Cultural Studies in Translation
Compiled by
Dr. Hatem Mohammad Basha
Dr. Essam Hegazy
Contents
0-Introduction
1-Culture as a Problem in Translation
1.1 Culturally Bound Terms
1.2 Idioms and Fixed Expressions
1.3 Collocations
1.4 Pym’s Typology of Translation Solutions
1.5 Strategies to Translate Culturally Bound Terms
2-Cultural transposition
2.1 Exoticism
2.2 Calque
2.3 Cultural transplantation
2.4.Cultural borrowing
2.5 Communicative translation
2.6 Transliterating names
3-Compensation
3.1 Basic principles
3.2 Categories of compensation
4-MEANING-BASED ISSUES IN TRANSLATION
4.1 Changes in Meaning
4.2 Types of Lexical Meanings
4.2.1 Denotative Meaning
4.2.1.1 Sense Relations and Polysemy
4.2.1.2 Synonymy and Lexical Translatability
4.2.1.3 The Problem of Antonymy
4.2.2 Connotative Meaning
4.2.3 Collocative Meaning
4.2.4 Idiomatic Meaning
4.3.2 Semantic Derivation and Lexical Gaps
4.3.4 Ambiguity
4.4 Translating Metaphors
4.5 Translating Proverbs
4.7.1 Culture & Translation
4.7.2 Readership
4.7.3 Translatability and Untranslatability
4.7.4 Allusion
Course Calendar
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Culture as a Problem in Translation
Culturally Bound Terms
Idioms and Fixed Expressions
Collocations
Pym’s Typology of Translation Solutions
Strategies to Translate Culturally Bound Terms
Mid-term
Cultural transposition
Exoticism
Calque Cultural transplantation Cultural borrowing
Communicative translation
Transliterating names
Compensation
Chapter One
Introduction
This chapter attempts to provide some definitions with respect to translation and culture and to look at
their tight relationship. It also tries to introduce idioms and proverbs as cultural elements of language which
represent a real challenge for translators in the field of intercultural translation. An attempt will be made to
show how these fixed expressions are deeply immersed and tightly related to their native culture (s).
1.1. Definition of Translation
Translation, whereby man has overcome the language barrier, is not as clear a concept as it seems to be for
a layman for instance. The concept is so wide and can be understood in many different ways. For example,
translation maybe thought of as a process or a product, it may be categorised into its subtypes such as:
automatic translation, technical translation, subtitling …etc, or it maybe even viewed as a learning strategy,
since it is a main branch of applied linguistics that is taught at universities as a module in the field of foreign
languages for the purpose of improving the students‟ proficiencies in a foreign language. The term also
sometimes overlaps with interpreting. Whereupon, knowing what translation is, is so complicated and more
ambiguous than anyone (non-expert) can think, and its definition represents a real challenge for theorists.
However, typically, translation just refers to the transfer of written texts. In this respect, many formal
definitions have been offered by theorists mostly dealing from 1960 or earlier each of which is concerned with
a particular underlying model. The linguistic aspects of translation have been encapsulated in a large number
of definitions, among which the following are the most common.
Translation, according to Munday (2001), is the rendering of an original written text (the source text) in
the source language into a written text (the target text) in the target language. Translation, according to Catford
(1964) is the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another
language. Vermeer (1982) looks at translation as "information about the source text in another language" (cited
in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997: 182). However, as Sager (1994) points out, older definitions of this type
centre around the importance of maintaining some kind of linguistic equivalence between the source and the
target language. Thus Sager Jacobson's definition of translation is innovative; Jacobson sees translation in
semiotic terms as “the interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language” (1994, 121). This
definition implies that the translation process is a substitution of messages in one language for entire messages
in another language. Similarly, Lawendowski (1978) defines translation as “The transfer of meaning from set
of language signs to another set of language signs” (cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997: 182). Accordingly,
translation is a two- stage process of decoding and re-encoding linguistic messages. In the light of the previous
definitions, one can notice that translation is based on reproducing new linguistic material (the target text) on
the basis of an original linguistic version (the source text) without any external considerations. However, one
of the most recent innovations in the field of translation is the significance of „culture‟ as a factor that plays
a crucial role in the process of translation. Toury's (1985:20) target text oriented definition is a good one to
support the previous point. It states that a translation is “taken to be any target – language utterance which is
presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds”. This approach emphasizes on
the paramount importance of the way a target text functions in a specific cultural context. These definitions
have shown that translation seems complex and controversial but nonetheless necessary. A typological
classification is, therefore, necessary and this is the concern of the following part.
1.2. Types of Translation
As shown above, translation is commonly thought of as a practical activity that aims at rendering texts
from one language to another, and is generally viewed as the process of establishing equivalence between the
source and the target texts. In this respect, a number of scholars have attempted to explore some of the
theoretical aspects of the notion of translation and to make a distinction between its different types. Following
this line of thought, shleiermacher (1838) distinguishes between two types of translation which he calls free
and literal translation (cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997:97). The free / literal dichotomy is probably the
most frequently encountered in traditional accounts of translation. On the one hand, literal translation is a
concept which has for many centuries been at the heart of the most translation controversies, where it has been
either completely defended, or severely attacked and criticized in favour of it rival, free translation. For all
that, there is a certain variation in the way this term is applied. It is sometimes understood as including the
related notion word for word translation (Shuttlwoth and Cowie, 1997). A literal translation maybe defined as
a translation “made on a lower level than sufficient to convey the content unchanged while observing target
language norms” (Barkhudarov, 1969 cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997:95). Catford (1965) states that
literal translation takes word for word translation as its starting point, respecting structural and grammatical
parallels, and thus the final product may also display group-group or clause-clause equivalence. Therefore,
the translator does as if the target reader reads the source text in terms of form. This approach equates
translation with the replacement of the linguistic units of the source text with equivalent target units without
any consideration of such factors as context and cultural connotation.
As a translation strategy ( Hocket, 1945:313) claims that "a literal translation cleary has its uses; a fairy
literal approach is, for example generally appropriate for translating many types of technical texts, while in a
different context the technique can also provide language learners with useful insights into target language
structues”. In literary translation, too, the approach has its fervent defenders. However, amongst modern
literary translators there are few who would consider literal translation to be a suitable vehicle for their work.
The founders of this approach make of form their main concern so that the translation remains as close to
source text as possible. Concerning Biblical translation and other sacred text, "Only literal translation can be
considered faithful" (Nida and Taber, 1983:203) . Although literal translation has its utility, in Casagrande‟s
opinion, it may lead to a kind of false translation which "can be misleading” (Shuttleworth and Cowie,
1997:185). In addition, literal translation‟s near-impossibility of reproducing target texts‟ meanings which
are implicity present in the source texts maybe added as a shortcoming. Furthermore, it may lead to a complete
distortion of the message of the original (Chukovsky, 1984). This notion (literal translation) has been
forlmlized by Nida (1964) as formal equivalence which refers to a target text item which represents the closest
decontextualized counterpart to a word or a phrase in the source language, while Vinay and Derbelnet (1995)
categorize it as a type of direct translation listing it as one of the seven translation procedures (cited in
Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997).
On the other hand, free translation is a type of translation which gives more importance to meaning rather
than form, and aims at producing a naturally reading target text. It is also known as sense for sense translation
(Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997). It maybe defined as a translation"made on a level higher than is necessary
to convey the content unchanged while observing target language norms" (Barkhudarov, 1969 cited in
Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997:62). Hence it is a translation above word or sentence level. It pays close
attention to the need to make explicit for target readers information which, for example, was generally
available to the source audience and thus only implicitly contained in the source text (Shuttleworth and Cowie,
1997).
This approach is similar to that of dynamic equivalence which refers to the quality that characterizes a
translation in which " the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that
the response of receptor is essentially like that of the originaly receptors" (Nida and Taber, 1982:200). The
approach advocated by Nida (1982) is based on the importance of preserving the effect of the original.
Therfore, the translator does as if s/he originally produced the text in the target language whereby the degree
of emotiveness of the target receptors is similar to that of the source readership. Furthermore, Nida (1964:159)
sees that a free translation‟s main concern is “relating the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant within the
context of his own culture”. Accordingly, the role of the translator is by no means understimated for s/he is
the one who will decipher the source text codes and make the cultural hidden meaning visible to the target
readers in a way that is totally acceptable and natural for them This maybe achieved by offering the most
appropriate cultural substitutions for obscure source text items.
After having attempted to offer some definitions to literal and free translation, one may say that the two
approches may be viewed in a positive way. The question which is worth asking here is not which translation
is the most accurate or „ the only correct ‟ as referred to by George Mounin, but rather which one is the most
appropriate. In this sense, appropriateness maybe governed by a set of factors such as the type of the text being
translted, the purpose of the translation, the target audience and the circumstances of the translators. Hence
translation should be a result of a thorough study of all these pertinent factors. Therefore, the shape of the
target text should above all be determined by the function it intends to fulfil in the target context (Shuttleworth
and Cowie, 1997). On the basis of the aforementioned idea, translators should direct their translation with
respect to the purpose for which the target text is intended regardless whether or not the strategies they use
are considered standard to precede in a particular translation context. In short, when producing a target text
Circumstances alter cases. Accordingly, “a target text is seen as an information offer which the translator
must interpret by selecting those features which most closely correspond to the requirements of the target
situation”( Shuttleworth, 1997: 156). Hence the needs of recipient imply which strategy is the most appropriate
to adopt in a given situation (Vermeer, 1985 cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997). Actually, translation
with full equivalence is hardly achievable. This can be justified by the fact that despite considerable efforts
made by theorists and many attempts across the centuries "there can never be no proof rules for doing a
ranslation or precise ways of measuring its succes. In every translation something must be lost " (Cook,
2003:56). One cannot attain simultaneously the equal sound, the same sequence of words, and the natural form
of the phrase and convey the intended message. It is a work on the boundaries of possibility. One cannot
always make, in Hymes words, the translation at once accurate feasible and appropriate (Cook, 2003).
A chief reason for this is stated by Nida as follows: “Since no two languages are identical, either in the
meaning given to corresponding symbols or in ways in which symbols are arranged in phrases or sentences,
it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no
fully exact translations” (1964:156). When it comes to assessment, translation inevitably attracts criticism,
and the evaluations will vary according to the needs of recipient (s) which are the pillars of assessment. The
more the translation conforms to the needs of the recipient, the more it would be thought of as good and
plausible. For instance, a rough and ready translation that is not carefully made but good enough for a
particular situation and suits the needs of a particular kind of readership may be assessed as good and
successful. Or a very nice adaptation which conserves the meaning but expresses it in the natural form of
language in a magnificent way may be judged (deemed) as non-faithful by some and creative by others.
Some of the difficulties that hinder the translation process in a significant way maybe accounted for by
factors like culture and its impact on translation to which the following part is devoted. The next subtitle
attempts to offer some definitions (information) with respect to culture since it is a main variable in the present
research theme.
1.3. Definition of Culture Actually, looking at culture as a notion raises some fundamental issues related to
definition. The problem here is posed by the fact that there is no general consensus among scholars about one
definition of culture. Kroeber and kluckhohn (1963) state that some sociologists and anthropologists deem the
term so vague and refrain from using it in scientific discourse. Although, the term culture is widely used in
other types of discourse, but usually without defining it probably as a result of its complex nature that led to
the conflict of definition between different theorists. Because one cannot achieve the synthesis of the large
number of definitions available; the following is a humble attempt to give at least a clear image of what is
going on in this realm.
As a matter of fact, pioneering anthropologists looked for a term that covers the sum of human customs
and they agreed upon the term “culture”. They all agree that culture is the totality of experience which is
socially transmitted, or the sum of behaviours acquired through social learning (Poirier, 1968). Till now things
seem to be good, but the problem of defining culture lies in deciding which aspects of social experience and
which aspects of human behaviour are worth including in a clear cut definition of culture (Atamna, 2008).
The following are a few of the most quoted definitions which seem to be essential to deal within the present
research. Herskovits (1949) defines culture as that part of the environment that is made by man (cited in
Poirier, 1968). He believes that man is the creator of culture and history (Poirier, 1968). Newmark (1988)
defines culture as the way of life and its manifestations peculiar to a society. Bloch (1991) defines culture as
what needs to be known to operate efficiently in a specific environment. Rohner (1984) is more specific than
Newmark and Bloch and describes culture in a non-behaviourist way as a system of signs that shape one‟s
perception. He stresses the way people conceive their behaviour and claims that:
1- Culture is systematic
2- Culture is a way of representing one‟s world through thinking.
Consequently, the cultural environment is the dominant force in shaping one‟s behaviour (Shaules, 2001).
Furthermore, Lado (1975:111) sees culture as "a system of patterned behaviour ". To Bennett (1968) culture
is the reflection of the total behaviour of a society. Working along similar lines, Linton (1940) agrees with
Lado and considers culture as the sum of knowledge, attitudes and habitual models, people of a particular
society generally have (cited in Poirier, 1968).
Furthermore, Sapir (1949:79) notes that “culture is technically used by the ethnologists and culture
historians to embody any socially inherited element in the life of man, material and spiritual”. Accordingly,
culture refers to all the phenomena manifested by people such as behaviours, clothes, buildings, traditions,
beliefs …etc, and that are not genetically inherited but handed down within a particular society. Culture then,
is a cumulative experience which includes knowledge, morals, beliefs, art, low, traditions and any habits
acquired by a group of people in a society (Tylor, 1871 cited in Megherbi, 1986).
Having attempted to define culture, what one can then say is that the previous definitions are all just
distinct ways of considering the same thing. For instance, if one compares culture to a cube, the
aforementioned definitions would represent nothing but its different square sides painted with various colours.
Hofstede (1980) states that human nature consists of the basic parts of mental programming such as the ability
to feel anger, love, joy, sadness, observation of the environment and the ability to communicate those
observations to others. The way one expresses these abilities is governed by one‟s culture. Language is a
means of communication that is influenced by cultural factors (Ito and Nakakoji, 1960). Language is the mirror
that reflects the customs, interests, values and other cultural aspect of a community. The vocabulary of a
language for example shows clearly the different aspects of culture members of a group share in a particular
setting either social, environmental, religious,etc. Thus, culture needs to be described and expressed through
language. As far as the present thesis is concerned, the relationship between language and culture needs closer
examination
1.4. Language and Culture
As mentioned above language and culture are perceived as two closely related entities. In this respect, F.de
Saussure and A. Meillet have always considered language as a social fact and a main part of culture. Therefore,
one of the defining characteristics of culture is its language or languages. Poirier (1968) states that language
is the privileged architecture through which thought informs in a particular way certain manners of human
experience. He also states that the language a group of people penetrates as a linguistic community was
developed in the womb of their society. For Robins (1959:60), "A language primarily operates in the matrix
of the society of the speech community”.
On the basis of what has been said, language is a product of culture which reflects its symbolic systems,
and hence people rely on language to express what concerns their society. Language then, is not distinct from
other systems that are constituents of culture. It is considered as part of a whole, and is significantly tied to
this whole, in a sense it manifests, by nature and by a set of symbolic systems (meanings), the characteristic
features of a culture (Poirier, 1968) (translated author). Concerning translation, there are still voices that argue
that translation is primarily a language matter not a cultural one and that it is a pure linguistic activity. In
response to such voices Sapir (1949: 72) claims that “language is a guide to social facts " and that human
beings are slaves of the language that has become the medium of expression for their society (Bassnett, 2002).
Sapir (1949) states that "experience is largely determined by the language habits of a community and each
separate structure represents a separate reality ". Accordingly, culture is a factor to be reckoned with in the
process of translation. Of course, translators have to focus on language since translation is, after all, about
transferring a text from one language to another but it aims, above all, at communicating cultural messages.
Hence, separating language from culture is like the old debate about which one comes first, the chicken or the
egg. Bassnett illustrates this point " No language can exist unless it is steeped in the context of culture, and no
culture can exist which does not have at its centre, the structure of natural language" (2002:22). This is a
reminder of Plato‟s analogy of the body and spirit in which culture is the spirit within the body of language,
and it is their union that makes the “continuation of life energy” (Bassnett, 2002:22). One can live neither with
a cold dead body only nor with an invisible warm spirit. Translation is about language, but translation is also
about culture for both are inseparable.
As a system of interrelated beliefs, values and cognitive environment which govern the shared basis of
behaviour, culture happens to be the greatest barrier to translation success inasmuch as the lack of common
socio-cultural patterns of a language leads to gibberish and thereby causes communication to fail. This
confirms the famous claim of Edward T. Hall and Mildred Reed Hall which runs as follows:" The single
greatest barrier to translation success is the one erected by culture ". As both language and culture are
manifestations of a specific mentality, each culture acts as a frame within which external signs of reality are
interpreted. Consequently, translation is an essential means of which people can get access to cultures of other
nations. Translation therefore deals with the rendering of concepts which belong to one culture and are
communicated by its language system into another one. In this process, "translators are faced with an alien
culture that requires that its message be conveyed in anything but an alien way" (Komissarov, 1985:128). That
culture expresses its idiosyncrasies in a way that is “culture-bound”; cultural words, proverbs and idiomatic
expressions, whose origin and use are intrinsically and uniquely bound to the concerned culture (Komissarov,
1985). According to Komissarov (1985) cultural factors in translation are so clear to be included within the
linguistic theory of translation which must encompass the cultural aspect.
This is the level of underlying core values, habitual patterns of thought, and certain assumptions about
human nature and society which the translator as „culture mediator‟ should be prepared to encounter.
Therefore, the present research intends to focus on increasing cultural awareness which leads to appropriate
meaning inference and successful re-encoding, ultimately resulting in trust.
Part Two: Translation of Idioms and Proverbs
1.5. Idioms and Proverbs
Idioms and proverbs are expressions which are built up in the course of linguistic history and culture. This
subsection attempts to throw some light on these issues that are deemed to be the spice of language.
1.5.1. Idioms
An idiom is a group of words which, as a whole, has a different meaning from that of the individual items out
of which it is composed. That is, the meaning of an idiomatic expression is not the sum total of its constituent
parts taken together. A good example is the English expression “kick the bucket”. A person knowing only the
meaning of the words “kick” and bucket” would be unable to deduce the real meaning of the whole expression,
namely to die. Although it can refer literally to the act of striking a specific bucket, native speakers rarely use
this idiom that way. Accordingly, an idiom is learnt and used as a single unit of language. It should not be
analyzed into its constituent elements. Idioms are sometimes referred as “fixed expressions” because in many
cases users should not make linguistic changes such as adding or dropping words, replacing a word with
another, or changing the order of words (Cowie and Makin, 1975). The following are examples from Arabic
and English:
1.5.2. Proverbs
On the other hand, a proverb (from Latin proverbium) is a simple and concrete saying popularly known
and repeated which expresses a truth based on common sense or the practical experience of humanity.
Proverbs are used for a variety of purposes by speakers. Sometimes they are used as a way of saying
something gently or in a veiled way. Other times, they are used to carry more weight in a discussion; a weak
person is able to enlist the tradition of the ancestors to support his position (Witting, 1993). Proverbs can
also be used simply to make a conversation/discussion livelier. In many parts of the world, the use of
proverbs is associated with good orators. A proverb that describes a basic rule of conduct may also be known
as a maxim and if it is distinguished by particularly good wording, it may be known as an aphorism (Larousse,
1997) (translated author). Proverbs are often borrowed from similar languages and cultures and sometimes
come down to the present through more than one language. Almost every culture has proverbs of its own.
Most proverbs are based on metaphors. Another typical feature of proverbs is that they characteristically
short (average: seven words) and their authors are generally unknown (otherwise they would be quotations).
Proverbs are found in many parts of the world, but some areas seem to have richer stores of proverbs than
others. English and Arab cultures are very rich with such fixed expressions. The following are some examples
from each.
1.6. Translation of Idioms and Proverbs
When it comes to the translation of idioms and proverbs which, of course, are deeply rooted in the
structure of language and are deeply immersed in the culture of particular people, they are part of the
cultural elements of language that cause a serious difficulty in translation. The translation of idioms and
proverbs has been even treated as part of the more general problem of „untranslatability‟ (Mendelblit,
1955). This trend builds on the fact that idioms and proverbs in general are associated with indirectness,
which in turn contributes to the difficulty of translation. In this respect, Al Ali (2004) states that idioms and
proverbs may be defined as certain fixed expressions which stretch their semantic values beyond their
implicit areas of meaning. Hence they don't lead directly to the intended meaning. Sometimes, even native
speakers are not always able to comprehend the figurative meaning of such expressions in their own
language (Al Ali, 2004).
However, some theorists find translating idioms and proverbs no problem and believe firmly in the wordfor-word method (Kloepfer and Reiss seem to be representatives for this view). In this regard, it seems a bit
conceited to maintain that translating a phenomenon held to be so exceptional represents no challenge at
all, and can be done by a simple word-forword rendition. Nevertheless, the view that idioms and proverbs
are untranslatable also seems a bit too extremist. It seems apparent that the solution must lie somewhere
in between the two opposed views and the cognitive interpretive approach seems to be helpful (Dagust,
1976).
Idioms and proverbs can be said to be similar as they both involve the figurative use of language and are
tightly related to human cognition. In most cases, idioms and proverbs constitute an area of great
unpredictability for the translator. It is an area of language which McEldwny (1982:15) calls “an abstract and
more sophisticated area language”.
Regardless of their popularity and mechanism of operation, idioms and proverbs are linguistic devices
which exist in all human languages. They are a type of expressions which exhibit some kind of semantic and
logical violation of the referential components of their lexical constituents. Thus they are studied as instances
of figurative (as opposite to literal) language where words gain extra features over their referential
meanings. Therefore, the meaning of any of these constituents cannot be predicted from their referential
meanings.
Unfortunately, translators have to suffer twice when they approach the proverbial and idiomatic
expressions. First, they have to work out their figurative meaning intra-lingally (i.e. in the language in which
these expressions are recorded) since they are picturesque representations of the real world that are
mapped by the source language codes. Second, they have to find equivalent meaning and similar function
to these expressions in the target language for they have to be emotively coloured by the native form of
their language (they refers to target versions). Overcoming such a difficulty requires considerable efforts on
the part of translators, for s/he is the ones who decode the source language messages and analyse their
meanings, and they are the ones who re-encode them into presumably equivalent target language messages.
Therefore , translators are supposed to be well aware of the techniques of translation so that s/he can ensure
proper transmission of idiomatic expressions and proverbs to the target language readership with reference
to the cultural context in a particular setting (Baker, 1992). Translators involved have better to be well aware
of English culture so that they can render successfully the English expressions into Arabic and vice versa.
1.7. Cultural Conceptualization of Idioms and Proverbs
Idioms and proverbs are influenced by culture in an important way which makes the task of translators
more difficult, especially when the languages involved in translation are remote culturally like Arabic and
English. This subsection tackles the issue of how idioms and proverbs are cultural elements. It also illustrates
how idiomatic and proverbial choices available to a user are filtered by the value and belief systems
prevailing in the cultural community of the source language (expressions).
In fact, the Arabic cultural background is quite different from the English one. The former is based on
Islamic religion and Arab desert “Bedouin” environment, whereas the latter is based on Greek and Roman
heritage, Christianity and its cold weather. These cultural difference between the two languages resulted in
major differences between expressions like idioms and proverbs in both languages (Nadjib, 2001).
With respect to the aforementioned idea, Lakoff and Johnson (1980:12) state that “a culture may be
thought of as providing among other things, a pool of available idioms and proverbs (…) for making sense of
reality”; “to live by idioms and proverbs (…) is to have your reality structured by those expressions and to
base your perceptions and actions upon 21 that structuring of reality” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:12). This is
related to the fact that people of a given culture use language to reflect their attitudes towards the world in
general and the life of the community where they live in particular. Hence the translator has to bear in mind
the fact that s/he has to take into account culture, beliefs and values especially between culturally distinct
languages such as Arabic and English.
In other words, since the world's complexities are viewed and classified differently by various cultures;
translations from one language to another often entail serious hindrances. This difficulty would increase a
lot when translating between distant cultures where all traditions, customs, life conditions, symbols and
methods of experience representations are different. In the light of what has been mentioned above, the
use of symbols is significantly and strongly tied to the connotative and denotative meaning of idioms and
proverbs. Dagut (1976:32) claims that “the inherent difficulty of translating idioms and proverbs is the
diversity of culture conceptualization of even identical objects or words in both communities whose
languages are involved in translation”.
In this regard, the animal field provides numerous examples of conflict. Suppose one comes across the
English term owl in any idiomatic or proverbial expression which is to be translated into Arabic or the
opposite. The term owl refers to a bird. The difficulty here lies in the fact that, in English, it stands for or
carries a positive connotation (wisdom and grace) but in Arabic an “owl” is an omen of doom and gloom. It
is their main symbol of pessimism and when, ‫التكن بوما في الليل تبكي األطالل‬expression Arabic The associations
negative other has approached literally into English, it would be nonsensical since the owl for them is sacred.
It is the symbol of wisdom; it always plays the role of a teacher or a judge in cartoons, while the Arabic
expression means “Don‟t be pessimist as an owl”. However, when the English refers to someone as owlish,
this means that s/he is looking as an owl, especially because s/he is wearing round glasses, and therefore
seeming serious and intelligent. The Arabs have plenty of expressions which show that this bird brings bad
luck and calamity such as: ‫لو كان البومة خير ما تركها الصياد‬
A dog is a contemptible animal and a derogatory term in Arabic, and though it is not altogether devoid of
an abusive sense in English as in „dirty god‟, it is still regarded as a symbol of faithfulness and man‟s best
friend. The expression every dog has its day may have in Arabic the opposite meaning of the English version
which means „everyone has a chance, good luck or success at some point in their life‟. „not have a dog‟s
chance‟ might be a favourable expression in Arabic. Absolutely, no one of the Arabs wishes to have a dog‟s
luck. However, this is the wish of all the English since someone who has not a dog‟s chance, has no chance
at all.
Parts of the human body may be another area of the use of symbols which might be helpful in the present
research. For instance, the Arabic expression ‫ في كبد السماء‬means literally in the liver of the sky. It is interesting
that in Arabic, the word liver symbolizes strong feelings, especially of endearment. It is common to talk of
one‟s child as ٞ‫ كبد‬literally: my liver. This contrasts sharply with English where the term liver is associated
with bile and bitterness and where someone who is liverish is peevish and gloomy (Menacer, 1998). The
transfer of such fixed expressions is beyond any literal attempt and the use of a bilingual dictionary might not
be helpful at all because a direct rendition which is not based on analysis and interpretation with reference to
the cultural context appears unnatural and may lead to distortion of the message.
Furthermore, values and beliefs are aspects of culture that play a significant role in the translation of idioms
and proverbs. The way different peoples perceive some concepts depends on the form of things they have
in mind, on their models of perceiving and interpreting them which are shaped by their native culture. The
complexity of translation here lies in the fact that some idiomatic and proverbial expressions may contain
terms which are acceptable for one group, but considered totally strange and mysterious to another.
For instance, in the Muslim Arab society, it is acceptable for a man to marry up to four wives if he treats
them equally and fairly, whereas, in the Christian English world polygamy is prohibited. Even concepts which
seem to be identical and acceptable for both cultures maybe striking in this respect. Neighbourhood for
instance, is approximately sacred for the Arabs. This can be justified by the large number of proverbial
expressions which illustrates that point such as:
Another important cultural aspect which influences idioms and proverbs and hinders the process of their
translation is the environment. In this respect, Chitoran (1973) claims that the differences in the environment
and climate among various communities may be extremely significant in the way of mapping reality. For
instance, the Arabic proverbial expression ‫خبر يثلج الصدر‬is rendered literally as News that freezes the chest.
In fact, it is happy news for the Arabs which is not the case for the English. The equivalent English ecological
expression is It warms my heart to … The English expressions which are associated with climatic conditions
and have positive meaning are usually associated with warmth rather than cold such as: He was given a
warm welcome and warm colours (that are colours creating comfortable feeling or atmosphere), while cold
is always associated with negative connotations such as:
1-To have / to give cold feet = to be / to make afraid
2- Throw cold water on something = to be discouraging and not enthusiastic about something
3- Cold hearted = not showing love or sympathy for other people
4- To give somebody the cold shoulder = to treat somebody in an unfriendly way.
The environment where one lives has its main influence on such expressions since it is made up of
things and one is constantly confronted with them and obliged to communicate about them. Arabic for
instance has a variety of names for dates, horses, winds …etc. English, on the other hand, has a variety
of linguistic signs associated with the sea as English–speaking people are continuously exposed to their
environment. The Arabs have a lot of proverbial and idiomatic expression that are associated with their
geographical places and Bedouin environment such as:
The same thing in English, there are expressions associated with pertinent geographical places such as:
Don’t carry coals to Newcastle, In Rome do as the Romans do…etc. All these expression when processed
literally into English or Arabic maybe less transparent, and if they conveyed the meaning clearly, it would
be less emotive to the target readership. For instance,
means literally in the bosom
of desert, whereas English might say in the heart of desert. This Arabic idiom embodies a sense of
embrace and welcome within the desert rather than the sense of hostility and hardship often associated
with desert by those unfamiliar with such region.
Apart from what is seen, language can lack the concept itself. In every langua ge there are culture-bound
terms and expressions which represent specific not general features peculiar to the culture of this
language. The Arabs do not understand what baby/bridal shower, garage sale, Amish country, harvest
festival or thanks giving mean because they lack the concepts in their environmental experience. On the
other hand
incomprehensible concepts for the
English because they do not exist in their own culture and are considered totally strange.
Concerning culture bound expressions; the following example might be helpful ‫ خمسة في عين الحسود‬literally
five in the eye of the envious. Five for the Arabs represents the five fingers of the hand; each finger
symbolizes one of the verses „ayat‟of „Surat Al Falak‟ (from the Holy Koran), combining a manual rite
which is deemed to keep evil and envy away, whereas the English use the expression to touch the wood
when they mention some way in which they were lucky in the past, to avoid bad luck and the others‟
envy. The English believe that the act of touching the wood keeps bad lack and envy away. Such
expressions and others associated with culture bound terms are generally left out in translation because
of their alien nature or replaced by other items that have approximately the same significance in the
target culture if available (Menacere, 1992). Another problematic cultural difference which affects
idioms and proverbs is the description of certain rituals and traditions. For instance, rainmaking rituals
for the Arabs which are deeply rooted in religion and involve a special prayer known as ‫ صالة األستسقاء‬and
is commonly held after long periods of drought. Such a phenomenon is unlikely to happen in the English
environment. The hindrance in translating this kind of words and expressions is due to lexical gaps
resulting from the cultural differences between the two languages. Winter (1964) argues for that stating
that such expressions whose form and meaning are interwoven are approximately impossible to
translate. This could arise from untranslatability of their context, that is, life patterns expressed in the
source language version could be completely alien to the target readers.
Another category of idiomatic and proverbial expressions which represent a real difficulty for translators
is expressions that are associated with heroes and/or specific incidents either real or mythical. These
expressions have a particular origin in their original culture and a specific situation where to mention.
The connotations of such expressions are wrapped up with the folklore of their native culture. Hence
their meaning is opaque and deeply immersed in the history and stories of a particular people. There are
plenty of examples to illustrate. For example, the English refer to someone who is young and attractive
as Adonis. This expression stems from the name of the handsome young man in Ancient Greek myths,
who was loved by both Aphrodite and Persephone. He was killed by a wild boar but Zeus ordered him
that he should spend the winter months in the underworld with Persephone and the summer months
with Aphrodite. The Arabs refer to someone who is handsome as angel. This expression stems its origin
from the story of Josef son of Jacob peace of Allah be upon them which is mentioned in the holy Koran.
When a group of ladies saw Josef peace of Allah be upon him who was exceedingly beautiful, they said
that he was not a human being but an angel. The following are expressions from Arabic and English:
To have a ship on one’s shoulders, Saved by the bell, Raining cats and dogs (mythical) …etc. The difficulty
in translating such expressions lies in the ignorance of the historical background of the target language.
The translator who attempts to translate this type of expressions needs to be quipped with at least some
cultural clues to infer their meaning and/or to translate them appropriately.
Furthermore, religious affiliations affect the lexical choice of some idioms and proverbs‟ constituent
parts in a fundamental way, especially in Arabic which has plenty of proverbial and idiomatic expressions
that are associated with God and religion. (Reference to God and religion is much more common in Arabic
than English). As is shown in the following examples, English examples and their Arabic counterpart
expressions are related to the same conceptual domain. The religion or the ethical system in the target
language has led to major differences in lexical choices of their constituent parts. Hence literal translation
failed in achieving equivalence.
To kick the bucket is an English idiom which refers literally to the act of striking a specific bucket. This
interpretation reflects a completely wrong connotation of the idiom. Its meaning is to die. The Arabic
equivalent is ٗ
. Every cloud has a silver lining is an English proverbial expression whose
Arabic equivalent is
which is more explicit than the source version and means verily,
with every difficulty there is a relief. The last example is the English expression Many hands make a light
work. Its Arabic equivalent is
;literally, hand of Allah is with the group.
In the three above examples, the only reasonable justification for this variation in the use of idiomatic
and proverbial expressions is the fact that the users of each language map the particular conceptual
domain of their own world differently. That is to say, the Arabic translation is quite consonant with those
of Islamic beliefs because the equivalent Arabic translation either associated with God as in the first
example, or a verse from the Holy Koran as it is the case in the second example, which is the sixth verse
of Surat Al Inshirah, or a one of the sayings referred to Prophet Muhammad peace of Allah be upon him
as in the third example.
To conclude, it is absolutely clear that the way languages convey meaning through idioms and proverbs
is tightly related to their cultures. Therefore, idioms and proverbs are conceptual phenomena that are
mentally mapped according to the native culture norms and are expressed in the source language signs.
Thus one cannot ignore the crucial role of culture in the process of conceptualization and symbolization
of such fixed expressions which figure human philosophical insights, logic, wisdom and instructions in
ways which reinforce the conventional images and attitudes of their own culture. Accordingly, the
cultural aspects of language play a significant role in translating idioms and proverbs. In this respect,
(Daugust, 1976:28) states that “attempts of mere rendering or mere linguistic meaning transference of
idiomatic and proverbial expressions from one language to another are deemed to result a bad product”.
In the same line but more precisely, Marzocchi (1999: 3) claims that “Idioms and proverbs represent
denominations of objects, concepts, typical phenomena of a given geographical place, of material life or
of social-historical peculiarities of some people (…), that for this reason carry a national, local or historical
color; these expressions do not have exact matches in other languages and a linguistic rendition is by no
means helpful”.
2.1. Translation as Problems and Solutions
Idioms and cultural expressions will be introduced and discussed as translation problems in order to
understand how they cause difficulties during translation; subsequently, a review of the strategies used in
translating them will be presented.
2.1.1. Idiom as a Translation Problem
Idioms are treated as figures of speech, which are defined in the Collins English Dictionary (2006) as: ―an
expression such as a simile, in which words do not have their literal meaning,‖ but are categorized as multiword expressions that act in the text as units. Longman Idioms Dictionary (1998) defines an idiom as: ―a
sequence of words which has a different meaning as a group from the meaning it would have if you understand
each word separately.‖ Accordingly, idioms should not be broken up into their elements because they are
sometimes referred to as a ‗fixed expression‘ (Cowie and Mackin, 1975: viii cited in Abu-Ssaydeh 2004).
Baker (1992:63), on the other hand, considers idioms and fixed expression as two different categories
under the multi-word units; she refers to them as ―frozen patterns of language which allow little or no
variation in form, and in the case of idioms, often carry meanings which cannot be deduced from their
individual components.‖ Also she adds some constraints on idiom usage, which include the inability to
change word order or structure and the inability to delete, substitute or add words. On the other hand,
Carter (1998:66) classifies idioms as a type of fixed expression that include proverbs, stock phrases,
catchphrases, allusions, idiomatic similes and discoursal expressions. However, this classification does
not have defined boundaries and a structural overlap is very much expected (ibid). He also identifies
different sets of fixed expression characteristics: 1) non-substitutable, 2) more than a single word and 3)
semantically frozen.
Idioms are difficult to translate. It is sometimes hard to find the right equivalent for a single word without
finding equivalence for a sequence of words that convey one specific meaning. Idiom translation difficulties
fall into different types. First, there is a lack of sense equivalence in the TL; idioms are culturally specific,
which means that they may express a sense that doesn‘t occur in the TL. Baker stresses this point when she
says:
Idioms and fixed expressions which contain culture-specific items are not necessarily untranslatable. It is not
the specific items an expression contains but rather the meaning it conveys and its association with culturespecific context which can make it untranslatable or difficult to translate. (1992:68).
