‫لغة التخصص‪ :‬مقدمة في ترجمة المصطلح اللُّغوي‬
‫الدكتور دنحا طوبيا كوركيس‬
‫أستاذ علم اللغة – قسم اللغة اإلنكليزية – كلية اآلداب – جامعة الموصل‬
‫ملخص‬
‫من البديهي أن تكون لغة أهل العلم‪ ،‬وبخاصة علم اللغة‪ ،‬لغة تتخصص بمفردات يصعب على المتىرجم‬
‫أحيانا اإلتيان بمثلها في لغته‪ ،‬إذ تكمن هذه الصعوبة في فهم مدلوالت المصطلح األجنبي من جهىة وفىي‬
‫إمكانية التعامل مع الموروث اللغوي العربي من جهة أخرى‪ .‬لذلك نراه يلجأ تارة إل التعريب وأخىرى‬
‫إل تفسير المصطلح أو كليهما معا ً رغم أن للعربية قدرة عالية على احتىوام ملىكلة المصىطلح الغربىي‬
‫بمىىا يتناسىىب وصىىناعة المعجىىم اللغىىوي العربىىي‪ .‬وبهىىذا ىىاعي الفرديىىة فىىي غيىىاب المصىىطلح القياسىىي‬
‫وظهرت ملكلة التباين وعدم توخي الدقة في الترجمىة مىن اإلنجليزيىة مىثلً إلى العربيىة‪ .‬وكىان‬
‫فىي‬
‫عون القارئ العربي طالما كاني الجهود مبعثرة والمنهجية في سبات عميق‪.‬‬
‫وبسىىبب كىىل مىىا تقىىدم ارتىىأى الباحى أن يطىىور مىىن حيى المبىىدأ منهجىا ً بخمسىىة معىىايير يقىىيم الحجىىة مىىن‬
‫خللها عل صلحية ال ُمترجم وال ُمعرب من المصطلحات اإلنجليزيىة مىن عىدمها‪ .‬ويطىر فىي‬
‫ىو ها‬
‫البىىدا ل التىىي تتنىىاغم مىىع موسىىيق العربيىىة فىىي منةوماتهىىا الصىىوتية والصىىرفية وسىىياقاتها النحويىىة إل ى‬
‫أقص حد ممكن‪ ،‬األمر الذي حدا بالباح أن يطلق عل هذا المنهج تسمية جديرة بمنطلقاته‪ ،‬هي ‪:‬‬
‫نةرية االحتوام واإليوام‬
‫هذه النةرية التي ندعو إل تطويرها بجهود عربية ملتركة‪ ،‬والتي من أنها أن تلغىي دور االنطباعيىة‬
‫في تقييم وو ع التراجم سعيا ً إل و ع معجم قياسي للمصطلحات اللغوية‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
On translating metalanguage: the language of linguistics
Prof. Dr. Dinha T. Gorgis
Dept. of English, Collage of Arts, University of Mosul, Iraq
ABSTRACT
If language is easy to translate, the language about language, i.e. metalanguage, is NOT.
Unless some conceptual apparatus or framework is designed to provide a set of criteria
against which translatability can be questioned and, hence, tested and evaluated,
individual translation efforts, though valuable, are expected to remain on the scene
without enabling prospective translators to overcome the difficulties underlying those
efforts in the first place. The principal difficulty encountered in approaching the
language of linguistics, as of any special register used in other sciences, is the set of
technical vocabulary which does not necessarily express the same value across
languages. Even when it does, there is the problem of 'inability' to cope with already
existing technical terms in the target language, e.g. Arabic, in which case the translator
(or the lexicographer) appeals to literal translation, arabicization and/or paraphrases. In
the absence of a standard Arabic register, the translator is partly held responsible for the
reader's incomprehensibility. To circumvent these problems, the present paper addresses
the question of how translatability of (English) metalanguage can be made feasible
within a five-point programme that is intended to develop an accommodation theory of
translation. This model stipulates that available translations of English terms into Arabic
can be accepted, rejected and/or replaced. While current translations are basically
meaning-based, the theory is additionally both system and principle-based. That is, in
selecting a translation equivalent for a given English term, all aspects of Arabic
grammar plus some pragmatic factors can help make appropriate decisions between this
and that translation of the same term. This theory has the advantage of bidding farewell
to impressionistic judgments that swing between 'good' and 'bad' quality of translation.
