

3.7%

Table 2. A Breakdown of the Responses Provided via Reduction Strategies in

Translation.
3.1.1 Generalization

This seems to have been a persistent strategy in the interpretation session based on semantic
and schematic considerations where context of situation and assumptions of shared
knowledge tend to play a decisive role in the process of searching for target equivalents.
Observe, for instance, the following generalized renderings of the target collocations provided in the
interpretation session:

(1)

Target Collocation

Received Rendition

1a

military build-up

American Forces
202

1b

terrible consequences

destructive war

1c

economic embargo

another embargo

1d

foreign nationals

hostages in Iraq

1e

historic initiative

peace initiative

A look at the above examples reveals that the student interpreters were drawing more upon
schematic knowledge and assumptions of shared knowledge of the intended recipients than on
collocational patterns or pertinent stored lexical items. (1.a), for example, shows that the context
of situation seems to activate responses commensurate with what the student interpreter assumes
to be knowledge shared with the recipients and which, therefore, cognitively incorporates the
intended semantic unit. It is worth noting here that the political position of most of the Jordanians
during the Gulf War was anti-American-led coalition. This explains the motives behind the
collocations provided. In (1.a) some student interpreters seem to have assumed that 'military buildup' in the Gulf was in other words driven and engineered by the US; hence 'American Forces' was
provided as target collocation. In (1.c), 'economic embargo' is rendered as 'another embargo' - a
response which derives from the student interpreters' awareness of the series of sanctions taken
by the UN Security Council against Iraq before the war. The same can justifiably apply to (1.d)
where 'foreign nationals' is rendered as 'hostages in Iraq', thus a cognitive addition based on
existing knowledge of the political milieu replaces the target collocation. Had the recipients (the
researchers, in this case) been alien to the political stance of the student interpreters, such
responses could have been considered void of content if judged on a right-wrong scale.

Another type of generalization is illustrated in the following examples:

(2)

Target Collocation

Received Rendition

2a

intimidation and threatening

threats

2b

military build-up

armies

2c

peaceful settlement

settlement

In these examples the student interpreter seems to have been considering the input of the
message by picking up the key item acting as a super-ordinate element when compared with
the other element(s) supposed to have co-occurred with it. It seems that she/he has assumed that
since /tahdiid/ (threatening) and /tarhiib/ (intimidation) are cognitive synonyms, and due to the
203

time factor involved in interpreting, 'threatening' could be an adequate key item that
incorporates both meanings.

3.1.2 Deletion
This refers to cases where one or more elements of the intended/target collocation is/are deleted, not
because the one provided semantically shares the content of the ones deleted, but most probably
because of the student interpreters' failure to provide a complete one. A look at Tables (1) and (2)
shows that this strategy was operative more in the interpretation session (11.6%) than in the
translation session (4.3%). Observe the examples provided in (3) below:
(3) Target Collocation
Received Rendition
3a to direct severe criticism
criticizing
3b apparent objective
objective/goal
3c historic initiative
initiative
3d pre-meditated aggressive
aggressive plans
intentions
3e domestic and foreign policy policy
As can be noted, the absence of the target collocants in the received responses affects the
intended force of the message and empties it of its emotive impact. Thus 'apparent objective' has
been neutralized when rendered merely as 'objective', and 'historic initiative' seriously suffers
when reduced to 'initiative'. The same applies to 'pre-meditated aggressive intentions' when
reduced to 'aggressive plans' since the focus of the source text seems to be placed upon the
element of 'pre-meditation' for inflecting military and economic damage on Iraq.

3.1.3 Message Abandonment

This strategy has been resorted to in very limited cases, i.e. when the student interpreter/translator
either failed to grasp the semantic unit in question, or when he/she failed to provide any of its
constituent elements. These types of failure were not persistent in either the interpretation or
the translation session (3.5% and 3.7%, respectively).
3.2 Synonymy
Strategy

Percentage

Reduction

23.80%

Synonymy

18.00%

Compensation

12.20%

Paraphrase

10.32%

204

Transfer/Calquing

2.20%

Table 3. Percentage of responses rendered via different strategies in simultaneous

interpreting (arranged in order of frequency).

Strategy

Percentage

Synonymy

18.20%

Reduction

17.20%

Compensation

12.20%

Paraphrase

4.30%

Transfer/Calquing

0.03%

Table 4. Percentage of responses rendered via different strategies in Translation (in order
of frequency)
Tables (3) and (4) show that searching for lexical items synonymous with the target ones was a
major strategy in the processes of interpreting and translating, viz. it scored a frequency of
(18%) in the former and (18.2%) in the latter. It has been noted that the deviant collocants in almost
all cases in interpretation and translation are the modifying elements. Nouns, on the other
hand, are appropriately rendered in the target language. This tends to support our argument in
sections (1) and (2) above that the student interpreters' failure in most instances is likely to have
stemmed from a shortage of collocational patterns pertinent to political discourse. It also seems
that insufficient exposure to L2 political discourse is behind the student interpreters'/ translators'
inability to recognize the semantic narrowing which entails the choice of a particular modifier of
a noun rather than the ones provided. The examples in (4) below illustrate the above
observations:

(4)

Target Collocation

Received Rendition

4a

terrible consequences

bad consequences

4b

pre-meditated aggressive

aggressive intentions

intentions
4c

public support

popular support/
common support
205

4d

apparent objective

explicit objective/
surface objective/
aiming publicly at

4e comprehensive peace

overwhelming peace/
overall peace/
general peace

The examples above show that the student interpreters'/translators' reliance on the open
choice principle (as opposed to the idiom principle) for rendering the target collocations
indicates that L2 lexical items have not yet been patterned as independent meaningful units
retrievable in response to the discourse type in question. This state of unpatterned L2 lexical
items seems to be behind the student interpreters'/translators' reliance on searching for
synonyms in their attempts to maintain communication, thus exploiting all available means to
that end. This also indicates that the students, perhaps due to insufficient exposure to
comparable L2 discourse, have not yet developed a sensitivity to observe specialization
brought about by the co-occurrence of particular lexical items in a given verbal situation.

3.3 Compensation
The responses provided here represent all, or almost all, the items inappropriately
combined to produce the target collocations. The examples in (5) below illustrate how the
meanings of the target collocations are distorted as a result of the students' opting for lexical
items whose co-occurrence does not meet the anticipations of the L2 recipients of the discourse.
(5) Target Collocation
Received Rendition
5a military build-up
military gathering
5b terrible consequences the expected disaster
5c social welfare
social entertainment
5d economic embargo
economic supply
5e to thwart such plans
to destroy such trends
As the figures in Tables (3) and (4) show, the student interpreters/ translators seem to have
tried to avoid paraphrasing opaque collocations except in very limited instances : only 4.3% of the
collocations were rendered in paraphrased form in the translation session, while paraphrases
scored 10.32% in the interpretation session. Paraphrasing, therefore, can be viewed as an attempt to
maintain communication (Farghal and Obeidat 1995). However, heavy reliance on such a strategy
will certainly impair the naturalness of communication and discourse flow. The instances provided in
(6) below reveal how the target collocations are replaced by lavish and incompact paraphrases which,
206

predictably, do not fit the time lapse in simultaneous interpreting, and at the same time do not meet
the target audience's anticipations of compact and idiomatic expression:

(6)
6a

Target Collocation
harbor ill will

Received Rendition
wish to do no good/
hide evil date

6b

comprehensive peace settling all disputes/

solving all problems and issues

6c

impose economic

ban trading with/use force to

embargo

stop economic relations

6d thwart/abort such plans hinder by force the implementation

of such plans/stop from carrying out
plans

3.5 Transfer/Calquing
It is clear from the figures in Tables (3) and (4) that the student interpreters'/translators'
reliance on calquing has been kept to a minimum and that the frequency of occurrence of
transferred responses is justifiably negligible - a situation which indicates that LI interference in the
processes of interpreting and/or translation was not effectively operative. Below are some examples of
transfer:
(7)
7a

Target Collocation
probe the Iraqi position

Received Rendition
check the pulse of Iraq

7b

intimidation and threatening

fearing and threatening

7c

apparent goal

superficial goal

7d

thwart/abort such plans

corrupt such plans

4. Conclusion
Interpretation/translation teaching can greatly profit from the study of collocations. In particular,
the idiom principle should be brought to the fore because the open choice principle can only be
appropriately utilized when it is functionally coupled with an effective use of the idiom
principle. Put differently, the interpreters'/translators' knowledge of paradigmatic relations such
207

as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, etc., should be supplemented with a competent

syntagmatic repertoire that functionalizes and idiomaticizes their phraseology. The oftenheard complaint that a translation does not sound English, despite its having good wording and
syntax, undoubtedly ensues from a deficiency in the area of collocations in particular and multiword units in general. Prospective interpreters/translators should, therefore, undergo extensive
training that has collocations as a major concern.
Not only naturalness is crippled by the erroneous rendering of collocations, but also the
evaluativeness parameter (Farghal 1991, 2012). A careful analysis of the text (the editorial from
which the collocations are extracted) reveals that the select collocations mark the progression
of the line of argumentation and signal its emotive and evaluative trend. Collocations like "to
direct severe criticism", "(its) apparent goal", "to show its good will", "intimidation and
threatening", "harbor ill will", "historic initiative", "terrible consequences", "pre-meditated
aggressive intentions", etc. are not to be interpreted/translated in isolation from the content
and purposes of the text in question, for they reflect the thread of argument the author attempts to
maintain. Misinterpreting or mistranslating the target collocations will certainly result in distorting
the argument by neutralizing it when it is not meant to be neutral.
The subjects' erroneous rendering of 66.8% and 48.2% of the target collocations in interpreting
and translating, respectively, is a matter of concern. One of its major implications is that the student
interpreters'/ translators' repertoire of collocations in the target language is still in need of much
enrichment. To achieve this end, translation programs need to:
a. allot sufficient time for lab practice where authentic recorded texts (lectures, seminars, speeches,
etc.) are accessible to student interpreters;
b. encourage student interpreters to build up their text-type dictionaries in which they record
the collocations relevant to the type of text and argument they are dealing with. Opaque
collocations can be disambiguated via consultation with the interpreter/ translator trainer, or by
consulting specialized dictionaries;
c. incorporate simulation sessions where one trainee is selected to act the role of an interpreter in,
for instance, a press conference. The trainer can take the role of the interviewee, while a
second trainee will act the role of the press reporter. The rest of the trainees will be the
audience and their job will also include noting down the weaknesses of the interpretation
provided. Immediate feedback from the trainer and the trainees can be very helpful.

208

Explicitation vs. Implicitation: Discourse

Markers in Translation
Mohammed Farghal & Abdullah Samateh
Abstract
The present paper aims to examine Blum-Kulka's (1986) claim that cases of explicitation in the
target text (TT) correspond to cases of implicitation in the source text (ST). A corpus of three
discourse markers (DMs) in an Arabic translation is examined against the DMs in the English ST.
The findings show that there are three types of correspondence in DMs: explicitation to
explicitation, explicitation to implicitation, and explicitation to zero equivalent. The paper
concludes that the syndetic nature of Arabic discourse, unlike the asyndetic nature of its English
counterpart, accounts for the presence of several cases of DMs which do not correspond to
implicit DMs in the ST and whose sole function is to improvise smooth and cohesive discourse.
1. Introduction
Discourse markers (DMs) play a considerable role in communication, "they impose a relationship
between discourse segments they introduce and the immediately prior discourse segments,"
(Farhan and Fannoush 2005: 5), and thus achieve greater transparency as they "knit the
discourse together [] and orient the reader," (Pym 2005: 33). Baker (1992: 190) also attributes
similar values to their presence in discourse; she writes:
Unlike reference, substitution, and ellipsis, the use of conjunction does not instruct the
reader to supply missing information either by looking for it elsewhere in the text or by
filling structural slots. Instead, conjunction signals the way the writer wants the reader
to relate what is about to be said to what has been said before.
209

Put simply, they are cohesive devices that bind the textual elements and signal logical
relationships within the text to ensure a natural and smooth flow of discourse. The translator,
therefore, should be aware of their functions and usage, for the absence of such awareness
could lead to altering the meaning potentials of translations.
Arabic discourse, being syndetic, abounds in DMs and makes frequent use of them (Baker 1992;
Hatim 1997b; Farghal and Al-Hamly, this volume; AlKhfaji 2011; Tahaineg and Tafish 2011;
Farghal 2012, among others). Nevertheless, the existing literature tends to show that most
Medieval Arabic grammarians devote much effort and space to the parsing aspect of DMs and
pay scant attention to their textual functions (Abdel Hameed, 1965; Anees, 1966; Ansari, 1979;
Hamad and Zu'bi, 1984; Fareh, 1998). That is, they engage themselves in classifying the particles
into categories as per their syntactic properties, including adawaat al-rabt 'connective particles'
, adawaat al-atf 'conjunctions of sequence' , and adawaat al-bayaan
'explicative apposition' , but they largely overlook their semantic and pragmatic
aspects. They perceive these DMs as cohesive devices whose sole function is to coordinate units
in discourse (Al-Hmouz 2001). Thus, the semantic and pragmatic aspects appear to be played
down despite their significance in facilitating information processing for the receiver.
By contrast, the last few decades are marked by particular interest in the study of DMs, thus
taking them beyond the borders of grammar and allowing their semantic and pragmatic
dimensions to be accorded due attention as well (Al-Hmouz, 2001; Karin, 2005; Johnston,1990;
Al-Batal, 1990; Kammensjo, 1993; Hamdan and Fareh, 1999; Muzni, 1983; Zajjaji, 1984; Crew,
1990; de Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981; Halliday and Hassan, 1976; McCarthy, 1991; Schiffring,
1987; Cantarino, 1974, 1975, 1976; Al-Jubouri, 1987; Williams, 1989; Holes, 1995; Stubs, 1983;
Saeed & Fareh, 2006, etc). In particular, the Arabic conjunction wa 'and' , has been subjected to
elaborate analyses in order to reveal its multi-faceted functions in discourse (Abdel Hameed,
1965; Kamal, 1971; Zajjaji, 1984; Hamad & Zu'bi, 1984; etc.). Al-Jubouri and Knowles (1988)
indicate that wa and fa 'so' are found to be the most recurring DMs in Arabic discourse.
Cross-linguistically, more research is needed, especially in contrastive studies involving Arabic
and English. The underlying reasons why DMs are cross-linguistically understudied is probably
because their analysis in English is mainly speech-oriented since they are mainly approached
from the perspectives of dysfluencies and language acquisition, etc. (Howell, et al., 1999; Bell, et
al., 2009; Chung and Nebaker, 2007; Dworzynski et al., 2004, etc.), while in Arabic the focus is on
the structure of written discourse (Tahaineg and Tafish 2011). Lately, however, studies
conducted cross-linguistically have yielded significant results, where the functional polysemy of
DMs is highlighted. Examples of researchers who have explored the multiple functions a single
DM can perform in various contexts include (Cantarino, 1974; Fareh, 1998; Illyyan, 1990; Farhan
& Fannoush, 2005; Tahaineg & Tafish, 2011, etc.). With reference to Arabic in particular, it has
been reported that the Arabic wa is identified with multiple discoursal functions, namely, the
resumptive, additive, alternative, comitative, adversative, and circumstantial functions.
Likewise, the Arabic umma 'then' signals meanings of sequence with a span of time,
210