Thus translating the idiom mostly depends on the context in which it has occurred. Second, there may be
equivalence for the idiom in the TL, but the situation in which it has been used differs from the SL to the TL.
In other words, an idiom may have the same sense in the TL but a different connotation. For example, ‗to
sing a different tune‘ means in English to say or do something that contradicts what has been said or done
before. The Arabic equivalence for that idiom is ‗yuGanni 'la laylah‘ (literal: ‗sing to his own Layla‘) and is
used to refer to situations in which a person only cares about his/her own benefit. Both idioms share the
surface meaning but are used differently. Third, the frequency and the formality of idioms differ from one
language to another. Baker (1992) demonstrates this point by giving Arabic and Chinese as examples of
languages that allow limited use of idioms in formal written texts.
5
Culture as a Problem in Translation
Overview
This chapter discusses the problem related to culture-bound terms, and how
to deal with them.
The chapter covers the following topics:
1. Culturally bound terms;
2. Strategies to translate culturally bound terms;
3. Fixed expressions.
Malinowski, a famous anthropologist, was one of the first anthropologists to indicate that language can only be understood with reference to culture (Katan, 1993).
In 1923, he coined the term ‘context of situation’; by this concept, he meant that
language could be only understood with reference to culture and situation. If culture and situation are clear for interlocutors, language can be understood (Katan,
1993). Delisle (1988) mentions that one of the merits of translation is that it relates
two cultures to each other, in terms of thought and perception. Culture, as defined
by Newmark (1988, p. 94) is a ‘Way of life and its manifestations peculiar to one
speech community’. Differences in culture are more problematic in translation
than differences in language structure (Nida, 2000). Nida mentions three categories of relatedness between language and culture: the first category is when the
distance between the source and receptor codes is limited linguistically and culturally, as with the relatedness between English and French; translating from Hebrew
to Arabic is another example. In this category, problems of translation will occur
least frequently; however, in this category of languages a translator should not be
deceived by cognates, such as that between the English word ‘demand’ and the
French word ‘demander’ which may be superficially thought to be identical even
though their meanings are not. The second type of relatedness between languages
© The Author(s) 2020
N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_5
121
122
5
Culture as a Problem in Translation
is when the SL and the TL are culturally related but linguistically different; an
example of this is translating from German to Hungarian. This type of relation is
less problematic than the third type, in which the differences are due to culture.
Relatedness between English and Arabic falls into the third category, as they are
quite different languages linguistically and culturally. This prompts many problem
in the translation process that need to be handled carefully. Thus, deep knowledge
of the target culture is a necessity for a successful translation due to there being
a considerable mismatch between English culture and Arabic culture in terms of
beliefs, customs and traditions (Mares, 2012).
One main component of culture is language and its vocabulary. Vocabularies
attain their meanings from the culture to which they belong; and, since Arabic is
different from English, mastering Arabic culture is essential for the production of
good translation. What could cause problems for translators may include the religious facts of Arabic societies, even their names, which have religious significance
(Mares, 2012). Cultural ambiguity is identified by Newmark (1988) as one of the
seven ambiguities of translation. Such ambiguity may result from a gap in translation. This gap could be grammatical, lexical, or linguistic. Differences between languages in terms of cultures create what are referred to as ‘culturally bound’ terms.
Culturally bound terms are particular cultural elements that are bound to each
specific language. According to Harvey (2000, p. 2) ‘culture-bound terms refer to
concepts, institutions and personnel which are specific to the SL culture’. According to Ordudari (2007), translating culturally bound elements in general, and allusions in particular, seems to be one of the most challenging tasks to be performed
by a translator. In the following section, culturally bound terms and their role in
creating lexical gaps will be discussed.
5.1Culturally Bound Terms
Language and culture are part and parcel of each other; they cannot be separated
because they are interwoven. They have a homologous relationship. To put it another
way, language marks cultural identity, or we could say that language is culture and,
thus, translating a language implies translating a culture. However, culture is complex
because it implies a fuzzy set of attitudes, behavioural conventions, and basic
assumptions and values that are shared by set of people (Spencer-Oatey, 2000). Furthermore, when the SLs and TLs belong to different cultural groups, it is truly difficult to find terms in the TL that express the highest level of accuracy possible to the
meaning of certain words (Haque, 2012). Connotations and associations of words in
one language may differ from those in another language, or they may have different
emotive associations. Cultural and social differences affect the process of translation
and make it challenging (Al-Shawi, 2012). Put simply, there are some words or
expressions, especially those that have a religious context, that are culturally bound
terms; they do not have equivalents in the TL. Some Arabic words—such as ‫خلوة‬
/khulwah/, ‫ عقيقة‬/aqeeqah/, or ‫ قطيعة رحم‬/qatiat rahem/ do not have equivalents in English. They are culturally bound terms (Bahameed as cite in Al-Haj, 2014). ‘Culturally bound’ is a broad term that includes a wide range of expressions such as idioms,
5.1 Culturally Bound Terms
123
collocations and fixed expressions. However, in this section I use ‘culture-bound
terms’ to refer to words that do not have equivalents in the TL due to cultural specificity. The lack of equivalents for such terms creates lexical gaps, and they can include
exotic or emotive expressions. Thus, the only solution available to a translator is to
use transliteration, or to render such terms through periphrastic translation (AbdulRaof, 2004; Al-Azab & Al-Misned, 2012). Examples of culture-bound terms are
‘girlfriend’ and ‘boyfriend’, which can be translated as ‫عشيقة و معشوق‬, although they
are not complete equivalents of the ST terms. The Arabic terms are used pejoratively
to refer to an illegal relationship between a man and a woman. However, the English
words seem to be used positively to refer to an acceptable and legal relationship (perhaps close to marriage) between two partners. In the Holy Quran, for example, it is
difficult to find equivalents for words such as: ‫ الصمد‬/assamad/ or ‫ األخالص‬/alikhlaas/.
Another consideration that makes translating these lexicons difficult is that they are
pregnant with meaning. That is, even when seeking a periphrastic translation, the
translation falls short of providing a full explanation of the denotative and connotative
meanings of a word. It may be more meaningful to provide a paraphrased and periphrastic translation simultaneously. In short, some culture-bound terms can be translated using an equivalent that has been created in the TL that is considered to be
equivalent to the SL item, or by using other translation strategies such as ‘paraphrasing’, ‘transliteration’, using a ‘functional equivalent’, or ‘borrowing’.
Exercise
Translate the following terms between English and Arabic.
1. selfie
2. fuck
3. bitch
4. heavy-smoker
5. the White House
6. the Iranian White Revolution
‫سهرة‬
‫طرب‬
‫حقد‬
‫عدة‬
‫النقاب‬
‫اللقيط‬
5.2Idioms and Fixed Expressions as a Problem
in Translation
Idioms—culture-bound expressions—do not function as single units, comprising as they do of multiple words. They are difficult to define or describe in exact
terms. Richards & Schmidt (2002) define an idiom, as ‘an expression which
124
5
Culture as a Problem in Translation
functions as a single unit and whose meaning cannot be worked out from its separate parts’ (p. 246). For example, take the idiom ‘a little bird told me that’. This
expression means ‘I have discovered this piece of information in my own way’
and, since nothing further is said, implies an unwillingness to reveal the source
if there is one, or a decision that the source is to remain a mystery. The little bird
cannot be perceived literally to have been the agent. Hence, the meaning of the
idiom has nothing to do with the separate lexemes of ‘bird’, or ‘tell’. However,
one view holds that an idiom usually starts as a phrase that has a literal meaning and which then is used in a figurative way. In other words, this view holds
that there is a relationship between the components of idioms and their idiomatic
or figurative meaning (Al-Haddad, 1994). Baker (2011) postulates that idioms are
frozen strings of language whose meanings cannot be deduced from their individual components. Consider the idiom ‘fed up’. Animals and people can be fed, and
there could be other usages involving ‘feed’ or ‘fed’. However, when it comes to
being fed up, ‘up’ must follow ‘fed’. It has to be in the past tense ‘fed up’; one
cannot say ‘feed up’, using the present tense of ‘feed’, as this combination makes
no sense.
Fernando (1996, p. 3) states that there are three features that characterize idioms: compositeness, institutionalization and semantic opacity. Compositeness
refers to the nature of idioms that comprise of more than one word (i.e. multi-word
expressions). Institutionalization implies that idioms are conventionalized expressions that are a product of an ‘ad hoc’ situation, or serve certain purposes. Semantic opacity refers to figurative or non-literal features of idioms, in the sense that
meanings of idioms are not the mere sum of their literal parts. Fernando (1996)
adds that these characteristics are not only characteristics of idioms, but are also
shared by other multi-word expressions, such as collocations, proverbs and idioms.
Mäntylä (2004) argued that five features were always (i.e. traditionally) used
to characterize idioms. These classical or traditional features are metaphoricity
or figurativeness, analysability or non-compositionality, fixedness of form, the
level of formality, and being multi-word expressions. Metaphoricity is deemed
the most principal feature of idioms. Non-compositionality indicates that idioms
are dead, whereby their meanings are arbitrary and not figurative. Fixedness of
form signifies the intolerant syntactic nature of idioms, as they are frozen. The
level of formality is related to the fact that idioms are considered to belong to
informal, spoken language rather than to formal, written language. Finally,
idioms are composed of more than one word and, thus, they are multi-word
expressions.
However, Mäntylä (2004, p. 28) argues against these classical features of idioms. He believes that idioms are not merely dead, frozen metaphors, as there are
certain idioms that are neither dead nor frozen. There is much literature that is in
line with Mäntylä, and that rejects the idea that idioms are dead and frozen meta­
phors (e.g. Gibbs et al., 1989; Glucksberg, 1993). For example, Gibbs (1993, p.
58) states that the assumption of some scholars that idioms are dead metaphors
is far from being accurate. He adds that the arbitrary conventions of usage may
determine idioms’ meanings. Take, for example, the idiom of ‘break a leg’, which
5.2 Idioms and Fixed Expressions …
125
means to wish a good luck before a theatrical performance. This idiom originated
from the old superstition that wishing good luck to someone would be bad luck;
hence, over time, people started to use it and it became fixed as a convention.
However, Mäntylä (2004, p. 29) adds that detecting the link between the origins
of an idiom and its meaning is difficult because the interrelationship weakens over
time.
As such, the translation of idioms poses many challenges for a translator whose
job necessarily goes beyond merely translating lexical items from an SL into a
TL. It is a process of translating the style of language, and therefore the culture,
of an SL into a TL. Consequently, it is essential that a translator be cognizant of
the cultural variances and the various strategies of discourse in the SL and TL to
achieve optimal accuracy. The hidden structure of the source text should be analysed through the use of various strategies of discourse by the translator (Razmjou,
2004). Aldahesh (2017) argues that the semantic, syntactic and pragmatic complexities of the ST idioms make translating them a challenging task.
Baker (1992/2011) postulates that the problems in translating idioms are
prompted by a lack of two skills: the ability to recognize and interpret an idiom
correctly, and knowledge of how to render the various aspects of the meaning
of the ST idiom into the TL. Recognizing an expression as an idiom may not
be as easy a task as it may seem. Translators sometimes fall in the trap of perceiving an idiom literally, and are thus unable to recognize it as an idiom. While
some idioms lend themselves to literal rendering, others do not. ‘Birds of a
feather flock together’ is an example of an idiom that can be translated literally
and make perfect sense, and yet be understood in a way in which it perhaps was
not intended. Literally, this statement is true. Sparrows are with sparrows; robins are with other robins; crows with other crows: various bird species do not
mix. However, this statement is normally intended to describe humans and, these
days, has more to do with the character of a person (whether they are like-minded
or alike in nature) than race or ethnicity, although this idiom can be used in this
way as well. Also, with the idiom ‘to kill two birds with one stone’, it is possible
that a literal application could actually happen. However, the English idiom, ‘got
my goat’ (to get a person’s goat means to irritate them as in: ‘He’s got my goat’,
cannot be translated literally.
Baker believes that the more difficult an expression is to understand in specific contexts, the more likely it will be recognized as an idiom by a translator.
For example, the expression ‘Put your money where your mouth is’ surely must
mystify TL readers, and the translator would realize that this saying is not meant
to be taken literally. However, Baker mentioned that there are certain instances
where idioms can be misleading for a translator. Some idioms can be interpreted
literally and thus a translator may render some kind of vague, poorly understood
meaning—the meaning that is obvious resulting from the simplest word-to-word
direct translation. But the problem is that these idioms may have a different meaning from the literal meaning of the words. A case in point is the idiomatic expression ‘go out with’, the meaning of which, if translated literally, will not correspond
with the ST meaning in some contexts. People who are just starting to date are
126
5
Culture as a Problem in Translation
said to be ‘going on a date’. If they continue past the first date, people will ask
‘Are you going to see him/her again?’, or ‘Are you going to go out with him/her
again?’, or ‘Are you going to go on another date with him/her again?’ Or someone
will say ‘They’re going on another date.’ If they continue to date, they’re ‘checking each other out’ (‘seeing how it goes’ and ‘where’ or ‘how far it goes’). When
the dating continues and becomes a pattern, then people will say ‘they’re dating’.
When the two people become a couple, then the terms ‘boyfriend’ and ‘girlfriend’
will be used. Or people may describe the couple as ‘being an item’.
Another problem with idioms is that ‘An idiom in the source language may
have a very close counterpart in the target language which looks similar on the
surface but has a totally or partially different meaning’ (Baker, 2011, p. 70). Baker
gives the example of ‘pull his leg’, which has an equivalent idiom in Arabic: yashab rijluh. (This means quite literally ‘pull his leg’) However, the Arabic and English idioms have different meanings. The English idiom means to tease somebody
by misinforming them, and then tell the truth. It means ‘to deceive someone playfully’; maybe people may tell the truth, if need be, but that is more after the fact
than part of the definition. For example, an uncle tells his niece ‘The sun is going
to rise and set in the east tomorrow.’ The young niece replies: ‘Really?’ And the
uncle says, ‘Nah, I was just pulling your leg.’ Another usual reply in such a circumstance is ‘Nah, I was just teasing you.’ In contrast, the Arabic idiom means to
deceive and trick somebody purposefully. Thus, the Arabic version is meant to be
a real deception (not teasing someone) and is, therefore, more sinister in nature.
According to Baker (2011), there are some challenges in translating idioms that
have nothing to do with the nature of idioms. In other words, these difficulties are
faced in translating opaque as well as transparent idioms. These problems are: lack
of equivalence, an idiom in the SL may have simultaneous idiomatic and literal
senses, and the use of idioms in written discourse.
1. Lack of equivalence: Some idioms are culture-specific and, therefore, they do not
have equivalents in the TL. A case in point would be ‘Yours faithfully’, which
does not have an equivalent greeting in Arabic. A translator then has to translate
it as ‫( و تفضلوا بقبول فائق األحترام‬which means ‘Please accept the utmost respect’), or
any other common greeting in Arabic. Therefore, as proposed by Fenyo, knowledge of the source and target cultures is proximal, premium and a prerequisite to
proper translation. A culture-specific idiom is not necessarily untranslatable. For
example, the English idiom ‘to carry coals to Newcastle’ means ‘something
brought or sent to a place where it is already plentiful’. So, this means that the
action was useless because the material or item was not needed, or, ‘it is best
sent where it can be sold or used’. This idiom can be translated into Arabic as
‫‘( يبيع مياه في حارة السقايين‬to sell water in the district of water sellers’). The idiom in
the SL may have a similar counterpart in the target language, but the connotations are different and they may not be pragmatically transferable.
2. An idiom in the SL may have idiomatic and literal senses at the same time that
are not represented (at either the literal or idiomatic level) in many languages.
For example, the play on meaning that exists with the English expression ‘to
5.2 Idioms and Fixed Expressions …
127
poke your nose into something’ is not represented at either the literal or idiomatic levels in many languages. The play on meaning in this idiom is different.
In English, it is possible to ‘poke your nose into something’, usually by accident. Perhaps you got whipped cream or ice-cream on your nose when you were
eating a desert, or perhaps your nose got too close to a flower you smelled. An
example of a literal meaning: ‘I poked my nose in (into) that flower and now it
feels itchy, like I have to sneeze.’ An example of a figurative meaning is: ‘John
is always poking his nose into other people’s business’, meaning that John pries
into other people’s personal affairs. Another example is ‘to kick the bucket’,
which can literally mean ‘to kick a bucket (of water)’, or idiomatically mean ‘to
die’. In Arabic, however, the idiomatic meaning does not exist.
3. The use of idioms in written discourse, the contexts in which they can be used,
and the frequency of their use may be different in the SL and TL. For example,
English makes considerable use of idioms in written discourse, which is not the
case in Arabic.
As discussed, translating idioms is challenging and translators develop their own
ways of dealing with it.
Baker (2011) posits that there are some useful strategies that can be followed
when translating idioms. These strategies are: using an idiom of similar meaning
and form, using an idiom of similar meaning but dissimilar form, borrowing the SL
idiom, translation by paraphrase, translation by omission of the play on the meaning of the idiom, translation by omission of the entire idiom, and compensation.
1. Using an idiom of similar meaning and form: This involves using an idiom in
the TL that has roughly the same meaning as the SL idiom and consists of
equivalent lexical items. For example, the Arabic idiom ‫ رأسا على عقب‬has an
equivalent in English: ‘head over heels’. So, the Arabic idiom, when translated,
consists of the exact same number of words and has the same meaning.
2. Using an idiom of similar meaning but dissimilar form: This involves using an
idiom in the TL that has roughly the same meaning as the SL. However, it does
not have equivalent lexical items. For instance, the English idiom ‘let bygones
be bygones’ is similar in meaning to ‫اللي فات مات‬.
.3 Borrowing the source language idiom: Sometimes, borrowing the SL idiom can
be a way to translate culture-specific items. For example, the idiom ‘get out of
my hand’ is sometimes translated literally into Arabic as ‫خرجت من يدي‬.
4. Translation by paraphrase: Another common strategy of translation is translation by paraphrase, whereby a translator paraphrases the SL idiom. An example
of this is the English idiom ‘a bird in the hand’, which can be translated as
‫‘( يغتنم الفرصة‬seize the opportunity’).
5. Translation by omission of a play on idiom: ‘This strategy involves rendering
only the literal meaning of an idiom in a context that allows for a concrete reading of an otherwise playful use of language’ (Baker, 2011, p. 84). For example,
translating ‘to burn his boats’ as ‫يحرق مراكبه‬. The translation sounds literal but
the idiomatic meaning is still conveyed.
128
5
Culture as a Problem in Translation
6. Translation by omission of entire idiom: This strategy of omitting a whole ST
idiom in the TT is followed either when there is no equivalent for the ST idiom
and it therefore cannot be paraphrased, or because of stylistic reasons.
7. Compensation: A translator sometimes seeks to omit or play down some features of an idiom in the ST that occurs at a specific point in the text and present
it somewhere else in the TT.
Exercise
Translate the following idioms into English. Then explain the strategy used in
the translation.
‫القرد في عين أمه غزال‬
‫الباب يفوت جمل‬
‫ال حول له و ال قوة‬
‫فار دمي بسبب ما قاله‬
‫إنه طويل اللسان‬
‫طار عقله‬
‫سمن غلى عسل‬
‫ثقيل الدم‬
‫خفيف الدم‬
‫بنت الحالل‬
Translate the following English idioms into Arabic. Then, explain the strategy
used in the translation.
1. ‘Got ahead of the game’
2. ‘A leap in the dark’
3. ‘A yes-man’
4. ‘All cats are black in the dark’
5. ‘Every cloud has a silver lining’
6. ‘Get a taste of your own medicine’
7. ‘Beat around the bush’
8. ‘Give someone the benefit of the doubt’
9. ‘Pull yourself together’
10. ‘A picture is worth 1000 words’
11. ‘Do something at the drop of a hat.’
5.3Collocations
Collocations are sometimes culturally bound, as they do not apply to all languages. Baker (2011, p. 14) defines collocations as ‘semantically arbitrary restrictions which do not follow logically from the propositional meaning of a word’. Put
more simply, collocations refer to the habitual occurrence of words together. For
example, we say ‘make love’, but we do not say ‘do love’. Similarly, ‘bus’ collocates with ‘catch’, ‘miss’, ‘ticket’, ‘by’, ‘on’. So, these restrictions are arbitrary.
5.3
Collocations
Table 5.1  The collocations
of ‘bend’
129
English
Arabic
1. ‘Bend his head’
‫يحني رأسه‬
2. ‘Bend the law’
‫يلوي عنق القانون‬
3. ‘Bend his leg’
‫يثني قدمه‬
4. ‘Bend over the sink’
‫ينكب على حوض الغسيل‬
We can say ‘catch the bus’, but we cannot say ‘hold the bus’. Also, we say ‘rancid
butter’ but ‘rotten eggs’; it cannot work the other way around even though ‘rancid’
and ‘rotten’ are synonymous. When words collocate, they may give meaning that
is different in the SL; therefore, a different word may be required as an ­equivalent
in the TL. For example, ‘bend’ means ‫ يثني‬. However, when it collocates with dif­
ferent words, it will give different meanings in the TL. Consider the following
examples (Table 5.1).
As can be seen in these examples, ‘bend’ is translated differently based on
the word with which it collocated. In example 2, it was translated as two words.
Translating collocations, therefore, is not without its problems. There are many
pitfalls and difficulties in translating collocations that will be discussed in detail:
the engrossing effect of ST patterning, misinterpreting the meaning of an SL collocation, the tension between accuracy and naturalness, culture-specific collocations,
and marked collocations in the source text.
1.
The engrossing effect of ST patterning
Sometimes a translator becomes engrossed in the ST and produces an odd collocation in the TL—perhaps by translating an ST collocation literally. In this situation,
a translator needs to detach himself from the ST patterning by leaving the translation for some time, subsequently revising it to ensure that it matches with the TL
patterning. For example, a novice translator may translate ‘break the law’ as
‫يكسر القانون‬, though a more natural translation would be ‫يخالف القانون‬.
2.
Misinterpreting the meaning of an SL collocation
A translator may misinterpret the meaning of an SL collocation when the SL collocation and the TL collocation are similar in form but not in meaning. Baker
(2011) gives the following example:
Example
ST:
TT:
he industrialist had been struck by his appearance as someone with
T
modest means.
‫رجل الصناعة مظهره ينم عن التواضغ و البساطة‬
In this example, the ST idiom ‘with modest means’ was translated as ‫التواضغ و‬
‫‘( البساطة‬modesty and simplicity’), which shows the influence of the TL on the
translator’s decision to render the idiom incorrectly. It should have been translated
it as ‫‘( غير ثري او ذو دخل محدود‬poor/limited income’).
5
130
3.
Culture as a Problem in Translation
The tension between accuracy and naturalness
Tension is created when a translator is forced to prioritize either accuracy or naturalness. It is difficult to maintain both. Baker gives the example of ‘law’, which
can be ‘bad’ or ‘good’. However, a natural translation for ‘bad/good law’ would be
‫غير عادل‬/‫‘( قانون عادل‬fair/unfair law’), which may be significantly different from the
SL collocation. Another striking example that was given by Baker is ‘hard drinks’,
which is likely to be translated into ‘alcoholic drinks’. However, the collocation
‘hard drinks’ does not include all alcoholic drinks, it only includes spirits such as
whisky, gin and brandy; it does not include other alcoholic drinks such as beer. In
short, a translator needs either to prioritize accuracy and therefore translate ‘hard
drinks’ as ‫ مشروبات ثقيلة‬or prioritize naturalness and therefore translate ‘hard
drinks’ as ‫مشروبات كحولية‬.
4.
Culture-specific collocations
There are some collocations that are language-specific; they do not sound natural in other
languages. Baker considers that these terms need to be over-translated in the TL, as more
information needs to be provided in the TL to clarify the ST collocation. Baker gives the
example of the English collocation ‘damaged, dry, and brittle hair’, which was translated into Arabic as ‫ و أيضا للشعر الجاف أو الضعيف البنية او القابل للتكسر‬،‫ المتأذي أو التالف‬،‫الشعر المقصف‬.
The ST collocations are culture specific as hair in English can be ‘dry’, ‘damaged’, or
‘brittle’; however, in Arabic it can be ‫ متقضف‬،‫ ناعم‬،‫‘( خشن‬split-ends’, ‘dry’, ‘oily’, ‘coarse’,
and ‘smooth’). In the translation quoted by Baker, the translator opted to render the ST
collocations unnaturally in the Arabic language, which it could be argued was improper.
This is similar to the problem mentioned earlier regarding the tension between ‘accuracy’
and ‘naturalness’. In this example, the translator prioritized accuracy over naturalness. It is
always the translator’s decision to adopt the appropriate translation strategy. Sometimes,
what is assumed to be ‘accurate’ translation may turn out to be inaccurate, as a literal
translation of an ST term does not necessarily convey accuracy when translated.
5.
Marked collocations in the source text
Marked collocations are images that are created in the SL and translating these
collocations may be marked in the TL. For example, ‘the sun sank’ as used by
John Steinbeck, the Nobel laureate, in his novel The Red Pony. The writer in this
case may find himself translating it literally as ‫ غرقت الشمس‬to create a similar
unmarked collocation in the TL.
5.4Strategies to Translate Culturally Bound Terms
Venuti (1995) argues that translating culture can be approached from two perspectives: one view holds that the source culture should be preserved in the TT by following strategies that preserve the ST elements and providing explanation to
cultural items when necessary. This kind of translation is referred to as ‘exotocized’.
Literal translation can be adopted to translate ST cultural idioms if a translator
wishes to preserve the ST culture. The other perspective is ‘domestication’, which
5.4 Strategies to Translate Culturally …
131
attempts to render the ST elements into functionally equivalent elements in the TT.
To illustrate the difference between the two approaches, let us give an example of
the ST idiom ‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’, which can be translated
as ‫عصفور في اليد خير من أثنين على الغصن‬. This is an ST oriented translation that preserved all the elements of the ST. However, if we wished to translate it into a culturally equivalent idiom, we may translate it as ‫عصفور في اليد خير من عشرة على الشجرة‬.
Actually, the two translations seem close to each other; the only difference is that
the word ‘bush’ ‫ الغضن‬was translated into ‫( الشجرة‬tree) to adapt the TT culture.
A more striking example would be as follows:
Example
ST: Hold your horses; we still have plenty of time.
TT1: ‫ت‬
‫ لدينا الكثير من الوق‬،‫أمسك خيولك‬.
TT2: ‫تريث فلدينا وقت كافي‬.
As can be seen, TT1 observes the ST cultural norms and values. However, the
translation may sound ambiguous and unclear. On the other hand, TT2 is a TT
equivalent expression that conveys the same meaning but without the stylistic and
idiomatic effect that exists in the ST.
Graedler in Ordudari (2007) sets rules to translate culture, which include: creating a new word, explanation, preserving the SL term intact, and opting for an
alternative word from the TL.
a. Creating a new word: This can be achieved by transliteration or borrowing. For
example, the words ‫ مسلم‬،‫ جهاد‬،‫ حج‬are all borrowed from Arabic to English.
Also, the English words ‘supermarket’ and ‘toilet’ are borrowed from English
to Arabic.
b. Explanation: A translator may need to explain the term through glossing or a
footnote. For example, the word ‫ خلوة‬may be transliterated and then explained
as ‘being alone with a foreigner’, which is different from ‫الخلوة الشرعية‬, which
means to have ‘the right to stay alone with one’s own wife’.
c. Preserving the SL term intact: This can be achieved through borrowing (as discussed with regard to creating a new word.
d. Opting for a word in the TL that seems similar to, or has the same ‘relevance’
as, the SL word. For example, translating ‫ صالة‬as ‘prayer’.
In a similar vein, Harvey (2000) proposed four techniques for translating culturally
bound terms: functional equivalence, formal equivalence, transcription or borrowing, and descriptive or self-explanatory translation.
1. Functional equivalence: This refers to rendering a referent in the SL culture
into a functionally equivalent referent in the TL. For example, translating
‫ على أحر من الجمر‬as ‘on pins and needles’. Another example is translating ‘For he’s
a jolly good fellow for he’s a jolly good fellow’ as ‫سنة حلوة يا جميل سنة حلوة يا جميل‬.
Another example is translating ‘kick the bucket’ as ‫لقى حتفه او مصرعه‬.
5
132
Culture as a Problem in Translation
2. Formal equivalence (or ‘linguistic equivalence’) refers to a word-for-word
translation. This type of literal translation can be appropriate in some contexts.
3. Transcription or borrowing refers to reproducing or, where necessary, transliterating the original term.
4. Descriptive or self-explanatory translation refers to using generic terms in lieu
of the culturally bound terms to convey the meaning; for example, translating
‫ابن لبون‬, which refers to two-year old camels, as a ‘camel’ to convey the generic
meaning.
Exercise
Translate the following collocations into Arabic.
1. ‘Peaceful death’
2. ‘Pass a law’
3. ‘Pay a visit’
4. ‘Brain death’
5. ‘The throes of death’
6. ‘Wonderments and bewilderments’
7. ‘Hale and hearty’
8. ‘Wealthy and well’
9. ‘On the alert’
10. ‘The great mountains’
Exercise
Examine the following ST collocations and their translations, and then explain
the strategy used and the extent to which it was effective in conveying the ST
collocational meaning (Source Al Sughair, 2011).
‘Rat trap’
‫فخ جرذان‬
‘An impulse of cruelty’
‫دافع قسوة‬
‘Resentful eyes’
‘Flying heavily’
‘Screen door’
‘He looked secretly’
‘To risk lives’
‘High-priced’
‘War drums’
‘Off-colour joke’
‘Tip of the tongue’
‘Delicate foods’
‘My hot cheeks’
5.5 Pym’s Typology of Translation Solutions
133
5.5Pym’s Typology of Translation Solutions
Pym (2018) proposed a typology for translation solutions; this typology is assumed
to be a comprehensive typology that helps deal with the various problems faced
when translating: copying words, copying structure, perspective change, density
change, resegmentation, compensation, cultural correspondence and text tailoring.
1. Copying words: This is a kind of transcription, exoticism, transliteration or transference; for example, translating ‘internet’ as ‫انترنت‬.
2. Copying structure: This is similar to the structural calque proposed by Vinay and
Darbelnet (1958) (see Vinay and Darbelnet’s model in Chapter 2, for examples).
3. Perspective change: This is similar to Vinay and Darbelnet’s modulation; for
example, translating ‘keep the door closed, please’ as ‫رجاءا ال تفتح الباب‬.
4. Density change: This can be applied by employing strategies that help distribute the information across a greater textual space. These strategies may be
explicitation or one-to-many translation. In other words, one word that is lexically dense or semantically complex is rendered into many words using an
explicitation or paraphrase strategy.
Table 5.2  Typology of translation solutions (Pym, 2018, p. 45)
Copying
Expression change
Material change
Copying words
Copying sounds
Copying morphology
Copying script
Copying structure
Copying prosodic features
Copying fixed phrases
Copying text structure
Perspective change
Changing sentence focus
Changing semantic focus
Changing voice
Renaming an object
Density change
Generalization/specification
Explicitation/implicitation
Multiple translation
Resegmentation
Joining sentences
Cutting sentences
Re-paragraphing
Compensation
New level of expression
New place in text (notes, paratexts)
Cultural correspondence
Corresponding idioms
Corresponding units of measurement,
­currency, etc.
Relocation of culture-specific referents
Text tailoring
Correction/censorship/updating
Omission of material
Addition of material
134
5
Culture as a Problem in Translation
5. Resegmentation: This includes changing the order of sentences or paragraphs;
it also includes breaking down complex sentences or joining simple sentences
together.
6. Compensation: This is when ‘A value is rendered with resources different from
those of the start text and in a textual position or linguistic level that is markedly different from that in the start text (Pym, 2018, p. 44). This may include
notes, glossing, or similar.
7. Cultural correspondence: This happens when ‘corresponding referents are held
to be in different special or temporal locations, as opposed to cases where the
same referent is given different expressions but remains in the one location
(p. 44). For example, translating ‘hi’ as ‫السالم عليكم‬. This covers what Vinay and
Darbelnet call ‘adaptation’ and ‘equivalence’.
8. Text tailoring: This includes the deletion and addition of material on the grammatical or semantic levels.
For pedagogical purposes, Pym condensed this typology into three categories: copying, expression change and material change: these are summarized in
Table 5.2.
5.6Conclusion
Translation is a necessity and the notion that a text cannot be translated can be
given no credence. Every type of text or genre is translatable. A translator, however, needs to identify the appropriate approach and strategies for the translation
of a specific text. Researchers also need to explore the mechanisms and procedures
that can improve the quality of translation, rather than focusing their efforts on
criticizing translations and translators. Based on the situation a translator faces,
they can develop appropriate strategies to deal with emerging problems.
References
Abdul-Raof, H. (2004). The Quran: Limits of translatability. In S. Faiq (Ed.), Cultural encounters in translation from arabic. Frankfurt Lodge: Multilingual Matters.
Aldahesh, A. Y. (2017). On idiomaticity in English and Arabic: A cross—linguistic study. Journal of Language and Culture, 4(2), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.5897/JLC2013.0220.
Al Sughair, Y. (2011). The translation of lexical collocations in literary texts, The American University of Sharjah.
Al-Azab, A., & Al-Misned, A. (2012). Pragmatic losses of Qur’an translation: A linguistic
approach. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.
v2n3p42.
AL-Haddad, K. (1994). Investigating difficulties faced by advanced Iraqi students of English in
and using English idioms (Unpublished MA thesis). College of Arts, University of Baghdad.
Al-Haj, A. A. M. (2014). The Cultural agenda of translation & Arabization: Aspects of the problems. Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research, 1(2), 1–14.
4
Cultural transposition
4.1
Basic principles
In this chapter, we complete our introduction to the notion of translation loss by
looking at some implications of the fact that translating involves not just two languages but also a transfer from one culture to another. General cultural differences
are sometimes bigger obstacles to successful translation than linguistic differences.
We shall use the term cultural transposition for the main types and degrees
of departure from literal translation that one may resort to in the process of transferring the contents of an ST from one culture to another. Any degree of cultural
transposition involves the choice of features indigenous to the TL and the target
culture in preference to features with their roots in the source culture. The result
is to reduce foreign (i.e. SL-specific) features in the TT, thereby to some extent
naturalizing it into the TL and its cultural setting.
The various degrees of cultural transposition can be visualized as points along a
scale between the extremes of exoticism and cultural transplantation, as shown
in Figure 4.1.
Source-culture bias
Target-culture bias
•
•
•
•
Exoticism
and calque
Cultural
borrowing
Communicative
translation
Cultural
transplantation
Figure 4.1 Degrees of cultural transposition.
4.2
Exoticism
The extreme options in signalling cultural foreignness in a TT fall into the category
of exoticism. A TT marked by exoticism is one that constantly uses grammatical
and cultural features imported from the ST with minimal adaptation, thereby constantly signalling the exotic source culture and its cultural strangeness. This may
indeed be one of the TT’s chief attractions, as with some translations of Classical
Arabic literature that deliberately trade on exoticism. A TT like this, however, has
an impact on the TL public, which the ST could never have had on the SL public,
for whom the text has no features of an alien culture.
Cultural transposition
37
A sample of exoticism in translation from Arabic would be a more or less literal
translation of the following simple conversation (we have given versions of the
conversation in both Standard Arabic, as it might appear in a short story or novel,
and the contextually more natural colloquial Arabic):
Literal translation
A Peace be upon you.
B And upon you be peace.
A How is the state?
B Praise be to Allah.
How is your state?
A Praise be to Allah;
how is the family?
If Allah wills, well.
B Well, praise be to Allah.
etc.
Standard Arabic
Colloquial Arabic (Egyptian)
‫ اﻟﺴﻼم ﻋﻠﯿﻜﻢ‬A
‫ وﻋﻠﯿﻜﻢ اﻟﺴﻼم‬B
‫ ﻛﯿﻒ اﻟﺤﺎل؟‬A
. ‫ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ‬B
‫ﻛﯿﻒ ﺣﺎﻟﻚ اﻧﺖ؟‬
. ‫ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ‬A
‫ﻛﯿﻒ اﻷھﻞ؟‬
‫إن ﺷﺎء ﷲ ﺑﺨﯿﺮ‬
‫ ﺑﺨﯿﺮ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ‬B
etc.
