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

net/publication/368751408

Translation between English and Arabic (my book)

Book · February 2023

CITATION READS

1 225

1 author:

Noureldin Abdelaal
October University for Modern Sciences and Arts
25 PUBLICATIONS   175 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Translation between English and Arabic: A textbook for Students and Educators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Noureldin Abdelaal on 23 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Noureldin Abdelaal

‫اﻟﱰﺟﻤﺔ‬
Translation

‫ﺑني اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬
between English

‫و اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
and Arabic

A Textbook for
Translation Students
and Educators
[email protected]
Translation between English and Arabic

[email protected]
Noureldin Abdelaal

Translation between
English and Arabic
A Textbook for Translation Students
and Educators

[email protected]
Noureldin Abdelaal
University of Nizwa
Nizwa, Oman

ISBN 978-3-030-34331-6 ISBN 978-3-030-34332-3  (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

[email protected]
This book is dedicated to the soul of my
father.

[email protected]
Acknowledgements

I offer my heartfelt thanks to my father, who spared no effort in supporting me,

and to my great mother, who has always kept me in her prayers and prayed for my
success. I am also deeply indebted to my mother who has always been immensely
supportive.
My deepest thanks go to my wife and my children for their solicitude and love.
To all who have supported me in the preparation of this book, I extend my
gratitude.

vii

[email protected]
Contents

1 Translational Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Definitions of Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Translation Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Meaning in Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Translation Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Stages of Translation Theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1 Linguistic Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.2 The Communicative Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.3 The Functionalist Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.4 The Ethical/Aesthetic Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 Direct and Oblique Translation (Vinay & Darbelnet,
1958/2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Van Leuven-Zwart’s Comparative-Descriptive Model
of Translation Shifts (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.3 Overt and Covert Translations (House, 1997). . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.4 Jakobson’s Equivalence (1959). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.5 Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence
(Nida, 1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.6 Communicative and Semantic Translation
(Newmark, 1981, 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.7 The House, Nida, and Newmark’s Theories
in a Nutshell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.8 Form-Based and Meaning-Based Translation
(Larson, 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.9 Halliday’s Typology of Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.10 Catford’s Typology of Equivalence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.11 Mona Baker’s Typology of Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2.12 Koller’s Notion of Equivalence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2.13 Popovič (1976) Types of Equivalence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2.14 The Cognitive Approach to Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

ix

[email protected]
x Contents

2.2.15 Functionalist Approach in Translation

(Non-equivalence Approach). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.2.16 Darwish’s Notion of Equivalence (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.2.17 The Polysystem Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3 Grammatical Problems in Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.1 Arabic Tense as a Problem in Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.2 Translating English Tenses and Aspects into Arabic
(Based on Collins COBUILD English Grammar, 2005). . . . . . . . . 74
3.3 Gender as a Problem in Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.4 Grammatical Category as a Problem in Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.5 Syntactic Order: Foregrounding and Backgrounding
as a Problem in Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.6 Shifting (Iltifat) as a Problem in Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4 Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.1 Lexical Gaps at the Semantic Field Level
(Lack of Equivalent Problem). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.2 Improper Selection of Vocabulary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.3 Lexical Ambiguity: Polysemy and Homonymy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.4 Synonymy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.5 Problems in Translation of Rhetorical Devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5 Culture as a Problem in Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.1 Culturally Bound Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.2 Idioms and Fixed Expressions as a Problem in Translation . . . . . . 123
5.3 Collocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.4 Strategies to Translate Culturally Bound Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.5 Pym’s Typology of Translation Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

[email protected]
Abbreviations

SL Source language
ST Source text
TL Target language
TT Target text

xi

[email protected]
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Transeme and architranseme relationship (based on

van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative-descriptive model
of translation shifts, 1989).......................................................... 18
Table 2.2 Main categories of van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative model
(from van Leuven-Zwart 1989, pp. 159–169)............................ 18
Table 2.3 The gradual erosion of the notion of equivalence
in translation studies................................................................... 45
Table 2.4 Terms used in the translational action approach......................... 56
Table 5.1 The collocations of ‘bend’.......................................................... 129
Table 5.2 Typology of translation solutions (Pym, 2018, p. 45)................ 133

xiii

[email protected]
Translational Concepts
1

Overview

This chapter explains the main concepts related to translation. It provides theo-
retical definitions of translation. It also explains the concept of the ‘translation
unit’, and how scholars of translation disagree on identifying the unit of transla-
tion. Some scholars consider a word to be the unit of translation; others believe
that a unit of translation may be a sentence, piece of text, or culture. Moreover,
the chapter sheds light on the thorny notion of meaning in translation studies.
In particular, this chapter covers the following topics:
A. Definition of translation
B. Translation unit
C. Meaning in translation

1.1 Definitions of Translation

Translation is a controversial concept that is hotly debated. There are many

­definitions of translation that revolve around meaning, and the different notions
of equivalence. Halliday et al. (1965) describe translation as the establishment of
textual equivalents, rather than lexical or grammatical equivalents. Thus, as stated
by Halliday et al. (1965), translation is not a mere word-for-word rendition but,
rather, translation is seen as a whole text-to-text transplanting. Catford (1965,
p. 20), similar to Halliday, defines translation as ‘the replacement of textual mate-
rial in one language, i.e. the source language (SL) by equivalent textual material
in another language, i.e. target language (TL).’ House (2001) perceives translation
as a reproduction of a text in an SL in an equivalent text in a TL. Thus, Halliday
et al. (1965) see translation in terms of textual equivalence, and not word-for-word
equivalence. Widdowson (1978) sees translation from a different perspective;

© The Author(s) 2020 1

N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_1

[email protected]
2 1  Translational Concepts

he views translation from a communicative perspective. Widdowson states that

translation should neither operate at the word level, the sentence level, the lexical
level, or the grammatical level; translation should be only at the communicative
level. As for Hatim and Munday (2004), they state that there are two distinctive
senses of translation: translation as a process, and translation as a product. They
view translation, or to use their words, the ambit of translation as: (1) the process
of transferring a ST into a TT in a specific socio-cultural context; (2) a product
which is the result of the previous step; and (3) the cognitive, linguistic, visual,
cultural and ideological phenomena that are a principal component of (1) and (2).
This definition seems have greater care for the socio-cultural aspects of translation.
Other scholars and researchers (e.g. Venuti, 2004; Ahmed, 2006) see transla-
tion as a process that not only implies conveying meaning in a TL, but that should
retain the same style and tone of a ST: the translated text should not appear to be
a translation but, rather, should appear to be an original text, wherein no translator
is visible. This definition focuses on the equivalence level between a ST and a TT;
it goes beyond lexical equivalence to include style and tone, which are difficult
to achieve. However, another perspective sees translation as reproducing a text in
one language in another TL to make it accessible to a larger audience (Ordudari,
2007). Ordudari’s definition is more concerned with the aim of translation; that
is, to reach a greater audience, which applies to many types of texts. Levý (1967)
sees translation as a process of decision making, whereby the components of this
decision are:

1. The situation: sometimes the SL expresses one lexical item using a certain item
where the TL has two equivalents for the same word. For example, a transla-
tor has to make a decision when translating the English word ‘eclipse’ because
it has two equivalents in Arabic (i.e. one is related to the moon and the other
related to the sun).
2. Instruction I: This implies defining the class of possible alternatives.
3. Instruction II: This denotes making a selection from the available class
­alternatives. This selection is context-based. For example, to translate the word
‘eclipse’ into Arabic, a translator should refer to the context to understand
whether it is a ‘lunar eclipse’ (relating to the moon), or a ‘solar eclipse’ (relat-
ing to the sun).

Levy’s (1976) view of translation is related to the process of the translation, which
sounds practical. Levy’s perspective of translation sounds comprehensive, as it
encompasses the notion of ‘equivalence’ without disregarding the role of a transla-
tor in selecting the most appropriate equivalent. Another perspective of translation
is that of Reiss (2004), who sees translation as a process of producing a text in the
TT that is functionally equivalent to the ST. However, she goes on to say that, dur-
ing the communication process, the message will be altered, perhaps by a transla-
tor’s views, or experience and knowledge. These changes can result in two types
of message changes:

[email protected]
1.1  Definitions of Translation 3

1. Unintentional changes: Changes may result from the differences between the
structure of a language, or from the degree of the translator’s competence.
2. Intentional changes: These changes can affect the functionality of the ST. This
kind of change occurs if the aim of the ST is rendered differently in the TT.

Reiss’s view of translation equivalence is in terms of functional equivalence.

Overall, most of the aforementioned views of translation are centred on certain
basic notions—lexical equivalence and meaning in translation; and the functional
equivalence in translation—that reflect the different approaches and theories of
translation.

Exercise

‘Translation’ has been given various definitions by a variety of scholars.

­Elaborate on this, explaining the implications behind each of these definitions.

1.2 Translation Unit

A translation unit, as defined by Manfredi (2014), is the linguistic level employed

by a translator during their act of translation. Theorists hold a variety of positions
in regard to the translation unit, depending on what they consider a translation
unit to be. For example, Vinay and Darbelnet proposed the terms ‘lexicological
unit’ or ‘unit of thought’ as a translation unit. They rejected the notion that a word
can be a unit of translation (Manfredi, 2014). Newmark (1988, pp. 66–67), on the
other hand, regards a ‘sentence’ as the best unit of translation. He justifies his view
by stating that a sentence is a unit of thought and a means presenting objects. He
adds, ‘All lengths of language can, at different moments and also simultaneously,
be used as units of translation in the course of the translation activity’ (Newmark,
1988, pp. 66–67). However, Newmark mentions that in some texts such as expres-
sive texts, a ‘word’ should be deemed as the unit of translation as it can better
convey the finest nuances. Bassnett (2005), however, states that a text should be
the unit of translation, especially in relation to literary prose texts. Strangely,
Snell-Hornby considers the notion of culture as the unit of translation (Hatim and
Munday 2004). Manfredi (2014), in line with Halliday and Matthiessen (2014),
argues that a clause is the most proper unit of translation. However, Manfredi
states that in written translations, especially literary ones, a sentence should be
considered as the unit of translation. Sentence, in this context, refers to a graph-
ological unit that begins with a capital letter and ends with a full stop. ‘Word,
in its context, can be the proper unit of translations, especially authoritative and
sacred texts such as the Holy Quran because nuances between words give different
meanings.’ In addition, faithfulness to the ST requires carrying out the translation
process at the word level, rather than at sentence level. In sum, different schol-
ars revealed different understandings and perspectives of the unit of translation.
Whatever the case may be, translating these units of translations (whether word,

[email protected]
4 1  Translational Concepts

sentence, clause, or culture) poses many problems, which will be discussed in due
course. However, first, we should discuss meaning in translation, as translation is a
process of conveying meaning.

Exercise

One important notion in translation theory is the ‘unit of translation’. Why

do you think that this notion is important? How does it affect the theory and
­practice of translation?

1.3 Meaning in Translation

Halliday (1992) states that a main feature of translation is that it is a process of

meaning-making and that without such creation of meaning there is no translation.
He also states that this creation of meaning is a guided activity. Halliday further
comments that, for a language theory to be related to translation, it should be con-
cerned with functional semantics. He explicates his notion of function by stating
that it does not refer to the vague sense of use; rather, it refers to ‘metafunction’.
Metafunction, as defined by Halliday, is ‘function as the fundamental organizing
concept around which all human language has evolved’ (Halliday, 1992, p. 15).
He has made it clear that his notion of functional semantics does not imply dis-
carding the formal patterns (e.g. phonological or syntactic patterns), but that these
formal patterns should keep the semantic relations in place. He states that com-
plete semantic equivalences between any two languages cannot be absolute. They
can be contingent on the contextual meaning of an item. He makes a clear deduc-
tion of the meaning of ‘equivalence of meaning’ as being ‘equivalence of func-
tion in context’ (Halliday, 1992, p. 16). Halliday recommends that, in a translation
process, target contextual equivalents should be found. A translator, then, should
select from among the variants of equivalents. A translator should also identify the
relevant context that conditions their choice in order to translate the given ‘item’ in
the most relevant way.
Halliday (1992) believes that linguistics cannot offer a ‘theory of translation
equivalence’; rather, it can offer a ‘theory of context’. Such a theory of context
that can be offered to a translator is driven by the functional notion of ‘constit-
uency’. By the use of the term ‘constituency’ (which refers to one of Halliday’s
contexts) Halliday refers to the part–whole hierarchical relationship between
grammatical constituents. Put more simply: a clause is made up of phrases,
phrases are made of words, words are made up of morphemes, and so on. Follow-
ing this model, a translator needs to move one or more levels up the scale. Hal-
liday gives an example of the morpheme ‘-er’, which can be moved to a word,
such as in the word ‘driver’. The ‘-er’ morpheme in ‘driver’, depending on context,
means either a person who works as a driver, or someone who is currently driving.
Thus, a translator should select the proper equivalent based on the meaning of this

[email protected]
1.3  Meaning in Translation 5

morpheme in context. It is noteworthy to highlight that, for example, the context

of a morpheme such as -er comprises the words with which it may occur.
Halliday (1992) states that any piece of discourse represents the mapping of
three simultaneous structures with three different constituents of meaning (i.e.
ideational, interpersonal and textual). Halliday recommends examining all these
meanings, including the ‘writer’s construction of his or her own subjectivity and
that of the audience, of attitude to and distance from the subject-matter and so
on’ (Halliday, 1992, p. 20). Another context mentioned by Halliday is ‘discourse
semantics’, which, for example, includes grammatical metaphor. Other contexts
are those of situation (Halliday, 1992, p. 21), and culture (Halliday, 1992, p. 23),
as one cannot decide on the meaning of a word without considering the situation
and culture as factors that contribute to meaning-making. To return to the defini-
tion of translation as a ‘guided creation of meaning’, Halliday argues that such
creation of meaning is constructed through the context of a situation, which results
from analysis of the text. Thus, such context of situation will ‘guide’ the creation
of the new translated text.
However, there are various types of meaning, and a variety of classifications
according to a number of semanticists and linguists. For example, Cruse (1997)
identified four types of lexical meaning: propositional meaning, expressive mean-
ing, presupposed meaning and evoked meaning. The term ‘propositional meaning’
is used to describe the relation between a word and its real or imaginary meaning.
For example, socks are ‘a kind of cloth worn on feet’. This kind of meaning can be
judged in terms of true or false. This meaning is referred to by other semanticists
(e.g. Palmer, 1981; Hurford et al., 2014) as ‘denotational meaning’. ‘Expressive
meaning’ refers to the speaker’s feelings or attitudes. Thus, this meaning cannot
be judged in terms of true or false. For example, ‘cruel’ and ‘unkind’ are words
that denote the meaning of disapproval of someone’s attitude: of the two words,
‘cruel’ has the stronger and most negative meaning. Some words have proposi-
tional and expressive meaning (e.g. whinge); some have expressive meaning only
(e.g. bloody); and others have propositional meaning only (e.g. book).
The third type of meaning is ‘presupposed meaning’, whereby meaning arises
from restrictions occasioned by co-occurrence. These restrictions include selec-
tional restrictions and collocational restrictions. Selectional restrictions are always
observed, with the exception of the figurative use of language. For example, the
verb ‘speak’ is expected to refer to a human being, while ‘meow’ to non-human
creatures. Collocational restrictions, on the other hand, refer to arbitrary semantic
co-occurrences. For example, a law is broken in English, whereas in Arabic it is
contradicted, not broken. The last type of meaning is the ‘evoked’ meaning, which
arises from differences in dialect and register. Propositional meaning is the only
type of meaning to fall into the true/false category.
Leech identified seven types of meaning in semantics: conceptual, associative,
affective, collocative, connotative, reflected and thematic. ‘Conceptual meaning’
is sometimes referred to as ‘denotative’, ‘designative’, ‘cognitive’, or ‘descriptive’
meaning. It is the primary meaning of a lexeme, and is based on contractiveness

[email protected]
6 1  Translational Concepts

and constituent structures. This meaning can be found in dictionaries—wherein

certain lexical features are identified (constituent structures), and other lexical
features are excluded (contractiveness structures)—and can be syntactically ana-
lysed. ‘Associative meaning’ refers to the individual mental understandings of
the speaker. It is subdivided into six categories: connotative, collocative, social,
affective, reflected and thematic. ‘Connotative meaning’ is the real-world meaning;
it is associated with a specific lexeme, based on the user’s experience, and it is
subjective. It includes ‘social meaning’, which differs from one person to another
depending on factors such as age, gender and so on. For example, the word
‘home’ may encompass meanings for the language user that differ from those
of another. For some, ‘home’ implies ‘love’, ‘wife’, ‘family’; for others, it may
imply ‘boredom’ and ‘monotony. ‘Affective meaning’ is the meaning that commu-
nicates the emotions of the language user. For example, ‘I am awfully sorry for
doing that’ is an expression of regret, or feeling sorrow. Intonation and voice tim-
bre can affect this kind of meaning. ‘Reflected meaning’ is the meaning that arises
from the use of word in a specific context; for example, ‘pray’ can have a v­ ariety
of meanings, depending on the context. ‘Collocative meaning’ is the meaning that
collocates with specific words; for example, ‘pretty’ and ‘handsome’ refer to the
same denotative meaning but they are used in a collocatively different manner.
As for ‘thematic meaning’, it depends on the order of words and how they affect
meaning. In other words, it depends on the theme (i.e. what is being talked about).
Transferring meaning from an ST to a TT is a complex process due to the
complicated nature of the notion of meaning, on which there is no particular
agreement. Meaning has no precise definition; Ogden and Richards (1923) listed
16 different meanings for the word ‘meaning’ itself. Meaning is an ambiguous
and fuzzy concept that lacks clear-cut understanding. Such ambiguity of mean-
ing is a characteristic of all languages (Bock, 1986). Ghazala (2008) identifies
meaning as the linguistic components: grammar, vocabulary, style and phonol-
ogy. Grammar, by turn, includes sentence, clauses, word order, tenses and such
matters. Vocabulary includes the sense relations (e.g. synonymy, antonymy and
so on), idioms, collocations, proverbs, metaphor, culture and such. Style includes
ambiguity, repetition, redundancy, nominalization, verbalization, fronting, for-
mality and so forth. Phonology includes rhyme, rhythm, assonance, alliteration
and so on. Together, these elements shape meaning. Though, in translation, gram-
mar may not be translated in a straightforward manner, it nonetheless affects the
meaning and the message conveyed (Ghazala, 2008). Hence, as Ghazala (2008)
states, only meaning—which includes grammar, style, vocabulary and pho-
nology—is translated; there are a few exceptions, however, such as in poetry,
in which prosody may be the primary aim, rather than meaning. Meaning is
regarded as the total components of words, grammar, style and sounds (Ghaz-
ala, 2008). Ghazala mentions that it is difficult to translate meaning and form
simultaneously. Ghazala’s perspective on the difficulty of preserving meaning
and form simultaneously is consistent with Larson’s (1998) perspective of trans-
lation. Quine (1959) proposed a different notion of meaning in translation. He
introduced what he called ‘empirical meaning’. Empirical meaning is defined as

[email protected]
1.3  Meaning in Translation 7

‘what remains when, given discourse together with all its stimulatory conditions,
we peel away the verbiage’ (Quine, 1959, p. 94). As for Cruse (1997), each word
is assumed to have canonical traits that cannot be discarded. For example, a bird
has the canonical trait of flying.
Translating such meaning from one language to another is challenging.
Nugroho (1999) argues that rendering meaning is a process that involves aspects
such as diction, grammatical structure, communication setting, and cultural con-
text of the ST. He adds that meaning in an ST should be equivalent to meaning in
a TT. In short, translation is basically about translating meaning from one SL to a
different TL. This process of transferring meaning is complicated, and many prob-
lems must be faced.

Exercises

1. According to Leech, what types of meaning describe the following words?

Provide appropriate translations for these words.
A. Girl: [+HUMAN-ADULT+FEMALE]
B. Secondhand in: (a) a second-hand car
(b) a second-hand smoker
C. Mother vs. mama
2. Meaning is an important concept in translation studies and has been defined
in different ways. Explain.
3. Explain, with examples, the seven types of meaning proposed by Leech.
4. Cruse identified three types of meaning. Explain these types, with examples.

References
Ahmed, M. F. (2006). Investigating some semantic problems in the translation of the Holy
Quran. Adab al-Rafidayn, 2(43), 61–72.
Bassnett, S. (2005). Translation studies. Vasa (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge; Taylor & Francis.
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3),
355–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6.
Cruse, D. A. (1997). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ghazala, H. (2008). Translation as problems and solution. Beirut: Dar El-Ilm Lilmalayin.
Halliday, M., Macintosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1965). The linguistic sciences and language teach-
ing. London: Longman Publishing House.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). Language theory and translation practice. Rivista Internazionale Di
Tecnica Della Traduzione, 1(1), 15–25.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar
(4th ed.). New York: Routledge; Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269.
Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. London and New
York: Routledge; Taylor & Francis.
House, J. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation.
Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 46(January), 243. https://doi.org/10.7202/003141ar.
Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B. (2014). Semantics: A coursebook. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based-translation. Oxford: University Press of America.

[email protected]
8 1  Translational Concepts

Levý, J. (1967). Translation as a decision process. In L. Venuti (Ed.), To honour Roman Jakobson
on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Vol. 2, pp. 1171–1182). The Hague: Mouton.
Levy, J. (1976). Translating as a decision process. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies
reader (pp. 148–189). London: Routledge.
Manfredi, M. (2014). Translating text and context: Translation studies and systemic functional
linguistics. Volume 2: From theory to practice. In Quaderni del CeSLiC. Functional gram-
mar studies for non-native speakers of English (p. 158). Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguisti-
co-Culturali (CeSLiC). https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/3219.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Hertfordshire: Pearson Education Limited.
Nugroho, A. B. (1999). Meaning and translation. Journal of English and Education, 2(3),
94–112.
Ogden, M., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. New York and London: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Ordudari, M. (2007). Translation procedures, strategies and methods. Translation Journal, 3(5),
781–789.
Palmer, F. (1981). Semantics: A new outline. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1959). Translation and meaning. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Reprinted in L. Venuti (Ed.). (2000). The translation
studies reader (pp. 94–112). London: Routledge).
Reiss, K. (2004). Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision making in translation. In L.
Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 168–179). New York: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2004). The translation studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[email protected]
Translation Theory
2

Overview

This chapter briefly explains the stages of translation theory: the linguistic stage,
the communicative stage, the functionalist stage and the ethical/aesthetic stage.
It also presents the notion of equivalence in translation theories, with reference
to the most prominent theories in translation, supported by examples.
The chapter covers the following topics:

Stages of translation theories

The notion of equivalence in translation theories
The following research works support the contents of this chapter:

1. Direct and Oblique Translation (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1958/2004)

2.  Van Leuven-Zwart’s Comparative-descriptive Model of Translation
Shifts (1989)
3. Overt and Covert Translations (House, 1997)
4. Jakobson’s Equivalence (1959)
5. Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence (Nida, 1964)
6. Communicative and Semantic Translation (Newmark, 1981, 1988)
7. Form-Based and Meaning-based Translation (Larson, 1998)
8. Halliday’s Typology of Equivalence
9. Catford’s Typology of Equivalence (1965)
10. Mona Baker’s Typology of Equivalence (1992/2011)
11. Koller’s Notion of Equivalence
12. Popovič (1976) Types of Equivalence
13. The Cognitive Approach in Translation (Bell, 1991)
14. The Functionalist Approach
15. Non-Equivalence Approach (Skopos Theory)
16. The PolySystems Theory

© The Author(s) 2020 9

N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_2

[email protected]
10 2  Translation Theory

2.1 Stages of Translation Theories

In his discussion of translation theory, Munday (2009) explains that translation the-
ory was controlled by the West until recent times. He adds that, in Western Europe,
the topic of word-for-word or sense-for-sense translation was the subject of heated
debate until the twentieth century. Further, Munday (2009) states that ‘translation
studies’ as a discipline did not emerge until the second half of the twentieth cen-
tury; it arose from the branches of applied comparative linguistics and modern lan-
guages. The concept of translation studies was first introduced by James Holmes as
a substitute for ‘translation science’, or ‘translatology’, in 1972. However, Newmark
(2009) favours ‘translation theory’ over ‘translation studies’. He views theory as an
important framework that should be taught to translation students, though he states
that learning a theory is not fundamental to being a good translator. Peter Newmark
(2009) identified four stages of translation theory: linguistic, communicative, func-
tionalist and ethical/aesthetic. Each stage is marked with a unique approach.

2.1.1 Linguistic Stage

Covering the period up to 1950, this stage was basically concerned with literary
texts—that is, poetry, short stories, plays, novels and autobiographies. This stage
was predominantly concerned with the discussion of the word-for-word translation
(literal), as opposed to sense-for-sense translation (natural, liberal, or idiomatic).
During this period, there was preference for sense-for-sense or contextual trans-
lation over word-for-word translation. This, as Newmark states, marks the inter-
pretive theory of translation. The most prominent work of translation theory in
this period was Essay on the Principles of Translation by Alexander Tytler (1790).
Tytler (1797, pp. 14–15), as cited in Newmark (2009), defined a good translation
as one in which ‘the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into
another language as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a
native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak
the language of the original work’. Newmark adds that what can be inferred from
Tytler’s statement is that a good translation should completely convey the message
of the ST; it should also follow the same style and manner of the original, and
should have all the ease of the original composition (p. 23). George Steiner’s After
Babel (1975) marks the end of this linguistic stage.

2.1.2 The Communicative Stage

Beginning in around 1950, this stage marked the application of linguistics to trans-
lation studies; it mainly covered non-literary and literary texts. It was concerned
with the categorization of text registers, the participation of a range of readership
groups (from the less well-educated to the expert) and the identification of types of
procedures for translating various segments of a text.

[email protected]
2.1  Stages of Translation Theories 11

2.1.3 The Functionalist Stage

Commencing in around 1970, this stage covered mainly non-literary texts—that is,
‘the real world’. It was concerned with the intention of a text and its essential mes-
sage, rather than the language of the ST. Translation in this period was concerned
with how to translate a text functionally.

2.1.4 The Ethical/Aesthetic Stage

Since around 2000, this stage has been concerned with authoritative and official
or documentary texts, and includes serious literary works. It highlights translation
as a truth-seeking profession. The truth is essentially twofold: the correspondence
of a factual text with reality; and the correspondence of an imaginative text with a
meaningful allegory—and, consequentially, the correspondence of the translation
with the respective type of text. Newmark concludes that these translation theory
stages are cumulative; in other words, they overlap, or, in Newmark’s words, they
‘absorb without eliminating each other’ (2009, p. 21). Having shed light on the
different stages of translation theories, we shall move on to the unit of translation.

Exercise

Explain the stages of translation theory.

2.2 The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories

Discussing the concept of ‘equivalence’ brings into the discussion the perspectives
of concepts. There are two main perspectives of concepts: the universality of con-
cepts, as proposed by Chomsky (1977), and the relativity of concepts. According
to Chomsky, all humans share the same basic brain structures and, thus, there are
deep similarities between all languages, even if these are not obvious in surface
grammar. Universalists believe all languages have a commonality, or universal
concepts, that are shared by all languages. Relativists believe that languages are
too disjointed and, hence, concepts are not common among languages (Steiner,
1998). In his book After Babel (1998), Steiner rejects Chomsky’s universality of
concepts. Steiner believes that language is relative and that, thus, languages are
too disjointed. Steiner takes the stance of the Relativists and opposes that of the
positivistic Universalists (Steiner, 1998). These variant stances of Universalists
and Relativists bring different understandings of the notion of equivalence. Simply
put, if we were to adopt the Universalist stance, we would say that equivalence is
achievable between languages because they are similar in deep structure, at least.
However, adopting the Relativist stance, it can be argued that real equivalence

[email protected]
12 2  Translation Theory

does not exist between languages. Those different stances created considera-
ble debate in relation to the concept of equivalence, which has always been a
source of disagreement among scholars and theorists of translation and linguistics
­(Munday, 2009).
According to Munday (2009), equivalence is a thorny issue in the realm of trans-
lation studies; it is fuelled by the debate among theorists and scholars; some schol-
ars more or less reject the notion (e.g. Gentzler, 2001; Snell-Hornby, 1988/1995),
while others find it useful and helpful (e.g. Baker 1992; Kenny 1998). By con-
trast, some scholars perceive that translation without equivalence is impossible
(e.g. Koller, 1989, 1995; Nida and Taber, 1974/1982). However, Munday con-
cludes that equivalence is a principal issue in the world of translation, and that it
will remain essential to the practice of translation (Munday, 2008, p. 49). There is
clear evidence of the necessity for equivalence in translation; first, the definitions
of translation mainly revolve around the notion of equivalence (e.g. Catford, 1965;
Newmark, 1981, 1988); second, translation is basically a kind of communication,
hence equivalence between ST and TT is a requirement; third, difficulty of trans-
lation and untranslatability are always discussed with respect to finding equivalent
items in a TT (Yinhua, 2011). The concept of equivalence was dominant in the dis-
cussions of translation during the period during the 1960s and 1970s (Venuti, 2004).
Many scholars and theorists, adopting a variety of perspectives, discussed the
notion of equivalence. The notions of equivalence of Vinay and Darbelnet, Mona
Baker, Jakobson, Nida, and Newmark, together with the strategies proposed by
them, will be discussed in the following sections.

2.2.1 Direct and Oblique Translation (Vinay & Darbelnet,

1958/2004)

Vinay and Darbelnet (2004) were basically influenced by Catford’s (1965) shifts.
They identified two strategies of translation: direct and oblique. They argued that
changing the syntactic order and lexis of the ST in the TT is sometimes neces-
sary in order to transpose certain stylistic effects of the ST, so as to fill the gap
in the TL: oblique translation. Sometimes it is possible to transpose the ST mes-
sage elements into the TT individually, due to structural or metalinguistic parallel-
ism between the ST and the TT: direct translation. These strategies are subdivided
into seven procedures; three for direct translation and four for oblique translation.
Those for direct translation include: borrowing, calque, literal translation, transpo-
sition, modulation, equivalence, adaptation.

A. Borrowing, is where an SL word is transferred to the TT to fill a semantic gap

in the TL. One of the advantages of this strategy is that it keeps the same con-
notations of the SL (Ni, 2009). Moreover, this method adds the flavour of the
SL culture to the TL. Some of the borrowed items became a central core of the
repertoire of lexicons in the TL. For example, menu, coup d’état, café, alcohol,
sheik and Islam are part of the English language, though they basically

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 13

belong to other cultures and language. Similarly, Arabic words such

as ‫ أنترنت‬،‫ سوبرماركت‬and many others were borrowed from English. Also, many
words were borrowed from Arabic to English, such as: cotton, falafel, algebra,
sheriff, Mujahidin, Fedayeen, caliph, sheik, halal and many others. Using bor-
rowing as a translation strategy should observe the style and message to be con-
veyed accurately.
B. Calque, whereby an SL expression or structure is transferred with minimum
adaptation, is a special kind of borrowing and is subdivided it into two types:
lexical calque and structural calque.
1. In lexical calque, the SL lexis are transferred into the TT without violating
the syntactic structure of the TT; for example, translating the English expres-
sion ‘compliments of the season’ into French as ‘Compliments de la sai-
son!’. Other examples are ‘Secretary General’, which is translated into
‫ األمين العام‬and ‘life is a journey’, which can be rendered as ‫الحياة رحلة‬. Other
examples, respectively, include translating cornerstone, feedback, play a role
as ‫ تغذية راجعةو يلعب دورا‬,‫حجر الزاوية‬.
2. In structural calque, a new structure is introduced into the TL, translating the
ST lexicons literally. For example, translating the English expression ‘Science
fiction’ into French as ‘Science fiction’. In this example, the English struc­ture
is introduced into the French language. To clarify, calque is a kind of
literal translation that sometimes observes the lexical features of the ST (i.e.
lexical calque), and at other times observes the structural features of the ST
(structural calque). Examples of structural calque between English and Arabic
rarely exist because the two languages belong to two different families.
C. Literal translation is a word-for-word translation; it is described as the most
common procedure between related or close languages and cultures (e.g. French
and Italian). For example, translating ‘Ahmed is a student’ as ‫ أحمد يكون طالب‬is a
literal translation that can be used for a didactic purpose only. However, literal
translation is sometimes possible at the lower level of language. For example,
translating ‘I love Rabiaa’ as ‫ انا أحب ربيعة‬is an acceptable literal translation.
Other examples are:

Example

• I drink tea.
• ‫أنا أشرب الشاي‬
• I speak English.
• ‫أنا أتجدث األنجليزية‬
• I bought a villa.
• ‫أنا اشريت فيلال‬

According to Vinay and Darbelnet (2004), if all the direct or literal translation
procedures, mentioned above have not yielded acceptable translations, oblique
translation offers an alternative. The unacceptability of translation as identified by
Vinay and Darbelnet refers to cases where ‘the message translated:

[email protected]
14 2  Translation Theory

1. gives another meaning;

2. has no meaning;
3. is structurally impossible;
4. does not have a corresponding expression within the metalinguistic experience
of the TL; or
5. has a corresponding expression, but not within the same register’ (p. 87).
Oblique translation procedures include: transposition, modulation, equivalence
and adaptation.

D. Transposition implies changing a part of speech (i.e. word class) without

altering the meaning. There are two types of transposition: obligatory and
optional.
1. Obligatory transposition, which is sought when the TL does not allow any-
thing other than a specific form. For example, the French expression ‘Dès
son lever’ must be transposed into the English expression ‘As soon as he
gets up’. This is the only permissible form in English. A further example is
translating ‫ أغتسل‬as ‘to wash up after having sex or ejaculation’. In this
example, the ST verb must be rendered as a clause in English due to a lack
of equivalence.
2. Optional transposition. An example of optional transposition is the English
expression ‘As soon as he gets up’; if it were translated back into French, it
would be translated as: ‘Dès son lever’, or ‘Dès qu’il se lève’. Hence, it is
optional to employ either transposition strategy (i.e. ‘Dès son lever’) or
calque strategy (i.e. ‘Dès qu’il se lève’). A further example is ‫الذين يؤتون الزكاة‬,
as it can be translated as ‘zakat payers’ or ‘those who pay zakat’. Transposi-
tion is similar to Catford’s categorical shifts. Other examples of optional
transposition are translating ‘she screamed when she saw the snake’ as
‫ لقد صرخت عند رويتها الثعبان‬and ‫المؤمنين‬, which may be translated into English as
‘those who believed’.
E. Modulation involves the changing of the semantics and point of view expressed
in the SL; this strategy is followed when literal translation or transposition can
result in unidiomatic or unsuitable text in the TL. Similarly to transposition,
there are obligatory and optional modulations. An example of an obligatory mod-
ulation is the phrase, ‘The time when’, which must be translated into French as
‘Le moment où’ (literally: ‘the moment when’). By contrast, optional modulation
turns a negative SL expression into a positive TL expression. In addition, a free
(optional) modulation can only be fixed (obligatory) when referred to in diction-
aries and grammar books. Other examples of modulation are the French phrase
‘peu profond’, which may be translated into English as ‘shallow’; ‘lend me your
ears’, which can be translated as ‫‘ ;اعرني اتنباهك‬a piece of cake’, which can be
translated as ‫ ;امر هين او سهل‬the translation of ‘ups and downs’ as ‫ ;تقلبات الحياة‬and
translating ‘you are going to have a child’ as ‫ستصبحين أما‬.
F. Equivalence is a strategy whereby different stylistic or structural means are
used by the SL and TL, respectively, as in idioms and proverbs. In other words,

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 15

the ST and TT can render the same message using different styles or different
structures. For example, the much onomatopoeia of animal sounds, e.g. the
sound of a donkey in English would be transcribed as ‘heehaw’, while in
French it would be transcribed as ‘hi-han’. Most equivalence is of a syntag-
matic nature (i.e. interchangeable); hence, equivalence mainly comprises a
fixed phraseological repertoire of idioms, clichés, proverbs, nominal or adjecti-
val phrases and so on. For example, the French proverb ‘Il pleut à seaux/des
cordes’ is an equivalent to the English proverb ‘It is raining cats and dogs’.
Vinay and Darbelnet (2004), however, warn against creating equivalences or
calques without having ready-made equivalences. For example, a translator
should not create an equivalent of the previous proverbs in Arabic because they
are not culturally accepted. Other examples are ‫شئت أم أبيت‬, which can be trans-
lated as ‘willy nilly’, and ‘let things slide’, which can be translated as
‫دع األمور تجري في أعنتها‬. Examples of proverbs are as follows:

Example

ST TT
All that glitters is not gold ً ‫ليس كل مايلمع ذهبا‬
A friend in need is a friend indeed ‫الصديق وقت الضيق‬

G. Adaptation is the last calque strategy proposed by Vinay and Darbelnet

(2004), and is the changing and/or explaining of cultural differences between
an SL and a TL. This strategy is employed to create situational equivalence.
For example, the English ‘hello’ can be adapted to be assalamu alikum in Ara-
bic, instead of its linguistic equivalent ‫أهال‬. This strategy is frequently used in
translating literary work. It is also used in translating movies. For example
translating swearwords (e.g. ‘fuck’, ‘damn’) as ‫اللعنة‬. Also, translating ‘boy-
friend’ and ‘girlfriend’ as ‫صديق و صديقة‬.
After their discussion of these seven strategies of translation, Vinay and Darbelnet
(2004) conclude that these strategies frequently overlap, as more than one strategy
can be used within the same text or even the same sentence. For example, as
­suggested by Vinay and Darbelnet (2004), the translation of ‘private’ (as would be
written on a door) by ‘défense d’entrer’ can be considered as a simultaneous trans-
position, modulation, and equivalence. It is a transposition because the adjective
‘private’ is transformed into a nominal expression; a modulation because a state-
ment is converted into a warning; and an equivalence since it is the situation that
has been translated, rather than the actual grammatical structure. A working exam-
ple of the use of the above-mentioned translation procedures can be found in the
following example.