2
On translating metalanguage: the language of linguistics
Prof. Dr. Dinha T. Gorgis
Dept. of English, Collage of Arts, University of Mosul, Iraq
INTRODUCTION
We all perhaps agree that the translation of metalanguage is as twice difficult as
translating natural language, and the ability to carry out the former task usually
presupposes the latter, but not vice versa. For it would be sufficient for a good translator
of, let’s say, an English novel into Arabic to be proficient in the two linguistic codes
and, as a given, knowledgeable in the two respective cultural patternings as well as a
skilful engineer of literary style. S/he need to know, as prerequisites, about the author's
other writings and/or his/her critics' views or even comparable works of his/her
contemporaries, if any, though the provision of such background would be useful.
Whereas the translator of, e.g. linguistic texts from English into Arabic need to have a
considerable amount of knowledge about the history of linguistics, adequate training in
current and competing linguistic theories and, above all, the conscious workings of
Arabic grammar. It is the latter requirement that ought to distinguish this (super)
translator from conventional translators who faithfully pass over meanings to the Arabic
reader.
Based on this understanding, I have, for over two decades or so, been hesitant to
translate a textbook or even an article written in English into Arabic and vice versa,
indeed, despite my very good command at both languages. When Baghdad University
formally recognized modern linguistics as a worthwhile academic discipline in 19731 (at
the M.A. level), I was encouraged to translate D. Crystal's What is linguistics. Though
the language and style of the book are fairly easy, I stopped in the middle for fear that
the reader would not be able to understand me. Since then I have been acquiring more
3
linguistic knowledge through intensive research and running linguistic courses at the
B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. levels. Thus, having gained more confidence and had better
training than before, I decided to translate G. Leech's Principles of Pragmatics in 1992.
It all went smoothly at the beginning but, again, I stopped half way through. My
colleague, Prof. Y.Y. Aziz (a renowned translator, now at Ben Ghazi University) who
read and appreciated my translation, was entrusted to complete the translation of this
valuable textbook. But due to technical difficulties of publication in Libya, as he wrote
to me, my own 'half' was returned after having made several requests. Now it awaits
completion!
Even when completed, the fear that has always irritated me, viz., that the reader
would not be able to easily follow the translation of metalanguage, is justifiable. For, at
least, the old question: For whom do we translate? cannot be answered adequately. Do
we translate for an Arab grammarian (and his/her students) or, to put it bluntly, for
university students majoring in linguistics and/or translation to be enabled to understand
better a given linguistic text written in, let's say English? When asked to read and
interpret part of a translated text, e.g. Y. Y. Aziz's version (1987) of Chomsky's (1957) :
Syntactic Structures, the former group (comprising a number of teachers and their
students
at the Arabic Dept., Univ. of Mosul.) found
Aziz's translation
incomprehensible. When the same translation was presented to the second group
(comprising a number of graduate students at the departments of English and
Translation), it was found more difficult to follow than the English text. And between
these two groups stands the poor average reader who may have some knowledge about
linguistics. No wonder we, too, find it sometimes difficult to follow (parts of) a
translated text without recourse to the source version.
Whichever group of readers we have in mind, the problem of incomprehensibility
remains as long as there is lack of a standard metalanguage, i.e, agreed upon Arabic
linguistic register, which ought to be founded on well-motivated criteria. One may also
4
argue that the difficulty is not one of finding a standard Arabic equivalent to an English
term only, but of mismatching and/or misconception of the part of the translator. A good
example supporting this claim is Chomsky's AUX, translated by Al-Sayyid (1989),
among many others, as ‫ ( الفعل المساعد‬see below for discussion).
The above two factors (among others which we exclude from the present study),
viz., the absence of a standard register and a noticeable 'deficit' in proper linguistic
orientation, have naturally led to the existence of unwanted variations (in
contradistinction to the variations that we find in literary translation, which are basically
aesthetic). Evidently, 'heterogeneity' is also the outcome of different, though proper,
linguistic orientation characterizing Arab scholars (linguists and/or translators) across
Arab countries. Thus, it is expected to find a translation done in Morocco to be different
from the translation of the same text done in Iraq, Syria, or Jordan, even if the two
translators are of equal academic status and training. In fact, the difference would
mainly be due to differing linguistic traditions, say French vs. English or continental vs.