‫ ﺳﻼﻣﻮ ﻋﻠﯿﻜﻢ‬A
‫ وﻋﻠﯿﻜﻢ ﺳﻼم‬B
‫ إزي اﻟﺤﺎل؟‬A
. ‫ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ‬B
‫إزي ﺣﺎﻟﻚ إﻧﺖ؟‬
. ‫ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ‬A
‫إزي اﻷھﻞ؟‬
‫إن ﺷﺎء ﷲ ﺑﺨﯿﺮ‬
‫ ﺑﺨﯿﺮ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ‬B
etc.
Sometimes the nature of the ST makes it virtually impossible to avoid exoticism in the TT. Consider the following from the Classical Arabic text ‫ اﻟﺒﺨﻼء‬by
‫( اﻟﺠﺎﺣﻆ‬from Lane 1994: 48, 56–57) in which formal features, such as parallelism
(cf. Chapter 11), are extremely important in the ST but are not easily matched by
typical formal features of English:
‫ أن ﯾﺴﺘﻮي ﻓﻲ‬،‫وﻟﯿﺲ ﻣﻦ أﺻﻞ اﻷدب وﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ اﻟﺤﻜﻢ وﻻ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎدات اﻟﻘﺎدة وﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪﺑﯿﺮ اﻟﺴﺎدة‬
‫ واﻟﻨﺎﻋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻓﻦ واﻟﻠﺒﺎب ﻣﻦ‬،‫ﻧﻔﯿﺲ اﻟﻤﺄﻛﻮل وﻏﺮﯾﺐ اﻟﻤﺸﺮوب وﺛﻤﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﻠﺒﻮس وﺧﻄﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺮﻛﻮب‬
[. . .] ‫ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻊ واﻟﻤﺘﺒﻮع واﻟﺴﯿﺪ واﻟﻤﺴﻮد‬،‫ﻛﻞ ﺷﻜﻞ‬
It is not consistent with the principles of etiquette, the hierarchy of authority,
the customs of leaders, and the good rule of princes that the follower and the
followed, the ruler and the ruled become equals with respect to precious food
and marvelous drinks, valuable clothes and noble horses, and the finest and
best kinds of things.
4.3
Calque
Sometimes, even where the TT as a whole is not marked by exoticism, a momentary foreignness is introduced. A calque is an expression that consists of TL words
and respects TL syntax but is unidiomatic in the TL, because it is modelled on
the structure of an SL expression. This lack of idiomaticity may be purely lexical
and relatively innocuous, or it may be more generally grammatical. The following
calques of Arabic proverbs illustrate decreasing degrees of idiomaticity:
‫اﻟﻠﻲ ﻓﺎت ﻣﺎت‬
‫ﯾﻮم ﻟﻚ وﯾﻮم ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
‫زاد اﻟﻄﯿﻦ ﺑﻠﺔ‬
What is past has died
A day for you, a day against you
It increased the clay moistness
38
Cultural transposition
For most translation purposes, it can be said that a bad calque (like the third example) imitates ST features to the point of being ungrammatical in the TL, while a
good one (like the first example) compromises between imitating ST features and
offending against TL grammar. Any translator will confirm that it is easy, through
ignorance, or – more usually – haste, to mar the TT with bad calques. However, it is
conceivable that in some TTs the calque – and ensuing exoticism – may actually be
necessary, even if its effects need to be palliated by some form of compensation.
For example, if the strategy is to produce a TT marked by exoticism, the proverb
‫ ﯾﻮم ﻟﻚ وﯾﻮم ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬may well be calqued as ‘A day for you, a day against you’. But,
because of the prevailing exoticism of the TT, it might not be clear that this is
actually a proverb. This would be a significant translation loss if it were important
that the reader should realize that the speaker is using a proverb. In that case, the
loss could be reduced with an explanatory addition such as ‘you know the saying’:
‘You know the saying: “A day for you, a day against you”.’
What was originally a calqued expression sometimes actually becomes a standard TL cultural equivalent of its SL equivalent. A good example of a calque from
Arabic into current English is ‘Mother of . . . ’, from the Arabic ‫ أم اﻟﻤـﻌﺎرك‬used
by Saddam Hussein to describe the ‘battle’ between Iraqi troops and those of the
coalition organized to drive the invading Iraqi army from Kuwait. (In fact, this is
often mis-calqued into English as ‘Mother of all . . . ’, rather than simply ‘Mother
of . . . ’.)
Standardized calques from English into modern Arabic include ‫‘ إﻋﺎدة ﺗﺪوﯾﺮ‬recycling’, ‫‘ ﻻﻋﻨﻒ‬non-violence’, ً‫‘ ﻟﻌﺐ دورا‬play a rôle’, among many others. Sometimes
calques generate further quasi-calques in the TL. So, in addition to ‫أﻟﻘﻰ ﺿﻮ ًءا ﻋﻠﻰ‬
for ‘to shed/throw light on’, forms are encountered such as ‫ﺳﻠّﻂ اﻷﺿﻮاء ﻋﻠﻰ‬. It is,
however, normally impossible to say in English ‘shed lights on’. In using a calque,
it is clearly important to get the form right. A failed calque may sound endearing
(as does a lot of ‘foreignerese’), or it may jar with speakers of the TL. In either
case, it is likely to distract from the intended message.
4.4
Cultural transplantation
At the opposite end of the scale from exoticism is cultural transplantation, whose
extreme forms are hardly translations at all but more like adaptations – the wholesale transplanting of the entire setting of the ST, resulting in the entire text being
rewritten in an indigenous target culture setting.
An example of cultural transplantation is the remaking of the Japanese film
‘The Seven Samurai’ as the Hollywood film ‘The Magnificent Seven’. An example
involving Arabic would be the retelling of a Juha joke with the replacement of
Juha and other typical Middle Eastern characters with characters typical of the TL
culture and corresponding changes in background setting. In a British context, one
might, for example, begin the ‘translation’ of the joke ‘A man walked into a pub’.
It is not unusual to find examples of cultural transplantation on a small scale in
translation. For example, in a scene from the short story ‫ اﻟﻨﺎر واﻟﻤﺎء‬by the Syrian
writer ‫ زﻛﺮﯾﺎ ﺗﺎﻣﺮ‬, some rich adolescent girls are poking fun at a girl and boy from
Cultural transposition
39
a poor part of town who are wandering around together, obviously in love. One
of the rich girls calls out «‫»ﻗﯿﺲ وﻟﯿﻠﻰ‬, alluding to the story of the semi-legendary
doomed love affair between the poet ‫( ﻗﯿﺲ ﺑﻦ اﻟ ُﻤﻠَﻮﱠح‬also known as ‫ )ﻣﺠﻨﻮن‬and a
woman called ‫ﻟﯿﻠﻰ‬. This has been translated (St John 1999: 30) as ‘Just like Romeo
and Juliet’.
By and large, normal translation practice avoids the two extremes of wholesale
exoticism and wholesale cultural transplantation. In avoiding the two extremes,
the translator will consider the alternatives lying between them on the scale given
at the end of Section 4.1 of this chapter.
4.5
Cultural borrowing
The first alternative is to transfer an ST expression verbatim into the TT. This
is termed cultural borrowing. It introduces a foreign element into the TT. Of
course, something foreign is by definition exotic; this is why, when the occasion
demands, it can be useful to talk about exotic elements introduced by various
translation practices. But cultural borrowing is different from exoticism proper, as
just defined: unlike exoticism, cultural borrowing does not involve adaptation of
the SL expression into TL forms.
An example of cultural borrowing would be the rendering of a culturally specific
term by a transliteration without further explanation. Thus, for example, ‫ﻓﻮطﺔ‬, as
traditionally used in Iraq, would be rendered by ‘futa’ rather than, say, by ‘wrap’
or ‘robe’ (a ‫ ﻓﻮطﺔ‬in Iraq being traditionally a sarong-like garment worn by women).
A cultural borrowing of this kind might well be signalled by the use of italics.
Sometimes, the nature of the text may make the use of exoticism more or less
unavoidable. Consider the following from a fairly academic text about the Academy of Musical Studies in Iraq, which describes a concert given by the Academy
(Evans 1994: ۱٦٥):
‫( ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ اﻻﺗﺠﺎه اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ اﻟﻤﺼﺮي ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﮫ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮادﯾﻮ‬٦) .. ‫( ﻓﻘﺮة‬۱٥) ‫ﺗﻠﺨﺺ ﻣﻨﮭﺎج اﻟﺤﻔﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ وھﺬه اﻟﻔﻘﺮات اﻟﺴﺖ اﺷﺘﻤﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﻨﺎء اﻟﻤﻮﺷﺤﺎت وﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﺎﺳﯿﻢ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮة ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ‬.‫واﻟﺘﻠﻔﺰﯾﻮن‬
‫ أﺿﻒ اﻟﻰ ذﻟﻚ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﯾﻦ‬.‫– ﻟﻶﻻت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﻜﻼﺳﯿﻜﯿﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮن واﻟﻌﻮد واﻟﻨﺎي‬
.‫اﻟﻔﺮق اﻟﻤﻮﺳﯿﻘﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ اﻵن اﻟﻜﻤﺎن ﺑﺄﻋﺪاد ﻛﺒﯿﺮة‬
This has been translated (Evans 1994: 15) as:
The concert programme consisted of fifteen sections, six of which were in
the Egyptian style as we know it from radio and television. These six parts
comprised muwashshahat and solos influenced by the Egyptian School – from
classical instruments such as the qanun, the ud and the nay. The structure of
the music groups was also influenced by the Egyptian School, as they also
contained large numbers of violins.
Here, the word ‫ ﻛﻤﺎن‬translates easily into English as ‘violin’, because the same
instrument is used in both cultures. However, the other instruments are specific
40
Cultural transposition
to the Middle East. A ‫ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن‬is an instrument rather like a dulcimer, whose strings
are plucked using metal plectrums attached to the fingers; an ‫ ﻋﻮد‬is a short-necked
lute, the strings of which are plucked with a plectrum; and a ‫ ﻧﺎي‬is a flute without a
mouthpiece, made of bamboo or more rarely of wood, which, unlike the European
flute, is held in a slanting forward position when blown (cf. Wehr). Translating
‫ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن‬as ‘dulcimer’, or ‫ ﻧﺎي‬as ‘flute’, would significantly distort what is meant by
the Arabic; even translating ‫ ﻋﻮد‬as ‘lute’ (the word ‘lute’ is derived from the Arabic
‫ )اﻟﻌﻮد‬would disguise the fact that an ‫ ﻋﻮد‬is recognizably different from a European
lute. Similarly, translating ‫ ﻣﻮﺷﺢ‬as ‘strophic poem’ or the like would here disguise
the precise nature of the material being used as well as the fact that what is being
dealt with here is poetry set to music. Cultural borrowing on this scale introduces
so many exotic elements into the TT that it almost shades into exoticism proper.
Where precise technical terms are important, one solution is for the translator to
add a glossary at the end of the book or to use footnotes or endnotes. Alternatively,
where the translator decides that for some reason it is necessary to retain an SL
term but also to make it plain to the reader roughly what is meant, it is sometimes
possible to insert an explanation, or partial explanation, into the TT alongside the
cultural borrowing, normally as unobtrusively as possible. Using this technique,
the earlier extract could have been translated along the following lines:
The concert programme consisted of fifteen sections, six of which were in
the Egyptian style as we know it from radio and television. These six parts
comprised pieces involving the muwashshah verse form and solos influenced
by the Egyptian School – from classical instruments such as the plucked dulcimer (the qanun) and the Arab lute (the oud) and the nay flute. The structure
of the music groups was also influenced by the Egyptian School, as they also
contained large numbers of violins.
This translation sounds somewhat strained, but elsewhere the combination of cultural borrowing plus additional explanatory material can be a useful technique. An
example is the following (from Pennington 1999: 4), which deals with the response
of American Muslims to the use of the crescent and star as a general symbol of
Islam in American public places:
[. . .] ‫واﻋﺘﺮﺿﺖ ﻗﻠﺔ ﻣﻨﮭﻢ ﺑﺤﺠﺔ ان اﻟﮭﻼل واﻟﻨﺠﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ أﻣﺮﯾﻜﺎ »ﺑﺪﻋﺔ« ﺗﺨﺎﻟﻒ اﻻﺳﻼم‬
A few of them objected, on the grounds that the American use of the Crescent
and Star is bid’a (‘innovation’, which Islam opposes) [. . .]
Here, the English gloss ‘innovation’ on the Arabic word ‫ ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‬has been unobtrusively introduced into the TT. (The translator has also included ‘which Islam
opposes’ inside the brackets, in contrast with ‫ ﺗﺨﺎﻟﻒ اﻻﺳﻼم‬in the ST, which is part
of the main text.)
Sometimes, a cultural borrowing becomes an established TT expression.
Examples from Arabic into English are often religious in nature – for example,
‘imam’, ‘Allah’, ‘sheikh’. A fairly recent cultural borrowing is ‘intifada’ (cf.
Cultural transposition
41
Section 2.2.2). Cultural borrowings shade into (i) forms that were originally
borrowed but are no longer regarded as foreign (e.g. ‘algebra’ from ‫)اﻟﺠﺒﺮ‬,
(ii) forms that have been borrowed but have shifted meaning in the course of
borrowing (e.g. ‘algorithm’ ultimately from ‫اﻟﺨﻮارزﻣﻲ‬, the man who invented
them), and (iii) forms that have been borrowed but have a sense in the TL
that is not the normal sense in the SL (e.g. ‘minaret’ from ‫ﻣﻨﺎرة‬, where the
word for ‘minaret’ in most of the Arab world is ‫ﻣﺌﺬﻧﺔ‬, and ‘alcohol’ from ‫اﻟﻜﺤﻞ‬,
which means ‘antimony’ in Arabic). It is possible to include these latter types
under cultural borrowings, although they might more reasonably be regarded
as simple denotative equivalents (cf. Chapter 7), inasmuch as the words are no
longer popularly regarded as ‘foreign’ in nature.
4.6
Communicative translation
As we have seen (Section 2.1.4), communicative translation is normal in the
case of culturally conventional formulae where literal translation would be
inappropriate.
Examples of stock phrases in Arabic and English are ‫‘ ﻣﻤﻨﻮع اﻟﺘﺪﺧﯿﻦ‬no smoking’, ‫‘ ﻣﻤﻨﻮع اﻟﺪﺧﻮل‬no entry’. Problems may arise where the TL has no corresponding stock phrase to one used in the SL (e.g. because there is no cultural
equivalent). Consider, in this regard, the use of religious formulae in everyday
Arabic: ‫إن ﺷﺎء ﷲ‬, ‫اﻟﺤﻤﺪ‬, ‫ﻋﻠﯿﻜﻢ اﻟﺴﻼم ورﺣﻤﺔ ﷲ وﺑﺮﻛﺎﺗﮫ‬. ‘Equivalents’ for these can be
found in English, but they will often either seem unnatural or will involve considerable rephrasing. ‫إن ﺷﺎء ﷲ‬, for example, may often be most naturally rendered
by ‘I hope’, a formula in English that clearly lacks the religious aspect of the
original Arabic. Similarly, take the phrase ً ‫ﻧﻌﯿﻤﺎ‬, said to someone who has had his
or her hair cut, and the reply ‫أﻧﻌﻢ ﷲ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬. Here, ً ‫ ﻧﻌﯿﻤﺎ‬might be translated as ‘Your
hair looks nice’ (‘Congratulations’ in this context seems overly enthusiastic in
English), to which the most natural reply would be something like ‘Thanks very
much’ or ‘Oh, that’s kind of you to say so’. These are not, however, stock phrases
in the same sense as the Arabic ً ‫ ﻧﻌﯿﻤﺎ‬and ‫أﻧﻌﻢ ﷲ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬, and it would be wrong to
overuse them in a TT.
Regarding proverbial expressions, consider again ‫إﻟﻠﻲ ﻓﺎت ﻣﺎت‬. Three possible
translations of this might be:
LITERAL
BALANCED
COMMUNICATIVE
That which has passed has died
What’s past is gone
Let bygones be bygones/What’s done is done
In most contexts, one might expect ‘Let bygones be bygones’ to be the most reasonable translation. However, in a context in which the word ‘past’ figures prominently, it might be that the second translation would be appropriate, as it would
echo the key word directly. Similarly, one might want to avoid the use of the
proverb ‘Let bygones be bygones’ in a context where it could make the TT more
clichéd than the ST.
42
Cultural transposition
4.7 Transliterating names
The issues involved in cultural transposition are well illustrated in the transliteration
of names. In transliterating Arabic names, it is possible to follow either one of several
more or less standard transliteration systems or to adopt a more ad-hoc approach. A
transliteration of the mountainous area of Yemen ‫ ﺑﻌﺪان‬using a transliteration system,
for example, might be bacdân. Here, the symbol c transliterates the Arabic letter ‫ع‬,
while the symbol â transliterates the Arabic combination ‫_َا‬. The advantage of a
transliteration system is that it allows the reader to reconvert the English back into
Arabic script. However, because this is something that is only normally required in an
academic context, the use of transliteration systems is generally limited to academic
translations. The use of a transliteration system in other cases may give a stronger
sense of the exotic than is appropriate for the context. If you are interested in finding
out more about different transliteration systems, the Wikipedia article ‘Romanization
of Arabic’ provides a valuable guide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_
Arabic). Perhaps the most commonly used systems are the DIN system (often with ḏ̟
for ‫ظ‬, instead of ẓ) and the Library of Congress system (https://www.loc.gov/catdir/
cpso/romanization/arabic.pdf ), which is also used by the British Library.
The use of a more ad-hoc approach is illustrated by the transliteration of ‫ﺑﻌﺪان‬
as Ba’dan or Badan. The advantage of this approach is that the transliterated
form looks more like an English word; there are no obviously strange symbols
involved – although the transliteration may contain elements that are not standard
letters in English, an example in this case occurring in the first transliteration of
‫ﺑﻌﺪان‬, Ba’dan, which involves the use of the apostrophe. The disadvantage of the
ad-hoc approach is that the transliteration adopted may suggest a pronunciation of
the word in English that is very far from the pronunciation of the Arabic original.
The form Badan, for example, is supposed to render the Arabic ‫ ﺑﻌﺪان‬in this case.
However, the same English form could also correspond to Arabic forms, such as
‫ ﺑَﺪَن‬or ‫ ﺑﺎدَن‬or ‫ﺑَﺪان‬, etc.
Many Arabic proper names have transliteration-type English equivalents. For
instance, ‫ َﻋ ّﻤﺎن‬is standardly ‘Amman’. In other cases, the transliteration-type English equivalent is more localized. In many parts of the Middle East, the name ‫ﺣُﺴﯿﻦ‬
is standardly transcribed as ‘Hussein’, or ‘Hussain’; in North Africa, however,
where French is the dominant European language, the standard transcription is
‘Hoceine’.
Some Arabic proper names have standard indigenous English equivalents that
cannot properly be regarded as transliterations (e.g. ‘Cairo’ for ‫اﻟﻘﺎھﺮة‬, ‘Damascus’
for ‫)دﻣﺸﻖ‬. Other cases are even more complicated; for example, for ‫اﻟﺪار اﻟﺒﯿﻀﺎء‬,
English uses ‘Casablanca’ (i.e. the Spanish name for the city, of which the Arabic
is itself a calque).
Where there is a standard indigenous English equivalent, a translator would be
expected to use this, except where there is a compelling reason not to do so (e.g.
a need to introduce a greater degree of exoticism into the TL text than would be
conveyed by the use of the standard English TL equivalent). For further discussion
of cultural transposition in Arabic>English translation, see Dickins (2012).
Cultural transposition
43
Practical 4
Practical 4.1 Cultural transposition: ‫وﻗﺎدﺗﮫ ﺧﻄﻮاﺗﮫ‬
Assignment
Consider the following translation (St John 1999: 7–8). What different techniques
of cultural transposition does the translator use? What motivations might there be
for adopting these different approaches at different points in the translation?
Contextual information
This text is taken from the short story ‫ ﺣﻘﻞ اﻟﺒﻨﻔﺴﺞ‬by the Syrian writer ‫زﻛﺮﯾﺎ ﺗﺎﻣﺮ‬. In
this part of the story, the hero ‫ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‬is infatuated with an unknown young woman,
whom he briefly glimpsed in a field of violets, and dreams of winning her heart.
He is currently walking around in a confused daydream.
ST
‫ ﺗﺤﻠﻖ ﺣﻮﻟﮫ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ‬،‫ وﻛﺎن ﯾﺠﻠﺲ ﻓﻲ داﺧﻠﮫ ﺷﯿﺦ ﻟﮫ ﻟﺤﯿﺔ ﺑﯿﻀﺎء‬،‫وﻗﺎدﺗﮫ ﺧﻄﻮاﺗﮫ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺠﺪ ﻛﺒﯿﺮ‬
‫ وﺟﻤﯿﻊ اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎت ﻻ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ‬،‫ »ﷲ ھﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻛﻞ اﻷﺷﯿﺎء‬:‫ وﻛﺎن اﻟﺸﯿﺦ ﯾﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﷲ واﻟﺸﯿﻄﺎن‬.‫اﻟﺮﺟﺎل‬
«.‫ﺷﯿﺌﺎ إﻻ ﺑﺄﻣﺮه‬
.‫ إذن ﯾﺴﺘﻄﯿﻊ ﷲ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺗﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ أﻣﻨﯿﺘﻲ‬:‫ﻓﻘﺎل ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﮫ‬
.«‫ إﻧﮫ اﻟﺸﺮ‬.. ‫ إﺑﻠﯿﺲ ﻋﺪو اﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬: ‫وﻗﺎل اﻟﺸﯿﺦ‬
.«‫ »ﯾﺎ ﷲ‬: ‫ وﺗﮭﺘﻒ ﺿﺎرﻋﺔ‬،‫وﻏﺎدر ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ ﺑﯿﻨﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ دﻣﺎء ﺷﺮاﯾﯿﻨﮫ أﺻﻮاﺗﺎ ﺗﺘﻮﺳﻞ ﺑﻠﮭﻔﺔ‬
TT
His feet led him to a large mosque, and inside it sat a religious teacher with a
white beard. Several men were gathered round him and he was talking about
God and the Devil.
‘Allah is the Creator of all things, and no creature can do anything unless
He wills it.’
‘So Allah can help me realize my dream,’ said Mohammed to himself. The
teacher continued.
‘Satan is the enemy of Man – he is evil.’
Mohammed left the mosque, and as he did so, the blood in his veins became
a mass of imploring voices, calling out woefully: ‘Oh God.’
Practical 4.2 Cultural transposition: ‫وﯾﺒﺮز ﺣﺠﻢ اﻟﺤﻀﻮر اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﻲ‬
Assignment
Consider the following text and the incomplete TT following it, which is to appear
in the Peninsular Daily News, an English-language newspaper aimed at expatriate English speakers in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. In this TT, several culturally
‫‪Cultural transposition‬‬
‫‪44‬‬
‫‪specific, and other culturally related, terms have been left untranslated (and appear‬‬
‫‪in the incomplete TT in Arabic). Produce translations for these terms. For each‬‬
‫‪translation where you use a cultural translation technique, say which cultural trans‬‬‫‪position technique you have used, and explain why you used this technique.‬‬
‫‪Contextual information‬‬
‫‪ newspaper, 21 March 2007. It deals with Gulf‬اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ ‪This text is taken from‬‬
‫‪.‬إﯾﻤﺎن اﻟﺨﻄﺎب ‪tourists in the West and was written by‬‬
‫‪ST‬‬
‫وﯾﺒﺮز ﺣﺠﻢ اﻟﺤﻀﻮر اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﻲ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ واﺿﺢ ﺧﻼل ﻓﺼﻞ اﻟﺼﯿﻒ‪ ،‬ﺣﯿﺚ ﯾﺘﻮزع اﻟﺴﯿﺎح ﻓﻲ أﺷﮭﺮ‬
‫دول اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺑﺮﻓﻘﺔ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺘﮭﻢ اﻟﻤﺤﻠﯿﺔ‪ ،‬وأزﯾﺎﺋﮭﻢ اﻟﻼﻓﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮاء ﻟﻜﻮﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﻀﻢ اﻷﺷﻤﻐﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻮﻧﺔ واﻟﻌﺒﺎءات‬
‫اﻟﻤﻄﺮزة‪ ،‬أو اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻒ اﻟﻮاﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ ھﯿﺌﺘﮭﺎ وأﻧﺎﻗﺘﮭﺎ اﻟﺒﺎذﺧﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﯾﻔﻀﻞ اﻟﺸﺒﺎب واﻟﻔﺘﯿﺎت ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﯿﺚ‬
‫ﺗﻈﮭﺮ ھﺬه اﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻻﻓﺘﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﯿﺎن ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎل ﺗﺤﻮﻟﺖ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺘﺠﺮ ﺧﻠﯿﺠﻲ ﻣﺘﺤﺮك ﻟﻌﺮض أﺣﺪث ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺎت اﻟﺪور‬
‫اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﯿﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﻟﻢ ﯾﻌﺪ ﻏﺮﯾﺒﺎ ً أن ﯾﺮى زاﺋﺮ اﻟﻌﺎﺻﻤﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﺪن‪ ،‬اﻧﺘﺸﺎر اﻟﻤﺤﻼت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺼﺔ ﺑﺒﯿﻊ‬
‫»ﺑﺮطﻤﺎﻧﺎت« اﻟﻠﺒﻨﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺰﻋﺘﺮ واﻟﺒﮭﺎرات‪ ،‬واﻷرز اﻟﻤﺼﺮي‪ ،‬واﻟﻜﻔﺘﺔ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﺪة‪ ،‬وﺳﺎﻧﺪوﯾﺘﺸﺎت اﻟﻔﻮل‬
‫واﻟﻄﻌﻤﯿﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺮﻓﻊ ﻻﻓﺘﺎت ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻛـ»اﻟﻤﺄﻛﻮﻻت اﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﻧﯿﺔ«‪ ،‬و»اﻟﻮادي اﻷﺧﻀﺮ«‪،‬‬
‫و»اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻰ«‪ ،‬و»أﺳﻮاق اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ« ﺳﺎﻋﯿﺔ ﻟﺠﺬب اﻟﺴﯿﺎح اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﯿﯿﻦ ﻋﺒﺮ واﺟﮭﺎت ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﺣﻼل« ﻛﻨﺎﯾﺔ ﻋﻦ وﺟﻮد اﻟﺴﻠﻊ اﻟﻐﺬاﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺸﺮﯾﻌﺔ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﯿﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﯿﺚ ﯾﺒﻠﻎ ﺣﺠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻷﻏﺬﯾﺔ اﻟﺤﻼل داﺧﻞ اﻟﺴﻮق اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﻲ وﺣﺪه ﺣﻮاﻟﻰ أرﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻠﯿﺎرات دوﻻر‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﯿﺠﺔ اﻟﻄﻠﺐ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﺰاﯾﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻏﺬﯾﺔ اﻟﺤﻼل ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﻮات اﻷﺧﯿﺮة‪ .‬وﻛﻌﺎدة اﻟﻜﺜﯿﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪن اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺨﺘﺺ ﻟﻨﺪن ﺑﻮﺟﻮد‬
‫ﺷﺎرع ﻟﻠﻌﺮب وھﻮ »إدﺟﻮر رود« اﻟﺸﮭﯿﺮ ﺑﻀﻤﮫ ﺧﻠﯿﻄﺎ ً ﻣﻨﻮﻋﺎ ً ﻣﻦ اﻷﺟﻨﺎس اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻜﺜﻒ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﯿﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﻨﮭﺎ ﺧﻼل إﺟﺎزة اﻟﺼﯿﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﯿﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻛﺒﺎر اﻟﺴﻦ ﺑﺜﯿﺎﺑﮭﻢ اﻟﺒﯿﻀﺎء‪ ،‬ﻓﯿﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﻔﻨﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﺮاض اﻟﻄﺮح واﻟﻌﺒﺎءات واﻟﺘﻌﻄﺮ ﺑﺪھﻦ اﻟﻌﻮد اﻟﻨﺎﻓﺚ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻂ ﺑﺮاﺋﺤﺔ اﻷرﺟﯿﻠﺔ‬
‫واﻟﺸﻮاء اﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﯾﺮة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺎرع اﻟﺬي ﯾﺸﮭﺪ ﺗﺠﻤﻌﺎت ﻻ ﺗﻐﯿﺐ ﻋﻨﮭﺎ اﻟﻤﺸﺎﻛﻞ اﻷﻣﻨﯿﺔ واﻟﺴﺮﻗﺎت‪ ،‬واﻟﺬي‬
‫ﯾﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺧﻄﻮات ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﯾﻘﺔ اﻟـ»ھﺎﯾﺪ ﺑﺎرك« ﺣﯿﺚ ﻻ ﯾﻄﯿﺐ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﯿﺠﯿﯿﻦ اﻟﺘﻨﺰه ﻓﯿﮭﺎ إﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﺮاﺑﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎ ًء وﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﻐﯿﺐ اﻟﺸﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺘﺤﻮل ﻓﯿﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ إﻟﻰ رﻗﻌﺔ ﺧﻠﯿﺠﯿﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ .‬وﯾﺴﺘﻐﺮب اﻟﺰاﺋﺮ ﻣﺸﺎھﺪة‬
‫ﺻﻮر »اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺳﻂ« اﻟﻨﺴﺎﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﻮزﻋﺔ‪ ،‬ظﻨﺎ ً ﺑﺄﻧﮫ ﯾﻘﻒ ﻓﻲ أﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﺘﺰھﺎت ﻋﺴﯿﺮ أو رواﺑﻲ اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﯿﺲ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻗﻠﺐ اﻟﻌﺎﺻﻤﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﻟﻨﺪن!‬
‫‪TT‬‬
‫‪ tourists are most numerous in the summer. They gather in tourist areas‬اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﻲ‬
‫‪ culture and distinctive‬اﻟﻤﺤﻠﯿﺔ ‪throughout the world, bringing with them their‬‬
‫‪, and the chic and expensive‬ﻋﺒﺎءات ‪, embroidered‬اﻻﺷﻤﻐﺔ ‪dress – brightly coloured‬‬
‫‪clothing and accessories favoured by the young, whose display of the latest inter‬‬‫‪national designer goods gives them something of the air of mobile boutiques.‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺤﻼت ‪ to see Arab‬اﻟﻌﺎﺻﻤﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﺪن ‪It is not unusual for a visitor to‬‬
‫‪,‬ﻛﻔﺘﺔ ‪, Egyptian rice, frozen‬اﻟﺰﻋﺘﺮ واﻟﺒﮭﺎرات ‪ flavoured with‬ﻟﺒﻨﺔ ‪selling jars of‬‬
‫– ﺗﺮﻓﻊ ﻻﻓﺘﺎت ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ‪ sandwiches. Many shops‬طﻌﻤﯿﺔ ‪ and‬اﻟﻔﻮل ‪or‬‬
‫‪’, and, in an‬اﺳﻮاق اﻟﺸﺮق اﻻوﺳﻂ‘‪,‬اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻲ ‪’,‬اﻟﻮادي اﻷﺧﻀﺮ‘ ‪’,‬اﻟﻤﺄﻛﻮﻻت اﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﻧﯿﺔ‘‬
‫‪ is prominently dis‬ﺣﻼل ‪attempt to attract tourists from the Gulf, the word‬‬‫‪ are‬اﻻﻏﺬﯾﺔ اﻟﺤﻼل‪. In fact,‬ﻛﻨﺎﯾﺔ ﻋﻦ وﺟﻮد اﻟﺴﻠﻊ اﻟﻐﺬاﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺸﺮﯾﻌﺔ اﻻﺳﻼﻣﯿﺔ‪played ،‬‬
Cultural transposition
45
now worth about two billion pounds annually in Britain alone, and demand
for ‫ اﻻﻏﺬﯾﺔ اﻟﺤﻼل‬has increased exponentially in recent years.
Like many ‫ﻣﺪن اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‬, London has ‫ – إدﺟﻮر رود – ﺷﺎرع ﻟﻠﻌﺮب‬frequented by ً ‫ﺧﻠﯿﻄﺎ‬
‫ اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﯿﯿﻦ‬.‫ ﻣﻨﻮﻋﺎ ً ﻣﻦ اﻷﺟﻨﺎس اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‬are particularly in evidence in the summer
holidays – old men ‫ﺑﺜﯿﺎﺑﮭﻢ اﻟﺒﯿﻀﺎء‬, and ‫ اﻟﺠﻠﯿﺠﯿﺎت‬sporting ‫ اﻟﻄﺮح‬and ‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎءات‬. In
this crowded and rather unsafe street where theft is commonplace, the smell
of ‫ اﻟﺘﻌﻄﺮ ﺑﺪھﻦ اﻟﻌﻮد اﻟﻨﺎﻓﺚ‬mixes with ‫ راﺋﺤﺔ اﻷرﺟﯿﻠﺔ‬and ‫اﻟﺸﻮاء اﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﯾﺮة‬. «‫»إدﺟﻮر رود‬
is only a few hundred yards from ‫ﺣﺪﯾﻘﺔ اﻟـﮭﺎﯾﺪ ﺑﺎرك‬, where many ‫ اﻟﺨﻠﯿﺠﯿﯿﻦ‬like to
stroll between late afternoon and sunset, turning the whole area into ‫رﻗﻌﺔ ﺧﻠﯿﺠﯿﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‬. Seeing ‫»اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺳﻂ« اﻟﻨﺴﺎﺋﯿﺔ‬, the visitor might imagine that he is in ‫ ﻋﺴﯿﺮ‬or
‫ اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺔ‬rather than in the heart of ‫!اﻟﻌﺎﺻﻤﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﻟﻨﺪن‬
Practical 4.3 Cultural transposition: ‫وﺣﯿﻦ ﻛﺎن ﯾﺴﺘﺮد أﻧﻔﺎﺳﮫ‬
Assignment
(i) Discuss the strategic decisions that you must take before starting detailed
translation of the following text, and outline and justify the strategy you
adopt. You are to translate the text as part of a collection of translations of
short stories by ‫ﯾﻮﺳﻒ إدرﯾﺲ‬, which you are producing. The intended readership consists of educated native English speakers with general knowledge
of the Arab world but no specific expertise in Arabic or Islamic culture.
Accordingly, the translation is expected to be readily understandable to the
target audience. However, it should attempt to avoid extreme deviations
from the source culture (cultural transplantation).
(ii) Translate the text into English.
(iii) Explain the main decisions of detail you made in producing your TT.
Contextual information
The text is taken from ‫ﻣﺸﻮار‬, a short story by the Egyptian writer ‫ﯾﻮﺳﻒ إدرﯾﺲ‬
(1954: 140) about a village policeman, ‫اﻟﺸﺒﺮاوي‬, who is detailed to take a deranged
woman, ‫زﺑﯿﺪة‬, from her home in the Delta to a mental hospital in Cairo. ‫ اﻟﺸﺒﺮاوي‬has
become detained in Cairo, and it is now evening. ‫ اﻟﺸﺒﺮاوي‬has been thinking about
what he can do with ‫ زﺑﯿﺪة‬overnight. At this point in the story, the two characters
find themselves caught up in the popular Sufi ceremonies that regularly take place
by the mosque of ‫( اﻟﺴﯿﺪة زﯾﻨﺐ‬who was a granddaughter of the Prophet) in central
Cairo.
This text contains several features that are taken from Egyptian Arabic. In this
regard, you may find the following information useful:
‫ﺣُﺮْ ﻣﮫ‬
This means ‘woman’ as well as ‘sanctity’, ‘inviolability’ in both Standard Arabic and colloquial Egyptian. However, it is more commonly
used to mean ‘woman’ in Egyptian. As the double meaning ‘inviolability/woman’ suggests, the word carries strong cultural associations on
46
Cultural transposition
‫ِﺣﺴْﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺮاﺣﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﷲ‬
the status of women in Egyptian society. The rendering of the feminine
suffix as ‫ ـﮫ‬here, rather than ‫ـﺔ‬, indicates the colloquialism.
In Standard Arabic, ‫ ِﺣﺴْﺒﺔ‬means ‘arithmetical problem, sum’ (Wehr),
but in Egyptian colloquial, it has the sense of ‘calculation’. Here, what
is meant is the cost of the hotel.
In Standard Arabic, this means ‘leisurely, gently, slowly, at one’s ease’
(Wehr). Here, the author has used the phrase in the more colloquial
sense of ‘at least’.