[email protected]
16 2  Translation Theory

Example

The principles guiding the development of information technology and sys-

tems within the federal Government are contained in a ‘Federated Architecture
Program’ run by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. The Committee is,
however, concerned that the child parliament project is run by civil society and
therefore is not provided with adequate support, especially financial support, to
enable the programme to be sustainable.
‫تردالمبادئالموجهةلتطويرتكنولوجياالمعلوماتونظمالمعلوماتداخلالحكومةاالتحاديةفي’البرنامجاالتحاديللبنية‬
.‫األساسية‘الذييديرشؤونهمجلسالخزانةالتابعلمجلسالوزراءالكندي‬
‫ تشعر اللجنة بالقلق ألن المجتمع المدني هو الذي يدير مشروع برلمان الطفل وال يحظى من ثم‬،‫ومع ذلك‬
.‫ لضمان استمراره‬،‫ ال سيما الدعم المالي‬،‫بالدعم الكافي‬

As seen in the Arabic translation in the example, some of the strategies suggested
by Vinay and Darbelnet (2004) have been used in the translation. For example, the
ST is reported in passive voice, while the TT is reported in active voice, which is
a modulation. Similarly, the ST begins with a verb, which is common in Arabic,
while the TT begins with a noun, which is also a modulation procedure.
Also, translating ‘The principles guiding the development of information tech-
nology and systems’ as ‘‫ ’المبادئ الموجهة لتطوير تكنولوجيا المعلومات ونظم المعلومات‬is a lexi-
cal claque where the ST words were rendered into Arabic, preserving the syntactic
norms of the TL. Another example of calque is translating ‫ مشروع برلمان الطفل‬as ‘the
child parliament project’—the ST adjectival word ‘concerned’ was translated to a
verbal phrase (i.e. ‫)تشعر بالقلق‬, which is a transposition. A further example that
explicates the use of Vinay and Darbelnet’s procedures is a segment of text from
Gibran’s Arabic work The Broken Wings (translated by Anthony Rizc Allah Ferris):

Example

Target text Source text

…and my beloved, beautiful Selma is ‫و سلمى – سلمى الجميلة العذبة قد ذهبت إلى ماوراء الشفق‬
dead and nothing is left to commemorate ‫األزرق ولم يبق من آثارها في هذا العالم سوى غصات أليمة‬
her except my broken heart and tomb ‫ فذلك‬.‫في قلبي وقبر رخامي منتصب في ظالل أشجارالسرو‬
surrounded by cypress trees. That tomb ‫القبر وهذا القلب هما كل مابقي ليحدث الوجود‬
and this heart are all that is left to bear (p. 101) ‫عن سلمى كرامه‬
witness of Selma. (p. ix)

In the translation above, there is a modulation in translating ‫و سلمى – سلمى الجميلة العذبة‬
(proper noun + proper noun + adjective + adjective) as ‘my beloved, beautiful Selma’.
Ferris opted to delete the repeated proper noun and to add the adjective ‘beloved’ to
translate ‫العذبة‬. The translation also exemplifies transposition, as the ST expression
‫( ذهبت إلى ماوراء الشفق األزرق‬literally: ‘went to the beyond of the red twilight’) refers to
death. Therefore, the translator rendered it as ‘dead’, which is a transposition that made
the translation lose the aesthetic feature used in the ST. ­Similarly, ‫ غصات أليمة في قلبي‬was
rendered as ‘broken heart’, which is a transposition.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 17

Exercises

1. Translate the following text, explaining which of Vinay and Darbelnet’s

strategies were used in translating the text.
New satellite imagery shows that construction on an experimental reactor is
making ‘expeditious’ progress—just three months after the Kingdom
announced plans to build it, according to former director for nuclear inspec-
tions at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Robert Kelley.
Kelley estimated that the reactor could be completed in ‘nine months to a
year’.
The Kingdom has been open about its nuclear program with the IAEA,
which sent a team to Saudi Arabia last July to check on building plans.
It has repeatedly pledged that the program is peaceful. But Crown Prince
­Mohammed bin Salman said last year that ‘without a doubt if Iran developed
a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible’ (Source CNN).
2. Explain the differences between oblique and direct translation
­procedures.
3. As a translator, what procedures would you attempt first in a given
translation task? Why?
4. Does the employment of specific translation procedures depend on the
type of text? How?
5. Translate the following texts, stating the procedure used in your
­translation.
a. There is a big living room in my house.
b. We have two ranch hands, who do everything in the ranch.
c. Amal is my true friend.

2.2.2 Van Leuven-Zwart’s Comparative-Descriptive Model

of Translation Shifts (1989)

Van Leuven-Zwart (1989) proposed a comparative model that aims to carry out
analysis above the level of a sentence. The model is primarily based on Vinay and
Darbelnet’s categorization of direct and oblique translations, and consists of a
comparative model and descriptive model. The comparative model aims to ana-
lyse an ST and its TT at micro levels, or based on microstructural shifts. Van Leu-
ven-Zwart divides texts into comprehensible units, which she called ‘transemes’.
For example, ‘I love my parents so much’ is a transeme because it is a comprehen-
sible unit. Its equivalent transeme in the TL is ‫أنا أحب والدي كثيرا‬. The identified
transeme is compared to what she calls an ‘architranseme’, the invariant principal
meaning of the ST transeme, but does not stand as a full equivalent for the ST
transeme. In the example ‘I love my parents so much’, ‘to love’ is the archi-
transeme. Then, each transeme is compared with its architranseme and the rela-
tionship between the two transemes is recognized (Munday, 2001). If the ST and
TT transemes are found to be synonymous in relation to the architranseme, then it

[email protected]
18 2  Translation Theory

can be deduced that no shift occurred. However, if they are found not to be synon-
ymous, then shifts are assumed to have occurred. The main shifts are modulation,
modification and mutation. Within each main category, there are subcategories.
Table 2.1 explicates these three main categories. Let us consider the following
example and its translation for purposes of clarification (Table 2.2).

Example

I speak English fluently.

‫انا أتحدث األنجلزية‬
With regard to the descriptive model, it is a macrostructural model that aims to
analyse the ST. It refers to the three metafunctions of language: ideational, inter-
personal and textual. The model, however, has drawbacks, as in practice it is diffi-
cult to apply to a long text. Also, tracking shifts does not seem to be easy.

Table 2.1  Transeme and architranseme relationship (based on van Leuven-Zwart’s compara-

tive-descriptive model of translation shifts, 1989)
ST TT
Transeme Speak English fluently ‫انا أتحدث األنجلزية‬
Architranseme To speak ‫أتحدث‬

Table 2.2  Main categories of van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative model (from van Leuven-Zwart

1989, pp. 159–169)
Shift Definition
Modulation One of the transemes corresponds with the
architranseme; however, the other differs either semantically or stylistically. In
the previous example, there is a modulation because the ST has an extra word
that does not exist in the TT; that is, fluently
Modification Both transemes show some form of disjunction (semantically, stylistically,
syntactically, pragmatically, or in some combination of these) compared to the
architranseme
Mutation It is impossible to establish an architranseme, either because of addition, dele-
tion or some radical change in meaning in the TT

2.2.3 Overt and Covert Translations (House, 1997)

House (1997) views equivalence as a relation between an ST and its translation.

In House’s words, translation is doubly bound: on its ST on one hand, and on its
recipient’s communicative condition, on the other hand. She adds that absolute
equivalence is impossible, and that an important term that should be discussed
is ‘invariance‘, which refers to dealing with equivalence according to each indi-
vidual case. Based on situational dimension and functional equivalence, House

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 19

differentiates between two types of translation: overt and covert. Overt trans-
lation focuses on the universal meaning of a text, without addressing the reader.
This kind of translation is employed for translating STs of an established value.
She also considers that the intelligibility of a text depends on the culture of a text.
Hence, according to her, if a text is indigenous, it needs overt translation, which
can be provided through annotations, insertions, or expansions (Venuti, 2004).
This applies to translating the Holy Quran, prophetic hadiths, president’s speeches
and so on. Overt and covert translations are examples of translation approaches (or
global strategies) that deal with the text at the macro level. To achieve this, transla-
tion strategies (local strategies) are always employed. In the case of overt transla-
tion, ST oriented strategies are used, such as borrowing, literal translation and the
like. The following is an example of overt translation:

Example

ST TT
The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the ‫ التابعة لكل‬،‫اتهمت منظمة هيومان رايتس ووتش قوات األمن‬
occupied West Bank and Hamas authori- ‫ باستخدام التعذيب‬،‫من السلطة الفلسطينية وحركة حماس‬
ties in the Gaza Strip routinely arrest and ‫ ضد منتقديها‬،‫الممنهج والتهديد واالعتقاالت العشوائية‬
torture peaceful critics and opponents, ‫ومعارضيها‬
Human Rights Watch says.

As seen in this example, the translation preserves the overtones and undertones of
the ST. To maintain the ST features in the translation, borrowing was employed;
for example, borrowing ‘Human Rights Watch’ as ‘‫’منظمة هيومان رايتس ووتش‬. Literal
translation was also employed throughout the text.
Covert translation, by contrast, makes translation equal to a ST in the target
culture. In other words, a translated text will appear to be original and not a mere
translation. Thus, in covert translation, the ST and its culture are not specifically
addressed. The most important consideration is to convey the ST message in a
functional manner. This approach can be used to translate novels, drama and such
texts. The following is an example of covert translation low:

Example

ST TT

Source: Alice in Wonderland and its translation by Amira Kiwan

[email protected]
20 2  Translation Theory

In the example above, the ST was adapted in the TL to sound natural and idio-
matic. For example, ‘get very tired’ was idiomatically translated as ‘‫’بدأت تضيق ذرعا‬.
Similarly, ‘she had peeped into the book’ was translated metaphorically as
‘‫’ألقت نظرة خاطفة‬. Adaptation was used in the translation to make the TT sound idio-
matic.
Based on the distinction between overt and covert translation), House proposed
a quality assessment model that offers criteria with which to assess a translation.
The model, which was revised in 2015, is based on Halliday’s Systemic-Func-
tional Theory (for details, see House’s Translation Quality Assessment: Past and
Present, 2015). The model is based on the fact that texts have functions, and those
functions should be conveyed in the translation. Therefore, the ST and the TT are
compared to find any mismatches between them. These mismatches can be dimen-
sional or non-dimensional. Dimensional mismatches result from pragmatic errors
that are pertinent to language users and language use. In contrast, non-dimensional
mismatches are mismatches between the ST and TT at the denotative level, and
they may breach the TL linguistic system. Non-dimensional mismatches are more
serious than dimensional ones. The final qualitative judgement on the translation
will then be based on the matches and mismatches between the ST and the TT, as
the functional components of the two texts will be compared. In this regard, it is
important to draw the attention of readers to the fact that functional equivalence is
possible only in covert translation. In contrast, overt translation is always depend-
ent on the SL culture, which makes functional equivalence difficult to achieve.
Overt and covert translations are approaches of translation that encompass many
translation procedures or strategies.

Exercise: Examine the STs provided below and their translations, and explain
whether the approach used in the translation is overt or covert

ST TT
1. The Philippines government has previously ‫ نفت الحكومة الفلبينية‬،‫وفي وقت سابق‬
dismissed claims of human rights abuses, saying ‫ وقالت إن‬،‫اتهامات بانتهاك حقوق اإلنسان‬
President Duterte had employed ‘lawful use of ‫الرئيس دوتيرتي استعمل ‘االستخدامالمشروع‬
force’ against threats to the country. Eritrea has ،‫للقوة’ ضد التهديدات التي تتعرض لها الفلبين‬
also strongly denied such allegations, and insists ‫ وتصر‬،‫كما نفت إريتريا بشدة تلك االتهامات‬
that it treats its citizens well ‫على أنها تحسن معاملة مواطنيها‬

Exercise

What is the difference between overt and covert translation?

1. In what types of text are we likely to adopt the overt translation approach? Why?
2. In what types of texts are we likely to adopt the covert translation approach?
Why?

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 21

3. Do you believe that overt and covert translation approaches lie at the
extreme ends of a range or on a continuum? Why? Why not?
4. House (1997, 2001, 2015) proposed a translation quality assessment model:
explain this model. Do you think that this model can be used to assess any
translation? Why? Why not?

2.2.4 Jakobson’s Equivalence (1959)

Jakobson (1959), a Russian linguist who studied linguistic meaning and equiva-
lence in meaning between different languages, observed many differences among
languages. He stated that meaning of any linguistic sign (i.e. word) can be con-
sidered a further translation of this sign. For example, the word ‘bachelor’ can be
converted into a more explicit sign, such as unmarried man. Jakobson differenti-
ated between three types of translation: intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic.

1. Intralingual translation refers to rewording, using signs of the same language;

in this type of translation, another less or more synonymous word is used or cir-
cumlocution is employed in the absence of a synonym. Jakobson further men-
tions that each code unit (i.e. word) should be translated by an equivalent
combination of code units; for example, every ‘bachelor’ is an ‘unmarried
man’, and every ‘unmarried man’ is a ‘bachelor’. In intralingual translation, a
word is replaced by another that is a near synonym or near equivalent. For
example, celibate and bachelor can be near synonyms, but they are not com-
plete synonyms because every celibate is a bachelor, but not every bachelor is a
celibate. This applies to Arabic as well. A case in point would be ‫ ضياء‬and ‫نور‬,
which are near synonyms but they are not complete synonyms. The first word is
always used to refer to the light accompanied by heat, while the latter refers to
light without heat. These nuances in meaning, however, may not be realized by
laymen language users. In Arabic, teachers of translation attempt to develop the
skill of making their students able to choose the right word, which is not an
easy task because Arab students use their own local dialects in everyday lan-
guage use and, therefore, using standard Arabic is thought-provoking. Students
frequently know how to translate an ST into their local dialect, but they find it
arduous to translate their local dialect into standard Arabic.
2. Interlingual translation refers to replacing a verbal sign with another sign but of a
different language; on this level of translation, there is no full equivalence between
code units. Translation substitutes only messages but not code units. Similarly, on
the level of interlingual translation, there is no full equivalence between code
units, while messages may serve as adequate interpretations of alien code units or
messages. For example, the word ‘cheese’ in English does not have a complete
equivalent in the Russian language. Since languages converge in some linguistic
features and diverge in others, it is common to find complete equivalents for some
lexemes, phrases and clauses in some cases but not in others. Most universal lexis
(e.g. love, hate, play, laugh) and expressions (e.g. take upon one’s shoulders) have

[email protected]
22 2  Translation Theory

equivalents across many languages. For example, ‘take upon one’s shoulders can
be translated into Arabic as ‫يأخذ على عاتقه‬. However, some other expressions and
lexis are culture-bound and, therefore, equivalents do not exist. Take for example
the English expression ‘baby shower’, which does not have an equivalent expres-
sion in Arabic. However, some expressions that sound culture-bound may not be
and may have equivalents in other languages. For example, though the word ‘bap-
tism’ sounds culture-bound, it has an equivalent in Arabic as ‫التعميد‬.
3. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation refers to transmuting verbal to non-verbal
signs. In intersemiotic translation, the focus is on the message more than wording
(Jakobson, 1959/1966/2000). To clarify, a text (verbal sign) may be translated as a
picture, or dancing, or any other type of performance (non-verbal sign). This applies
to particular types of text, such as the translation of advertisements. So, intersemi-
otic translation implies a kind of creativity on the part of the translator and, there-
fore, a single text can be translated creatively and differently by different translators.

Jakobson stresses that full equivalence between any two linguistic codes (i.e.
words) is not achievable (Jakobson, 1959/2000). He does not view translation as
impossible; however, he argues that there are linguistic limitations that make full
equivalence impossible. Jakobson’s views are similar to Vinay and Darbelnet, in
that he considers translation is possible in spite of cultural and linguistic limitations.

Exercise: How would you translate the following words between English and Arabic?
And into which type of Jakobson’s types of translation do they fall?

1. ‫التقوي‬
2. ‫عيد الفطر‬
3. ‫الحج‬
4. ‫الرؤية الشرعية‬
5. ‫رؤية الهالل‬
6. Baby shower
7. Halloween
8. State of Union Speech

2.2.5 Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence

(Nida, 1964)

In 1964, Eugene Nida proposed his new notion of equivalence, which is considered
the first attempt to differentiate between pragmatic equivalence, on the one hand,
and linguistic and cultural (i.e. formal) equivalence, on the other hand. Nida pre-
sented two new types of equivalence; dynamic (which he later ‘functional’) and
formal equivalence (Munday, 2008). Nida developed dynamic equivalence Bible
translation theory. He proposed his own scientific approach to dealing with mean-
ing, equivalence and translatability. His theory is based on theoretical concepts and

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 23

terminology from semantics and pragmatics, and from Chomsky’s work on syntac-
tic structure. According to Nida, a word acquires its meaning through context and
can create varying responses according to culture (Munday, 2008).
Nida divides equivalence into two types: formal equivalence (or formal corre-
spondence) and dynamic equivalence.

1. Formal equivalence or formal correspondence is inclined to be more ST struc-

ture oriented. It is more concerned with the message in the TL, but it should
match as closely as possible the different elements in the SL (Nida, 2000). This
type of translation is called ‘gloss translation’, in which the translator seeks to
produce the closest approximation of the original. This translation requires a
reader to have moderate familiarity with the subject matter (Shakernia, 2014).
Yet, this type of translation has a drawback as it requires several footnotes to
make the text fully understandable. This type of translation orients the target
audience more towards the SL culture (Munday, 2008; Panou, 2013).
2. Dynamic equivalence is more concerned with the effect of the principle equiv-
alent, where the relationship between the receptor and the message should be
significantly the same as that which existed between the original receptors and
the message (Nida, in Venuti, 2004.). Dynamic translation is receptor oriented
and, therefore, aims at complete naturalness of expression, which requires
adaptations of grammar, lexicon and cultural references. Moreover, in dynamic
equivalence, the foreignness of the ST is reduced to an extent that this method
was criticized by culture oriented theorists (Munday, 2008). Nida proposed
certain techniques that could be applied for the purposes of adjustment in the
translation of texts: additions, subtractions,
(1) Additions: Nida postulates that additions are legitimate in translation, and
he states that additions can be of many types and for many purposes:
• Filling out elliptical expressions: it may be necessary to render some ST
ellipted expressions into explicit expressions to clarify the ST meaning
and to avoid ambiguity.
• Obligatory specification: this may be needed to clarify misleading refer-
ences; for example, pronouns.
• Additions required by grammatical restructuring: this may occur when
voice, word class, and reportedness are changed or restructured in the
TT. For example, changing indirect speech to direct speech, or passive
voice to active voice, is likely to result in amplifications and additions.
• Amplification from implicit status to explicit status: some implicit
semantic elements may be needed to be rendered explicitly, which
results in additions
• Answers to rhetorical questions: sometimes rhetorical questions should
be translated by providing answers to them in the TT, due to differences
between an SL and a TL.
• Classifiers: sometimes classifiers are a part of language, though they are
redundant and their translation should observe that. For example, trans-
lating Sohag into ‫( محافظة سوهاج‬Sohag governorate).

[email protected]
24 2  Translation Theory

• Connectives: repetition of segments of a preceding text is sometimes a

part of the nature of language, and they help keep the text coherent.
• Categories of the TL: when a TT has certain categories that are obligatory
or optional, it is necessary to add the obligatory categories in the transla-
tion and decide on the optional ones. For the optional categories, a trans-
lator may need to make explicit what is implicit in a ST, and this can be
done by using doublets (using semantically supplementary expression).
(2) Subtractions: they can be applied to many cases, such as repetitions, specifica-
tion of reference, conjunctions, transitionals, categories, vocatives, and formulae.
a. Repetitions: semantic supplementary expressions may be tautologi-
cal in some languages and thus deleting one of the two expressions
may be necessary; for example, in translating ‘answered and said’ as
‘answered’—deleting ‘said’, which is redundant. However, repetitions
that serve a specific purpose, such as ‘emphasis’, should not be deleted
in the translation.
b. Specification of reference: some languages do not require repetition of
a specification of reference; therefore, translating them should observe
that.
c. Conjunctions: conjunctions in some languages are used in a way that is dif-
ferent from the language into which a piece is being translated. For exam-
ple, conjunctions in Arabic may not need to be rendered into English.
d. Transitionals: they mark the transition from one unit to another. For
example, in the Arabic language, ‫‘( اذه‬this’) marks a transition from one
story to another and thus, in translation, it may be deleted.
e. Categories: some categories can be deleted in a translation. It is not
necessary to reflect all categories in a translation. For example, English
sometimes uses the plural form with proper nouns to refer to the fam-
ily of a specific person, which may not be needed to be reflected when
translated into Arabic.
f. Vocatives: Arabic, for example, makes use of the vocative particle,
which may be deleted when translated into English.
g. Formulae: some formulae may not be rendered into a TT; for example,
translating ‫ أصحاب الفخامة و السمو‬as ‘their excellencies’.
3. Alterations: Nida argues that any acceptable translation must undergo altera-
tions in sounds, categories, word classes, order, clause and sentence structure,
semantic problems involving single words and semantic problems involving
exocentric expressions.
4. The use of footnotes: they are used to explain cultural and linguistic differences
between an SL and a TL, and to add information that is necessary for historical
and cultural understanding of the ST concepts.
5. Adjustments of language to experience: a translator may need an old use of lan-
guage to a modern use of language based on experiences.

After having discussed the techniques that may be need for adjustment purposes,
Nida expounded the translation procedures that a translator needs to employ in his

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 25

process of translation. These procedures are broadly divided into technical and
organizational procedures. Technical procedures entail three phases: analysis of
the SL and the TL, careful study of the SL text, and determination of the proper
equivalents. Since the first phase is clear, I will now discuss the other two phases
of technical procedure, which relate to:

1. Analysis of the lexico-grammatical features of the immediate unit: this includes

analysis of all the semantic aspects of a ST: the syntactic, referential and emo-
tive.
2. Discourse context: it is important to understand any stretch of language in rela-
tion to its specific and general context.
3. Communicative context: it is important to analyse the communicative context
of an ST. this may include the background of the ST (e.g. the author), the way
it is written, the factual background of the ST and the circumstances that con-
tributed to the production of the ST.
4. Cultural context of the SL.
5. Cultural context of the TL.

Determination of equivalents is the second phase of technical procedure and can

be conducted by decomposing the ST into its simplest semantic structure and
recomposing such semantic structures into their nearest equivalents in the TL.
Overall, Nida stresses that correspondence in meaning must have priority over
correspondence in style, if an equivalent effect can be achieved (Panou, 2013). Nev-
ertheless, Nida’s theory was criticized by a number of translation theorists, such as
Van den Broeck and Larose, who questioned the measurability of the equivalent
effect (Shakernia, 2014). Whang (2004) also criticized Nida’s theory by proposing
the same question, which is how a translator can ascertain that his translation can
induce the same effect as the SL text. Nida’s theory is also rejected by religious
groups, who maintain that the word of God is sacred and unalterable; hence, making
necessary changes to attain dynamic equivalence is unacceptable (Gentzler, 2001).

Exercise

1. Translate the text below and explain into which of Nida’s translation
approaches your translation falls. Support your answer with examples
from your translation.
Saudi Arabia detained seven activists, including two US citizens, on Thurs-
day, sources tell CNN. It was the kingdom’s first sweep of arrests targeting
dissidents since the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year.
A State Department official confirmed to CNN on Friday that two US citi-
zens were arrested in Saudi Arabia, but declined to provide names.
‘We can confirm that two US citizens were arrested in Saudi Arabia’, the
official said. ‘We have already engaged the Saudi government in this regard.
Due to privacy considerations, we have no further comment.’

[email protected]
26 2  Translation Theory

Salah al-Haidar, a dual Saudi-US citizen, who is the son of prominent wom-
en’s rights defender Aziza al-Yousef, was one of those arrested, according
to two sources familiar with the events. Yousef was temporarily freed from
a prison in Riyadh last month and is on trial along with 10 other women’s
rights defenders (Source CNN).
1. Explain which of Nida’s types of equivalence is more frequently applied
by translators, including yourself. Why?
2. One concept that was proposed by Nida is ‘principle equivalent’. What
does this concept mean? Was this concept accepted by translation theo-
rists? Do you think that this concept is practical and achievable?

2.2.6 Communicative and Semantic Translation

(Newmark, 1981, 1988)

Newmark’s theory of translation is pertinent to the linguistic theory of translation,

as he follows Catford’s formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence; however, he
calls them ‘semantic translation’ and ‘communicative translation’ (As-Safi, 2011).
In translation, Newmark (1988) underscores the importance of referring to the tex-
tual level, referential level, cohesive level and the level of naturalness at the pro-
cess of translation. Textual level implies transposing the SL grammar and lexis
into TL equivalents. Referential level refers to keeping in mind the referential level
of a sentence during translation (i.e. what each sentence or word means in con-
text). Thus, referential level and textual level should go hand-in-hand. Cohesive
level denotes the smooth moving from one idea to another without breaking the
textual cohesion, so that a translator could observe the structure and moods of a
text. Naturalness is how to make a TT appear to be an original text. However, it is
beyond doubt that Newmark’s levels cannot be applied to any text. For example, a
sacred text such as the Holy Quran is not expected to be translated into a naturally
equivalent TT. Understanding Newmark’s four levels gives in-depth understanding
as to how the translation process should take place.
Newmark (1981), in his seminal work: Approaches to Translation, differenti-
ated between two main types of translation: communicative translation and seman-
tic translation. Communicative translation is TT oriented, whereas, semantic
translation is source text oriented. Communicative translation attempts to pro-
duce a similar effect on its readers to that of the original text, whereas semantic
translation attempts to render as closely as possible the semantic and syntactic
structures of the second language to allow the exact contextual meaning of the ST.
Thus, as Newmark argues, semantic translation is more detailed and complex, and
tends to over-translate to reach the nuance of meaning in the ST.
Newmark states that, of the different methods of translation (which will be dis-
cussed shortly) only semantic and communicative translations, out fulfil the two
aims of translation: accuracy and economy. In addition, a semantic translation
is written at the author’s linguistic level and is used for expressive texts. On the
other hand, communicative translation is written at the readership’s linguistic level

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 27

and is used for informative texts. Semantic translation is similar to Nida’s formal
equivalence, as it attempts to provide the semantic and syntactic structure of the
TL to achieve the exact contextual meaning of the ST. Communicative translation,
on the other hand, agrees with Nida’s dynamic equivalence, as the effect on the TL
audience should be equivalent of that effect of the SL. However, Newmark rejects
the idea of producing an equivalent effect, which was proposed by Nida, since
it is impossible to render the same effect in terms of space and time (Newmark,
1981/1982). Additionally, Newmark believes that literal translation is not only the
best, but is the only valid method of translation (Newmark, 1981). Newmark adds
that, if the two forms of translation (communicative and semantic) are in conflict,
then communicative translation should win out.
Newmark (1981) mentions some problems that are faced by translators. Among
these problems is the intention of a translator. In other words, the intention of a
translator affects their translation, whether they aim to convey the different aspects
of an ST, or want to convey the intended meaning alone. Another problem in trans-
lation is the quality of the writing and the authority of the text. Newmark (1998)
mentions that a well-written text needs a translator to observe the nuances between
words, stating that lexis is the major problem in translation, and not in grammar.
Lexis includes words, collocations and fixed phrases, neologisms and ‘unfindable’
words. He adds that problems may arise either from a lack of understanding of
lexis, or from finding them difficult to translate. A lack of understanding of the
lexis of some languages results from a translator’s inadequate knowledge of the
different meanings of a word (i.e. physical, technical, figurative, or colloquial
meanings). The difficulties in finding equivalents or translating an ST vary from
one text to another. These variations between texts led Newmark to differentiate
between translation as a scholarship, research, or art. A translation, according to
Newmark, may be considered as scholarship when an SL text is challenging and
demanding, or requires interpretation or additional explanations. Thus, translating
the Holy Quran is a scholarship rather than a profession.

Functions of Texts
Newmark, before discussing the different strategies of translation, discussed the
functions of sentences and the different types of text. He correlates the functions of
sentences to the types of text. Newmark lists six types of function in sentences: the
expressive function, the informative function, the vocative function, the aesthetic
function, the phatic function, and the metalingual function. The expressive function
relates to the meaning intended by the speaker, writer, or author; literary texts tend
to be a good example of expressive texts. The informative function relates to facts,
reality and knowledge, such as articles, newspapers, and scientific papers. The voc-
ative function is referred to sometimes as a pragmatic translation, as they are aimed
at the addressee or the readership. A typical example of vocative function texts
includes persuasion, propaganda or publicity writings. The aesthetic function is
concerned with pleasing senses through sounds, images, or figures of speech; one
example of this is translating poetry. However, in literary texts such as poetry, there
is always a conflict between the aesthetic function and the expressive function.

[email protected]
28 2  Translation Theory

Newmark (1988), unlike many other scholars, differentiates between transla-

tion methods and translation procedures. According to him, translation methods
deal with the text as a whole, while translation procedures deal with sentences and
the smaller units of language. He identified eight methods of translation: word-for-
word, literal, faithful, semantic, adaptive, free, idiomatic and communicative.

1. Word-for-word translation: In this method of translation, the SL is translated

into a TL, keeping the same word order and the words translated singly by their
most common meanings, out of context. This rarely happens between English
and Arabic due to the syntactic and semantic differences between the two lan-
guages. It is mostly valid between close languages.
2. Literal translation: This is similar to word-for-word translation, the differ-
ence being that SL grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest TL
equivalents.
3. Faithful translation: This tries to render the closest and most precise contextual
meaning to that of the original while, at the same time, observing TL grammati-
cal structures.
4. Semantic translation: This is similar to faithful translation; however, it attempts
to keep the aesthetic value of the SL text.
5. Adaptation: This is the freest form of translation, whereby the SL is adapted to
the TL culture. This method observes the TT culture; hence, it is applicable in
translating poetry and plays
6. Free translation: This attempts to produce the content of the ST text without
its form. It is usually longer than the original ST because it paraphrases the ST;
that is why it is called interlingual translation.
7. Idiomatic translation: This reproduces the message of the original but may dis-
tort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these
do not exist in the original.
8. Communicative translation: This attempts to render the exact contextual mean-
ing of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily
acceptable and comprehensible to the readership.

As seen in the discussion above, some of these methods are source oriented: word-
for-word translation, literal translation, faithful translation and semantic trans-
lation. Others are TT oriented: adaptive translation, free translation, idiomatic
translation and communicative translation. However, as mentioned earlier, New-
mark believes that the only acceptable methods of translation are semantic transla-
tion (ST oriented) and communicative translation (TT oriented).
In relation to translation procedures, Newmark (1988), in A Textbook of Trans-
lation, proposed several general procedures to translate from SL to TL. Pro-
cedures, unlike methods, deal with the lowest levels of translation, such as the
sentence, clause and word. These procedures (or strategies) are: transference,
naturalization, cultural equivalent, functional equivalent, descriptive equivalent,
synonymy, thorough translation, shifts or transposition, modulation, recognized
translation, translation label, compensation, componential analysis, reduction and
expansion, and paraphrase.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 29

1. Transference: This is the process of transferring an SL word to a TL text; this

translation process is similar to Catford’s transference, Vinay and Darbel-
net’s borrowing, and Harvey’s (2000) transcription. One of the methods used
to apply transference is transliteration. When necessary, a functional equiva-
lent should be added between brackets to clarify the meaning of some
semi-cultural words. For example, translating ‫ جهاد‬as jihad, or jihad (striving).
Other examples include words such ‫فالفل كشري برسيم كنافة القاعدة حالل‬, which can
be translated as falafel, koshri, berseem, al-Qaeda and halal. Examples from
English to Arabic include translating supermarket, radio and mobile
as ‫سوبر ماركت راديو موبايل‬.
2. Naturalization: This procedure succeeds transference and adapts the SL word
first to the normal pronunciation, then to the normal morphology (word forms)
of the TL. For example, translating ‫ سعودة‬as ‘Saudization’. Other examples
include translating televise, hallucination and hallucinate as ‫يتلفز و هلوسة يهلوس‬.
3. Cultural equivalent: This involves translating an SL cultural word by an
approximate TL cultural equivalent. This is not an accurate translation; it is
merely an approximation. For example, translating ‘ups and downs of life’
as ‫ ;صروف الدهر أو تقلبات الزمن‬and ‘he hit the nail on the head’ as ‫أصاب كبد الحقيقة‬.
4. Functional equivalent: This requires the use of a culture-free word, with a
new specific term; it neutralizes or generalizes the SL word. It is a kind of cul-
tural componential analysis. It is also the most accurate way of translating
(i.e. deculturalizing) a cultural word. This method can be employed when
there is no equivalent for an SL word. It occupies a middle position between
the SL culture and the TL culture. It can result in under-translation when the
SL word is translated into a TL word (on a one-to-one basis), or over-transla-
tion when translation occurs several times. For example, translating ‘it is rain-
ing cats and dogs’ as ‘‫’إنها تمطر بغزارة‬. Further examples are as follows:

Example

a. A piece of cake ‫سهل جدا‬

b. It is not my cup of tea ‫ال يروق لي‬
c. It is a pain in ass ‫مولم و محرج‬

5. Descriptive equivalent: This procedure is the explanation of the meaning of a

cultural term in several words. For example, translating ‫ بنت مخاض‬as ‘she-
camel in 2nd year’. Another example is translating the Arabic word ‫ بعثة النبي‬as
‘The Prophet’s appointment as messenger’. Other examples are as follows:
a. ‫ التقوى‬fear of Allah and abiding by His rules
b. ‫ عقيقة‬an occasion when an animal slaughtered in celebration of the birth of
a new-born
c. ‫ جنابة‬a state when someone has ejaculated and has not yet done ghusl.
d. ‫ غسل‬taking a bath, preferably in a ritual manner, after ejaculation or having sex.