sequence with immediacy or with a short span of time, resumption of discourse, adversative
relationships, and consequential function. The Arabic fa has also been shown to encode several
syntactic and semantic functions, namely, the sequential, explanatory, causal,
resultative/consequential, resumptive, and adversative. It is worth noting that DMs can be single
words like the ones cited above or phrases, e.g. bixtisaar 'in short' , fiimaa adaa 'except
for' , muqaaranatan bi 'in comparison with' etc., which fall beyond the scope of
this study.
Given its syndetic nature, Arabic discourse employs DMs lavishly; their recurrence brings
about a high degree of textual cohesion and coherence in Arabic writing. By contrast, English
can be asyndetic to a large extent, where non-finite phrases and punctuation may signal
suppressed logical relations. Consequently, an Arabic translation is expected to outrank its
English source in the use of these elements, prompting cases of DMs with zero source
equivalents. For example, the cause-result relationship between 'Arabic syndetic nature' and
'the lavish employment of DMs' in the first sentence in this paragraph (bold-typed) is suppressed
in English, whereas an Arabic translation would make it explicit by the use of a DM like bimaa
anna or bisababi 'because'. In addition, the English semicolon separating the two main parts of
the sentence calls for the use of the Arabic fa as a DM, in order to signal commentative material
as well as naturalize and smooth the flow of discourse. Moreover, the DM wa would be required
at the beginning of the sentence as a default DM to maintain a natural flow of discourse. In this
way, we would have three explicit DMs in the Arabic sentence corresponding to zero DMs in the
English sentence. Semantically, however, the logic of the sentence is based on an implicit causeresult relationship in English, which corresponds to an explicit cause-result counterpart in
Arabic, and an implicit commentative relation in English signaled by punctuation, which
corresponds to an explicit commentative relation signaled by fa in Arabic.
2. Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to examine Blum-Kulkas (1986) claim within her oft-cited
Explicitation Hypothesis that instances of explicitation in the target text (TT) must correspond to
instances of implicitation in the source text (ST). Looking at English and Spanish, Saldanha (2008)
finds the claim invalid; she argues that there are instances of explicitation that are not
necessarily instigated by implicitation in the ST. Building on the findings of Saldanha, the current
study assumes that the same phenomenon might obtain between English and Arabic, as well.
3. Study Material
Instances of explicitation vs. implicitation of DMs are extracted from the first five chapters of the
English novel (The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins 1960/2010, Penguin Books) and its Arabic
translation aatu al-ridaai al-abyad (Beirut, Dar Al-Bihar 2003). The choice of the novel is solely
motivated by the fact that it is a representative sample of professional fiction translation which
is commissioned by a reputable publisher like Dar Al-Bihar. The data consists of 55 examples
featuring fa, i and bitaalii employed to introduce causal, resultative, adversative,
resumptive, explanatory, and adverbial clauses. It should be noted that the Arabic DM wa 'and'
211

has been excluded from the study data, albeit it is the most common in Arabic, because it is
usually used as a default conjunction which practically carries no or little semantic content when
it comes to marking logical relationships. In fact, this DM is largely considered too light to carry
semantic content independently of other more semantically oriented DMs. Hence, it is mainly
used to enhance rather than replace such markers, e.g. it often occurs with bittaalii 'therefore'
in wa-bittaalii 'and therefore' to consolidate the logical relation and smooth the flow of
discourse. The analysis of the three study Arabic DMs will determine whether or not they always
have corresponding elements in the ST, and if not, whether this could be attributed to the fact
that Arabic discourse is overwhelmingly syndetic while English discourse is largely asyndetic.
4. Data Analysis and Discussion
4.1 The DM fa
The data reveals that fa is the most frequently used of the three DMs under investigation, viz. 20
instances, making up 36% of the corpus. According to Al-Afghani (1970), Arabic fa can signal
both sequential and additive functions. Medieval Bin Hishaam Al-Ansaari (2002/ d.761h) goes
even further and argues that fa performs six different functions, namely, a coordinative,
sequential, resultative/consequential, causal, and combinatory with sawfa in ' will' as well
as with in 'if' in .
The analysis shows that out of the 20 instances fa corresponds to implicitation in the ST in 11
cases (55%), to explicitation in 3 (15%), and to zero equivalent in 6 (30%). The Arabic extract in
example (1) below involves many instances of fa which perform different functions, namely, the
adversative, explanatory, resultative, causal, and resumptive functions:

(1) "Except that we are both orphans, we are in every respect as unlike each other
as possible. My father was a poor man, and Miss Farlie's father was a rich
man. I have nothing and she has a fortune. [] I can never claim my release
from my engagement, she went on. "Whatever way it ends it must end
wretchedly for me."
[] I have been made all the readier to comply with this request by a
passage at the end of his letter, which has almost alarmed me.
After mentioning that he has neither seen nor heard anything of Ann
Catherick, he suddenly breaks off []
. "
" ] ...[ . .
".
. ] ...[
]...[

212

It is clear that fa in the first mention in corresponds to neither explicitation nor implicitation
in the ST. Also, it can be observed that the adversative relationship between the two clauses is,
in fact, signaled in the ST as well as the TT by the DM except that and respectively in the
first clause, which expresses the speaker's adversative attitude in the second one. The fa is
supposed to enhance that adversative relationship as well as smooth the flow of discourse. Yet,
the insertion of fa makes the translation sound redundant, due to its immediate recurrence in
the following sentence. However, the second instance of fa is needed to enhance the contrast
DM bainamaa 'while' by smoothing the flow of discourse and improvising cohesion, whereas the
first one may be considered superfluous, for the adversative relation is signaled by fiimaa adaa
'except that' rather than by the fa. Note that the contrast in the source text is signaled by the
multifunctional 'and', but the translator opts for using a stronger contrast marker because he
probably feels that wa is not semantically strong enough to carry the contrast, it being
commonly used as a default DM in Arabic. In fact, there are three instances in the above excerpt
where wa is employed as a default DM whose sole function is to render the text cohesive rather
than mark logical relations, viz. wa-fiimaa adaa 'and except that', wa-hya 'and she', and wabixaasatin 'and especially'.
Likewise, the resumptive fa in does not correspond to implicitation in the source text. The
preceding paragraph is mainly about a letter from Mr. Hartright in which he prevails on Miss
Halcombe to get him an employment outside London. He attributes his request to the fact that
he has been watched and followed by some strange men ever since he returned to London.
Consequently, his life might be in danger. That first paragraph concludes with the above
sentence I have been made all the readier to comply with this request by a passage at the end of
his letter, which has almost alarmed me. However, there seems to be a shift of topic in the
following paragraph, bearing in mind that it presents new information which revolves around
Miss Catherick rather than Mr. Hartright, but still within the context of the same discourse. In
other words, the following paragraph is related pragmatically to the preceding one, and the
Arabic fa is employed to introduce that relationship and, as a result, orient the reader. Thus, the
fa is employed to naturalize the discourse and render it cohesive.
By contrast, it could be noted that the use of fa in and correspond to and and the
suppressed thus in the ST respectively. For example, the fa in introduces the clause that
describes Miss Halcombe's poverty as the result of her father being a poor man, whereas Miss
Farlie's wealth is the result of her father being a rich man. It, therefore, corresponds to an
explicit resultative marker and in the ST. Similarly, the fa in introduces a cause-effect
relationship between the first and the second clause. In the first sentence, Miss Farlie states that
she could not afford to renege on her engagement to Mr. Percival and in the second one she
spells out the cause or reason; it would make her life a misery. So, fa corresponds to an implicit
causal marker because, thus, etc. in the ST and it is brought to the surface in the TT to orient the
reader and smooth the flow of discourse. The reader would feel that something is missing if it is
left out. Below are more examples involving different functions of fa.
213

4.1.1 Adversative fa

(2) The state of my spirit little fitted me for the society of stranger; but the
meeting was inevitable.

.
The fa in (2) serves as a coordinating element between the dependent clause and the
independent clause whereby it introduces the second clause which stands in an adversative
relation to the first one. This is signaled in the ST by the contrast marker but. The target text,
nonetheless, employs two DMs i.e. the fa and although/despite the fact that. However,
it is the DM that serves as the corresponding equivalent of the ST contrast marker; it
can do the job with or without the fa marker. The function of the fa is to enhance the
adversative relation and smooth the flow of discourse; its deletion would only result in a less
assertive tone and less cohesive discourse. In this example, therefore, we have a case of
explicitation in Arabic corresponding to an explicit English but, as well as a case of
Arabic explicitation fa corresponding to zero equivalent in English.
By contrast, the following example (3) involves an instance where TT explicitation corresponds
to ST implicitation:
(3) May she not give it in the future?
Never! If you still persist it in maintaining our engagement, I may be your
true and faithful wife, Sir Percival, but never your loving wife.

.
.
This excerpt conveys the contrasting attitudes of Mr. Percival and Mrs. Farlie. Mr. Percival
anticipates a loving wife in Mrs. Farlie, but the lady cannot just afford to love him. This contrast
in their attitudes is signaled in the ST by the suppressed contrast marker but or yet, and it can be
readily worked out by the ST reader. That is, the text might read as Never! But/Yet if you still
persist it in maintaining our engagement, I may be your true and faithful wife, Sir Percival, but
never your loving wife. However, this suppressed concessive marker is brought to the surface as
fa in the TT in order to enhance the conditional marker and smooth the flow of discourse and, as
a result, it renders the text more explicit.
Sometimes, the adversative fa involves an instance where the target explicitation corresponds
to zero equivalent in the ST, as can be illustrated in (4) below:

214

(4) I was struck, on entering the drawing-room, by the curious contrast, rather in
material than in color, of the dresses which the ladies now wore. While Mrs. Vessey
and Miss Halcombe were richly clad, Miss Farlie was poorly dressed in plain white
muslin.

.
.
It is clear that the second sentence in the above example conveys two contrasting ideas; it
provides a clear contrast between Mrs. Vessey and Miss Halcombe's elegant dress on the one
hand and Mrs. Farlie's unusually poor dress, on the other. The contrast is marked by the ST
explicit contrast marker while and its counterpart in the TT . However, a degree of
explicitness can be observed in the TT in that, while both texts use a corresponding contrast
marker, Arabic employs fa along with the contrast marker in order to enhance it and smooth
the flow of discourse. So, the fa in this construction has no corresponding equivalent in the ST.
However, its presence is necessary as an Arab reader would feel a discoursal gap if fa is not
prefixed to bainamaa.
4.1.2 Explanatory fa
The function of the explanatory fa is to signal that the second clause/sentence is an explanation,
comment or illustration of the preceding one. Consider the following example:
(5) But my duty did not lie in this direction my function was of the purely judicial kind.
.
In this example, the clause my function was of the purely judicial kind serves as an explanation of
the preceding one. The ST employs an emdash to indicate explanation, whereas the TT explicitly
uses the DM fa to introduce the explanatory clause. In other words, both texts correspond
explicitly in that they both use an explicit explanatory marker, yet they differ in the method
adopted. While the ST employs a punctuation mark, the TT settles for punctuation along with a
DM. This is indicative of the syndetic nature of Arabic discourse which, unlike English, prefers a
highly frequent use of DMs to achieve text competence and facilitate the reader's
understanding. For instance, if the fa is not combined with the Arabic particle to which it is
often prefixed, the TT would sound unnatural and the reader would feel something is missing.
By contrast, following is an instance where TT explicitation corresponds to ST implicitation:
(6) The only sign I detect of the struggle it must cost her to preserve appearances at this
trying time, expresses itself in a sudden unwillingness, on her part, ever to be left
alone. Instead of retreating to her own room, as usual, she seems to dread going
there.

.
215

.
As can be observed in (6), the second sentence offers an explanation for Mrs. Farlie's
unwillingness to be left alone; she is possessed by fear. The DM thus/in this way is left
suppressed in the ST, yet it could be perceived by the reader. Thus, the text might be
interpreted as Thus/In this way, instead of retreating to her own room, as usual, she seems to
dread going there. The target text, however, settles for an explicit DM in order to signal
explanation and smooth the flow of discourse. Without it, the reader would feel a missing link.
Therefore, this is a case where TT explicitation corresponds to ST implicitation.
The following example, by contrast, represents an instance where the DM fa has no
corresponding equivalent in the ST:
(7) I never saw my mother and my sister together in Pesca's society, without finding my
mother much the younger woman of the two. On this occasion,
for example, while my mother was laughing heartily over the boyish manner in
which we tumbled into the parlor, Sarah was picking up the broken pieces of a
teacup, which the professor had knocked off the table in his precipitate advance to
meet me at the door.

.

This example indicates that the two texts correspond explicitly in using the explanatory phrase
for example and respectively. However, a degree of explicitness can be observed in the TT in
that, while both texts use an explicit explanatory marker, Arabic attaches fa to it to enhance the
exemplification marker and smooth the flow of discourse. In this way, we have an explicit Arabic
DM that corresponds to a zero equivalent in the ST.
4.1.3 Resultative/Consequential fa
The resultative fa performs a consequential function between two clauses/sentences, whereby
the second expresses a state of affairs or action that comes as a result of the first one. Consider
the following example:
(8) It is the great beauty of the law that it can dispute any human statement, made
under any circumstances, and reduce it to any form. If I had felt professionally called
upon to set up a case against sir Percival Glyde, on the strength of his own
explanation, I could have done so beyond all doubt.