The phrase ‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﷲ‬is used in Egyptian Arabic ‘to imply misgiving about
an outcome’ (Badawi and Hinds 1986). ‫ ﺣﻜﺎﯾﺔ‬in Egyptian Arabic can
mean ‘matter’, ‘affair’ (as well as ‘story’). Here, what seems to be
meant is that ‫ اﻟﺸﺒﺮاوي‬can’t afford the hotel.
ST
‫ وزﺑﯿﺪة ﺣﺮﻣﮫ‬،‫ وﻟﻜﻨﮫ ﻧﺒﺬھﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺎل ﻓﮭﻤﺎ اﺛﻨﺎن‬،‫وﺣﯿﻦ ﻛﺎن ﯾﺴﺘﺮد أﻧﻔﺎﺳﮫ ﻻﺣﺖ ﻟﮫ ﻓﻜﺮة اﻟﻠﻮﻛﺎﻧﺪة‬
.‫ واﻟﺤﻜﺎﯾﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﷲ‬،‫ واﻟﺤﺴﺒﺔ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮاﺣﺔ ﺧﻤﺴﻮن ﺳﺘﻮن ﻗﺮﺷﺎ‬،‫وﺧﻄﺮة‬
‫ اﻟﺤﯿﺎء ﯾﻤﻨﻌﮫ ﻣﻦ‬،‫وﻟﻢ ﯾﺒﺘﻌﺪ اﻟﺸﺒﺮاوي ﻛﺜﯿﺮا ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺮﺑﻊ أﻣﺎم ﺟﺎﻣﻊ اﻟﺴﯿﺪة وﺟﺬﺑﮭﺎ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺗﮭﺎوت ﺑﺠﺎﻧﺒﮫ‬
‫ وﻛﺎن ﻣﺠﺎذﯾﺐ اﻟﺴﯿﺪة ﺣﻮﻟﮭﻤﺎ‬،‫ وﺑﺆﺳﮫ‬.. ‫اﻟﺒﻜﺎء ﻓﻠﻢ ﯾﻜﻦ ﯾﻌﺘﻘﺪ أن اﻧﺴﺎﻧﺎ آﺧﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻟﮫ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻌﺎﺳﺘﮫ‬
‫ وﺣﯿﻦ زﻏﺮدت زﺑﯿﺪة ﺿﺎع ﺻﻮﺗﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻤﺘﻤﺔ اﻟﺸﯿﻮخ وﺑﺴﻤﻠﺘﮭﻢ وزﻗﺰﻗﺔ اﻟﻨﺴﺎء ودواﻣﺎت‬،‫ﻛﺎﻟﻨﻤﻞ‬
.. ‫اﻟﺬﻛﺮ‬
Practical 4.4 Cultural transposition: ‫وﻟﯿﺲ ھﻨﺎك إﺧﺼﺎﺋﻲ‬
Assignment
(i) Discuss the strategic decisions that you must take before starting detailed
translation of the following text, and outline and justify the strategy you
adopt. You are to translate the text as part of a brochure for a British museum
exhibition on folk customs in Sudan. The intended readership of the brochure
will be museum visitors who do not necessarily know anything about Sudan.
(ii) Translate the text into English.
(iii) Explain the decisions of detail you made in producing your translation.
(iv) Underline any words and phrases that raised cultural issues in your
translation. Now, produce a translation of this first paragraph aimed not
at the general museum-going public but for an academic journal whose
readership is expected to have specialist existing knowledge of Sudanese
culture.
Contextual information
The text is taken from a book titled ‫ اﻟﺸﻠﻮخ‬by the Sudanese academic ‫ﯾﻮﺳﻒ ﻓﻀﻞ ﺣﺴﻦ‬
(1986: 51–52). This book is a study of the origins and social significance of the
traditional custom of ‘scarification’ (‫ )اﻟﺘﺸﻠﯿﺦ‬in northern Sudan: that is, the making
of long cuts (normally either vertical or horizontal) into people’s cheeks with a
Cultural transposition
47
sharp blade or razor in order to produce a lasting scar on the face. A scar produced
in this way is called a ‫ َﺷﻠِﺦ‬or ‫( ﺷ َْﻠﺨﺔ‬plural ‫)ﺷﻠﻮخ‬. The action of producing the scar is
referred to in this book as ‫( ﻓﺼﺎدة‬cf. Wehr for general senses of ‫)ﻓﺼﺪ‬.
Boys typically underwent scarification around the age of five, and girls around
the age of ten. The custom of scarification has in effect died out in the last few
decades (although it may still persist in some very isolated rural communities).
The second paragraph of this extract begins with a recapitulation of some ideas
that have been discussed just prior to the extract itself (hence the opening phrase
‫)ﻧﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ ھﺬا ﻛﻠﮫ‬.
You may also find the following information useful:
‫اﻟﺪاﻣﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺠﻌﻠﯿﯿﻦ‬
‫َﻋﺒّﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺸﺎﯾﻘﯿﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺎب اﻟﺠﻤﻞ‬
‫طﺮﯾﻘﺔ‬
‘Ed Damer’: town on the Nile, north of Khartoum.
‘the Ja’aliyyin’: large tribal grouping in northern Sudan (sg. ‫)ﺟﻌﻠﻲ‬.
– refers to the tracing of ancestry to the paternal uncle of the Prophet
‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎس ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻤﻄﻠﺐ‬.
‘the Shaygiyya’: tribe in northern Sudan. The Shaygiyya are sometimes classified as part of the Ja’aliyyin.
– a system of numerical representation that predates the introduction of Arabic numerals (‫ )اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﮭﻨﺪﯾﺔ‬in the Arab world. Each letter
represents a particular number. Accordingly, by adding together the
numerical values of each of the letters that make up a particular
word, it is possible to calculate a numerical value for the entire word.
‘religious brotherhood, dervish order’ (Wehr).
ST
‫ إذ اﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ أن ﯾﻘﻮم ﺑﮭﺎ اﻟﺤﺠّﺎم أو اﻟﻤﺰﯾﻦ‬.‫وﻟﯿﺲ ھﻨﺎك اﺧﺼﺎﺋﻲ ﻣﻌﻠﻮم ﯾﻨﻔﺮد ﺑﺈﺟﺮاء ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺎت اﻟﻔﺼﺎدة‬
‫ وھﻨﺎك ﻣﻦ اﺷﺘﮭﺮوا ﺑﺈﺟﺮاء ھﺬه اﻟﻌﻤﻠﯿﺔ ﻟﺤﺴﻦ أداﺋﮭﻢ‬.‫أو اﻟﺒﺼﯿﺮ )اﻟﻄﺒﯿﺐ اﻟﺒﻠﺪي( أو اﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ وأﻣﺜﺎﻟﮭﻢ‬
‫ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻨﺖ اﻟﻤﺰﯾﻦ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﯿﺶ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪاﻣﺮ ﻓﻲ أواﺳﻂ ھﺬا اﻟﻘﺮن وﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺒﻠﺔ ﻟﻜﺜﯿﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮاﻏﺒﺎت‬،‫ﻟﮭﺎ‬
.‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﻠﻮخ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺎطﻖ اﻟﻤﺠﺎورة‬
‫ ﻋﺪا اﻟﺸﺎﯾﻘﯿﺔ ﻗﺪ اﻗﺘﺒﺴﺖ اﻟﺸﻠﻮخ اﻟﻌﻤﻮدﯾﺔ‬،‫ﻧﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ ھﺬا ﻛﻠﮫ اﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺠﻌﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﺒﺎﺳﯿﺔ‬
‫ وﯾﻘﻮل ﺑﻌﺾ‬.‫اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻘﻠﯿﺪ ﻗﺪﯾﻢ ﻛﺎن ﺳﺎﺋﺪا ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﻨﺎطﻖ وان ھﺬه اﻟﺸﻠﻮخ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻤﯿﯿﺰ‬
،‫ اﺣﺪ أﺳﻤﺎء ﷲ اﻟﺤﺴﻨﻰ‬،‫اﻟﺠﻌﻠﯿﯿﻦ ان اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﺧﻄﻮط اﻟﻌﻤﻮدﯾﺔ أي ااا – ﻣﺎﺋﺔ واﺣﺪى ﻋﺸﺮ ﺗﻌﻨﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻲ‬
‫ وﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﻮء ﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﻨﺎ اﻟﯿﮫ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺪم ھﺬه اﻟﺸﻠﻮخ اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﺧﻄﻮط اﻟﻌﻤﻮدﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ‬.‫اذا اﺳﻘﻄﺖ ﺑﺤﺴﺎب اﻟﺠﻤﻞ‬
.‫ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻓﺈن ھﺬا اﻟﺘﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ‬
‫ ﻓﺈن اﻟﺠﻌﻠﯿﯿﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺮﻓﻮا‬،‫وﻣﻊ أن ﻛﻠﻤﺘﻲ )ﻣﺸﻠﺦ ﺟﻌﻠﻲ( ﺗﺸﯿﺮان اﺳﺎﺳﺎ ً اﻟﻰ اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﺧﻄﻮط اﻟﻌﻤﻮدﯾﺔ‬
‫ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺮوف‬H ‫ وﻣﻦ أﺷﮭﺮ ھﺬه اﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎت )اﻟﺴﻠﻢ( ذو اﻟﺪرﺟﺔ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪة وھﻮ ﻛﺎﻟﺤﺮف أﺗﺶ‬.‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎت ﺗﻤﯿﯿﺰ أﺧﺮى‬
‫( ﻣﻨﺸﺊ‬۱۸۲٤-۱۸۷٤) ‫ [ وﯾﺴﻤﻲ اﻟﺒﻌﺾ ھﺬا اﻟﺸﻠﺦ ﺑﺴُﻠﱠﻢ اﻟﺸﯿﺦ اﻟﻄﯿﺐ اﻟﺒﺸﯿﺮ اﻟﺠﻤﻮﻋﻲ‬. . . ] ‫اﻟﻼﺗﯿﻨﯿﺔ‬
.‫اﻟﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻮدان‬
5
Compensation
5.1
Basic principles
In Section 4.3, we referred to the need on some occasions to palliate the effects of
the use of calque by some form of compensation. The example we gave was the
insertion of ‘You know the saying’ before ‘A day for you, a day against you’ to
make it clear that this is a proverb and not an original formulation. This example
is the tip of the iceberg. Compensation, in one or another of its many forms, is
absolutely crucial to successful translation. In this chapter, we shall look more
closely at what compensation is and is not and at a few of the forms it can take.
To introduce the question, we shall take examples from the last sentence of the
ST in Practical 4.3 from the short story ‫ إدرﯾﺲ( ﻣﺸﻮار‬1954: 127):
‫ وﺣﯿﻦ زﻏﺮدت زﺑﯿﺪة ﺿﺎع ﺻﻮﺗﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻤﺘﻤﺔ اﻟﺸﯿﻮخ وﺑﺴﻤﻠﺘﮭﻢ‬،‫[ ﻛﺎن ﻣﺠﺎذﯾﺐ اﻟﺴﯿﺪة ﺣﻮﻟﮭﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻟﻨﻤﻞ‬. . .]
.. ‫وزﻗﺰﻗﺔ اﻟﻨﺴﺎء ودواﻣﺎت اﻟﺬﻛﺮ‬
A possible translation of ‫ زﻏﺮدت‬in this extract is ‘let out a ululation’. This would
maintain a certain foreignness, the assumption being that even a reader who did
not know what a ululation was in the context of women’s behaviour in social
gatherings in Egypt would be able to guess that it was some sort of culture-specific
vocal sound. However, in a different context, or with a different readership, this
assumption might not be justified – ‘ululation’ could sound facetious or comic.
These effects would be a betrayal of the ST effects and therefore count as a serious translation loss. The loss could be palliated by adding an exegetic element (cf.
Section 1.3) along the lines ‘let out a ululation as women do at times of great joy’.
This does not make the idea of ululation any less unfamiliar in itself, but it does
make the unfamiliarity less likely to have a misleading effect. This exegetic translation is a simple example of compensation: that is, mitigating the loss of important
ST features by approximating their effects in the TT through means other than
those used in the ST. In other words, one type of translation loss is palliated by
the deliberate introduction of another that is considered less unacceptable by the
translator. So, in our example, adding ‘as women do at times of great joy’ incurs
great translation loss in terms of economy, denotative meaning (cf. Chapter 7) and
cultural presupposition, but this is accepted because it significantly reduces an
Compensation
49
even greater loss in terms of message content. It is important to note the ad-hoc,
one-off element in compensation: this is what distinguishes it from constraint, as
we shall see in a moment.
Translators make this sort of compromise all the time, balancing loss against
loss in order to do most justice to what, in a given ST, they think is most important. Our main aim in this book is to encourage student translators to make these
compromises as a result of deliberate decisions taken in the light of such factors
as the nature and purpose of the ST, the purpose of the TT, the nature and needs of
the target public and so on. In making these decisions, it is vital to remember that
compensation is not a matter of inserting any elegant-sounding phrase into a TT to
counterbalance any weaknesses that may have crept in but of countering a specific,
clearly defined, serious loss with a specific, clearly defined less serious one.
To discern the parameters of compensation a bit more clearly, we can begin by
looking at another expression in the extract from ‫ ﻣﺸﻮار‬cited earlier, the final two
words ‫دواﻣﺎت اﻟﺬﻛﺮ‬. There is a double difficulty here.
The first difficulty is the word ‫ذﻛﺮ‬. In a Sufi context, ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬involves chanting a
religious phrase, typically ‫ ﷲ‬or one of the other names of God. In this context, this
would be a communal practice. A transliteration of ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬as a cultural borrowing – for
example, ‘dhikr’ – would be incomprehensible to any but a specialist reader. An
exegetic translation would be clearer – for example, ‘communal invocations of the
name of God’. This rendering is like a dictionary entry, a paraphrase that defines
the term ‫ذﻛﺮ‬, for which there is no conventional lexical equivalent in English (cf.
the definition in Wehr of ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬in Sufism as ‘incessant repetition of certain words
or formulas in praise of God, often accompanied by music and dancing’). Such a
translation incurs notable translation loss in that it is less economical and semantically less precise than the ST ‫ذﻛﺮ‬, but this loss is not as serious as the obscurity of
English ‘dhikr’ would be.
We can use this case to explore the boundary between compensation and
constraint. This is a less straightforward example of compensation than was the
exegetic translation of ‫زﻏﺮد‬. ‘Ululate’ is a fairly common lexical equivalent for
‫ – زﻏﺮد‬although we may note that even this involves semantic distortion. Collins
English Dictionary defines ‘ululate’ as ‘to howl or wail, as with grief’, and the
word is derived from the Latin ulula ‘screech owl’, which suggests a sound rather
different from the ‘ululation’ of women in the Middle East. Nonetheless, given
that ‘ululate’ is commonly used to translate ‫زﻏﺮد‬, the translator can freely choose
whether to use it on its own and accept the slight obscurity and the misleading
connotations or to minimize these by introducing a different loss in terms of
denotative meaning and economy. ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬is different. To the extent that ‘dhikr’ is not
feasible, the translator has no choice but to paraphrase. In principle, where there
is no choice, there is constraint, not compensation. In our example, of course,
there is still an element of choice in that it is the translator who decides what the
paraphrase will be; to this extent, there is an element of compensation in the translation. This would change if the paraphrase became the conventional TL rendering
of ‫ذﻛﺮ‬. Once a rendering has entered the bilingual dictionary as a conventional
lexical equivalent, using it is not a case of compensation. Thus, if the dictionary
50
Compensation
gave the meaning of ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬as ‘communal invocation of the name of God’, and if
this were standardly used as this equivalent in English, using this rendering in a
TT would not be an instance of compensation but of constraint – there would be
little option but to adopt the conventional rendering.
The boundary between compensation and constraint is more clearly seen in
communicative translations. For example, if we can imagine the very first time
‫ زاد اﻟﻄﯿﻦ ﺑﻠﺔ‬was translated as ‘it made matters worse’, this was a case of compensation: the calque ‘it increased the clay moistness’ is, effectively, ungrammatical
and meaningless. The first translator was prepared to incur major semantic and
grammatical loss in order to avoid meaninglessness, an even greater loss. This was
a resourceful piece of compensation. Since then, however, in so far as the communicative translation is mandatory, the translator is not exercising true choice
but simply identifying the conventionally correct translation.
Of course, the translator may decide that, in a given context, adopting the conventional dictionary translation would incur unacceptable translation loss. If the
conventional translation is modified in order to palliate the loss, this may well be
a case of compensation. To return to our earlier example from ‫ﻣﺸﻮار‬, two key elements in the sentence as a whole are ‫‘ ﻛﺎن ]ﻣﺠﺎذﯾﺐ اﻟﺴﯿﺪة ﺣﻮﻟﮭﻤﺎ[ ﻛﺎﻟﻨﻤﻞ‬teemed like ants’
(the implication of ‘communal’) and the clashing noise of many voices (‫زﻏﺮدت‬
‘[let out a] ululation’, ‫‘ ﺗﻤﺘﻤﺔ‬murmuring’, ‫‘ زﻗﺰﻗﺔ‬chirping’ and ‫‘ ذﻛﺮ‬invocations’).
Supposing the dictionary gives ‘communal invocations of the name of God’ as the
conventional translation of ‫ذﻛﺮ‬. It may be felt, in this particular context, that ‘invocations’ would be too abstract, denoting a particular mode of relationship with God
and losing the stress on ‘voice’ that is conveyed in the ST implication of ‘chanting’. The translator might then decide on a new rendering of ‫ذﻛﺮ‬. One possibility
is ‘communal chanting(s) of the name of God’, which keeps both elements but
loses that of ‘throng of people’. A third possibility is to keep all three elements, as
in ‘communal chanted invocations’ or ‘chanted communal invocations’, but these
collocations (cf. Section 8.6) sound odd in English, more like technical definitions
than expressive descriptions. This loss in idiomaticity might be avoided by conflating ‘communal’ and ‘chanting’ into a single verb, as in ‘chorusing invocations of
the name of God’; the loss here is that the element of musicality that is typically
present in ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬is at best only implicit: a chorus of voices does not necessarily sing –
it can just as easily be speaking or shouting.
All of these alternatives therefore incur significant loss. But to the extent that
each is a one-off, unpredictable translation, created to meet the demands of a
specific context, they are all instances of compensation rather than of constraint.
Whichever one is chosen, the translator is balancing loss against loss in an attempt
to preserve in the TT the textual effects that are deemed most important in this
particular ST, even though they are produced there by different means.
The second difficulty posed by ‫ دواﻣﺎت اﻟﺬﻛﺮ‬is the use of ‫‘ دواﻣﺎت‬whirlpools’ as the
first part of this genitive structure. The metaphor is clear, vivid and appropriate,
fitting in well with the imagery of throng (especially the teeming ants) and noise
of many voices. But a literal translation, such as ‘whirlpool of communal invocations’, is inelegant (where the ST is not) and perhaps somewhat obscure. It could
Compensation
51
even be positively misleading, with a connotation of ‘fast and short’, via collocative meanings (Section 8.6) of ‘whirlwind’ – cf. ‘whirlwind campaign/romance/
tour’, etc. The temptation is strong to drop the image, accept the loss, operate a
grammatical transposition and use an adjective like ‘ceaseless’ or ‘unceasing’.
‘Eddying’ would be closer than these in terms of denotative meaning, but ‘eddying
of communal invocations’ is almost as obscure as ‘whirlpool of communal invocations’; any sense it does make is too gentle and decorative. Yet the whirlpool image
is too important in this text to be surrendered without a fight. Can it be preserved
through compensation? In such cases, it is always worth looking to see where else
in the clause, sentence or paragraph the image might be fitted in, without loss of
coherence or idiomaticity and without too great a loss of ST textual effect. The
essential point is that Zubaida’s voice is lost in a whirlpool of other voices. One
possibility is therefore to combine grammatical transposition and a change of place
in the sentence. Here are two alternatives for discussion:
. . . her voice was whirled away among the pious murmurings . . .
. . . her voice was whirled away, lost among the pious murmurings . . .
Another possibility is to keep the noun ‘whirlpool’, but to apply it to all the voices:
. . . when Zubaida let out a ululation, it was lost in a whirlpool of voices, the
pious murmurings, . . .
In all three versions, the specific application of ‫ دواﻣﺎت‬to ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬is lost, and the grammar is changed. But at least the strategic connection between teeming people and
whirling voices is kept. In any case, the adjective ‘ceaseless’ can still be applied
to whatever rendering is chosen for ‫ذﻛﺮ‬: if this is done, the ST emphasis on the
insistent presence of the invocations/chants is kept, as they are marked apart from
the murmurings and cries/chirpings. There is thus, in the sentence as a whole,
grammatical loss and a loss in semantic precision; but there would have been a
far greater loss if ‘whirlpool’ had been applied to ‘invocations’ or if it had been
dropped altogether. Each of these three alternatives is a good example of compensation: although the ST effects are not preserved completely, far less of them is
lost than would have been the case if the translator had not introduced the specific,
anodyne losses we have outlined.
5.2
Categories of compensation
In discussing TTs, it is sometimes helpful to distinguish between different categories of compensation. We shall suggest three. Remember, however, that most cases
of compensation belong to more than one category. The most important thing is
not to agonize over what label to give to an instance of compensation but to be
clear what loss it compensates for and how it does so. Remember, too, that the
question of how to compensate can never be considered in and of itself in isolation
from other crucial factors: context, style, genre, the purpose of the ST and the TT.
52
Compensation
Compensation is needed whenever consideration of these factors confronts the
translator with inevitable, but unwelcome, compromise. Simply put, it is a less
unwelcome compromise. It usually entails a difference in kind between the ST
textual effect and the TT textual effect. We shall call this compensation in kind,
which can take many forms. For instance, it may involve making explicit what is
implicit in the ST or making implicit what is explicit. Denotative meaning may
have to replace connotative meaning and vice versa. Compensation may involve
substituting concrete for abstract or abstract for concrete. It nearly always involves
different parts of speech and syntactic structures from those indicated by literal
translation. In some texts, compensation in kind might involve replacing a piece
of Classical Arabic poetry by an analogous piece of English poetry. An ST pun
may have to be replaced with a different form of word play. All of these sorts of
substitutions may be confined to single words, but they more usually extend to
whole phrases, sentences or even paragraphs. Sometimes, a whole text is affected.
For instance, quite apart from lexical or grammatical considerations, if a poem
is heavily marked by rhyme and assonance, and the translator decides that for
some reason rhyme and assonance would lead to unacceptable translation loss,
compensation might consist of heavily marking the TT with rhythm and alliteration instead.
The compensation examples we have discussed so far are various sorts of compensation in kind. Here is another, taken from a translation of the opening two
paragraphs of the short story ‫ ﻧﺨﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﺪول‬by the Sudanese writer ‫اﻟﻄﯿﺐ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ‬.
This section consists of an exchange between Sheikh Mahjoub and Hussein the
Merchant, who wants to buy the produce of his date palm. What is striking about
Hussein the Merchant’s speech is that it uses Standard Arabic (and a rather formal
version of Standard Arabic at that), whereas almost all the other dialogue in the
story uses Sudanese colloquial. The use of Standard Arabic here is intended to
emphasize the haughtiness of Hussein the Merchant, clearly distinguishing his
character from others within the short story. The original Arabic reads:
«‫»ﯾﻔﺘﺢ ﷲ‬
‫ واﻧﺖ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻌﺪ‬،‫ وﻏﺪًا اﻟﻌﯿﺪ‬.‫ وﺗﺼﻠﺢ ﺑﮭﺎ ﺣﺎﻟﻚ‬،‫ ﺗﺤﻞ ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﻣﻦ دﯾﻦ‬،‫»ﻋﺸﺮون ﺟﻨﯿﮭﺎ ﯾﺎ رﺟﻞ‬
.«‫ ﻓﺎن ھﺬه اﻟﻨﺨﻠﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺎوي ﻋﺸﺮة ﺟﻨﯿﮭﺎت‬،‫ﻛﺒﺶ اﻟﻀﺤﯿﺔ! واﻗﺴﻢ ﻟﻮﻻ اﻧﻨﻲ ارﯾﺪ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺗﻚ‬
This has been translated (Montgomery 1994: 21) as:
‘No deal!’
‘Look here my man, with twenty pounds you could settle your debts and
make your life a lot easier. The Eid festival is tomorrow and you haven’t
even bought a sacrificial lamb yet. As I would not ordinarily pay more than
ten pounds for a date palm like this, I would like to think that I am being of
some assistance to you.’
The style of this translation is somewhat formal and stilted and is hardly typical
of everyday spoken English – take for instance ‘my man’ (for ‫)ﯾﺎ رﺟﻞ‬, ‘ordinarily’
Compensation
53
(where ‘normally’ might be expected) and ‘I am being of some assistance to you’
(for ‫)ارﯾﺪ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺗﻚ‬. This is deliberate compensation in kind; whereas Hussein the
Merchant’s haughtiness is conveyed in the Arabic by the use of Standard Arabic,
in English it is conveyed by the use of a rather stuffy register.
Compensation also usually entails change of place, the TT textual effect occurring at a different place, relative to the other features in the TT, from the corresponding textual effect in the ST. We shall call this compensation in place.
Moving ‘whirlpool’ so that it qualifies ‘murmurings’ and ‘cries’ as well as ‘invocations’ is a good example. And, as in the same example, compensation very often
involves both change in kind and change in place. Here is another example, from
the story ‫ اﻟﻨﺎر واﻟﻤﺎء‬by ‫زﻛﺮﯾﺎ ﺗﺎﻣﺮ‬. The ST phrase ‫اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮭﺎ وﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﺧﻮّﻓﻲ اﺧﻮﺗﻲ اﻟﺼﻐﺎر ﻓﮭﻢ‬
‫ ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻔﺎرﯾﺖ‬has been translated as ‘You can put it on and frighten my naughty little
brothers’ (St John 1999: 29). Here, the prepositional phrase ‫ ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻔﺎرﯾﺖ‬is not translated literally, ‘like devils’: grammatically, ‘my little brothers for they are like
devils’ would not fit in idiomatically; and semantically, it would give a sense of
evil not intended in the ST. So the translator has made use of compensation in
kind, replacing the Arabic clause ‫ ﻓﮭﻢ ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻔﺎرﯾﺖ‬by an appropriate English adjective
‘naughty’. This compensation in kind, however, also involves compensation in
place; the clause ‫ ﻓﮭﻢ ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻔﺎرﯾﺖ‬of the ST is lost from its position after the noun in
the ST, to be rendered by an adjective before the noun in the TT. That is, while a
literal translation (‘for they are like devils’) would entail unacceptable grammatical and semantic loss, omitting the idea altogether would be just as unacceptable;
the TT introduces grammatical and semantic changes (and therefore losses), but
these are compensated for because the changes preserve the idiomaticity and the
essential message content.
Another example of compensation in place occurs in ‫ اﻟﺴﯿﺪ وﻣﺮاﺗﮫ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺼﺮ‬by ‫ﺑﯿﺮم‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮﻧﺴﻲ‬. This is a play, written in the 1930s in Egyptian colloquial Arabic, about
the return to Egypt of an Egyptian couple who have spent the last few years in
Paris. This example occurs where the wife is complaining about the treatment she
receives from a female Egyptian customs official. The wife says: ‫ﯾﺎﻣﺎ اﻧﺎ ﻣﻨﻜﺎدة ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺮة اﻟﺨﻨﺰﯾﺮة اﻟﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻤﺮك دي‬. This is translated as: ‘Really, it’s just that woman at
the customs got my goat by being piggish to me’ (Foreman 1996: 35). Here, the
translator has chosen not to translate the phrase ‫ اﻟﻤﺮة اﻟﺨﻨﺰﯾﺮة‬as ‘piggish woman’,
or even ‘pig of a woman’, but has opted for compensation in place ‘by being piggish to me’ (as well as introducing a pun of his own – that is, a further element of
compensation in kind – through the use of ‘has got my goat’).
Another example of compensation in place and kind in ‫ اﻟﺴﯿﺪ وﻣﺮاﺗﮫ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺼﺮ‬by ‫ﺑﯿﺮم‬
‫ اﻟﺘﻮﻧﺴﻲ‬occurs when the wife adopts a pseudo-French style of broken Arabic as she
is discussing how a French woman might view Egypt:
.. ‫ وﯾﻨﺎم زي واﺧﺪ طﻮر‬.. ‫ ﯾﺎﻛﻞ زي واﺧﺪ ﺧﻤﺎر‬.. ‫أﯾﻮه ﺑﻘﺖ ﺗﻘﻮل ﻟﮫ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻛﻠﮫ ﻧﺎس وﺳﺨﯿﻦ ﻛﺘﯿﺮ‬
. ‫ اﻟﺴﺘﺎت ھﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﮫ ﯾﺮﻣﻲ اﻟﻜﻨﺎﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺮﺑﯿﺎت ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺻﺔ‬.. ‫واﻟﺪﻧﯿﺎ ھﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﮫ ﻛﻨﺎﺳﺔ ﻛﺘﯿﺮ ﻛﺘﯿﺮ‬
The ST here includes pseudo-Frenchisms on both the phonic level and the grammatical level. Phonically, we find ‫ خ‬for ‫ واﺧﺪ( ح‬for ‫ واﺣﺪ‬twice; ‫ ﺧﻤﺎر‬for ‫ )ﺣﻤﺎر‬and
54
Compensation
also ‫ ط‬for ‫ طﻮر( ت‬for ‫)ﺗﻮر‬. Grammatically, we find other features felt to be typical
of native French speakers (e.g. lack of proper gender agreement). These effects
cannot be copied exactly in English, because English is too different from Arabic
phonically and grammatically. But to lose them from the TT would be unacceptable – the text would be pointless without them. Accordingly, the translator (Foreman 1996: 35) renders this speech as:
– Yes, she’d say to me that Egypt is full of extremely feelthy people zey eat
and zey sleep like zee peeg and zat everywhere round here is covered in garbage. In France all zee garbage is throuwn on zee dust cart.
The translator has mimicked the pronunciation of English by French speakers (or
at least this pronunciation as it is popularly presented); so ‘feelthy’ for ‘filthy’,
‘zey’ for ‘they’, ‘zee’ for ‘the’, ‘peeg’ for ‘pig’, etc. He has also introduced some
grammatical errors typically made in English by French speakers – for example,
‘zey eat and zey sleep like zee peeg’ instead of ‘they eat and sleep like pigs’. The
pseudo-French forms of the TT, however, do not precisely mirror those of the ST.
There is thus a touch of cultural transplantation (Section 4.4), and it amounts to
compensation in kind and in place: ST phonic and grammatical features are lost,
but the textual effects are largely restored by other means and in other places in
the TT.
Compensation also often involves a change in ‘economy’, ST features being
spread over a longer length of TT. We shall call this compensation by splitting. Compensation by splitting very often also involves compensation in kind.
Examples are the earlier renderings of ‫ زﻏﺮدت‬and ‫ذﻛﺮ‬. Here is an example of compensation by splitting that involves minimal change in kind. It is from the novel
‫ ﻣﺪﯾﻨﺔ اﻟﺒﻐﻲ‬by the Palestinian writer ‫ﻋﯿﺴﻰ ﺑﺸﺎرة‬. The ST concerns the relations among
the workers at a newspaper:
‫ﻟﻢ ﯾﻜﻦ ﺛﻤﺔ ود واﺣﺘﺮام ﻣﺘﺒﺎدﻻن ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﻌﯿﺪ اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ أن ﯾﺸﻜﻼ ﺧﻄﻮة ﻓﻲ اﻻﺗﺠﺎه اﻟﺼﺤﯿﺢ‬
.. ‫ وﻟﮭﺬا ﺑﻘﻲ اﻟﺠﻤﯿﻊ ﯾﺘﻌﺎﻣﻠﻮن ﺑﺤﺮص وﺣﺬر ﺷﺪﯾﺪﯾﻦ‬.‫ﻟﺘﺤﻘﯿﻖ اﻻﻧﺴﺠﺎم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ‬
This has been translated (Brown 1996: 43) as:
There was neither mutual friendship nor respect on a personal level, which
would make possible a step in the right direction towards achieving harmony
at work at least. Owing to this, their dealings with each other continued to be
motivated by overwhelming greed and extreme caution.
In the ST, the Arabic dual adjective ‫ ﺷﺪﯾﺪﯾﻦ‬applies to both ‫‘ ﺣﺮص‬greed’ and ‫ﺣﺬر‬
‘caution’. However, rather than go for a translation such as ‘extreme greed and
caution’, the translator has opted to split the Arabic adjective ‫ ﺷﺪﯾﺪﯾﻦ‬into the two
English adjectives ‘overwhelming’ and ‘extreme’. She has done this on the grounds
that these two forms collocate more happily with each of their respective nouns
than would any single adjective applied to both nouns. In other words, a small
Compensation
55
loss of accuracy in denotative meaning is compensated for by a greater degree of
collocational acceptability than would be possible in literal translation.
A similar rationale applies to the following example, from a book titled ‫اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮ‬
‫واﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻠﺪان اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‬:
‫ اﻟﺬي ﯾﺘﺒﻨﻰ ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﺘﻨﻤﯿﺔ واﻹﻧﻤﺎء‬،‫ اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮ اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ‬،‫وﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ اﻟﻮاﺿﺢ أن ﺗﺮى اﻟﻔﺮﯾﻖ‬
[. . .] ‫واﻟﻤﺸﺎرﯾﻊ اﻟﻀﺨﻤﺔ واﻟﻤﻀﺨﻤﺔ‬
This has been translated (Humphrys 1999: 12) as:
It is clearly contradictory that the ruling military, who adopt a policy of development and promote huge state projects [. . .]
Here, the single word ‫ ﯾﺘﺒﻨﻰ‬in Arabic has been split in the TT, being translated first
as ‘adopt’, as this is a word that typically goes with ‘development’, and second as
‘promote’, as this is a word that typically goes with ‘[state] projects’.
We have labelled the last two examples compensation rather than constraint,
because the translation decisions are unpredictable, depending entirely on context:
neither splitting is likely to be prescribed in the dictionary. However, translation
by expansion is often the conventional, more or less mandatory, solution. In such
cases, compensation does not come into the reckoning. For example, ‫ ﻓﺮاش‬in Arabic includes both ‘moths’ and ‘butterflies’ in English (that is to say, it is a hyperonym of ‘moth’ and ‘butterfly’; cf. Section 7.1.2). Accordingly, one would expect
an Arabic entomological book title ‫ اﻟﻔﺮاش‬to be translated into English as ‘Moths
and Butterflies’ or as ‘Butterflies and Moths’. In either case, there is no question
of compensation being involved here.
Similarly, expansion is sometimes dictated by the grammatical or stylistic norms
of the TL. For example, subject phrases beginning with ‫ أن‬in Arabic are very typically translated by the initial phrase ‘the fact that’ in English. Thus, the Arabic ‫أن‬
[. . .] ‫ ﯾﻜﻮن اﻟﺘﻮظﯿﻒ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﯿﺶ‬will in many contexts almost inevitably be translated as
‘The fact that employment in the army is [. . .]’ (Humphrys 1999: 5).
The distinction between compensation in kind, compensation in place and
compensation by splitting is a rough-and-ready categorization. One could even
argue for a fourth general category, that of ‘compensation by merging’, as in this
description:
‫ طﺎوﻟﺔ‬:‫ﺗﻤﻠﻤﻞ ﺻﺎﺑﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺮﯾﺮه دون أن ﯾﺴﺘﺒ ّﺪ ﺑﮫ اﻟﻨﻌﺎس وﺟﻌﻞ ﯾﻄﻮف ﺑﻨﺎظﺮﯾﮫ ﻓﻲ أرﺟﺎء اﻟﺤﺠﺮة‬
،‫ وإﺑﺮﯾﻖ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﺨﺎر ﻣﻤﻠﻮء ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺎء‬،‫ وﻛﺘﺐ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﺛﺮة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺼﯿﺮة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺶ واﻟﻘﺼﺐ‬،‫ﻣﺨﻠﻌﺔ ﺻﻐﯿﺮة‬
.‫وﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﻼﺑﺲ اﻟﺮﺛﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أﺣﺪ اﻟﺠﺪران‬
This has been translated (Brown 1996: 38) as:
Saber fidgeted in his bed without feeling sleepy. Instead he let his eyes roam
about the room: a small broken table, books scattered on a straw mat, a clay
pitcher full of water and some old clothes hanging on one of the walls.