[email protected]
30 2  Translation Theory

6. Synonymy: This is the use of a near TL equivalent in a context. This method

is employed when literal translation does not work properly, or when a lex-
ical item is not important for componential analysis (i.e. economy precedes
accuracy). This method should be used when a compromise is needed
because it can result in poor translation. For example, translating ‫ جح‬as ‘pil-
grimage’ for the purposes of economy. Other examples include the following
words:
a. ‫ صالة‬prayer
b. ‫ صدقة‬optional alms
c. ‫ زكاة‬compulsory alms.
7. Thorough translation: This translation procedure is calque or loan translation.
This kind of translation can be applied to acronyms and international names.
However, this translation procedure should only be used when the term is
common and can be recognized. For example, translating FAO as ‫الفاو‬. Other
examples include translating UNESCO as ‫اليونسكو‬.
8. Shifts or transposition: This procedure involves changing the grammar from
the SL to that of the TL; for example, changing a singular word in SL into a
plural word in the TL, due to the syntactic constraints of each language. This
procedure of translation is similar to Catford’s shifts. For example, translating
the Quranic word ‫ أصواف‬as ‘wool’. Other examples may include translating
‘Paradise’ as ‫الجنة‬. There are many other examples that exist between English
and Arabic. Consider the following examples:

Example

a. Ahmed is smart ‫أحمد ذكي‬

b. I have two blue cars ‫لدي سيارتان زرقاوتان‬

9. Modulation: ‘a variation through a change of viewpoint, of perspective and

very often of category of thought’ (Newmark, 1988, p. 89), which is similar
to Vinay and Darbelnet’s modulation. For example, using positive for dou-
ble negative, or double negative for positive. For example, translating the
negated French sentence ‘I1 n’a pas hesite’ to the positive English sentence
‘He acted at once’. This example indicates optional modulation. However,
sometimes, modulation is mandatory, as in the case when there is a lexi-
cal gap. For example, shallow can be only translated into ‘peu profond’ due
to there being no lexical equivalent in the French language. In translation
between English and Arabic, modulation is used extensively. For example,
translators tend to render the passive voice in English into active voice in
Arabic, because of the differences between English and Arabic in terms
of passivization. Arabic prefers the use of the active voice, while English
prefers to use the passive voice in many situations. Consider the following
example:

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 31

ST: It has been reported by informed sources that the Egyptian presi-
dent will run for presidency this year.
TT: ‫و قد أفادت مصادر مطلعة أن الرئيس المصري سيترشح ألنتحابات الرئاسة هذا العام‬
s seen in the example above, the passive voice in the English ST was translated
A
into the active voice in the Arabic TT as it sounds more idiomatic in this form.
Other modulation procedures include: abstract for concrete, cause for effect, one
part for another, reversal of terms, active for passive, intervals and limits, and
change of symbols.
(a) Abstract for concrete: for example, translating ‘sleep in the open’ (which
is abstract) as ‫( ينام في فندق جميل‬which is concrete);
(b) Cause for effect: for example, translating ‘You’re quite a stranger’ (which
is a cause) as ‘‫( ’انا لم أرك من قبل‬which is an effect);
(c) One part for another: for example, translating ‘from cover to cover’ as
‫;من أول صفحة الى اخر صفحة‬
(d) Reversal of terms: for example, translating ‘health insurance’ as
‫;تأمين على المرضى‬
(e) Active for passive: see the example given above regarding the Egyptian
president;
(f) Intervals and limits (in terms of space and time): for example, translating
‘I will come back in a minute’ as ‫ساعود في غضون عدة دقائق‬. In this example,
the time (‘minute’) was translated into ‫( دقائق‬minutes);
(g) Change of symbols: this can happen in the translation of fixed expres-
sions; for example, translating ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ as
‫قدم السبت تجد األحد‬.
10. Recognized translation: this is used for translating official and institutional
documents that are accepted officially by institutions; for example, translating
‘BBC’ as ‫هيئة األذاعة البريطانية‬, or translating ‘student support fund’ as
‫ صندوق معين‬in the Omani context.
11. Translation label: this can be applied to translating new institutional terms, as
a translator attempts to create a new equivalent term in the TL for a new emerg-
ing term in the SL or the TL. For example, the ST word or acronym ‫ داعش‬was
first translated as ‘ISIS’ and subsequently other translators rendered it as ‘ISIL’.
12. Compensation: this occurs when a loss of meaning, sound effect, metaphor, or
pragmatic effect in one part of a sentence is compensated either in another part of
that sentence, or in a contiguous sentence. This procedure can be used in translat-
ing poetry and drama. For example, ‘Parting is such sweet sorrow’, a line of dia-
logue from Shakespeare, was translated as ‫ حزن يكتسي إشراقة األفراح‬،‫ هذا وداع الحب‬by
Anani.
13. Componential analysis: this implies the splitting up of a lexical unit into its
sense components, often anything from one up to as many as four transla-
tions; for example, translating ‫ ذاكر‬as ‘rememberer of Allah’. Another example
is the word ‫متقي‬, which can be translated as ‘fearful of Allah’.

[email protected]
32 2  Translation Theory

14. Reduction and expansion: this occurs when one lexical item is translated into
more than one item (expansion), such as when translating ‘linguistics’ into the
French ‘science linguistique’; or two items are reduced to one item (reduc-
tion), as when translating the French ‘science linguistique’ into ‘linguistics’.
Another example is translating ‫ يتوضا‬as ‘take ablution’.
15. Paraphrase: this is explanation of the ST item(s); for example, translating ‫تيمم‬
as ‘The Islamic act of dry ablution using sand or dust, which may be per-
formed in place of ritual washing if no clean water is readily available, or if
one is suffering from moisture-induced skin inflammation or scaling’.
After his discussion of these 15 of translation, Newmark proposes further proce-
dures, which are inferred from the procedures already presented. These procedures
are: couplets, and notes, additions and glosses.

1. Couplets: this procedure implies combining two (i.e. couplets), three (i.e. tri-
plets), or four (i.e. quadruplets) of the previous procedures to solve one transla-
tion problem, and can be used in translating culturally bound terms.
2. Notes, Additions and Glosses: these additions can be inserted within the text
between parentheses (brackets); they can be also added at the bottom of the
page, or at the end of the chapter, or even at the end of the book.

Exercise: Based on Newmark’s procedures, what translation procedures would

you adopt to translate the following lexis and expressions between English
and Arabic

1. ‫كأن على رؤسهم الطير‬

2. ‫ يوم لك و يوم عليك‬.‫الدنيا دول‬
3. Don’t judge a book by its cover.
4. I will do this when pigs fly.
5. You can’t sit on the fence. You should decide whose side you are on.

Exercise: Translate the text below, explaining the procedures you have
employed in translating it, based on Newmark’s procedures

The government seeks to open up Oman’s skies to facilitate more international

airlines and offer more options for travellers.
Air travel between Oman and Turkey could become affordable after the
recent signing of a pact between the two countries at the International Com-
mission for Air Navigation (ICAN) 2018 Conference in Kenya on air services
negotiations, said a statement from the Public Authority from Civil Aviation
(PACA).
The agreement opens up air space to operate any number of flights between
both countries as against the current limit of 28 weekly flights.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 33

Exercises

1. Explain the following translation dichotomies, including in your answer

examples from your own work.
A. Overt vs. covert translation;
B. Semantic vs. communicative translation;
C. Direct vs. oblique translation;
D. Formal correspondence vs. dynamic equivalence.
2. Jakobson differentiated between three types of translation. Explain these
types, highlighting the difference between them and the other translation
dichotomies proposed by other scholars.

Exercise: Match Newmark’s communicative and semantic translation

methods, with the translations of the following English source texts

English STs and their translations Newmark’s

translation method
1. Ultra-processed foods linked to increased cancer risk
‫يعتقد بعض العلماء أن األطعمة المعالجة قد تزيد من خطر اإلصابة‬
‫بالسرطان‬
2. Theresa May faces ‘meaningful vote’ on her deal.
‫تواجه ماي تحديا صعبا إلقناع أعضاء البرلمان بالتصويت ألنسحاب‬
‫بريطانيا من االتحاد األوربي‬
3. Trumps postpones his State of the Union speech to an
unknown date
‫ترامب يؤجل خطابه عن حالة االتحاد ألجل غير معروف‬
4. Two heads are better than one
‫ما خاب من استشار‬
5. Egyptians demand that Mubarak open the Rafah cross-
ing-point into Gaza, break off diplomatic relations with
Israel, and even send weapons to Hamas
ُ ‫ويطالب المصريون أن يفتح مبار‬
‫ وأن يقطع‬،‫ك معب َر رفح المؤدي إلى غزة‬
‫ بل وأن يرسل بالسالح إلى حماس‬،‫العالقات الدبلوماسية مع إسرائيل‬
6. Carl Tiflin and Billy Buck came back in the evening and
they all had supper. After supper, Jody sat by the fireplace
and listened to his father
، ‫ وبعد ذلك‬.‫ وتناول الجميع العشاء‬،‫رجع كارل تيفلن وبيلي بك في المساء‬
‫جلس جودي قرب الموقد واستمع لوالده‬

2.2.7 The House, Nida, and Newmark’s Theories in a Nutshell

As discussed, it seems that most of the theories presented share certain features.
For example, Nida’s functional or dynamic equivalence is identical to Newmark’s
communicative translation, and may sound close to House’s covert translation.
However, House’s covert translation focuses more on the culture of the ST and
the TT, rather than the effect on a reader (Newmark, 2009). Similarly, Newmark’s

[email protected]
34 2  Translation Theory

semantic translation and House’s overt translation are almost identical, the only
difference being that Newmark places greater emphasis on the possibilities of lit-
eral translations (Newmark, 2009). Newmark (1991) mentions that texts should be
dealt with according to their nature; for example, the more important and serious
the text, the closer to the ST should be the translation, and vice versa. Most of
these theories, in spite of using variant terms, focus on differentiating between two
main types of equivalence: pragmatic equivalence and formal equivalence. Prag-
matic equivalence aims to communicate the message of the ST in the norms and
culture of the TT, hence making translation invisible. By contrast, formal equiva-
lence aims to convey the message of the ST with all of its linguistic and cultural
values (Venuti, 2004).
Overall, most translation approaches are two- or three-poled theories (Munday,
2008). For example, Catford (1965) identifies three ranks of translation—word-for-
word, literal and free translation, while Newmark distinguishes between two major
approaches to translation—semantic and communicative translation (Newmark, 1981).

Exercises

1. The translation theories mostly revolve around two or three poles.

Explain.
2. How similar and different are the translation dichotomies proposed by
House, Nida, Jakobson, and Vinay and Darbelnet?

2.2.8 Form-Based and Meaning-Based Translation

(Larson, 1998)

Larson (1998) identifies two main kinds of translation: form-based translation and
meaning-based translation. Within these two basic taxonomies, Larson makes
another subdivision in the form of a continuum that comprises seven kinds of
translation ranging from the ‘very literal’ translation to the ‘unduly free’. He states
that ‘unduly free’ translations are unacceptable translations for most purposes.
One reason for the unacceptability of unduly free translations is that they add extra
information that does not exist in the ST; hence, they change the meaning pre-
sented in the SL text (Larson, 1998). Similarly, he believes that literal translation
is not acceptable because it does not communicate the meaning; it is a mere string
of words translated. Additionally, Larson mentions idiomatic translation—which
reproduces the meaning of the SL in the natural form of the receptor language—as
the only acceptable translation; it reproduces the message of the ST in the TT
without retaining the form. Although Catford, Newmark, and Larson use different
theoretical terms, these terms are almost the same in application. An example of
literal translation that is not accepted by Larson is translating ‘Heaven forbid that
he should leave because of me!’ as ‫السماء تمنع أن يغادر بسببي‬. It should, however, be
translated idiomatically as ‫ال قدر هللا أن يغادر بسببي‬.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 35

Exercises

1. What is the difference between meaning-based and form-based translation?

2. According to Larson, which type of translation is accepted? Why?
3. What are the differences between literal translation, free translation and
idiomatic translation? Support your answer with examples from your own
work.

2.2.9 Halliday’s Typology of Equivalence

Halliday (2001) argues that translation equivalence is the central organizing con-
cept of translation. Halliday proposes his typology of equivalence in terms of a
systematic functional theory. This typology centres on three vectors: stratification,
metafunction and rank, as illustrated in Fig. 2.1.
The first vector—stratification, according to Halliday—refers to the organiza-
tion of language in ordered strata. Such strata include the phonetic/phonological,
lexico-grammatical, semantic and contextual levels of the multi-coding system of
language. These strata do not carry the same value in equivalence in translation.
For example, semantic equivalence is more important than lexico-grammatical
equivalence. Hence, each stratum should be valued according to the specific trans-
lation task at hand. By way of illustration, let us look at two examples:

Example

A. Trump will deliver his State of the Union speech next Sunday.
.‫سوف يقوم ترامب بالقاء خطابه عن حالة األتحاد يوم األحد‬

In example A, equivalence has been achieved at the lexico-grammatical level as

well as the semantic level because the TT retains the same lexis and grammar of
the ST. In the same way, the message and meaning of the ST is conveyed in the TT.

Example

B. It is raining cats and dogs.

.‫إنها تمطر قططا و كالبا‬

In example B, equivalence was achieved at the lexico-grammatical level but not at

the semantic level. The lexis and grammar of the ST were retained in the TT but
the meaning was lost. Let us assume that the translation of example B was
‘‫’إنها تمطر كأفواه القرب‬. In this case, semantic equivalence was achieved; however,
lexico-grammatical equivalence was not achieved, and this explains why semantic
equivalence is the most important type of equivalence.

[email protected]
36 2  Translation Theory

Fig. 2.1   Halliday’s parameters of language

With regard to Halliday’s (2001) third vector—which is discussed first here due
to it having certain similarities with the first vector—which is rank, it deals with
how the formal strata (i.e. phonology and lexico-grammar) are organized. In other
words, it is concerned with how clause complexes, clauses, phrases, groups, words
and morphemes are organized. However, rank deals with morphemes, words,
clauses and sentences. Similarly, to strata, equivalence in ranks will differ in value.
It is expected that the higher value will be assigned to the highest formal level (i.e.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 37

the clause). Put differently, if clauses are kept constant or equivalent, it does not
matter a great deal if the words vary. This, however, cannot be considered a rule
that can be applied to all texts. To return to example B: if it is translated as
‫إنها تمطر كأفواه القرب‬, equivalence is achieved at clause level, but not at word level.
Again, equivalence at clause level is the most important, which, in turn, affects
equivalence at the semantic level.
As for the second vector (i.e. metafunction), it includes three categories of
function that all languages share: ideational, interpersonal and textual. Ideational
function is about the ‘content function of language’ (Halliday, 2007, p. 183). Ide-
ational function refers to the use of language to express and talk about our expe-
rience of our inner and outer worlds. In this sense, language is a cording system
that deals with the relation between man and nature. In sum, this function serves to
communicate new or unknown information to the audience. The ideational func-
tion mainly consists of ‘transitivity’ and ‘voice’ (Wang, 2010). The transitivity
system is composed of six processes: material process, mental process, relational
process, behavioural process, verbal process and existential process. Let us con-
sider a variety of examples that explain these processes.

A. The material process

Material processes relate to doing or making things happen. This is expressed by
different types of verb, especially dynamic verbs (e.g. play, kill, hit), and is used
in the present progressive. So, if a verb does not allow the progressive aspect, it
means that the process cannot be material. Material processes refer to those pro-
cesses in which an action is done. Thus, they include an action verb, actor and
goal; for example, ‘Ahmed is eating meat’ (Zhuanglin, 1988). In this example,
‘Ahmed’ is the actor, ‘is eating’ is the verb, and ‘meat’ is the goal. In this process,
there are six main participants:
Actor is the person who is performing the action;
Goal refers to what is affected by the action;
Scope refers to what remains unaffected by the action;
Attribute refers to a quality ascribed or attributed to an entity;
Client refers to whom/what the action occurs, and usually takes the preposi-
tion ‘for’;
Recipient refers to the receiver of goods or services and usually takes the prepo-
sition ‘to’.

Examples of the material process

1. Ahmed was playing tennis yesterday.

2. The doctor gave some medicines to Ali.

In example 1, the actor is ‘Ahmed’, while the goal is ‘tennis’. In example 2, the
actor is ‘the doctor’, while ‘Ali’ is the recipient.

[email protected]
38 2  Translation Theory

B. The mental process

The mental process is more concerned with emotions, feelings, affection, cogni-
tion, perception, or desire. It is realized through the use of verbs such as ‘believe’,
‘love’ and ‘think’. The participants in the mental process are ‘the senser’ and ‘the
phenomenon’. The ‘senser’ is the term used to refer to the person who experiences
the feelings, emotions, or experience. ‘Experience’, on the other hand, refers to the
mental process felt or experienced by the ‘senser’. Mental processes express per-
ceptions or mind-related activities; for example, ‘I love Egypt’. In this example,
the senser is ‘I’, while the experience is the feeling towards Egypt.

C. The relational process

There are two types of relational process: attributive (e.g. ‘Ali is clever’) and iden-
tifying (‘A horse is an animal’). In a relational process, the progressive aspect is
restricted. With regard to verbal processes, these include exchanging information
processes and they encompass all the modes of indication or process; for example,
‘Ali told Ahmad that Ali was absent today’. The participants in the verbal process
include the ‘sayer/the addresser’, the ‘receiver/the addressee, the ‘verbiage’; for
example, ‘the charts show a growth in economy’.

D. The behavioural process

Behavioural processes refer to psychological or physiological processes; for exam-
ple, ‘I breathe’. In behavioural processes, the main participant is the one behaving,
and the second participant (if any) is the behaviour. These are mostly intransitive
situations, and can be deemed to be a combination of mental and material pro-
cesses; for example, ‘the manager gave a black eye to the employee who came late’.

E. The existential process

Existential processes refer to the existence of something and are usually connected
with the verb ‘be’; for example, ‘there is a student in the class’ (Zhuanglin, 1988).

The process in a nutshell

• The existential and behavioural processes usually have only one participant.

• Mental processes are mostly used either in the simple present tense or the past
tense.
• The relational process must include two participants. In the relational-attribu-
tive clause, the participants are generally not reversible, or at least the gram-
matical functions are fixed while they are in the relational-identifying clause.
Reversibility includes the exchanging of positions, as well as passivization.
• The verb ‘be’ is used as the main verb in relational or the existential processes.
• Sometimes, the language is used figuratively; therefore attention needs to
be paid to the intended meaning; for example, ‘the road runs along the river’
shows a relational process and not a material process.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 39

Interpersonal function
Interpersonal function, on the other hand, refers to the use of language to inter-
act with others, and to establish and maintain relations with them. It also implies
the use of language to influence people, to please them, or to anger them. Lan-
guage, in this sense, is a medium between individuals (Halliday, 1971). Mood and
modality are typically used to express the interpersonal function. For example, if a
speaker uses an imperative mood, he is assuming that a listener will obey the com-
mand; for example, ‘leave’. Modality embodies the intermediate ranges between
the extreme positive and the extreme negative (Wang, 2010). Modality can express
the speaker’s negative or positive judgement of a topic. Put differently, modality is
related in a direct way to the social functions of language. It can express different
semantic implications, such as permission, request, obligation, necessity, possibil-
ity and so on. Halliday views modality as a form of participation by the speaker in
the communicative act (Mishra, 2009).

Textual function
Textual function refers to how language functions as a system that organizes mes-
sages in a common manner. In this sense, it explains how the different messages
fit logically with those around them, and with the wider context in which the talk-
ing or writing is takaing place. For Halliday (1971, p. 334), ‘Language makes
links between itself and the situation; and discourse becomes possible because the
speaker or writer can produce a text and the listener or reader can recognize one’.
Unlike the previous two vectors, equivalence at the metafunctional level is not
hierarchical: there is no hierarchical relationship among the three metafunctions.
However, Halliday adds that ideational metafunction has the highest value in
translation, in the sense that translation equivalence is usually defined in ideational
terms, and that if a TT does not match the ST ideationally, it cannot be considered
a translation. Halliday concludes that a good translation is the text that is equiva-
lent in regard to the aforementioned linguistic features, which are the most valued
in the given translation context.

Exercises

1. Halliday proposes a typology of equivalence that is based on three vectors.

What are these three vectors? Support your answer with examples from your
own work.
2. Explain the process involved in the sentences below. Then, translate these
sentences, explaining whether the ST processes were maintained in the TT.
• She’s moving tomorrow.
• He was better after undergoing surgery on Saturday.
• Record profits were announced last week.
• Record profits were announced last week.
• We’re getting married next year.
• Next year, the museum is expecting even more visitors.

[email protected]
40 2  Translation Theory

• I was playing golf yesterday.

• Yesterday the atmosphere at the factory was tense.
• Ali donated ten thousand dollars to the Orphanage House in Cairo.
• My new wife is tall and blonde.
• I hate hypocrites.
3. Translate the following text highlighting the three vectors proposed by Halli-
day, and the extent they are maintained in the translation.

The death of a former president in most countries around the world would nor-
mally make headline news domestically. But not the case for Egypt, where
ex-President Mohammed Morsi died at the age of 67 on Monday after collaps-
ing in a courtroom during his trial on spying charges.
His sudden demise barely registered in Egyptian media—in fact, papers there
prioritised Egypt’s hosting of the forthcoming 2019 African Cup of Nations on
its front pages, and instead relegated Morsi’s death to the inside pages usually
designated for criminal affairs.
The state-run channels failed to even mention that Morsi—the first democrati-
cally-elected leader in Egypt—was a former president, instead referring to him
with his full name. (BBC: last accessed 19 June 2019).

2.2.10 Catford’s Typology of Equivalence

Catford is a British linguist who based his theory of translation on those of Firth
and of Halliday (Manfredi, 2008). Catford’s book, entitled A Linguistic Theory of
Translation (1965/1978), is his most famous book in translation. He, following
Halliday, deemed language as working functionally on a variety of levels (i.e. pho-
nology, graphology, grammar, lexis) and ranks (i.e. sentence, clause, group, word,
morpheme) (Manfredi, 2008). Catford (1965) argues that translation between any
two languages is possible, and that equivalences can exist with any kind of spa-
tial, temporal, social, or other relationship between them. He states that relations
between languages are bi-directional; however, the translation process is unidirec-
tional (i.e. from ST to TT).
Meaning, as seen by Catford, is the ‘property of language’, in the sense that
each language has its own distinctive meaning. Thus, values of meaning are not
carried over in translation. Catford (1965, p. 43) states: ‘That is to say, the “val-
ues” of TL items are entirely those set up by formal and contextual relations in the
TL itself. There is no carry-over into the TL of values set up by formal or contex-
tual relations in the SL’. Catford states that the only condition in which SL mean-
ings can be carried over into a TT is when using transference which, according to
Catford, is not a translation.
Catford argues (1965, p. 44) that transference can even occur at the level of
grammar, whereby ‘SL grammatical items are represented in the TL text by qua-
si-TL grammatical items deriving their formal and contextual meanings from the

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 41

systems and structures of the SL, not the TL’. Such transference implies the super-
imposition or creation of new terms that basically belong to the SL. Catford sug-
gests that this can be done through the use of old English, numbers, or the creation
of new items. However, Catford mentioned that transference does not imply that
the total meaning of the ST will be transferred.
Catford states (1965, p. 50) that SL and TL items can never linguistically have
the same meaning. However, they can function in the same situation and thus, in
total translation, the SL and TL items are interchangeable in a given situation. Cat-
ford states that ‘translation equivalence occurs when an SL and a TL text or item
are relatable to (at least some of) the same features of substance’. Catford catego-
rizes translation in terms of extent, levels and ranks. According to Catford, there
are two types of translation in terms of extent (extent refers to the syntagmatic
sense of the SL text that is submitted to translation): full translation and partial
translation. In a full translation, every part of the SL is translated to the TL; in
partial translation some parts of the SL text are left out in the translated text in
the TL, perhaps because they are untranslatable. Partial translation, as Catford
states, is not that easy as it may seem at first sight because some parts will remain
untranslatable. This kind of translation applies to literary texts, and surely applies
to the translation of canonical and authoritative texts such as the Holy Quran.
In relation to the levels of language involved in translation, Catford (1965, p.
22) differentiated between total translation and restricted translation. Total transla-
tion, to quote Catford, is ‘replacement of SL grammar and lexis by equivalent TL
grammar and lexis with consequential replacement of SL phonology/graphology
by (non-equivalent) TL phonology/graphology’. Thus, according to this definition,
replacement occurs only between grammar and lexis, while phonology and graph-
ology are not included. Restricted translation, on the other hand, is ‘replacement
of SL textual material by equivalent TL textual material, at only one level’. Cat-
ford stresses the importance of using ‘textual material’ in his definition because
not always the whole ST is translated to TT; sometimes it is only a process of
replacement, at other times simply the transference of SL material into TL text.
Thus, in restricted translation, SL grammar may be translated by equivalent TL
grammar, without replacement of lexis, or SL lexis is translated by TL lexis, with-
out replacement of grammar.
In terms of rank, Catford classified translation according to the grammatical
hierarchy, at which level equivalence is established. For example, in total trans-
lation, equivalence is assumed to be achieved at every grammatical unit (word,
clause, sentence). However, there could be a rank-bound translation, in which
equivalence can only be achieved at one level. For instance, in word-rank-bound
translation, we only select equivalents at the same rank (i.e. word).
In relation to equivalence, Catford (1965) differentiated between formal cor-
respondence and textual equivalence. In formal correspondence, any TL category
occupies the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occu-
pies in the SL. In textual equivalence, any TL text (or portion of text is deemed to
be equivalent to a given SL text (or portion of text). The following is an example
of formal correspondence:

[email protected]
42 2  Translation Theory

Example

• Democrats are trying to oust Trump in 2020.

• 2020 ‫يحاول الديمقراطيون اإلطاحة بترامب في‬

In this example, the TT occupies the same place in the economy of the TL as the
given SL category occupies in the SL. The lexis used in the TT is even less than
the lexis used in the ST, conveying the same meaning intended in the ST. The fol-
lowing is an example of textual equivalence below:

Example

• I am 20.
• ‫ عاما‬20‫أبلغ من العمر‬

In this example, the TT underwent a shift, as some words were added to clarify the
meaning; however, the meaning of the TT was equivalent to the meaning of the ST.
In general, when formal correspondence and textual equivalence diverge, a
‘translation shift’ takes place. The term ‘translation shift’ was first introduced by
Catford (1965) (Ni, 2009), who introduced the term ‘shift’ to replace the thorny
term ‘equivalence’. Shifts are the process of departing from the formal correspond-
ence in the process of going from the SL to the TL. Shifts—which can be in lexis,
style, or grammar—are able to provide translation that is pragmatic, functional and
communicative. Catford states that it is impossible for translation to occur between
the levels of phonology and graphology, or any of them, on the one hand, and
grammar and lexis, on the other hand. He states that ‘relationship to the same sub-
stance [is] the necessary condition of translation equivalence’ (Catford, 1965,
p. 141). The only possible shifts are from grammar to lexis and vice versa. Catford
proposed two kinds of shift: level and category. A level shift refers to the proposi-
tion that something that is expressed by a linguistic level in one language (e.g.
grammar) can be equivalently expressed at a different linguistic level (i.e. through
vocabulary or different grammar) in another language. For example, the imperfect
verb in Arabic (e.g. ‫ )يتناهون‬is mostly translated into past simple or past continuous
in English (e.g. ‘forbade each other’). Another example is translating the English
present progressive into lexis such as ‫االن‬. Consider the following example:

Example

What are you doing? (‫ماذا تفعل (االن‬

I am watching TV. ‫أشاهد التلفزيون‬

In this example, the continuity aspect can be only translated by adding the word
‫االن‬, either in the question or its answer (for more details, refer to the translation of
tense in Chapter 4).

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 43

Category shifts are divided into four types: structural shifts, class shifts, unit or
rank shifts and intra-system shifts. Structural shifts imply a change of grammatical
structure; for example, in a translation between English and Arabic, there is often
a shift from AMH (article + modifier + head) to AHM (A + head + qualifier); for
example, ‘The White House’ (MH) is translated into ‫( البيت األبيض‬MHQ). Due to
the syntactic differences between English and Arabic, there are always structural
shifts in the translation of most texts.
Class shifts include a change of a part of speech, which could occur as a part of
a structural shift. For example, an adjective in the ST may have a noun as its
equivalent in the TT; for instance, translating ‘a medical student’ into Arabic as
‫ طالب طب‬or ‫طالب في كلية الطب‬. The class shift occurred from the adjectival word
‘medical’ into the noun word ‫طب‬, or to the adverbial clause ‫في كلية الطب‬. Similarly,
the noun ‫ الحق‬can be translated to the adjective ‘the real’, and the verb ‫ آ َمنُوا‬can be
rendered as a noun; for example, ‘believers’.
Unit shifts or rank shifts include replacing units of different size, such as a sen-
tence, clause, group, word or morpheme. To clarify, a word may be translated into
a sentence or phrase in the TL. A case in point would be translating the ST word
‫ أعتكاف‬into a string of words; for example, ‘staying in the mosque for a specified
period of time as an act of worship’.
With regard to intra-system shifts, these occur when an SL and TL have roughly
the same systems, but the translation involves choosing a non-corresponding item
in the TL (Catford, 1965). For example, English and French have the same system
with regard to plurality (singular vs. plural); however, in translation a singular Eng-
lish word may be translated into a plural one or vice versa. A case in point is trans-
lating the singular English word ‘advice’ into the plural French ‘des conseils’, or
the plural English word ‘trousers’ into the singular French ‘le pantalon’. Another
case of the intra-system shift is the article system in English and French. Although,
the two languages share the same system of articles, this is not the case in transla-
tion. Similarly, Arabic and English share some features; however, in translation, a
translator may opt to translate the ST item into a non-equivalent item in the TL.
This can happen so as to maintain idiomaticity in the TL. For example, the English
sentence ‘He is a teacher’ is likely to be translated into Arabic as ‫هو مدرس‬, where
the indefinite article is not translated. Catford states that it is linguistically difficult
to give a TL and SL the same meaning. Yet, we can consider two items in the SL
and the TL as equivalents when they are able to function in the same situation. In a
total translation, the items in the SL and the TL should be interchangeable in a
given situation. Another example is translating ‫ العلماء ورثة األنبياء‬into ‘scholars are
inheritors of prophets’, whereby the definite article in Arabic was left out in the
TT. A common example of intra-system shifts is the passive case, whereby the pas-
sive voice in English is often translated into the active voice in Arabic.

Exercises

1. What is the difference between level shifts and category shifts?

[email protected]
44 2  Translation Theory

2. Can a translation of a single phrase or lexeme convey the use of more than
one type of shift?
3. Translate the following text into Arabic, explaining the translation shifts
employed in your translation.

For decades, he was known as a godfather of excess. The wealthiest man in the
world for many years, the Sultan of Brunei knew how to spend the vast riches that
flowed from the oil deposits bestowed upon the tiny Southeast Asian nation he
controls with absolute power.

2.2.11 Mona Baker’s Typology of Equivalence

Mona Baker’s typology of equivalence is outlined in her seminal work In Other

Words, in which she discussed the different problems of equivalence in transla-
tion between any two languages. Equivalence has always been identified as a cen-
tral component of most of the definitions of translation (e.g. Catford, 1965; Nida,
1959; Wilss, 1982). However, other theorists avoided using the word ‘equivalence’
(e.g. Frawley, 1984; Jakobson, 1959). According to Baker (2004), the notion of
equivalence can be defined either normatively (i.e. the relation between source ele-
ments and target elements that are assumed to be achieved), or descriptively (i.e.
discovering a relation of equivalence between the source and target elements).
Baker (2004) argues that the notion of equivalence is problematic due to its
being circular—circular, here, in the sense that we define translation in terms of
equivalence, and we assess the quality of translation in terms of equivalence. Baker,
however, underscores the importance of this notion due to its interrelatedness with
other theoretical notions in the field of translation. For example, faithfulness to
the original is related to the desirability of equivalence. Also, the notion of ‘shift’,
which is an important notion in normative approaches, is based on an assumption of
equivalence that may or may not occur. Shift, as a notion, postulates the existence
of an ‘invariant’. Invariant refers to the extent of closeness to achieving equivalence
in translation; invariants ‘are not or should not be affected by shifts in the process
of translation’ (Baker, 2004). A further notion that is related to equivalence is the
notion of the ‘translation unit’. Translation units are usually discussed in relation
to what units (words, clauses, phrases, sentences and so on) are to be considered
as equivalents, or what translators in real life work with to produce an ‘equivalent’
version of the ST (Baker, 2004). Baker concludes that the notion of equivalence is
so important because other theoretical notions of translation are interlinked with it;
and that this is why the notion of equivalence should not be discarded or discred-
ited. However, one question that may surface is which perspective of equivalence
should be considered the most appropriate in translation. There are many perspec-
tives of equivalence. Equivalence can be regarded either as a semantic category, in
terms of the equivalence effect, or in terms of functional equivalence.
Baker (2004) explains that the notion of equivalence as a semantic category,
which is drawn from the representational theory of meaning, is static and close

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 45

Table 2.3  The gradual erosion of the notion of equivalence in translation studies

Source text/target text Same meaning
Source text/target text Same effect on respective readers
Source text/target text Same function
Target text Independent function, specified by commission
Target text Independent function acquired in the situation in which it is received
Source Baker (2004)

to the interlingual synonyms. It is dictated by the content of the ST, rather than
the communicative situation. This semantic view of equivalence, as Baker states,
is rejected in most disciplines, and it is not applicable or tenable in translation.
Another understanding of equivalence can be in terms of the ‘equivalent effect’,
which postulates producing the same effect on target readers as the ST produced
on its readers. This approach originated with translators of the Bible (Beekman
and Callow, 1974; Larson, 1998; Nida, 1964; Nida and Taber, 1969). This notion
of ‘equivalent effect’ resulted in the existence of other notions, such as ‘receptor’
as opposed to ‘target’ language, and dynamic equivalence as opposed to ‘formal
equivalence’ (Baker, 2004). Although this notion of ‘equivalent effect’ sounds
interesting and easier than the semantic notion of equivalence, it was also subject
to much criticism. Baker (2004) questions the measurability of achieving equiv-
alent effect. In addition, the effect is variable among different people and even a
person may perceive the same TT differently on a second reading. This notion of
equivalent effect seems to be imaginary: a translator cannot predict the effect of
his translation on its readers. Another problem with this notion, as mentioned by
Baker, is that a translator cannot identify with certainty the intention of the author
of the ST, especially in the case of a temporal gap between the ST and the TT.
Another point is that a translator’s job is to interpret text, rather than understand it.
Baker concludes that this notion can be hardly verified.
Another notion of equivalence is ‘functional equivalence’, which arose in the
1970s and 1980s (Baker, 2004). This notion postulates that translation should
produce an ‘equivalent message’ to that of the ST in its TT. In the 1980s, a new
notion of equivalence emerged, especially in Germany: the functional equivalence
of skopos. Skopos was established by Vermeer and Reiss, according to which they
regard the target of the translation as what matters (see this chapter, for details).
Baker concludes that there has been a gradual shift away from the notion of equiv-
alence over the course of time. Baker (2004) summarizes the debate on the notion
of equivalence shifted away in Table 2.3.
Baker (1992) identified various types of equivalence: equivalence at word level,
equivalence above the word level, textual equivalence and grammatical equivalence.

1. Equivalence at word level

The written word, as defined by Baker (1992/2005), is any sequence of letters with
an orthographic space on either side. Baker rejects the idea that the word is the

[email protected]
46 2  Translation Theory

smallest unit of meaning; she argues that meaning can be carried by more or less
than a word; for example, the ‘-er’ in builder has a meaning (i.e. the person who
does the job of building). Baker states that there is no one to one correspondence
between orthographic words and their meanings, either within the same language
or across languages.

2. Non-equivalence as a problem
Vocabulary, as seen by Baker (1992/2005), is a set of words that belong to seman-
tic fields. These semantic fields are abstract concepts. However, one problem with
these semantic fields is that, in terms of categorization, they are not that simple.
For example, there are some words (e.g. ‘just’, ‘only’) that can be filed under any
semantic field. Baker states that semantic fields can only work well with words
that have propositional meanings. In relation to the importance of semantic fields
in studying translation, Baker states that understanding the structures of semantic
fields is important in translation for two reasons: the first reason is either to assess
the value of a given item in a lexical set, or to understand the differences between
the structuring of semantic fields in the ST and TT; the second reason is to under-
stand the hierarchical classification of words in terms of hypernyms and hyponyms.
According to Baker (1992), it is important to distinguish between lexical items
and units of meaning to achieve good translation. Meanings, furthermore, differ in
the orthographic words that represent them from one language to another. A mean-
ing of one orthographic word in one language may be represented by several
orthographic words in another language, and vice versa. For instance, ‫ كسوف‬and
‫ خسوف‬in Arabic have only one equivalent representation in English: ‘eclipse’.
Another example is the English word ‘camel’, which is represented by many
words in Arabic (e.g. ،‫ جمل‬،‫ ناقة‬،‫لبون بنت زاملة‬, among others) (AL-Maani Online
Dictionary, n.d.). Consequently, this means that there is no one-to-one correspond-
ence between orthographic words and elements of meaning within or across lan-
guages. As mentioned earlier, Baker discussed equivalence at a variety of levels;
these concepts are unpacked in the following sections.