.
216


.
The employment of fa in this example is triggered by implicitation in the ST. It serves as the
Arabic equivalent of a ST implicit resultative marker like as a result, consequently, therefore, etc.
which introduces the resultative proposition. It could be observed that the first sentence
presents a set of factors about the law that would naturally result in Mr. Hartright being
compelled to set up a case against Sir Percival Glyde. The fa is brought to the surface in the TT in
order to signal consequence and smooth the flow of discourse. Hence, this is a case of TT
explicitation that corresponds to ST implicitation.
By contrast, the following is an instance where the ST and TT correspond explicitly:
(9) The partial cleansing of the monument had evidently been accomplished
by a strange hand [...]. The work of cleansing the monument had been left
unfinished, and the person by whom it had been begun might return to complete it.
]...[
.
Clearly, the second part of the ST sentence serves as the result of what has transpired in the first
one and is introduced by the source resultative marker and, which is the equivalent of
so/therefore, etc. in this context. The TT equally employs the Arabic fa, which performs a similar
function in this context. So, this is an example where the ST and TT correspond explicitly in
terms of the DM. However, the translator opts for fa rather than the additive DM wa, which
formally corresponds to and in the ST, in order to highlight the resultative function which would,
otherwise, be blurred by the choice of the often default additive wa.
4.1.4 Causal fa
The causal fa indicates the cause of an action or a state of affairs. That is, it performs a causal
relationship between two sentences whereby the second sentence is the cause of the first one.
Consider the following example:

(10)

I can do little more than offer my humble testimony to the truthfulness

of Miss Halcombe's sketch of the old lady's character. Mrs. Vessey looked
the personification of human composure and female amiability.

. .
As can be seen, the fa introduces a cause-result relationship between the first sentence and the
second one. In the first sentence, the speaker states that he cannot afford but endorse Mr.
217

Halcombe's account of Mrs. Vessey's character, and in the second one he spells out the cause or
reason for doing so, that is, she embodies serenity and good humor. Therefore, the use of fa is
triggered by an implicit causal marker like because in the ST which is brought to the surface in
the TT to orient the reader and smooth the Arabic flow of discourse. The reader would feel
something is missing if it is not employed and the cause-result relation would be lost.
4.1.5 Resumptive fa
The resumptive fa, which mostly occurs paragraph-, clause-, and sentence-initial, establishes a
link between the just concluded ideas/thoughts and the following ones. It signals the continuity
of discourse, with a shift of topic whereby the addresser presents the receiver with new
information. Thus, it concerns the pragmatic aspect of discourse. Consider the following
example:

(11)

As soon as Miss Farlie had left the room, he spared us all embarrassment
on the subject of the anonymous letter, by diverting to it of his own accord.
He had stopped in London on his way from Hampshire [].

.
.]...[

The use of fa in the example above is not prompted by implicitation in the source text. Rather, it
is employed to smooth the Arabic flow of discourse and make the translation more explicit. In
fact, there is a notable mismatch between the ST and the TT when it comes to resumptive fa.
This could be attributed to the fact that this type of fa, as is the case here, indicates the
continuity of the discourse with a shift of topic; it presents new information within the context
of the same discourse. It could be noted that the example above revolves around the
anonymous letter. However, while the first sentence concerns the sense of relief felt by those
present when Mr. Percival touches on the issue of his own accord, the second one concerns how
he comes to know about the letter itself in London. Thus, the following sentence is related
pragmatically to the preceding one. Given the asyndetic nature of English and the use of the
past perfect 'had stopped' in the sentence, the ST reader can easily perceive the connection.
However, the fa is employed in Arabic to signal the continuity of the discussion, create a logical
link between the preceding and following sentences, and smooth the Arabic flow of discourse.
4.2 The DM i
According to Al-Afghani (1970), may perform a causal relationship and signal suddenness. His
claim goes along that of Bin Hishaam Al-Ansaari (2002/d.761h), who also adds adverbial,
appositional, and additive functions.

218

The data analysis shows that is the second most recurring DM of the three in the translation
under investigation, viz. 19 instances have been noted, constituting 34.5% of the corpus (almost
tying with fa). Nonetheless, it has been identified solely with the causal and adverbial function,
and it may or may not correspond to implicitation in the ST. Out of the 19 instances,
corresponds to implicitation in the ST in 12 cases (63%), to explicitation in 3 cases (16%), and to
zero equivalent in 4 instances (21%). Consider the following extract:

(12) I have resolved to prolong our stay for another week at least. It is useless
to go back to Limmeridge till there is an absolute necessity for our return. []
but he is obstinate or let me rather say, resolute. 'Merriman, I leave details to
you. Do what you think right for my interest, and consider me as having
personally withdrawn from the business until it is all over.' [] This is sad,
but his occasional reference to himself grieves me still more. He says that the
effort to return to his old habits and pursuits grows harder [].
.

" :
] ...[
. .
] ...[
.]...[
As can be noted, the first mention of corresponds to a causal marker because, which is
suppressed in the ST and brought to the surface in the TT to orient the reader and smooth the
flow of discourse. This is an example of Arabic explicitation that corresponds to English
implicitation. The second sentence of the ST provides justification for the speaker's action in the
preceding one. That is to say, it gives the reason why the speaker decides to prolong their stay
for another week. So, the Arabic causal marker , whose nearest equivalent could be since,
because, etc. in this context, is used here as a corresponding element to the implicit causal
maker in the ST.
By contrast, in the second mention, is attached to a reporting clause and does not correspond
to implicitation in the ST. In fact, the translation exhibits addition in two consecutive instances;
addition of the reporting clause he said , which is left implicit in the ST and insertion of the
adverbial DM , which corresponds to zero equivalent in the ST. The addition of the reporting
clause ' he said' is intended for speaker identification, the reason being the lengthy discourse,
in which the two lawyers, Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Percival, are the participants, is fairly marked by
suppression of speaker identity. It should be noted that the discourse revolves around their
respective clients, and they sometimes sound as if they were reporting what their clients say.
Thus, the reporting clause linking Mr. Gilmore to the speech in the quotes is supposed to resolve
any potential ambiguity regarding his identity. However, it would be better, even more
acceptable in this context to substitute the phrase by a more appropriate expression like
219

 to resolve the potential ambiguity. The utilization of , which translates into

something like when he said or as he said, makes the speaker sound as if he were quoting a
client and thus failing to resolve the ambiguity, which may lead to altering the meaning potential
of translation. This shows an erroneous case of employing addition. It also means that marked
(unjustified) explicitation exists even at the level of discourse markers.
In the third mention, equally performs an adverbial function because it may be translated as
when or as, which is not implied in the source text. Nonetheless, the use of the adverbial is
significant in that it smoothes the flow of discourse and renders it more natural. Without it, a
gap would be felt in the Arabic text. Below are more examples of the functions of in the data.
4.2.1 Causal i
The causal introduces a sentence that describes the cause or gives the reason for the action or
state of affairs in the preceding one. Consider the following example:
(13)He was evidently in search of me, for he quickened his pace when
we caught sight of each other.
.
As can be seen, the second sentence of the ST provides justification for the speaker's claim in
the preceding one. That is to say, it gives the reason why the speaker claims that He was
evidently in search of me. This clause is introduced by the English causal marker for. Therefore,
the Arabic causal marker is used here as a corresponding element to the explicit causal maker
in the ST. This is a case where the language pair corresponds explicitly in the employment a DM.
By contrast, the following is an instance of Arabic explicitation that corresponds to implicitation
in the ST:
(14)To tell you the truth, I am uneasy about Laura, she has sent to say
she wants to see me directly [].
.]...[ .
It is clear that the causal marker is brought to the surface in the TT to serve as the
corresponding equivalent of an implicit counterpart because, for, etc. It can be noted that the
second clause describes the reason why the speaker feels perturbed by Laura's request. The ST
reader can easily perceive the connection as well as the suppressed causal marker. However,
Arabic needs to bring the causal marker to the surface in order to orient the reader and
naturalize the flow of discourse. The Arabic text would be incohesive without it. One should
note that the translator has erroneously punctuated this DM with a period rather than a correct
comma; this DM can only introduce a dependent clause that cannot stand on its own, just like a
dependent because clause in English.
4.2.2 Adverbial i
There is a unanimous consensus among Arabic grammarians that the primary function of is an
adverbial one (Medieval Bin Hishaam Al-Ansari 2002/d.761h). This type falls under the category
220

of what (Khalil, 1999, p. 252) refers to as "adverbial object, which is a noun, in the accusative
case that denotes the time and place of the verb". Consider the following example:
(15)Mr. Farlie's answer reached me by return of post, and proved to be
wandering and irrelevant in the extreme. "Would dear Gilmore be so
very obliging as not to worry his friend and client about such a trifle
as a remote contingency?"
" :

"
The clause is brought to the surface in the TT to be the corresponding equivalent of a
parallel implicit clause in the ST. The reporting clause he said, to which corresponds, is
suppressed in the ST and the adverbial marker , which could be translated as when or as is not
implied in the ST. The reporting clause is intended for speaker identification by associating Mr.
Farlie with the quoted question because Mr. Gilmore's narration is fairly marked by suppression
of speaker identity. Thus, the reporting clause linking Mr. Farlie to the speech in the quote is
supposed to resolve any potential ambiguity regarding his identity. The DM , which
corresponds to a zero equivalent in the ST, performs an adverbial function and, therefore, helps
to keep the flow of discourse cohesive and smooth. However, it would be better, even more
acceptable in this context, to substitute the phrase by since the following quote is a
question rather than a statement. The utilization of is justified here because it makes the
reader realize that the speaker is quoting the character he has just mentioned and,
consequently, resolve any ambiguity that might arise from identity suppression.
4.3 The DM bittaalii
Despite its being a pervasive feature of Arabic discourse, research on the DM , which may
be translated as therefore, consequently, thus, as a result, is almost nonexistent. Review of the
existing literature yields no results, except for Al-Mu'jam-l-ghanni (E-version) by Abul-Azm.
,
According to this dictionary, this DM communicates the same meanings as
and . This indicates that only performs the resultative/consequential function, which is,
in fact, the only function it has been identified with in the translation under investigation. The
data shows 16 instances of this DM, making up 29% of the corpus. It corresponds to
implicitation in the ST in 8 cases (50%), to explicitation in 7 cases (43.75%), and to zero
equivalent in 1 instance (6.25%).
The resultative/consequential functions to either establish a link between two clauses of a
compound sentence where the second clause occurs as a result of the preceding one or to
introduce a sentence that occurs as a consequence of the preceding one. Consider the following
example:
(16) Mr. Gilmore is the old friend of two generations of Farlies, and we
can trust him, as we could trust no one else.

221

.
According to Quirk, et al. (1986), the English DM and signals multiple textual functions including
the consequential one as in the above example. Since the Arabic DMs bittaalii and wa, which
co-occur in the above example, can equally perform the same function, i.e. the consequential
function, bittaalii, being more semantically oriented, could be seen as the corresponding
element to the English DM and, while the addition of wa is meant to make that function more
explicit and the discourse more cohesive. It should be noted that wa, which is usually employed
as a default DM whose main function is to cater to cohesion in Arabic discourse, can carry the
weight of a semantically-loaded DM alone (as in the example above). However, most writers in
Arabic prefer to employ a more semantically-oriented DM (bittaali here) and, at the same time,
keep wa as an enhancer of the logical relation as well as a cohesive marker.
By contrast, there are instances where the target DM has no equivalent in the ST. Consider the
following example:
(17)There are no such things as ghosts, and therefore, any boy who
believes in ghosts believes in what can't be.

.
As can be seen, there is optimal formal correspondence between the DMs of the TT and their ST
counterparts in the first occurrence. In other words, the target DMs are the
corresponding equivalents of the ST DMs and therefore. By contrast, the second mention of the
DM has no corresponding element in the ST. As a matter of fact, it represents an erroneous
case of employing this DM, given its occurrence in the immediately previous sentence and,
therefore, it makes the translation sound redundant. The first bittaalii should be kept, while the
second one should be deleted in order to avoid redundancy and offer natural Arabic discourse.
A more natural version could be achieved by a rendition like
, thus using the Arabic confirmatory particle instead to naturalize and smooth the flow
of discourse.
5. Conclusion
The argument presented in this paper runs counter to Blum-Kulkas (1986) hypothesis that
instances of explicitation in the TT must correspond to instances of implicitation in the ST. BlumKulka does not seem to have taken into account the nature of different languages. The data
indicates that this claim is valid in some cases but invalid in others, i.e. DMs may correspond to
implicitation in some instances but may not in others. The discussion of three Arabic DMs fa, i
and bittaalii, which perform different discoursal functions including the adversative,
explanatory, causal, resultative, resumptive, and adverbial function, shows that they may
correspond to explicitation, implicitation and zero equivalent in the ST. The employment of DMs
in Arabic discourse ranges between marking purely logical relations and rendering the discourse
222

more cohesive. Apart from its frequent use as a default DM, it is generally felt that wa is too
light a DM to mark a logical relation; hence, it is mainly used to enhance other semantically
oriented DMs.
It can be argued that what obtains between Spanish and English also obtains between English
and Arabic, as far as DMs are concerned (Saldanha 2008). This study demonstrates through
authentic translational data that Arabic makes frequent use of DMs because of the syndetic
nature of its discourse, unlike English whose discourse is equally asyndetic. This being the case,
formal correspondence between English and Arabic in terms of DMs cannot be stipulated.
Besides naturalizing and smoothing the flow of discourse, Arabic DMs facilitate the reader's
understanding of the text through creating the necessary semantic and pragmatic links.
Nonetheless, some erroneous cases of employing DMs in professional translation into Arabic
may occur, something which renders the translation redundant and/or unnatural.

223

Lexical Reduction in Scientific Translation

Mohammed Farghal & Mashael Al-Hamly
Abstract
The present paper is a case study of the rendition of English Reduced Forms (RLFs) in Majalat
AlOloom (the Arabic version of Scientific American). It works with the assumption that RLFs can
be problematic in Arabic translation because English commonly favors the employment of such
forms while Arabic opts for reduced forms only infrequently. The purpose is to examine
authentic Arabic translational data in an English text type (popular science articles) that usually
abounds in the use of RLFs, in order to see how translators render them into Arabic. The data
shows that professional scientific translators employ various strategies in rendering a variety of
English RLFs. While Blended Forms and Complete Form + RLF are the most frequent RLFs in
the English corpus, Translation Alone and Translation + RLF are the most occurring strategies in
the Arabic corpus. The study offers both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data.