56
Compensation
Here, ‫ ﺣﺼﯿﺮة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺶ واﻟﻘﺼﺐ‬has been translated as ‘a straw mat’ rather than the literal ‘straw and cane mat’, on the grounds that this is overly descriptive in English,
the Western target audience caring little for the distinction between ‘straw’ and
‘cane’. Perhaps, then, the semantic loss is compensated for by avoidance of the
greater loss in idiomaticity that literal translation would have entailed.
This kind of instance aside, it is certainly true that translation by compression or
omission is, like translation by expansion, often virtually mandatory. Consider, for
example, . . . ‫ ھﺬا و‬when used in an Arabic radio broadcast to introduce a new subtopic or ‫ ﺟﺪﯾﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺮ‬at the start of a paragraph in an Arabic newspaper. Given the mandatory nature of the omission, the notion of compensation is not applicable here.
However many categories of compensation it may be theoretically possible to
define, our aim here is not to elaborate a taxonomy but simply to alert students
to the possibilities and mechanisms of compensation, both in producing and in
analyzing and explaining TTs. In fact, in the case of compensation in kind and in
place, it is not usually even necessary to label them as such, because virtually all
compensation entails difference in kind and in place. It cannot be stressed enough
that the point of this course is to enable students to produce good translations and
to give them an apparatus and a terminology that will help them to say why they
are good. The aim is not to show off the terminology for its own sake but to put it
to use where it is helpful.
The most important lesson to be learned from the discussion is that compensation
is a matter of choice and decision. It is the reduction of an unacceptable translation
loss through the calculated introduction of a less unacceptable one. Or, to put it differently, a deliberately introduced translation loss is a small price to pay if it is used
to avoid the more serious loss that would be entailed by literal translation. So where
there is no real choice open to the translator, the element of active compensation
is minimal. The clearest illustrations of this, as we have seen, are communicative
translation and the myriad cases where the generally accepted literal translation
involves grammatical transposition and/or expansion or contraction.
Compensation, then, is a matter of conscious choice, and it is unlikely to be
successful if left purely to inspiration (although a touch of inspiration never comes
amiss!). Before deciding on how to compensate for a translation loss, translators
are therefore best advised to assess as precisely as possible what the loss is and
why it matters, both in its immediate context and in the ST as a whole. Only then
can they be reasonably sure of not inadvertently introducing, somewhere in the TT,
more serious translation losses than the ones they are trying to reduce.
Practical 5
Practical 5.1 Compensation: ‫أن ﺗﺮى واﺣﺪا ﯾﺠﺮي‬
Assignment
(i) Discuss the strategic decisions that you must take before starting detailed
translation of the following text, and outline and justify the strategy you
Compensation
57
adopt. You are to translate the text for inclusion in an anthology of modern
Arabic short stories. The intended readership is educated English speakers
with no specific knowledge of the Arab world.
(ii) Translate the text into English, paying particular attention to issues of
compensation.
(iii) Explain the decisions of detail you made in producing your TT, paying
special attention to whether your rendering is an instance of compensation
or of constraint. For each decision of detail, identify (a) whether there is
compensation or not and where there is compensation, (b) what is lost in the
TT, (c) what compensates for this loss in the TT and (d) how it does so.
Contextual information
This text is taken from a short story by ‫ ﯾﻮﺳﻒ إدرﯾﺲ‬titled ‫ طﺒﻠﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﻤﺎء‬in the collection
‫( ﺣﺎدﺛﺔ ﺷﺮف‬n.d.b: 40–1) and concerns an incident in the village of Munyat El Nasr.
ST
‫ وﻛﺄﻧﮫ ﺻﻮت اﻟﺴﺮﯾﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺮﺑﺔ ﺑﻮﻟﯿﺲ اﻟﻨﺠﺪة‬.. ‫أن ﺗﺮى واﺣﺪا ﯾﺠﺮي ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﺼﺮ ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﺣﺎدث‬
! ‫ وﻣﺎ أﺟﻤﻞ أن ﯾﺤﺪث ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻠﺪة اﻟﮭﺎدﺋﺔ اﻟﺒﻄﯿﺌﺔ اﻣﺮ ﻣﺜﯿﺮ‬. ً‫ﻓﻼ ﺑﺪ أن وراء ﺟﺮﯾﮫ أﻣﺮاً ﻣﺜﯿﺮا‬
‫ اﻟﻮاﻗﻊ أﻧﮫ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ھﻨﺎك‬،‫وﻓﻲ ﯾﻮم اﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ ذاك ﻟﻢ ﯾﻜﻦ واﺣﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ ھﻮ اﻟﺬي ﯾﺠﺮي ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻨﺼﺮ‬
‫ ﻓﺎﻟﺸﻮارع واﻷزﻗﺔ ﺗﺴﺒﺢ ﻓﻲ ھﺪوﺋﮭﺎ اﻷﺑﺪي‬.. ‫ وﻟﻢ ﯾﻜﻦ أﺣﺪ ﯾﻌﺮف اﻟﺴﺒﺐ‬.‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺟﺮي واﺳﻌﺔ اﻟﻨﻄﺎق‬
‫ ﺣﯿﺚ ﺗﺮش أرﺿﮭﺎ ﺑﻤﺎء اﻟﻐﺴﯿﻞ‬،‫وﯾﻨﺘﺎﺑﮭﺎ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﺮﻛﻮد اﻟﺬي ﯾﺴﺘﺘﺐ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎدة ﺑﻌﺪ ﺻﻼة اﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ‬
‫ وﺣﯿﺚ اﻟﻨﺴﻮة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪاﺧﻞ ﻣﺸﻐﻮﻻت ﺑﺈﻋﺪاد‬،‫اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻮة واﻟﺰھﺮة وراﺋﺤﺔ اﻟﺼﺎﺑﻮن اﻟﺮﺧﯿﺺ‬
‫ واذا ﺑﮭﺬا اﻟﮭﺪوء ﻛﻠﮫ‬.. ‫اﻟﻐﺪاء واﻟﺮﺟﺎل ﻓﻲ اﻟﺨﺎرج ﯾﺘﺴﻜﻌﻮن وﯾﺘﺼﻌﻠﻜﻮن اﻟﻰ أن ﯾﻨﺘﮭﻲ اﻋﺪاد اﻟﻐﺪاء‬
‫ وﯾﻤﺮ اﻟﺠﺎري ﺑﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺟﺎﻟﺴﺔ أﻣﺎم ﺑﯿﺖ ﻓﻼ ﯾﻨﺴﻰ‬،‫ﯾﺘﻌﻜﺮ ﺑﺴﯿﻘﺎن ﺿﺨﻤﺔ ﻏﻠﯿﻈﺔ ﺗﺠﺮي وﺗﮭﺰ اﻟﺒﯿﻮت‬
‫ وﯾﺮد اﻟﺠﺎﻟﺴﻮن ﺳﻼﻣﮫ وﯾﺤﺎوﻟﻮن ﺳﺆاﻟﮫ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺒﺐ اﻟﺠﺮي وﻟﻜﻨﮫ ﯾﻜﻮن‬،‫وھﻮ ﯾﺠﺮي أن ﯾﻠﻘﻲ اﻟﺴﻼم‬
‫ وﺣﯿﻨﺌﺬ ﯾﺪﻓﻌﮭﻢ ﺣﺐ اﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼع‬،‫ ﺣﯿﻨﺌﺬ ﯾﻘﻔﻮن وﯾﺤﺎوﻟﻮن ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ اﻟﺴﺒﺐ وطﺒﻌﺎ ﻻ ﯾﺴﺘﻄﯿﻌﻮن‬. ‫ﻗﺪ ﻧﻔﺬ‬
‫ وﻻ ﯾﻨﺴﻮن أن‬،‫اﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﻲ ﺛﻢ ﯾﻘﺘﺮح أﺣﺪھﻢ اﻹﺳﺮاع ﻓﯿﺴﺮﻋﻮن وﯾﺠﺪون أﻧﻔﺴﮭﻢ آﺧﺮ اﻷﻣﺮ ﯾﺠﺮون‬
.‫ﯾﻠﻘﻮا اﻟﺴﻼم ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﺠﺎﻟﺴﯿﻦ ﻓﺘﻘﻒ اﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎت وﻻ ﺗﻠﺒﺚ أن ﺗﺠﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﮭﺎ ﺗﺠﺮي ھﻲ اﻷﺧﺮى‬
Practical 5.2 Compensation: ‫ﻗﺪ ﯾﻤﺮ وﻗﺖ طﻮﯾﻞ‬
Assignment
(i) Discuss the strategic decisions that you must take before starting detailed
translation of the following text, and outline and justify the strategy you
adopt. Pay particular attention to issues of compensation. You are to translate
this text for the general reader with no specialist knowledge about Lebanon
for a book titled The Lebanese Civil War: Arab Perspectives.
(ii) Translate the text into English.
(iii) Explain the decisions of detail you made in producing your TT, paying
special attention to whether your rendering is an instance of compensation
or of constraint. For each decision of detail, identify (a) whether there is
compensation or not and where there is compensation, (b) what is lost in the
TT, (c) what compensates for this loss in the TT and (d) how it does so.
58
Compensation
Contextual information
This text is taken from the start of a book titled ‫ ﺳﻘﻮط اﻹﻣﺒﺮاطﻮرﯾﺔ اﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬by ‫ﻓﺆاد ﻣﻄﺮ‬
(1984, vol. 1: 7). The book deals with the breakdown of the political consensus in
Lebanon in the mid-1970s and the ensuing civil war.
ST
‫ﻗﺪ ﯾﻤﺮ وﻗﺖ طﻮﯾﻞ ﻗﺒﻞ أن ﯾﺼﺒﺢ ﻓﻲ وﺳﻌﻨﺎ ﻓﮭﻢ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ اﻟﺤﺮب اﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﻧﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺼﻔﺖ ﺑﮭﺬا اﻟﻮطﻦ اﻟﺼﻐﯿﺮ‬
.‫ وطﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻷوطﺎن ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‬،‫ وﻣﻦ ھﺬا اﻟﻨﻮع‬،‫ﻓﺪ ّﻣﺮﺗﮫ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺪ ّﻣﺮ ﺣﺮب ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ ﻟﮭﺎ ﺧﻠﻔﯿّﺎت ﯾﻤﻜﻦ‬،‫ واﺳﺘﻤﺮّت ﻗﺮاﺑﺔ ﺳﻨﺘﯿﻦ‬۱۹۷٥ (‫ ﻧﯿﺴﺎن )أﺑﺮﯾﻞ‬۱۳ ‫وھﺬه اﻟﺤﺮب اﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺪأت ﻓﻲ‬
‫ ﺛﻢ ﻧﺸﺄت‬،‫ واﺳﺘﻤﺮت ﺗﻨﻤﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻄﺄ‬۱۹٤۳ ‫اﻟﻘﻮل إﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﻜ ّﻮﻧﺖ ﻣﻊ وﻻدة ﻟﺒﻨﺎن اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎم‬
‫ ﻓﺈذا ﺑﮭﺎ ﻟﺤﻈﺔ‬،‫ إﻟﻰ أن ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﺤﻈﺔ اﻻﻧﻔﺠﺎر‬،‫ ﺳﺎﻋﺪت ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻜﺮﯾﺲ اﻟﺨﻄﺄ‬،‫ظﺮوف ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﯿﺔ‬
.‫ ﻣﺜﯿﻼً ﻟﮭﺎ‬،‫ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ‬،‫ﻗﺎﺳﯿﺔ ﺟﺪا ﺣﻮّﻟﺖ اﻟﻮطﻦ اﻟﺼﻐﯿﺮ إﻟﻰ ﺳﺎﺣﺔ ﺣﺮب ﻟﻢ ﯾﺴﺠّﻞ اﻟﺘﺎرﯾﺦ اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ‬
– ‫ وﻻ ھﻲ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬،‫ ﻓﻼ ھﻲ طﺎﺋﻔﯿﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‬،‫إن اﻟﺤﺮب اﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﻮع اﻟﺬي ﯾﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺪ ھﻮﯾﺘﮫ‬
.‫ إﻧﮭﺎ ﻛﻞ ھﺬه اﻷﻣﻮر وﻏﯿﺮھﺎ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔ‬.‫ وﻻ ھﻲ إﺻﻼﺣﯿﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‬،‫ﻓﻠﺴﻄﯿﻨﯿﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
Practical 5.3 Compensation: ‫ﻧﺸﺄت ﻓﻲ أﺳﺮة ﻣﺼﺮﯾﺔ ﺻﻤﯿﻤﺔ‬
Assignment
(i) Before starting detailed translation of the following text, outline and justify
the strategy you adopt. Pay particular attention to issues of compensation.
Your translation should be aimed at an educated, but non-specialist, readership and will be included in a book to be published in Britain titled Other
Lives, which will consist of extracts from autobiographies of figures from
around the world.
(ii) Translate the text into English.
(iii) Explain the decisions of detail you made in producing your TT, paying
special attention to whether your rendering is an instance of compensation
or of constraint. For each decision of detail, identify (a) whether there is
compensation or not and where there is compensation, (b) what is lost in the
TT, (c) what compensates for this loss in the TT and (d) how it does so.
Contextual information
The text is taken from ‫ﻗﺼﺔ ﺣﯿﺎﺗﻲ‬, the autobiography of ‫أﺣﻤﺪ ﻟﻄﻔﻲ اﻟﺴﯿﺪ‬, an Egyptian
politician and literary figure in the early twentieth century.
ST
،‫ وﻻ ﺗﻌﺘﺰ إﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ‬،‫ﻧﺸﺄت ﻓﻲ أﺳﺮة ﻣﺼﺮﯾﺔ ﺻﻤﯿﻤﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﺮف ﻟﮭﺎ إﻻ اﻟﻮطﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺮي‬
‫ وﻟﮫ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺜﺮوة‬.. ‫ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﺒﻠﺪ اﻟﻄﯿﺐ اﻟﺬي ﻧﺸﺄ اﻟﺘﻤﺪن ﻓﯿﮫ ﻣﻨﺬ أﻗﺪم اﻟﻌﺼﻮر‬.. ‫وﻻ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ إﻻ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺼﺮ‬
.‫اﻟﻄﺒﯿﻌﯿﺔ واﻟﺸﺮف اﻟﻘﺪﯾﻢ ﻣﺎ ﯾﻜﻔﻞ ﻟﮫ اﻟﺮﻗﻲ واﻟﻤﺠﺪ‬
‫ ﺑﻘﺮﯾﺔ »ﺑﺮﻗﯿﻦ« ﻣﻦ أﻋﻤﺎل ﻣﺮﻛﺰ اﻟﺴﻨﺒﻼوﯾﻦ ﺑﻤﺪﯾﺮﯾﺔ‬.‫ م‬۱۸۷۲ ‫ ﯾﻨﺎﯾﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ‬۱٥ ‫وﻗﺪ وﻟﺪت ﻓﻲ‬
‫ وﯾﺸﺎع ﺑﯿﻦ أھﻞ اﻟﺮﯾﻒ أن‬.‫ وھﻲ ﻗﺮﯾﺔ ﺻﻐﯿﺮة ﻛﺎن ﺗﻌﺪادھﺎ ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﺤﯿﻦ ﯾﺒﻠﻎ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻧﻔﺲ‬.‫اﻟﺪﻗﮭﻠﯿﺔ‬
‫‪59‬‬
‫‪Compensation‬‬
‫اﺳﻤﮭﺎ »اﻟﻨﺰﻟﺔ« ورﺑﻤﺎ ﺳﻤﯿﺖ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ »ﺑﺮﻗﯿﻦ« اﻟﻔﻠﺴﻄﯿﻨﯿﺔ‪ .‬وﻗﺪ ﺗﻀﺎﻋﻒ ﺳﻜﺎﻧﮭﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺻﺒﺢ ﻋﺪدھﻢ اﻵن‬
‫ﻧﺤﻮ أﻟﻔﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ‪ .‬وھﻢ زراع ﻣﺎھﺮون‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﮭﻮرون ﺑﺎﻟﺠﺪ واﻟﻨﺸﺎط واﻻﺳﺘﻘﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ اﻋﺘﺎدوا أن ﯾﻨﻄﻘﻮا‬
‫اﻟﻘﺎف »ﺟﺎﻓﺎ«‪ ،‬واﻟﺠﯿﻢ ﺟﯿﻤﺎ ﻣﻌﻄﺸﺔ ﻛﺴﺎﺋﺮ أھﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ اﻟﺴﻨﺒﻼوﯾﻦ‪ ،‬وﻣﺎ زاﻟﺖ ھﺬه اﻟﻠﮭﺠﺔ ﺗﻐﻠﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪﯾﺜﻲ‪.‬‬
‫وﻛﺎن واﻟﺪي »اﻟﺴﯿﺪ ﺑﺎﺷﺎ أﺑﻮ ﻋﻠﻲ« ﻋﻤﺪة ھﺬه اﻟﻘﺮﯾﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮاﻟﺪه »ﻋﻠﻲ أﺑﻮ ﺳﯿﺪ أﺣﻤﺪ«‪ .‬وﻗﺪ ﻛﺎن‬
‫ﯾﺠﯿﺪ ﺣﻔﻆ اﻟﻘﺮآن اﻟﻜﺮﯾﻢ ﻛﻠﮫ‪ .‬وﻋﺮف ﺑﺸﺨﺼﯿﺘﮫ اﻟﻤﮭﯿﺒﺔ‪ ،‬وﻗﻮة ﺷﻜﯿﻤﺘﮫ‪ ،‬وﻋﺪاﻟﺘﮫ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺘﮫ‪،‬‬
‫ﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻧﺎﺑﯿﺔ أو ﻋﺒﺎرة‬
‫وﻋﻄﻔﮫ ﻋﻠﻰ أھﻞ ﻗﺮﯾﺘﮫ وﻏﯿﺮھﻢ‪ .‬وأذﻛﺮ أﻧﮫ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺴﺎ ﯾﻮﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ‪ ،‬وﻻ وﺟﮫ اﻟ ﱠ‬
‫ﺗﺆﻟﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎن – طﯿﺐ ﷲ ﺛﺮاه – ﻋﻄﻮﻓﺎ ﺣﻜﯿﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺑﯿﺔ أﺑﻨﺎﺋﮫ‪ ،‬ﯾﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪوة اﻟﺤﺴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬وﺣﺴﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮﺟﯿﮫ واﻻرﺷﺎد‪.‬‬
‫وﻟﻤﺎ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ اﻟﺮاﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﺮي‪ ،‬أدﺧﻠﻨﻲ ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﻘﺮﯾﺔ‪ ،‬وﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﺘﮫ ﺳﯿﺪة ﺗﺪﻋﻰ »اﻟﺸﯿﺨﺔ ﻓﺎطﻤﺔ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻜﺜﺖ ﻓﯿﮫ ﺳﺖ ﺳﻨﻮات ﺗﻌﻠﻤﺖ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ اﻟﻘﺮاءة واﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬وﺣﻔﻈﺖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻛﻠﮫ‪ .‬وﻛﻨﺖ أﺟﻠﺲ ﻣﻊ زﻣﻼﺋﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺤﺼﯿﺮ‪ ،‬وﻧﺼﻨﻊ اﻟﺤﺒﺮ ﺑﺄﯾﺪﯾﻨﺎ‪ .‬وإﻟﻰ ھﺬه اﻟﺴﯿﺪة ﯾﺮﺟﻊ ﻓﻀﻞ ﺗﻨﺸﺌﺘﻲ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﺴﻨﯿﻦ‪.‬‬
CHAPTER TWO
MEANING-BASED ISSUES IN TRANSLATION
Though the translator is advised to consider the original text, at least, at
paragraph level in her/his analysis, s/he should also look into the meanings
of individual items because they are used to construct sentences which are
used to compose texts. The translator needs to study the words so that s/he
would be able to recompose the original meaning. Many lexical items have
multiple meanings according to different contexts. For this reason the
translator is required to establish which meaning s/he is dealing with in a
particular setting. Sometimes signs resist the process of translation either
because the system of the TL does not have equivalent signs, or they (the
signs) are used in different senses. In this chapter, I will investigate such
problems with regard to Arabic and English.
Prior to dealing with the nature of meaning, the translator needs to
have in mind a few basic factors. These factors are very important for
translators to be able to handle the problems which are associated with the
meanings of semantic units. They (the factors) also help the translator to
determine the meanings of semantic units and how to benefit from
lexicons.
1-Where there are a number of interpretations involved in the analysis
of a given lexical item in a given context, the translator should have in
mind that the right meaning of that lexical item “is that which fits the
context best” (de Waard & Nida, 1986: 139).
2-The translator should assume that, in general, lexical items probably
bare one meaning in a given context.
3-Other important assumptions could be that there is no complete
synonymy among lexical items, and that the sense of words (or semantic
units) is usually determined by other semantic units in a given context.
Signs can be defined by means of two classes of other signs, namely,
verbal, and non-verbal (de Waard & Nida, 1986: 140). The verbal signs
are those which occur in the same semantic domain of the verbal sign in
question. Nida (1975: 71) uses the matrix cited below to distinguish
features of the verbal sign chair assuming that its semantic domain would
include verbal signs such as these: bench, stool, and hassock.
Chapter Two
24
features
for one person vs. more
with a back vs. without
with legs vs. without
chair
+
+
+
bench
±
+
stool
+
+
hassock
+
-
But the word ‘chair’ has a different connotation when uttered in a specific
setting. For example, when somebody, at a meeting, says ‘‘Listen to the
chair”, the hearer would not think of a piece of furniture, but of the person
who heads that meeting. Here the nonverbal context defines the word
‘chair’ not the semantic domain of the verbal signs listed above.
2.1 Changes in Meaning
One main characteristic of natural languages is that they are in a
constant process of change (semantically, syntactically, and phonologically)
with varying degrees from slight to drastic. This could be more important
when the translator deals with old literature which might exhibit such
changes. The translator needs to be aware that words may change their
meanings, or that two words may reciprocally change their meanings over
a period of time, long or short. In other words, the translator should deal
with the text having in mind its original setting. This is very important
because lexical items are not only linguistically and culturally bound, but
they are also bound in terms of time and place. However, the translator
should also be aware of the fact that “For lexical change to occur, it is by
no means necessary that there be a change in the nature of kinds of things
to which we refer” (Jeffers & Lehiste 1979: 126).
An example of lexical change is the lexical item which is, at some
time, used to refer to more than one member of a certain class and is now
restricted to include less members of that class. For example the English
word ‘girl’ used to refer to both sexes (Middle English ‘gurle’). In Modern
English the word ‘girl’ refers to young females or children (Webster’s,
1976: 486). Moreover, two lexical items which used to be employed to
alternatively signify any one of two concepts in the language are employed
to signify only one concept each. That is to say that each lexical item is
specified to exclusively signify only one concept leaving the other concept
to be exclusively signified by the other lexical item. For example, the
lexical items ‘ϑϮδϛ’ ‘kusuf’ and ‘ϑϮδΧ’ ‘xusuf’ used to be alternatively
used to refer to any of the two eclipses (Ibn Manzur 1984, v. 9: 67, 298),
but later people started to specify ‘kusuf’ for the sun eclipse and ‘xusuf’ for
the moon eclipse. Wehr (1976: 239) renders ‘xuuf’ as ‘lunar eclipse’, and
(p. 827) ‘kusuf’ as ‘solar eclipse’.
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
25
New words are coined. Two lexical items are coined to form one word
which inherits some or all of the semantic content of the two original
words. This type of innovation is formed by taking parts of two existing
words and putting them together to form a new word. For example the
English word ‘brunch’ is formed from the English words ‘breakfast’ /br-/
and ‘lunch’ /-unch/. These mechanisms of innovations seem to differ from
language to another. One of the most common ways to accomplish this
technique of invention of new words is by adding affixes, for example the
English word ‘weather-wise’ (weather plus the suffix -wise, and the
Arabic word ‘ϝΎϤγ΃έ’ ra?sumal ‘capital’ which consists of the words ra?s
‘chief and mal ‘wealth’. The Arabic suffix -iyya can be used to form the
abstract noun ‘ΔϴϟΎϤγ΃έ’ ‘ra?sumaliyya’ ‘capitalism’.
2.2 Types of Lexical Meanings
Lexical meanings operate at more than one level specified by the
contexts where words occur. De Waard and Nida (1986) recognize two
levels which they call the denotative lexical meaning, and the connotative
lexical meaning. De Waard and Nida provide the best discussion of the
types of meanings of lexical items and determining their meanings.
Therefore, most of the discussions in the next sections are based on their
handling of the meanings and types of lexical items.
2.2.1 Denotative Meaning
Denotative meaning is the conventional range of referential meaning
attributed to a linguistic expression. It is also known as ‘cognitive’ or
‘propositional’ meaning (cf. Baker 1992:13-14). It is also sometimes
referred to as ‘literal’ meaning. In the case of words, it is denotative
meanings that are given in dictionary definitions. In fact, words may, and
typically do, have more than one denotative meaning. The situation in
which a word has more than one different and distinct denotative meaning
– or more technically more than one sense – is known as polysemy.
Polysemy can be illustrated by the word ‘plain’, which means (i) ‘clear’
(as in ‘a plain sky’), (ii) ‘unadorned’ (as in ‘a plain paper bag’), and (iii)
‘obvious’ (as in ‘it’s a plain case of forgery’). There are sometimes
problems in deciding between cases where two uses of a word represent
more than one sense – i.e. cases of polysemy – and where the two uses in
question are merely ‘variants’ of a single overall sense. (There are also
problems in deciding between what constitutes two senses of a single
word, and cases where two words happen to sound the same. This latter
Chapter Two
26
situation is known as homonymy. An example of homonymy which is
fairly frequently quoted is ‘bank’ = ‘side of a river’ vs. ‘bank’ =
‘institution for the investment and borrowing of money’.
2.2.1.1 Sense Relations and Polysemy
Polysemy occurs when one word in a language has several different
meanings. The word ‘mouth’, for example, is a polysemous form in
English which indicates several different meanings; it is one lexeme with
several different senses such as ‘organ of body,’ ‘entrance of cave’, etc. It
is not necessary, however, that a polysemous word in English should have
a similar diversity of meaning in another language. Therefore, we would
expect to find a different set of polysemous words in Arabic. For example,
the verb ‘ΪΟϭ’ ‘he found’ is a polysemic word which has an original
meaning ‘find out’ and many additional meanings, which can be shown in
the following tree diagram. While it has one surface structure (SS), it has
three deep structures (DS).
ΪΟϭ
DS
DS
DS
FIND
HATE
LOVE
These three meanings of ‘ΪΟϭ’ can be best understood when used in
sentences, as in the following:
(1) ϪΑΎΘϛ ΪϟϮϟ΍ ΪΟϭ
The boy found his book.
(2) Ϊϳί ϰϠϋ ΪϤΣ΃ ΪΟϭ
Ahmed got angry with ziyad.
(3) ΩΎόδΑ ΪϤΣ΃ ΪΟϭ
Ahmed loved Sucad.
2.2.1.2 Synonymy and Lexical Translatability
Synonymy occurs when two or more words can be used to substitute
for one another in a particular context, and still give similar but not
necessarily identical meanings. Many linguists have considered that
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
27
complete synonymy does not exist in any language, and consequently
complete equivalence in translation is something unattainable. Eugene
Nida defines synonymy in language as “words which share several (but
not all) essential components and thus can be used to substitute for one
another in some (but not all) contexts without any appreciable difference
of meaning in these contexts, e.g. love and like” (Nida 1969:73). He then
tries to illustrate the phenomenon of synonymy by drawing a pattern of
overlapping, as in the following figure which shows the relationship
between the two synonymous words.
Figure (1)
Peter Newmark takes a position similar to that of Nida when he declares
very clearly, “I do not approve of the proposition that translation is a form
of synonymy” (Newmark 1981:101). Further, Bassnett-McGuire maintains
that “equivalence in translation should not be approached as a search for
sameness, since sameness cannot even exist between two TL versions of
the same text, let alone between the SL and the TL versions” (BassnettMcGuire 1980:29).
The nearest semantic equivalent for translating the denotative meaning
of an ST expression usually falls short of being a full TL synonym. A
simple example of this kind of failure is provided by a comparison
between ‘uncle’ in English and ‘Ϣϋ’ or ‘ϝΎΧ’ in Arabic (Dickins et al
2002:54-55). How can we translate the following verse?
ΎϴϟΎΧϭ ϰϟΎΧ ϦΑ΍ϭ ϰϤϋ ϦΑ΍ϭ
ϰΑέΎϗ΃ ϰϠϴϟ ΐΣ ϰϓ ϰϨϣϻ Ϊϗϭ
Here the English term ‘uncle’ might be a typical translation equivalent of
the Arabic ‘Ϣϋ’ or ‘ϝΎΧ’; ‘uncle’ may refer to father’s brother or mother’s
brother. Therefore, to have a synonymous relationship translators resort to
paraphrase their translation by using ‘maternal uncle’ for ‘ϝΎΧ’ and
‘paternal uncle for ‘Ϣϋ’. The relation between ‘uncle’ and ‘Ϣϋ’ and between
‘uncle’ and ‘ϝΎΧ’ is known as superordinate-hyponymy. An expression
with a wider, less specific, range of denotative meaning is a hyperonym or
28
Chapter Two
superordinate. Conversely, an expression with a narrower, more specific
range of denotative meaning is a hyponym. Lexical loss arises from the
fact that exact synonymy between ST words and TL words is relatively
rare. The word ‘ϢΤϟ’, for example, might be considered an exact synonym
of English ‘meat’. For many Arabs, however, chicken may not count as
‘ϢΤϟ’, and ‘fish’ almost certainly will not (2002: 54-55).
It was indicated that the Arabic poets of the pre-Islamic era always
enjoyed describing certain aspects of life in the desert, using rich
vocabulary in synonymous uses. For example, the words ‘ϥΎμΣ’, ‘αήϓ’,
‘Ω΍ϮΟ’, and ‘ϢϫΩ΃’, stood for ‘horse’; ‘ϒϴγ’, ‘ΪϨϬϣ’, ‘ϡΎδΣ’, ‘Ϊϧήϓ΍’, and ‘ϡίΎΣ’
stood for ‘sword’, and ‘ήΤΑ’, ‘Ϣϳ’, and ‘ΝΎΠϟ’ stood for ‘sea’. The question
which will inevitably arise here is the following: does each synonymous
word in the above examples have the same factual meaning as every other
synonym? In other words, are all these synonyms substitutable for one
another in real contexts? And consequently, how can the translator
approach this problem without losing or gaining unnecessary associations?
Let us take the words for ‘horse’, for example, and look up the
meanings of all those synonymous uses related to that word. In Lisan AlArab, an Arabic dictionary by Ibn Manzur, we find that the meanings of
those words include the following components:
(1) ϥΎμΣ: horse; male; singular.
(2) αήϓ: horse; male or female; singular,
(3) Ω΍ϮΟ: horse – particularly one which is fast, male or female,
singular.
(4) ϢϫΩ΃: horse – particularly one which is completely black, male or
female, singular.
According to Nida, when dealing with synonymous words, we must look
at the different componential features of the meanings of these synonyms
and “select only those meanings which compete in the same semantic
fields” (Nida 1969:64). They show certain overlapping areas of meaning
which ‘compete in the same semantic field’’. Relevance ranks synonyms
based on how closely a synonym’s sense matches the sense we select. We
can enrich our translation by using explanatory words; e.g. ‘ϢϫΩ΃’ can be
translated as ‘black horse’ and ‘Ω΍ϮΟ’ can be translated as ‘race horse’. It is
important to note that synonymous words in English may not be
synonymous in Arabic. The Arabic word ‘˯ϼϴΨϟ΍’ is based on the sense of
‘sight’ but the word ‘ήΨϔϟ΍’ is based on the sense of “hearing”. This
difference does not exist between the English words ‘self-conceit’ and
‘pride’.
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
29
2.2.1.3 The Problem of Antonymy
Discussing the issue of synonymy will certainly invoke another
question, the investigation of the nature of antonymy. Dictionaries rarely
deal with one of these conceptions without referring to the other. It is
important to establish norms according to which problems of antonymy
can be analyzed. These norms will include (a) the analysis of antonymous
forms in terms of their relationship to human/non-human or
animate/inanimate features, and (b) the analysis of antonymous forms in
terms of their degree or level of occurrence, i.e. their relative or absolute
opposition. There are different gradable antonyms in English and Arabic.
Between “hot” and “cold” in English is a continuous scale of values which
may be given names such as (warm, cool, or tepid). In Arabic there are
four different divisions:
/ΩέΎΑ/ (cold / cool)
/έΎΣ/ (hot) weather
/ϦΧΎγ/ (hot) object
/Ίϓ΍Ω/ (warm)
2.2.2 Connotative Meaning
The meaning of a text comprises a number of different layers:
referential content, emotional coloring, cultural associations, social and
personal connotations, and so on. Connotation is the implicit overtones
that a linguistic expression carries over and above its denotative meaning.
Associative meaning is an example of connotative meaning. It is that part
of the overall meaning of an expression which consists of expectations that
are – rightly or wrongly – associated with the referent of the expression.
The word ‘nurse’ is a good example. Most people automatically associate
‘nurse’ with the idea of female gender. Given the relative cultural distance
between the Arab world and the English speaking world, associative
meanings are likely to be a problem. Consider the potential difficulty of
translating ‘ϰϬϘϣ’ into English; a denotative near-equivalent might be ‘teahouse’, ‘tea-garden’, ‘coffee-house’, ‘coffee-shop’ or possibly ‘café’.
A simple contrast of two occurrences of the same lexical item may
help make the difference between denotative meaning and connotative
meaning clear. When we say
That animal with the big tail is a fox
30
Chapter Two
the word ‘fox’ is used to refer to a certain animal. But when we say
This man is a fox,
the word ‘fox’ does not refer to the animal, rather it only refers to someone
who is clever and good at deceiving people. It refers to one of the
characteristics which people have associated with this animal. So, the
word ‘fox’ in the second context signifies a different meaning from the
former context.
To determine the denotative meaning of lexical items, two semantic
ranges of meaning must be examined: the first range involves the
examination of the lexical item against other similar lexical items within,
in Nida‘s words, “the same semantic domain” where all such lexical items
share one or more features. De Waard and Nida (1986:144-5) put the word
‘whisper’ on the basis of these features (voiceless, low volume, nonmusical,
verbal, oral communication) within this class of words: shout, mumble,
sing, shriek, and hiss, as its same semantic domain, for all these lexical
items share the feature of oral communication. In the second range, the
lexical item in question would be examined against other lexical items
which are in a related semantic domain. For example the word ‘whisper’,
in contexts like:
1. whisper campaign
2. she is always whispering about her neighbors
3. the wind was whispering in the trees
has a new set of features which, to a certain extent, differ from the ones
listed above (i.e. there are negative contexts (1, 2), and voiceless and low
volume are irrelevant here). The word ‘whisper’ should be contrasted with
lexical items such as gossip, tattle, and criticize.
2.2.3 Collocative Meaning
Collocative meaning is the connotative meaning lent to a linguistic
expression by the meaning of some other expression with which it
frequently collocates. ‘Pretty’ and ‘handsome’, for example, have a shared
sense of ‘good looking’ in English. However, ‘pretty’ collocates readily
with ‘girl’, ‘boy’, ‘woman’, ‘flower’, ‘garden’, ‘color’, ‘village’, while
‘handsome’ collocates with ‘boy’, ‘man’, ‘vessel’, ‘overcoat’, ‘airliner’,
‘typewriter’ (cf. Leech 1981: 17; also, for translation implications of
collocation, see Baker 1992: 46-63). Consider the following examples:
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
31
‘ϖϴΛϮϟ΍ ϥϭΎόΘϟ΍’ ‘close cooperation’ (not, for example, ‘firm cooperation’,
‘ϯέΎΠΘϟ΍ ˯Ύϛάϟ΍’ ‘commercial acumen’ (not ‘commercial intelligence’), ‘ ΔϣΎδΘΑ΍
ΔόϨτμϣ’ ‘forced smile’ (not ‘artificial smile’). “An important area for
collocation is the use of conjoined phrase on the pattern ‘X and Y’. Thus,
English tends to say ‘knives and forks’ rather than ‘forks and knives’”
(Dickins et al 2002: 71). English tends to say ‘night and day’ or ‘day and
night’ but it is ‘έΎϬϧ Ϟϴϟ’ in Arabic. Some collocations of this kind have
become established idioms. The phrase ‘ϢΤϟϭ ϡΩ Ϧϣ’ has to be translated as
‘flesh and blood’, rather than the reverse ‘blood and flesh’.