Anglo-American, etc. with varying degrees of bringing Arabic grammatical tradition to
the fore.
Against this brief account of the present state of affairs, I should conclude this
introduction by saying that the small number of linguistic translations made available to
us are mostly the product of individual efforts, generally meaning-based and, above all,
characteristic of literal translation, arabicization, and paraphrases, not to mention
inaccuracies and infelicities of style.
DISCUSSION
In what fellows, I shall demonstrate with several comparable examples taken from a
number of texts and dictionaries that our current and diverse efforts to approach the
foreign linguistic register and, hence, render it into Arabic need to be reconsidered in the
5
light of what I presently may call 'accommodation'2 theory of translation, some details of
which will be outlined below. At this point, it must be admitted that the criteria put
forward are suggestive rather conclusive. And in the light of these criteria, which I take
to form the basic tenets of the theory, I intend to evaluate and test a handful of linguistic
terms as conceived and, hence, rendered into Arabic by a number of Arab scholars,
notably Aziz (1985; 1987), Al-Hamash (1982), Bakir (1985), and Ghazala (1996),
among others (see references).
Primarily, I should like to avoid an authoritarian air by taking Al-Karmi's (1995)
reported 'prerequisites' for both a technical and literary translator as a given, though
some of them may be challenged. My focus, however, is on the linguist, students of
linguistics and/or translation, whether trained or under training. Some of the following
criteria (hopefully not all!) seem to be quite common, but as they are thought to fit in
well with the whole proposal their mention and, hence, discussion, ought to be
implemented in an integrated theory of translation. This theory, however, stipulates that
any given term intended for translation into Arabic must comply with at least one of the
requirements obtainable from answers to the following set of questions:
1. Does the English term have a one-to-one correspondence with an already existing
term in Arabic grammatical tradition? If answered in the affirmative, there is no point
in translating, e.g. category into ‫ قاطغوريىا‬or
‫ صىن‬as do Aziz and Bakir, respectively,
among others Rather, the widely used Arabic grammatical term that ought to have
been selected is ‫( بىاب‬cf. Shanni 1977). If answered in the negative do as required
below.
2. Is the term translatable into Arabic as word for word without paraphrasing or
compounding such that the new term, which has no equivalent value in Arabic
grammatical practice, can be an easy bed-fellow with already existing terms in
Arabic? If yes, then why not translating, e.g. Chomsky's AUX (as made explicit in
the Standard Theory) into ‫ السىاند‬to form a tripartite with the current ‫ المسىند‬and ‫المسىند‬
6
‫ ?إليىه‬That Al-Sayyid (1989) conceives of it as ‫ الفعىل المسىاعد‬is untenable; for the Phrase
Structure Rule that rewrites AUX, according to the above-mentioned model, as
TENSE obligatorily also rewrites the Modal and aspectual auxiliaries as optional
elements which all belong to the traditional category 'auxiliary verb' and, hence, the
misconception (see Gorgis 1989a). This misconception, however, seems to have a
long-standing tradition of the Translation Method in teaching foreign languages,
which equates 'auxiliary verb' with 'helping verb' and, hence, the present literal
translation against which our alternative, ‫الفعىل السىاند‬, would be in conformity with the
set members suggested above, though both translations may be said to be
semantically based (but see below). Now if a further 'yes' is given here, another
question inevitably emerges, viz. Does the Arabic term thus selected find proper
accommodation within the overall phonological and morphological patterning of
standard Arabic? If yes, check it against both number and gender systems. And when
you feel you have succeeded in finding a candidate term, test (3) below could be
conclusive unless there are (better) competitive translations. For the moment, take
the term 'concept', also common in other genres, which Aziz (1985: 85ff) has
translated into ‫ فكرة‬in accordance with the present requirements (but see below).
3. If all goes well with the previous procedures, you need now to be more on a solid
ground by making preferences between the term already chosen and another
competitive term on the basis of syntagmatic relations, whether at the morphological
and/or syntactic level. That is, we should be enabled to see for ourselves which of the
two terms finds a better shelter at these levels, provided that neither of its derivatives
is already a translation of another word in the English lexicon. For example, ‫ فكرة‬is as
good as ‫مفهىوم‬, so to speak semantically. But once each term is made dual, plural and,
above all, related to the English adjectival and adverbial forms, viz. 'conceptual' and
'conceptually', we expect, to follow Aziz, to have the following derivatives: ‫فكرتىان‬,
‫أفكار‬, ‫فكري‬, and ً ‫فكريا‬. But if we opt for our alternatives, though not without difficulties,
we obtain in that order: ‫مفهوم‬, ‫مفاهيم‬, ‫مفهومي‬, (cf. ‫تصويري‬, in Ghazala 1996), and ً ‫مفهوميا‬.