1. Lexical Reduction in English

Reduction or subtraction (Kreidler 1998) is a major word formation process in English. It
involves the removal of some parts of existing lexical items/phrases in order to create new ones.
Essentially, this is motivated by the principle of economy but some reduced forms may also be
instigated by the desire to improvise professionalism and euphony (Newmark 1988). Nowadays,
English, which is widely known for its tendency to reduce words/phrases, holds the banner of
science and technology and, consequently, offers scores of reduced lexical terms such as DNA
(deoxyribo nucleic acid), AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), LCD (liquid crystal
display), DVD (digital versatile/video disc), NASA (National Aeronautics Space Administration),
etc. This will certainly make the work of translators more taxing, requiring them first to
understand what the RLF means (which, in many cases, involves tracing the RLF back to its full
form) and then to find an appropriate strategy to render it in the Target Language (TL).

English RLFs take various forms. The use of the initials of the words in lexical phrases to
construct new words stands out as the most familiar process. This involves two procedures which
differ only in the pronunciation of the output. The first procedure offers acronyms which are
pronounced as ordinary English words like NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), FAO
(Food and Agricultural Organization), NASA, AIDS, etc., while the second results in
abbreviations which are pronounced as individual letters such as USA (United States of
America), UN (United Nations), LCD, DNA, etc. (Yule 1985). A few common abbreviations
feature Latin individual letters such as ie for id est, eg for exempli gratia, am for ante meridiem
224

and pm for post meridiem. Other familiar abbreviations may take the initials of two syllables in
the word and have them stand for the whole word, e.g. TV for television and TB for tuberculosis,
or the first and last letters in the word, e.g. Dr for doctor, St for saint, Jr for junior, and Sr for
senior. Note that some of these abbreviations occur as written forms only and receive the
pronunciation of the entire word in spoken communication, e.g. Dr and St, while others are
spoken out as individual letters, e.g. Jr and Sr.
The second most common English RLFs involve the application of clipping to exiting words in
order to create new ones. The most common procedure in clipping is to cut off the first (or, to a
lesser extent, the last) syllable in the word and have it stand for the whole word. Examples
include gym, lab, bike, phone, and bra, among many others. In some cases, the clipped forms
occur in writing only and are pronounced as full words, e.g. Eng for engineer or English and Rev
for Reverend.

Another familiar reduction process in English is the blending of two lexemes to produce a word
representing a new concept. The standard procedure is to combine the onset consonants and/or
syllable(s) of one word with the last syllable of another. Examples include brunch from breakfast
and lunch, smog from smoke and fog, and autocide from automobile and suicide, among many
others. A more common manifestation of blending in technical materials involves taking one part
of a word (one or more syllables) and combining it to a full word. Examples include geopolitics,
psycholinguistics, ecosystem, Afroasiatic, carboxide, morphophonemic, and biochemistry, among
many others.

2. Lexical Reduction in Arabic

Arabic, in contrast with English, employs RLFs on a small scale. Traditionally, the use of a
modified version of acronyms was confined to phrases with a religious tinge (They all feature
allah). The procedure involves employing verbs featuring the most salient and/or important
sounds in a phrase/sentence to indicate the uttering of full phrases/sentences such as hallala
for the sentence laa ilaah illaa allah ' There is no God but God, kabbara for the
utterance allahu akbar God's the greatest, basmala for the phrase bismi-llaah ilramaan il-raiim In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful,
and awqala for the sentence laa awla walaa uwata illaa billaah Theres no refuge nor
strength but in God, among a few others. Few of them are only written forms such as Prophet
Mohammeds honorific salam for the sentence salaa allahu alayhi wa salam
May peace be upon him.

In modern standard Arabic, one might find a few abbreviations and blends. Familiar examples of
written abbreviations which are spoken out in full include the Arabic letter . followed by a dot
for duktoor doctor , the letter . followed by a dot for muhanndis engineer , the
letter after a date for miilaadii AD , and the letter after a date for hijrii Hijri /Islamic
225

calendar . Pure blends, for their turn, are very infrequent in Arabic; examples may include
mutaaail optimistic and pessimistic from mutafaail optimistic and mutaaaim
pessimistic and adi aa enemies and friends from adaa enemies and asdi aa
friends. However, due to the continued influence of English technical terms, Arabic sometimes
employs blends where one part of the first word is attached to the second word in full to form
what is called in Arabic the blended compound such as kahrumanaatiisii
electromagnetic from kahrabaai electric and manaatiisii

magnetic and afruaasyawii Afro-asiatic from afrii ii African and

aasyawii Asiatic .

3. Translation of English RLFs

English, which is an international lingua franca nowadays, offered and is still offering scores of
RLFs, particularly the employment of initials to stand for lexical phrases, in various fields and
occupations including business, industry, tourism, science, technology, academia, etc. The expert
as well as the translator is astounded by the huge number of these RLFs and the opaqueness
encapsulated thereof (Spencer 1988). The general tendency to use RLFs in written as well as
spoken English discourse, which is mainly motivated by economy, euphony, and prestige and/or
professionalism (cf. Newmark 1988), may cause serious problems to translators in first
interpreting SLFs and then in rendering them into the Target Language (TL). The kind of
problems occurring depends on whether the language pair involves genealogically related
languages, e.g. English and other European languages, or those genealogically unrelated
languages, e.g. English and Arabic.

In the former case, initialisms whose source is not English may vary across European languages,
which are receptive to such lexical reduction, e.g. SSSR, USSR, UDSSR, and URSS in Russian,
English, German and French respectively all refer to former Soviet Union. The variation
emanates from the initials in the phrase in each language. However, more recently, there is a
tendency in several European languages to borrow English initialisms formally. Examples include
English internationalisms such as AIDS, DNA, DVD, LCD, etc. (Gonzlez 1991; Bankole 2006).

In the latter case, English and Arabic, the rendering of initialisms becomes more complicated
because Arabic does not use the Latin alphabet in the first place, nor does it behave receptively of
this lexical phenomenon in the second place (cf. Al-Qinai 2007). Translators of English
initialisms into Arabic, therefore, may adopt different strategies in rendering them. By way of
illustration, let us take the familiar English initialism DNA, which is variously translated into
corresponding individual Arabic letters reflecting the English pronunciation ( ) , or an
Arabic acronym () , or an Arabic loan translation ( / ) , or a combination
of two or more of them.
226

4. Purpose, Material and Procedure

The purpose of this study is to examine authentic Arabic translational data in an English text type
(popular scientific discourse) which frequently employs the use of RLFs, in an attempt to see how
translators render them into Arabic. Consequently, the study will offer a typology of the strategies
used, along with a qualitative and quantitative discussion of each strategy.

The material consists of 15 Arabic translations (See Appendix 1) of their Scientific American
originals (See Appendix 2) appearing in Majalat AlOloom, a publication of Kuwait Foundation
for the Advancement of sciences (KFAS), Kuwait. Each English article will be closely examined
for RLFs, noting whether the RLF is used alone or alongside the full form. Then, the English data
are juxtaposed with the Arabic translational counterparts and subjected to careful analysis.

As is clear, the study material is a par excellence sample of scientific translation. Scientific
translation, it is generally believed, focuses on the accurate conveyance of the content of
scientific discourse. Ilyas (1989: 109) writes "In scientific works, subject-matter takes priority
over the style of the linguistic medium which aims at expressing facts, experiments, hypothesis,
etc. All that is required in fact is that of verbal accuracy and lucidity of expression". If the
translator is required to improvise verbal accuracy and lucid expression, one wonders what
remains of the linguistic medium Ilyas is underestimating in the above quote. There is no question
that the translator's knowledge in the relevant area is a prerequisite in scientific translation (Nida
1964; Giles 1995; Saedi 1996; Al-Hassnawi 200). However, an effective rhetoric of scientific
discourse should accompany the rendition of accurate scientific information. Sharkas (2009), in
an article titled "Translation Quality Assessment of Popular Science Articles Corpus Study of the
Scientific American and its Arabic Version", criticizes the translation quality which focuses on
factual quality and noticeably underestimates textual adequacy which caters for cohesion and
coherence. She rightly concludes that it is not enough to have science articles translated and
edited by specialists in the relevant areas in the absence of translation training that sharpens their
transfer competence.

It should be noted that the present study is not meant to conduct a quality assessment study of the
Arabic version of Scientific American. Other things being equal, the purpose of this investigation
is to examine how professional specialist translators deal with English RLFs in Arabic translation
as sampled by Majalat AlOloom. Therefore, the discussion, analysis and critique therein are
solely confined to RLFs, the feature under investigation.

5. Categories of English Data

227

There are three categories of the English data extracted:

1. The RLF is employed immediately after the complete form in the first mention but alone
in subsequent mentions, e.g. human accelerated region 1 (HAR1), Throughfall
Displacement Experiment (TDE), net primary production (NPP), Resource Description
Framework ((RDF), Universal Resource Identifier (URI), etc.
2. The RLF is employed independently of the complete form. This category falls into five
subcategories:
a) Abbreviations (pronounced as individual letters), e.g. DNA, RNA, HIV, U.S., etc.
b) Acronyms (pronounced as words), e.g. NASA, AIDS, etc.
c) Clipped (spoken and written) forms, e.g. lab, chimp, etc.
d) Written Clipped forms, C (Celsius), Calif. (California), Colo. (Colorado), etc.
e) Blended forms, e.g. iPhone, e-mail, ecosystem, biodiversity, geothermal, etc.
3. The RLF (employed alone) modifies a Generic term (such as virus, gene, experiment,
etc.) in the first mention but alone in subsequent mentions, e.g. FOXP2 gene, PrERV1
virus, AMY1 gene, etc.

Table 1: Number of occurrences for the categories of English data in terms of frequency.
Categories of English Data
Category type
Number of occurrences
Percentage
Blended form
39
32.5%
Complete form + RLF
30
25%
Abbreviation
25
20.8%
Written Clipped form
15
12.5%
RLF + Generic form
5
4.2%
Acronyms
4
3.3%
Spoken Clipped form
2
1.7%
Total
120

Table 1 above indicates that the total number of English RLFs in the corpus is 120 first mention
instances (subsequent mentions are not reported) which are distributed over 7 categories.
Noticeably, blended forms, complete forms + RLFs and abbreviations account for about 76% of
the data. This comes as no surprise because the high technicality of the terminology in scientific
discourse necessitates the employment of such techniques.

6. Strategies Employed in Translating RLFS

The corpus instantiates 6 Arabic strategies in translating English RLFs as follows:
1. Translation Alone: The translator simply translates the English source term into Arabic.
228

2. Translation + RLF: The translator translates the word/phrase and follows it with the
complete form and reduced form.
3. Arabic Generic Word + Borrowing: The translator borrows the English term but precedes
it with an Arabic generic term to clarify the translation.
4. Borrowing Alone: The translator borrows the English term and writes it using Arabic
alphabet.
5. Borrowing + Acronym: The translator borrows the English term in Arabic alphabet and
follows it with the English acronym.
6. Translation + Borrowing: The translator translates as well as borrows the English
term/phrase.

Table 2: Number of occurrences of translation strategies in terms of frequency

Translation Strategies
Percentage
Strategy Type
Number of occurrences
Translation alone
50
41.6%
Translation + RLF
27
22.5%
Arabic generic word + Borrowing 22
18.3%
Borrowing alone
11
9.1%
Borrowing + Acronym
Translation + Borrowing
Total

5
5
120

4.4%
4.4%

Out of the six strategies noted in the translation strategies, the highest percentage is the translation
alone strategy, followed by the use of translation with the reduced. The following discussion
sheds more light on each of these strategies.

6.1 Translation Alone

This is the most frequent strategy in the data (41.6%). The high frequency of this strategy derives
from the fact that it is employed in a variety of RLFs where the translator expects the reader to be
familiar with the Arabic translation independently of the English RLF. The variety includes:

a) Clipped Forms such as:

Calif.

Neb.

chimp
lab

b) Abbreviations such as:

229

U.S.

Ph.D.

U.C.

'UK'

c) Blended Forms such as:

ecosystem

' biostatistician'.

Midwest
geothermal energy

Firstly, clipped forms may include both proper and common nouns. On the one hand, clipped
forms of proper nouns are rendered in Arabic alphabet in full, e.g. for 'Calif.'. On the
other hand, clipped forms of common nouns are translated into their Arabic full counterparts, e.g.
for 'lab'. It should be noted that clipped forms like these must be rendered into their Arabic
full counterparts as there are no corresponding clipped forms in Arabic.

Secondly, there are some English abbreviations pronounced as individual letters which must be
translated into their Arabic full forms such as USA and PhD. Examples like these are never
borrowed using Arabic alphabet. However, there are some abbreviations (not found in our data)
which may lend themselves to borrowing through Arabic alphabet and are pronounced as
individual letters such as for 'CIA' and for 'BBC'.

Thirdly, and more importantly, scientific discourse frequently features blended technical forms
where the first syllable of the first technical word attaches to the full form of the second word to
form a compound concept. The corpus shows that most of these terms are translated into Arabic
phrases featuring two full forms or more, e.g. for 'ecosystem' and
for 'biostatistician'. As is clear, this strategy unpacks the meaning of the English blended
term employing Arabic translation alone.

6.2 Translation + RLF

Table 2 above shows that the second most frequent rendition of a technical RLF involves an
Arabic translation of the complete form immediately followed by the English RLF. This strategy
accounts for 22.5% of the overall data. It is clear that the translator endeavors to make sure that
230

the Arabic translation is processed correctly. The reader, the translator feels, may have difficulty
processing the Arabic translation, in which case s/he can rely on the English RLF. The translator
can look the RLF up to know what it stands for. The following examples involve this strategy:

HAR1 ) (
CO2

RDF

In the first example, the translator gives an Arabic translation of the English complete form
(human accelerated region 1) along with the RLF. However, instead of using the abbreviation
alone in subsequent mentions (as the English text does), the translator employs the translation of
the head noun in the phrase ( region) to preface the RLF in every subsequent mention, viz.
HAR1 region HAR1. This is meant to facilitate processing by the reader, albeit it
duplicates one of the initials (the one for head noun).

The second example offers an Arabic translation along with the RLF in the first mention but only
the Arabic translation in subsequent mentions. Apparently, the translator feels comfortable with
his Arabic rendition and expects the reader to process it easily, thus doing away with the RLF, i.e.
CO2.