Problems in the process of translating may arise from non-equivalence
when words combine with other words. First, there are selectional
restrictions in any language; restrictions on the co-occurrence of words.
hot temper ΓΩΎΣ ωΎΒρ
break laws Ϧϴϧ΍ϮϘϟ΍ ϕήΨϳ
strong tea ϞϴϘΛ ϯΎη
Some words are collocated, e.g.
pay a visit ΓέΎϳΰΑ ϡϮϘϳ
Most of these patterns are arbitrary.
deliver a letter
deliver a speech /lecture
deliver a news
deliver a blow
deliver a verdict
deliver a baby
ΏΎτΧ ϢϠδϳ
ΓήοΎΤϣ ϲϘϠϳ
έΎΒΧ΃ ϞϘϨϳ
Δόϔλ ϪΟϮϳ
ΎϤϜΣ έΪμϳ
Γ΃ήϣ΍ ΪϟϮϳ
In English we find the collocation “bread and butter” which means a job or
activity that provides you with money we need to live, but in Arabic we
find “΢Ϡϣ ϭ ζϴϋ”. Other collocations include the following:
night & day (day & night) έΎϬϧ Ϟϴϟ
clear as crystal
βϤθϟ΍ ϱί ΢ο΍ϭ
heavy smoker
ϩήη ϦΧΪϣ
war break out
ΏήΤϟ΍ ϊϟΪϨΗ
peace prevails
ϡϼδϟ΍ ϲθϔϳ
smoking gun
ώϣ΍Ω ϞϴϟΩ
stumbling block
ΩϮΌϛ ΔΒϘϋ
Chapter Two
32
Meaning of a word in a collocate differs in another collocate, e.g.
dry voice = cold
Run a car  drive a car fast
Christmas is just around the corner Ώ΍ϮΑϷ΍ ϰϠϋ ΩϼϴϤϟ΍ Ϊϴϋ
Fan the flames έΎϨϟ΍ ϰϠϋ Ζϳΰϟ΍ ΐϜδϳ
Translators should make the necessary adjustments.
2.2.4 Idiomatic Meaning
Idioms are very intricate expressions. Thus they are not easy to
translate. First, idioms are culture-bound, i.e. specific to particular culture
and society. Second, their meaning is rather metaphorical than literal.
Notice the following examples.
Keep it under your hat
ϙήϣ΃ ϊϴϤΟ Ζϧ΃ ϝϮΘϓ ϙήϔυ ϞΜϣ ϙΪϠΟ ϚΣ Ύϣ
Idioms with the word ‘ϞμΑ’ “onion” in Arabic:
not worth a damn
ΔϠμΑ ε΍Ϯδϳ Ύϣ
keep your nose out of other people’s business ΎϬΗήθϗϭ ΔϠμΒϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϞΧ΍Ω Ύϳ
a posy from the beloved is a ruby ϑϭήΧ ΐΤϤϟ΍ ΔϠμΑ
Idioms with the word ‘ϝϮϓ’ “beans” in Arabic:
Every jack has his Jill
as like as two peas in a pod
spill the beans
know the ropes
ϝΎϴϛ ΎϬϴϟϭ ΔϟϮϓ Ϟϛ
Ϧϴμϧ ΖϤδϘΗ΍ϭ ΔϟϮϓ
ΔϟϮϓ ϪϘΑ ϲϓ ζϠΒΘϳ Ύϣ
ΔϟϮϔϟ΍ ϑήϋ
Idioms with the word ‘ϦΑ΍’ in Arabic:
Mr. Right
ϝϼΤϟ΍ ϦΑ΍
One of good breading ϝϮλ΃ ϦΑ΍
Nice fellow
ΪϠΑ ϦΑ΍
Happy – go – lucky
φΣ ϦΑ΍
A good sort
ϝϼΣ ϦΑ΍
A man of whims ϪΘϋΎγ ϦΑ΍
Made for the job έΎϛ ϦΑ΍
Jokester
ΔΘϜϧ ϦΑ΍
Born businessman
ϕϮγ ϦΑ΍
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
33
Idioms with the word ‘Ύϳ’ in Arabic:
Bloody hell
ΩϮγ΍ ήΒΧ Ύϳ
How cute
ΎϬϴϠϋ ϲΘΧΎϳ
Dear me
ϲΑ΍ήΧ Ύϳ
What a dead loss you are ϚΘΒϴΧ Ύϳ
You dumb ox ϢϨλ Ύϳ ϢΠΑ Ύϳ
Big deal
ϲΘΣήϓ Ύϳ
In English we notice idioms with the word ‘pig’:
sweat like a pig Ύϗήϋ ΐΒμΘϳ
when pigs fly
ζϤθϤϟ΍ ϰϓ
Notice the difference between the literal and non-literal meanings of some
idioms:
(1) break the ice
Literal:
Non-literal:
(2) he looks blue
Literal:
Non-literal:
(3) he is a black sheep
Literal:
Non-literal:
(4) he is in the clouds
Literal:
Non-literal:
ΞϠΜϟ΍ ήδϛ΍
ϖϳήτϟ΍ / έϮϣϷ΍ ΪϬϣ
Ύϗέί΃ ϭΪΒϳ
ΎϨϳΰΣ ϭΪΒϳ
ΩϮγ΃ ϑϭήΧ Ϯϫ
ϕϼΧϷ΍ ˯ϲγ κΨη Ϯϫ
ϡϮϴϐϟ΍ ϲϓ Ϯϫ
Ϧϫάϟ΍ ΩέΎη Ϯϫ
2.3 Problems Related to Lexical Items.
Translation between English and Arabic involves certain morphological,
syntactic and semantic problems. To understand these problems, one has
to return to the cultural and social background of the Arabic language and
try to discover how these may affect the process of translating into
English. It is also essential to note that Arabic is a VSO, non-IndoEuropean language whose speakers differ in cultural and social behavior
from those of the western languages. Those problems can be solved
through:
34
Chapter Two
1) looking into the cultural and social background of Arabic, and.
2) accounting for the peculiarities of Arabic lexicon and structure.
Observing the root-system of Arabic is not merely to understand the
derivational process in which the root plays a role, but, more important,
because almost all the derivations from a given root are interrelated
semantically. Every primary conception in the Semitic languages is
expressed by means of three consonants. These three consonants form the
root. Primary modifications of the meaning are expressed by internal
vowel variations, secondary modifications partly by the same method and
partly by affixes and inserted consonants. W. Wright, in his book A
Grammar of the Arabic Language (1967) refers to the three consonants of
the root as ‘radicals’. He further notes that the simplest and most basic
form in Arabic in which these consonants (radicals) appear is the verb.
Hence, “the 3d pers. sing. masc. perf., being the simplest form of the verb,
is commonly used as paradigm” (Wright 1967:29), such as the verb qatala
‘he killed’.
To illustrate the modifications of the meaning of the root as expressed
by internal vowel variations, we may note that from the root ( ϝ – Ε – ϕ)
(Q-T-L), which consists of three consonants and conveys the idea of
‘killing’, we can form the verb ‘ϞΘϗ’ [qatala] ‘he killed’, another verb ‘ϞΗΎϗ’
[qaatala] ‘he fought,’ the noun ‘ϞΘϗ’ [qatl] ‘killing’ the adjectival nouns
‘ϞΗΎϗ’ [qatil] ‘a killer’ and ‘ϝΎ˷Θϗ’ [qattal] ‘one who takes killing as a hobby
or profession,’ and ‘ϞϴΘϗ’ [qatiil] ‘one killed’, with its plural ‘ϰϠΘϗ’ [qatla],
and a number of other derivations. That is the reason why every kind of
dictionary (Arabic-Arabic, or Arabic-English or Arabic-French, etc.) lists
the entries by root rather than alphabetically, in all derivations. For
instance, if we wish to find the meaning of the word ‘ΔΒΘϜϣ’ [maktaba] in
Hans Wehr’s Arabic-English Dictionary, we must look it up under the root
(Ώ – Ε – ϙ) (K-T-B), and we find the following derivations: ‘ΐΘϛ’ [kataba]
‘to write’, ‘ΏΎΘϛ’ [kitab] ‘book’, with its plural ‘ΐΘϛ’ [kutub], ‘ΏΎ˷Θϛ’ [kuttab]
‘Koran school,’ ‘ΐϴΘϛ’ [kutayyib] ‘booklet’, ‘ΔΑΎΘϛ’ [kitaba] ‘writing, ‘ΐΘϜϣ’
[maktab] office, desk, with its plural ‘ΐΗΎϜϣ’ [makatib], and ‘ΔΒΘϜϣ’
[maktaba] ‘library, bookstore, and a number of other related derivations
Wehr 1976:812, 813). Arabic verbs are inflected for the grammatical
categories by internal vowel variation.
The translator must be aware that the Arabic verb encompasses a wide
range of aspects. The various modifications commonly expressed by
modals in English are expressed in Arabic by one model, the verb ‘ϥΎϛ’
[Kana] “to be”, by several verbal particles, such as ‘α’ “sa ˰˰˰“ (indicating
future), and by various independent verbs, such as ‘ωΎτΘγ΍’ [istaTaˮa] “to
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
35
be able”. The exact English translation for a given Arabic verb form
depends on these features and, to an important degree, on the larger
context. For example, the verb form ‘ήδϛ’ [Kasar-a] ‘he broke’ is formed
from the root (έ – α – ϙ) [KSR]. Another verb form is ‘ήδ˷ ϛ’ [Kassar-a]
which is formed by doubling the second consonant. It implies that the act
is done with great violence. When the verb is intransitive such as ‘Ρήϓ’
[FaRiH-a] ‘be became glad’, it may become transitive ‘by doubling the
second consonant, e.g. ‘Ρή˷ ϓ’ [FaRRaH-a] ‘he caused to be glad’. When the
first vowel is made long, the verb form implies reciprocity, e.g.
‘ϞΘϗ” [QaTaL-a] ‘he killed’ but ‘ϞΗΎϗ’ [QaaTal-a] ‘he fought with’
‘ωήλ’ [SaRaˮ-a] ‘he throw down’ but ‘ωέΎλ’ [SaaRa?-a] ‘he wrestled
with’.
2.3.1 Arabic Lexicon and Translation
Words are linguistic symbols that are free, arbitrary and conventional.
Meaning, therefore, does not exist without words. “Meaning”, according
to Newmark, “arises from sights, sounds, smells, tastes, surfaces, … as
well as drives, feelings, ideas, memories, images, etc., that reach
consciousness; but all these can only be mediated by words, assisted
sporadically by mental images” (Newmark 1981:98). Yet when one
translates, s/he does not transfer “free” words from the SL to the TL.
Although the “freedom of symbols,” according to Nida, enables us to enter
and use different symbols already known in one language “to describe new
objects which come into the culture” (Nida 1964:49), yet when we
translate we translate words that are used in context, that is, “words that
are lexically conditioned and constrained by collocation and connotation,
grammatically by syntax, into nationally by word-order, sometimes
phonetically by assonance, alliteration, onomatopoeia, and moreover they
are normally referentially bound” (Newmark 1981:135). In the next
section, I shall explain how the Arabic lexicon affects the process of
translating into English. So, on the lexical level, I shall be concerned with
the problems of semantic derivation and lexical gaps, and words and
meaning.
2.3.2 Semantic Derivation and Lexical Gaps
It is not always the case, however, that every lexical unit in the
language has a single word entry to express an inchoative or causative
Chapter Two
36
form. When some lexical units in the derivational paradigm are missing,
there is a lexical gap. In English, for instance, there is no one word for
‘become blue’, or ‘make sneeze’, but the idea can be paraphrased. It is
important to note that the lexical gaps which occur in English may not
necessarily occur in Arabic. Let us examine the following derivational
forms in both languages.
Table 2-1 Lexical Gaps between English and Arabic
State
1
2
3
Ar
ήϴΒϛ
ϕέί΃
Ζϴϣ
En
Big
Blue
Dead
Process
Ar
En
ήΒϛ
(gap)
ϕέί΃
(gap)
ΕΎϣ
Die
Action - Process
Ar
En
ή˷Βϛ
(gap)
ϕέ˷ ί
(gap)
ΕΎϣ΃
(gap)
A semantic field is an area of meaning which can be delimited from
others in a language. Thus we might talk about a semantic field of FOOD
or CLOTHING or EMOTIONS. Within CLOTHING, for example, we
find words for all the different kinds of garments. ‘Semantic Field’ is a
somewhat elastic term. Thus we could say that ANIMALS and PLANTS
are semantic fields, or we could group them together into a single larger
field called LIVING THINGS. In English there are different hair styles
‘ήόθϟ΍ ΕΎμϗ’ such as Spiky / Crew cut / Strait / Curly / Flat top / Plait
(braid) / Mohican / Wavy / Skinhead / Dreadlocks / Cornrows.
Semantic fields are composed of smaller groupings called lexical sets
or sub-fields. Within EMOTIONS, we can identify lexical sets of words
for Love, Fear, and Anger, etc.
One can say that a semantic field is a collection of words that fell
under one category. For example, a semantic field of bugs/insects could
include bees, wasps, spiders, moths, flies etc. Thus, a semantic field of
“dog” might include, for example, Labradors, Alsatians, poodles, terriers
etc, rather than a list of different ways in which the word “dog” can be
used. Put simply, it’s not so much words that define dogs, it’s words that
are examples of dogs. English makes a distinction between ‘blue’ and
‘green’ but some languages do not. On the other hand some languages
treat ‘light (often greenish) blue’ and ‘dark blue’ as separate colors, rather
than different variations of ‘blue’, while English does not.
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
37
Fig. 2.1 Hair styles (Cambridge Dictionary)
Languages differ in their semantic fields. There is more agreement
among languages on the hyponym and less agreement as sub-divisions of a
semantic field. Notice differences in the field of furniture. In English
‘stool’ and ‘chair’ differ and ‘bench’ is different from ‘sofa’. In Arabic,
‘stool’ is rendered as “ήϬυ ϼΑ ϲγήϛ” and ‘sofa’ as “Ϧϴϋ΍έΫ ϭΫ ΪΠϨϣ ϞϳϮρ ΪόϘϣ”
or “ΔϜϳέϷ΍”. Componential analysis can be a useful tool to the translator.
According to the componential model, words display what is called
distinctive features, which are the building blocks that words consist of
and can be broken down into. Kinship words differ from a language to
another. The word “uncle” is used to refer to parent’s male sibling and
“aunt” to parent’s female sibling. In Arabic there are four words, e.g. ‘Ϣϋ’,
‘ΔϤϋ’, ‘ϝΎΧ’, and ‘ΔϟΎΧ’. Flora and species differ because of different
environment, e. g.,
duck × drake ςΒϟ΍ ήϛΫ / ϡϮΠϠόϟ΍
goose × gander ίϭϷ΍ ήϛΫ
Another example of non-equivalence of a specific word (hyponym) in
Arabic is the variety of hyponyms which English has under the word
38
Chapter Two
‘house’; e.g. ‘bungalow’, ‘cottage’, ‘croft’, ‘chalet’, ‘lodge’, ‘hut’,
‘mansion’, ‘manor’, ‘villa’. The verb ‘disgorge’ does not have an
equivalent word in Arabic. It means “ΐμϳ”, “΄ϴϘΘϳ”, or “ΓήϴΒϛ Ω΍Ϊϋ΄Α ΝήΨϳ”.
The subway disgorges people ϭήΘϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΎΟ΍Ϯϓ΃ αΎϨϟ΍ ΝήΨϳ
The word ‘attic’ is not lexicalized in Arabic. It means a space or room
under the roof of a house often used for storing things. It is sometimes
rendered as “ΔϴϠόϟ΍”.
It is interesting to note that, although Arabic and English show
similarity in the system of semantic derivations illustrated above, semantic
domains of the” vocabulary in the two languages may not be so similar. In
English, for example, expressions like ‘chairman,’’ ‘chairperson,’ and ‘he
chaired the meeting’ are all related to the word ‘chair,’ which is
considered the semantic domain of these expressions. In Arabic, the
equivalents of the above-mentioned English expressions are related to a
completely different semantic domain. The corresponding Arabic
expressions are [ra?iis] ‘chairman, or ‘chairperson,’ and ‘ΔδϠΠϟ΍ α΃έ’ [ra?isa
l-jalsata] ‘he chaired the meeting’. All the above Arabic derivations are
related to the word ‘α΃έ’ [ra?s] ‘head’. The English word ‘Seabed’ ‘ ωΎѧϗ
ήѧΤΒϟ΍’ which means the solid surface of the Earth which lies under the sea
is related to the semantic domain ‘bed’.
2.3.3 Words and Meaning
When dealing with the meaning of words, we do not assume that the
translator should depend on “literal” or “word-for-word” translation;
rather, we would like to emphasize that words are textually and culturally
bound. But this section is focusing on words. When the translator is faced
with words which are un familiar to her/him, or in a more general term,
ambiguous, s/he will usually want to refer to the dictionary for help. It is
obvious that the dictionary may not be the only reliable source for a final
or better solution, for the translator has “to reconcile several possible
meanings, including the author’s intended meaning, the dictionary
definition, and his own interpretation of the word or phrase” (Duff
1981:17). The dictionary may furnish several possible meanings for one
word, and the translator may be faced with another, more subtle, intriguing
issue, when he has to choose the appropriate equivalent for that word. We
can investigate this difficulty in the following text, translated into English.
SL text
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
39
Ϧϟ Ϫϧ΃ϭ ϪϴϨϴϋ ΐμϧ ΩϼΒϟ΍ ϲϓ Δϋ΍έΰϟ΍ ϯϮΘδϤΑ νϮϬϨϟ΍ ϊπϳ Ϫϧ΄Α Δϋ΍έΰϟ΍ ήϳίϭ ήϛΫϭ
ϢϠόϟ΍ ΎϬϴϟ· ϞλϮΗ ϲΘϟ΍ Ξ΋ΎΘϨϟ΍ ΙΪΣ΃ Ϧϴϋέ΍ΰϤϟ΍ ϝϭΎϨΘϣ ϲϓ ϥΎϜϣϹ΍ έΪϗ ϰϠϋ ϞόΠϳ ϥ΃ ΍ΪϬΟ ήΧΪϳ
ΔΜϳΪΣ Δϳήμϋ Δϋ΍έί ˯Ύθϧ·ϭ ήϴδϴΗ Ϯϫ ΪΣ΍ϭ νήϐϟ ΔϴϜϴϧΎϜϴϤϟ΍ Ϟ΋ΎγϮϟ΍ ϡ΍ΪΨΘγΎΑ ΚϳΪΤϟ΍
.ΔϤψϨϣϭ
The TL Text is translated as follows
The Minister of Agriculture declared (stated) that he would be
primarily concerned with (lit. keep in-front of his eyes) the raising of
the standard of agriculture in the country, and that he would spare no
effort to place, as far as was possible, the most recent innovations
achieved by modern science within reach of the farmers (cultivators),
through the employment of mechanical aids, with one aim in view and
that was the facilitating and building up of an up-to-date wellorganized agriculture.
In the SL text, ‘ήϛΫ’ means ‘mentioned’ or ‘said’, but the translator prefers
to use other words, such as ‘declared’ or ‘stated’. The latter equivalents
seem to give a more prestigious status to the Minister’s speech. In the SL
text ‘Ξ΋ΎΘϧ’ means ‘results’ or ‘outcome’. The translator uses a totally
different word in the TL, ‘innovations’, which may serve best to suit the
textural meaning. It is evident that the translator is trying to improve the
SL text, by using his own intuition to select a better equivalent. In the TL,
the prepositional phrase ‘in view’ has no counterpart in the SL text, but the
translator adds this phrase to the TL text in order to clarify the situation in
the SL phrase ‘ΪΣ΍ϭ νήϐϟ’ ‘for a single aim’. Here too it is obvious that the
translator is trying to improve the SL text. In the TL text, ‘up-to-date’
stands for two different words in SL text ‘Δϳήμϋ’ ‘modern’ and ‘ΔΜϳΪΣ’
‘recent’ which have similar meaning in the SL text. It seems that the
translator preferred to pack up these two words in one word ‘up-to-date’
which served him well to produce redundancy.
2.3.4 Ambiguity
Ambiguity arises when a single surface structure has many possible
deep structures. This can be the result of polysemic predicates. A
polysemic predicate is a verb that has a single form, with many different
meanings. John Lyons (1977) considered the following sentence
ambiguous: ‘they passed the port at midnight,’ where ‘port’ may denote or
‘a kind of fortified wine’ (Lyons 1977:397). Consider the different
possible meanings of the underlined words:
Chapter Two
40
We saw her duck.
(1) We saw her lower her head.
(2) We saw the duck belonging to her.
The chicken is ready to eat.
(1) The chicken is ready to be eaten.
(2) The chicken is ready to eat some food.
The problem of homonymy is solved through context. In homonymy a
word has two different senses which are far apart from each other.
Punch
Blow with a fist
Kind of fruity alcoholic drink
bark
Of a dog
Of a tree
Context plays an important role in disambiguifying words. Another type of
ambiguity is structural ambiguity. Some sentences are syntactically
ambiguous at the global level, in which case the whole sentence has two or
more possible interpretations.
He hit the boy with the stick.
ΎμόϟΎΑ ΪϟϮϟ΍ Ώήο
Ύμόϟ΍ ΍Ϋ ΪϟϮϟ΍ Ώήο
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
41
Old men and women
˯Ύδϧϭ ϥϮϨδϣ ϝΎΟέ
ΕΎϨδϣ ˯Ύδϧϭ ϥϮϨδϣ ϝΎΟέ
Flying planes can be dangerous
ήϴτΧ Ε΍ή΋Ύτϟ΍ ϖϴϠΤΗ ϥϮϜϳ Ϊϗ
ΓήϴτΧ ΔϘϠΤϤϟ΍ Ε΍ή΋Ύτϟ΍ ϥϮϜΗ Ϊϗ
2.4 Translating Metaphors
Larson (1984) identifies the problems of translating metaphors.
Difficulty in translating metaphors is due to the fact that “the image used
in the metaphor or simile may be unknown in the receptor language”
(1984: 250). Moreover, the image may be unclear and difficult to be
interpreted by the TLT reader. The receptor language sometimes draws
comparisons which are different from those which occur in the SL
metaphor (1984: 251). Dickins and others (2002) give illustrative
examples of metaphors. As Larson comments,
In light of these various problems – the difficulty in discovering the
meaning of metaphors in the source language and the misunderstanding
which there may be in their interpretation – the translator must give careful
consideration whenever a metaphor is found in the source text… A literal
translation of a metaphor or simile often leads to wrong meanings or no
meaning at all. (1984: 252)
Larson summarizes five ways of translating metaphors.
1- The metaphor may be kept if the receptor language permits (that is,
if it sounds natural and is understood correctly by the readers)
having the same vehicle in the TL.
ϪϧΰΣϭ ϪΣήϓ ϰϠϋ ΓΪϫΎη ϥ΍έΪΠϟ΍
The walls had witnessed his joy and sadness
2- The stock SL metaphor can be replaced with a stock TL metaphor
having a different vehicle. In the following excerpt in the
translation of Mahfouz’s Trilogy Zanuba tells al-Sayyid that she
does not understand him. The metaphor of being in two different
valleys is used in the SLT to mean that the two speakers are
different.
42
Chapter Two
:ϝϮϘΗ ϰϫϭ ˬ ΔθϫΪϟΎΑ ΕήϫΎψΗ ϢΛ ˬ ˯ΎϨΜϟ΍ ΎϬΜόΑ ΔϣΎδΘΑ΍ Εέ΍Ϊϓ
( 105ι ˬ ϕϮθϟ΍ ήμϗ) ... Ω΍ϭ ϰϓ ϰϧ΃ϭ Ω΍ϭ ϰϓ Ϛϧ΃ ήϫΎψϟ΍ ˬ ΎΌϴη ϰϨόΗ ΎϤϣ ϢϬϓ΃ ϻShe hid the smile his praise had inspired and pretended to be
astonished as she said, “I absolutely do not understand what
you mean. It’s clear that we’re mountains apart….” (Palace of
Desire, p.101)
The translators chose to change the metaphor. In English the
idiomatic expression “worlds apart” means that people are
different. But the translators use the word “mountains” to keep the
atmosphere of the original metaphor.
3- A metaphor may be converted into a simile (adding like or as).
ϥΰΤϟ΍ ϩϮδϜϳ ΍ήδϜϨϣ ήϬϨϟ΍ ΍ΪΑ
The river appeared heart broken as if clothed in sadness
4- The metaphor may be kept and the meaning explained (that is, the
topic and/or point of similarity may be added).
5- The meaning of the metaphor may be translated without keeping
the metaphorical imagery (1984: 254).
αΎόϨϟ΍ ϪΑ ΪΒΘδϳ ϥ΃ ΩΎϛ
He was about to feel sleepy
Dobrzynska (1995) advocates the first, third and fourth solutions. The first
choice means preserving the exact original metaphor. The third presents
the substitution of an SL metaphor with a TL metaphor that has a similar
sense. The fourth refers to the strategy of explicitness. Therefore,
Dobrzynska considers three possibilities:
1. M ৐ M procedure = preserving the original metaphor
2. M1 ৐ M2 procedure = using another TL metaphor
3. M ৐ P procedure = explacating or paraphrasing the metaphor.
Dobrzynska considers explicitation as “better than absolute faithfulness to
the original or introduction of a metaphor that is false from the cultural
point of view” (1995: 603). In fact, the problem of translating metaphor is
a problem of being either faithful or beautiful. As Dobrzynska comments,
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
43
“it is not always possible to adhere to the principle of faithfulness, M ৐
M, without risking that a metaphorical utterance will become
incomprehensible or will lead to an interpretation which is incompatible
with the one intended in the original” (1995: 600). Sometimes it may be
appropriate to introduce other features in the TT in order to compensate
for the loss of the metaphor. Allusion from the Holly Qura’n is used to
compensate for the metaphor in the ST.
After a storm comes a calm
΍ήδϳ ήδόϟ΍ ϊϣ ϥ·
2.5 Translating Proverbs
Proverbs are said to be close to metaphors (Levinson 1983: 151).
Norrick (1985) distinguishes literal proverbs from figurative ones. When
the literal reading of the proverb does not correspond to its interpretation,
the proverb is figurative (Ibrahim and Kennedy 1996: 183). Ibrahim and
Kennedy argue that “[a] figurative proverb may also be metaphoric”
(1996: 183). Thus, proverbs can be analyzed as implicatures. In the
following example, al-Sayyid speaks of his son Kamal and points at
himself.
(244 ι ˬ ϦϳήμϘϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ) ΪγϷ΍ ΍άϫ Ϧϣ ϞΒθϟ΍ ϙ΍Ϋ
“He’s this lion’s cub.” (Palace Walk, p. 256)
He means that his son behaves like him. The implied meaning is “like
father like son”. But the translators preserve the metaphor of the lion at the
cost of comprehension. The same meaning is expressed in another
situation when Fahmy speaks of his brother Yasin but with a different
metaphor.
(296 ι ˬ ϦϳήμϘϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ) .. ϡ΍Ϯϋ ίϮϟ΍ ϦΑ΍ “The son of the goose is a good swimmer” (Palace Walk, p. 310)
Fahmy intends the same implied meaning. The translations of the two
proverbs are literal. Ibrahim and Kennedy (1996: 205-207) notice that
Egyptians use too many proverbs for the same situation. Their Arabic
language is formulaic and full of figures of speech.
Understanding proverbs is relatively different among language users.
Native speakers of Arabic understand Arabic proverbs because they are of
the same culture. But non-native readers of a translation of an Arabic
44
Chapter Two
proverb would be sometimes unable to grasp the relevance of the proverb.
The problem of losing relevance in the translation of proverbs is evident
when the proverb is figurative.
A speaker would use proverbs which would be maximally relevant to
the hearer. For example, the following Arabic proverb cannot have a
satisfactory interpretation for a target language community.
Δτϳΰϟ΍ ϊϤδϧϭ ςϴΤϟ΍ ΐϨΟ ΪόϘϧ ΓήϜΑ
Tomorrow we’ll sit beside the wall and hear the noise
In a study of figurative language Ibrahim and Kennedy (1996) find that
American interviewees cannot understand the given proverb. They notice
that the American interviewees do not maintain semantic connections with
the literal translation of the proverb through the words “wall”, “hear” and
“noise” (1996: 201).
Figurative proverbs are distinguished from literal proverbs (Norrick
1985). When the literal reading of the proverb does not correspond to its
interpretation, the proverb is figurative (Ibrahim and Kennedy 1996: 183).
A figurative proverb is metaphoric. Translators follow different strategies
in translating metaphors in proverbs. First, the metaphor may be kept if the
receptor language permits (that is, if it sounds natural and is understood
correctly by the readers).
ϊϘΗ ΎϬϟΎϜη΍ ϰϠϋ έϮϴτϟ΍
Birds of a feather flock together
ΓήΠθϟ΍ ϰϠϋ Γήθϋ ϻϭ Ϊϴϟ΍ ϰϓ έϮϔμϋ
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Second, a metaphor of the receptor language which has the same meaning
may be used in case of non-equivalence of the source metaphor; the
substitution of a source language metaphor with a target language
metaphor that has a similar sense.
ϊϠΨϣ έΎΠϨϟ΍ ΏΎΑ
The shoe-maker’s wife is ill-shod.
ϑϭήΧ ΐΤϤϟ΍ ΔϠμΑ
A posy from the beloved is a ruby.
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
45
Third, the meaning of the metaphor may be translated without keeping the
metaphorical imagery.
Ϧϴόϟ΍ ϪϓϮθΗ ϡίϻ ϦϴΒΠϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΏϮΘϜϣ ϰϠϟ΍
What must be must be.
The criterion which governs the use of one of these strategies is relevance.
A proverb may be entertained in different ways and to different degrees by
different language users. Thus, a figurative proverb that is relevant to the
source language community may be best translated as literal proverb that
is relevant to the target language community. Understanding a proverb has
to be a trade-off between being metaphoric and being relevant. Thus, the
most accessible interpretation is the most relevant.
Relevance can also help translators compensate the loss of social
meaning. Social meaning may be lost in the process of translating
proverbs. Social meaning conveys the idea that the use of proverbs by
native language users is a confirmation of their solidarity and common
knowledge because they belong to a shared world. To the contrary, the
target language community always loses that sort of social meaning when
interpreting a proverb of a different culture. The only factor which
compensates the loss of social meaning is the relevance of the proverb.
Therefore, translators should consider relevance in the translating of
proverbs. Relevance is one of the factors which they should pay special
attention in the interpretation of proverbs. The translation of a source
language proverb should be relevant to the target language community.
Non-native reader of the translation of the following Arabic proverb may
not be familiar with its interpretation.
ΎϬϣϻ ΖϨΒϟ΍ ϊϠτΗ ΎϬϤϓ ϰϠϋ ΓήΠϟ΍ ϰϔϛ΍
Like mother, like daughter.
In successful translations the information presupposed by the writer to be
known to the source language reader should be clear to the target language
reader (Nord 1991: 96). In translating proverbs pragmatic failure may
occur. If the translators use some information not to be known by the
target language reader, relevance loss will be likely to come about in the
translation. They must refer to the world of the target language reader. The
probability of relevance being present can be calculated from the
‘distance’ of the source language community and the target language
community to the cultural environment of the subject matter.
46
Chapter Two
Proverbs bear cultural presuppositions. Ibrahim and Kennedy (1996)
consider proverbs as a component of a context of shared knowledge or
what Quinn and Holland (1987) term a community’s cultural models.
Cultural models are presupposed, taken-for-granted models of the world
that are widely shared by the members of a society and that play an
enormous role in their understanding of that world and their behavior in it.
(1987: 4 cited in Ibrahim and Kennedy 1996: 185)
Ibrahim and Kennedy (1996) argue that “interpretations of given proverbs
by people from differing cultural backgrounds should show corresponding
differences in the use of language…” (1996:181). For example, not all
proverbs should be translated literally. Translators should find a pragmatic
equivalent in case of not finding a literal equivalent. Notice how the
following proverbs are translated.
ϪϠϛ εϮδΤϠΗ Ύϣ Ϟδϋ ϚΒϴΒΣ ϥΎϛ ϥ΍
Don’t abuse the kindness of a friend.
ϝϼΣ ΎϬϟϭ ΓΪϘϋ Ϟϛ
There is always a way.
Once bitten, twice shy
ϦϴΗήϣ ήΤΟ Ϧϣ ˯ήϤϟ΍ ύΪϠϳϻ
(ΔϴϣΎϋ) ϯΩΎΑΰϟ΍ ϰϓ ΦϔϨϳ ΔΑέϮθϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϊδϠΗ΍ ϰϠϟ΍
In fact, the problem of translating metaphorical proverbs is a problem of
being either faithful or beautiful. In any case, it is not always possible to
adhere to the principle of preserving a metaphorical utterance. Preserving
metaphors in figurative proverbs will lead to an interpretation which is
incompatible with the one intended in the original. Bastin (2001) confirms
that “a successful translation is one that looks or sounds like an original
piece of work” (2001: 8).
2.6 Case in Translation
Case Grammar models deal with the semantic content of sentences and
ignore their syntactic structure. As stated above, the (propositional)
content (or deep structure) of the sentence is analyzed in terms of a central
verb and a series of case-marked noun phrases associated with that verb.
The system was created by the American linguist Charles J. Fillmore in
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
47
1968, in the context of Transformational Grammar. This theory analyzes
the surface syntactic structure of sentences by studying the combination of
deep cases (i.e. semantic roles) -- Agent, Object, Benefactor, Location or
Instrument—which are required by a specific verb. For instance, the verb
“give” in English requires an Agent (A) and Object (O), and a Beneficiary
(B); e.g. “Jones (A) gave money (O) to the school (B).
1- John / broke / the window / with a hammer
A …..
O
I
2- The hammer / broke / the window,
I
…..
O
3- John / broke / the window.
A …..
O
4- The window / broke,
A
…..
The active and passive uses of a verb, like ‘break’, are considered as
diverse surface structures related to identical deep role structures, as in the
following (using Fillmore’s case labels):
(1) The door broke (intransitive).
SÎV+O
(2) a. The hammer broke the door.
SÎV+O+I
b. The door was broken with the hammer.
SÎV+O+I
(3) a. John broke the door.
SÎV+O+A
b. The door was broken by John.
SÎV+O+A
(4) a. John broke the door with a hammer.
SÎV+O+I+A
b. the door was broken by John with a hammer . S Î V + O + I + A
However, case grammar emphasizes that the semantic relations among
different constituents remain unaltered whether the sentence is ultimately
actualized as a passive or a non-passive.
The active and passive uses of the verb ‘break’, as we have seen above,
are considered diverse surface structures related to identical deep role
structures. Comparing, these uses of the passive to Arabic, we find that the
verb ‘ήδϛ’ has the same case frame as that of its equivalent in English,
‘break’. Let us consider the following illustrations:
(5) ΏΎΒϟ΍ ήδϜϧ΍
(The door broke)
SÎV+O
48
Chapter Two
(6) a. ΏΎΒϟ΍ ΔϗήτϤϟ΍ Εήδϛ
SÎV+O+I
(The hammer broke the door)
b. ΔϗήτϤϟΎΑ ΏΎΒϟ΍ ήδϛ
SÎV+O+I
(The door was broken with the hammer)
(7) a. ΏΎΒϟ΍ ΪϤΣ΃ ήδϛ
SÎV+O+A
(Ahmed broke the door)
b. ΏΎΒϟ΍ ήδϛ
SÎV+O+A
(The door was broken)
(8) a. ΔϗήτϤϟΎΑ ΏΎΒϟ΍ ΪϤΣ΃ ήδϛ
SÎV+O+I+A
(Ahmed broke the door with the hammer)
b. ΔϗήτϤϟΎΑ ΏΎΒϟ΍ ήδϛ
SÎV+O+I+A
(The door was broken with the hammer)
One use of case grammar in translation is the recovery of verbs and verbal
force (that is, the verbal meaning) in verbless clauses, which is obviously
central in the bilingual communication situation where the translator has to
tease out the semantics from the source text and build up a semantic
representation to encode into a target text. This is relevant in the
translation of a lot foreign languages into English, where stylistic
constraints in many cases require the main verb to be there in English,
while it may be left out in other languages. As it happens, Arabic and
English are quite alike in this respect. There are some situations where
they differ, one being the exclusion of verbs in adjunctive adverbial clause
in English:
He smiled sardonically, his finger on the trigger.
ΩΎϧΰϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ϪόΒλ΍ϭ ΍ήΧΎγ ϢδΘΑ΍ϭ
2.7 Culture
2.7.1 Culture & Translation
Culture is far more complex phenomenon than it may seem to the
translator. The more a translator is aware of differences between cultures,
the better a translator s/he will be. Cultural differences have been a main
issue in translation theory. The main concern has traditionally been with
words and phrases that are so heavily and exclusively grounded in one
culture that they are almost impossible to translate into the terms - verbal
or otherwise - of another. Long debate has been held over when to
paraphrase, when to use the nearest local equivalent, when to coin a new
word by translating literally, and when to transcribe. All these
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
49
“untranslatable” cultural-bound words and phrases continued to fascinate
translators. Mounin (1963) underlined the importance of the signification
of the lexical level. The problem with this theory is that all the cultural
elements are not only reflected on the lexical level, what should a
translator do in the case of cultural implications which are implied in the
background knowledge of SL readers?
Nida‘s definitions of formal and dynamic equivalence in 1964 consider
cultural implications for translation. According to him, a “gloss
translation” mostly typifies formal equivalence where form and content
are reproduced as faithfully as possible and the TL reader is able to
“understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought, and
means of expression” of the SL context. However, dynamic equivalence
“tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the
context of his own culture” without insisting that he “understand the
cultural patterns of the source-language context” 1964: 59-60).
2.7.2 Readership
Once the ideal ST readership has been determined, considerations must
be made concerning the TT. The translator’s first and major difficulty is
the construction of a new ideal reader who, even if he has the same
academic, professional and intellectual level as the original reader, will
have significantly different textual expectations and cultural knowledge.
Problems related to cultural differences which include many
extralinguistic features, such as religion, social backgrounds, unfamiliar
natural phenomena, and others. Cultural problems include dichotomies
such as translatability or untranslatability and adaptation or cultural
equivalence. Culture is an umbrella term that includes various problems in
the process of translation such as problems arising from mixing between
the denotative and connotative meanings of words, forms of address, and
the problems associated with idioms and metaphors. Dickins and others
(2002) stress the seriousness of cultural problems in translation. Decency,
for example, is culture specific and relative to people. Notice how
considerations of decency are made in the following translation.
Petruchio: Come Kate, We’ll to bed.
(The Taming of the Shrew, V, 2, 184)
ΔϴΟϭΰϟ΍ ΎϨΗΎϴΣ ΃ΪΒϨϠϓ ˬ Ζϴϛ Ύϳ ϢϠϫ :ϮϴηϭήΘΑ
The same applies to the following example.
50
Chapter Two
Talbot: Shall all thy mother’s hopes lie in one tomb?
John: Ay, rather than I’ll shame my mother’s womb. (KH VI, 5, 34-5)
ˮΪΣ΍ϭ ήΒϗ ϰϓ ΎϬϠϛ Ϛϣ΃ ϝΎϣ΁ ϰϬΘϨΗ ϭ΃ :ΕϮΒϟΎΗ
ΎϬΘόϤγϭ ΎϬϓήη βϧΩ΃ ϥ΃ Ϧϣ Ϟπϓ΃ Ϛϟάϓ ϞΟ΃ :ϥϮΟ
2.7.3 Translatability and Untranslatability
The translatability of a text depends on many aspects. It depends on the
degree to which the source text is embedded in its own culture. The more
culture-bound a text is, the more difficult it is to translate. The less culture
bound a text is, the less it needs to be adapted to suit the TL readership.
We should speak of a sliding scale of translatability, largely depending on
the degree to which a text is embedded in SL culture. The translatability of
a text is deeply connected with the communicative function of the text.
Promotional leaflets, business letters and poetry are meaningful examples
of different degrees of translatability. An example of untranslatable
models is case. It is a grammatical value which cannot be equal in
languages.
Mary and I went to the ceremony. ϝΎϔΘΣϼϟ ϱέΎϣϭ ΖΒϫΫ
The letter was addressed to Mary and me (not Mary and I)
The issue of translatability and untranslatability has been debated by many
linguists over a long period of time. While a group of linguists argue that
translation from one language to another is not possible because of some
losses, another group argues that it is possible. Dinneen (1967) states that
if a full equivalence of the SL message is aimed at in the TL by
translation, then translation is not possible by any means. Von Humboldt
paradoxically asserted the impossibility of translation and presented
untranslatability as a challenge to be taken up (Baker 2009: 301). Von
Humboldt’s words, from a letter to A.W. Schlegel, dated July 23, 1796,
exemplify this approach to translation:
All translation seems to me to be simply an attempt to solve an impossible
task. Every translator is doomed to be done in by one of two stumbling
blocks; he will either stay too close to the original, at the cost of taste and
the language of his nation, or he will adhere too closely to characteristics
peculiar to his nation, at the cost of the original. The medium between the
two is not only difficult, but downright impossible. (As in Wilss, 1982: 35)
De Waard and Nida (1986: 42) also confirm that “absolute communication
in translating is impossible” due to the fact that some losses in the message
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
51
are inevitable for the reason, they state, that “sources and receptors never
have identical linguistic and cultural backgrounds” (de Waard & Nida,
1986: 42).
Jacobson (1959) also has addressed the issue of untranslatability,
especially with regard to poetry, for which he maintains that:
Phonemic similarity is sensed as semantic relationship. The pun, or to use a
more erudite and perhaps more precise term - paronomasia, reigns over
poetic art, and whether its rule is absolute or limited, poetry by definition is
untranslatable. (Jacobson, 1959: 238)
Catford (1965: 99) distinguishes between two types of untranslatability:
linguistic, and cultural. The linguistic type of untranslatability arises when
linguistic features, mainly stylistic and phonological, cannot be
recomposed in the system of the TL. That is to say that there is linguistic
untranslatability when there are certain linguistic differences between the
SL and the TL structures which do not allow the transfer of the exact
message. Playing on words or jokes can be a typical example because they
involve semantic as well as phonological and/or stylistic features which
have to go together. The cultural type of untranslatability, on the other
hand, according to Catford (1965: 99), occurs “when a situational feature,
functionally relevant for the SL text, completely absent from the culture of
which the TL is a part”. In such a case, the SL and the TL have different
socio-cultural background.
Newmark (1981: 134-5) puts the matter in a different way when he
considers the reasons for translatability or untranslatability as being
tangible or mental. The comments of Newmark bring us to the second
view about the possibility of translation, which divides into two groups:
one group believes in complete translation; the other group believes that
there is translation but it is not complete. In other words, there are losses
which cannot be made up by any techniques. Although there are
difficulties in translation, some scholars in the field still believe it is
possible to translate, and that some special certain techniques may help
reduce losses to minimum.
Jacobson (1959: 232-5) has addressed the issue of the possibility to
convey knowledge from one language to another. He maintains:
All cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing
language. Where there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and
amplified by loanwords or loan translation, neologism, or semantic shifts,
and finally by circumlocution.
52
Chapter Two
Nida (1969: 483-98) argues that translatability is possible because of the
fact that this world is the same for all people, and people express their
thoughts about the world in a variety of different languages.
2.7.4 Allusion
Allusion, as a culture-specific concept, is a brief reference, explicit or
implicit, to a person, place, or event or to another literary work or passage.
As Wheeler (1979: 5) puts it, “Allusion helps to elucidate the meaning of
each text and to indicate the literary modes and conventions in which its
author works.” For example, we can say that one sonnet of Shakespeare
alludes to a specific part of the Bible. Allusions enrich the texts in which
they are used when it is not possible to speak directly because of social or
political considerations. It can rightly be said that allusion plays the most
important role in persuading its readers to accept what the author says
especially when they quote some parts from religious texts or famous
literary works. Modern Western Culture has inherited beliefs from the
ancient Greeks and Romans. The Arabic reader is not familiar with these
classical ideas. The translator in the following excerpt from King Henry
VI chose to explain the allusion.
Now am I like that proud insulting ship
Which Caesar and his fortune bare at once. (KH VI, 1, 2, 138-9)
ΔϴΗΎόϟ΍ ϪΘϨϴϔγ ϰϓ αϮϴϟϮϴϛ ϻ΍ ϰϨΒδΣ΃ Ύϣϭ
ΔϨϴϔδϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ύίΎΒϟ΍ ϪϤΠϧϭ ήμϴϗ ϚόϤϓ Ύγ΄Α ϰθΨΗ ϻ ΎϬϧΎΑήϟ ϝΎϗ ΍Ϋ΍
Proper name allusions might be real-life or fictional figures, names of
well-known people in the past, writers, artists, etc. Sometimes, they are
quoted from myths, films, advertisement, various catch phrases, clichés, or
proverbs. Sometimes, phrases from religious texts are mentioned as key
phrase allusions. Religious texts have always been a source of inspiration
for poets and authors of literary texts .In fact they allude to religious texts
to attribute value to their works.
An example of a good allusion is clear in Mahfouz’s Palace of Desire
in the utterance of Kamal when he hears Aida calling his name.
( 21ι ˬ ϕϮθϟ΍ ήμϗ) ”ϲϧϭήΛΩ .. ϰϧϮϠϣί“ :΍ΪΠϨΘδϣ ϒΘϬΗ Ϯϟ ΎϫΪόΑ ΕΩΩϭ
Immediately afterwards you would have liked to echo the Prophet’s
words when he would feel a revelation coming and cry out for help:
“Wrap me up! Cover me with my cloak!” (Palace of Desire, p.18)
Meaning-based Issues in Translation
53
The enrichment of the utterance is a good decision from the translators to
make the allusion clear. It gives the TL reader knowledge about the
religious expression “ϲѧѧϧϭήΛΩ ... ϰϧϮѧѧϠϣί”. A competent and responsible
translator, after noticing an allusion in a passage of the ST and after
analyzing its function in the micro and macro context, must decide how to
deal with it. Retention of the allusion, changing it somehow or omitting
the allusion is a culture-based decision. Differences arise from the fact that
key phrases may only exceptionally be retained in their source-language
forms. But proper-name allusion is indeed based on retention of the name,
replacement of the name by another name and omission of the name, each
strategy with some additional variants. (Leppihalme, 1997) suggests nine
strategies. The following are examples of these strategies:
(1a) Retention of the name as such
Josephĺ ϒϳίϮΟ
(1b) Retention of the name with some additional guidance
ϒγϮϳ ĺ John, the prophet
(2a) Replacement of the name with another source-language name
God’s sonĺ ΢ϴδϤϟ΍
Virginĺ˯΍έάόϟ΍ Ϣϳήϣ
‘Gate of heaven’, ‘Morning star’, ‘Tower of ivory’, are some of titles of
Saint Mary used by Catholics. Since TL readers from another religion may
not understand these words the translator uses the general word.
(2b) Replacement of the name with a target-language name
ϲϠϴϟ ϭ ϥϮϨΠϣ ĺRomeo and Juliet
(3) Footnotes, endnotes, forewords and other additional explanations
outside the text itself:
a- Some words are culture-specific; the SL word is unknown to the
reader.
Ex. (ΔϓΎϨϛ - ϥϮϧΎϛ)
b- Some words have cultural connotations or expressive meaning.
Ex. Ϊϴδϟ΍ ϲγ
c- Some words bear cultural presupposition.
Ex. ΔϨϴϜγϭ Ύϳέ
In Mahfouz’s Palace of Desire Khadija is speaking of her mother-in-law’s
complaint about her. She says that people will think that she is like “ ϭ΃ Ύϳέ
ΔϨϴϜγ”.
54
Chapter Two
!ΔϨϴϜγ ϭ΃ Ύϳέ ϲϨΒδΤϟ Γήϴδόϟ΍ ϑϭήψϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϰϓ ϲϧϮϜθΗ ϰϫϭ ϥΎϛΪϟ΍ ϰϓ ϊϣΎγ ΎϬόϤγ Ϯϟϭ
( 238ι ˬϕϮθϟ΍ ήμϗ)
“Anyone hearing her complain about me in the store under such
adverse conditions would have thought I was a cold-blooded killer like
those dreadful women in Alexandria: Rayya and Sakina.” (Palace of
Desire, p.231)
The utterance “ΔϨϴϜγ ϭ΃ Ύϳέ” is successfully translated because it is
pragmatically enriched to help the target reader understand the meaning.
(4) Simulated familiarity, internal marking (marked wording or syntax):
It occurs when the translators make use of stylistic contrast to signal an
allusion. In addition to these strategies Leppihalme suggests that it is
possible that the allusion is left untranslated, that is, it appears in the
target text in its source-text form.
CHAPTER THREE
GRAMMATICAL ISSUES IN TRANSLATION
All the demonstrable features contained in a text could (in another text)
be different; i.e. each textual variable constitutes a genuine option in the
text. There must be certain shifts in translation which depend on the
stylistic systems of individual languages and on the vocabulary. We can
distinguish several levels where maintaining equivalence in translating
could be problematical. The most significant are: the word level, the
grammatical level and the textual level.
Describing a grammar of a language includes description of its
morphology and syntax. There are two types of grammatical structure: (1)
morphological patterns affecting individual words – affixation/inflection,
compounding and derivation; (2) syntactic patterns, whereby words are
linked to form more or less complex pattern phrases and sentences. In
both, what concerns the translator is the fact that the structural patterns
differ from language to language.
3.1 Morphological Level
The word level refers principally to the idea that not all languages
function on the same basis because the concepts of one language may
differ completely from those of another language. For example, there is a
range of prefixes in English which have to be translated into Arabic as
separate words: rewrite has to be transferred into ‘write again’ (ΔΑΎΘϛ Ϊϴόϳ) in
Arabic. This suggests that there is no “one-to-one correspondence” (Baker
1992: 11) between words and morphemes across languages. An example
of the different word formation in English and Arabic is the derivational
morphemes; e. g. English adjectives with the suffix “able” can be
translated as passive verbs or by adding words such as “˰ϟ ϞΑΎϗ” or “˰ϟ ΢Ϡμϳ”.
Adjectives such as ‘portable’ and ‘edible’ can be rendered as “ϞϘϨϳ” and
“ϞϛΆϳ” or as “ϞϘϨϠϟ ϞΑΎϗ” and “Ϟϛϸϟ ΢Ϡμϳ”. The adjective ‘livable’ meaning
‘endurable’ is better translated as ΎϬϠϤΤΗ ϦϜϤϣ. However, some adjectives
with the suffix ‘able’ have more than one meaning; e.g., the adjective
‘readable’ is translated ‘ϪΗ˯΍ήϗ ϦϜϤϣ ˬ ˯ϭήϘϣ’ when it modifies ‘writing’ or
CHAPTER THREE
PROCEDURES FOR TRANSLATING
CULTURALLY SPECIFIC ITEMS
JAMES DICKINS
Abstract
The translation of items (words and phrases) which are specific to one
culture from a Source Language expressing that culture (the Source
Culture) into a Target Language expressing another culture (the Target
Culture) necessarily involves ‘dislocation’. This paper reviews three
influential typologies for the translation of culturally specific items: Ivir
(1987), Newmark (1981, 1988), and Hervey and Higgins (1992), referring
also to Venuti (1995). It suggests a number of dichotomies for
understanding these typologies and the translation of culturally specific
items: 1 Source Culture-/Source Language-oriented (domesticating) vs.
Target Culture-/Target Language-oriented (foreignising); 2 nonlexicalised/ ungrammatical vs. lexicalised/grammatical; 3 semantically
systematic vs. semantically anomalous; 4 synonymy-oriented vs. nonsynonymy oriented; 5 situationally equivalent vs. culturally analogous; 6
lexical vs. structural. As an aid to understanding these typologies, the paper
provides a visual ‘grid’, siting the various procedures proposed by each of
the four typologies.
Keywords: translation, culture, Arabic, domestication, foreignisation
Introduction
This paper considers the translation of culturally specific items, as
delimited by the following extreme procedures:
i. In the translated text (Target Text) artificially including Source
Culture-specific aspects of the original text (Source Text), by
44
Chapter Three
extending the margins of the Target Language and Target Culture
through ‘cultural borrowing’; or:
ii. In the Target Text artificially presenting elements in the Source
Text which are Source Culture-specific as if they were central
elements of the Target Culture through ‘cultural transplantation’.
The proposals of Ivir (1987), Newmark (1981, 1988), and Hervey and
Higgins (1992) are considered in detail because these are the best known
and arguably the most coherently worked out sets of proposals in the
literature. Venuti (1995), although less specific, will also be discussed,
because of the important general orientation provided by his distinction
between foreignisation and domestication. The approaches taken in these
proposals are summarised in figure 4.1. The following discussion will
make extensive reference to that figure, and the various columns it
contains.
Source Culture-/Source Language-oriented
vs. Target Culture-/Target Language-oriented,
and Foreignising vs. Domesticating
The most general distinction in respect of culture-specific items is
whether the translation is oriented towards the Source Culture and, by
extension, Source Language, or the Target Culture, and by extension
Target Language. I assume that orientation towards the Source Culture
implies also orientation towards the Source Language, and that orientation
towards the Target Culture implies also orientation towards the Target
Language. I also identify Source Culture-/Source Language-oriented with
foreignising and Target Culture-/Target Language-oriented with
domesticating (Venuti, 1995), domesticating translation procedures being
those given in columns 1, 2 and 3 in figure 4.1, while foreignising
translation procedures are given in columns 5, 6 and 7. Culture-neutral is
used in figure 4.1, column 4 to refer to a translation which is neither
foreignising nor domesticating, but is equally appropriate to both the
Source Culture and Target Culture.
The boundaries between foreignising and culture-neutral, and between
culture-neutral and domesticating are ‘fuzzy’: we cannot always be sure
whether a particular element of translation is better defined as foreignising
or culture-neutral, or culture-neutral or domesticating. Even within a
single language cultural identity is complex: is curry an Indian dish
because that is where it originated, or is it now also a British one because
Indian restaurants and take-aways are extremely popular in Britain, and
millions of people in Britain have curry for tea every night?
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
Key: Ivir = Ivir (1987); Newmark = Newmark (1981, 1988); H+H = Hervey
and Higgins (1992)
Figure 4.1 Procedures for translating culturally specific items.
45
46
Chapter Three
Non-lexicalised/Ungrammatical
vs. Lexicalised/Grammatical
‘Non-lexicalised’ translation procedures are shown in figure 4.1,
column 1. ‘Non-lexicalised’ means that the word in question is not a
regular part of the language. By definition, non-lexicalised words are not
found in dictionaries. Mizmar, used for example as the English translation
of the Arabic
‫م م‬, is an example of a non-lexicalised word.
‘Ungrammatical’ means that the form in question does not conform to the
standard grammar of the language. A translation of ‫ ض ب ي ض بتين‬as ‘he
beat me two beatings’ is ungrammatical: the adverbial use of a noun
phrase cognate to the verb is not part of the grammar of English. Nonlexicalised words are sometimes referred to as nonce-words, while
ungrammatical forms can be referred to as nonce-formations (cf. Crystal
2003).
The boundaries between what is lexicalised and what is not are not
always clear. ‘Islam’ is a well-established lexicalised word in English.
‘Sharia’ (also ‘sheria’) (i.e., ‫ )ش يع‬is given in Collins English Dictionary,
but is likely to be unknown to many non-Muslims in Britain. While we
might regard ‘sharia’ as lexicalised in a general sense, for those English
speakers who do not know it, we may say that it is non-lexicalised.
Semantically Systematic vs. Semantically Anomalous
‘Semantically systematic’ translation procedures are shown in figure
4.1, columns 3-7. ‘Semantically systematic’ means ‘a standard part of the
semantic system of the language’. For example, the meanings of ‘fox’ as
(1) any canine mammal of the genre Vulpes and related genera, and (2) a
person who is cunning and sly, are semantically systematic in English. The
meanings of ‘round the bend’ as (1) ‘around the corner’ and (2) ‘mad’, are
also semantically systematic in English. In both these cases all the
meanings given can be found in a reliable dictionary.
‘Semantically anomalous’ translation procedures are shown in figure
4.1, columns 1-2. ‘Semantically anomalous’ means ‘not part of the
semantic system of the language’. The use of ‘aardvark’ to mean ‘an
incompetent person’ is semantically anomalous. This is reflected in the
fact that ‘aardvark’ is not given in the sense ‘an incompetent person’ in
reliable English dictionaries. Similarly, ‘beyond the turning’ in the sense
‘mad’ is semantically anomalous, as reflected in the fact that ‘beyond the
turning’ is not glossed as ‘mad’ in reliable English dictionaries. Nonlexicalised words (nonce-words) are by definition semantically anomalous.
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
47
Since mizmar is not lexicalised in English (not part of the vocabulary of
the language), it cannot have a proper (systematic, fixed) meaning.
Ungrammatical forms are similarly by definition semantically anomalous.
Since ‘he beat me two beatings’ is not part of the grammar of English, it
cannot, similarly, have a proper (fixed, systematic) meaning.
The fact that forms are non-systematic does not necessarily mean that
they cannot be understood (or at least partially understood). In a phrase ‘he
blew a beautiful long, single note on the mizmar’, it is fairly clear that the
mizmar must be a form of wind instrument. Similarly, it is likely that a
native English speaker would understand the phrase ‘he beat me two
beatings’ even if they recognise that it is not English.
Synonymy-oriented vs. Problem-avoidance Oriented
vs. Non-synonymy Oriented
‘Synonymy-oriented’ translation procedures are shown in figure 4.1,
columns 1-4. ‘Synonymy-oriented’ is not used here to mean
‘synonymous’. Rather, it means that the translation is likely to be close to
synonymous—even if it is more specifically hyponymous (particularising),
hyperonymous (generalising), or semantically overlapping (Dickins,
Hervey and Higgins 2002, pp. 54-59), and that it can be reasonably
analysed in relation to the notion of synonymy. Non-lexicalised words can
be regarded as synonymous with their Source Text forms. Thus the nonlexicalised and semantically anomalous mizmar is—if we are to say that it
has any sense at all in English—best regarded as synonymous with the
Arabic ‫م م‬. Similarly, ungrammatical forms, such as ‘two beatings’ (in
‘he beat me two beatings’) are best regarded as ‘structurally synonymous’
with their Source Text originals—i.e. ‘two beatings’ here is to be regarded
as having an adverbial sense in English. In figure 4.1, column 5, I have
identified omission as a cultural translation procedure with problemavoidance: by not attempting to find any equivalent for the Source Text
word or phrase, the problem of what an appropriate equivalence might be
is avoided. Non-synonymy oriented translation procedures are given in
figure 4.1, columns 6 and 7. Non-synonymy oriented translation
procedures are those in which the issue of synonymy is not of focal
importance. Non-synonymy oriented translations are domesticating in that
they involve use of specifically Source Culture-oriented uses of language.
48
Chapter Three
Situationally Equivalent vs. Culturally Analogous
Figure 4.1 includes two types of non-synonymy oriented translations
The first, situational equivalence (column 6), involves cases in which the
same situations (or functions) can be identified in both cultures. Thus,
people see others off on a journey in both Western and Arabic culture. In
Britain, one might say to someone one is seeing off, ‘Have a nice journey’,
or ‘Have a safe journey’, or even ‘All the best’. In Sudan, the standard
phrase is ‫( و عتك ﷲ‬or ‫ﷲ‬
‫)و ع‬. These phrases are situationally (or
functionally) equivalent; whether they are nearly synonymous or not
nearly synonymous is of secondary importance.
The second type of non-synonymy oriented translation, that of cultural
analogy (column 7), is where there is no obvious situational equivalent in
the Target Text Culture: that is to say, the particular situation—or
feature—in question is part of the Source Culture, but not part of the
Target Culture. Culture-specific literary allusions often give rise to this
kind of case. Thus ‫ قيس ولي‬as an ironic description of two young lovers
(cf. Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002, p. 32) involves a literary allusion
which is specific to Arab (and more generally Middle Eastern) culture.
Precisely the same ‘situation’ (i.e., characters) does not occur in Western
culture. However, in English literature, and therefore English-language
culture, Romeo and Juliet—as doomed lovers—occupy an analogous
situation to that of ‫ قيس‬and ‫ لي‬in Arab culture. ‫ قيس ولي‬may therefore, in
some circumstances, be replaced by Target Text ‘Romeo and Juliet’ by a
process of cultural analogy.
There are cases which fall somewhere between situational equivalence
and cultural analogy. When someone has had their hair cut, it is customary
in many Arabic countries to say ً ‫ نعي‬meaning ‘with comfort/ease’, to
which the standard reply is ‫( نعم ﷲ ع يك‬with some variants) ‘may God
grant you comfort/ease’. English has, of course, the cultural situation of
haircutting—there is no need here to search for a cultural analogy. What it
lacks, however, is any standard phrase which is uttered when someone has
their hair cut: there is no real situational equivalent.
Lexical vs. Structural (Morphotactic or Syntactic)
Row A and row B (columns 1-3 only) distinguish between lexical and
structural translation procedures. In the case of foreignising translations
not involving omission, the foreignising element may be lexical (row A,
columns 1-3), i.e., a feature of the words used (considered as single units).
Alternatively, it may be structural (row B, columns 1-3), i.e., a feature of
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
49
the way in which words are put together from individual morphemes
(morphotactic) or the way in which words themselves join together to
form larger phrases (syntactic)—or both.
What Hervey and Higgins call cultural borrowing (see below) is
normally a case of a monomorphemic word, i.e., a word which consists of
only one morpheme: as such it is lexical rather than structural. For
example, in Yemen the word ‫ ب‬is used for a particular type of minibus
(normally a Toyota mini-van). In Arabic, this is likely to be analysed as
consisting of two morphemes: the root
and the pattern ‫فع‬. If,
however, we use the cultural borrowing dabab to translate the Arabic ‫ ب‬,
the form in English consists of a single morpheme: the grammar of
English does not allow us to identify separate root and pattern morphemes
here. In the case of ungrammatical calque the foreignising element is
structural. That is to say, it is either morphotactic, or syntactic. ‘He beat
me two beatings’ consists of standard English words: the overall form,
however, is structurally (syntactically) foreignising.
Plotting Ivir’s, Newmark’s, and Hervey
and Higgins’ Procedures
In the following sub-sections, I will firstly provide proposed general
descriptions—some of which have also been used, or are usable, as
terms—of the translation procedures defined by figure 4.1. These
descriptions are presented in unboxed text in figure 4.1. Following that I
will consider the specific procedures proposed in Ivir (1987), Newmark
(1988), and Hervey and Higgins (2002) presented in boxes, as these are
classified according to column and row (for columns 1-3) in figure 4.1.
Because some of the procedures of Ivir, Newmark and Hervey and
Higgins belong to more than one column and/or row, I will group these
authors’ procedures together in common-sense categories, in order to
present the information in a manner which is relatively coherent and
comprehensible.
Cultural Borrowing Proper and Ungrammatical
Calque/Exoticism
The column 1, row A translation procedure could be termed cultural
borrowing proper. The column 1, row B procedure could be termed
ungrammatical calque/exoticism. Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002)
specifically confine cultural borrowing to non-lexicalised lexical (nonstructural) forms—i.e. column 1, row A. Thus, dabab—see section Lexical
50
Chapter Three
vs. structural (morphotactic or syntactic), above—is a cultural borrowing,
but intifada, as a translation of ‫ نت ض‬, is no longer a cultural borrowing, on
the grounds that intifada has now become a regular part of the English
language (cf. Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002, p. 34).
Ivir seems to define as a borrowing any conspicuously foreign-derived
word. This may be non-lexicalised, e.g., dabab as a translation of the
Yemeni ‫ ب‬., in which case it belongs to column 1. Or, it may be
lexicalised, e.g., intifada, in which cases it belongs in column 3. In figure
4.1, I have connected the two Ivir ‘borrowing’ boxes in column 1 and
column 3 with a double-headed arrow, to indicate that they constitute, for
Ivir, a single procedure. Since Ivir is talking about borrowing without
structural complexity (both dabab and intifada consist of a single
morpheme in English), Ivir’s borrowing belongs entirely in row A.
Newmark defines transference as “the process of transferring a Source
Language word to a Target Language text as a translation procedure. It [...]
includes transliteration, which relates to the conversion of different
alphabets: e.g., Russian (Cyrillic), Greek, Arabic, Chinese, etc. into
English. The word then becomes a ‘loan word’” (Newmark 1988, p. 81).
Newmark includes within the procedure of transference both nonlexicalised terms (e.g., dabab) and lexicalised terms (e.g., intifida). Like
Ivir’s ‘borrowing’, Newmark’s ‘transference and naturalisation’ thus
belongs in both column A and column C (as with Ivir’s ‘borrowing’, I
have connected Newmark’s ‘transference and naturalisation’ boxes with a
double-headed arrow, to show that for Newmark these two boxes
constitute a single procedure).
Newmark’s transference is a simple adoption of a word (or phrase)
without any adaptation to the Target Language. Transference is by
definition lexical—there is no internal structuring (whether morphotactic
or syntactic) in the Target Language form—and thus belongs to row A.
Naturalisation “succeeds transference and adapts the Source Language
word first to the normal pronunciation, then to the normal morphology
(word forms) of the Target Language” (Newmark 1988, p.82). Where
naturalisation involves only phonological adaptation, it remains lexical:
intifada, when pronounced by the average English speaker may sound
English (almost rhyming with, for example, ‘winter larder’). However, as
it is morphologically simple in English, it is lexical, rather than
morphotactic.
One example which Newmark gives of naturalisation is French
thatchérisme, from English ‘Thatcherism’ (the political philosophy
associated with Margaret Thatcher). Here the root element thatchér has
been somewhat adapted to French pronunciation and spelling—thatchér as
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
51
opposed to English ‘Thatcher’, the suffix has the standard French form isme (English ‘-ism’), and the word is spelt with an initial lower-case letter
‘t’, rather than the English upper-case ‘T’. In the case of thatchérisme, the
French form is morphologically complex—consisting of the morphemes
thatchér and -isme (assuming that -isme is morphologically simple).
Thatchérisme is thus structural (morphotactic) and belongs to row B.
By ‘lexical creation’ Ivir seems to mean non-lexicalised words, newly
invented by the translator out of existing morphological elements in the
Target Language. As such Ivir’s ‘lexical creation’ belongs in column 1
(non-lexicalised), row B (structural—morphotactic). Ivir may also mean to
include words involving more than one morpheme in the Target Language
which have become systematic in the Target Language, but are still
perceived as neologisms—in which case Ivir’s ‘lexical creation’ box
should be extended to include also column 3, row B.
Under ‘calque’, Hervey and Higgins include forms which are
ungrammatical and semantically anomalous, such as ‘it increased the clay
moistness’ for ‫لطين ب‬
(Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002, p. 31). This
is ungrammatical, because the adverbial use of ‘moistness’ is not a
grammatical feature of English, and semantically anomalous, because it
cannot (as an ungrammatical form) have a systematic meaning. These
cases belong to column 1 (non-lexicalised/ungrammatical), row B
(structural—syntactic). Hervey and Higgins also use the term ‘calque’ to
describe forms which are grammatically systematic, but semantically
anomalous. An example would be ‘it increased the clay’s moistness’ (in
which the ungrammaticality of ‘it increased the clay moistness’ has been
eliminated) as a translation of ‫لطين ب‬
. Although ‘it increased the clay’s
moistness’ is grammatical, it remains semantically anomalous if it is used
to express the sense ‘it made matters worse’: this is not a standard
meaning of this phrase in English. These cases belong in column 2
(lexicalised/grammatical, but semantically anomalous), row B (structural syntactic).
Hervey and Higgins state that “a Target Text marked by exoticism is
one which constantly uses grammatical and cultural features imported
from the Source Text with minimal adaptation” (Hervey and Higgins
2002, p. 34). An example given (in slightly longer form) in both Thinking
French translation (ibid.) and Thinking Arabic translation (Dickins,
Hervey and Higgins 2002, pp. 139-140) is the following from the
Maqamat of Al-Hariri:
. ْ ‫ل‬
‫ ي ْھي ي خ‬. ٕ
‫ وج ٕ م ْغ‬. ٕ
‫ و ن و ج ْ ٕ م ْب‬.
‫ل لغ‬
‫ش ْ ت من لع‬
. ْ ‫ل‬
‫وي ْ ھي ي ح‬
52
Chapter Three
I went from ‘Irák to Damascus with its green water-courses, in the day
when I had troops of fine-bred horses and was the owner of coveted wealth
and resources, free to divert myself, as I chose, and flown with the pride of
him whose fullness overflows.
This Target Text goes beyond the mirroring of grammatical and
cultural features—at least if cultural features are defined in a narrow
sense—to include replication of prosodic features (rhythm and rhyme) of
the Source Text. If we include these additional features as elements of
exoticism, the account given of exoticism in figure 4.1 is only partial
(since it makes no reference to non-grammatical or non-semantic features).
In this respect we can regard ‘exoticism’ as a hyperonym of ‘calque’. The
second feature of exoticism which is suggested by Hervey and Higgins’
phrase “constantly uses” is that exoticism is a general orientation
throughout a text, whereas calque is “a momentary foreignness” (Hervey
and Higgins 2002, p. 34). This distinction is, again, not specifically
represented in figure 4.1, which focuses on individual occurrences rather
than global Target Text orientations.
Semantic Extension Mirroring Source Language Usage,
and Grammatical, but Semantically Anomalous
Calque/Exoticism Involving Semantic extension
The column 2, row A translation procedure can be described as
semantic extension mirroring Source Language usage (‘literal’ lexical
equivalent). The column 2, row B translation procedure can be described
as grammatical, but semantically anomalous calque/exoticism involving
semantic extension (‘literal’ translation of phrase). Hervey and Higgins’
calque and exoticism has been described above. As noted there, cases of
calque which are semantically anomalous but grammatical belong in
column 2, row B.
Ivir’s ‘literal translation’ overlaps with Hervey and Higgins’ calque (or
calque/exoticism), and covers both grammatical but semantically
anomalous phrases such as ‘it increased the clay’s moistness’ and single
words, e.g., the translation of Arabic ‫ س‬referring to the norms of the
Islamic community, by the original basic (literal) meaning of ‫‘ س‬path’.
Regardless of whether the element in question is a word or a phrase the
operative principles are these:
1. The Source Text element (word or phrase) has more than one
meaning (or sense), i.e., it is polysemous.
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
53
2. One of the Source Text element’s senses is basic, while the other
relevant sense is secondary. Typically the secondary sense is likely
to be perceived as metaphorical, but it may be figurative in some
other way, e.g., metonymical. It may even not stand in an
unambiguous figurative relationship to the primary sense. Crucially,
however, the secondary sense must be clearly conceptually
secondary to the primary one.
3. The Target Text element must have the same primary sense as the
Source Text element.
4. The Target Text element must not have the same secondary sense
as the Source Text element.
Consider the English phrase ‘go up the wall’ in relation to a literal
Arabic translation
‫صع ل‬.
1. English ‘go up the wall’ fulfils condition 1: it is polysemous,
meaning ‘i. ‘climb the vertical partition (etc.)’, and ii. ‘get very
angry’.
2. The Source Text sense ‘climb the vertical partition’ is conceptually
primary. The idiomatic sense ‘get very angry’ is perceived as
metaphorical.
3. The Target Text
‫ صع ل‬has the same primary sense as ‘go up the
wall’.
4. The Target Text
‫ صع ل‬does not have the same secondary sense
as the Source Text ‘go up the wall’. ( ‫صع‬
‫ ل‬does not standardly
mean ‘get very angry’ in Arabic.)
Ivir’s ‘literal translation’ belongs to column 2 in figure 4.1
(semantically anomalous, in that the meaning assigned to the word or
phrase is not a meaning which that word or phrase standardly has in the
Target Language, but lexicalised/grammatical, in that the word or phrase is
a regular part of the lexis/grammar of the Target Language). Where Ivir’s
‘literal translation’ involves only a single word consisting of a single
morpheme (or, by extension, where the morphological structure—
morphotactics—of this word is not important in translation terms) this is a
lexical form (row A). Where Ivir’s ‘literal translation’ involves
morphotactic or syntactic considerations, this is a structural form (column
2, row B),
‫ صع ل‬in Arabic, if used in the sense ‘get very angry’ (‘go
up the wall’) being an example. I have accordingly shown Ivir’s ‘literal
translation’ procedure straddling rows A and B (column 2) in figure 4.1.
What Newmark means by ‘literal translation’ seems to be the same as
what Ivir means by ‘literal translation’, and therefore also straddles rows A
and B in column 2 in figure 4.1.