3. Non-equivalence at the word level

Equivalence is a crucial notion in translation between any two texts. However,
there are many causes that contribute to the problem of a lack of equivalence.
Baker categorizes the most common non-equivalences between languages at the
word level into 11 types: cultural specific concepts, SL concepts are not lexical-
ized in the TL, semantically complex SL words, different distinctions in mean-
ing in the SL and the TL, the TL lacks a superordinate, the TL lacks a specific
term (hyponym), interpersonal or physical perspective differences, differences in
expressive meaning, differences in form, differences in frequency and purpose of
using specific form and the use of loan words in the SL.
1. Cultural specific concepts: concepts that are culturally bound. There are many
examples of this, such as the Arabic words ‫غسل‬, ‫ولي العروس‬, ‫طهارة‬, ‫أعنكاف‬, ‫حج‬
‫وضوء‬, ‫صالة‬, ‫صيام‬, ‫جنابة‬. In English, Baker (1992) gave examples of words that
are culture-specific, such as ‘Speaker’ of the House of Commons.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 47

2. SL concepts are not lexicalized in the TL: Some concepts may be well-known
and perfectly well-understood in the TL; however, they are not lexicalized
in it. For example, the word ‘standard’ in the sense of ‘ordinary’ is perfectly
well-understood in Arabic. However, it does not have an equivalent. Another
example is ‘landslide’, which is understood in many languages, but not lexi-
calized.
3. Semantically complex SL words: Sometimes one morpheme expresses a set
of meanings that may not be expressed by sentences. For example, the Arabic
word ‫ التقوى‬needs a sentence to convey its meaning.
4. Different distinctions in meaning in the SL and the TL: Languages can vary in
the number of distinctions in meaning they contain. For example, Arabic
makes a distinction in meaning between ‫ بخيل‬and ‫شحيح‬. The word ‫ بخيل‬is used
to refer to a person who does not like to spend money on others, which is
equivalent to ‘stingy’. However, the word ‫ شحيح‬refers to a person who does
not like to spend money on others or on himself. The distinction in meaning
between the two words does not exist in English. Another example is that Ara-
bic makes a distinction in meaning between ‫ خسوف‬and ‫كسوف‬. The word ‫خسوف‬
is used to refer to a lunar (of the moon) eclipse, while the word ‫ كسوف‬is used
to refer to a solar (of the sun’ eclipse. English does not make this distinction
by means of a single word; ‘eclipse’, is used to refer to both lunar and solar
eclipses. Arabic is rich with such examples. Take, for instance, how, when
referring to camels, the Arabic language makes a distinction in meaning
between nouns that are based on age. Arabic names for a camel that are based
on its age are diverse and many (e.g. ‫ مخلول‬،‫ لكي‬،‫ أبن لبون‬،‫)ابن مخاض‬. However,
all these words can only be translated into English as a ‘camel’, as English
does not make a distinction in meaning between camels based on age.
5. The TL lacks a superordinate: one language may have a superordinate for an
item, while another, instead, has many hyponyms. For example, mounting a
camel has two hyponyms in Arabic that are not represented in English:
‫حرذون‬: refers to mounting a camel with a saddle
‫شذاد‬: refers to mounting a camel without a saddle.
6. The TL lacks a specific term (hyponym): One language may have a hyponym
or hyponyms for an item that does not exist in another language. For exam-
ple, English has many hyponyms for ‘house’: ‘bungalow’, ‘cottage’, ‘croft’,
‘chalet’, ‘lodge’, ‘hut’, ‘mansion’, ‘manor’, ‘villa’ or ‘hall’. However, Arabic
does not have equivalents for these hyponyms. Similarly, the verb ‘jump’ has
many hyponyms: ‘leap’, ‘vault’, ‘spring’, ‘bounce’, ‘dive’, ‘clear’, ‘plunge’
and ‘plummet’. These hyponyms do not exist in Arabic.
7. Interpersonal or physical perspective differences: Physical perspective refers
to the relationship between things or people, which may differ from one lan-
guage to another. For example, Arabic makes differences between maternal
uncle and paternal uncle. In Arabic, there are two words that describe these
relationships, ‫ ;عم و خال‬in English, there is only one word, ‘uncle’.

[email protected]
48 2  Translation Theory

8. Differences in expressive meaning: Words may share denotative meaning in

two languages; however, they may not share the expressive meanings. For
example, the word ‘homosexuality’ is an inherently pejorative word in Arabic,
whereas it is not so in English. The same applies to words such as ‘lesbian’
and ‘gay’.
9. Differences in form: Equivalent forms in an SL and TL are rarely found. For
example, in English, adjectives are derived from verbs by adding certain suf-
fixes (e.g. work vs. workable); however, this is not so in Arabic. Hence, trans-
lation from English to Arabic must change the form to render the meaning,
depending on the context. Similarly, Arabic makes frequent use of prefixes.
A form is changed in meaning by adding or changing a prefix. For example,
the verb ‫‘( فتح‬opened’) can be changed to a different meaning by adding the
prefix ‘‫ ’است‬to become ‫‘ استفتح‬asked someone to open’. Also, in Arabic, the
meaning can be changed by adding infixes, which is not common in English.
For example, the verb ‫‘( أشار‬advised’) can be changed into different words and
different meanings by adding infixes or affixes. It can be changed to: ‫أستشار‬
(‘sought advice’), ‫‘( مستشار‬advisor/consultant/judge’).
10. Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific form: This occurs
when one form occurs with greater frequency—say, it occurs more frequently
in the SL than in the TL. For example, English makes use of ‘-ing’ more than
any other language.
11. The use of loan words in the SL: Loan words sometimes are used in an SL to
add an air of sophistication that may not be transferrable to the TT. For exam-
ple, the English loan word ‘dilettante’ does not have an equivalent in the Ara-
bic language. The use of loan words brings to attention the importance of
avoiding mistranslating the ‘false friends’. For example, ‘demander’ in French
is not an equivalent of ‘demand’ in English. Another example is the word ‫جهاد‬,
which can be either ‫ جهاد دفع‬or ‫جهاد طلب‬. However, the English word ‘jihad’
refers partially to only one type of jihad. Therefore, the English word ‘jihad’
and the Arabic word ‫ جهاد‬are not fully equivalent. Another example is the
word ‘harem’, which should not be confused with the word ‫حريم‬. The English
word is used to refer to ‘a Muslim man, who has several wives or sexual part-
ners living in his house’. Of course, this definition creates a false image in the
minds of non-Muslims, as Muslims cannot have sexual partners without their
being his wives. Anyhow, the English use of the word ‘harem’ should not be
confused with the Arabic word, which means ‘women’.
Non-equivalence problems at word level sometimes overlap. A culture-specific
word is a particularly semantically complex word. Also, some words can fall under
more than one type of non-equivalence. These problems of non-equivalence dis-
cussed require strategies that, according to Baker, are followed by professional
translators to deal with non-equivalence at the word level. These strategies affect
translation as a final product, and they are related to the problems of non-equiva-
lence at the word level.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 49

4. Strategies followed by translators to overcome non-equivalence

Baker describes eight strategies—though this list may not be exhaustive—that
are used by professional translators for dealing with various types of non-equiv-
alence at the word level. Strategies of translation are particularly important as
some losses in translation can be attributed to employing improper strategies. The
strategies mentioned by Baker are: translation using a more general word (super-
ordinate), translation using a neutral/less expressive word, cultural substitution,
translation using a loan word or a loan word accompanied by an explanation, par-
aphrasing using a related word, paraphrasing using unrelated words, omission and
illustration.

1. Translation using a more general word (superordinate): This is typically used to

deal with non-equivalence at word level, especially when dealing with proposi-
tional meaning. For example, using the English word ‘money’ to render the
Quranic word ‫ورق‬/wariq/, which literally means ‘silver coin’; however, this
kind of strategy does not appear to work with all types of text. Texts such as the
Holy Quran are so precise and accurate that the outcome of using a general
word instead of the specific word is not an appropriate strategy.
2. Translation using a neutral/less expressive word: An example of this is translat-
ing the English word ‘standard’ into Arabic as ‫قياسي‬/qiaasi/, which is less
expressive than the SL word.
3. Cultural substitution: This strategy depends on how much licence has been
afforded to the translator by the commissioner, and the purpose of the transla-
tion. In this strategy, the SL specific item is replaced by a TL specific item that
is considered to create the same effect; for example, translating the English
item ‘Congress’ into the Arabic item ‫مجلس الشعب‬/majlisu ashshaAAb/, to create
the same effect for TL readers.
4. Translation using a loan word or a loan word accompanied by an explanation:
This strategy usually deals with culture-specific items, modern concepts and
buzz words. Thus, the translator sometimes intentionally uses loan words to
introduce the SL culture to the TL culture, rather than merely providing a
descriptive translation. For example, lexical items such as ‫مجاهدين‬/‘muja-
hedeen’/, ‘‫‘ القاعدة‬/al-QaAAidatu/, and ‫فدائيين‬/‘Fedayeen’/were transferred into
English without translation.
5. Paraphrasing using a related word: This strategy is mostly adopted when the SL
word is lexicalized in the TL, but in a different form. For example, the Arabic
Islamic word ‫يتوضأ‬/yatawdda’a/ is usually rendered into ‘do ablution’ or ‘do
wudo’ua’
6. Paraphrasing using unrelated words: This strategy is followed when the SL
word is not lexicalized in the TL. For example, the Arabic word ‫مرابط‬/murabet/
is not lexicalized in English; hence, paraphrasing can be adopted as strategy to
render it. It can be rendered as ‘guarding the borders of a Muslim state’.
7. Omission: This strategy is followed when the meaning can be rendered without
the omitted word. Hence, instead of creating confusion for readers of the TT,
omitting a word or phrase can be an option.

[email protected]
50 2  Translation Theory

8. Illustration: This strategy is followed by translators when the ST does not

have a one-to-one equivalent; the SL word requires considerable elaboration
to be rendered, and hence a picture can render the meaning more accurately.
This strategy is employed in translating advertisements. In fact, the strategies
discussed above overlap, and sometimes a translator may use two strategies
simultaneously. It is also the job of a translator to choose the best strategy for
translating an ST.

5. Grammatical equivalence
Baker defines grammar as ‘the set of rules which determine the way in which units
such as words and phrases can be combined in a language and the kind of infor-
mation which has to be made regularly explicit in utterances’ (p. 83). Baker adds
that grammar is organized according to two dimensions: morphology and syntax.
Languages have wide variations in the different aspects of grammar. These dif-
ferences, which pose the problem of a lack of grammatical equivalence, could be
in number, person, tense, or aspect, among others (Baker, 1992/2001). For more
details and examples, see Chapter 4.

6. Textual equivalence
Baker (1992) follows the model of cohesion in Halliday and Hasan (1976). Halli-
day and Hassan identified five cohesive devices in English, reference, substitution,
ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. Baker adds that the level of cohesion
differs from one language to another, or even within the same language from one
text to another. However, explicit markers of cohesion contribute to raising redun-
dancy in a text; absence of these markers lowers it.

Exercises

1. Baker (1992/2011) mentioned that non-equivalence at word level occurs for

many reasons. State these reasons, supporting your answer with examples
from your own work.
2. Baker (1992/2011) mentioned that non-equivalence as a translation problem
could occur at the grammatical level. Explain, with examples.
3. Apart from the strategies mentioned by Baker (1992/2011), can you think
of any other translation strategies that you use to deal with the problem of
non-equivalence at the word level?
4. Match the following translation strategies with the suggested translations
(there is one extra strategy):
• Paraphrasing using a related word;
• Paraphrasing using unrelated words;
• Translation using a more general word (superordinate);
• Translation using a loan word;
• Cultural substitution;

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 51

• Translation using a loan word or a loan;

• Omission.

Source and target lexis The translation strategy

1. Knesset
‫مجلس النواب‬
2. ‫يعتمر‬
do umrah
3. ‫لموقوذة‬
‘An animal that is hit fatally’
4. ‫مجاهدين‬
Mujahedeen
5. Pigeon
‫طائر‬
6. White supremacy
‫األعتقاد بسيادة و أستعالء اللون األبيض‬

2.2.12 Koller’s Notion of Equivalence

According to Koller (1979, 1989), equivalence can be ‘denotative’, depending

on an ‘invariance of content’; ‘connotative’, depending on similarities of register,
dialect, and style; ‘text-normative’, based on ‘usage norms’ for particular types of
text; and ‘pragmatic’, ensuring comprehensibility in the receiving culture (Koller,
1979, pp. 186–91; 1989, pp. 99–104). Munday, in his book Introduction to Trans-
lation Studies (2001), mentioned that Koller (1979, pp. 186–191; 1976/1989,
pp. 99–104) differentiates between five types of equivalence: denotative, connota-
tive, text-normative, pragmatic and formal.

1. Denotative equivalence: This is related to equivalence of the extralinguistic

content of a text, or ‘content invariance’.
2. Connotative equivalence: This is related to the lexical choices, especially
between near-synonyms, or ‘stylistic equivalence’.
3. Text-normative equivalence: This is related to text types and the fact that dif-
ferent types of texts behave in different ways; this is close to the work of Kath-
arina Reiss. According to this type of equivalence, the SL and TL vocabulary
leave the same effect on their respective readers.
4. Pragmatic equivalence: Also referred to as ‘communicative equivalence’, this
is oriented towards the receiver of the text or message. This is similar to Nida’s
‘dynamic equivalence’. According to this type of equivalence, the SL and the
TL words have similar orthographic or phonological features.
5. Formal equivalence: This is related to the form and aesthetics of the text, and
includes word play and the individual stylistic features of the ST. It is elsewhere
referred to as ‘expressive equivalence’ and is not to be confused with Nida’s term.

[email protected]
52 2  Translation Theory

2.2.13 Popovič (1976) Types of Equivalence

Popovič (1976) in his dictionary distinguishes four types of equivalence: linguis-

tic, paradigmatic, stylistic (translational) and textual (syntagmatic).

1. Linguistic equivalence: This is found when the SL text and the TL text are
homogeneous at the linguistic level; that is, word-for-word translation; for
example, translating short texts such as ‘I live in Cairo’ into ‫أنا أسكن في القاهرة‬.
2. Paradigmatic equivalence: This occurs when there is equivalence of ‘the ele-
ments of a paradigmatic expressive axis’. Popovič considers elements of gram-
mar as being of a higher category than lexical equivalence; for example,
translating ‘Egypt defeated Israel in 1973’ as 1973 ‫مصر هزمت أسرائيل في‬. In this
example, the syntactic and lexical features of the ST were maintained in the TT.
However, it is difficult to preserve this form in long texts due to the syntactic
disparities between English and Arabic.
3. Stylistic (translational) equivalence: This occurs ‘when there is functional equiva-
lence of elements in both of the SL and TL aiming at an expressive identity with an
invariant of identical meaning’ (Popovič, 1976, p. 33). In other words, the ST mean-
ing is conveyed to the TT, maintaining the expressive meaning. For example, trans-
lating Trump’s expression of ‘Iran’s downing of the American drones is new
wrinkles, a fly in the ointment’ as ‫أسقاط ايران لطائرتين أمريكتين بدون طيار هو زوبعة في فنجان‬.
In this example, the functional equivalence of the ST idiom was maintained, without
preserving the lexical items of it in the TT.
4. Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence: This occurs when ‘there is equivalence
of the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape’
(Popovič, 1976, p. 33). This is quite difficult to achieve between English and
Arabic due to the many differences between the two languages.

Exercises

1. Translate the following texts into Arabic, explaining which of Popovič’s

types of equivalence were applied in the translation.
• His presidential election was just a two-horse race.
• Election fever has started, there’s politics on every channel.
• His scandal will be a political hot potato.
2. Examine the ST and TT below, and explain which of Popovič’s types of
equivalence was applied (Source Reverso online).
ST: We have new wrinkles in the laws of war and accountability. What do
we do with things like unmanned slaughter?
TT: ‫لدينا تصادمات جديدة في قوانين الحرب و مسؤولياتهاما فائدة أشياء مثل مذابح بدون تدخل اإلنسان؟‬

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 53

2.2.14 The Cognitive Approach to Translation

Bell (1991) proposed a cognitive approach to translation, which is based on Hal-

liday’s SFL theory. In an attempt to understand how a translator understands the
meaning of a text, Bell posits that a text is a product of three types of choice and,
therefore, three types of meaning. According to Bell, there are three types of
meaning: cognitive, interactional and discoursal. These three types of meaning
are organized by three metafunctions—ideational, interpersonal and textual—and
they are realized by three language systems—logical, grammatical and rhetorical.
To clarify, the cognitive type of meaning is organized by the ideational function
and realized by the logical system of language; the interactional type of meaning
is organized by the interpersonal metafunction and realized by the grammatical
language system; and the discoursal type of meaning is organized by the textual
metafunction and realized by the rhetorical language system.
Cognitive meaning, which is what the text about, is expressed by the ideational
metafunction, which is represented through the grammatical system of transitivity.
Ideational, as discussed by Halliday, refers to the field (what the text about).
According to Bell, translation is a process of analysing and then synthesiz-
ing. Both the analysing and synthesizing include three major ‘stages’: syntactic,
semantic and pragmatic. The first process—the ST analysis—results in ‘lan-
guage-free semantic representation’ (Bell, 1991, pp. 56–57), which will be then
used as the starting point for its conversion into the TT. Analysis is carried out
through the functional and pragmatic categories of clause structure, propositional
content, thematic structure, register features, illocutionary force and speech acts.
Synthesis, on the other hand, encompasses purpose, thematic structure, style and
illocutionary force before obtaining the syntactic synthesis (Bell, 1991, pp. 58–60,
cited in Manfredi, 2014, p. 17).

Exercise

One of the techniques used to examine the cognitive effect in translation is

‘verbalization’. Based on this statement, translate the following text using a
‘speak aloud’ mode of translation. Then, explain the extent to which this tech-
nique was useful in enhancing the translation process.
The murder of Jamal Khashoggi was ‘gruesome’ but a United Nations report
into the journalist’s killing is ‘flawed,’ Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State for For-
eign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir said Thursday.
In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour al-Jubeir denied that
Riyadh should accept responsibility for Khashoggi’s murder, and said he dis-
agreed with the findings of a UN rapporteur who laid the blame on the govern-
ment.
‘This is a gruesome murder that took place without authorization, for which
the people who perpetrated (it) are being punished now,’ al-Jubeir said.

[email protected]
54 2  Translation Theory

In a much-anticipated report published Wednesday, UN investigator Agnes

Callamard said that there was ‘sufficient credible evidence’ that Saudi Arabia’s
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bears responsibility for Khashoggi’s
killing, and that he should be investigated for it.
Callamard said that Saudi Arabia was responsible under international law
for Khashoggi’s ‘deliberate, premeditated execution,’ and that current sanctions
on some senior officials do not go far enough (CNN, last accessed on 27 June
2019).

2.2.15 Functionalist Approach in Translation

(Non-equivalence Approach)

1. Katherina Reiss
The functionalist approach started in Germany in 1970s and 1980s. Katherina
Reiss looked at a text as the operating level of communication. She borrowed
Buhlerl’s of the classification of language functions. Reiss relates language func-
tions to their corresponding language ‘dimensions’ and to the text types or com-
municative situations in which they are used. The three types of texts are:

A. Informative texts
Informative texts are texts that transfer information, knowledge and opinions log-
ically and referentially. The main focus of communication is topic. Examples of
such types of text are news and scientific articles. The translation of these types
of text should retain the full message of the ST without redundancy. Explicitation
may be used if needed. The translation should be in terms of ‘plain prose’.

B. Expressive texts
This type of text uses aesthetic functions, such as is found in literary works. The
translation of this type of text should maintain the aesthetic and artistic form of the
ST. A translator needs to convey the view of the ST’s author, adopting the identify-
ing translation strategy.

C. Appellative or operative texts

One example of this type of text is found in advertisements. The translation of
such texts should be ‘adaptive’, in the sense that it should create the same effect as
that of the ST on it readers.

D. Audiomedial texts
These are texts that require non-printed media, such as movies and songs. In this
type of text supplementary methods are needed, such as words to translate pic-
tures, or vice versa.
According to Reiss (1971), the quality of a TT is assessed through intralinguis-
tic and extralinguistic criteria. Intralinguistic criteria include semantic, lexical,
grammatical and stylistic features; extralinguistic criteria include situation, subject

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 55

field, time, place, receiver, sender and affective implications. These intralinguis-
tic and extralinguistic criteria vary in terms of value depending on the text to be
translated. For example, in a news text, the semantic value is of greater worth than
any other value. This applies to all texts where the content is of great importance.
Although Reiss postulates that an ST function should be translated to a similar
TT function, she states that in some cases the function of the TT may be different
from the function of the ST. She gives an example of the book Gulliver Travels,
whose function was operative because it was a satire. However, when translated
the translation takes on the form of an ordinary function, and therefore, the func-
tion is expressive.

Relationship between an ST and a TT (Nord, 2005)

After her discussion of fidelity and equivalence between the ST and the TT, Nord
(2005) claims that the only valid way to offer an acceptable notion of equivalence is
to analyse the ST. Producing a functionally equivalent TT, which is based on anal-
ysis of the ST, is one of the purposes of translation. However, Nord considers that
functional equivalence is the exception, and not the normal skopos of translation.
Equivalence in the functional view of translation is not the be all and end all
but, rather, is subordinate to the translation (TT) skopoi (functions). The skopos
of translation is, thus, determined by the function it is intended to fill in the TL.
Fidelity is subordinate to the skopos rule, which may change according to the
needs of the TT. Two concepts need to be clarified here: the concept of fidelity
(intertextual coherence) and the concept of adequacy. The intertextual coherence
or fidelity in the functional perspective of translation is prioritized if it achieves
the functions intended in the TT; however, if it has not been possible to achieve
such fidelity, adequacy and acceptability will be the required standard. Nord
accentuates that a TT that is not based on or bound to a given ST cannot be con-
sidered a translation; rather, it should be considered as cross-cultural consulting
or a cross-cultural technical writing. Hence, the relationship between an ST and
a TT cannot be ignored. Also, if possible, there should be compatibility between
the intention of the ST and the functions of the TT. This compatibility implicates
loyalty to the ST author. Therefore, the job of a translator is double-bound, as he
needs to be loyal to the sender of the ST and, at the same time, should observe the
needs of the TT receiver.

Translating as a form of translational interaction

Communication among humans occurs through intentional actions through which
they communicate interpersonally to convey their messages; this justifies the
importance of action theory in explaining translational communication (Nord,
2008). Nord posits that the communication process occurs between a sender and
a receiver (or addressee) and that it is limited in time and space. In other words,
the translation process is conditioned by historical and cultural dimensions. This
implies that translation does not need to be literal to be accurate. For example,
a translator may diverge from the literal meaning of the ST expressions to more
functionally equivalent TT expressions to convey the intended meaning accurately.

[email protected]
56 2  Translation Theory

Nord differentiates between translation and translational action. The former

refers to what translators do when rendering a text; the latter refers to what goes
beyond translation. In Nord’s words: ‘Translating in the narrower sense always
involves the use of some kind of source text, whereas translational action may
involve giving advice and perhaps even warning against communicating in the
intended way’ (Nord, 2008, p. 17). Nord adds that translational action is inten-
tional and is voluntarily undertaken by the initiator of that action. This intention-
ality may be different from that of the ST originator. In this regard, the initiator or
the person commissioning the translation plays a role in the translational process
and action. The initiator is the person (possibly the client) who starts the trans-
lation process and asks a translator to translate text based on a specific need and
a specific translation brief. The translator also has an important role in the trans-
lational process, as they are the expert in the translational action who acts based
on the request of the initiator. The translator’s role includes the evaluation of the
translation brief economically, ideologically and legally. They are also the person
who checks whether the translation is really necessary and may advise the initiator
not to translate the ST because it does not serve the intended purpose. The transla-
tor may also decide to shorten the ST in the TL (Vermeer, 1986).
Nord (2008) also states that the producer of an ST has a role in the transla-
tion process, as he is the person who produced the text to be translated. In this
regard, Nord makes a distinction between a text producer and a text sender. The
text sender is the person or the institution that uses the text to convey a specific
message; the text producer is the person who creates the ST using his stylistic and
linguistic skills. However, sometimes both the sender and text producer are one
and the same.
Nord (2008) also mentions that the TT receiver has a role, as they are a part of
the translation brief. Nord discriminates between the receiver and addressee. The
receiver is the person or the institution that reads the translated text; the addressee
is the expected receiver from the standpoint of the text producer (i.e. the transla-
tor). Another important factor that should be considered in the translation process
is the TT user, who may use the translation for training, teaching or fun. Nord’s
model seems to be in line with the model proposed by Holz-Mänttäri (1984).
Table 2.4 summarizes the main concepts related to the translation action approach.

Table 2.4  Terms used in the translational action approach

Initiator The company or individual who needs the translation
Commissioner The individual who contacts the translator
ST producer Not necessarily always involved in the TT production
TT producer The translator
TT user Material or sales literature
TT receiver The final recipient of the TT; for example, the students in a TT user’s class,
or clients reading the translated sales literature
Source Holz-Mänttäri (1984, as cited in Munday, 2001)

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 57

Documentary vs. instrumental translation (Nord, 1988/1991)

Nord (1991) differentiates between two types of translation: documentary and
instrumental. Documentary translation ‘serves as a document of a source culture
communication between the author and the ST recipient’ (Nord, 1991, p. 72). It
is ST oriented, in the sense that the reader of the TT knows that what they read
is a translation. Strategies employed to apply this documentary approach include
word-for-word translation, literal translation and exoticized translation.
On the other hand, instrumental translation ‘serves as an independent message
transmitting instrument in a new communicative action in the target culture, and is
intended to fulfill its communicative purpose without the recipient being conscious
of reading or hearing a text which, in a different form, was used before in a differ-
ent communicative situation’ (Nord, 1991, p. 73). This type of translation is TT
oriented and, rather than sounding like a translation, the TT sounds as though it
is an original text.. The function of the ST and the TT may, however, be the same.

Nord’s Text Analysis Model

Nord (1997), in her Translating as a Purposeful Activity, proposed a model for
text analysis for translation. She highlights certain important concepts, such as
the translation brief (or commission), the importance of analysing the ST, and the
functional hierarchy of translation problems.

Translation brief
Nord postulates that a translator needs to compare the ST and the TT profiles
based on the translation brief, so as to identify any divergences between the two
profiles. The translation brief should include the text functions, the addressees
(sender and recipient), the time and place of text delivery, the medium (speech and
writing), and the motive (why the ST was written and why it is being translated).

The role of the ST analysis

After the identification of the ST and TT profiles, a translator needs to analyse the
ST in terms of the intertextual factors:

• subject matter;
• content: including connotation and cohesion;
• presuppositions: real-world factors of the communicative situation presumed to
be known to the participants;
• composition: including microstructure and macrostructure;
• non-verbal elements: illustrations, italics, etc.;
• lexic: including dialect, register and specific terminology;
• sentence structure;
• Suprasegmental features: including stress, rhythm and stylistic punctuation
(Nord, 1997, pp. 79–129).

The functional hierarchy of translation problems

Nord provides a functional hierarchy that a translator needs to follow during a
translation task:

[email protected]
58 2  Translation Theory

1. The translator needs to identify the intended function of the translation, which
can be either documentary or instrumental.
2. The translator decides what elements need to be maintained in the TT and what
elements need to be adapted, based on the translation brief provided by the
commissioner.
3. Based on the translation type, the translator decides whether the translation is
source culture oriented or target culture oriented.
4. The translator handles the problems of the text at a lower linguistic level.

Exercise

1. Following Nord’s model of analysis, analyse the following texts suggesting

the appropriate translation strategies. Then, translate the texts.
1. ‫أعلنت وزارة التربية والتعليم والتعليم الفني عن فتح باب التقدم لقبول دفعة جديدة من الطالب‬
‫الذين حصلوا على الشهادة اإلعدادية لاللتحاق بالمدرسة الفنية المتقدمة لتكنولوجيا الطاقة النووية ‘بمدينة‬
،‫ من جميع محافظات جمهورية مصر العربية‬2019/2020 ‫الضبعة – محافظة مطروح’ للعام الدراسى‬
‫ وذلك عبر الموقع الرسمي لوزارة التربية والتعليم والتعليم الفني‬،2019 ‫ يوليو‬15 ‫ إلى‬1 ‫في الفترة من‬
.(Youm 7)
2. President Donald Trump approved retaliatory military strikes against Iran on
Thursday before changing his mind, US media report.
The New York Times, citing senior White House officials, says strikes were
planned against a ‘handful’ of targets.
They say the operation was allegedly under way ‘in its early stages’ when Mr
Trump stood the US military down. The White House has so far made no comment.
This comes after Iran shot down a US spy drone.
Tehran says the unmanned US aircraft entered Iranian airspace early on ­Thursday
morning. The US maintains it was shot down in international airspace.
Tensions have been escalating between the two countries, with the US recently
blaming Iran for attacks on oil tankers operating in the region. Iran has
announced it will soon exceed international agreed limits on its nuclear pro-
gramme.
Last year, the US unilaterally pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal aimed at curb-
ing Iran’s nuclear activities.
What do US media say?
The New York Times first published details of the apparent planned strikes late
on Thursday night in Washington.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 59

As late as 19:00 local time (23:00 GMT), it said, US military and diplomatic
officials still expected the strikes on agreed targets, including Iranian radar and
missile batteries, to take place.

Exercise

Examine the ST and TT below, and then analyse the texts explaining whether
the translation is documentary or instrumental. Justify the approach selected by
the translator.

ST TT
‫مثول أمير سعودي أمام إحدى محاكم القاهرة صرحت وكالة‬ Cairo puts Saudi Prince on Trial
‫أنباء الشرق األوسط أنه من المقرر مثول األمير السعودي‬ A SAUDI prince is to stand trial on March 12
‫أحمد بن تركي للمحاكمة يوم الثاني عشر من مارس الحالي‬ because his dangerous dogs mauled a five-year-
‫وذلك عقب قيام كالبه الشرسة بمهاجمة وتشويه وجه طفلة‬ old Egyptian girl while she was playing in the
‫مصرية تبلغ من العمر خمس سنوات بينما كانت تلعب‬ garden of a Cairo hotel. The prosecutor holds
‫ وقد تقرر أن يمثل‬.‫بحديقة أحد الفنادق الكبرى بالقاهرة‬ Prince Ahmed bin Turki Al-Saud responsible
‫األمير أمام المدعي العام حيث يعد مسئوال عما لحق بالطفلة‬ for causing the girl grievous bodily harm. The
‫من ضرر بالغ خضعت على إثره لسلسلة من العمليات‬ victim has undergone a series of operations
.‫الجراحية لمعالجة إصابات وجهها‬ done for facial injuries, the Middle East New
Agency (MENA) said
(Source Translators Avenue)

The skopos theory

There is another approach to translation that is the polar opposite to those men-
tioned hitherto; this approach focuses on the notion of ‘purposes’. Put simply,
translation is designated to achieve a purpose. Basically, this is the approach
adopted by functionalists such as Vermeer (1989). This approach adopts the notion
of non-equivalence. With a few exceptions (e.g. Reiss, 1971), most functionalists
(e.g. Vermeer, 1989) do not believe that equivalence between ST and TT is achiev-
able. According to this approach, the purpose (or communicative skopos), in rela-
tion to the TT is the dominant factor in the translation process and, hence, one ST
can be translated into different TTs to achieve different functions. Skopos theory
centres on the notion that translation is guided by its skopos (or purpose). In sko-
pos theory, the end justifies means. There are three types of purpose in translation:
the purpose of the translator, which may be to earn some money; the communica-
tive purpose, which is the aim of the TT and the target situation; and a particular
translation strategy or procedure. Vermeer (as cited in Nord, 2008) uses four con-
cepts in addition to the term ‘skopos’: aim, purpose, intention and function. Aim
refers to what an agent intends to achieve as a final result; purpose refers to the
provisional stage to achieve the aim; function refers to what the text is intended to
mean from the receiver’s perspective; and intention refers to an aim-oriented plan
of action. Nord differentiates between intention and function as follows:

[email protected]
60 2  Translation Theory

Intention is defined from the viewpoint of the sender, who wants to achieve a certain pur-
pose with the text. Yet the best of intentions do not guarantee a perfect result, particu-
larly in cases in which the situations of the sender and the receiver differ considerably. In
accordance with the model of text-bound interaction, the receivers use the text with a cer-
tain function, depending on their own expectations, needs, previous knowledge, and situ-
ational conditions. In an ideal situation, the sender’s intention will find its aim, in which
case intention and function would be analogous or even identical. (Nord, 2008, pp. 27–28)

Text in skopos theory is just an offer of information, whereby a reader selects what
they consider relevant. To clarify, an ST is an offer of information and, similarly, a
TT is offer of information made by a translator. Hence, there is no point in talking
about conveyance of the meaning of the ST. In other words, the translation process
is guided by the translation brief, whereby a translator selects some parts of the
information offered in the ST to introduce them in the TT. The TT readers then
select what is relevant to them in specific situations. The TT produced should be
meaningful and communicative to the TL readers, which is intratextual coherence.
Another important type of coherence is the intertextual coherence between the ST
information and the TT information. This intertextual coherence depends on the
translator’s interpretation of the ST and the skopos of the translation. This, how-
ever, does not exclude cases where the TT is faithful to the ST, which happens in
the translation of certain literary texts. It may also happen in the translation of the
Holy Quran. Vermeer puts it as follows:

It might be said that the postulate of ‘fidelity’ to the source text requires that e.g. a news
item should be translated ‘as it was in the original’. But this too is a goal in itself. Indeed,
it is by definition probably the goal that most literary translators traditionally set them-
selves. (Vermeer, 1989, p. 197)

According to Pym, ‘skopos’, which means ‘goal’, is the key to the functionalist
approach. In this kind of translation, the translator is more concerned with the
TT—in other words, how to create a communicative translation of an ST, regard-
less of the lexis. Pym sees that, according to skopos theory, a translator should
work hard to convey the intellectual and emotional intent of the ST. Reiss and Ver-
meer (1984) aimed to establish a general translation theory for all texts. The basic
underlying ‘rules’ of the theory of Reiss and Vermeer (1984), as cited in Munday
(2008), are:

1. A trunslatum (or TT) is determined by its skopos.

2. A TT is an offer of information in a target culture and TL concerning an offer
of information in a source culture and SL.
3. A TT does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way.
4. A TT must be internally coherent.
5. A TT must be coherent with the ST.

These five rules stand in hierarchical order, the skopos rule being predominant.
Thus, translation is viewed as non-directional. In other words, reversibility is not
a prerequisite for good translation. Vermeer and Reiss also underscore the impor-
tance of coherence and fidelity for a successful translation. The coherence rule

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 61

means that the TT must be interpretable as coherent with the TT receiver’s situa-
tion (Reiss & Vermeer, 1984, as cited in Munday, 2008). The fidelity rule merely
states that there must be coherence with the trunslatum. According to the hierar-
chical order of the rules, intertextual coherence is of lesser importance than intra-
textual coherence, which, in turn, is subordinate to the skopos (rule 1) (Munday,
2008, p. 80). Thus, based on skopos theory, the same text can be translated in dif-
ferent ways according to the purpose of the TT and the commission given to the
translator. Therefore, if a text is ambiguous, according to skopos theory it can be
translated literally and then explained in a footnote (Munday, 2008). However, this
theory is criticized as it supports the position that any translation can be justified
if a translator has declared his intention at the beginning of his translation process.
Skopos theory is also is criticized for locating coherence as the least important
rule (Hodges, 2009).
Reiss argues that ‘text’ should be considered as level of equivalence, rather than
the word or the sentence. Reiss links the three functions to their corresponding
language ‘dimensions’ and to the text, types or communicative situations in which
they are used (Munday, 2008). The main characteristics of each text type, accord-
ing to Reiss, are: plain communication of facts, creative composition, the inducing
of behavioural responses and audiomedial texts.