The third example offers a five-word Arabic translation of a three-letter abbreviation (RDF)
whose complete form (Resource Description Framework) is given in a footnote. The complete
English form and the abbreviation are employed parenthetically to explain what the term the
primary language means viz. the primary language the Resource Description Framework
(RDF) which is layered onto the basic HTML and (Web Science Emerges, p. 79). The
translator successfully uses the head noun language to modify the name of the program. In
the subsequent mentions, s/he uses the generic word followed by the RLF, viz. RDF .
Interestingly, the complete form of the second abbreviation in the quote above (HTML) is not
given in the English text, probably because the authors deem it a familiar RLF in web science.
This abbreviation stands for HyperText Markup Language. The translator just borrows the
abbreviation without rendering what it stands for. However, he employs a generic word to preface
it, viz. HTML layer HTML. Apparently, the translator mistook the L in the abbreviation
to stand for layer rather than the target language, hence the erroneous rendering. He should
have looked up the complete form of the RLF in a specialized dictionary in order to render its
content, viz. .

231

6.3 Arabic Generic Word + Borrowing (in Arabic or English alphabet)

This strategy comes third in the data (18.3%. The translator here opts for prefacing the
abbreviation or acronym with a generic word to facilitate the processing for the reader. In many
cases, the Arabic generic word duplicates the last initial in the English RLF as can be illustrated
in the two examples below:

NASA NASA agency

HIV HIV virus
In the first example (NASA), the initial 'A' for generic word 'Administration' is further duplicated
by the Arabic generic ' agency'. Similarly, in the second example (HIV), the initial 'V' for the
generic word 'virus' is duplicated by the Arabic generic word ' virus'. Cleary, the translator
wants to naturalize the discourse as well as facilitate comprehension.

In some cases, the source text employs generic words in the first mention of highly technical
RLFs. However, the target text will employ the generic term in all subsequent mentions, e.g.
ASPM ASPM gene. This strategy compensates for the zero translation of such terms by the
continued employment of the generic term. Besides, the terms would sound unnatural without the
generic term.

In few cases, the translator, not being certain that the generic word would do the job, may
reinforce the generic word with a post-modifier immediately after the borrowing, as in:
TNT TNT explosive material.

6.4 Borrowing alone

There are a few examples where the RLF is borrowed alone whether in Arabic alphabet or
English alphabet (9.1%). The following examples are illustrative:

for

'AIDS'

for

'DNA'

for

for 'UNISEF'

IEEE

for 'IEEE'

'RNA'

232

Tg

for 'Tg'

As can be seen, English acronyms may be borrowed as words in Arabic alphabet, e.g. for
'UNICEF' and for 'AIDS'. Similarly, in two recurrent cases and due to editorial policy, the
English abbreviations DNA and RNA are borrowed as Arabic acronyms , i.e. they are
pronounced as Arabic words (See strategy 2 above). The reason for the adoption of borrowing
alone seems to stem from the universal or local (magazine-specific) familiarity with these terms.

In some cases, rendering the abbreviation as is in English alphabet is indicative of the translator's
inability to translate the sense of the RLF and, consequently, constitutes zero translation. The
employment of 'IEEE' (which is an online database) and Tg (which is a measurement of
'thyroglobulin') in the Arabic text without any attempt to translate the concept is a serious
weakness in the translation. The specialist translator should be able to combine borrowing with
translation in order to facilitate comprehension.

6.5 Borrowing + Acronym

This strategy is often applied in cases of familiar English internationalisms where the translator
works with the assumption that the reader is aware of such abbreviations. However, he reinforces
the borrowing in Arabic alphabet by mentioning the English RLF. It should be noted that the
Latin alphabet is replaced with the Arabic in such borrowings, that is, transliteration, which
employs the Latin alphabet, is not available when borrowing into Arabic, whereas it is adopted
when borrowing from Arabic into English, e.g. is transliterated as jihad and is
transliterated as Hamas.

The data instantiates only few examples of such internationalisms (4.4%), two of which (DNA
and AIDS) are highly recurrent in the corpus. The first (DNA), which is an abbreviation
pronounced as individual letters in English, is systematically acronymized as ' addanaa' in
Arabic. Apparently, this is an editorial decision to adopt this Arabic acronym as an equivalent for
this recurrent term in science materials. It should be noted, while Arabic can readily acronymize
English acronyms such as AIDS , UNESCO , and NATO , it is extremely
uncommon to acronymize English abbreviations such as DNA. The usual practice is to either
translate it (viz. ) or borrow it as individual letters in Arabic alphabet (viz. ) . It
should also be noted that the Arabic definite article is added to Arabic acronyms which only
require the zero article in English. When adopting this strategy, the translator includes the English
RLF only in the first mention, i.e. she/he only employs the Arabic acronym in subsequent
mentions.

233

6.6 Translation + Borrowing

The corpus contains few cases (4.4%) where translation is combined with borrowing in Arabic or
English alphabet, as can be illustrated in the following examples:
GM
biodiversity
agroecological
Chromosome 4E

4E

Apparently, the translator in the first three examples above opts for borrowing the technical part
of the RLF in English alphabet instead of employing translation alone. While this decision is
transparent in the first two items because the borrowed terms are as familiar as their Arabic
counterparts, viz. , respectively, the decision in the third item is rather
opaque as the Arabic counterpart, viz. is more transparent to the Arab reader. As for the
fourth item, the translator rightly retains the English abbreviation (4E) but unjustifiably translates
the generic word 'chromosome' into , which is largely unfamiliar to the Arab reader. A
better option is to borrow it in Arabic alphabet, i.e. , which is a very familiar borrowing
in Arabic.

7. Categories of English Data in Relation to Translation Strategies

To shed more light on the relation between the most frequent English categories that were used in
the source English text, i.e., blended forms and complete form + RLF (See Table 1), and the
translation strategies employed in translating these categories, let us examine Tables 3 and 4
below.

Table 3: Number of occurrences of English category Blended form in relation to translation strategies.
Strategy Type
Translation alone
Translation + RLF
Borrowing alone
Arabic generic word + Borrowing
Borrowing + Acronym

Number of occurrences
29
5
3
2
0

Percentage
74.4%
12.8%
7.7%
5.1%
0%

Borrowing clipped into full form

Translation + Borrowing
Total

0
0
39

0%
0%

234

As discussed in section 5 above, the use of the blended form was the most frequent category
among the data under analysis. Having a closer look at those blended forms, it is found that the
bulk of blended forms (74.4%) is rendered into Arabic by translation alone (As shown in Table
3). This simply indicates that what is familiarly known in Arabic as 'the blended compound' is not
a priority by the Arab translator when translating blended forms. It can be argued that the main
motivation here is to achieve transparency by avoiding opaque blended compounds. For example,
the blended form 'biochemistry' will be translated into the transparent rather than the
opaque Arabic blended compound . It should be noted, however, that English adjectival
blended forms do not lend themselves readily to the strategy of translation alone, e.g.
'biochemical' is translated into the Arabic blended compound rather than the awkward
( in which two adjectives are employed) or the rather opaque blended compound,
where functions as a blending syllable from biological. Thus, while nominal
blended forms lend themselves easily to translation into Arabic by rendering the blending syllable
as a full adjective to post-modify the noun . This process is not usually available for
adjectival blended forms where translation plus borrowing becomes more likely, albeit more
opaque.

Table 4: Number of occurrences of English category complete form + RLF in relation to translation
strategies.
Strategy Type
Translation + RLF
Arabic generic word +
Borrowing
Translation + Borrowing
Borrowing + Acronym
Translation alone

Number of occurrences
12
12

Percentage
40%
40%

2
1
3

6.7%
3.3
10%

Borrowing alone
Borrowing clipped into full
form
Total

0
0

0%
0%

30

Also, as mentioned in section 5 above, the second most frequent English category was the use of
English Complete Forms + RLF. This category (as shown in Table 4) is rendered by Translation
+ RLF (40%) and Arabic Generic Word + Borrowing (40%). Both strategies aim to facilitate the
processing of such highly technical phrases by the addition of the RLF or the employment of an
Arabic generic word. It can be argued that these two strategies constitute the key to dealing with
discipline-specific English RLFs. The translator's main task is to achieve a good degree of
transparency of such RLFs in Arabic scientific discourse. In few cases, the strategy of Translation
alone will be sufficient where the transparency of the Arabic rendition is very high.

235

8. Translation Strategies in Relation to Categories of English Data

This section discusses another aspect of the data, that is, the relationship between the most
frequent translation strategies employed, i.e., translation alone and translation + RLF (See Table
2), and the categories of English data that they were derived from. Tables 5 and 6 below provide a
detailed breakdown of these two strategies.

Table 5: Number of occurrences of English categories in relation to translation alone strategy.

Category type
Blended form
Abbreviation
Written Clipped form
Complete form + RLF
Spoken Clipped form

Number of occurrences
28
14
5
2
1

Percentage
56%
28%
10.%
4%
2%

Acronyms
Generic term + RLF
Total

0
0
50

0%
0%

Table 5 predictably shows that the most frequent input for Translation Alone is blended forms
(56% / see discussion of Table 3 above). More interestingly, the Table indicates that the second
most frequent input for Translation Alone is abbreviations (28%). To explain, abbreviations,
which are pronounced as individual letters, fall into two categories: technical discipline-specific
abbreviations, e.g. NPP for Net Primary Production and general, non-technical abbreviations, e.g.
USA for United States of America. While the first category usually requires Translation
combined with other strategies (see discussion of Table 4 above), the second category requires
translation alone. Examples include for USA and for PhD. Table 5 also
indicates that written clipped forms usually require Translation Alone (10%). Examples include
for vs 'versus', for C 'Celsius', and for Kan 'Kansas'.

Table 6: Number of occurrences of English categories in relation to translation + RLF.

Category type
Complete form+ RLF
Abbreviation
Blended form
Written Clipped form
Acronyms

Number of occurrences
18
5
5
0
0

Percentage
66.6%
18.5%
14.8%
0%
0%

Spoken Clipped form

Use of RLF with a generic term
Total

0
0
27

0%
0%

236

Table 6 shows that the most frequent input for the strategy Translation + RLF is Complete Form
+ RLF (66.6%). The employment of the RLF in the Arabic rendition is meant to ensure the
comprehension of such highly technical terms. If the translation is used alone in the first mention,
comprehensibility may become at stake. Examples include (TDE)
for
Throughfall Displacement Experiment (TDE) and (TLRS) for Toll-like
receptors (TLRS). As for the other less frequent inputs for Translation + RLF, they are
Abbreviations (18.5%), e.g. CO2 for CO2 and Blended Forms (14.8%), e.g.
ecosystem for ecosystem. In both cases, the use of the English RLF aims to consolidate
the comprehensibility of the usually transparent Arabic translations.

9. Conclusions
1. The data shows that English RLFs in popular scientific discourse require a special
treatment when translated into Arabic. The most taxing problem is to render the technical
RLFs in a comprehensible manner while preserving the scientific jargon. This usually
necessitates combining translating with borrowing to ensure that the reader understands
the RLF.
2. In the absence of translating, the strategy of borrowing usually involves the employment
of generic words and post-modification to facilitate comprehension,
3. Familiar abbreviations are simply translated into Arabic complete forms.
4. Clipped forms usually recover their complete forms in Arabic translation.
5. Blended forms are usually unpacked and subsequently translated into Arabic complete
forms.
6. Editorial decisions by a magazine may sometimes override mainstream tendencies as in
the invented Arabic acronyms for DNA and for RNA.
7. Quantity-wise, it is clear that the rendition of most RLFs contributes significantly to the
verification of the Explicitation Hypothesis (Blum-Kulka, 1986), which argues that
explicitation is an inherent feature of translation activity, i.e., the translation is always
more explicit than the original.
10. Pedagogical Implications
1. Student translators need to be made aware of the highly technical nature of scientific
discourse. Unlike other types of discourse, scientific discourse is full of technical jargon
and reduced forms that require a degree of scientific knowledge and/or background on the
part of the translator.
2. Student translators need to be familiar with the different categories of lexical reduction in
English in general and English scientific discourse in particular.
3. Student translators need to be made aware of the various translation strategies that
specialist professional translators employ when rendering RLFs in scientific discourse.

237

)(Arabic Articles

Appendix 1

. . .20 . 8/0
/ .2636 .01 -51
. .20 .5/1/ .2636 .51-85
. . .21
.32/33 / .26655-5 .
. . .20 . 8/0/
.2636 .31 -5
. .22 / .2660
. . 21
.32/33 / .2665.30-36 .
. . . .21 .32/33
/ .266551-18 .
() : . }
. .21 .32/33 / .2665.21-38 .
. .20 .0/1 / .2636.53-12 .
. . 20. .0/1 / .2636.
.13-52
. . 20. .0/1 / .2636.23-35 .
: . . . 20 .8/0/ .2636
.11 -58 .
. . .20
.5/1/ .2636 .10-16
. . . .20 .5/1/
.2636 .01-10
. . .21 .32/33 / .2665..13-20 .

)Appendix 2 (English Articles

Local Nuclear War. By Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon (January 2010).

238

Climate Change: A Controlled Experiment. By Stan n. Wullschleger and Maya

Strahl (March 2010). pp. 78-83.
What Makes us Human. By Katherine S. Pollard (May 2009). pp. 44- 49.
Web Science Emerges. By Nigel Shadbolt and Tim Berners-Lee (October 2008). Pp
76-81.
The Naked Truth. By Nina Jablonski (February 2010) . pp. 42-49.
Future Farming. By Jerry D. Glover, Cindy, M. Cox & John P. Reganold ( April 2010). Pp.
82-89.
Does Globalization Help?. By Pranab Badhan. ( April 2006). pp. 84-91.
Cloudy with a Chance of Rain. By Erick Young (February 2010). pp. 34-41).
Grassoline at the Pump. By George Huber and Bruce Dale (July 2009). pp. 52-59.
Boosting Vaccine Power. By Nathalie Garcon and Michel Goldman (Ocotber 2009).
pp. 72-79.
Local Nuclear Power. By Alan Robock and Owen B. Toon (January 2010). pp. 74-81.
The Price of Silent Mutations. By J.V. Chamary and Laurence D. Hurst (June 2009) .
pp. 46-53.
Real Money from Virtual Worlds. By Richard Heeks.(January 2010). pp. 68-73).
Biotechs Plans to sustain Agriculture. By Borel, Fischer, Fischhoff and Galindez.
(October 2009). pp. 86- 94.
Evolution of Minerals. By Rober Hazen. (March 2010). pp. 58- 65).
Laughing Matters. By Steve Ayan. (April/May 2009). pp. 24-31.