7
Now suppose we ask a question such as: what is a word? One of the expected
answers would be: it is a concept, for which Aziz's ‫ فكرة‬cannot stand. And since other
words, e.g. idea, thought, intellectual, and the linguistic term 'ideational' (cf. Ghazala
1996), are commonly rendered into ‫ فكىرة‬and its derivatives, my options would be
more convenient. But despite this preference, the difficulty facing the translator is
mainly one of contextualizing the term and its derivatives, if any. Suppose we
wanted to translate the noun phrase: 'the students of conceptual semantics' in three
ways. According to Aziz, we may roughly get: ‫ علىم الداللىة الفكىري‬..., while according to
Ghazala, we get: ‫ علىم الداللىة التصىويري‬.... For our own part, we get: ‫ علىم الداللىة المفهىومي‬....
My intuition dictates that none of the three translations would make much sense. So
we better shift ranks. That is, the English adjectival form would be realized as a
plural form in this context. Thus, a first preference would be given to ‫علم داللة المفاهيم‬, a
second preference may be given to ‫ علم داللة األفكار‬, but nil preference to ‫علىم داللىة الصىور‬
unless ‫ الذهنيىة‬modifies ‫الصىور‬. And on a similar basis, we tend to reject the translation
of 'conceptualization' as ‫تفكيىر‬, ‫تصىوير‬, or my erroneous ‫تفهىيم‬. Rather, we choose to
render it into ‫ )عمليىة( تكوين المفاهيم‬or the like. One might argue here by saying that rank
shifting is technically a costly procedure. Positively; especially, when long
paraphrases are involved. It must be remembered, however, that we are primarily
interested in establishing sets of technical terms relevant to linguistic register. This
measure, therefore, is meant to be taken in cases whereby there is no one-to-one
correspondence at the same rank and/or category level.
4. Related to (1) above, but slightly different, is the question of medieval vs. modern
terms. Unlike the modern Arab grammarian who is aware of the former and
fascinated by the latter, the translator is required to correlate between the two. Unless
this is done, the old terms remain forgotten and the innovated ones replace them. But
this is unfair, unless there is good reason for so doing. For example, I find no
convincing reason why the currently used ‫ السىيا‬rather than ‫ المقىام‬be the translation of
'context'. Don't you think that the famous statement
‫لكىىل مقىىام مقىىا‬, introduced by
8
Medieval Arab grammarians, stand fairly well for Malinowski and Firth's 'context of
situation'? Unlike the status of 'category' discussed in (1), it would probably be too
late to suggest a replacement. Instead, we either endorse both or choose between
them, whereby the one that is least connotative, more pertinent to the genre in which
it is being used, and has been established as a convention, will be selected. Thus, the
one that is much in vogue, I reckon, is: ‫السىيا‬. But a dictionary-maker should not lose
sight of the other.
Similarly, the two notions introduced by Chomsky (1957; 1965), viz. 'deep'
(underlying) structure vs. 'surface' structure, and translated variously into: 1. ‫البنيىة العميقىة‬
vs. ‫ البنية الةاهرة‬2. ‫ التركيب الباطني‬vs. ‫ التركيب الةاهري‬3. ‫ البنيىة التحتيىة‬vs. ‫ البنيىة الفوقيىة‬4. ‫البنىام العميىق‬
vs. ‫( البنىىام الةىىاهر‬cf. Al-Hamdani 1982: 129, among many others), also have their
correlates in medieval Arabic grammar. For example, Al-Zajjaji (d. 949) is reported by
Peterson (1972) to have drawn a distinction between ‫ معنى‬and ‫( لفى‬taken from Arabic
rhetoric), where neither the former refers to the meaning of a word, nor the latter refers
to the phonetic form of the word. Rather, the former term accounts for the underlying
(presumably semantic) structure of a sentence while the latter for its phonetic
representation. Certainly, the two paradigms, viz. Chomsky's and Al-Zajjaji's, are
different, but when notions across different traditions denote similar values they may be
equated, at least roughly. This juxtaposition has a parallel in the linguistic literature.