1. Plain communication of facts: These facts may include information, knowl-

edge, opinions and so on; and the language dimension used to transmit the
information whether it is logical or referential. The text type in this type of
information is informative.
2. Creative composition: In this kind of text, the aesthetic dimension of language
is used. Thus, the text type is expressive.
3. Inducing behavioural responses: This includes functions of appeal; that is, to
appeal to or persuade the reader or ‘receiver’ of the text to act in a certain way.
Reiss calls this text type ‘operative’.
4. Audiomedial texts: This includes films, and visual and spoken advertisements,
that supplement the other three functions with visual images, music and so
forth. This is Reiss’s fourth main characteristic of text type (Reiss as cited in
Munday, 2008).

Pym believes that the notion of equivalence is a ‘social illusion’, which people
believe in even though it does not have linguistic certainty; however, he states that
we have to deal with such ‘equivalence beliefs’. Pym makes a distinction between
two types of equivalence: natural equivalence and directional equivalence. Natu-
ral equivalence is basically based on the paradigm of equal value. In other words,
what is said in one language can be translated into another language, with the
same function or worth. As a result, the relation between an ST and a TT is one
of equal value at the level of form, function, or anything in-between. For example,
the English ‘Friday the 13th’ is a natural equivalent for the Spanish ‘Tuesday the
13th’ because the two terms function in the same way, as each of these days refers
to bad luck in their respective cultures. Another example can be adopted from

[email protected]
62 2  Translation Theory

Shakespeare: ‘she is as beautiful as a summer’s day’. This expression can be trans-

lated functionally into Arabic as ‫( رمقلاك ةليمج اهنإ‬she is as beautiful as a moon),
as it does not sound natural to liken a beautiful woman to any season in the Arabic
culture. In addition, ‘summer’ is not a favourable season in the Arabic culture, as
it is linked to the scorching sun and extreme heat. Pym supports his paradigm by
quoting Nida and Taber’s natural equivalent in their theorizing of Bible transla-
tion. Nida and Taber (1982, p. 12) state that ‘Translating consists in reproducing
in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language mes-
sage’. However, this claim, according to Wendland (2012), is not accurate because
Nida and Taber prioritize meaning over style, which is not the case in Pym’s the-
ory. This approach is likely to employ many strategies of translation. However,
this approach was critiqued for its ‘presupposition’ of a ‘non-existent symmetry’
between languages, its lack of a verifiable ‘psychological basis’, an underlying
‘imperialistic’ agenda, and the promotion of ‘parochialism’ that prefers meaning
over form (Wendland, 2012, p. 95).
Directional equivalence is an asymmetric relation in which, if an equivalent
was created in one direction, it does not necessarily that exist in the other. Con-
trary to natural equivalence, which assumes the existence of equivalence between
items bi-directionally, this approach assumes that equivalence can exist mono-di-
rectionally. This approach is likely to adopt two-opposed poles, such as literal
translation vs. free translation (Wendland, 2012, p. 95). Wendland observes that
there is no borderline between the two types of translation proposed by Pym, since
natural equivalence includes directional equivalence. In addition, there is no full
equivalence between any two languages unless they are culturally close. It seems
that Pym’s notion of equivalence is not clear.

Exercises

1. Explain, with examples, the differences between Pym’s ‘natural equivalence’

and ‘directional equivalence’.
2. Translate the following sentences, indicating whether the equivalence
achieved in the translation is ‘natural equivalence’ or ‘directional equiva-
lence’.
A. The Democrats showed several clips of Trump’s public comments about
the Ukraine scandal.
B. Governments should combat terrorism everywhere.
C. Egypt is a Mecca for learners from all over the world.
D. Australia has been ravaged by the worst wildfires seen in decades, with
large swaths of the country devastated since the fire season began in late
July.

[email protected]
2.2  The Notion of Equivalence in Translation Theories 63

2.2.16 Darwish’s Notion of Equivalence (2010)

In relation to the notion of equivalence, Darwish (2010) argues that equivalence

can be considered in terms of relative equivalence, rather than absolute equiva-
lence. He, further, proposes the terms ‘approximation’ and ‘alignment’ for the
practical consideration of equivalence. He argues that translation should aim at
achieving optimal approximation, rather than absolute equivalence. A translator,
then, should work on removing the language constraints to achieve such approxi-
mation. Those constraints can be seen in terms of transparency, opacity and trans-
latability. Transparency is how far an ST is lexically and structurally close to a TT
at the macro and micro levels, and, thus, that there is likely to be convergence. By
contrast, if an ST is lexically and structurally far from a TT at the macro and micro
levels, divergence occurs. Thus, transparency and opacity reveal how far a text is
translatable. Translatability, as defined by Darwish, is the extent to which a trans-
lation is possible without loss of meaning, and the relative ease of such translation.
Darwish adds that there are three problems of translatability with regard to an ST:
comprehensibility, digestibility and cultural dependency. Thus, if a text is not com-
prehensible to a translator, they will not be able to render its meaning. Similarly,
if a text has long clauses and sentences, and is packed with a great deal of infor-
mation, it will be difficult for a translator. Thus, digestibility relates to complexity.
Cultural dependency relates to the culturally bound terms.
As for untranslatability, it is defined by Darwish as the inability to render an
ST into a TT due to constraints, at the syntactico-symantic, pragmatic, or rhetor-
ical levels. Bassnett (2005) mentions that Catford identified two types of untrans-
latability: linguistic and cultural. Linguistic untranslatability occurs when there
is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for an SL item. However, cultural
untranslatability occurs when a relevant situational feature for the SL text does not
exist in the TL.

2.2.17 The Polysystem Theory

This theory was first proposed by Even-Zohar in the 1970s; the English version
of the theory was published in his book entitled Papers in Historical Poetics in
1978. It started as a literature theory, and later developed into a translation the-
ory. Even-Zohar (1979, 1997) considered translation as a part of the polysystem
of literature, and it can occupy a primary position or peripheral position based
on different factors. Translated literature can occupy a primary position when lit-
erature is young, or weak, or when literature is facing a crisis (Venuti, 2000). In
other words, translations that occupy a central position in the literary polysystem
will not follow the norms of the TL. In contrast, those translations that occupy a
peripheral position in the literary polysystem will follow the TL norms. It views
translation from the TL literature perspective. It was developed basically for the
purpose of proposing a theory for translating Hebrew literature. Even-Zohar

[email protected]
64 2  Translation Theory

(2000) postulated that all literary and non-literary works are interrelated in a poly-
system. One weakness of this theory is that it ignored social factors and their influ-
ence on the forming of literature. The theory was then developed by Gideon Toury,
who presented it as the theory of norms in translation. Toury (1980) explored the
reasons behind choosing specific texts to be translated into Hebrew. He found that
the reasons are far from literary ones, as texts are mostly selected based on per-
sonal reasons, a translator’s preferences, and the purpose of translation. Toury’s
approach to translation was TT oriented. Toury argued that translation holds a
middle position between the SL and the TL; it can neither completely transfer the
ST cultural norms, nor can it be assimilated into the target culture. Toury rejected
the notion of complete equivalence and, at the same time, rejected the idea of nat-
uralness in the TL. As both are practically unachievable, he believes that ‘equiva-
lence’ cannot be disregarded because a translation is regarded as a representative
entity of the ST. However, he focused on what he termed ‘factual replacement’.
Toury called for consideration of the historical facts of the target culture, which
he called ‘translation norms’; the term ‘norms’ is thus used by Toury to refer to
a translator’s preferences and the factors that influence them. These factors are
mostly external ones, such as socio-cultural factors. Toury differentiated between
three types of norms: preliminary, initial and operational. Preliminary norms are
those that affect a translator’s adoption of a specific strategy or their translation
policy: which texts to choose for translation. Preliminary norms are not a part of a
translator’s preferences. Initial norms refer to those that reflect a translator’s pref-
erence for a specific translation approach or strategy (e.g. being faithful to the ST,
or adopting a TT oriented approach). Operational norms are the norms that govern
the actual act of translation.

Exercises

1. What are the drawbacks of Polysystem Theory?

2. Do you agree with Toury’s concepts of norms in translation? Why?

References
As-Safi, A. B. (2011). Translation theories: Strategies and basic theoretical issues. Amman: Dar
Amwaj.
Baker, M. (1992/2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London and New
York: Routledge.
Baker, M. (2004). The status of equivalence in translation studies: An appraisal. In Z. Yang (Ed.),
English-Chinese comparative study and translation (p. 1). Shanghai: Foreign Languages
Education Press.
Bassnett, S. (2005). Translation studies. Vasa (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis
e-Library).
Beekman, J., & Callow, J. (1974). Translating the word of god: With scriptures and topical
indexes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

[email protected]
References 65

Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London and New York:
Longman.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: Language and language learning (1st
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Recent contributions to the theory of innate ideas: Summary of oral pres-
entation. In J. Searle (Ed.), Philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darwish, A. (2010). Elements of translation. Melbourne: Writescope.
Even-Zohar, I. (1979). Polysystem theory. Poetic Today, 1(1978), 1–2.
Even-Zohar, I. (1997). Itamar Even-Zohar: Polysystem studies 1990. International Journal for
Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication, 11(1), 88.
Even-Zohar, I. (2000). The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem. In L.
Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 192–197). London: Routledge.
Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Translation:
Literary, linguistic, and philosophical perspectives. London and Toronto: Associated Univer-
sity Presses.
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary translation theories. London and New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of
William Golding’s The inheritors. In S. B. Chatman (Ed.), Literary style: A symposium (pp.
330–365). London and New York: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). Towards a theory of good translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.),
Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content (pp. 13–18). Berlin
and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and education. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Publishing
House.
Harvey, M. (2000). A beginner’s course in legal translation: The case of culture-bound terms.
ASTTI/ETI, 2(24), 357–369.
Hodges, P. (2009). Compare and contrast two theoretical approaches to translation in Zainur-
rahman. The theories of translation from history to procedures. Language and Education.
Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enandq=De+Waard+NidaandbtnG=
Searchandas_ylo=andas_vis=0#8.
Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984). Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Academiae
Scientarum Fennicae.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
House, J. (2001, January). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description ver-
sus social evaluation. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 46(2), 243–257. https://doi.
org/10.7202/003141ar.
House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. In Translation: A multidisci-
plinary approach (pp. 241–264). London and Chicago: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jakobson, R. (1959/1966/2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On
translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kenny, D. (1998). Equivalence. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of translation stud-
ies. London and New York: Routledge.
Koller, W. (1976/1979). Einführung die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle and
Meyer.
Koller, W. (1989). Equivalence in translation theory. In A. Chesterman (Ed. & Trans.), Readings
in translation theory (pp. 99–104). Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target, 7(2),
191–222.
Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based-translation. Oxford: University Press of American Inc.
Leuven-Zwart, K. V. (1989). Translation and originals: Similarities and dissimilarities I. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.

[email protected]
66 2  Translation Theory

Manfredi, M. (2008). Translating text and context: Translation studies and systemic functional
linguistics (Vol. 1) Translation theory (2nd ed., p. 97). Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguis-
tico-Culturali (CeSLiC). https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/2441. In: Quaderni del
CeSLiC. Functional Grammar Studies for Non-Native Speakers of English.
Manfredi, M. (2014). Translating text and context: Translation studies and systemic functional
linguistics. Volume 2: From theory to practice (p. 158). Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguis-
tico-Culturali (CeSLiC). https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/3219. In: Quaderni del
CeSLiC. Functional Grammar Studies for Non-Native Speakers of English.
Mishra, P. (2009, September). Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow etymological
analysis of the English language words. Language in India, 12, 63–75.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (2nd ed.). London
and New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge companion to translation studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation: Text. Hertfordshire: Pearson Education Limited.
Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Newmark, P. (1998). Approaches to translation. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. in Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge companion to translation studies. London and
New York: Routledge.
Ni, L. (2009). For translation and theories. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 78–83.
Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1982). The theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. A. (1959/1975). Principles of translating as exemplified by Bible translating. In A. S.
Dil (Ed.), Language structure and thought: Essays by Eugene A. Nida. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and pro-
cedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. A. (2000). Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies
readers (pp. 126–140). London and New York: Routledge (First published in 1964).
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E.J.Brill.
Nord, C. (1989). Loyalty instead of loyalty. Proposals for a functional translation typology. Liv-
ing Languages, 34(3), 100–105.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.
Nord, C. (2008). Persuading by addressing: A functional approach to speech-act comparison.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 26(2), 283–293.
Panou, D. (2013). Equivalence in translation theories: A critical evaluation. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 3(1), 1–6.
Popovič, A. (1976). Dictionary for the analysis of literary translation Edmonton. Alberta:
Department of Comparative Literature, University of Alberta.
Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: M. Hueber
[Trans. E. F. Rhodes. (2000). Translation criticism: Potential and limitations]. Manchester:
St. Jerome and American Bible Society.
Shakernia, S. (2014). Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and Newmark’s (seman-
tic and communicative translation) translating theories on two short stories. Merit Research
Journal of Education and Review, 2(1), 1–7.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Steiner, G. (1975/1998). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press.
Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation (p. 159). Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for
Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.

[email protected]
References 67

Venuti, L. (2000). Translation, community, Utopia. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies
reader (pp. 468–488). London: Routldge.
Venuti, L. (2004). The translation studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. (1986). Übersetzen als kultureller transfer. In M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.) (1990), Lin-
guistic transcoding or cultural transfer? A critique of translation theory in Germany (pp.79–
86). In S. Bassnett & A. Lefevere (Eds.).
Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/2004). A methodology for translation. In J. C. Sager & M.-J.
Hamel (Trans.) & L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 128–137). London and
New York: Routledge.
Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s speeches. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 1(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.254-261.
Wendland, E. R. (2012). Framing the frames: A theoretical framework for the cognitive notion of
“Frames of Reference.” Journal of Translation, 6(1), 27–50.
Whang, Y. C. (2004). To whom is a translator responsible—Author or reader? In S. E. Porter
& R. S. Hess (Eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems and prospects (pp. 46–62). New York:
Continuum and T&T Clark International.
Wilss, W. (1982). The science of translation: Problems and methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Yinhua, X. (2011). Equivalence in translation: Features and necessity. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 1989–1991.
Zhuanglin, H. (1988). A course of linguistics. Peking: Peking University Press.

[email protected]
Grammatical Problems
in Translation 3

Overview
This chapter explicates the grammatical problems in translation between
Arabic and English, and provides examples of such problems and how some
translators have dealt with them. The author also suggests some strategies
for dealing with such problems.
This chapter covers the following topics:

1. Tense as a Problem in Translation

2. Gender as a Problem in Translation
3. Grammatical Category as a Problem in Translation
4. Syntactic Order: Foregrounding and Backgrounding as a Problem in
Translation
5. Shifting (iltifat) as a Problem in Translation
6. Passivization.

Grammar was defined by Baker (1992/2011, p. 83) as ‘the set of rules which deter-
mine the way in which units such as words and phrases can be combined in a language
and the kind of information which has to be made regularly explicit in utterances’.
According to Ghazala (2008), problems of translation can be at the grammatical, sty-
listic, lexical or phonological levels. Problems of grammar mainly arise from the com-
plications of the SL grammar; differences between an SL and a TL in grammatical or
syntactic aspects, which may be identified as a grammatical gap in the TL; and the
syntactic word order. However, lexical problems, as Ghazala argues, can mainly arise
from literal translation, synonymy, polysemy and monosemy, collocations, idioms,
proverbs, metaphors, technical translation and culture. Stylistic problems, on the other
hand, arise from the levels of formality and informality in a language, fronting, paral-
lelism, ambiguity, the degree of complexity, short sentences vs. long sentences, passive

© The Author(s) 2020 69

N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_3

[email protected]
70 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

vs. active text, repetition and variation, redundancy, nominalization vs. verbalization,
irony and the translation of punctuation. However, as far as this study is concerned, the
major problems in translation are grammatical and semantic problems. Each of these
problems will be discussed in the sections that follow.
To draw a distinction between grammar and meaning is a hard job that is
unlikely to be achieved because grammar basically serves meaning (Cruse, 1997).
Grammar is discussed here as an integral part of meaning. In his book Approaches
to Translation, Newmark (1981/2001) mentioned that grammatical meaning is
more important than lexical meaning because it shows the tone of an SL. He also
states that grammatical meaning can be rendered by more or less standard trans-
positions. He also argues that all lexical meanings have embedded grammatical
meanings. He explicates his idea by stating that a lexical meaning starts when
grammatical meaning finishes. Transferring such grammatical meaning from an
SL to a TL poses many problems in translation.
Grammatical problems in translation are likely to be more complicated when
the translation process takes place between two different language families, such as
English and Arabic (Ghazala, 2008). Arabic is a Semitic language, while English is
a West Germanic language. These variations between the two languages result in dif-
ferences in the grammatical and syntactic patterns. One main grammatical problem
is the differences between the types of sentence in English and Arabic. The Arabic
language has mainly three types of sentences: nominal, verbal and non-functional
(Ghazala, 2008). Each type of sentence comprises many subtypes that have no equiv-
alents in English. In Arabic, nominal sentences in some of their subtypes do not have
verbs. By contrast, English sentences must have a verb. The translation of conditional
clauses is another grammatical problem in translation, since Arabic only has two
types of conditional clause, while English has three. The change of the word class
in translation is a further problem in translation (Ghazala, 2008). All these grammat-
ical differences pose quandaries for a translator; he cannot render an Arabic text into
English without altering the textual pattern. Such a prospective change in textual pat-
tern inevitably affects the meaning transferred to the TT. In addition, the syntactic and
grammatical variations between Arabic and English create a lexical gap in the trans-
lation between an ST and a TT. For example, the cognate object is not represented in
the English language system, and thus rendering it into English creates a lexical gap.

3.1 Arabic Tense as a Problem in Translation

Tense is one of the prominent grammatical problems in translation. It is difficult

for a translator to preserve the tense of the ST, and thus the meaning may be sus-
ceptible. Lack of tense equivalence between Arabic and English poses many prob-
lems in translation. Arabic has only three tenses: past, present (aorist) and future.
These tenses are unpacked below:
a.  The past
The following example highlights the problem of translating the past tense from
Arabic to English.

[email protected]
3.1  Arabic Tense as a Problem in Translation 71

Example

‫ذهب أحمد الى المدرسة‬

The verb ‫ذهب‬, which is in the past tense, can be rendered into different aspects
in English based on the context. It can be rendered as:
I. ‘Ahmed went to school.’
II.  ‘Ahmed had gone to school.’
III. ‘Ahmad had been to school.’
IV.  ‘Ahmad has gone to school.’

Example I shows a past action that is finished, while example II indicates a past
action that happened prior to another past action. As for example III, it highlights
the action of going to school and coming back. As for example IV, it refers to a
recent action of going to school, or to link the action to a current context of a sit-
uation. A translator should, therefore, decide on the right translation based on the
meaning intended in the ST. However, rendering the English past tense into Arabic
does not cause any problems, as it has only one available option. Another example
is provided below.

Example

‫كنت ساذهب للسوق‬

The example above shows an intention in the past, while the action was not com-
pleted in the past. In translation, this should be conveyed. It can, then, be trans-
lated as: ‘I was about to go to the market’. However, the same verb ‫ كنت‬sometimes
implicates a different meaning. Consider the following example:
‫كنت قد قابلت أحمد‬
This example indicates a past action, and not merely a past intention. So, it should
be rendered as:

Example

a. ‘I met Ahmed.’
b. ‘I have met Ahmed.’
c. ‘I had met Ahmed.’

The following is another example that shows how tense is sophisticated in Arabic:

Example

‫كنت العب في الطريق‬

[email protected]
72 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

This example indicates an action that was in process in the past, and therefore the
past continuous aspect or the past perfect continuous aspect in English is equiva-
lent to the Arabic text. It, then, should be rendered as:

Example

a. ‘I was playing in the street/on the road’; or

b. ‘I had been playing in the street/on the road.’

b.  The present

The present tense in Arabic needs lexical support to indicate the aspect. Consider
the following examples for the purposes of clarification:

Example

1. ‫يلعب األطفال دائما في الجديقة‬

2. ‫يلعب األطفال االن في الجديقة‬

These two examples may not cause a serious problem in translation as they can be
rendered as:

Example

1a. ‘The children always play in the garden.’

2a. ‘The children are playing in the garden now.’

As seen in the translations above, example 1 was rendered into the present simple tense,
while example 2 was rendered into the present continuous. One challenge may be
translating the imperfect verb in Arabic into English. Consider the following example:

Example

‫ال يتوقف األطفال عن اللعب في الشارع‬

This example can be rendered into the present simple. It can be rendered as: ‘Chil-
dren never stop playing in the street.’ Consider the following example:

Example

‫لم يتوقف األطفال عن اللعب في الشارع‬

This example can be translated as: ‘Children did not stop playing in the street.’

[email protected]
3.1  Arabic Tense as a Problem in Translation 73

The imperfect verb was rendered into the past simple in this case. However, the
imperfect verb ‫ يتناهون‬is mostly translated into the past simple or past continuous in
English. So, a translator needs to translate the Arabic imperfect verb based on the
context of meaning.
c.  The future
Future does not seem to be a problem in translation from Arabic to English
though, similar to the present tense, Arabic employs lexical devices to express dif-
ferent aspects. Consider the following examples:

Example

‫سوف أذهب الى السوق غدا‬

‫سوف اكون قد انتهيت من هذا المشروع بتهاية هذا الشهر‬
‫غذا في هذا الوقت ساكون اجلس ألمتحان الكيمياء‬

These examples can be rendered as:

Example

‘I will go to the market tomorrow.’

‘I will have finished this project by the end of next month.’
‘Tomorrow, at this time, I will be sitting the chemistry exam.’

The Holy Quran is a rich resource of examples of this kind of problem. An exam-
ple of problems in translating tense is provided by Ali et al. (2012) from Surah
al-Ahzab, ayah 10, which reads:

Example

(33:10) ‫الظنُونَا‬ ِ ‫ت ْالقُلُوبُ ْال َحن‬

ُّ ‫َاج َر َوتَظُنُّون بِ َالل‬ ِ ‫صا ُر َوبَلَ َغ‬ ِ ‫إِ ْذ َجا ُءو ُك ْم ِم ْن فَوْ قِ ُك ْم َو ِم ْن أَ ْسفَ َل ِم ْن ُك ْم َوإِ ْذ زَا َغ‬
َ ‫ت َاأل ْب‬
‘Behold! They came on you from above you and from below you, and behold,
the eyes became dim and the hearts gaped up to the throats, and ye imagined
various (vain) thoughts about Allah!’ (Ali, 2006, p. 287) (33:10)

As seen in this example, there is a shift in the verb tense from the past tense
(‫ َجا ُءو ُك ْم‬/jaookum/, ‫ت‬ ِ ‫بَلَ َغ‬/balaghati/) in the Quranic ST to the
ِ ‫زَا َغ‬/zaghati/ and ‫ت‬
present tense (‫ َوتَظُنُّون‬/watathunnoona/). This shift in the Holy Quran recurs to
invoke an important action in the mind as if it were happening at the moment of
reading the ayah. However, the translation could not convey this stylistic effect, as
the translator followed English grammar and could not convey the shift that exists
in the ST. Although the problem in translation of this example is grammatical, it
affects the style of the text. Another example of tense loss was discussed by
Al-Azab and Al-Misned (2012) in the translation of the following ayah:

[email protected]
74 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

Example

(18:100) ‫َو َع َرضْ نَا جهنم يَوْ َمئذ لِ ْلكَافِ ِرينَ عَرْ ضا‬
‘And on that day we shall present Hell to the disbeliever’s plain to view’. (Khan
& Al-Hilali, 1996)
‘On that day we shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view’. (Pickthall,
2001, p. 125)
‘And upon that day we shall present Gehenna to the unbelievers’. (Arberry,
1982, p. 180)

In the Quranic ST text, the verb ‫ َع َرضْ نَا‬/WaAAradana/ is in the past form, though
the ayah talks about the Day of Judgement, which has not occurred yet; this recurs
in the Holy Quran, and is used to reflect the certainty and inevitability of the
occurrence of things, even in the future. However, the translators rendered the past
verb into the future (i.e. shall present); they could not follow the same tense as the
Arabic Quranic text, and thus created grammatical loss, which affected the mean-
ing conveyed. The translations could not convey the overtones and undertones of
the ST. The past form of verbs is used in Arabic to talk about facts, whereas this
achieved differently in English.
Another grammatical loss in the ayah is the translation of the cognitive object.
In Arabic, cognitive objects are derived from the same root as the verb for the pur-
poses of confirmation. By contrast, English does not have this kind of grammati-
cal style, which forces a translator to find other words, phrases, or expressions to
compensate for the loss in translation. This compensation strategy is suggested by
Nida and Taber (1982) and Hervey and Higgins (1992), whereby they suggested
that a translator would compensate for a loss by making an addition. Put simply, to
create the same effect as an ST in the TT, a translator may add some words that do
not exist in the ST.

3.2 Translating English Tenses and Aspects into Arabic

(Based on Collins COBUILD English Grammar, 2005)

English has two tenses, the past and the present, but has has perfect aspects and
imperfect aspects. Tense and aspects are expressed by the addition of inflections
to the base form of the verb, or sometimes by the use of auxiliary verbs: ‘In situ-
ations where you are discussing an existing state of affairs, you use a verb that is
in the present tense’ (Collins COBUILD English Grammar, 2005, p. 414). These
tenses and aspects are unpacked below:
a.  The present simple tense
The present simple tense is used to speak about the thoughts and feelings at the
present time or immediate reactions. Consider the following examples:

[email protected]
3.2  Translating English Tenses and Aspects into Arabic … 75

Example

1. ‘I’m awfully busy.’

‫إني مشغول للغاية‬
2. ‘They both taste the same.’
‫إنهما بنفس المذاق‬

In these examples, example 1 was translated into English without maintaining the
verb ‘be’ that exists in the SL, and which is used explicitly in English. However, in
Arabic, it may be translated implicitly, as in the example above. The same applies
to example 2, as, in Arabic, we usually render verbs that are related to senses as
nouns. In example 2, the verb ‘taste’ was rendered as ‫قاذملا‬, which is a noun. The
present simple tense can be also used to express physical feelings. Consider the
following examples:

Example

1. ‘I feel tired.’
‫أشعر بالتعب‬
2. ‘She feels sleepy.’
‫أنها تشعر بالنعاس‬

In examples 1 and 2, the verb was rendered as a verb in the TL but the adjective
was rendered as a noun. Of course, the sentences above can be translated differ-
ently, as clauses. They can be translated as:

Example

‫أشعر بأني متعب‬

‫أشعر بأني نعس‬

The present simple tense can be also used to express facts and truths. Consider the
following examples:

Example

‘Laila eats meat.’

‫ليلى تأكل اللحم‬

This example shows a fact about Laila, and should be rendered carefully. It can be
simply rendered as: ‫ليلى تأكل اللحم‬. Although the translation seems simple and clear,
a problem may arise due to the incorrect perception of the Arabic translation as

[email protected]
76 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

happening at the moment of speaking. Therefore, clarification may be needed in

some cases, which can be achieved through adding some aspectual words such as
‘always’ ‫ داءما‬or ‘usually’ ‫عادة‬.
The present simple tense can be also used to express habits. Consider the follow-
ing examples:

Example

1. ‘I start work at 11.’

11 ‫أبدأ العمل الساعة‬
2. ‘I have lunch at work every day.’
‫أتناول الغداء في العمل كل يوم‬

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘Gosh, he looks awful.’
2. ‘I want a breath of fresh air.’
3. ‘My stomach hurts.’
4. ‘I hear approaching feet.’
5. ‘My dad works in Saudi Arabia.’
6. ‘He lives in the French Alps near the Swiss border.’
7. ‘A chemical reaction occurs in the fuel cell.’
8. ‘Babies normally lose weight in the beginning.’
9. ‘The attitude is usually one of ridicule.’
10. ‘Traditionally, the Japanese prefer good quality clothes.’

b.  Present progressive

Present progressive is used in English to express an action happening at the
moment of speaking, an action that is continuing for some time, or even an action
that will happen in the future. It can also be used to express changes, develop-
ments and trends. Consider the following examples:

Exercise

a. ‘Rabiaa is cooking dinner.’

b. ‘Rabiaa is leaving for Oman next week.’
c. ‘Rabiaa is doing her PhD.’

Example a indicates an action that was happening at the moment of speaking,

whereas example b expresses a near future action. Example c expresses an action
that will be taking place for several months, or maybe years. They should, there-
fore, be rendered, respectively, as follows:

[email protected]
3.2  Translating English Tenses and Aspects into Arabic … 77

Exercise

a. ‫ربيعة تطبخ العشاء االن‬

b. ‫ربيعة ستسافر الى عمان االسبوع القادم‬
c. ‫ربيعة تدرس الدكتوراة حاليا‬

Notice that in a, the Arabic adverbial word ‫ االن‬was added to clarify the meaning.
In example b, the prefixed letter ‫ س‬was added to the TT verb to express futurity. In
example c, the adverbial word ‫ حاليا‬was added to the TT to clarify the meaning. A
translator should not shy away from adding words to the TT to clarify the meaning
of the tense or the aspect, if needed. However, in some cases, we may not need to
add any words, as the meaning is clear from the context. This happens mostly
when the present continuous is used in combination with another tense or aspect.
By way of illustration, see the following example:

Example

• ‘I do not like to go out now because it is raining.’

‫ال أحب أن أخرج األن ألنها تمطر‬

In this example, we do not need to add any words that mark the continuous aspect
because continuity is evidenced by the word ‘now’ in the first clause.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘The village is changing but it is still undisturbed.’
2. ‘His handwriting is improving.’
3. ‘World energy demand is increasing at a rate of about 3% per year.’
4. ‘I’m not planning on having children at present.’
5. ‘Nowadays fitness is becoming a generally accepted principle of life.’

c.  Present perfect aspect

Present perfect expresses an action that started recently in the past, or that started
in the past and will continue into the future for some time. Arabic does not have an
equivalent aspect. Consider the following example and how it could be translated:
1. ‘Rabeea has eaten her lunch.’
The example above can be translated as ‫تناولت ربيعة غداءها‬. The translation does not
show that she has had lunch recently, but this can be understood from the context.
In Arabic, a past tense can refer to an action or event that occurred a long time ago
or recently but, sometimes, we may need some lexical markers to indicate the
point at which the action or event occurred. In a natural Arabic context, the

[email protected]
78 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

translation above can be perceived as referring to a recent past action. Note the
following examples:

Example

2. ‘Sumaya has lived in this house since 2009.’

The above example can be translated as: 2009 ‫سكنت سمية هذا البيت منذ عام‬. The trans-
lation is also in the past tense, which sounds correct. Note how the following
example is translated differently:

Example

3. ‘Laila has not finished her homework yet.’

This example can be translated as ‫لم تنته ليلى من واجبها بعد‬. Here, it can be noted that
the present perfect was translated into present preceded by a negating particle,
which changes the meaning of the present verb into a past tense.
In short, the present perfect aspect is mostly translated into the past tense in
Arabic but, in some cases, lexical markers may be needed to explicate the mean-
ing. In the negative case of the present perfect aspect, it is translated to a present
tense in Arabic.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘They have raised £180 for a swimming pool.’
2. ‘I have noticed this trait in many photographers.’
3. ‘The settlers have left the bay forever.’
4. ‘I ate brown rice, which I have always hated, and vegetables from my
­garden.’
5. ‘They have been back every year since then.’
6. ‘She has worked for him for ten years.’

d.  Present perfect continuous

The present perfect continuous is used to emphasize the duration of an action. It is
mostly rendered to an imperfect verb in Arabic, as shown in the following example:
‘I have been waiting you for an hour.’
This example can be translated as ‫أني أنتظرك منذ ساعة‬. It can also be translated as
‫انا في انتطارك منذ ساعة‬. As can be seen, the present perfect tense was translated into
the present tense, or into an adjectival word.

[email protected]
3.2  Translating English Tenses and Aspects into Arabic … 79

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘She’s been crying.’
2. ‘Some people will say that what I have been describing is not a crisis of
industry.’
3. ‘The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has recently been conducting a sur-
vey of Australian Aborigines.’
4. ‘Until now the rumours that had been circulating were exaggerated versions
of the truth.’
5. ‘The doctor had been working alone.’
6. ‘He died in hospital where he had been receiving treatment for cancer.’
7. ‘They had been hitting our trucks regularly.’

e.  Past simple tense

The past simple tense is used in English to express an action that happened at a spe-
cific point in the past. Consider the following example and the suggested translation:

Example

‘I met the president yesterday.’

‫قابلت الرئيس أمس‬

As seen in this example, it seems that there is no problem in translating the past
simple tense.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘The Israeli Prime Minister flew into New York yesterday to start his visit to
the USA.’
2. ‘Our regular window cleaner went off to Canada last year.’
3. ‘On 1 February 1968 he introduced the Industrial Expansion Bill.’
4. ‘They gave me medication to help me relax.’
5. ‘I bought a new car yesterday.’
6. ‘I got my PhD from a famous Malaysian university.’
7. ‘He lived in Paris during his last years.’
8. ‘Throughout his life he suffered from epilepsy.’

f.  Past progressive

The past progressive is used to express an action that occurred for a length of time in
the past, highlighting the action. See the following example, for further clarification:

[email protected]
80 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

Example

‘I was playing football by this time yesterday.’

‫كنت العب كرة قدم في مثل هذا الوقت أمس‬

As seen in this example, the past continuous was translated as an imperfect verb in
Arabic, which seems to convey the meaning of the ST.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘Her tooth was aching, her burnt finger was hurting.’
2. ‘He was looking ill.’
3. ‘Everyone was begging the captain to surrender.’
4. ‘I was meeting thousands of people and getting to know no one.’
5. ‘We were all sitting round there waiting for my brother to come home.’
6. ‘He arrived at about six in the evening.’
7. ‘I was waiting angrily on Monday morning when I saw Mrs Miller.’

g.  Past perfect

The past perfect is used to express an action that happened prior to another action
in the past. See the following example:

Example

‘By the time I arrived, my father had already gone.’

This example indicates that the arrival of the speaker happened after the departure
of their father. It can thus be translated as ‫عندما وصلت كان أبي قد مضى‬, which is an
overt copula + emphatic word + the past tense of the main verb.
h.  Past perfect continuous
The past perfect continuous is similar in use to the past continuous and therefore
its translation is the same. Consider the following examples:

Example
‘Ahmed was studying all night.’
‘Ahmed had been studying all night.’

These two examples can be rendered as ‫كان أحمد يذاكر طوال الليل‬. The Arabic lan-
guage does not discriminate between the past perfect continuous and the past con-
tinuous.

[email protected]
3.2  Translating English Tenses and Aspects into Arabic … 81

i.  Future simple

The future simple is simply rendered into the future in Arabic using lexical devices
such as ‫ سوف‬followed by the present form (aorist) of the verb. Another way is to
use the letter ‫ س‬as a prefix to the verb. Consider the following example:

Example

‘I will open the door.’

‫سوف أفتح الباب‬
‫سأفتح الباب‬

Both these translations sound acceptable, though the second one sounds more nat-
ural and idiomatic.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘I shall do everything I can to help you.’
2. ‘You will stay at home and I shall go to your office.’
3. ‘We shall give him some tea.’

j.  Future continuous

The future continuous expresses an action that is ensured to happen in the future:

Example
‘I will be eating my lunch by 8.’
8 ‫سوف أكون اتناول غدائي في الساعة ال‬

As can be seen, the future continuous was translated similarly to the future sim-
ple, with the exception of inserting the past form of the copula between the word
expressing the future (i.e. ‫ )فوس‬and the aorist tense.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘I’ll be seeing them when I’ve finished with you.’
2. ‘She’ll be appearing tomorrow and Sunday at the Royal Festival Hall.’
3. ‘I’ll be waiting for you outside.’
4. ‘I understand you’ll be moving into our area soon.’
5. ‘They’ll spoil our picnic. I’ll be wondering all the time what’s happening.’
6. ‘Our people will be going to their country more.’