54
Chapter Three
Lexicalised Cultural Borrowing, and Grammatically
and Semantically Systematic Calque/Exoticism
The column 3, row A translation procedure could be termed lexicalised
cultural borrowing. The column 3, row B translation procedure can be
described as grammatically and semantically systematic calque/exoticism.
The reasons Ivir’s borrowing belongs in both column 1 and column 3 (row
A), and why Newmark’s transference and naturalisation belongs in both
column 1 and column 3 (row A and row B) have been discussed above (in
the section Cultural borrowing proper and ungrammatical calque/
exoticism).
Newmark defines ‘through-translation’ as “the literal translation of
common collocations, names of organisations, the components of
compounds” (Newmark 1988, p. 84). However, unlike Newmark’s ‘literal
translation’ (see discussion in section Cultural borrowing proper and
ungrammatical calque/exoticism above), which is semantically anomalous
(column 2) and may be lexical or structural (rows A or B), his ‘throughtranslation’ is semantically systematic (as well as foreignising) (column
3), and structural (morphotactic or syntactic) (row B). Examples given by
Newmark include ‘superman’ from German Übermensch (über meaning
‘above, over’, Mensch meaning ‘man, human being’). Newmark’s
procedure of ‘through-translation’ is similar to Hervey and Higgins’
calque/exoticism, and Newmark himself notes that literal translation is
also “known as calque or loan translation” (Newmark 1988, p. 84).
However, whereas Hervey and Higgins’ calque (see section Cultural
borrowing proper and ungrammatical calque/exoticism above) is
semantically anomalous, Newmark’s through-translation is, as noted,
semantically systematic.
Culture-neutral Word/Phrase
In columns 4-7, we move away from translation procedures which are
Source Culture/Source Text oriented. The distinction between lexical (row
A) and structural (row B), which was important for considering how the
elements of the Target Language-form relates to those of the Target
Language-form for procedures in columns 1-3, no longer obtains, and is
thus not made in figure 4.1 for columns 4-7 This translation procedure
could be termed culture-neutral word/phrase.
‘Descriptive equivalent’ in Newmark seems to mean the same as
‘defining’ in Ivir (below). This can be regarded as a culture-neutral
procedure. It involves a fairly precise description of what is meant by the
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
55
Source Culture element. However, it achieves this through the use of
words and phrases which are generally understood in the Target Culture.
Newmark’s ‘descriptive equivalent’ belongs in column 4. Among the
examples which Newmark gives of descriptive equivalence is “the
Japanese aristocracy from the eleventh to the nineteenth century” for
Samurai.
‘Functional equivalent’ in Newmark is somewhat more difficult to
understand. Examples given by Newmark (1988, p. 83) are: baccalauréat
‘French secondary school leaving exam’, and Sejm ‘Polish parliament’.
Newmark says of functional equivalence that “[t]his procedure occupies
the middle, sometimes the universal, area between the Source Language
language or culture and the Target Language language or culture”
(Newmark 1988, p. 83). He goes on, “[i]n translation, description
sometimes has to be weighed against function. Thus, for machete, the
description is a ‘Latin American broad, heavy instrument’, the function is
‘cutting or aggression’. Description and function are combined in ‘knife’.
Samurai is described as ‘the Japanese aristocracy from the eleventh to the
nineteenth century’; its function was ‘to provide officers and
administrators’” (Newmark 1988, pp. 83-84).
‘Descriptive equivalent’ in Newmark seems to answer the question
‘What is it?’, while ‘functional equivalent’ seems to answer the question
‘What does it do?’. I have analysed both as culture-neutral, and as
synonymy-oriented (column 4). ‘Functional equivalence’ might appear to
be less synonymy-oriented than ‘descriptive equivalence’. In the case of
tools (and similar) made by human beings for a purpose (or function),
however, that purpose seems to be part of the definition. For example, a
gimlet (a hand tool for boring small holes in wood) may look exactly like
a small screwdriver: it is only because the intention is that this tool should
bore holes in wood, rather than putting in screws into wood (or taking
them out) that we classify it as a gimlet and not as a screwdriver. Given
that function can be an essential part of the definition of an object, I have
placed ‘functional equivalent’ directly next to (below) ‘descriptive
equivalent’. However, it might also be possible to interpret ‘functional
equivalent’ in another way—as what is appropriate (‘functionally
appropriate’) in a given situation; e.g., what one says when bidding
farewell to a friend, or on finishing a meal. In this case, Newmark’s
‘functional equivalence’ could be regarded as identical to Hervey and
Higgins’ ‘communicative translation’ (column 6). To indicate this
possibility, I have put a single-headed arrow from Newmark’s ‘functional
equivalent’ in column 4 to column 6.
56
Chapter Three
‘Defining’, in Ivir, typically involves textual expansion (additional
words/phrases are used). We may, however, come across situations in
which a definition is briefer than the original Source Text usage, in which
case we can refer to this as (culture-neutral) contraction. The most extreme
form of contraction is omission (section Omission for cultural reasons,
below). Together with defining, Ivir mentions the procedure of addition,
i.e., when additional information is added in the Target Text which is not
in the Source Text. Addition comes very close to definition, and I have
included it immediately below ‘definition’ in figure 4.1. In column 4, I
have included a vertical double-headed arrow, to show that culture-neutral
translation procedures may vary from contraction at one extreme to
expansion at the other.
‘Explanation’ in Hervey and Higgins seems to mean the same as
‘defining’ in Ivir and ‘descriptive equivalent’ in Newmark. This procedure
frequently occurs together with (cultural) borrowing (column 1), i.e., the
foreignism is introduced, and the Target Text subsequently (or perhaps
immediately before) makes plain, either directly or in a less explicit way,
what the foreignism means.
Omission for Cultural Reasons
The column 5 translation procedure could be termed omission for
cultural reasons. As noted above (in the section Synonymy-oriented vs.
problem-avoidance oriented, vs. non-synonymy oriented), omission
involves avoiding the normal problems associated with translating a
culturally specific element. It can be regarded as domesticating in that it
removes mention of the foreign element in the Target Text. Newmark does
not specifically discuss omission as a cultural translation procedure and I
have not therefore included Newmark in column 5. He does, of course,
recognise the possibility of omission in translation. Dickins, Hervey and
Higgins (2002, pp. 23-24) discuss omission as a translation procedure, but
stress that it may have a number of different purposes—not all of them to
do with culture. I have not therefore included Hervey and Higgins in
column 5.
Communicative Translation
The column 6 translation procedure could be termed communicative
translation. “A communicative translation is produced, when, in a given
situation, the Source Text uses an Source Language expression standard
for that situation, and the Target Text uses a Target Language expression
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
57
standard for an equivalent Target Culture situation” (Dickins, Hervey and
Higgins 2002, p. 17), public notices, proverbs and conversational clichés
providing good examples:
‫لت خين‬
‫م‬
‫ين بح و ح‬
‫و جب‬
‫ع‬
‫ع‬
‫اش‬
‫ض‬
No smoking
(public notice)
To kill two birds with one stone
(Standard Arabic proverb)
Don’t mention it (conversational cliché)
Communicative translation does not involve referring to something in
the Target Culture which does not exist in the Source Culture. Rather, it
involves using a phrase (or possibly a single word) in a context in the
Target Text where this phrase (or word) is typically used in the Target
Culture, as a translation of a phrase (or word) used in the Source Text
which is typically used in this context in the Source Text, and where the
meaning (and particularly the denotation) of the Target Text phrase (or
word) is clearly different from that of the Source Text phrase (or word).
An example given by Hervey and Higgins (1992) is Chinese Source Text
(back-translated) ‘How many persons in your family?’ in the context of a
greeting routine, translated into an English Target Text as ‘Nice weather
for the time of year’. After greeting one another, strangers in China
typically ask about one another’s family. In Britain, by contrast it is
culturally normal to ask about the weather. Families and weather are
aspects of culture (or life) in both China and Britain. The contexts in
which these two topics are typically talked about are, however, rather
different in the two cultures. Ivir does not have an equivalent of Hervey
and Higgins’ communicative translation.
It is worth recognising a cline for communicative translation. At one
extreme, there may be only one Target Language equivalent for a Source
Language word or phrase. For example, in a particular culture (and
language), there may be only one thing which it is standardly possible to
say in condoling someone about a mutual friend’s death. At the other
extreme, however, there may be numerous things one can standardly say
in a particular situation in a particular culture (and language). Thus, in
seeing a friend off in English, one can standardly say a number of things
such as ‘Have a nice / good / pleasant trip / journey’, ‘Look after yourself’,
‘Goodbye’. These are multiple alternative communicative equivalents of
what may be only one single possible phrase in a Source Language. The
cline between a ‘unique equivalent’ and ‘multiple equivalents’ in
communicative translation is recognised in column 6 by a vertical doubleheaded arrow.
58
Chapter Three
Newmark (1981, pp. 36-69) uses the term ‘communicative translation’,
but means something much wider than what Hervey and Higgins mean by
it. Newmark’s notion of ‘communicative translation’ is thus not directly
relevant here, and has not been included in figure 4.1. As noted in the
section Culture-neutral word/phrase above, however, Newmark’s
functional equivalent—understood in a certain way—could be regarded as
the same as Hervey and Higgins’ communicative equivalent. We can
regard Chinese ‘How many persons in your family?’ as fulfilling the same
function—that of making polite conversation between strangers—as does
English ‘Nice weather for the time of year’. The two phrases could,
therefore, in this context be said to be functionally equivalent.
Cultural Transplantation
The column 7 translation procedure could be termed cultural
transplantation (as in Hervey and Higgins 1992). Newmark terms it
cultural equivalent. As discussed in the section Situationally equivalent vs.
culturally analogous (above), where there is no situational identity,
communicative translation is impossible. One may in these cases invoke
the notion of cultural analogy. If the same elements are not found in both
cultures, the translator may substitute something in the Target Text from
the Target Culture which is similar to the element referred to in the Source
Text in the Target Culture. Newmark refers to this substituted element as a
cultural equivalent. Examples given by Newmark (1988, p. 83) are British
‘cricket’ or American ‘baseball’ (common sports in Britain and America
respectively) as translations of French le cyclisme (cycling), which is a
very common sport in France, but less so in Britain or America. Ivir’s
‘substitution’ is the same as Newmark’s ‘cultural equivalent’.
Hervey and Higgins define cultural transplantation on a large scale as
“the wholesale transplanting of the entire setting of the Source Text,
resulting in the entire text being rewritten in an indigenous Target Culture
setting” (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002, p. 32). They give as an
example of wholesale cultural transplantation the remaking of the
Japanese film The Seven Samurai as the Hollywood film The Magnificent
Seven, but point out that in translation a much more likely procedure is
small-scale cultural transplantation, e.g., the replacement of Source Text
‫ قيس ولي‬by Target Text ‘Romeo and Juliet’ (cf. section Situationally
equivalent vs. culturally analogous, above). It is this small-scale cultural
transplantation which most closely corresponds to what Newmark means
by ‘cultural equivalent’ and Ivir by ‘substitution’.
Procedures for Translating Culturally Specific Items
59
Conclusion
I have argued that the translation of culturally specific items involves
various procedures, ranging from extension of the margins of the Target
Language and Target Culture at one extreme, to artificially presenting
elements in the Source Text which are Source Culture-specific as if they
were central elements of the Target Culture at the other. I have established
a conceptual ‘grid’ (figure 4.1) which compares the procedures recognised
by Ivir, Newmark, and Hervey and Higgins. Beyond this, however, the
current account also provides a synthesis of previous approaches, by
placing these procedures within a unified conceptual framework. It thus in
fact presents a new model of procedures for translating culturally specific
items—one which has more categories, and whose categories are, I
believe, more coherently defined with respect to one another than are those
of previous accounts.
Bibliography
Crystal, D. 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Dickins, J. 2005. Two models for metaphor translation. In Target 17: 2,
pp. 227-273.
Dickins, J., S.G.J. Hervey and I. Higgins. 2002. Thinking Arabic
Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Hervey, S.G.J. and I. Higgins. 2002. Thinking French Translation. London
and New York: Routledge.
Hervey, S.G.J. and I. Higgins. 1992. Thinking Translation: A Course in
Translation Method: French to English. London and New York:
Routledge.
Ivir, V. 1987. Procedures and strategies for the translation of culture. In
Toury, G. (ed). Translation Across Cultures, pp.35-46. New Delhi:
Bahri.
Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
—. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall
International.
Munday, J. 2002. Introducing Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
St John, J. 1999. Translation of ‫ ح ل ل سج‬and ‫ ل و ل ء‬by ‫( ك ي ت م‬1973.
In ‫ مشق لح ئق‬. Damascus:
‫أن‬
). BA translation project:
University of Durham.
1- Introduction
In practice, translation requires exquisite lingual and cultural skills to decode the
meaning often couched in certain words that vary in their meaning regionally and
culturally both synchronically and diachronically. It is not surprising to find a word
that connotes a different thing in one culture, and the same time it connotes another
thing in another culture. This is due to certain reasons ascribed to ideology,
attitude, association, pragmatics, or otherwise expressed. Hall (1976) suggests that
culture is similar to an iceberg. He proposed that 10% of the culture (external or
surface culture) is easily visible like the tip of the iceberg such as food, clothing,
art, dance etc, while 90%, of culture (internal or deep culture) is hidden below the
surface like idiom ,collocation, proverbs, metaphor and other figurative speech.
Katan (1999, 2004) argues that one of the skills of translation is to have cultural
proficiency. This means that a translator should be a lingual mediator to unpack
what culture-specific words have. Admittedly, Newmark (1995) states that
translation mediates cultures. Likewise, Baker (2011) warns translators that words
are very much like traditional costumes because words are uniquely the production
of individual cultures. This goes in line with Hall’s theory of language and culture;
culture by time creates a deeper layer of word-level meanings that require skills
beyond the lingual skills. This theory sounds true for many translation pundits.
Vermeer describes a translator as “bi-cultural” (Vermeer, 1978). By the same
token, Snell-Hornby states that a translator is such a cross-cultural specialist
(Snell-Hornby, 1992). Interestingly, Robinson (1988) classifies cultural meaning at
word-level into four approaches: behaviorist, functionalist, cognitive, and dynamic.
Venuti (2000) suggests foreignization and domestication as strategies to translating
cultural references (CRs).
Focusing on the importance of culture in translation Tosi (2003), Rubel and
Rosman (2003), Moder and Martinovic-Zic (2004), recognizing the differences
3
among cultures, and knowing how to find
suitable equivalents for words
especially those that have cultural references are very important to shed light on.
Moreover, Arabic and English are genetically unrelated especially when it comes
to the translation of formulaic language i.e idioms, collocations and fixed
expressions that have cultural reference as Abu-Ssaydeh (2004) and Al Daqs
(2011) clarify. Furthermore, the validity of investigating cultural references (CRs)
as they have been studied by many researches Ranzato (2016) and Olk (2013)
reflect their importance of CRs in translation.
Adding to that, many papers shed light only on the strategies of translating CRs,
while very few ones have studied parameters. Due to the crucial role of the latter in
recognising the main factors that affect a translator’s strategies while dealing with
CR, this paper focuses on both strategies and parameters that should be taken into
consideration while translation.
Based on Ivir’s (1987) and Mailhac’s (1996) suggestions, and giving many
Arabic/English translation as examples, the paper aims to answer the research
question: what are the strategies and parameters that should be taken into account
while translating Arabic/ English individual CRs?
2- Cultural References
With regard to cultural references (CRs), Leemets (1992: 475; cited in Ranzato
(2016)) defines culture references as
Every language has words denoting concepts and things that another
language has not
considered worth mentioning, or that are absent
from the life or consciousness of the other nation. The reasons are
differences in the ways of life, traditions, beliefs, historical
developments – in one word, the cultures of the nations. Also,
differences can be observed on conceptual level. Different languages
4
often nominate concepts from different viewpoints, and they also
tend to classify them slightly differently.
On the other hand, Mailhac (1996, p. 133-134) describes CR "any reference to a
cultural entity which, due to its distance from the target culture, is characterised by
a sufficient degree of opacity for the target reader to constitute a possible
problem".
3- Strategies
Ivir (1987) suggests a group of strategies. Mailhac (1996) argues that Newmark’s
componential analysis as applied to cultural words confirm how inextricably linked
the strategies are; one should therefore use at least one functional and one
descriptive component. Ivir (1987) suggests six strategies in rendering individual
CRs, cultural borrowing, claque translation, definition, cultural substitution, lexical
creation, deliberate omission respectively. Mailhac (1996) suggests three more;
namely, footnotes, and compensation combination of strategies. To further explain,
each strategy will be outlined and defined with examples.
3.1 Cultural borrowing
According to Sundqvist, S. (2011, p.8), borrowing refers to “using the same word
in the target text as in the source text”.
In translation, cultural borrowing means to borrow words from the source language
that culturally do not exist in the target language (Ivir's, 1987).
A language is mainly known by increasing its vocabularies by borrowing words
from other languages. This strategy is the common type of language’s exchange as
stated by (Ghasemi & Sattari 2010).
Arabic language borrows some words such as Internet ‫انترن يت‬, Strategy ‫ا ستراتيجية‬,
Carbon ‫ كاربون‬, and Virus ‫ فايروس‬from English language. On the contrary, words
5
like algebra ‫ علم الجبر‬, Quran ‫قران‬, Jar ‫جرة‬, Lemon ‫ليمون‬, Safari‫ سفاري‬and Amber ‫عن بر‬
are borrowed from Arabic.
3.2 Claque Translation
Calque is defined as a special kind of borrowing where SL expression or structure
is translated in literal translation” (Vinay& Darbelnet, as cited in Munday 2001).
According to (Ivir's, 1987), literal translation or claque means to translate words
literally without any addition or modification to be part of the target language
dictionary.
Politically, “the corridors of power”‫ اروقة ال سلطة‬is translated literally as it is without
any change. Similarly, recycling ‫اعادة تدوير‬, is an example of calque translation. Ivir
(1987) draws some examples like: gone with the wind ‫ذ هب مع ا لريح‬, the cold war
‫ال حرب ال باردة‬, the black market ‫ال سوق ال سوداء‬. Other examples can be found in
translating proverbs such as the English proverb, ‘like father like son’ which is
rendered in Arabic as‫( هذا ال شبل من ذاك اال سد‬This lion cub is from that lion). Another
example is: ‘Add fuel to the fire’ which becomes ‫( يزيد الطين بلة‬make clay moisture)
while ‘Diamond cuts diamond’ is replaced by ‫(ال ي فل الحد يد اال الحد يد‬iron cuts iron) in
Arabic.
3.3 Definition
In language, definition means “an explanation of the meaning of a word,
phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc” (MerriamWebster's Learner's Dictionary).
Ivir (1987) suggests that definition may be used to define a new concept or term.
Some words are culturally challenging when it comes to conveying their meaning
in the target language, so providing a definition can help. For example,
bridesmaids, bridegrooms and baptism are terms that have no equivalents in Islam.
Thus, if the readers are Muslim, these terms must be accompanied by definitions.
Thus, bridesmaids ‫ ا شبينات ال عروس‬might be defined as members of the bride's party
6
on a wedding, who are typically young women, and close friends of the bride. On
the other hand, if the readers are non-Muslims, the Arabic term ‫صالة اال ستخارة‬
(decision-making) would have to be explained by way of a definition by saying
that the Istikhaarah prayer is a kind of prayer done by Muslims asking for God’s
guidance to make a good choice.
3.4 Cultural substitution
Cultural substitution entails finding the most appropriate equivalent in the target
culture of a concept or entity that exists in the source culture Ivir (1987). In the
similar vein, substitution is defined by Paluszliewicz- Misiaczek (2005, p.244) as
“replacing a culture-specific item or expression in the source text with a target
language item which describes a similar concept in target culture and thus is likely
to have a similar impact on the target readers”. Similarly, Pokasamrit (2013, p.
215) states that “the translation of some known or unknown concepts in the source
language by using the substitution from the culture of the receptor language rather
than by other available means of meaning equivalence”.
The English use ‘pound’ ‫ ر طل‬as a weight unit. Arabs, however, use kilos ‫كي لو‬. So,
when we say ‘four pounds of meat’ in English, we substitute this in Arabic with
‘about two kilos of meat’.
In translating a piece of work that contains something widely known for being
funny and comic in one culture may not have the same impression in another
culture. For example ‫‘ طاش ما طاش‬Tash ma Tash’ is a widely known comedy in
Saudi Arabia. To translate it to the British people means nothing. So, we have to
find a good cultural transplantation. A good one for the British people would be for
example ‘Mr. Bean’.
In an empirical study, Pokasamrit, (2013, p. 224) outlines “cultural substitution
works best on a proverb treated as a unit of meaning”.
7
3.5 Lexical creation
Lexical creation stands for coining a suitable term for words that do not exist in the
target language, and thus gain a dictionary entry for all users.
According to Ivir's (1987, p.45), “lexical creation is attempted by the translator
when the communicative situation rules out a definition or literal translation, when
borrowing is sociolinguistically discouraged, and substitution is not available for
communicative reasons”.
The word ‘telephone’ entered to Arabic lexicon, so did radio ‫راد يو‬, helicopter
‫هليكوبتر‬,Video ‫ فيديو‬and tram ‫ترام‬.
3.6 Deliberate omission
Deliberate omission refers to deletion of words that do not fit in the target culture
or words that sound meaningless (ibid). The expression‫( أ طال هللا في ع مره‬May God
extend his life) in ‫( جاللة الملك أطال هللا في ع مره يزور ا سبانيا‬His Majesty, extend his life,
visits Spain) can be omitted because it is notoriously problematic to render into
English. Arab students are used to saying ‘Professor’ or ‘Dr.’ before the name of
their tutors as a mark of respect for their higher status. Therefore, it is quite usual
to address a tutor by saying ‫) اال ستاذ ا لدكتورعلي المح ترم‬The respected Professor Dr.
Ali) which sounds awkward in English. Thus, all these additional adjectives must
be omitted from the English target text. Again, ‘detached house’ is usually
translated simply as ‘house’ as this kind of house is not found in Arab culture.
3.7 Compensation
Compensation procedure is used to compensate for the function of a referent
which appears to be rather opaque in its original form (Mailhac, 1996). Dickins ,
et al. (2002, p. 40) states that compensation seems “crucial to successful
translation”.
For instance, ‘I will go to Debenhams and Clarks’ will be translated as ‫ساذهب‬
‫( للتسوق‬I will go shopping). Also, if a translator says ‫( احتاج ان اذ هب ا لى م حل االدوات‬I
8
need to go to the tool shop) instead of ‘I need to go to the DIY’, s/he is attempting
to compensate for the loss of the term ‘DIY’ by focusing on its function as a tool
shop.
3.8 Footnote
Footnote means to provide an explanatory elucidation about the difficult word at
the end of the translation for further information (Mailhac, 1996). However, Blight
(2005, p.7) states that using “footnotes are too sophisticated for their readers”.
Miao and Salem (2010) consider utising footnotes in translation might be a way to
insert the translator’s intention.
In Arab culture, most often a married man would be given an honorific name
derived from his eldest son ‘abo Hassan’ ‫( ا بو ح سن‬Hassan’s father). This culturebound meaning is to be explained or glossed in a footnote so that the reader gets
the message clearly. If this is left unexplained, it would create problematic
misunderstanding. In the same way, ‫) األف يون‬Opium drug) needs footnote to further
explain what it means exactly as “a drug made from the seeds of a poppy and used
to control pain or to help people sleep.
3.9 Combination of Procedures
Combination of strategies or as Mailhac called it “combination of procedures”
means to use more than one strategy or method to facilitate the translation process
(Mailhac, 1996 p. 141). Using both borrowing and definition together is a clear
example of this procedure. This needs to be done with, for example, ‫( سحور‬
Suhuur) which is a meal eaten before dawn for fasting in Islam. In addition, a term
like ‫ دشدا شة‬dishdasha (a sort of loose robe) will be translated by means of
borrowing and adding a footnote which explains that it is customarily worn by both
men and women in the Gulf countries, both indoors and outdoors.
All the strategies suggested by Ivir and Mailhac are summarized in Figure 1:
9
Figure 1: Strategies of translating Individual CRS
4. Parameters
According to Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary, parameter is defined as
“a rule or limit that controls what something is or how something should be
done”.
Strategies for translating individual CRs necessitate relevant parameters that justify
the way why a translator may, for example, opt for translating a word this way and
not that way. Thus, Mailhac (1996) suggests parameters which are partly based on
Ivir (1987) suggestion and partly on his own observations. Each parameter is
discussed with examples in detail below.
4.1 Purpose of a text
Ivir (1987) draws the attention to the importance of knowing the general purpose
of a text as reflected in its various communicative functions is a main parameter
which will influence to a certain degree a number of other parameters. In addition,
11
the choice of selecting the right and accurate strategy will depend entirely on this
parameter due to its importance. Dickins et al. (2002, p. 177) point out that “the
term 'text-type' is often used in a similar sense to 'genre '”. Then they define genre
as “a category to which, in a given culture, a given text is seen to belong, and
within which the text is seen to share a type of communicative purpose and effect
with other texts; that is, the text is seen to be more or less typical of the genre”
(ibid, p. 236).
Before translating any text, the translator has to take into his/her consideration the
genre of that text. So, s/he can make an accurate design while choosing the best
equivalent vocabularies. Dickins et al. (2002) suggest main five categories of
genres: literary, religious, philosophical, empirical and persuasive and sometimes
there will be a hybrid genre.
4.2 Cultural Reference Role
Cultural Reference Role means to decide whether it is a must to translate CR or not
depending on its suggestive significance in both the ST and the TT (Ivir, 1987).
For example, the word ‫( مخ لوع‬ousted) in ‫ ( ا لرئيس المخ لوع‬the ousted president) is
socially derogatory. So, it must be translated and not left. Here it is the central
word and cannot be dropped. However, ‫( الم فدى‬redeemer) in ‫( جال لة الم لك الم فدى‬his
Majesty redeemed king) is not central and therefore needs to be omitted as “His
Majesty King ….” which is more honorific in the ST and the TT. Again, the word
‫ دو لة‬in ‫ دو لة فل سطين‬is more assertive than decorative or tautologous. Therefore, it
must be translated to assert the Palestinians’ statehood and their non-existence or
diaspora. For many politicians in the west, it is more offensive and therefore it
should be dropped.
4.3 Culture Transparency
Culture Transparency is when culture referent is known in the source culture and
target culture (ibid). Owning to the fact that words like, Hollywood, Boxing Bay,
11
Twix and Flake and Toblerone bar are widely known in many cultures, there is no
need ti translate or explain them; a translator can only use borrowing strategy.
4.4 Readership
Readership means the type of reader we are addressing in terms of age, nationality
and gender (Ivir, 1987). Newmark (1988) classifies readers into: expert, educated
generalist, and uninformed. Readership can play a major role in choosing a
procedure. Similarily, Dickins et al (2002) emphasise on the importance of
knowing the readership before starting translating. To illustrate this point, an
Arabic text depicting a local food might refer to it as ‘Kabsa’ ‫ كب سة‬or Mansaf ‫من سف‬
(a Saudi and Jordanian local food which consists of rice and meat), which might be
better translated into English as ‘fish and chips’ and into Italian as ‘pizza’ ‫ بي تزا‬by
adopting a substitution procedure. Likewise, when words such as ‘CT scanner,
MRA and Mammography’ occur in a text addressing doctors, there is no need to
explain what these medical devices are, while using a combination of borrowing
and definition or footnote is required if the text addresses are non-expert readers.
By the same token, it is better to use the word “lift” rather than “elevator” when we
address the British readers. By the same token, readership’s knowledge of source
culture: depends on whether the reader knows what this CR means in the source
culture. ‫ لقمة العيش‬for the Syrians is “bread” while for the Saudis it is ‫الرز‬. Therefore,
since this word is very important for the Syrians, the translator should not drop it at
all.
4.5 Frequency
In language, frequency stands for “the number of repetitions of a periodic
process in a unit of time” (Merriam-Webster dictionary).
Translating individual CRs can be influenced by the frequency of the referent (Ivir,
1987). Hence, if a referent is mentioned once and is peripheral in the ST, the
12
translator can omit it, whereas if it is crucial, the translator has to choose other
strategies, e.g. borrowing, definition or a combination of strategies.
4.6 Pragmatic coherence
Pragmatic coherence means the amount of information which can be inserted to the
TT without creating a communication problem (ibid). For example, An Arab
translator facing the English term “health visitor” will have to explain it in some
way as Arab culture does not have an exact equivalent. Therefore, depending on
the purpose of the text parameter, s/he may choose to insert a definition of a health
visitor by saying ‘a health visitor is a nurse who works with mothers after giving
birth, advises on feeding and care, and provides support for both infants and
parents’. If this definition does not solve the communication problem, a footnote
can be provided explaining what a ‘health visitor’ means.
4.7 Cultural coherence
Mailhac (1996, p. 147) states that "cultural coherence should be considered first in
terms of homogeneity of the culture(s) portrayed".
He explains cultural coherence by stating that one should not mix the source
culture with a foreign one (ibid). To clarify this point, if a translator mentions the
Iraqi local currency in a British context and uses the term ‘dinar’ instead of
‘pound’, he will not achieve cultural coherence. If the sentence, ‘my son paid 650
for a watch’, which is translated into Arabic as )‫ دينار لشراء ساعة‬056 ‫( (دفع ابني‬my son
paid 650 Dinar for a watch), this translation will not preserve the cultural
coherence.
4.8 Semiotic value of referent
Ivir (1987) states that semiotic value of referent means that some referents have
different semiotic values in cultures. Some referents have the same semiotic values
in the source culture and the target culture (wedding – fishing – shopping) as in
France and Spain. However, shopping in Thai islands is done on boats, and playing
13
soccer in the USA is not the same as in Brazil. The bird (owl)
‫ طائر البو مة‬has a
positive connotation in west countries and it refers to wisdom, while it has a
negative impact on Arab countries and refers to “pessimism”. Thus, in translation
form English into Arabic, a translator has either to compensate owl with any
animal which has the same positive impact or use a footnote to explain the
difference of connotative meaning of owl between the two cultures.
4.9 Stylistic equivalence
In English, style means “a way of writing or a way of using language” (Oxford
living dictionaries). In translation, stylistic equivalence means preserving the
cultural style of the source referent as suggested by Ivir (1987). For example, in a
literary style, it is better to translate an expression such as “in his autumn years”
into ‫( في خريف عمره‬in his autumn age) and not into something like “in his last years”
which does not preserve the style of the ST. Equally, in another example, it is
better not to modulate ‫( م ساكين‬the have-nots) by using a word such as ‫م عدمين‬
(destitute).
4.10 Contextual information
Ivir (1987) states that the contextual information plays an importantrole, since the
cultural information available in the context can be of great help to the translator,
as shown by the following example, which provides enough information to licorice
(a kind of plant) that has been used as medicine.
He needs to buy licorice. Actually this natural plant has been used in food and as
medicine for thousands of years.
4.11 Elegance
In Language, elegance means something which is elegant. Thus Ivir (1987)
applies the same concept in translation. He suggests making the translation more
punchy and snappy depending on the culture. For example, ‫( سمعته في الحضيض‬his
14
fame is in bottom) is better translated as “his fame is in tatters” than “his fame is
ruined”.
Figure 2 summarises the main parameters suggested by Ivir and Mailhac
Figure (2): Parameters of translating individual CRs
By keeping these parameters in mind and applying the most feasible and viable
strategies, we can produce a translation that reflects accurately the source culture
referents without any violation as exemplified above. Words like ‫سحور – عدة األرم لة‬
‫ إف طار – ح جاب – خ مار – م هر ال عروس – لي لة الح ناء – ع مره – خ بز ت نور‬are culture-specific.
15
They need to be glossed, substituted, or calqued. In Arabic we have ‫ ير تل ال قرآن‬and
‫ يت لو ال قرآن‬in English these two words have no equivalents; we just say “recite”, in a
similar vein, ‫ ي عرف‬and ‫ يع لم‬are two different verbs in Arabic but in English it is just
“know”. Arabs are notoriously keen on having ‫ جاه‬when going to propose to
someone for marriage; you need to bring along some notables to the house of the
fiancé to impress them that you are socially backed. This is totally absent in
English.
Again, the word ‫ زجل‬in Lebanon is culture-bound and has no equivalent in English.
It needs to be glossed or modified. In English we have two words for ‫ ق فازات‬which
are “mittens” and “gloves”. The Arabs are notorious for ‫ التبصير في فن جان الق هوة‬which
is absent in many other cultures. This can be substituted by reading one’s palm or
“palmistry”. The Saudis distinguish three types of gown depending on its fabric
and colour and purpose of wearing it; a gown can be ‫ ح سوية – ب شت – ع باءة‬which is
not there in English. ‫ ) خمار‬yashmark), ‫برقع‬, and ‫( حجاب‬veil) are not cultural items in
English while in Arabic they are essential items of clothes women should have in
Saudi Arabia. Such words can be either calqued or glossed.
When translating words that are culture-specific, we should take into account that
we can handle this either by maximum presence or minimum presence of the
translator. This can be summed by a statement made by Ivir that translation is a
way of establishing contacts with cultures (Ivir, 1987).
Another factor Mailhac discusses is readership in terms of region and age. In terms
of age, the word ‘commence’ is at the top of the register scale; it is very formal.
This word, therefore, does not suit childlike readership when translating bedtime
stories. We better use ‘start’ or ‘begin’. In terms of region, the word ‘thugs’ is
translated differently depending on the regional readership. “Thugs” in Egypt is
translated as ‫بلطج ية‬, in Syria ‫ شبيحة‬, in Morocco ‫ال شماكرية‬. Another good example is
16
the word “turban”; in Saudi Arabia, it is ‫ شماغ‬or ‫ غ ترة‬depending on the fabric and
colour, and in Sudan it is ‫عمامة‬, while in Syria ‫ شملة‬and so on.
Translating meaning at word-level can be influenced depending on the referent
type. In Islam, we have ‫و ضوء‬, ‫ا ستخارة‬, ‫ تيمم‬, ‫ عقي قة‬and ‫ ز كاة‬which are purely Islamspecific. To translate such words, we better gloss them or provide explanatory
footnotes to make the meaning transparent. Likewise, in Christianity, we have
“baptism” which is not there in Islam. This term needs to be glossed or explained,
too.
Situation coherence is another factor that takes prominence in translating meaning
at word-level. Most Arabs would say ‫ نعي ما‬to someone who has already had his
haircut or has already taken a shower. In English, this can be deleted as it is not
there in their culture. For the instant, there are about 100 words for the English
word “snow”. The 100 words vary depending on the situation of the snow falling;
how it falls, when it falls, with what it falls, how it feels, how it looks, etc. when it
comes to relatives and siblings, the Arabic culture has ‫ عم‬and ‫ خال‬while English
uses the word for these two words “uncle”. The word ‫ ضرة‬in Arabic – a word that a
wife uses to call her husband’s second wife – is not there in English. We may
translate it as fellow-wife. This challenge exists because some societies are
monogamous while others are polygamous. Again, when we refer to ‫ ال شام‬as a
group of four countries in the Arab world – Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon –
we may use “The Levant”. However, the word ‫ ال شام‬most often means Syria only,
and surprisingly in Syria the word ‫ ال شام‬means Damascus. Another good example
about this factor is the word “woman’s emancipation” ‫تحر ير ال مرأة‬. In most
countries, this culturally means something good as a new way to open up to the
world. However, it has a negative tone in Saudi Arabia because women should be
always submissive, docile, subservient, and tame. In addition, the word ‫ ن ظام‬in
17
Arabic used to mean “law and order”. However, the same word ‫ الن ظام‬now means
brutal regime and dictatorship.
5. Conclusion
To sum up, although there are many strategies and parameters available to the
translator, there are no specific strategies to translate meaning at individual CRs.
Moreover, parameters in general and two parameters: text type and readership in
particular, provide the basis of selecting the appropriate strategy that would
produce an accurate and equivalent translation for translating Arabic/English
individual culture references.
Such strategies require parameters to provide guidance on ways of opting for the
exact word without having to fumble around for the correct meaning. This goes in
line with Olk (2013) empirical findings. Thus, the translator believes that they are
firmly interlinked, and this is why we can see that a word can be translated
differently depending on different parameters and by adopting many strategies.
Translating culture-specific words is very much like piecing together a jigsaw; it is
very difficult but never impossible. As likened earlier, translating individual CRs is
very much like looking at an iceberg; one should dive deeply into the layers that lie
under the waterline to be a good mediator and not just a translator. It is a skill we
need to polish up proficiently.
18