Recall here, for example, the rough correspondence made between Saussure's 'langue'
vs. 'parole' and Chomsky's 'competence' vs. 'performance'. After all, terms are arbitrary
concepts upon which we first impose signification and, then, when widely recognized by
concerned circles, they become conventional. But when no longer in use, they are
simply shelved and, hence, forgotten. And this, generally speaking, is our present state
of affairs in the Arab world.
The question that remains to be answered, however, is: Do we need to revive the
medieval notion and simultaneously encourage (or perhaps stop) innovations? I have
9
implicitly answered the question, though partly, in connection with the translations of
'context' above. A counter-argument would be one that discourages rebirth on grounds
that: (a) the traditional terms have become obsolete; they no longer express the same
value as their assumed correlates in current use; (b) many are so common that their
meaning today departs largely from the traditional uses for which they were intended;
(c) a considerable number of these terms have their origin in rhetoric; (d) modern Arab
grammarians are no less talented than traditional grammarians in developing
metalanguage that can keep pace with progress. Obviously, one can argue for and/or
against such views. But as their discussion would take us far beyond the scope of the
paper, I leave the issue open for further research. Instead, we proceed with our
programme.
5. In case the previously discussed criteria do not satisfy all of your translation needs,
the following may be utilized:
(a) Coin a term by means of a suitable morphological process when literal translation is
not possible;
(b)Arabicize when deemed necessary; and
(c) Paraphrase, but not at the expense of either (a) or (b) unless objectives are different.
These procedures are naturally costly. In order to keep the cost at a minimum, the
order in which they appear here must be maintained. For if you opt for paraphrasing, for
example, you lose sight of building up a stock of corresponding concepts which
arabicization or coining can handle more easily. In short, do not attempt to adopt a lower
procedure at the expense of a higher one. Nor, indeed, all of them ate the expense of the
previously established ones, in which case you better stay as close as possible to Arabic
phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns.
10
Technically, this task, as before, expresses one sense of ‘accommodation’, i.e. let
things fit in pretty well with the overall Arabic grammatical system. And as I take the
foregoing set of criteria and assumptions to constitute a conceptual apparatus within
which I shall discuss several renderings, I also take the liberty to use ‘accommodation’
in a second sense, viz. that which expresses a relationship between the rendered terms
and the model that accounts for them. In plain words, this would mean: let the suggested
equivalents abide by the underlying principles.
So much for the theory. Let’s now move to discussion. First, we consider the
problem of coining, but not without reference to the other criteria. Relevant to coining is
the notion of ‘blending’, a sort of compounding whereby the constituent parts of the
newly created word(s) are intended to express a similar sense to that conveyed by the
English term. As an example, I take the term ‘morphophonemics’ itself a blend, which is
often used interchangeably with ‘morphophonology’ or just ‘morphonology’.
Disregarding differences between them, the term was originally introduced by
Bloomfield prior to the publication of his Language. Considered as a branch of
Structural Linguistics in the post-Bloomfieldian era, the term expresses an intimate
relationship between phonology and morphology (cf. phonemics and morphemics)
whose basic units are respectively the ‘phoneme’ and ‘morpheme’. Except for
‘morphophonemics’, all other related terms have been translated and/or arabicized in the
following manner: ‫(علم) النةام الصوتي؛ (أصىغر) وحىدة صىوتية‬, or ‫المىورفيم؛ (أصىغر) وحىدة صىوتية‬, or
‫ الفىونيم‬or ‫ فىونيمكس‬and
‫ (علىم) الصىر‬or ‫مىورفيمكس‬. Based on these renderings, among others,
we expect our term to be rendered into: ‫ فونومورفيمكس‬or ‫( مورفونيمكس‬as arabicized blends).
But since we want to solve the problem as required by 5.a above, we appeal to literal
translation; thus, the uneconomical and inaccurate ‫النةىام الصىوتي والصىرفي‬. Instead, we
suggest either ‫الصصىرفيات‬, on the basis of analogy with many technical words used in
other genres, or ‫ (دراسىة) السىلوا الصىوتي‬as a translation equivalent which is partly based on
the practice of traditional Arab grammarians and partly on the understanding of the field
11
itself. Still, we prefer our blend for at least two reasons: On one hand, our goal is, to
reiterate, more of concept than phrase oriented. On the other hand, when the blend
functions as an adverb or as a modifier to a head, e.g. rule, it lends itself more easily to
case endings as required, for example, by agreement. Thus: ‫ (قواعىىد) صص ىرفية‬for
'morphophonemic rule(s)' and ً ‫ صصرفيا‬for 'morphophonemically'.