[email protected]
82 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

k.  Future perfect

The future perfect is used in English to express an action that will be completed at
a specific point in the future:

Example

‘By next Monday, I will have finished writing this book.’

‫في األثنين القادم سأكون قد انتهيت من كتابة هذا الكتاب‬

As seen in this example, the English future perfect aspect was translated into the
prefix letter ‫س‬, which implies the future, in addition to ‫أكون‬, which is equivalent to
the verb ‘be’ in English, followed by ‫قد‬, which is used in Arabic for the purpose of
emphasis, and after that the verb ‫ انتهيت‬is used in the past to express an action that
will be completed at that specific point in the future. In the example, the prefix let-
ter ‫ س‬can be replaced by the lexeme ‫سوف‬, which functions in the same way as the
aforementioned prefix letter.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘By the time you get to the school, the concert will have finished.’
2. ‘Maybe by the time we get there he’ll already have started.’
3. ‘By then, maybe you’ll have heard from your sister.’

l.  Future perfect progressive

Future perfect progressive is used to refer to the duration of an event at a specific
time in the future. Consider the following example:

Example

• ‘By the time the season ends, I will have been playing for fifteen months
without a break.’
‫ شهرا دون توقف‬15 ‫بنهاية الفصل ساكون العب لمدة‬

As seen in this example, the ST English sentence was rendered in the same way
that the future perfect was rendered. This is because Arabic does not differentiate
between future perfect and future perfect progressive.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘The register will have been running for a year in May.’

[email protected]
3.2  Translating English Tenses and Aspects into Arabic … 83

2. ‘I will have been studying English for four years in next June.’
3. ‘She will have been cooking for five hours continuously by 6 pm.’

m.  Using ‘be going to’ to express the future

‘Be going to’ followed by the infinitive form is used to express events in the future
that are likely to happen based on evidence. Consider the following example:

Example

‘The sky is cloudy. It is going to rain.’

‫ يبدوا أنها ستمطر‬.‫السماء ملبدة بالغيوم‬

As seen in this example, the future was translated into Arabic in the same way that
the future simple is rendered.

Exercise

Translate the following sentence into Arabic.

1. ‘I’m going to explore the neighbourhood.’
2. ‘Evans knows lots of people. He’s going to help me. He’s going to take me
there.’
3. ‘You’re going to have a heart attack if you’re not careful.’
4. ‘We’re going to see a change in the law next year.’

n.  Using ‘due to’ to express futurity

‘Due to’ followed by an infinitive is used to express events due to take place in the
near future. By way of illustration, see the following example:

Example

‘He is due to start as a courier shortly.’

‫إنه سوف يبدا عمله كساعي بريد قريبا‬

It can be noted that ‘due to’ was translated as ‫سوف‬, similar to the translation of ‘will’.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘The work is due to be started in the summer.’
2. ‘Another 385 people are about to lose their jobs.’
3. ‘Are we about to be taken over by the machine?’

[email protected]
84 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

o.  Present simple to express futurity

The present simple tense can be also used to express the future, especially when it
refers to scheduled events. Consider the following example:

Example

‘The last train to Cairo leaves at 10:00 am.’

‫أخر قطار متجه للقاهرة يغادر الساعة العاشرة صباحا‬

In this example, we have not used any futurity markers (e.g. ‫)فوس‬. The verb was
simply translated to an equivalent verb in the TL.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into Arabic.

1. ‘My last train leaves Euston at 11.30.’
2. ‘The UN General Assembly opens in New York later this month.’
3. ‘Tomorrow morning we meet up to exchange contracts.’

3.3 Gender as a Problem in Translation

Another type of grammatical problem in translation is the translating of gender.

Arabic, unlike English, discriminates nouns in terms of gender across all gram-
matical cases. Consider the following example in Surah Al-Hajj (as provided by
Al-Azab & Al-Misned, 2012), ayah 2:

Example

َ ْ‫يَوْ َم تَرَوْ نَهَا ت َْذهَ ُل كل مرضعة عما أَر‬

ْ ‫ض َع‬
(22: 2) ‫ت‬
‘The day you shall see it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling’. (Khan
& Al-Hilali, 1996)
‘On the day when ye behold it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling’.
(Pickthall, 2001, p. 136)
‘On the day when you behold it, every suckling woman shall neglect the child
she has suckled’. (Arberry, 1982, p. 202)

As seen in the example provided by Al-Azab and Al-Misned (2012), the Quranic
word ‫مرضعة‬/murdiAAatin/ is in the feminine case in the ST, which, according
to Al-Zamakhshari (2000), serves to imply the current status of breast-feeding,
because the Quranic word is feminine even without the marker of femininity.

[email protected]
3.3  Gender as a Problem in Translation 85

However, the translators sought to translate it using two words (i.e. nursing
mother, suckling woman) to show femininity. In spite of that, there is a loss in
translation because the current status of nursing is not reflected in the translation.
They could have used a word such as ‘now’ to compensate the loss in meaning
(Al-Azab & Al-Misned, 2012). Further examples of gender differences between
English and Arabic Follow:

Example

1. ‫تزوج نور فتاة جميلة‬

‘Nour married a beautiful girl.’
2. ‫القمر جميل الليلة‬
‘The moon is beautiful tonight.’

In these examples, the Arabic adjectives ‫ جميل‬and ‫ جميلة‬refer to the same sense with
the only difference being the addition of the gender marker in example 1. Example
1 indicates the use of the adjective in the feminine form, while in example 2, the
adjective is used in the masculine form. However, the two adjectives will be trans-
lated to the same lexeme in English: beautiful. Note the gender differences across
all the grammatical cases in the examples provided below.

Example

TT ST
‘Hazem bought a beautiful car.’ ‫اشترى حازم سيارة جميلة‬
‘Hazem bought two beautiful cars.’ ‫اشترى حازم سيارتان جميلتان‬
‘Hazem bought three beautiful cars.’ ‫اشترى حازم ثالث سيارات جميالت‬
‘Hazem bought a beautiful house.’ ‫اشترى حازم بيتا جميال‬
‘Hazem bought two beautiful houses.’ ‫اشترى حازم بيتين جميلين‬
‘Hazem bought three beautiful houses.’ ‫اشترى حازم ثالث بيوت جميلين‬

In these examples, the Arabic adjective ‫ جميل‬has undergone different lexical

changes based on the gender and number. In contrast, the English adjective has not
undergone any changes across all the grammatical categories.

Exercise

Translate the following sentences into English.

1. ‫في بيتنا شجرة مثمرة‬
2. ‫العمل الدؤوب دايما ما يكون مثمرا‬

[email protected]
86 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

3. ‫في الجنة ثمار لذيذة‬

4. ‫التفاح لذيذ الطعم‬

3.4 Grammatical Category as a Problem in Translation

Grammar presents problems in translation between English and Arabic. Al-Azab

and Al-Misned (2012) noted that, sometimes, translators change plural forms into
singular forms, or vice versa, to follow the norms of the TL. The following exam-
ple in Surah al-Nahl, ayah 80, was provided by Al-Azab and Al-Misned (2012):

Example

ِ ‫ارهَا َوأَ ْش َع‬

(16: 80) َ‫ارهَا‬ ِ َ‫ِم ْن أَصْ َوافِهَا َوأَوْ ب‬
‘And of their wool, fur, and hair’. (Khan & Al-Hilali, 1996)
‘And of their wool and their fur and their hair’. (Pickthall, 2001, p. 115)
‘And of their wool, and of their fur and of their hair’. (Arberry, 1982, p. 164)

As seen in these translations, the translators of the ayah had to change the plural
form of the three nouns in the ST (i.e. aswaaf, ashAAar, awbaar) into the singular
form in the TT (i.e. wool, fur, hair), to follow the grammatical norms of English.
However, this is a tolerable loss because the meaning is not lost; it still carries the
same meaning of plural for a native speaker of English. Some other examples of
the differences in the grammatical category between Arabic and English are illus-
trated by the following examples:

Example

1. ‫دائما ما يقدم األباء النصائح ألبنائهم‬

‘Parents always give advice to their kids.’
2. ‫يحتوي هذا الكتاب على العديد من المعلومات المفيدة‬
‘This book contains a lot of useful information.’

In these examples, the ST words ‫ النصائح‬and ‫ المعلومات‬are in the plural form, as

in Arabic these two words have singular, dual and plural forms. However, in
English, they have only the uncountable form. Therefore, it is of primary impor-
tance that a translator pays attention to such linguistic differences. Another fea-
ture of the Arabic language that does not exist in English is dualism. So, when
translating from Arabic to English, a translator needs to add the word ‘two’ to
clarify the meaning of duality that exists in Arabic. By way of illustration, see
the following examples:

[email protected]
3.4  Grammatical Category as a Problem in Translation 87

Example

1. ‫أشترى أحمد سيارتان‬

2. ‫تزوج الدكتور نور زوجتان‬
The examples above can be translated as:
1. ‘Ahmed bought two cars.’
2. ‘Dr Nour married two wives.’

As can be seen in these examples, the modifier ‘two’ was added to the TL to
express the meaning of duality. In this regard, Arabic makes extensive use of affix-
ations to change the category of any lemma. The same lemma can have different
meanings based on a minor change in affixation. See the following examples by
way of illustration:

Example

Sold ‫باع‬
Bought ‫أبتاع‬
Selling ‫بيوع‬
Accepting as a king or prince (homage) ‫بيعة‬
Bought (something) ‫مبتاع‬
Paid homage ‫بايع‬

As seen in these examples, the Arabic word has different meanings, based on the
same root or lemma. A translator, then, needs to pay attention to such differences
in meaning.

3.5 Syntactic Order: Foregrounding and Backgrounding

as a Problem in Translation

One prominent stylistic feature of the Arabic language is foregrounding and

backgrounding. However, this presents a basic challenge for a translator that can
be difficult to resolve due to the style not being universal. Put simply, each lan-
guage has its own style that cannot be followed in another language (Abdul-Raof,
2004). In Arabic, in general, and in the Holy Quran in particular, style—includ-
ing word ordering—affects meaning (Abdelwali, 2007). The most important
information is typically foregrounded in Arabic, as the syntactic style in Arabic
usually allows this kind of foregrounding or backgrounding. Consider the follow-
ing example:

[email protected]
88 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

Example

‫في بيتنا حديقة جميلة‬

‘We have a beautiful garden at our house.’

In this example, the ST expression ‫ في بيتنا‬was foregrounded, it was back-grounded

in the TT due to the stylistic and syntactic differences between English and
Arabic. Consider the following example:

Example

‫تال وزير الدفاع السوداني عوض بن عوف البيان األول للجيش معلنا اإلطاحة بالنظام الحاكم وتعطيل الدستور‬
‘The Sudanese minister of defence Awad bin Nouf announced in the first state-
ment for the army the overthrowing of the ruling regime in Sudan, and the sus-
pension of the constitution.’

In this example, the ST foregrounds the most important information—that is, the
overthrowing of the ruling regime and the suspension of the constitution; how-
ever, the translation did not follow the same syntactic order. This can be attributed
to the nature of the Arabic language, in which the syntactic order is a part of its
style; therefore, it affects its meaning. The Holy Quran provides a useful source
of examples of this problem in translation. The following example, provided by
Abdul-Raof (2004), indicates how style affects meaning in the Holy Quran, and
how translation fails to convey the message of the Holy Quran:

Example

(20: 14( ‫إننِي أَنَا هللا ال إِلَهَ إِال أَنَا فَا ْعبُ ْد نِي َوأَقِ ِم الصالةَ لِ ِذ ْك ِري‬
‘Verily I am God; there is no god but I; therefore serve Me’. (Arberry, 1982, p. 185)

This example shows how style was employed to convey the vividness of the text of
the Holy Quran, though it may seem to non-native speakers of Arabic as redundant
and replete with unnecessary pronouns. For example, ‫إنهنِي‬/’innanii/, ‫’أَنَا‬/ana/, ‫أَنَا‬
/’anaa/, all refer to Allah Almighty. This Quranic style, as Abdul-Raof explained,
serves two propositions: the first is related to Allah Almighty and His existence;
the second is about Allah Almighty’s Oneness. In addition, the use of ‫‘ ف‬fa’ indi-
cates immediate action without hesitation. These entire stylistic features in the
Quranic ayah are not conveyed in translation. Another example that indicates the
failure of translation to keep the same syntactic order as that of the ST is provided
by Abdul-Raof (2004):

[email protected]
3.5  Syntactic Order: Foregrounding and Backgrounding … 89

Example

‫ت ِم ْن سُو ء تَ َو ُّد لَوْ أَن بَ ْينَهَا َوبَ ْينَهُ أَمدا‬

ْ َ‫ت ِم ْن َخيْر ُمحْ ضرا َو َما َع ِمل‬ ْ َ‫يَوْ َم ت َِج ُد ُكلُّ نَ ْفس َما َع ِمل‬
ْ ٌ ‫بَ ِعيدا َويُ َح ِّذ ُر ُك ُم هللا نَ ْف َسهُ َو ِللا َر ُء‬
(3: 30) ‫وف بِال ِعبَا ِد‬ َّ
‘On the Day when every soul will find itself confronted with all that it has
done of good and all that it has done of evil, (every soul) will long that there
might be a mighty space of distance between it and that (evil). God warns
you of Himself. And God is full of pity for (His) bondmen’. (Pickthall, 2001,
p. 35)

In this example, the Quranic word ‫ محضرا‬goes after the word ‫ ;خير‬however,
the Pickthall’s translation failed to preserve the same syntactic order, result-
ing in semantic loss. The buffer word ‫ضر‬ َ ْ‫ ُمح‬/muhdaran/ [be confronted with]
serves to separate the two clauses ‫ت ِم ْن َخيْر‬ ْ َ‫ َما َع ِمل‬/maa ‘amilat min khayrin /and
ْ َ‫ َما َع ِمل‬/maa ‘amilat min suu’in/ (Abdul Raof, 2004).
‫ت ِم ْن سُوء‬
Sometimes, failure to preserve the syntactic order of the ST can cause ambigu-
ity. Sadiq (2008) gives an example of such ambiguity in translating the following
ayah from Surah al-Dukhan:

Example

َ ‫يَوْ َم َل يُ ْغنِي َموْ ل ى ع َْن َموْ ل ى َشيْئ ا َو َل هُ ْم يُ ْن‬

(44: 41) َ‫صرُون‬
‘The Day a patronizer will not avail any patronized thing’. (Ghali, 2005)

Sadiq (2008) argues that translating /shayan/‫ َشيْئ ا‬as ‘any patronized thing’ is lit-
eral and syntactically vague; as the word ‘patronized’ in the translation describes
the ‘thing’, not the person. This translation is unclear because translating ‫شيئا‬
strikingly literally as ‘thing’ created a kind of ambiguity. Another example of loss
in syntactic order (and thus foregrounding and backgrounding) is given by Abdul-
Raof in ayah 67 in Surah Taha, which reads:

Example

َ ‫فَأَوْ َج‬
(20: 6) ‫س فِي نَ ْف ِس ِه ِخيفَة ُّمو َسى‬
‘So Moses conceived is his mind a (sort of) fear’. (Ali, 1968, p. 209)

In the Quranic ST, the subject, which is prophet Musa (PBUH), is backgrounded;
however, in the TT it was foregrounded to follow the English syntactic pattern.
This surly created a kind of loss in meaning. One more example of foregrounding
and backgrounding, and how they are lost in translation is provided by Abdul-Raof
(2004) as follows:

[email protected]
90 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

Example

(6: 100) ‫و جعلوا َّلل شركاء الجن‬

‘Yet they make the Jinns equals with God’. (Ali, 1968, p. 86)

In the Quranic text, the object (i.e. ‫ )الجن‬is backgrounded, and is taken from its
post-verbal position, whereas, ‫ ل َّل‬is foregrounded instead of in its initial position.
Thus, backgrounding and foregrounding serve different communicative purposes,
such as disapproving of what the unbelievers say, bringing to the attention of the
reader the notion of calumny that the unbelievers attribute to God, condemning the
association of others with Allah Almighty, and keeping the supreme status of Allah
Almighty as Creator by foregrounding ‫ هلل‬/li-llahi/, and showing the ordinary status
of the Jinns who are themselves created by Allah Almighty (Al Qurtubi, 2004, as
cited in Abdul-Raof, 2004). None of these purposes was communicated in the TT,
as the translation could not keep the same syntactic order as the authentic text due
to the linguistic limits of the English language, or perhaps because the translator
did not realize the communicative function of foregrounding and backgrounding in
the Quranic text.

3.6 Shifting (Iltifat) as a Problem in Translation

Shifting or reference switching is a common feature of certain Arabic genres, such

as poetry, and the Holy Quran. One of the prevalent stylistic features in the Holy
Quran is the use of the grammatical shift from one personal pronoun to another,
and from one tense to another (Abdul-Raof, 2004; Abdel Haleem, 2005). This is
one of the peculiarities of the rhetoric of the Arabic language; called ‘iltifat’, it
serves various purposes. Consider the following example:

Example
ٌ ْ‫بَلَ ٰى َم ْن أَ ْسلَ َم َوجْ هَهُ ِه َّلل َوهُ َو ُمحْ ِس ٌن فَلَهُ أَجْ ُرهُ ِع ْن َد َربِّ ِه َو َل َخو‬
(2: 112) َ‫ف َعلَ ْي ِه ْم َو َل هُ ْم يَحْ َز نُون‬
‘In fact, any who direct themselves wholly to God and do good will have their
reward with their Lord: no fear for them, nor will they grieve’. (Abdel Haleem,
2004)

In this ayah, the implicit singular third person pronoun was used; however, it
shifted to the implicit plural third person pronoun by the end of the same ayah,
which the translator failed to convey. He rendered both of the two ST Quranic pro-
nouns as plural in the TT. The translator could have rendered it faithfully as fol-
lows:

[email protected]
3.6  Shifting (Iltifat) as a Problem in Translation 91

Example

In fact, he who directs themselves wholly to God and do good will have their
reward with their Lord: no fear for them, nor will they grieve.

The success of such translations depends on the approach adopted by the transla-
tor. Abdel Haleem seems to have adopted a communicative approach, while in my
own translation above I adopted a semantic translation.
Another example of shift from the third person singular into the plural adjec-
tive, which in Arabic follows the person or thing it describes, is the following ayah
from Surah al-Talaq (Abdul-Raof, 2004):

Example

(65:11) ‫صالحا يُ ْد ِخ ْلهُ َجنها ت تَجْ ِري ِمن تَحْ تِهَا َاأل ْنهَا ُر خَالِ ِدينَ فِيهَا أَبدا ق ْد أَحسْنَ َُّللا لَهُ ِر ْز قا‬
َ ْ‫وَ َمن ي ُْؤ ِمن بِ َّالل َويَ ْع َمل‬
‘God will show anyone who believes in Him (God) and acts honorably into
gardens through which rivers flow, to live there forever. What a handsome
­provision God has granted him!’ (Irving, 1988)

In this ayah, there is a shift in the original that was not followed in the translation;
however, this did not affect the transmission of the ST meaning. The following
example is from the poetry of Amr bin Kalthoum:

Example

‫قفي قبل التفرق يا ظغينا‬

‫نخبرك اليقين و تخبرينا‬
‘Stop before separation you traveller
We tell you in certainty and you tell us’ (Author’s translation).

In this example, a shift occurred from the imperative mood (stop) to the aorist (tell
you) and (you tell us).
4. Passivization
The frequency of use of the passive in Arabic and in English is different. Arabic
makes greater use of the active voice than the passive voice (Al-Najjar, 1984). By
contrast, English employs passivization in many situations. Al-Najjar (1984) argues
that English agentive passives can be translated into Arabic as either agentive pas-
sive or active voice. By way of illustration, consider the following example:

[email protected]
92 3  Grammatical Problems in Translation

Example

‘“The subsidization on petrol will be lifted up next June”, the prime minister said.’
1. ‫ هذاما صرح به رئيس الوزراء‬،‫سيرفع الدعم عن البترول يونيه القادم‬
2. ‫صرح رئيس الوزراء بأنه سيتم رفع الدعم يونيه القادم‬

As seen in these examples, the English ST could be translated into either agentive
passive (example 1) or active voice (example 2). However, El-Yasin argues that it
should be translated into Arabic topic-comment structures, as shown in the follow-
ing example:

Example

‘President as-Sadat was assassinated by El-Islambouly.’

‫الرئيس السادات أغتاله األسالمبولي‬

However, I do not think the TT sounds natural. I would translate it as:

Example

‫أغتال األسالمبولي الرئيس السادات‬

Translating the English passive into Arabic should be based on the intuition of the
translator. They may decide to translate it into active voice, which is mostly the
case, or into passive voice. In contrast, when translating from Arabic into English,
the passive voice is mostly maintained in the translation.

References
Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. A. (2004). The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc.
Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. A. (2005). The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abdelwali, M. (2007). The loss in the translation of the Qur’an [Electronic version]. The Trans-
lation Journal, 11(2), 120–125. Retrieved from http://www.accurapid.com/journal/40quran.
htm.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2004). The Quran: Limits of translatability. In S. Faiq (Ed.), Cultural encoun-
ters in translation from Arabic. Frankfurt Lodge: Multilingual Matters.
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.
Ali, A., Brakhw, M. A., Bin Nordin, M. Z. F., & ShaikIsmail, S. F. (2012). Some linguistic dif-
ficulties in translating the Holy Quran from Arabic into English. International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 588–590. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.178.
Ali, A. Y. (1968/2006). The Holy Qur’an, text, translation and commentary (Trans.). Beirut, Leb-
anon: Dar Al Arabia.

[email protected]
References 93

Al-Najjar, M. F. (1984). Translation as a correlative of meaning (Unpublished PhD thesis).

Bloomington: Indiana University.
Al-Qurtubi, M. S. (2004). Al JamAA liahkam al Qur’an (Tafsir Al Qurtubi). Cairo, Egypt: Dar
Al-Fikr.
Al-Zamakhshari, A. A.-Q. (2000). Al Kashshaf AAn haqaiq ghawamed attanzeel [The revealer of
facts of obscure revelations]. Cairo, Egypt: Arabic Publishing House.
Arberry, A. (1982). The Koran interpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, M. (1992/2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London and New
York: Routledge.
Collins COBUILD English Grammar. (2005). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Cruse, D. A. (1997). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ghali, M. (2005). Towards understanding the ever–glorious Qur’an. Cairo: Dar An–Nashr Lil-
jami.
Ghazala, H. (2008). Translation as problems and solution. Beirut: Dar El-Ilm Lilmalayin.
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking translation: A course in translation method—
French-English. New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).
Irving, T. (1988). The Noble Qur’an. Cedar Rapids: Iowa Publisher.
Khan, M. M., & Al-Hilali, T. U. (1996). Interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’an.
Riyadh: Maktaba Dar-us-Salam.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1982). The theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Pickthall, M. (2001). The meaning of the glorious Qur’an. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust.
Sadiq, S. (2008). Some semantic, stylistic and cultural problems of translation with special refer-
ence to translating the glorious Qur’ân. Sayyab Translation Journal, 1(1), 37–59.

[email protected]
Lexical and Semantic Problems
in Translation 4

Overview
This chapter presents the semantic and lexical problems in translation
between Arabic and English, and how to deal with them. It gives examples
of such problems in translation and how to solve them.
The chapter covers the following topics:
1. Lexical gaps at the semantic field level (lack of equivalence problem)
2. Improper selection of vocabulary
3. Lexical ambiguity: polysemy and homonymy
4. Synonymy
5. Problems in translation of rhetorical devices.

Newmark (1981) maintains that any lexical item can be viewed in three different
ways: dictionary items—types of senses (e.g. technical, figurative, colloquial); the
four degrees of frequency (e.g. primary, collocational); and the core and the periph-
eral meanings. These meanings may create problems in a translation if a transla-
tor cannot differentiate between these meanings. There are various manifestations
of lexical and semantic problems in translation. These problems are likely to
create syntactic and semantic loss in translation between any two linguistic codes
in general, and between Arabic and English in particular. Arabic is far richer than
English and this poses difficulties in translations (Daryabadi, 2007). One of the
major lexical problems is translating metaphorical meaning as a non-­metaphorical,
or vice versa. Another problem is translating synonyms, near-synonyms, polyse-
mous items, collocations and homonyms. Other problems include problems of
equivalence, lexical gaps, and denotative and connotative meanings.
English and Arabic express reality in very different ways. Thus, in trans-
lation between these two languages, losses occur and problems arise (Abdul-
Raof, 2005). One of these problems is the lexical gaps. Lexical gaps are a kind

© The Author(s) 2020 95

N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_4

[email protected]
96 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

of discrepancy that may occur due to syntactic divergences, cultural differences

between the SL and the TL, lexicalization differences, divergences in conno-
tations, or differences in the denotative meanings (Bentivogli & Pianta, 2000).
Lexical gaps can also occur at different levels, including the semantic and the mor-
phological (Abdul-Raof, 2005). These problems are unpacked in the following
sections.

4.1 Lexical Gaps at the Semantic Field Level

(Lack of Equivalent Problem)

The term ‘semantic field’ refers to lexical concepts that share semantic properties,
or simply to the relatedness of meaning among the word class (Lobner, 2002). Fol-
lowing this definition, lexical gaps occur when one lexical item is missing in the
semantic field structure (Lyons, 1977), which occurs due to differences between
languages (Darwish, 2010; Lyons, 1977). For example, the Arabic verb ‫يحج‬
/ya’hujj/ does not have an equivalent in English; in other words, it is not lexical-
ized in English. However, a translator needs to find the appropriate strategy to
translate it. It may be resolved by finding near-equivalents or undertaking compo-
nential analysis of the ST word. Let us consider the word ‫يحج‬, which can be trans-
lated as:

Example

1. Do/perform/act pilgrimage;
2. Do/perform/act haj;
3. Do/perform/act haj (pilgrimage).

These three options can provide proper strategies for translating the ST word; it
is the translator’s decision to select the proper strategy based on their translation
beliefs and ideologies, and based on the commission given to them.
Baker (1992) discussed the lack of lexicalization as one of the major problems
in translation between Arabic and English. An example that highlights this prob-
lem was given by Conner (1983), who introduced the example of the semantic
field of temperature, which is represented in English by four words: cold, cool,
hot, and warm. By contrast, in Arabic the same semantic field of temperature is
represented by three words: ،‫ بار‬،‫دافئ حارد‬. There is no lexical item that matches the
English item of ‘cool’. As a result of this lexical gap, the two words ‘cool’ and
‫ بارد‬may be translated as synonyms, though they are antonyms (Abdul-Raof,
2005). However, this may be a problem for a novice translator; an expert translator
would not fall into this trap.
Another example of the lack of lexicalization is the Arabic word ‫ جهاد‬/jihad/,
which is not represented in the English language. However, it can be rendered as:

[email protected]
4.1  Lexical Gaps at the Semantic Field Level … 97

1. Jihad;
2. Striving;
3. Striving (holy war).

These three translations can be sought by a translator. He may also opt to translit-
erate the ST word (example 1), accompanied by a paraphrase.
Lack of lexicalization occurs due to the lack of lexical equivalence, which
occurs due to differences between languages (Benfoughal, 2010). Each language
has its own peculiarities in terms of vocabulary, grammar, or style. Some words
are lexicalized in one language, but not in the other. This applies to all languages.
Take, for example, the adjectival word ‘standard’; although this is a very common
word in English, it does not have an equivalent item in Arabic (Baker, 1992/2011),
though translators tend to translate it as ‫معيار او مقياس‬. Although Baker considers the
word ‘standard’ to be a word that does not have an equivalent in Arabic, adopting
Vinay and Darbelnet’s notion of equivalence as being any lexical terms that are
regarded as equivalents in a bilingual dictionary, we should then think that
‫ معيار او مقياس‬are proper translations of the English word. Moreover, the purpose of
the ST word is conveyed in Arabic if it is translated as ‫معيار او مقياس‬.
Darwish (2010) posits that the difference in a denotative meaning between an
SL and a TL is another cause for lexical gaps in translation; for example, the Ara-
bic word ‫صوم‬, which is always rendered into English as ‘fasting’, has different
denotative meanings according to culture. ‘Fasting’ in Christianity is completely
different from ‘fasting’ in Islam. However, I think that rendering the Arabic word
‫ صوم‬as ‘fasting’ is a good translation strategy because the skopos of the translation
conveys the primary meaning, which is conveyed. The other shades of meaning
are of only concern to people such as specialists, researchers, or newly-converted
Muslims. To whomsoever it may be of concern, they may read books on the topic
to further their education on the culturally bound word or expression. Thus, the
Arabic word ‫ صوم‬can be rendered as ‘fasting’ with or without glossing. It is the
translator’s decision whether to provide an explanation of the ST word, or to leave
it as it is in the TL.
In a similar vein, Nugroho (1999) underscored the importance of understand-
ing the components of meaning in the SL so as to be able to render them accu-
rately to a TL. A denotative meaning may undergo a syntactic marking (e.g. the
difference between ‘he saw a cloud’ and ‘the quarrel will cloud the issue’), or a
semiotic marking (i.e. the interrelationships among words). For example, the dif-
ference between ‘he runs a company’ and ‘his nose is running’ is a difference that
occurs due to the different subjects and their meanings (Nugroho, 1999). Simi-
larly, Newmark (1988) mentioned that componential analysis is a useful tool in
understanding the differences between synonyms. Analysing an ST word into its
components can be a useful tool that helps resolving the problem of deciding on
the most appropriate equivalent. Consider the following examples (extracted from
reverso):

[email protected]
98 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

Example

1. ‫آجاال وأحكاما ً لتنفيذ تشريع مكافحة التحرش الجنسي‬

ً ‫وتقترح السياسة‬.
‘The Policy intends to propose terms and provisions for the enactment of
sexual harassment legislation.’
2. ‫ بما يشمل اغتصاب القصّر‬،‫وتغطي المواد المذكورة حاالت التحرش الجنسي واالغتصاب‬.
‘The above articles cover cases of molestation and rape, including statutory
rape.’

As seen in these two examples, the ST word ‫ التحرش الجنسي‬was translated, first, as
‘sexual harassment’, but then as ‘molestation’ in the second instance. Let us ana-
lyse the ST words and TT words to see the reason behind providing two transla-
tions (or more) for the same ST word.

Molestation
+ harassing
+ abuse
+ against children
+ against women

Sexual harassment
+ Unwelcome remarks
(+−) abuse
(+−) against children
(+−) against women

As can be seen, the two TT words are similar in meaning; however, sexual harass-
ment is more neutral and less abusive than molestation. However, the ST word
‫ التحرش الجنسي‬can imply both molestation and sexual harassment, depending on the
context of its use. This justifies why example 1 was translated as ‘sexual harass-
ment’; it is about legislation that should ban the less abusive, dangerous and seri-
ous action lest it leads to the more abuse. In example 2, the word ‘molestation’
was used because it was referring to rape and to a more advanced act of sexual
harassment beyond simply unwelcome remarks.
Another facet of the problem of the lack of lexicalization arises when a specific
concept is expressed by one lexical unit in an SL, while the same concept is
expressed by a free combination of words in the TL (Bentivogli & Pianta, 2000;
Darwish, 2010). For example, the English kinship relation of ‘cousin’ is
­represented by eight words in Arabic: ،‫ أبن الخال‬،‫ بنت الخالة‬،‫ أبن الخالة‬،‫العمة بنت العمة‬
‫ أبن‬،‫ بنت العم‬،‫ أبن العم‬،‫بنت الخال‬. Thus, one lexical item in English is represented by
eight counterparts in Arabic, creating a lexical gap that results in problems for
translators. A translator, thus, needs to know the actual and contextual usage of the
ST word, which cannot be divorced from its meaning, so as to avoid making errors
in translation. In this case, one English lexical item will be translated into a

[email protected]
4.1  Lexical Gaps at the Semantic Field Level … 99

two-word expression to convey the accurate meaning of the ST word. Darwish

(2010) refereed to the same problem, viz., when the SL and TL languages taxono-
mies are different; for example, eclipse in English has two Arabic counterparts in
relation to the sun and the moon. One last cause of lexical gaps, as mentioned by
Darwish, is cultural gaps which cause lack of lexicalization. All these causes, con-
cisely, can be described as lexicalization differences between an SL and a TL.
Examples of words that do not have lexical equivalents in English may be the fol-
lowing words:

Example

‫( دم حفيف‬lit. light-blooded): This is used to describe a person who is liked by

others because of his nice nature.
‫( دم ثقيل‬lit. heavy-blooded): This describes a person whom people do not find
likable due to his nature.
‫نعيما‬: This is an expression said to a person after he has taken a shower or had
his beard shaved.
‫عقبالك‬: This means ‘I wish you the same’. It is mostly said to as a reply to a per-
son who congratulates you on a happy occasion, such as marriage, having a
new baby and so on.
‫( البقاء هلل‬lit. Only Allah ever exists): This is used as a condolence to someone
over the death of a family member or relative.
‫( أحسن هللا عزاءكم‬lit. May Allah reward you): This is also used as a condolence to
someone over the death of a family member or relative.
‫واسطة‬: This refers to someone who can help you expedite a process or do some-
thing unlawful, or even get a job. It is comprehensive, as it can refer to any
way that someone can help another person achieve anything, even buying
tickets.
‫سهرة‬: This means staying up late for the purposes of pleasure, perhaps at a café.
‫إن شاء هللا‬: This means ‘if Allah wills’. It is used in the Arabic context as a final
confirmation that you will do something in the future. It is an Islamic word.
‫عقيقة‬: This refers to the Islamic habit of slaughtering a sheep if you have a new-
born daughter, or two sheep if you have a newborn son.
‫عشاء العريس‬: This refers to an excess of food cooked by the family of the bride
and sent to the groom’s house on the wedding day.
‫الخلوة‬: This is a religious reference to the condition of the groom being alone
with the bride to have sex for the first time as husband and wife.
‫ليلة الحناء‬: This is the night that precedes the wedding day. The bride and groom,
and some of their family members, celebrate with singing, dancing and the
putting on of henna.
‫ملك يمين‬: This refers to a woman who can act as a wife if she is taken as a cap-
tive in a holy war between Muslims and non-Muslims.
‫العيدية‬: This is money given to children on Eid al Fitr and Eid Al Adha days. It is
usually given by parents, uncles and relatives.