239

Major Problems in Student Translations of

English Legal Texts

Mohammed Farghal & Abdullah T. Shunnaq

Abstract

240

This paper aims to show that the translation of English legal texts into Arabic may involve
syntactic, layout, and tenor problems. It demonstrates that MA student translators face serious
problems when dealing with syntactic discontinuity in a UN legal document. In particular, they
find difficulty in properly incorporating English parenthetical non-finite clauses within Arabic
legal discourse because Arabic usually favors finite clauses when rendering them. The translation
task also offers evidence for many of the students' inability to deal properly with some layout
features such as indentation, which is not used to mark paragraphing in the study text but rather to
lay emphasis on key propositions. Finally, tenor features relating to the formality of legal lexis
presents itself as another obstacle for many participants in the translation task.

1. Introduction
Postgraduate translation students usually receive extensive training in both Gen eral and
Technical Translation. Technical materials normally cover specialized literature emanating
from different disciplines such as sciences, e.g. chemistry, physics; economics, e.g.
accounting, public administration; political science; law; religion, etc. It is commonly taken
for granted that every discipline has its own jargon or technical vocabulary. Halliday (1978)
talks about Register as a defining feature of a language variety. To him, Register can be
defined in terms of Field, Mode and Tenor. In technical materials, it is Field that comes to
the fore as a defining feature. Field simply relates to Subject-matter which distinguishes
one discipline from another. Apart from content, it is usually form represented by syntax,
layout and tenor that guides the language user to the differentiation between one register
and another.

The translation of technical materials requires special expertise in t he relevant discipline

in addition to the general language competence. This expertise presupposes an
acquaintance with the content and form. The translator's failure to cope with content
would obviously result in mistranslations which could be fatal in real-life situations such as
court trials; whereas, his failure to cope with form would most likely result in register
failures; hence lack of professionalism and precision.

English legal texts exhibit certain patterns which are not found in other technical materials
or other general varieties. The draftsmen's incessant effort to externalize intentions in
their documents so as to avoid ambiguity inevitably brings about inherent peculiarities of
legislative texts. These peculiarities are mainly established forms that are taken in their entirety
from the standardized legal register, such as 'In Witness Whereof'. Crystal and Davy (1969:
194) write, "Therefore, much legal writing is by no means spontaneous but is copied directly
from 'form books', as they are called, in which established formulae are collected". This
being so, legal English exhibits a high degree of linguistic conservatism.
241

The features of legal English, as expounded by Crystal and Davy (p. 213), are many. First, the
features of layout, by which attention is drawn to the parts of the documents which are crucial
to meaning. Second, the grammatical characteristics such as the chain-like nature of some of
the constructions, syntactic discontinuity (Bhatia 1983), and the minimal use of anaphora.
Third, the careful interplay between precise and flexible terminology in vocabulary.
Finally, the legal register's preservation at all levels of forms which have long been
abandoned, such as `hereons' and `hereunders'.
2. The present study
The present paper aims to highlight the problematic areas in translating a UN legal
document (See Appendix) as encountered by MA translation students on their
Comprehensive Examination. The examinees, numbering 13, had already received at least
two years of translation training when they sat for the test. They were allowed free access to
different reference books during the test. From looking at their translations, it has been noticed
that the problematic areas basically fall into three categories: syntax-related problems, layoutrelated problems, and tenor-related problems. Despite the fact that these categories may
interrelate and intersect, they are dealt with separately below in the hope of sensitizing the
translator to the symmetries and asymmetries that ought to be attended to when engaging in
English/Arabic legal translation.
2.1 Syntax
The most problematic area for the examinees relates to the handling of the parenthetical
material separating the matrix subject 'The General Assembly' from its multi-verbs in the
complements, viz., 'invites', 'encourages', 'appeals', `invites', and 'requests', respectively. The
ability to cope successfully with syntactic discontinuity, which is a characteristic feature
of legal texts, constitutes a key gate to finding one's way smoothly through the text. In the
study text, the whole parenthetical material consists in non-finite English clauses. This
syntactic choice is often avoided in Arabic in favor of finite clauses (Farghal 2012). Being
unaware of this common asymmetry, 7/13 of the examinees explored this option, thus
mistakenly rendering non-finite English clauses into erroneous nonfinite Arabic clauses.
Observe the data in (1) below:
(1) Gravely concerned
Commending
Noting

( )

The renderings in (1) above involve formal equivalence; hence their erroneousness.
A closer look at the English non-finite clauses in the parenthetical material reveals that they
are inherently elliptical, viz., the circumstantial marker 'while' is categorically dropped in
English legal texts. By contrast, Arabic does not allow the deletion of the circumstantial
marker, thus imposing another constraint on the translator besides the finiteness parameter.
This being the case, the translator needs to opt for both a finite and an overtly-marked
clause in Arabic. Unfortunately, 5/13 of the examinees were unaware of the second
242

constraint, thus rendering the non-finite English clauses into unmarked finite clauses in
Arabic. Observe the data in (2) below:

(2) Gravely concerned

Commending

Noting

Noting with great appreciation

It should be noted that the actions alluded to in the parenthetical material in the English
text are all Perfective, whereas those called for in the matrix material are all Imperfective.
The translators unawareness of the second constraint results in a serious distortion of the
document in Arabic; that is, all actions, whether they be in the parenthetical or the matrix
material, will be Imperfective.
Apparently, the aforementioned structural asymmetries between English and Arabic have led
12/13 of the examinees to wrong syntactic choices which have serious repercussions on both
the layout and the cohesion of the text. On the one hand, the flow and the integrity of the
text are broken by the replacement of commas, for example, by full-stops. To illustrate, the
shift from non-finite to finite clauses usually entails a shift from commas to full-stops, thus
producing different textualizations. On the other hand, the failure to utilize a cohesive -tie
may affect both the cohesion as well as the coherence of the text. To illustrate, the
covertness vs. the overtness of the circumstantial marker in the English non-finite and the
Arabic finite clauses in the parenthetical material plays a key role in the cohesion and
coherence of the legal text under study. Consequently, a successful handling of
parenthetical materials, which are characteristically nonfinite clauses in English, is an
indispensable skill when engaging in English-into-Arabic legal translation.

2.2 Layout
Layout refers to the sketch or plan of the text's physical appearance. Basically, this relates to
paragraphing, indentation, and graphitic choices, viz., capitalizing, italicizing, underlining and
bold-typing. On the one hand, these features are sometimes governed by language-specific
constraints such as the standards of paragraphing and capitalizing in English. Thus, for
example, capital initials are required in a variety of linguistically-defined phenomena,
viz., sentence beginnings, proper names, names of rivers, lakes, organizations, etc.,
among other things. These linguistically-induced capitalizing rules are non-existent in
Arabic; and, being language-specific, have no bearing on the process of translating.
Layout features, on the other hand, can be of significance in the text, i.e., their employment will
affect the meaning of the text; hence they are relevant to the process of translating. The
translator needs to be aware of the employment of significant layout features in technical
texts in general and legal texts in particular. The failure to do so may affect both the
cohesion and coherence of the text. By way of illustration, the UN document on hand
constitutes, formally as well as syntactically, a single sentence with only one full-stop
appearing at the end of it. The splitting-up of this sentence into many sentences in the target
243

language affects the linguistic packaging of information in the text alongside the textual and
visual coherence it encapsulates, viz., the unbroken format. Being unaware of this important
feature in legal texts, 10 out of the 13 examinees in this study used many full-stops in their
translations, thus interrupting the structural and semantic flow of the text.
To illustrate, observe the example in (3) along with its erroneous rendering by one of the
examinees in (4) below:
(3) The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 35/206 N of 16 December 1980,
Gravely concerned about the inhuman oppression of millions of women and
children under apartheid,
260/11 ) 5(
.1980
...

Other things being equal, the replacement of the comma in (3) by the full -stop in (4) above
disrupts the flow of the text. To appreciate this point, observe the appropriate rendering
of (3) in (5) below:
) 1(
30 260/11
3586

...

As can be observed, (5) above preserves punctuation and indentation as two layout features. However, it fails to relay the emphasis thoroughly on the matrix
subject, i.e., The General Assembly, and its subsequent verbals, i.e., Recalling and Gravely
concerned, which is obtained not only by indentation, but also by italics. In typewritten
translations, the emphasis obtained by italics can be readily relayed in Arabic by italics or
bold-typing; but, in handwritten translations, this emphasis can only be relayed by
underlining. Unfortunately, none of the examinees explored this option, thus failing to relay
the role of italics in the original. To capture this role, therefore, (5) needs to be rewritten
as (6) below (Assuming that it is handwritten rather than typewritten):

30 260/11
3586

244

)6(

...

Clearly, (6) above relays all significant layout features, viz., punctuation, indenta tion and
italics, thus securing optimal layout equivalence in the translation of legal texts.

2.3 Tenor
Tenor is one of the three aspects that define Register, the other two being Field and Mode
(for example, see Halliday & Hasan (1985: 29-44)). Tenor refers to the relations among the
text producers and receivers, especially the level of formality, viz., colloquial, standard,
formal, highly formal, etc. As a genre of technical materials, legal texts exhibit their own
features of formal styles at various linguistic levels in both English and Arabic. We have
already looked at syntactic and layout features that are problematic to student translators
of English legal texts into Arabic. Let us now look at Tenor as it relates to the translators
lexical choice, which is of direct impact on the Tenor of legal texts. Legal texts are
characterized by the employment of a highly formal style relating to all word classes, that is,
verbs, nouns, adjectives and particles.

To illustrate the importance of the Tenor problem, observe the data in (7) below:

(7) a. Appeals to all Governments

/ ///

b. the plight of women and children

c. generous contributions

d. under Apartheid

First, in (7a), 5/13 of the examinees had tenor problems when they rendered the highly
formal 'Appeals' by less formal Arabic verbs. Second, in (7b), the tenor problem was more
serious in that 9/13 of the examinees rendered the highly formal 'plight' by less formal
Arabic nouns. Third, in (7c), 6/13 of the examinees rendered the highly formal 'generous'
in "generous contributions' by less formal Arabic adjectives. Finally, 7/13 of the examinees
245

had tenor problems relating to the highly formal preposition 'under' in 'under Apartheid'
when they rendered it by the much less formal preposition.

To appreciate the tenor problems, observe the appropriate rendering of the boldfaced items
in (7) above in (8) below, respectively:
(8) a.
b.

c.

d.
Tenor problems, it should be noted, don't greatly affect the propositional content of the text;
rather, they result in register problems, causing lack of professionalism and precision;
hence their importance in legal translation.
3. Conclusion
The present study has demonstrated that the translation of English legal texts into Arabic
involves many syntactic, layout and tenor problems that should be attended to when
engaging in this activity. A merely general translating ability would here fall short of
employing working and/or convincing legal translations. The fact that translation
practitioners in general and student translators in particular need to be sensitized to the special
problems encountered in the translating of legal texts becomes of central importance. Thus it
should not be taken for granted that a competent translator of general materials is of necessity
a competent translator of legal texts, because there are many subtleties relating to syntax,
layout and tenor that are peculiar to legal texts. These subtleties need to be brought to the
fore in English/Arabic technical translation classes.
The paper has shown that Arab student translators of English legal texts stumble when it comes
to handling syntactic discontinuity embodied in the parenthetical material. Most of them are
also unaware of layout features in legal texts that have serious bearings on the process of
translating. Further, a high percentage of them encounter tenor problems in their lexical
choice, thus failing to capture the formality parameter which is integral to the translating
of English legal texts. Hence, it is of great importance that translation training programs
consider problems of syntax, layout and tenor of both SL and TL. More specifically, stu dent translators should be made aware of the main characteristics of the legal text, namely:

1. The extraordinary long sentences of the legal text which are entailed by the
presence of lengthy parenthetical material.
2. Indentation doesn't signal paragraphs in the strict sense; rather, it is a layout
feature meant for singling out, i.e., emphasizing, key propositions.
3. The heavy use of lexical repetition instead of anaphora, e.g. the key Noun
Phrase 'Women and Children' is repeated several times in the English legal
text in hand.
4. The initiation of the Arabic text needs an emphatic particle `inna, which is an
almost exceptionless tradition in Arabic legal texts.
246

APPENDIX
Women and children under Apartheid
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 35/206 N of 16 December 1980,
Gravely concerned about the inhuman oppression of millions of women and children under
apartheid, resulting in the killing, detention and torture of schoolchildren protesting against discrimination, the enforced separation of women from their husbands and mass starvation in
the reserves,
Commending the Special Committee against Apartheid and its Task Force on Women and
Children for giving special attention to the plight of women and children under apartheid,
Noting the wide observance of 9 August 1981 as the International Day of Solidarity with
the Struggle of Women in South Africa and Namibia,
Noting with appreciation the establishment of the International Committee of Solidarity
with the Struggle of Women in South Africa and Namibia,
1. Invites all Governments and organizations to observe 9 August annually as the
International Day of Solidarity with the Struggle of Women in South Africa and Namibia;
2. Encourages the Special Committee against Apartheid to intensify activities in support of
women and children oppressed by apartheid, and authorizes it to organize conferences,
seminars and missions for this purpose;

247

3. Appeals to all Governments and organizations to provide generous contributions to the

projects of the national liberation movements and front-line States for assistance to
refugee women and children from South Africa;
4. Invites the co-operation of all Governments and organizations with the Special
Committee in promoting solidarity, with and assistance to the women and children of
South Africa in their struggle for liberation;
5. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure the closest co-operation by the Centre against
Apartheid and the Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs as well as the
Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, with a view to maximum publicity for
the plight of women and children under apartheid and their struggle for national liberation.

102nd plenary meeting 17

December 1981

248

ii

List of References
Abdel-Fattah, M. M. (2005). On the Translation of Modals from English into Arabic and Vice Versa: The
Case of Deontic Modality, Babel, 51(1), 31-48.
Abedel-Hafiz, A. (2002). Problems in Translating English Journalistic Texts into Arabic: Examples from the
Arabic Version of Newsweek. IJAES 3 (1+2): 69-94.
Abdel-Hameed, S. (1965). Buloogh Al-Arab fi Al Waw fi Lughat Al- Arab. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyah
Al Azhariya.
Adonis, A. (1978). The Age of Poetry [in Arabic]. Beirut: Dar Al-Awdah.