Arabicization, as we have just noticed, is not to be recommended when there is a
way out. To my thinking, many arabicized terms come into existence because:
a) their producers have a limited knowledge about the field, whether in the source
language or target language (though competent in both languages);
b) the field of enquiry could be still young so that its underlying assumptions and
notions are not clear enough to be equated with what is available in Arabic; or
c) there is a feeling that Arabic is in need of a universally acknowledged set of
technical terms; or even the least likely
d) it is the easiest process. Not too many will make fuss about them; for they are
often justifiable and can easily be replaced when difficulties unfold.
To make this picture clearer, let me introduce the term 'pragmatics'. Some fifteen
years age, I introduced this field of enquiry to the readers of Al-Hadba weekly,
published in Mosul, under the title which reads: ‫مىا هىي البراغماتيكىا‬. Upon reading this brief
article, my colleague, Yowel Y. Aziz, commented: "why not ‫ "?براغماطيقىىا‬I readily
accepted his modification because it reminded me of similar analogues, e.g. ‫ هرطقىة‬for
'hypocrisy'. The earlier form did not live long because it was soon replaced by the
second (cf. Gorgis 1989b). Following my proposal, Mosul University has been running a
pragmatics course for Ph.D. students majoring in English language and linguistics. M.A.
students doing translation are having now a course under the label: semantics and
pragmatics, and M.A. students majoring in English literature will have the pragmatics of
literature next term. It is to be noted that none of the other Iraqi universities is running
12
pragmatics courses. A similar sad situation seems to prevail in other Arab countries; for
only a few number of researchers are affiliated to IPrA and only a small number of
papers have addressed issues within pragmatic perspective for the last fifteen years or
so. Still worse is the absence of translated literature despite the fact that numerous
introductions to the field have appeared since the publication of Jacob Mey's
Pragmalinguistics in 1979. The only relevant work made available to us is Ghazala
(1996) in which we find a number of translated notions that also need to be reconsidered
in the light of our present programme. For the time being, however, we take his
translation of 'pragmatics' which reads: ‫علىم الىذرا ع‬. Regrettably, this translation, like
‫ الىذرا عيات‬advocated by Al-lisan Al-'arabi, is much closer to 'pragmatism' ‫ فلسىفة الىذرا ع‬than
to the tenets of 'pragmatics'. Incidentally, I came across ‫ البرغمتيىة‬in Ibn Khaldūn after I
had suggested the now-in-use ‫براغماطيقىا‬. Although the former relates to philosophy and
the latter to communication, I was disappointed; for both are arabicized forms that could
mean the same for the reader. So I went as back as 113 B.C. to trace the origins of
'pragmatics' (in contradistinction to the American philosophy 'pragmatism'). I came to
the conclusion that 'action' and 'utility' are two key terms in present-day rpc scitam arp
which I suggested the Arabic equivalent ‫ الفا داتيىة‬to my students. When this translation
was circulated, one of my students (now teaching in Libya) brought to my attention a
second best term, viz. ‫النفعيىة‬, being the translation of 'utilitarianism'. Although my coin
violates the rules of word formation in Arabic, it sounds Arabic.
One may reasonably argue here that I am betraying the criteria already discussed. I
agree, but let me defend my position. Intuitively, I feel that ‫ نفعيىة‬is as good and, yet, as
connotative as ‫ ذرا عيىة‬roughly corresponding to Leech's (1983) 'means-end analysis'.
Moreover, these two, supposedly, equivalent terms are philosophically oriented.
Therefore, I am more for defining the relatively new field of pragmatics by our
innovated word than any of the ones mentioned above. But one may also suggest, that
13
‫ براغماطيقىا‬be used, at least parenthetically, as long as it has been recognized officially.
Thus: )‫ الفا داتية (البراغماطيقا‬would be two faces of the same coin.