[email protected]
100 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

As can be seen, there are lexical gaps between English and Arabic. However,
the fact that these words do not have equivalents does not mean that they can-
not be translated. They can be translated using different strategies, such as bor-
rowing, paraphrasing, paraphrasing with glossing, transliteration or periphrastic
translation.
The Holy Quran is rich with examples that show lexical gaps in the Quranic
translation. A case in point is the difference between ‫ن ّزل‬/nazzala/ (ayah 3) and
‫أنزل‬/anzala/ (ayah 4) in Surah al-Imran that cannot be conveyed in translation due
to the lexical or morphological gap. The first word /nazzala/ reflects a piecemeal
revelation, while the latter word, /anzala/, reflects a single event of complete reve-
lation. However, Yusuf Ali rendered the two words as one word in his translation
(Abdul-Raof, 2004). The Quranic word ‫ ويل‬in Surah al-Humaza is another exam-
ple of a lexical gap (Al-Ghazali, 2010). Consider the following ayah and its trans-
lation:

Example

(104:1) ‫ويل لكل همز ة لمزة‬

‘Woe to every (kind of) scandal-monger and backbiter’. (Ali, 2006, p. 462)
‘Woe to every slanderer, defamer’. (Shakir, 1999)

As can be seen, the Quranic ST word is in the nominative case, while the trans-
lations by Ali and Shakir rendered it in the subjunctive. Although this affects the
meaning due to the nominal case in Arabic generally indicating continuity, and, in
this context in particular, refers to ongoing torture and punishment (Al-Ghazali,
2010), it is still an acceptable translation, as it conveys the denotative meaning of
the ST.
Another example that indicates the lexical gap between any two languages is
two Quranic words in Surah al-Kahf: ‫ أسطاع‬/istaAAa/ and ‫ أستطاع‬/istataAAa/. Both
words were translated interchangeably as ‘could’ or ‘was able to’ by Sale, Muham-
mad Ali, Pickthall, Rodwell and others. The two words are not identical in mean-
ing; there is delicate difference in meaning between them. The Quranic word
‫ أسطاع‬/istaAAa/ is only used for relatively easy actions, such as climbing a hill,
whereas ‫ أستطاع‬/istataAAa/ is used for a more difficult task, such as boring a tunnel
through a hill (Khalifa, 1989), A further example of lexical gaps is the two Arabic
words /ridwanun/‫ رضوان‬and /rida/‫ ;رضا‬these two words are not complete syno-
nyms, as ‫ رضوان‬is more pregnant with meaning than ‫رضا‬, as it means being com-
pletely pleased with believers. However, English lacks the ability to show such
nuances between these near-synonyms. The Quranic words /hayawan/‫ حيوان‬and
/hayatun/‫ حياة‬provide another example of lexical gaps in translation. The Quranic
word ‫ حيوان‬was mentioned once in the Holy Quran in the context of the virtue of
the Hereafter (i.e. Jannah) over the earthly life. ‫ حيوان‬is the real and complete life,
which belongs only to the everlasting life in Jannah (Al-Qurtubi, 2004). This may

[email protected]
4.1  Lexical Gaps at the Semantic Field Level … 101

be due to the fact that adding certain letters in the Arabic language, such as ‫حيوان‬,
adds extra meaning to a word. Translating these words can be achieved through
the use of modifiers or intensifiers. For example, the word ‫ حيوان‬can be translated
as ‘real life’, ‘true life’, or ‘complete life’. A translator should not look for a one-
to-one equivalent when translating culturally bound terms: they should seek other
translation strategies that address the issue raised in the translation process.
Another example of lexical gaps is the Quranic verb ‫أسرى‬/asraa/, which cannot
be rendered into an equivalent lexeme in English (Abdul-Raof, 2004) because it is
a semantically complex verb. Semantic complexity, as identified by Baker (1992),
is one of the non-equivalence problems in translation between Arabic and English.
Other examples may include words such as /tayammamoo/‫‘( تيمموا‬take some clean
sand and wipe your face and hands with it’),/yastarikhoona/‫‘( يصطرخون‬cry out
loud’), and /yatatahhar/‫‘( يتطهّر‬to stay chaste’). These words are used in the exag-
gerated form in Arabic Quranic language. However, English does not have such a
feature. A working example could be the Quranic verb ‫ يصطرخون‬/yastarikhoona/,
which was mentioned in the Holy Quran in the context of telling of the torment
disbelievers will suffer on the Day of Judgement. They do not simply ‘cry’. They
howl with sorrow from the depth of their hearts, to ask Almighty Allah, as they
think, to give them another chance to go back to earthly life to do good deeds (Ibn
Ashour, 1984).
Another example that indicates lexical gaps in translation between an ST and a
TT is the following example from Surah al-Baqarah (Abdul-Raof, 2004):

Example

(2:2) َ‫ْب فِي ِه هدى لِّ ْل ُمتقِين‬

َ ‫ك ْال ِكتَابُ َال َري‬
َ ِ‫َذل‬
‘This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, for those who fear
God’. (2:2) (Ali, 1968, p. 8)

In this example, َ‫ لِّ ْل ُمتقِين‬was translated as ‘for those who fear God’, which is redun-
dant and inaccurate because the Quranic word has sensitive overtones that encom-
pass performing all kinds of good deeds ordained by Allah Almighty and avoiding
everything Allah Almighty forbade (Abdul-Raof, 2004). Abdul-Raof commends
the solution Khan and Hilali adopted, as they gave a periphrastic translation after
providing the transliteration.
Similarly, in his study of the lexical gap in the translation of the Quranic verb,
‫ كاد‬/kada/, Al-Utbi (2011) signposted how the translation failed to find equivalents
of the verb ‫كاد‬, due to the lexical gap between the SL and the TL. The translations
investigated revealed several changes in the word class of the Quranic verb to dif-
ferent word classes: adverbs, verbal constructions and adjectives. Largely, the
translations of the Holy Quran are abundant with examples that show such lexical
gaps in translation.
In relation to the problems such lexical gaps cause in translation, Abdul-Raof
(2004) postulates that the only way to translate such Quranic lexemes (i.e. those

[email protected]
102 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

that suffer from problems of lexical gaps) is to seek periphrastic translation.

Abdul-Raof gives examples of Quranic words, such as /‫ الموقوذة‬/mawqoothatu/, that
can only be rendered periphrastically as ‘any animal that receives a violent blow,
is left to die, and then eaten without being slaughtered according to Islamic law’.
Other examples provided by Abdul-Raof (2004) include /‫كظيم‬/katheem/, /‫الصمد‬/aS-
Samad/, ‫تيمموا‬/tayammamoo//, and many other lexical items.

4.2 Improper Selection of Vocabulary

One of the problems that may occur in translation is the improper selection of
what seem to be equivalents of the ST words when they may not be true equiva-
lents. This may result from ambiguities in the ST lexemes or syntax. In this regard,
Newmark (1988) defines ambiguity as a word or a syntactic structure that has
more than one meaning, even in its context. ‘In its context’, here, indicates that a
word cannot be considered ambiguous without referring to context, as each word
may be ambiguous out of context. Newmark divides ambiguity into seven types:
grammatical, lexical, pragmatic, cultural, idiolectal, referential and metaphorical.

1. Grammatical ambiguity: This may occur when sentences have been poorly
written, or due to the effect of the use of grammatical and functional words.
Prepositions, phrasal verbs and pronouns can also cause ambiguity.
2. Lexical ambiguity: This is more common and more difficult to resolve than
grammatical ambiguity. Many words have more than one sense (i.e. polyse-
mous), or have literal and metaphorical meanings. Homonymy is also one of
the causes of lexical ambiguity.
3. Pragmatic ambiguity: This arises when the tone or emphasis in an SL sen-
tence is not clear.
4. Cultural ambiguity: This arises if ‘the function or the substance of a cultural
feature changes at a point of time and the term remains whilst the period back-
ground is not clear in the SL text’ (Newmark, 1988, p. 220). In addition, there
are certain concepts that are ‘near-internationalisms’; these concepts, however,
may have different uses in different languages. For example, the word ‘king’
in Saudi Arabia does not have the same sense as that of a ‘king’ in the United
Kingdom.
5. Idiolectal ambiguity: This arises from people perceiving words differently
from one another.
6. Referential ambiguity: All types of ambiguity can be referential; however,
Newmark states that he means the ambiguous use of proper names in an SL text.
7. Metaphorical ambiguity: Most sentences can have metaphorical meaning and
literal meaning. However, typically only one specific meaning is intended. For
example, ‘kick the bucket’ can refer to the literal meaning of the expression, or
to its metaphorical meaning, which is ‘to die’.

All these types of ambiguities can be referred to as linguistic ambiguity. L

­ inguistic
ambiguity in translation can arise from ambiguity in the ST. If a translator fails

[email protected]
4.2  Improper Selection of Vocabulary 103

to identify and resolve such ambiguity, or due to a lack of full understanding

of the ST and the context of its situation, a translator may create an ambiguous
translation. Among the various linguistic ambiguities mentioned by Newmark,
lexical ambiguity is the most problematic. Lexical ambiguity can be divided into
two main categories; one holds that words have lexical ambiguity prior to their
semantic occurrence in a text; the other considers that lexical ambiguity is con-
text dependent, which means that it occurs due to the effect of the text (Simpson,
1981). Lexical ambiguity can result from either homonymy or polysemy (New-
mark, 1988). Examples of problems in translating polysemous and homonymous
words are discussed in the following sections.

4.3 Lexical Ambiguity: Polysemy and Homonymy

Newmark (1988) argued that lexical ambiguity is one of the ambiguities that cannot
be easily resolved. Such ambiguity mainly arises from polysemy, homonymy, or
metaphorical vs. literal meanings. Lexical ambiguity is very common in language, as
a single string of words may lead to more than one interpretation due to one of the
words having more than one meaning: polysemy (Klepousniotou, 2002; Simpson,
1981). However, polysemy can be confused with homonymy, in which two words
with the same spelling or pronunciation have two different meanings. According to
the generative lexicon approach, homonymy ensues when discrete senses are stored
separately, whereas, in polysemy, only the elementary meaning is stored in the lexi-
cal repertoire of the language user (Klepousniotou, 2002; Klepousniotou & Baum,
2005). In other words, polysemy refers to a multiplicity of meanings such as when
one word is used in different fields with different meanings (Geeraerts, 2010). A
case in point is the word ‫ ;عين‬it has several meanings in Arabic, such as: ‫عين الصواب‬
and ‫عين الحقيقة‬, which mean ‘absolutely right’, and ‫عين االبرة‬, which means the ‘eye of
a needle’ or a ‘spy’ (Sadiq, 2008). Hence, these words are polysemes because they
have the same etymological root (Sadiq, 2008). Such polysemy may create ambigu-
ity for a reader. However, I argue that these polysemous words can create problems
for a novice translator, or a translator who does not have sufficient knowledge
regarding the SL. Polysemous words are unlikely to cause problems for an experi-
enced translator. English and Arabic are replete with examples of polysemy. Con-
sider the following examples in English and how they may be translated into Arabic:

Example

English Arabic
‘Ali has his mouth full of food.’ ‫علي فمه ممتلئ بالطعام‬
‘Mary kissed John on his mouth.’ ‫ماري قبلت جون على شفتيه‬
‘My mouth is sore.’ ‫فمي ملتهب‬
‘Watch your mouth.’ ‫انتبه لكالمك‬
‘I have three mouths to feed.’ ‫لدي ثالث افواه أطعمها‬

[email protected]
104 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

As can be seen in these examples, the ST word ‘mouth’ is polysemous, as it has multiple
meanings. However, it seems that the ST word is polysemous in the TL as well. In many
cases, English and Arabic share the polysemous nature of some words and phrases.
Consider the following examples:

Example

English Arabic
‘Ahmed is healthy.’ ‫أحمد يتمتع بصحة جيدة‬
‘Ahmed’s exercise regimen is healthy.’ ‫التطام الرياضي الذي يتبعه أحمد جيد‬
‘Ahmed’s complexion is healthy.’ ‫بشرة أحمد تبدو عليها النضارة‬

As can be seen in these examples, the word ‘healthy’ has several meanings; there-
fore, it was translated differently in Arabic. In this case, the word ‘healthy’ is not
polysemous in Arabic, and that is why it was translated into different lexemes. The
co-text usually clarifies the meaning for a translator.
The Holy Quran is rich with examples of polysemy, as it is one of its linguistic
features. For example, the word ‘‫ ’ةمأ‬/ummah/ has nine polysemic meanings in the
Holy Quran. It can mean ‘a period of time’, as in Surah Yusuf; or a ‘leader’ in a
religious sense, ‘a person who leads people to the right path’, as in Surah al-Nahl.
A situation where polysemy presents a problem when translating the Holy Quran
is the following example from Surah al-Baqra, ayah 187, which reads:

Example

(2:187) ‫هن لباس لكم و أنتم لباس لهن‬

‘They are your garments and ye are their garments.’ (2:178) (Ali, 1968, p. 24)

As seen in Ali’s translation, the Quranic word ‫ لباس‬was translated literally as ‘gar-
ment’ which according, to Ali et al. (2014), is inaccurate because the Quranic
word means that ‘A man can repose with his wife, so they become as a cover to
keep all the relations between them secret in the home’. In fact, polysemy causes
problems for any translator of the Holy Quran. One way of resolving this could be
by reference to trusted exegetic books to decide which meaning would be the most
appropriate in this context. Alternatively, as suggested by Ilyas (2013), intertextu-
ality can provide a solution. However, in the event that the meaning provided by
exegeses is changeable, transliteration associated with periphrastic translation
could be the solution. This may give depth to the translation. In addition, if a trans-
lator opted for one meaning rather over another, he should make it clear, in a foot-
note, that his translation is based on a specific exegetic book.
Homonymy is another main cause of lexical ambiguity (Klepousniotou, 2002).
Homonymy refers to the sense relationship that arises when two words have the same
spelling but different meanings. A common example of homonymy is the word ‘bank’,
which can refer to a bank as a financial institution, or a bank of a river (AlQinai, 2012;

[email protected]
4.3  Lexical Ambiguity: Polysemy and Homonymy 105

Geeraerts, 2010). The Holy Quran is rich with homonyms that cause lexical ambiguity,
thereby requiring a translator to decode the homonymous meanings to render an accu-
rate translation. In their study of the Quranic word ‫( فساد‬fasad: ‘corruption’), Rasekh
et al. (2012) found that the homonymous nature of the Quranic language causes ambi-
guity in translation. Rasekh et al. (2012) identified two types of ambiguity in transla-
tion; conscious ambiguity and unconscious ambiguity. Conscious ambiguity occurs
when the ST is ambiguous in itself. In this situation, a translator should retain the
intended ambiguity in the TT. Unconscious ambiguity can be disambiguated, accord-
ing to its situational or linguistic context, by sacrificing the less important meaning. An
example of misunderstanding homonymous words can be found in relation to ayah 40
from Surah Ash-Shura, as provided in Abedelrazq (2014):

Example

(42:40) ‫َو َجزَا ُء َسيِّئَة َسيِّئَةٌ ِم ْثلُهَا فَ َم ْن َعفَا َوأَصْ لَ َح فَأَجْ ُرهُ َعلَى هللا إِنهُ َل ي ُِحبُّ الظالِ ِمين‬
‘The guerdon of an ill-deed is an ill the like thereof. But whosoever pardoneth
and amendeth, his wage is the affair of Allah. Lo! He loveth not wrong-doers.’
(Pickthall, 2001, p. 198)
‘The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if
a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God: for
(God) loveth not those who do wrong.’ (Ali, 1968, p. 343)

In this example, the homonymous Quranic word ‫ َسيِّئَة‬was translated as though it

were the same word, even though the first use of the word refers to a ‘bad act’, and
the second to ‘hostility and aggression’ Al Tabari (Abedelrazq, 2014).
In his study on intra-textuality as a solution for translating ambiguous terms in the
Holy Quran, Ilyas (2013) noted that intra-textuality could be a solution for translating
problematic items in an ST that have more than one parallel occurrence in a text. He
mentioned, for example, how translators rendered the Quranic word ‫ سجرت‬in the ayah
to different lexemes that fall under the meaning of ‘boiling’, though commentators of
the Holy Quran gave different meanings of the word. For example, Asyuti interpreted
it as ‘burnt’; Al Tabari rendered it as ‘flooded’; while Al-Razi used the two senses in
one term (i.e. ‘burn and flood’). Consider the following ayah and its translation:

Example

(81:6) ‘‫’و إذا البحار سجّرت سورة التكوير‬

‘when the seas shall be set boiling’. (Arberry, 1982, p. 357)

However, Ilyas (2013) argued that a solution could be provided by referring to

other ayahs to understand the meaning of the Quranic word. For example, under-
standing of the previous ayah can be achieved by referring to the following ayah
from Surah Ghafer:

[email protected]
106 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

Example

(72:40) َ‫النار يُ ْس َجرُون‬

ِ ‫فِي ْال َح ِم ِيم ثُم فِي‬
‘They are dragged through boiling waters; then they are thrust into the Fire’.
(40:72) (Pickthall, 2001, p. 193)

Employing intra-textuality by linking or referring to words in different contexts in

the Holy Quran helps in understanding and clarifying the meaning. For example,
ayah 72 of Surah Ghafer made it easier to understand the verb in ayah 6 of Surah
At-Takwir: Ayah 72 of Surah Ghafer describes infidels who are fated to be burnt in
fire. Thus, Arberry’s translation is incorrect, as ‘boiling’ is not the accurate mean-
ing of the verb (Ilyas, 2013). This brings into consideration the problem of avoid-
able losses that are created by translators due their lack of reference to various
exegetic books. Another lexical problem in translation is synonymy.

4.4 Synonymy

Synonymy, a lexical relationship term that is used to refer to a sameness of mean-

ing (Lobner, 2002; Palmer, 1981), has been recognized as one of the challenges
in translating from Arabic to English. This may be due to the fact that Arabic as a
language is rich with synonyms. Stanojević (2009) states that absolute synonyms
are unlikely to exist in a language and that it is predictable that translating syno-
nyms between two culturally and linguistically different languages is problematic,
such as is the case between Arabic and English.
Arabic is rich with synonyms. For example, Asyuti (2008) states that there are
41 synonyms for the word ‫السيف‬/al ssayf/ ‘(‘the sword’), and 80 synonyms for the
word ‫العسل‬/al AAasal/ (‘honey’). The wealth of synonyms in Arabic vocabularies
in general sets up pitfalls for a translator. A translator may use one synonym in
lieu of another that is more accurate. A further problematic type of synonymy is
cognitive synonymy. Cognitive synonymy refers to incomplete synonyms; for
example, ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ (Stanojević, 2009).
Shunnaq (1992) states that translating cognitive synonyms can be misleading,
due to the slight variations between synonyms. Cognitive synonyms share the
same referent, but they are connotatively different. Hence, one of the proposed cri-
teria is the intuition of a native Arabic speaker who is better able to judge such
nuances. For example, the slight difference in meaning between ‫ يغبط‬/yaghbit/ and
‫ يحسد‬/yahsid/ is difficult to identify without having intuitive and profound knowl-
edge of the differences between synonyms in Arabic. Lack of such knowledge
may cause some translators to render the two cognitive synonyms (i.e. ‫ يحسد‬and
‫ )يغبط‬as ‘envy’, which is a complete divergence from the true meaning (Shehab,
2009). Other examples provided by Shehab include the nuances between /matar/
‫ مطر‬and /ghayth/‫غيث‬, which are rendered as ‘rain’. The two Quranic words are
connotatively different. Even though both words refer to ‘rain’, ‫ مطر‬has a negative
meaning that implies punishment and destruction, whereas, ‫ غيث‬has a positive

[email protected]
4.4 Synonymy 107

meaning that shows mercy. Hence, as Shehab highlighted, when the two words are
rendered as ‘rain’, the connotative meaning is lost.
Synonyms in a religious context, such as that of the Holy Quran, are a more
complicated issue. Translators sometimes render some words as synonyms when
they are not. Arberry, for example, rendered ‫ ريح‬/reeh/ and ‫ رياح‬/riaah/ as syno-
nyms. He translated them as ‘wind’ and ‘winds’, respectively. Even though it is
true that the first word is singular and the second is plural, they do not have this
implication in the Quranic language. The singular form is utilized in the Holy
Quran to refer to punishment, while the plural form is utilized to refer to blessings
and bounties. However, the strategy followed by Arberry is partially correct; he
could have added a footnote explaining the differences between ‘wind’ and
‘winds’ in Arabic. Translating what seem to be synonymous verbs is also problem-
atic. For example, ‫يحلف‬/yahlef/ and ‫يقسم‬/yuqsem/ were considered to be synonyms
by Arberry, as they were translated as ‘swear’. In Arabic, the two verbs have dif-
ferent implications and associations. The verb ‫ يحلف‬is used in the Holy Quran to
refer to hypocrites and disbelievers, and refers to breaking an oath, while the verb
‫ يقسم‬is utilized in the Holy Quran to refer to believers who fulfil their promises and
oaths (Shehab, 2009).
Similar to the situations discussed above, Abdul-Raof (2004) highlighted some
of the problems that translators face and sometimes fail to overcome. Abdul-Raof
considers that failing to differentiate between the meanings of cognitive synonyms
and realize the nuances between them will result in semantic voids. Consider the
following example from Surah al-Imran, ayah 3:

Example

ِ ‫ص ِّدقًا لِّ َما بَيْنَ يَ َد ْي ِه َوأَن َز َل الت َّْو َراةَ َو ِْال‬

(3) ‫نجي َل‬ ِّ ‫َاب بِا ْل َح‬
َ ‫ق ُم‬ َ ‫نَ َّز َل َعلَ ْي َك ا ْل ِكت‬
‘He has sent down upon thee the Book with the truth, confirming what was
before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel’. (Arberry, 1982, p. 43)

In this ayah, Arberry rendered the two verbs ‫نزل‬/nazzala/ and ‫ أنزل‬/anzala/ as ‘send
down’, as though the two verbs were synonyms. However, in the SL they have dif-
ferent senses; the first verb, ‫نزل‬, suggests the piecemeal revelation of the Holy
Quran over 23 years. In contrast, the second verb, ‫أنزل‬, suggests the revelation (of
the gospel and Torah) as a single event. These differences were not conveyed in
the TT. However, translating the ST word ‘sent down’ conveys the primary mean-
ing. It is not assumed that a TT will be a carbon copy of its ST, but a translator
attempts to reduce variations and maximize sameness. Once again, Abdul-Raof’s
(2004) argument, that the nuances of meaning were not conveyed, is not of practi-
cal importance. It is common for losses to occur in translation, even when the
work is carried out by the most professional of translators.
Another challenge regarding the use of synonyms relates to collocated cogni-
tive synonyms, which refers to the use of synonymous words that come together
for both emphasis and stylistic or aesthetic purposes. The second synonym is

[email protected]
108 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

commonly used to add beauty to the text, or to create rhythm. Rendering such syn-
onyms is difficult to achieve accurately in a TT, and when rendered they sound
redundant (Shehab, 2009). For example, ‫ الرحمن الرحيم‬are two names for Allah
Almighty; translating them usually creates a semantic void as the nuances between
the two Holy names cannot be conveyed in the translation. However, I disagree
with Shehab (2009) in the sense that, in the Holy Quran, each synonym or lexeme
serves a purpose that goes beyond the mere aesthetic goal. The repetition in the
Holy Quran, though aesthetic, serves to strengthen or deepen the meaning (Kho-
rami, 2014). Translating the two names of Allah the Almighty can be carried out
by using intensifying words. For example, ‫ الرحمن‬can be translated as ‘the most
Merciful’, while ‫ الرحيم‬can be translated as ‘merciful’. Another option is to translit-
erate the word and provide explanation to the word between brackets, or prefera-
bly in a footnote.
Another purpose for repeating synonyms is affirmation, as mentioned by
Az-Zarkashi (2006). For example, Surah al-Anam, ayah 125, reads:

Example
َّ َ‫ضيِّقًا َح َرجًا كَأَنَّ َما ي‬
‫ص َّع ُد‬ َ ُ‫ص ْد َره‬ ِ ‫لس َْل ِم ۖ َو َمن ي ُِر ْد أَن ي‬
َ ْ‫ُضلَّهُ يَجْ َعل‬ َ ْ‫للاُ أَن يَ ْه ِديَهُ يَ ْش َرح‬
ِ ْ ِ‫ص ْد َرهُ ل‬ َّ ‫فَ َمن ي ُِر ِد‬
َّ
(125) َ‫س َعلَى ال ِذينَ َل ي ُْؤ ِمنُون‬ ُ َّ
َ ْ‫ك يَجْ َع ُل للا الرِّج‬ ٰ
َ ِ‫فِي ال َّس َما ِء ۚ َك َذل‬
‘And whomsoever it is God’s will to guide, He expands his bosom to Islam
(surrender), and whoever He wills to send astray, He makes his bosom close
and narrow as if he were engaged in sheer ascent to the sky. Thus God lays
humiliation upon those who disbelieve’. (Pickthall, 2001, p. 67)

The two Quranic words ‫ضيِّق‬َ ‫ ا‬and ‫ َح َرجًا‬are synonymous; however, they serve the
purpose of affirmation in addition to their role in adding aesthetic flavour to the
Quranic text (Al-Munajjid, 1997). The translator rendered the two ST words as
‘close and narrow’, which is appropriate and conveys the primary meaning of the
ST words.
In a similar vein, Abdelwali (2007) gave an example of translating the follow-
ing ayah to show how loss in meaning is generated in translating what look to be
synonyms:

Example

(10:5) ‫هو الذي جعل الشمس ضياء والقمر نورا‬

‘It is He who made the sun to be shining glory and the moon to be a light’.
(Ali, 1968, p. 127)

Although ‫ ضياء‬/diaa’n/ and ‫ نورا‬/nuran/ may superficially look synonyms (i.e.

light), they have two distinct meanings. The word ‫ ضياء‬reflects light accompanied
by ‘heat’, while the second word, ‫نورا‬, conveys light only. The translation could

[email protected]
4.4 Synonymy 109

not render the two words equivalently. Analysing the ST words, it can be noted
that sun has the features of glowing at daytime and that the moon has the features
of glowing at night. I suggest that better translations of these ST words could have
been ‫ ضياء‬as ‘radiant’ and ‫ نورا‬as ‘luminous’. Again, analysing the ST words com-
ponentially can help to provide the nearest equivalents. A translator should trans-
late based on the situation he is experiencing. Another example is provided by
Abdelwali and shows a problem in translation:

Example

(34:22) ‫قل ادعو الذين زعمتم من دون َّللا‬

‘Say: Appeal to those whom you claim to instead of God’. (Irving, 1985)

The Quranic word ‫ دون‬was rendered as ‘instead’, which does not convey the differ-
ent connotations and denotations of the word. The Quranic word refers the inferi-
ority of those taken as gods in comparison to Allah’s Almighty power, Who Only
deserves worship. However, translating the ST word as ‘instead’ seems to be suffi-
cient as it shows the primary meaning, though it may not convey the other shades
of meaning.
In her study of the extraordinary vocabulary in the Holy Quran, Emara (2013)
underscored the problems of translating some ‘extraordinary’ vocabularies in the
َ َ‫ ْال َعى‬in the following context:
Holy Quran. Consider the translation of the word ‫ث‬

Example

(4:25) … ‫ذلك لمن خشى العنت منكم‬

‘…This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin’. (Ali, 1968, p. 53)

As can be seen in the translation, the word ‫ العنت‬was translated as ‘sin’, which is
not accurate because the Quranic word in this context refers to ‘adultery’ or ‘forni-
cation’ (Emara, 2014). This is prevalent in the translation of many ayahs. The ST
word, however, could have been translated as ‘adultery’ or ‘fornication’ because
this is the meaning intended in this context, as mentioned in commentary books.
In short, translation is a cognitive process that is based on situation and, therefore,
a translator should adopt the appropriate translation strategies to handle any prob-
lems faced in the translation process.

4.5 Problems in Translation of Rhetorical Devices

Style is not only an important linguistic component in translation, but is also a

component of meaning (Ghazala, 2008). It does not serve only aesthetic purposes
but is a vital component that, without translation, creates an incomplete translation

[email protected]
110 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

(Zaky, 2001). Many theorists in translation underscored the importance of style

in translation. For example, Nida and Taber (1982), in their definition of transla-
tion, identified natural equivalence as an element that should occur, first, in mean-
ing and, second, in style. Rhetorical devices—for example, metaphor, ellipsis
and metonymy—are one of the prominent stylistic features of a language likely
to cause problems in translation. Quinn (1993) postulates that rhetorical figures
are intended deviation from the normal use of language. Based on Corbett and
Huhmann, as cited in Cui and Zhao (2014, p. 59), figures of speech include allit-
eration, anadiplosis, anaphora, antithesis, antimetabole, ellipsis, epanalepsis, epan-
orthosis, epistrophe, hyperbole, irony, metaphor, metonymy, paradox, parallelism,
pun, rhetorical questions, rhyme and simile.
1. Alliteration: This refers to repetition of the same initial consonant sound in
series of words or sentences.
2. Anadiplosis: This is the repetition of the last word of one clause at the begin-
ning of the following clause.
3. Anaphora: This is the repetition of a word or group of words at the beginning
of successive clauses.
4. Antithesis: This is the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, often in parallel
structures.
5. Antimetabole: This is the repetition of words in successive clauses, in reverse
grammatical order.
6. Ellipsis: This is the deliberate omission of a word or words readily implied by
the context.
7. Epanalepsis: This is the repetition at the end of a clause of the word or phrase
that has occurred at the beginning of the clause.
8. Epanorthosis: This is making a claim that calls that claim into doubt.
9. Epistrophe: This is the repetition of the same word or group of words at the
ends of successive clauses.
10. Hyperbole: This is the use of exaggerated terms for emphasis or heightened
effect.
11. Irony: This is the use of a word in such a way as to convey a meaning oppo-
site to the literal meaning of that word.
12. Metaphor: This implies comparison between two things of dissimilar natures.
13. Metonymy: This is the substitution of an attributive or suggestive word for
what is actually meant.
14. Paradox: This is an apparently contradictory statement that nevertheless con-
tains a measure of truth.
15. Parallelism: This is refers to a similarity of structure in a series of two or more
related words, phrases, or clauses.
16. Pun: This is the use of a word that has different meanings, repeating a word
but in such a way that it has a different meaning each time, changing a word’s
meaning, or using words that sound alike but differ in meaning.
17. Rhetorical questions: This is the asking of a question for a specific purpose
other than to obtain information.

[email protected]
4.5  Problems in Translation of Rhetorical Devices 111

1 8. Rhyme: This is the repetition of sounds at the end of words or phrases.

19. Simile: This is explicit comparison made by the use of ‘like’ or ‘as’ to attrib-
ute connotations and meanings of one object to another.
Rhetorical devices are frequently used in poetry, advertisements and even in every-
day language use. In this regard, Xu (2008) believes that literal translation, free
translation and modulation could be useful strategies in translating rhetoric devices.
Another genre that is rich in its use of rhetorical devices is the Quranic lan-
guage, which is characterized by its use of alliteration, antithesis, metaphor and
oxymoron. Unfortunately, these devices are often lost in translation, which pre-
sents a challenge to the maintaining of accuracy in translation. Metaphor is one
of the most prominent rhetorical devices in the language of the Holy Quran; it is
the phenomenon we utilize to talk and think about something in terms of some-
thing else (Semino, 2008). The cognitive view of metaphor considers metaphor
not only as a rhetorical by-product of objective thinking, but also as the basis of
the human conceptual system. One of the most important types of metaphor is the
conceptual metaphor, which is widely used in the Holy Quran. Conceptual meta-
phor refers to understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another concep-
tual domain; in other words, a source domain that can be defined as the domain
from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual
domain: the domain that is understood in this way is the target domain (Kövecses,
2010). Metaphor, for Newmark, has a broader meaning than the traditional one.
Newmark (1988) states that metaphor, for him, refers to any figurative expression;
this include phrasal verbs, collocations, idioms, proverbs, allegory and personifica-
tion among others. Metaphors, he adds, have two main functions: referential and
aesthetic. Metaphor makes concepts and thoughts clearer (Said Ghazala, 2012).
They are a basic scheme by which human experience and the outside world are
conceptualized (Gibbs, 1994). Al Salem (2014) gives the following examples of
the translation of metaphors in Mahmoud Darwish’s poems:

Example

ST TT
1. ‫ال موسوعة األزھار تسعفني‬ ‘No encyclopaedia of flowers is any help to Me’
2. ‫والصالة تكلست‬ ‘The prayer calcified’
3. ‫أ یھا الحاضر! تحملنا قلیال فلسنا‬ ‘Oh present! Be a little patient with us, for we are
‫سبیل ثقالء الظّل‬
ٍ ‫سوى عابري‬ only passers-by with heavy shadows’
4. ‫ حبّي نزھةٌ قصیرة‬:‫أجاب‬ ‘He answered: ‘My love is a short outing, a glass of
‫ أو مغامرة‬.. ‫أو كأس خمر‬ wine, an affair/a love affair.’