Aisentadt, E. (1981). Restricted Collocations in English Lexicology and Lexicography. ITL Review of
Applied Linguistics 53: 53-61.
Al-Afghani, S. (1970). Al-Moojaz fi Qawaaed Al-Lughat Al-Arabia wa shawaa hidiha. Beirut: Dar AlFikr.
Al-Batal, M. (1990). Connectives as cohesive elements in a modern expository Arabic text. (ed.) Mushira
Eid and John McCarthy, Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics II. Amsterdam / Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Alexander, R. (1978). Fixed Expressions in English: A Linguistic, Psycholinguistic and Dialectic Study.
Anglistik und Englischunterricht 6: 171-181.
Alexieva, B. (1990). Creativity in Simultaneous Interpretation. Babel 36(1):1-6.

Al-Hassnawi, A. (2000). Aspects of Scientific Translation: English into Arabic Translation as a Case
Study. www.TranslationDirectory.com .

Al-Hayek, I. (1996). An Approximate, Plain, Straightforward Translation of the Honorable

Quran in English. Damascus: Dar al-Fikr lil-Tiba'ah wal-Nashr.
Al-Hmouz, M. A. (2001). Al-Rasheeed fi al-nahw al-Arabi. Dar Alsafa'. Jordan: Amman.

Ali, A. Y. (1934/2006). The Meaning of the Glorious Quran. Vol. 1, Beirut and Cairo: Dar AlKitab al-Lubnani wa Dar Al-Kitab Al-Masri.
Al-Jubouri, A. (1987). Computer-aided categorization and quantification of connectives in
English and Arabic. Birmingham: University of Aston.
iii

Al-Jubouri, A. and Knowles, F. (1988). A computerassisted study of cohesion based on English

and Arabic corpora. Proceedings of the 12th International ALLC Congress,
Geneva, Geneva: ALLC.
Al-Kharabsheh, A & B. Al-Azzam (2008). Translating the Invisible in the Qur`an.
(2008): 1-18.

Babel. 54

AlKhfaji, R. (2011). Essays in Arabic Text linguistics and Translation Studies. Amman: Amwaj
for Publication and Distribution.
Almanna, A. (2013). Quality in the Translation of Narrative Fictional Texts from Arabic into
English for the Purposes of Publication: Towards a Systematic Approach to (Self-)
assessing the Translation Process. Unpublished Ph.D thesis: University of
Durham.
Al-Najjar, M. F. (1984). Translation as a Correlative of Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana
University. [Doctoral Dissertation]
Al-Masri, H. (2004). Semantics and Cultural Losses in the Translation of Literary Texts,
unpublished Ph.D thesis: Purdue University.
Alpert, M. Translatabilty. In Mona Baker (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.
London & New York: Routledge, 2001 (online pdf file pp. 273-276).
Al-Qinai, J. (2007). Abbreviation and Acronymy in English Arabic Translation. Meta 52(2):
376-389.
Al-Qinai, J. (2008). On Translating Modals. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 3(1&2), 30-67.
Al-Udhari, A. (trans.). (1984). Victims of a Map. London: The Thedford Press.

Al-Wahy, A. Idiomatic False Friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic. Babel 55 (2):
101-123.
Ameka, F.(1992). Interjections: The Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech. Journal of
Pragmatics 18:101-118.
Arberry, A. J. (1955/1996). The Koran Interpreted. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Arndt, H. and Janney, R. (1985). Politeness Revisited: Cross-Modal Supportive Strategies.
IRAL 23(4):281-200.
Anees, I. (1966). Min Asrar Al-Lugha. Cairo: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop.

iv

Asad, M. The Message of the Quran. England: The Book Foundation, 1980/2003.
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Awad, R. (1985). The Beginning and the End. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Translation of N. Mahfouz novel bidaayatun wa-nihaayah (1942-43).
Aziz, Y. (1999). Cross-cultural translation and Ideological Shifts. International Journal of
Translation 11(1 and 2): 29-84.
Badran, D. (2001). Modality and Ideology in Translated Political Texts. Nottingham Linguistic Circular,
16: 47-61.

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London & New York: Routledge.

Baker, M. and M. McCarthy (1987). Multi-word Units and Things Like That. (MS), English Language
Research, University of Birmingham.

Bankole, Adetola. (2006). Dealing with Abbreviations in Translation. Translation Journal 10(4): 1-11.

Bayor, D. (1987). Translator/Reader. Translation Review. (23): 30-33.

Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., and Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations
of function and content words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and
Language, 60, 92-111.

Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Longman.

Benson, M. et al. (1987). The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.

Bentahila, A. and Davies, E. (1989). Culture and Language Use: a Problem for Foreign Language
v

Teaching. IRAL 27(2):99-112.

Bhatia, V. (1983). An Applied Discourse Analysis of English Legislative Writing. University of Aston,
Birmingham.

Blum-Kulka, Sh. (1986/2004). Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. In Venuti, L. (ed.), The
Translation Studies Reader (2nd ed.), 290-305. London and New York : Routledge.

Bolinger, D. (1952). Linear Modification. F. Householder, ed. Syntactic Theory 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Education, 1952. 31-50.

Bolinger, D. (1963). The Uniqueness of the Word. Lingua 12. 113-136.

Bolinger, D. (1980). Language: The Loaded Weapon. London and New York: Longman.
Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985). Reflection, Turning Experience into Learning. London &
New York: Routledge.
Boulton, M. (1977). The Anatomy of Poetry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Brown, H. Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.

Burke, C. L. (1981). Preparing Elementary Teachers to Teach Reading. In K. S. Goodman (ed.), Miscue
Analysis: Application to Reading Instructions. Urbana [1]: ERIC/RCS, NCTE, pp. 15-30.

Burkhanov, I. (2003). Translation: Theoretical Prerequisites. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego

Rzeszow.

Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative Pedagogy. In: J. Richards and
R. Schmid (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, 2-27.
Candlin, C., Crompton, P. & Hatim, B. (2015). Academic Writing Step by Step: A Research-based
Approach. London: Equinox
vi

Cantarino, V. (1976). The syntax of modern Arabic in prose. Bloomington: Indian University Press.
Cantarino, V. (1975). The syntax of modern Arabic in prose. Bloomington: Indian University Press.

Cantarino, V. (1974). The syntax of modern Arabic in prose. Bloomington: Indian University Press.

Carell, P. (1983). "Some Issues in Studying the Role of Schemata, or Background Knowledge in
Second Language Comprehension". Reading in A Foreign Language 1 (2) pp. 81-92.

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic theory of Translation: An essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Cauer, P. (1896). Die Kunts des Ubersetzens. Weidmann: Berlin.

Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chomsky, N. (1964). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (1968). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.
Chomsky, Noam. (1977). On Wh-movement. In P.W. Culicover et al.(eds.), Formal Syntax. Academic
Press, 71-132.

Chung, C. and Nebaker, J. P. (2007). The psychological functions of function words. Social
Communication, 343-359.

Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries, London: Croom Helm.

Cole, P. & Morgan, J.L. (eds). (1975). Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. New York: New York Academic
Press.

Collins, W. (1860/2010). The Woman in White. Penguin Books. Translated into Arabic by Dar Al-Bihar,
vii

Beirut, 2003.

Cowie, A. (1981). The Treatment of Collocations and Idioms in Learners Dictionaries. Applied
Linguistics 2 (3): 223-235.

Cowie, A. (1988). Stable and Creative Aspects of Vocabulary Use. In: M. Carter and M. McCarthy,
Vocabulary and Language Teaching, 126-139. London: Longman.

Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman. pp.191-217. Halliday, M.
1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. pp.31-35.

Dagut, M. (1981). Semantic Voids as a Problem in the Translation Process. Poetics Today 2:
61-71.
Darwish, Ali. (2005). English Verticality in Square Arabic Translation. Translation Monitor
2(1):1-17.
Davies, E. (1982). A Contrastive Approach to the Analysis of Politeness Formulas. Applied Linguistics
8(1):75-88.

de Beaugrande, R and Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Textlinguistics. London: Longman.

de Haan, F. (1997). The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A Typological Study, New York:
Garland Publishing.
de Waard, J. and Eugene N. (1986). From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible
Translating. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Dworzynski, K., Howell, P., Au-Yeung, J. & Rommel, D. (2004). Stuttering on function and content
words across age groups of German speakers who stutter. Journal Multilingual
Communication Disorder, 2 (2), 81-101.

viii

El-Hassan, S. (1990). Expressing Modality in English and Standard Arabic. Journal King Saudi
University, 2 (2), 149-166.
El-Yasin, M. K. (1996). "The Passive Voice: A Problem for the English-Arabic Translator".
BABEL 42 (1).
Durkin, Dolores. (1978). Teaching Them to Read. London: Alyn and Bacon Inc.

Elyas, A. E. (1987). The Thief and the Dogs (An English Translation of Najeeb Mahfouzs alliu wa al-kilaab, 1973, Beirut Dar Al-qalam). Jeddah: Dar Al-Shorouq.
El-Yasin, M. K. (1996). The Passive Voice: A Problem for the English-Arabic Translator. BABEL 42 (1):
73-80.
Encarta 97 Encyclopedia (1993-1996). Reading Activity. Microsoft Corporation.

Fareh, S. (1998). The functions of AND and Wa in English and Arabic written discourse. Papers and
Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 34, 303-312.
Farhan, Z. and Fannoush, T. (2005). Difficulties of translating discourse markers from English into
Arabic. ADAB AL-RAFIDAYN, 4, 1-27.

Farghal, M.. (1991). Evaluativeness Parameter and the Translator from English to Arabic and Vice-versa.
Babel 37:138-151.

Farghal, M. (1993a). Managing in Translation: A Theoretical Model. Meta (38)2: 257-267.

Farghal, Mohammed. (1992b). The Arabic Topic-Comment Structure. Journal of King Saud University
4(1): 47-62.

Farghal, M. (1993a). The Translation of Arabic Cognate Accusatives into English. Tujuman
2(2):66-92.
Farghal, M.. (1993b). The Translation of Arabic Cognate Accusatives into English by MA
Student Translators. Interface 8: 25-41.

ix

Farghal, M. (1994). Ideational Equivalence in Translation. In: Beaugrande, Robert, et al. (eds.),
Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 55-63.
Farghal, M. (1995a). Lexical and Discoursal Problems in English-Arabic Translation. META 40
(1): 54-61.
Farghal, M.. (1995b). The Pragmatics of 'inaallah in Jordanian Arabic. Multilingua 14
(3): 253-270.
Farghal, Mohammed. (2003). Schemata and Lexis in Translation. (2003). Perspectives: Studies
in Translatolgy 11(2):125-133.
Farghal, M.. (2004).Two Thirds of a Boy are his Uncles: The Question of Relevance in
Translation. (2004). Across Languages and Cultures 5(2): 257-269.
Farghal, M. (2009). Al-Tariq (Arabic translation of The Road by C. MacCarthy, 2006, Penguisn
Books). Ibda'at Alaamiyah [World Masterpieces], 380, Kuwait National Council
for Culture, Arts, and Literatures, Kuwait, pp. 269.
Farghal, M. (2012). Advanced Issues in Arabic-English Translation Studies. Kuwait: Kuwait
University Press.
Farghal, M. (2013). Khraa'it (Arabic translation of Maps by N. Farah, 1986, Penguin Books),
Ibda'at Alaamiyah [World Masterpieces], 395, Kuwait National Council for
Culture, Arts, and Literatures, Kuwait, pp. 433.
Farghal, M. and A. Borini. 1997. Pragmareligious Failure in Translating Arabic Politeness Formulas into
English: Evidence from Mahfouzs Awl a d H a ritna. Multilingua 16(1). 77-99.
Farghal, M. and A. Shakir (1992). The Interpretation of Advertisements by English native and NonNative Speakers As Viewed from a Schema-Theoretic Perspective. Abhath Al-Yarmouk, 10
(1): 21-41.

Farghal, M. and H. Obeidat. (1995). Collocations: A Neglected Variable in EFL. IRAL 33 (4): 315-331.

Farghal, M. and M. Al-Hamly. (2007). Lexical Collocations in EFL Writing. The Journal of Asia
TEFL 4(1): 69-94.
Feder, Marcin. (2003). Machine-Assisted Human Translation: Its Position. Perspectives: Studies In
Translatology11(2):135-143.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The Case for Case. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic
Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-88.

Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford University Press, USA.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Harper Colophon, Basic
Books.
Georges, A. & Barakt, G. (2000). A linguistic Approach towards the Teaching of English
Grammar. Aleppo University Journal of Research 38, Syria.
Giles, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gonzlez, F. R. (1991). Translation and Borrowing of Acronyms: Main Trends. IRAL XXIX(2):
161-170.
Goodman K.S. (1962). A Linguistic study of Cues and Miscues in Reading. Elementary English
42: 639-660.
Grimes, J. (1976). The Thread of Discourse. Mouton: The Hague, Paris.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole & Morgan, PP. 41-58.

Gust, E. A. (1996). Implicit Information in Literary Translation: A Schema-Theoretic

Perspective. Target 8(2):239-256.
Gust, E. A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Functional Diversity in Language as seen from a Consideration of
Modality and Mood in English. Foundations of Language. International Journal of
Language and Philosophy 6: 322-61.
Halliday, M.A.K and Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a
Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press.
Hamad, A. and Zu'bi, Y. (1984). Al-Mu'jam Al Wafi fi Al Nahu Al-Arabi. Amman: Arts and
Culture Department.
Hamdan, J. and Fareh, S. (1999). The translation of Arabic wa into English: some problems &
implications. Dirasat: Human and Social Science, 26 (2), 590-603.
Hatim, B. (1984). "A Textlinguistic Model for the Analysis of Discourse Errors:
Contributions from Arabic Linguistics", in Monaghan, J. (ed.) Grammar in the
Construction of Texts. Prentice-Hall.
xi

Hatim, B. (1997a). Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text
Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Hatim, B. (1997b). The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.

Hatim, B. (2012). Teaching and Researching Translation. London: Longman.

Hatim, B. and I. Mason. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London and New York:
Longman.
Hemingway, E. (1952). The Old Man and the Sea (translated into Arabic al-shaykh wa al-baHr
by Munir Balabki, 1985, Beirut: Dar Al-Malayeen). Penguin books.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory,
Research, and Practice. In: K. Croft (ed.), Readings on English as a Second
Language. Cambridge, MA: Winthorp Publishers.
Hickey, L. (2003). "The Reader as Translation Assessor". Studies in Translation 1(1): 59-92.
Holes, C. (1984). A Textual Approximation in the Teaching of Writing to Arab Students: A
contrastive Approach, in Swales, J. and Mustapha, H. (eds.) English for Specific
Purposes in the Arab World. pp. 228-243.
Holes, C. (1995). Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties. London: Longman.
Hnig, H. G. (1998). Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation
Quality Assessment. In: C. Schffner (ed.), Translation and Quality. Philadelphia:
Multilingual Matters, 6-34.
Hosseini, K. (2003). The Kite Runner. USA: Riverhead Books. Trans. into Arabic as adaa'u aaa'iratu al-waraqiyyah by M. Fayyadh (2010). Damascus: Dar Al-Nashr watTawzee.
House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tubingen: Narr.