Parenthetical coupling (in the sense just used) is only meant to be a temporary
measure. Another type of coupling which is extensively used in the literature is that
whereby the alternant, usually taking the form of a paraphrase (and, sometimes, a
definition), follows an arabicized form. If the former procedure is adopted
systematically as a strategy, it will have the advantage of creating synonymy. But when
the latter is encouraged, it will have the advantage of explanatory methods pertinent to
pedagogy, but the disadvantage of losing sight of the ultimate goal, viz. building up a
stock of technical vocabulary for which a prospective dictionary-maker aspires.
Paraphrases, however, also appear frequently in the translated literature without
arabicization. My position is that paraphrases, whether being coupled by their respective
arabicized equivalents or not, should not be done at the expense of any of the foregoing
criteria unless they are well motivated.
As examples for unwanted coupling, take the term 'phoneme', arabicized by Aziz
(1985), among others, as ‫ الفىونيم‬and defined (see p. 266) as ‫أصىغر وحىدة صىوتية للتفريىق بىين‬
‫ المعىاني‬or 'aphasia', arabicized as ‫ أفلىيا‬and defined as ‫( فقىدان القىدرة على الكىلم والفهىم‬p. 257).
While it is possible to suggest Arabic equivalents which can convincingly stand for
these two terms, e.g. ‫ صىوت مجىر‬or ‫ عا لىة صىوتية‬or just ‫ وحىدة صىوتية‬for the former, and ‫الحبسىة‬
for the latter, coupling of this sort must be discouraged as long as there is much room to
accommodate such terms fairly well within our proposed criteria. By the same token, the
other type of paraphrasing, i.e. without coupling, will also find difficulties within our
model. Take, for instance, Ghazala's (1996) alternative translations to each of the three
basic notions advanced by Speech Act Theory, viz. 'locutionary act', 'illocutionary act',
and 'perlocutionary act'. The number of interpretations given to each is in that order as
follows: five, four, and five, the majority of which do NOT comply with the underlying
principles of our accommodation theory. For one thing, at least, most of his translations
14
(inaccurate, though) cannot be made plural or modified, say by 'two' or 'several', in
which case generalizations are not possible. Consider the first (out of five) translation
given to the first type of act which reads: ً ‫ أدام القىو لفةىا‬and the fourth (again out of five)
translation provided for the third type of act which reads: ‫مفعو أدام فعل ما ونتاجه‬.
I do not intend to take this exposition as a criticism (which he seems to frown at).
Rather, we want to test the validity of our programme against a number of available
translations; his do not fit well. Therefore, I may suggest a trichotomy which coheres
with our framework. Thus, while maintaining the reported order, the suggested
equivalents can be ‫ فعىل النطىق‬: ‫ فعىل المنطىو‬: ‫ فعىل اإلسىتنطا‬or more down-to-earth tripartite
‫ فعىل الىتلف‬: ‫ فعىل الملفىوظ‬: ‫ فعىل الملفةىة‬in which case the translator would not encounter any
difficulty as regards contextualization and, hence, the successful application of our
proposed accommodation theory3.
CONCLUSION
At the outset of this paper, it was suggested that in order to translate metalanguage, in
contradistinction to literary language, the translator ought to be adequately trained in
different linguistic theories and, above all, be aware of the working threads of Arabic
grammar to a considerable extent. Still, it was noted, there is always the fear that the
reader would find a translated linguistic text incomprehensible. The source of difficulty
was ascribed mainly to the absence of standard terminology in the Arab world4 and
mismatching owing to misconception. Both of these, among other things, have
motivated us to claim that many linguistic terms that have been translated into Arabic
and/or arabicized need to be considered in the light of what we have come to call 'a
translation theory of accommodation', one which presently advocates a five-point
programme (subject to criticism and/or revision) that is equally thought to enable the
prospective translator of linguistic register to see into the nature of intricacies involved.
As we have seen, a small number of translated examples have been tested and evaluated,
15
though roughly, against our criteria which yielded better results. We, thus, come to the
conclusion that if one term lends itself more easily to the underlying principles of the
proposed model, i.e. if it accommodates better within both Arabic grammar and the
framework, than an already existing term, our choice must rest with the first without
reservation.
16
NOTES
1. Before that, specifically starting the academic year 1968-69, my teacher,
Mahmood Al-Marjani, a Brown Univ. graduate (now lecturing at Ben Ghazi
Univ.) introduced me to phonology as a requirement of an English pronunciation
(phonetics) course. To him, I owe a great deal for that excellent introduction.
2. Borrowed from phonological theory with courtesy, the term may be used
interchangeably with 'adaptation', to follow Verschueren (1987). Though the two
constructs are differently motivated, they would mean here something like: let
things fit in well.
3. For better or worse, this theory can be taken as a working hypothesis. The least
that can be said in its defense at present is that it seeks 'harmony' between related
concepts at whatever level. But, certainly, more detailed accounts are required to
verify its credibility (see also n.4 below).
4. One may, to the contrary, argue that a fair amount to work has already been
published by Al-Lisān Al-'arabi which could be claimed to represent a standard.
In this vein, Al-Fahri (1983; 1986a; 1986b; 1987 and Al-Hamzawi (1980), among
others, must be acknowledged. But like all others, e.g. Bakalla et al. (1983), AlKhuli (1982), and Aziz (1985; 1987), to mention but some, they all need to be
tested against our theory or, perhaps, a comparable one. Furthermore, there is the
suggestion that calls for joint efforts, i.e. a more balanced coordination between
Arab scholars with western orientation and Arab grammarians lacking that
orientation. This move, intended to remedy the present situation, has the double
advantage of bringing together prominent representative practitioners from both
Asian and African Arab countries to, first, exchange views and remove
differences and, second, establish a coherent program, in the light of which a
unified English-Arabic linguistic dictionary can be compiled.
17
REFERENCES
Al-Fahri, A.A. (1984). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 32: 139147.
Al-Fahri, A.A. (1986a). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 26: 193240.
Al-Fahri, A.A. (1986b). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 27: 259274.
Al-Fahri, A.A. (1987). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 28: 217234.
Al-Hamash, K.I. (1982). A dictionary of linguistic and phonetic terms: English-Arabic.
Baghdad: Al-Rasheed Press.
Al-Hamdani, M. (1982). Psycholinguistics (in Arabic). Mosul: Mosul University Press.
Al-Hamzawi, M.R. (1980). "Modern linguistic terms in Arabic studies" (in Arabic). AlLisān Al-'arabi, 18/2: 87-122.
Al-Karmi, H.S. (1995). "Translation – A problem". Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 40: 43-46.
Al-Khuli, M.A. (1982). A dictionary of theoretical linguistics: English-Arabic, ArabicEnglish. Beirut: Lebanon Library.
Al-Sayyid, Sabri I. (1989). Chomsky: paradigm and critics (in Arabic). Alexandria: Dār
Al-Ma'rifa Al-Jāmi'iyya.
Bakalla, M.H. (1983). A dictionary of modern linguistic terms: English-Arabic, ArabicEnglish. Beirut: Lebanon Library.
18
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Arabic Version, by
Y.Y. Aziz (1987. Baghdad: Dār Al-Ma'moun.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Mass: MIT Press. Arabic Version,
by M.J. Bakir (1985). Mosul: Mosul University Press.
Ghazala, H. (1996). A dictionary of stylistics and rhetoric: English-Arabic. Malta:
ELGA Publications.
Gorgis, D.T. (1989a). A review article of Al-Sayyid (1989). Baghdad: Al-Jāmi'a
Weekly, 20: 2.
Gorgis, D.T. (1989b). "On terms in modern linguistic studies" (in Arabic). Baghdad:
Al-Jāmi'a Weekly, 26: 7.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Peterson, David (1972). "Some explanatory methods of the Arab grammarians". Papers
from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 504-515.
Saussure, F. de. (1974). Course in general linguistics. Fontana: Collins. English
Translation by Wadi Baskin (1959). New York: Philosophical Library. Arabic Version
by Y.Y. Aziz (1985). Baghdad: Afāq Arabiyya.
Shanni, A. (1977). "A glossary of linguistic sciences" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi,
15/2: 115-138.
Verschueren, Jef. (1987). Pragmatics as a theory of linguistic adaptation. IPrA Working
Document I.
19
This paper, which has generously been retyped by Saeed Hizam for WATA exclusively,
appeared in Translation Studies, The Quarterly Journal of the Department of Translation
Studies, 1999. Vol. (1): No. (2), PP. 9-22. Baghdad: Bayt El-Hikma.
In case researchers need to quote from the journal, they are advised to drop me a line so
that I provide them with the relevant page(s) in which the requested material is to be
quoted in their work. For enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me at:
gorgis_3@yahoo.co.uk
20