House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tubingen: Narr.

Howell, P., Au-Yeung, P., and Sackin, S. (1999). Exchange of stuttering from function words to
content words with age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42,
345-354.

xii

Hutchins, W. John (1991). Why Computers Do Not Translate Better. Paper presented at the
conference on Translating & the Computer 13, London.
Hutchins, W. John (2001). Machine translation and human translation: in competition or in
complementation?. International Journal of Translation 13:5-20.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In: Gumperz , J. and
D. Hymes, Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
35-71.
Ibn-Hishaam, Jamal Al-Deen Ibn Hishaam Ansaari (d. 761h) (2002). Mughni Al-Labiib an
Kutubbi AL-ghaariib, (ed.). Al-Khatib, A. L. Kuwait: Al-Turaath Al-Arabi.
Illyyan, M. (1990). Transitional words and the Arab translator. Irbid-Jordan:
University. [MA Thesis].

Yarmouk

Ilyas, A. (1989). Theories of Translation: Theoretical Issues and Practical Implications. Mosul:
University of Mosul.
Irving, T. B. (1985/1993). The Quran: The Noble Reading. Iowa: The Mother Mosque
Foundation.
Ismail, A. (1972). Modern Arabic Poetry [in Arabic]. Beirut: Dar Al-Awdah and Dar Al-Fikr.
Ivir, V. (1977). Lexical Gaps: A Contrastive View. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 43:167176.
Ivir, V. (1981). Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited. Poetics Today 2(4). 5159.

Ivir, V. (1991). Procedures and Strategies for the Translation of Culture. International Journal of
Translation 1&2:48-60.

Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In Brower, R. (ed.) On Translation.

Harvard University Press, pp. 232-239.
Johnstone, B. (1990). Orality and Discourse Structure in Modern Standard Arabic. In Eid, M.
(ed.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics I, 215-233. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:
John Benjamins,
Johnstone, B. (1991). Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

xiii

Kachru, Y. (1982). Toward Defining the Notion Equivalence in Contrastive Analysis. TESL 5: 82-98.

Kamal, A. H. (1971). Huroof Al-Ma'ani. Taif: Al-Ma'rif Bookshop.

Kammensj, H. (1993). Connectives in MSA and/or ESA: Suggestion for Research. Gothenburg:
University of Gothenburg, Department of Oriental Languages.

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education. Language Learning 16 (1+2): 120.

Kaplan, R. (1982). Contrastive Rhetoric Revisited. Paper Presented at the 1982 TESOL
Conference, Honolulu.
Karin, C. R. (2005). A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Khafaji, R. (1996). Arabic translation Alternatives for the Passive in English. Papers and Studies in
Contrastive Linguistics 31: 19-37.

Khalil, A. (1993). Arabic Translation of English Passive Sentences: Problems and Acceptability
Judgments. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 27: 169-181.

Khalil, A. M. (1999). A Contrastive Grammar of English & Arabic. Jordan: Jordan Book Center.

Khalil, E. N. (2000). Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Khan, M. and Hillali, T. (1999). The Noble Quran: Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble
Quran in the English Language. Saudi Arabia: Darussalan publishers and
Distributors.
Koller, W. (1978). Kritik der Theorie der Ubersetzungskirik. IRAL xvi (2): 89-107.

xiv

Komissarov, V. (1987). The Semantic and the Cognitive: A Problem in Equivalence. META
XXXII , 4: 416-420.
Krazeszowki, T. (1971). Equivalence, Congruence and Deep Structure. In G. Nickel (ed.), Papers in
Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37-48.

Kreidler, Charles, W. (1998). Introducing English Semantics. London and New York: Routledge.

Kress, G. (1982). Learning to Write. London: Routledge and Kegan: Paul.

Kroll, B. (1984) "Writing for Readers: Three Perspectives on Audience". College Composition
and communication. 35 (2) pp. 172-185.
Kryk, B. (1992). The Pragmatics of Interjection: The Case of Polish no. Journal of Pragmatics 18:193207.

Larson, M. L. (1998). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Larham:

University Press of America.

Lederrer, M. (1978). Simultaneous Interpretation - Units of Meaning and Other Features. In Gerver, D.
& Sinaiko, H. (eds.) Language Interpretation and Communication. Plenum press, New
York. pp. 323-332.

Leech, G. (1983). The Principles of Pragmatics. London : Longman.

Lemke, J. L. (1985). Ideology, Intertextuality and the Notion of Register. In J. D. Benson and W.S.
Greaves (eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol.1, Norwood, N. J.: Ablex
Publishing Corporation, pp. 275-294.

Le Ny, J. (1978). Psychosemantics and Simultaneous Interpretation. In Gerver & Sinaiko (eds.), pp. 289298.

xv

Levi, J. (1967). Translation as a Decision Process. In: To Honor Roman Jakobson. The Hague. pp. 11711182.

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, C. Day. (1969). The Poetic Image. London: Jonathan Cape.

Lewis, A. L. (1997). The Practical Implications of a Minimum Machine Translation Unit. BABEL
43(2):138-150.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambrdge: Cambridge University Press.

Mahfouz, N. (1959). Awlad Haritna. Beirut : Dar Al-Adaab.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Victoria: Deakin
University Press.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Meijer, Siety. (1993). Attitudes towards Machine Translation. Language International 5(6):11-13.

Mitchell, T. (1971). Linguistic 'goings-on' : Collocations and Other Lexical Matters Arising on the
Syntagmatic Record. Archivum Linguisticum 2:35-69.

Moffette, J. (1968). Teaching the Universe of Discourse. New York: Harvard University Press.

Montoro, K. B. (1976). Syntactic Acceptability, Syntactic Change, and Transformation. In P. David

Allen and Doroth J. Watson (eds.), Findings of Research in Miscue Analysis: Classroom
Implications. Illinois: Library of Congress pp. 34-38.

Mouakket, A. (1986). Linguistics and Translation: Some Semantic Problems in Arabic-English

xvi

Translation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University. [Doctoral Dissertation].

Munif, A. (1992). mudin-il-malh: taqaasiim-il-layl wan-n-nahaar (Cities of Salt; Variations on Day and
Night). Beirut: Arab Corporation for Studies and Publishing.

Mustafa, H. Quran (Koran) Translation. In: M. Baker (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies, pp. 200-2004. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Nattinger, J. (1980). A Lexical Grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 14: 337-344.

Nattinger, J. (1988). Some Current Issues in Vocabulary Teaching. In: M. Carter and M. McCarthy,
Vocabulary and Language Teaching, 62-82. London: Longman.

Neubert, A. and Gregory M. Shreve (1992). Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent state University Press
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Pergamon Press: London.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.

Newmark, Peter. (1982). The Translation of Authoritative Statements META 27(4).

Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation. London: Multilingual Matters.

Nida, Eugene. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and
Procedures in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E.(1969). Science of Translation. Language 45: 483-498.
Nida, E. 1994. Translation: Possible and Impossible. turjuman 3(2): 147-163.

Nida, E. (1997). The Nature of Dynamic Equivalence in Translating. BABEL 13: 99-103.

Nida, E. & W. D. Reyburn (1981). Meaning Across Cultures. New York: Orbis Books.

xvii

Nida, E. & Ch. Taber (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Obeidat, H. and Farghal, M. (1994). On the Status of the Equational Sentence in the
Grammar of Arabic. Abhath Al-Yarmouk 12(2): 9-35.
OShea, B. (1996). Equivalence in Danish News Subtitling from Northern Ireland. Perspectives
4(2). 235-254.
PACTE Group. (2000). Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and Methodological
Problems of a research Project. In A. Beeby, et al. (eds.), Investigating
Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Page, W. D. (1976). Semantic Acceptability and Semantic Change. In P. David Allen and
Doroth J. Watson (eds.), Findings of Research in Miscue Analysis: Classroom
Implications. Illinois: Library of Congress pp. 38-44.
Page, W. D. (1985). The Author and the Reader in Writing and Reading. Research in the
Teaching of English 8: 170-183.
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pergnier, M. (1978). Language Meaning and Message Meaning: Towards Sociolinguistic
Approach to Translation. In Gerver & Sinaiko (eds.), 199-204.
Perkins, M. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.

Picthall, M. (1930/2006). The Glorious Koran. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Pickering, J. and Jeffry D. H. (1982). Literature. New York: MacMillan.

Pym, A. (1992). Translation and Text Transfer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Pym, A. (2005). Explaining Explicitation. Tinet,4, 29-43, retrieved from www.tinet.cat /~apym/online/translation/explicitation _web.pdf .

Quirk, R. et al. (1986). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Essex: London Group Ltd.

Rabin, C. (1958). The Linguistics of Translation. In: Smith, A. H. (ed.), Aspects of Translation. London:
Secker & Warburgy, 123-145.

xviii

Reiss, R. (1981). "Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in Translation". Poetics Today 24: 121-131.

Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse Studies. Amesterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Rousch, Peter D. (1976). Semantic Word Relationships. In P. David Allen and Doroth J. Watson (eds.),
Findings of Research in Miscue Analysis: Classroom Implications. Illinois: Library of
Congress, pp. 52-55.

Sa'deddin, M. (1987). Three Problem Areas in Teaching Translating to native Arabic Literates.
Anthropological Linguistics 29 (2), pp. 181-192.

Saedi, L. (1990). "Discourse Analysis and the Problem Translation Equivalence". META XXXV (2): 289297.

Saedi, L. (1996). Translation Principles vs. Translator Strategies. Meta 4(3): 389-392.

Saeed, A. T. and Fareh, S. (2006). Difficulties encountered by bilingual Arab learners in translating
Arabic 'fa' into English. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 9 (1), 19-31.

Saldanha, G. (2008). Explicitation Revisited: Bringing the Reader into the Picture. Trans-Kom, 1 (1), 2035, accessed at www.trans-kom.eu.

Saraireh, M. (1990). Some lexical and Semantic Problems in English-Arabic Translation. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin. [Doctoral Dissertation]

Schffner, C. (2003). Third Ways and New Centres: Ideological Unity or Difference? In: M. CalzadaPerez (ed.), Apropos of Ideology Manchester: St. Jerome, 23-42.

xix

Schffner, C. (1998). Skopos Theory. In: M. Baker (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.
London: Routledge, 235-238.

Schiffring, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schn, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action, London: Temple Smith.

Searle, J. R. (1981). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Language and Cognition. In Gerver & Sinaiko (eds.), 333-342.

Shakir, A. and M. Farghal. (1997). When The Focus of the Text is Blurred: A Textlinguistic Approach for
Analyzing Student Interpreters Errors. META 42 (4) 629-640.

Sharkas, H. (2009). Translation Quality Assessment of Popular Science Articles: Corpus Study of the
Scientific American and its Arabic Version. Trans-kom 2(1): 42-62.

Shunnaq, A. T. (1994). Monitoring and Managing in Radio News Reports. In de Beaugrande , et al.
(eds.), Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 103-114.

Sifiano, M. (1993). Off-record Indirectness and the Notion of Imposition. Multilingua 12(1): 69-79.

Sims, R. (1976). What We Know about Dialects and Reading. In P. David Allen and Doroth J. Watson.
(eds.), Findings of Research in Miscue Analysis: Classroom Implications. Illinois: Library
of Congress, pp. 128-132.

Sinclair, J. (1987). Collocation: A Progress Report. In: R. Steele and T. Threadgol (eds.), Language
Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Vol. 3, 319-331. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

xx

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, Richard H. (1989). Translatibilty: Undertranslatibilty and Usabilty by Others. Computers in

Human Behavior 4: 347-354.

Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Stalker, J. (1989). Communicative Competence, Pragmatic Functions, and Accommodation. Applied

Linguistics 10(2) : 182 -193.

Stewart, P. (1981). Children of Geblawi (Translation of Mahfouzs awlaad Haaritna). London:

Heinemann.

Strassler, J. (1982). Idioms in English: A Pragmatic Analysis. Tubingen, Gunter Narr Verlag.

Stubs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tabakowska, E. (1990). Surely There Must Exist a Polish Equivalent: On the Inadequacy of
Dictionary Explications. Target 2(2): 199-218.

Tahaineh Y. and Tafish R. (2011). Pitfalls encountered by bilingual Arab learners in translating the
Arabic discourse marker 'umma' into English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
1 (3): 226-238.

Taylor, C. (1998). Language to Language: a practical and theoretical guide for Italian/English
translators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

xxi

Theroux, P. (1993). Cities of Salt: Variations on Night and Day (trans.) . Beirut: Cape Cod Scriveners.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91-112.

Tirrkonen-Condit, S. (1989). Theory and Methodology in Translation Research. In: S. Tirrkonen-Condit
and S. Condit (eds.), Empirical Studies in Translation and Linguistics, pp. 3-18. University
of Joensuu: Joensuu.
Van Dalen, D. (1973). Understanding Educational Research. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Vermeer, H. J. (2000). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action (A. Chesterman, Trans.). In L.
Venuti (ed.), The translation Studier Reader London: Routledge, 221-232.

Uhlenbeck, E. (1978). On the Distinction between Linguistics and Pragmatics. In Gerver & Sinaiko
(eds.), 185-198.

Widdowson, H. G. 1971. The Deep Structure of Discourse and The Use of Translation. In Corder, S. P.
and Roulet, E.(eds.), Linguistic Insights in Applied Linguistics, 61-81. Paris: Didier.

Wided, B. (2010). Modality in English, French and Arabic Biomedical Discourse: A Contrastive Study of
Drug Information Leaflets. M.A. Dissertation, Mentouri University, Constantine.

Wilss, W. (1982). The Science of Translation. Tubingen. Narr.

Yorio, C. (1980). Conventionalized Language Forms and the Development of Communicative

Competence. TESOL Quarterly 14: 433-442.
Yule, George. (1985). The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zayed, S.H. (1984). A Pragmatic Approach to Modality and the Modals: with Application to Literary
Arabic. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK.

xxii

xxiii