In example 1, Al Salem notes that the metaphor was translated into a sense,
instead of a functionally equivalent metaphor. However, in example 2 the transla-
tor rendered the ST metaphor literally. In example 3, the ST metaphor was

[email protected]
112 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

translated as ‘heavy shadows’, which is inaccurate literal translation. I argue that

the ST metaphor should have been rendered functionally as ‘bleeder’ or ‘boring’.
This would cause the TT to lose the effect of the figurative use of the expression in
the ST. In example 4, the metaphor ‫ حبّي نزھةٌ قصیرة‬was translated literally as ‘My
love is a short outing’.
In relation to the Holy Quran, metaphors are not only utilized for aesthetic
purposes, but also serve other purposes, such as conveying abstract meanings,
clarifying the intended meaning, and impressing its readers (Kabali, 2006). How-
ever, metaphors are difficult to render into English accurately and with the same
effect that exists in the authentic Quranic text; that is why, sometimes, translators
render them into literal language that does not convey the true meaning. Con-
sider the following example from Surah Yusuf, ayah 9, as provided by Ali et al.
(2012):

Example

َ ‫ضا يَ ْخ ُل لَ ُك ْم َو ْجهُ أَبِي ُك ْم َوتَ ُكونُوا ِمن بَ ْع ِد ِه قَ ْو ًما‬

(9:12) َ‫صالِ ِحين‬ ً ‫ا ْقتُلُوا يُوسُفَ أَ ِو ا ْط َر ُحوهُ أَ ْر‬
‘Kill you Joseph, or cast him forth into some land, that your father’s face may
be free for you, and thereafter you may be a righteous people’. (Arberry, 1982,
p. 141)

Considering Arberry’s translation, it is clear that it did not convey the intended
meaning; it shifted away from the authentic meaning. Arberry translated
‫ يخل لكم وجه أبيكم‬as ‘your father’s face may be free for you’. The metaphorical
meaning of the ayah is that after killing Yusuf (PBUH), the attention and care
that the prophet Yaqoub gave to Yusuf (PBUH(will drive his other sons apart
from Yusuf (PBUH). The translation could not convey this metaphorical meaning
(Ali et al., 2012). However, this seems to be the only possible way of translating
the Quranic metaphor. Literal translation may be the only way to translate the
Quranic figures of speeches and images that do not have equivalents in the TL.
The Holy Quran is an authoritative canonical text that cannot be rendered using a
functional equivalent.
Another example is provided by Abdul-Raof (2004) and indicates how trans-
lation failed to convey the meaning expressed in the Holy ayah. Consider the fol-
lowing ayah from Surah Maryam (ayah, 4):

Example
ْ ‫ظ ُم ِمنِّي َوا ْشتَ َع َل‬
َ ِ‫الرأسُ َشيْبا َولَ ْم أَ ُكن بِ ُدعَائ‬
(4:19) ‫ك َربِّ َشقِيا‬ ْ ‫قَا َل َربِّ إِنِّي َوهَنَ ْال َع‬

‘Praying: O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth
glisten with grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee!’
(Ali, 1968, p. 200)

[email protected]
4.5  Problems in Translation of Rhetorical Devices 113

In the ayah, the word ‫اشتعل‬/ishtaAAala/is used figuratively, as it literally means

‘burn’, but the translation lost the metaphoric use of the word. The English term
‘glisten with grey’ does not convey the same authentic meaning of the Quranic
word (i.e. ‫)اشتعل‬. The Quranic word is used metaphorically to convey the spread of
greyness in the hair of the Prophet Zakkariah, which, in turn, reflects growing old
(Abdul-Raof, 2004).
Likewise, metonymy—which refers to the substitution of contained for the
container, or the effect for the cause (Quinn, 1993)—is another of the rhetorical
devices employed in the Holy Quran. It reflects meaning in a more powerful way.
However, due to cultural factors, translation rarely conveys the metonymy in the
TT. Consider the following example from Surah al-Anaam, ayah 7:

Example

َّ ‫س ْلنَا ال‬
‫س َما َء َعلَ ْي ِهم ِّم ْد َرا ًرا‬ َ ‫ض َما لَ ْم نُ َم ِّكن لَّ ُك ْم َوأَ ْر‬ِ ‫أَلَ ْم يَ َر ْوا َك ْم أَ ْهلَ ْكنَا ِمن قَ ْبلِ ِهم ِّمن قَ ْر ٍن َّم َّكنَّا ُه ْم فِي ْالَ ْر‬
(6:6) َ‫آخ ِرين‬ ْ
َ ‫ال ْن َها َر ت َْج ِري ِمن ت َْحتِ ِه ْم فَأ َ ْهلَ ْكنَاهُم بِ ُذنُوبِ ِه ْم َوأَنشَأنَا ِمن بَ ْع ِد ِه ْم ق ْرنًا‬
َ ْ َ ‫َو َج َع ْلنَا‬

‘See they not how many of those before them We did destroy? —generations
We had established on the earth, in strength such as We have not given to you—
for whom We poured out rain from the skies in abundance, and gave (fertile)
streams flowing beneath their (feet): yet for their sins We destroyed them, and
raised in their wake fresh generations (to succeed them)’. (Ali, 1968, p. 79)

In this ayah, the translator rendered ‫ َوأَرْ َس ْلنَا ال َّس َما َء َعلَ ْي ِهم ِّم ْد َرارًا‬, which is a metonymy
in the SL, as ‘We poured out rain from the skies in abundance’. The translator
could not keep the same metonymy of the SL due to the cultural discrepancies, as
one language may use certain terms metonymically, while another language can-
not. Hence, in the example above, the translator could do no more than pursue
semantic translation (Ali et al., 2012).
Alliteration is another rhetorical device in which several words that are close
together begin with the same letter or sound (Collins COBUILD Dictionary,
2006). Alliteration is employed in the Holy Quran to impress readers and to give
them good mental space in which to consider the meanings of the Holy Quran;
it also interweaves meanings and makes them melodic (Ayyash et al., 2013).
The miracle of the language of the Holy Quran is that alliteration not only serves
melodic purposes, but also serves to support meaning. An example to illustrate
how translation fails to convey the alliteration in the ST is found in the following
example from Surah al-Baqara, ayah 114:

Example

‫س َعىٰ فِي َخ َرابِ َها ۚ أُو َ ٰلئِ َك َما َكانَ لَ ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫للاِ أَن يُ ْذ َك َر فِي َها ا‬
َ ‫س ُمهُ َو‬ َّ ‫اج َد‬ِ ‫س‬ َ ‫َو َمنْ أَ ْظلَ ُم ِم َّمن َّمنَ َع َم‬
(114:2)‫اب ع َِظيم‬ َ ْ
ٌ ‫ي َولَ ُه ْم فِي ال ِخ َر ِة َعذ‬ ٌ ‫أَن يَد ُْخلُوهَا إِلَّ َخائِفِينَ ۚ لَ ُه ْم فِي ال ُّد ْنيَا ِخ ْز‬
‘And who does greater evil than he who bars God’s places of worship, so that
His Name be not rehearsed in them’. (Arberry, 1982, p. 27)

[email protected]
114 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

In this example, alliteration is achieved in the authentic Arabic ayah by repeating

the same sound or letter: ‫ م‬. However, the translation lost these melodic sounds
(Abdul-Raof, 2004). Melody in the Holy Quran has a spiritual shadow of meaning,
which is felt on reading the authentic text.
Antithesis is a further rhetorical device that is lost in translation. It refers to the
utilizing of parallelistic structures to show contrast in meaning; however, transla-
tion fails to convey this type of structure. Consider the following example:

Example

ٍ ‫) َوإِنَّ ا ْلفُ َّجا َر لَفِي َج ِح‬13:82( ‫يم‬

(14:82) ‫يم‬ ْ َ َّ‫إِن‬
ٍ ‫ال ْب َرا َر لَفِي نَ ِع‬
‘As for the Righteous, they will be in bliss; And the Wicked—they will be in
the Fire’. (82:13–14) (Ali, 2006, p. 441)

Examining the ayahs clearly shows the loss in conveying the meaning of the
antithesis that exists in the SL, since ‘Righteous’ is not an antithesis of ‘wicked’,
neither is ‘bliss’ an antithesis of ‘fire’ (Abdul-Raof, 2004). Similarly, oxymoron is
a rhetorical device is employed effectively in the Holy Quran. It refers to the use
of two adjacent antonyms. Consider the following ayah (7) in Surah at-Talaq:

Example

ً ‫للاُ نَ ْف‬
‫سا إِ َّل َما‬ َّ ُ‫للاُ ۚ َل يُ َكلِّف‬ ْ ِ‫س َعتِ ِه ۖ َو َمن قُ ِد َر َعلَ ْي ِه ِر ْزقُهُ فَ ْليُنف‬
َّ ُ‫ق ِم َّما آتَاه‬ َ ‫س َع ٍة ِّمن‬ َ ‫ق ُذو‬ ْ ِ‫لِيُنف‬
(7:65) ‫س ًرا‬ ْ ‫سيَ ْج َع ُل َُّللا بَ ْع َد ُع‬
ْ ُ‫س ٍر ي‬ َ ۚ ‫آتَاهَا‬
‘Let the man of means spend according to his means: and the man whose
resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given him.
Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him. After a dif-
ficulty, Allah will soon grant relief’. (Ali, 2006, p. 406)

In the ayah, an oxymoron exists between the two antonym words ‫ عسر‬/AAusran/
and ‫ يسرا‬/usran/. This is due to the nature of the Arabic language, which allows the
object to precede the subject (Abdul-Raof, 2004). Ali’s translation could not keep
the same rhetorical device as it exists in the ST.
Ellipsis is another common loss in the translation of the Holy Quran. Ellipsis is
the term given to instances of anaphora in which a missing predicate can be under-
stood from context (Johnson, 2001). The Arabic language permits this type of con-
struction, which English does not allow in the same way (Al-Azab & Al-Misned,
2012). Ellipsis is one of the very characteristics of the Quranic text, which trans-
lation fails to convey (Al-Azab & Al-Misned, 2012; Ali et al., 2012). Consider the
following example:

[email protected]
4.5  Problems in Translation of Rhetorical Devices 115

Example

ِ َ ‫ض أَ ْو ُكلِّ َم بِ ِه ا ْل َم ْوتَىٰ ۗ بَل ِّ َّلِ ْالَ ْم ُر َج ِمي ًعا ۗ أَفَلَ ْم يَ ْيأ‬

‫س‬ ُ ‫ط َعتْ بِ ِه ْالَ ْر‬
ِّ ُ‫سيِّ َرتْ بِ ِه ا ْل ِجبَا ُل أَ ْو ق‬
ُ ‫َولَ ْو أَنَّ قُ ْرآنًا‬
َ‫صنَ ُعوا قَا ِر َعةٌ أ ْو‬ َ ‫ُصيبُ ُهم بِ َما‬ ِ ‫اس َج ِمي ًعا ۗ َو َل يَزَا ُل الَّ ِذينَ َكفَ ُروا ت‬ َ َّ‫للاُ لَ َهدَى الن‬ َّ ‫ الَّ ِذينَ آ َمنُوا أَن لَّ ْو يَشَا ُء‬
ْ
(31:13( ‫ت َُح ُّل قَ ِريبًا ِّمن دَا ِر ِه ْم َحتَّىٰ يَأتِ َي َو ْع ُد ِ َّللا ۚ إِنَّ َ َّللا لَ يُ ْخلِفُ ا ْل ِمي َعا َد‬
‘Had it been possible for a Lecture to cause the mountains to move, or the earth
to be torn asunder, or the dead to speak, (this Qur’an would have done so). Nay,
but Allah’s is the whole command. Do not those who believe know that, had
Allah willed, He could have guided all mankind? As for those who disbelieve,
disaster ceaseth not to strike them because of what they do, or it dwelleth near
their home until the threat of Allah come to pass. Lo! Allah faileth not to keep
the tryst’. (Pickthall, 2001, p. 106)
‘If only a Koran whereby the mountains were set in motion, or the earth were
cleft, or the dead were spoken to—nay, but God’s is the affair altogether. Did
not the believers know that, if God had willed, He would have guided men all
together? And still the unbelievers are smitten by a shattering for what they
wrought, or it alights nigh their habitation, until God’s promise comes; and God
will not fail the tryst’. (Arberry, 1982, p. 151)

In the ST, the result clause is ellipted to create impressive effect on readers, and
this is recurrent in the Holy Quran. However, as seen in the translations above,
this ellipted meaning could not be conveyed in translation (Al-Azab & Al-Misned,
2012). Even though Pickthall intervened by adding an extra clause to clarify the
ellipted clause, the translation could not completely convey the meaning. Arabic
native speakers understand that there is an ellipted clause; nonetheless, they have
a clear understanding of the meaning. English translations fail to reflect the same
elliptical structure.
Another example of ellipsis that is lost in translation, as provided by Ali et al.
(2012), is the translation of the following ayah (82) from Surah Yusuf, which
reads:

Example

َ َ‫سأ َ ِل ا ْلقَ ْريَةَ الَّتِي ُكنَّا فِي َها َوا ْل ِعي َر الَّتِي أَ ْقبَ ْلنَا فِي َها ۖ َوإِنَّا ل‬
(82:12) َ‫صا ِدقُون‬ ْ ‫َوا‬
‘Ask at the town where we have been and the caravan in which we returned,
and (you will find) we are indeed telling the truth’. (Ali, 2006, p. 153)

In the Quranic text, there is a metonymy that includes ellipsis; however, the trans-
lator sought to add ‘at’, which is not in the ST, to clarify the meaning. The ayah
shows loss in the translation of the ellipsis. In sum, rhetorical meaning is some-
times lost in translation due to a translator’s inability to find the equivalent lexi-
cal item in the TL, or because of the syntactic structure of the SL. Differences in

[email protected]
116 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

culture make it more difficult for translation to retain the same rhetorical devices
that exist in the TL.
Another feature of the Holy Quran is that names are rarely stated, with the
exception of names of prophets and some angels; this is so as to reflect the general
effect and the universality of its message. The Quranic text, no doubt, is rich with
metaphors, shifts, foregrounding, metonymy, simile, repetition, ellipsis, al-saj’,
puns and so forth (Jaber, 2010). Jaber gives an example of how translators face
difficulty in translating the Quranic images. Consider the following translation of
ayah 2 in Surah Al Baqarah:

Example

ْ ُ‫ص ْينَا َوأ‬

‫ش ِربُوا فِي‬ َ ‫س َم ُعوا ۖ قَالُوا‬
َ ‫س ِم ْعنَا َو َع‬ ُّ ‫َوإِ ْذ أَ َخ ْذنَا ِميثَاقَ ُك ْم َو َرفَ ْعنَا فَ ْوقَ ُك ُم ال‬
ْ ‫طو َر ُخ ُذوا َما آتَ ْينَا ُكم بِقُ َّو ٍة َوا‬
(92:2) َ‫س َما يَأْ ُم ُر ُكم بِ ِه إِي َمانُ ُك ْم إِن ُكنتُم ُّمؤْ ِمنِين‬ َ ‫قُلُوبِ ِه ُم ا ْل ِع ْج َل بِ ُك ْف ِر ِه ْم ۚ قُ ْل بِ ْئ‬
‘And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (the towering
height) of Mount (Sinai): (Saying): “Hold firmly to what We have given you,
and hearken (to the Law)”: They said: “We hear, and we disobey:” And they
had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of their Faith-
lessness. Say: “Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!”’.
(Ali, 1968, p. 15)
‘Hold fast by that which We have given you, and hear (Our Word), they said:
“We hear and we rebel.” And (worship of) the calf was made to sink into their
hearts because of their rejection (of the covenant). Say (unto them): “Evil is
that which your belief enjoineth on you, if ye are believers”’. (Pickthall, 2001,
p. 20)
‘And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you:
Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said:
“We hear and disobey.” And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf
into their hearts on account of their unbelief. Say: “Evil is that which your
belief bids you if you are believers”’. (Al-Bayt, 2008, p. 3)

As seen in the above translations, the Quranic word ‫ َوأُ ْشربوا‬was translated as
‘drink’ by Ali; as ‘sink’ by Pickthall; and ‘imbibe’ by Ahl-ul-bait. According to
Jaber (2010), the most accurate rendition is that of Ahl-ul-bait. She assumes that
‘imbibe’ means ‘to absorb or to receive into the mind’, which is the closest to the
ST. It seems that being among native speakers of the Arabic language, linguists,
and teamwork helped Ahl-ul-Bait to give better translations, as Jaber states.
Another example that was provided by Jaber is the translation of the Quranic word
‫‘ شعائر‬/sha’aer/in the following ayah:

[email protected]
4.5  Problems in Translation of Rhetorical Devices 117

Example

ِ ‫ظ ْم َش َعائِ َر الله ِه فَإِنههَا ِمن تَ ْق َوى ْالقُلُو‬

(22:32) ‫ب‬ ِّ ‫ك َو َمن يُ َع‬
َ ِ‫َذل‬
‘Such (is the Pilgrimage): whoever honors the sacred rites of Allah, for him it is
good in the Sight of his Lord’. (Ali, 1968, p. 224)
‘That (is the command). And whoso magnifieth the offerings consecrated to
Allah, it surely is from devotion of the hearts’. (Pickthall, 2001, p. 138)
‘That (shall be so); and whoever respects the signs of Allah, this surely is (the
outcome) of the piety of hearts’. (Shakir, 1999, p. 157)

As seen in these examples, Ali translated the Quranic word ‫ َش َعائِر‬as ‘sacred rites’,
Pickthall translated it as ‘the offerings’ and Shakir translated it as ‘the signs’.
According to Jaber, the most accurate translation is that of Shakir. Having dis-
cussed how rhetorical devices are challenging in translation, certain coping strate-
gies can be suggested: literal translation, modulation, free translation or functional
equivalent-based translation, and ideational equivalence-based translation.

1. Literal translation: This can be useful when the ST and TT rhetorical devices
are similar. Baker (2011), in her discussion on idioms, suggested that literal
translation can be a helpful strategy in translation. An example of this is pro-
vided by scientific journal of Faculty of Education, Misurata University, Libya,
in an English advertisement that reads ‘Lipton tea can do that’ promoting Lipton
tea as a means of relaxation that can help to solve complex brainteasers. It was
translated literally as ‫شاي ليبتون يقدر على كده‬. Although the translation is literal, it
conveyed the ST meaning and the rhetorical impact of the ST. Literal translation
can be a useful strategy in translating certain rhetorical devices but not all of
them. Some culturally bound terms may need alternative translation strategies.
2. Modulation: This is a useful strategy in translating culturally bound rhetorical
devices. One example that was given by the scientific journal of the Faculty of
Education, Misurata University, Libya, is the English advertisement ‘add life to
life’, which is an advertisement for a telecom company in the United Arab
Emirates. It is a pun that is difficult to render. However, the translator was able
to render the ST advertisement as ‫و تحيا بها الحياة‬. He used modulation, which was
a successful strategy with which to render the ST rhetorical device, retaining
the same effect in the TL.
3. Free translation or functional equivalent-based translation: Sometimes it
is difficult to use modulation or literal translation to render certain rhetorical
devices, which leaves a translator no option but to attempt to convey the func-
tion of the rhetorical device.
4. Ideational equivalence-based translation: This can be the last resort for a
translator and involves conveying the idea but omitting the rhetorical features.

[email protected]
118 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

Exercise

Translate the following sentences. Then, explain the strategies employed in

translating the figures of speech in the sentences.
1. ‘Her tears were a river flowing down her cheeks.’
2. ‘The boy stalked his brother before finally pouncing on his prey.’
3. ‘The wind was a howling wolf.’
4. ‘My teacher is a dragon.’
5. ‘My friend is a chicken.’
6. ‘Scholars are shining stars.’
7. ‘The sky is crying.’
8. ‘The noise gave me a headache.’
9. ‘The sun was smiling in the sky.’
10. ‘I am all ears.’
11. ‘This step is the beginning of the end.’
12. ‘The clap of thunder went bang and scared my poor dog.’
13. ‘That kitchen knife will take a bite out of your hand if you don’t handle it
safely.’
14. ‘Ahmed was as white as a sheet after he walked out of the horror movie.’

References
Abdelwali, M. (2007). The loss in the translation of the Qur’an [Electronic version]. The Trans-
lation Journal, 11(2), 120–125. Retrieved from http://www.accurapid.com/journal/40quran.
htm.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2004). The Quran: Limits of translatability. In S. Faiq (Ed.), Cultural encoun-
ters in translation from Arabic. Frankfurt Lodge: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2005). Pragmalinguistic forms in cross-cultural communication: Contributions
from Qur’an translation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 4, 115–130.
Abedelrazq, Y. I. (2014). Problems of translating homonymy in the glorious Quran: A compara-
tive analytical study (Unpublished thesis).
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-Bayt, R. A. (2008). The Qur’an: A new English translation of its meanings. Amman: Royal
Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought.
Al-Ghazali, M. F. (2010). Lexical gaps in Arabic -to-English translation. Al-Mustansiriya Jour-
nal of Arts, 1(52), 1–16.
Ali, A., Brakhw, M. A., Bin Nordin, M. Z. F., & ShaikIsmail, S. F. (2012). Some linguistic dif-
ficulties in translating the Holy Quran from Arabic into English. International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 588–590. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.178.
Ali, A., Brakhw, M. A., & Zarirruddin, M. (2014). Transferring polysemic words from Arabic
into English: A comparative study of some samples from the Holy Quran. Australian Journal
of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(23), 38–43.
Ali, A. Y. (1968/2006). The Holy Qur’an, text, translation and commentary (Trans.). Beirut, Leb-
anon: Dar al Arabia.
Al-Munajjid, M. N. (1997). Attradef fi ALQuran al Kareem bayna Al Nazariyyah wa Att Atbeeq
[Synonyms in the Holy Quran from a theoretical and a practical perspective]. Beirut: Dar Al
Fikr Al Moaser.

[email protected]
References 119

AlQinai, J. (2012). Convergence and divergence in the interpretation of Quranic polysemy and
lexical recurrence. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 83–109.
Al-Qurtubi, M. S. (2004). Al JamAA liahkam al Qur’an (Tafsir Al Qurtubi). Cairo, Egypt: Dar
Al-Fikr.
Al Salem, M. N. (2014). The translation of metaphor from Arabic to English in selected poems of
Mahmoud Darwish with a focus on linguistic issues (Unpublished thesis). The University of
Leeds.
Al-Utbi, M. (2011). Translation of ‫ داك‬in the Quran as an instance of lexical gaps. Majallat Kul-
liatu Aladab, 1(98), 69–92.
Arberry, A. (1982). The Koran interpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asyuti, J. (2008). Muzhir fi Olum Allughah wannwa’aha [The science of language and its types]
(3rd ed.). Cairo: Dar Al-Turath.
Ayyash, J., Ahmad, S., & Abdullah, N. (2013). Models of alliteration derivation in the Quran.
International Journal of Islamic Thought, 3(June), 113–120.  http://journalarticle.ukm.
my/6417/1/11_Jamil_Ayyash_IJIT_Vol_3_Jun_2013.pdf.
Az-Zarkashi, M. B. E. (2006). Al Burhan fi Oloum Al Quran [The evidence in the Holy Quran
sciences]. Cairo: Dar al-Hadeeth.
Baker, M. (1992/2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London and New
York: Routledge.
Benfoughal, A. (2010). Students’ difficulties and strategies in translation: The case of third year
students (PhD thesis). University of Constantine, Algeria.
Bentivogli, L., & Pianta, E. (2000). Looking for lexical gaps. In Proceedings of the Ninth
EURALEX International Congress (pp. 1–6). Trento, Italy. Retrieved from http://dialnet.uniri-
oja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4616045.
Collins, H. (2006). CoBuild advanced learner’s English dictionary. Glasgow, Scotland: Harper-
Collins.
Conner, D. (1983). Understanding semantics. Exeter: Exeter University Press.
Cui, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Translation of rhetorical figures in the advertising discourse: A case
study. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language (IJSCL), 2(2), 57–67.
Darwish, A. (2010). Elements of translation. Melbourne: Writescope.
Daryabadi, A. (2007). The glorious Quran: Text translation and commentary. London: Islamic
Foundation.
Emara, S. (2014). Extraordinary vocabulary of the Qur’an and related translation problems.
International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 248–272. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i1.3309.
Emara, S. A. E. (2013). Extraordinary vocabulary of the Qur’an and related translation problems.
International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 248–272. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i1.3309.
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Ghazala, H. (2008). Translation as problems and solution. Beirut: Dar El-Ilm Lilmalayin.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ibn Ashour, M. (1984). Tafsir Attahrir Wattanwir [Liberation and enlightenment interpretation
book] (first). Tunis: Tunisian Publishing House.
Ilyas, A. I. (2013). Intra-textuality in translating some problematic Qur’anic verses. Arab World
English Journal, 2, 86–95.
Irving, T. (1985). The Noble Qur’an. Cedar Rapids: Iowa Publisher.
Jaber, I. (2010). Translating the genre of Quran: The challenge of translating the inimitable. Jour-
nal of College Education for Women, 21(4), 943–954.
Johnson, K. (2001). What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The handbook of
contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 439–479). https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405102537.2003
.00016.x.
Kabali, S. (2006). Semantics of metaphor : An overview of Majaz interpretation in the Holy
Qur’an (Unpublished PhD thesis). Islamic University, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://lib.
iium.edu.my/mom2/cm/content/view/view.

[email protected]
120 4  Lexical and Semantic Problems in Translation

Khalifa, M. (1989). The sublime Qur’an and orientalism (2nd ed.). Karachi: International Islamic
Publisher (Pvt.) Ltd.
Khorami, M. (2014). Eloquence of repetition in Quran and Arabic old poetry. Language Related
Research, 5(2), 90–110.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy
in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1006/
brln.2001.2518.
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2005). Processing homonymy and polysemy: Effects of
sentential context and time-course following unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language,
95(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.03.001.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. English Linguistics/Journal of the Eng-
lish Linguistic Society of Japan, 22(1), 205–231.
Lobner, S. (2002). Understanding semantics. Sonipat, India: Replika Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation: Text. Hertfordshire: Pearson Education Limited.
Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1982). The theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nugroho, A. B. (1999). Meaning and translation. Journal of English and Education, 2(3),
94–112.
Palmer, F. (1981). Semantics: A new outline. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pickthall, M. (2001). The meaning of the glorious Qur’an. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust.
Quinn, A. (1993). Figures of speech: 60 ways to turn a phrase. Utah: Gibbs Smith Publisher.
Rasekh, A. E., Dastjerdi, H., & Bassir, A. (2012). On homonymous expressions in the Qur’an: A
case study of the English translations of the term (fasad). The Journal of International Social
Research, 5(22), 136–148.
Sadiq, S. (2008). Some semantic, stylistic and cultural problems of translation with special refer-
ence to translating the glorious Qur ’ ân. Sayyab Translation Journal, 1(1), 37–59.
Said Ghazala, H. (2012). Translating the metaphor: A cognitive stylistic conceptualization (Eng-
lish – Arabic). World Journal of English Language, 2(4), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.
v2n4p57.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shakir, M. (1999). The Holy Quran. New York: Tahrike Tarsile Quran.
Shehab, E. (2009). The Problems involved in translating Arabic cognitive synonyms into English.
Majallat Al-Jaam ’Ah Al-Islamiyyah, 17(1), 869–890.
Shunnaq, A. (1992). Functional repetition in Arabic realized through the use of word-strings with
reference to Arabic-English translation of political discourse. NouveltesDe La Fit-Newsletter,
2(1), 5–39.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical
ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 120–136.
Stanojević, M. (2009). Cognitive synonymy: A general overview. Facta Universitatis–Linguistics
and Literature, 7(2), 193–200.
Xu, X. (2008). The rhetoric and translation of English advertisement. International Journal of
Business and Management, 3(11), 83–86.
Zaky, M. M. (2001). Translation and language varieties. The Translation Journal, 5(3). Retrieved
from http://translationjournal.net/journal/17theory.htm.

[email protected]
Culture as a Problem in Translation
5

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 indi-

cate 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 cul-
ture 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 catego-
ries of relatedness between language and culture: the first category is when the
distance between the source and receptor codes is limited linguistically and cultur-
ally, 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 121

N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_5

[email protected]
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 reli-
gious 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 transla-
tion. This gap could be grammatical, lexical, or linguistic. Differences between lan-
guages 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’. Accord-
ing to Ordudari (2007), translating culturally bound elements in general, and allu-
sions 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.

5.1 Culturally 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). Fur-
thermore, when the SLs and TLs belong to different cultural groups, it is truly diffi-
cult 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 Eng-
lish. They are culturally bound terms (Bahameed as cite in Al-Haj, 2014). ‘Cultur-
ally bound’ is a broad term that includes a wide range of expressions such as idioms,

[email protected]
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 specific-
ity. 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 (Abdul-
Raof, 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 (per-
haps 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 peri-
phrastic translation simultaneously. In short, some culture-bound terms can be trans-
lated 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 ‘para-
phrasing’, ‘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

5.2 Idioms and Fixed Expressions as a Problem

in Translation

Idioms—culture-bound expressions—do not function as single units, compris-

ing 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

[email protected]
124 5  Culture as a Problem in Translation

functions as a single unit and whose meaning cannot be worked out from its sep-
arate 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 mean-
ing 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 individ-
ual 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 idi-
oms: 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 expres-
sions that are a product of an ‘ad hoc’ situation, or serve certain purposes. Seman-
tic 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 idi-
oms. 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

[email protected]
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 ana-
lysed through the use of various strategies of discourse by the translator (Razmjou,
2004). Aldahesh (2017) argues that the semantic, syntactic and pragmatic com-
plexities 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 per-
ceiving 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; rob-
ins 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 spe-
cific 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 mean-
ing from the literal meaning of the words. A case in point is the idiomatic expres-
sion ‘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

[email protected]
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 ‘check-
ing 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: yas-
hab rijluh. (This means quite literally ‘pull his leg’) However, the Arabic and Eng-
lish idioms have different meanings. The English idiom means to tease somebody
by misinforming them, and then tell the truth. It means ‘to deceive someone play-
fully’; 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 cir-
cumstance 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, knowl-
edge 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 connota-
tions 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

[email protected]
5.2  Idioms and Fixed Expressions … 127

poke your nose into something’ is not represented at either the literal or idio-
matic 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 acci-
dent. 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 mean-
ing 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 transla-
tion 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 read-
ing 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.

[email protected]
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 fea-
tures 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.’

5.3 Collocations

Collocations are sometimes culturally bound, as they do not apply to all lan-
guages. Baker (2011, p. 14) defines collocations as ‘semantically arbitrary restric-
tions 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’ collo-
cates with ‘catch’, ‘miss’, ‘ticket’, ‘by’, ‘on’. So, these restrictions are arbitrary.

[email protected]
5.3 Collocations 129

Table 5.1  The collocations Arabic

English
of ‘bend’
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 collo-
cation, 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 colloca-
tion 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 transla-
tion 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 col-
location and the TL collocation are similar in form but not in meaning. Baker
(2011) gives the following example:

Example

 he industrialist had been struck by his appearance as someone with

ST:  T
modest means.
TT:  ‫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’).

[email protected]
130 5  Culture as a Problem in Translation

3. The tension between accuracy and naturalness

Tension is created when a translator is forced to prioritize either accuracy or natu-
ralness. 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 trans-
lated 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.

5.4 Strategies to Translate Culturally Bound Terms

Venuti (1995) argues that translating culture can be approached from two perspec-
tives: one view holds that the source culture should be preserved in the TT by fol-
lowing 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

[email protected]
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 pre-
served all the elements of the ST. However, if we wished to translate it into a cultur-
ally 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:  H
 old 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: cre-
ating 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 dis-
cussed 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 borrow-
ing, 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.

[email protected]
132 5  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, transliter-
ating 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’

[email protected]
5.5  Pym’s Typology of Translation Solutions 133

5.5 Pym’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 trans-

ference; 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 dis-
tribute the information across a greater textual space. These strategies may be
explicitation or one-to-many translation. In other words, one word that is lex-
ically 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 Copying words Copying sounds
Copying morphology
Copying script
Copying structure Copying prosodic features
Copying fixed phrases
Copying text structure
Expression change 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
Material change Text tailoring Correction/censorship/updating
Omission of material
Addition of material

[email protected]
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 mark-
edly 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 gram-
matical or semantic levels.

For pedagogical purposes, Pym condensed this typology into three catego-
ries: copying, expression change and material change: these are summarized in
Table 5.2.

5.6 Conclusion

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, how-
ever, 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 encoun-
ters in translation from arabic. Frankfurt Lodge: Multilingual Matters.
Aldahesh, A. Y. (2017). On idiomaticity in English and Arabic: A cross—linguistic study. Jour-
nal 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 Uni-
versity 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 prob-
lems. Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research, 1(2), 1–14.

[email protected]
References 135

Al-Shawi, M. A. (2012). Strategies for translating idioms from Arabic and vice versa. Journal of
American Arabic Academy for Sciences and Technology, 3(6), 139–147.
Baker, M. (1992/2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London and New
York: Routledge.
Delisle, J. (1988). Translation: An interpretive approach. Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Fernando, C. (1996). Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1993). What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language 31, 485–
506.
Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, J. C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose:
Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576–593. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90014-4.
Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idiom meanings and allusional content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi
(Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Haque, M. Z. (2012). Translating literary prose: Problems and solutions. International Journal of
English Linguistics, 2(6), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n6p97.
Harvey, M. (2000). A beginner’s course in legal translation: The case of culture-bound terms.
ASTTI/ETI, 2(24), 357–369.
Katan, D. (1993). The English Translation of 1 l Nome della Rosa and the Cultural Filter,
Umberto Eco, Claudio Magris: Autori e Traduttori a Confronto. In L. Avirovic & J. Dodds
(Eds.), Campanotto Editore, Udine, pp. 149–165.
Mäntylä, K. (2004). Idioms and language users: The effect of the characteristics of idioms on
their recognition and interpretation by native and nonnative speakers of English. Disser-
tation Abstracts International, C: Worldwide. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/85637231?accountid=8330%5Cnhttp://library.anu.edu.au:4550/resserv?gen-
re=dissertations+&+theses&issn=&title=Idioms+and+Language+Users:+The+Ef-
fect+of+the+Characteristics+of+Idioms+on+Their+Recognition+and+Interpretation+by+N.
Mares, R. (2012). Cultural difficulties in translations from English into Arabic. Analele Univer-
sitatii Crestine Dimitrie Cantemir, Seria Stiintele Limbii, Literaturii Si Didactica Predarii,
1(33), 1–7.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Hertfordshire: Pearson Education Limited.
Nida, E. (2000). Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies readers
(pp. 126–140). London and New York: Routledge (First published in 1964, Leiden, Holland:
E.J. Brill).
Ordudari, M. (2007). Translation procedures, strategies and methods. Translation Journal, 3(5),
781–789.
Pym, A. (2018). A typology of translation solutions. Journal of Specialized Translation, 30,
41–65.
Razmjou, L. (2004). To be a good translator. Translation Journal, 8(2). Retrieved from https://
translationjournalnet/journal/28eduhtm.
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied lin-
guistics. London: Longman Publishing Group.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cul-
tures. London and New York: Continuum.
Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203360064.
Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/2004). A methodology for translation (trans.) by J. C. Sager
and M.-J. Hamel. In L. Venuti (ed.) (2004) The translation studies reader (pp. 128–37). Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.

[email protected]
Bibliography

Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. A. (2004). The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc.
Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. A. (2005). The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abdelwali, M. (2007). The loss in the translation of the Qur’an [Electronic version]. The Transla-
tion Journal, 11(2), 120–125. Retrieved from http://www.accurapid.com/journal/40quran.htm.
Abdul Aziz, M. M. (2008). The translation of some rhetorical devices in Al-Fātiha Sūra into Eng-
lish. Adab Al-Rafidayn, 51(2), 41–70.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2004). The Quran: Limits of translatability. In S. Faiq (Ed.), Cultural encoun-
ters in translation from Arabic. Frankfurt Lodge: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2005). Pragmalinguistic forms in cross-cultural communication: Contributions
from Qur’an translation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 14(4), 115–130.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2010). Qur’an Translation, discourse, texture and exegesis. London and New
York: Routledge.
Abedelrazq, Y. I. (2014). Problems of translating homonymy in the glorious Quran: A compara-
tive analytical study (Unpublished thesis).
Abu Musa, M. (1987). Characteristics of structures: Analytical study for issues in semantics.
Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah.
Ad-Darwish, M. (1992). IAArab Al Quran (Parsing of the Holy Quran). Hams: Al Yamamah
Publishing House.
Ahmed, M. F. (2006). Investigating some semantic problems in the translation of the Holy
Quran. Adab Al-Rafidayn, 2(43), 61–72.
Ahmed, M. F. (2008). Approaches to denotative and connotative meanings in the translations of
the Holy Quran. Adab Al-Rafidayn, 2(50), 1–30.
AL-Alawi, Y. (1982). The secrets of rhetorics. Cairo: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Alamyah.
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-Bayt, R. A. (2008). The Qur’an: A new English translation of its meanings. Amman: Royal
Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought.
Aldahesh, A. Y. (2017). On idiomaticity in English and Arabic: A cross—linguistic study. Jour-
nal of Language and Culture, 4(2), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.5897/JLC2013.0220.
Al-Ghazali, M. F. (2010). Lexical gaps in Arabic -to-English translation. Al-Mustansiriya Jour-
nal of Arts, 1(52), 1–16.
Al-Ghazalli, M. F. (2012). A study of the English translations of the Qur’anic verb phrase: The
derivatives of the triliteral. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 605–612. https://
doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.605-612.
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 prob-
lems. Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research, 1(2), 1–14.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 137

N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3

[email protected]
138 Bibliography

Ali, A., Brakhw, M. A., Bin Nordin, M. Z. F., & ShaikIsmail, S. F. (2012). Some linguistic dif-
ficulties in translating the Holy Quran from Arabic into English. International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 588–590. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.178.
Ali, A., Brakhw, M. A., & Zarirruddin, M. (2014). Transferring polysemic words from Arabic
into English: A comparative study of some samples from the Holy Quran. Australian Journal
of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(23), 38–43.
Ali, A. Y. (1968/2006). The Holy Qur’an, text, translation and commentary (Trans.). Beirut, Leb-
anon: Dar al Arabia.
Almubark, A. A., Manan, D. A., & Al-Zubaid, K. (2014). The hindrances in translating specific
cultural concepts from Arabic into English. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
19(3), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-1932166173.
Al-Munajjid, M. N. (1997). Attradef fi ALQuran al Kareem bayna Al Nazariyyah wa Att Atbeeq
[Synonyms in the Holy Quran from a theoretical and a practical perspective]. Beirut: Dar Al
Fikr Al Moaser.
Al-Najjar, M. F. (1984). Translation as a correlative of meaning (Unpublished PhD thesis).
Bloomington: Indiana University.
AlQinai, J. (2012). Convergence and divergence in the interpretation of Quranic polysemy and
lexical recurrence. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 83–109.
Al-Qurtubi, M. S. (2004). Al JamAA liahkam al Qur’an (Tafsir Al Qurtubi). Cairo, Egypt: Dar
Al-Fikr.
Al Salem, M. N. (2014). The translation of metaphor from Arabic to English in selected poems
of Mahmoud Darwish with a focus on linguistic issues (Unpublished thesis). The University
of Leeds.
Alshaje’a, H. (2014). Issues in translating collocations of the Holy Qur’an. Language in India,
14(8), 49–65.
Al-Shawi, M. A. (2012). Strategies for translating idioms from Arabic and vice versa. Journal of
American Arabic Academy for Sciences and Technology, 3(6), 139–147.
Al Sughair, Y. (2011). The translation of lexical collocations in literary texts. Sharjah: The Amer-
ican University of Sharjah.
Al-Utbi, M. (2011). Translation of ‫ داك‬in the Quran as an instance of lexical gaps. Majallat Kul-
liatu Aladab, 1(98), 69–92.
Al-Zamakhshari, A. A.-Q. (2000). Al Kashshaf AAn haqaiq ghawamed attanzeel [The revealer of
facts of obscure revelations]. Cairo, Egypt: Arabic Publishing House.
Arberry, A. (1982). The Koran interpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
As-Safi, A. B. (2011). Translation theories: Strategies and basic theoretical issues. Amman: Dar
Amwaj.
Asyuti, J. (2008). Muzhir fi Olum Allughah wannwa’aha [The science of language and its types]
(3rd ed.). Cairo: Dar Al-Turath.
Ayyash, J., Ahmad, S., & Abdullah, N. (2013). Models of alliteration derivation in the Quran.
International Journal of Islamic Thought, 3(June), 113–120.  http://journalarticle.ukm.
my/6417/1/11_Jamil_Ayyash_IJIT_Vol_3_Jun_2013.pdf.
Az-Zarkashi, M. B. E. (2006). Al Burhan fi Oloum Al Quran [The evidence in the Holy Quran
sciences]. Cairo: Dar al-Hadeeth.
Baker, M. (1992/2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London and New
York: Routledge.
Baker, M. (2004). The status of equivalence in translation studies: An appraisal. In Z. Yang (Ed.),
English-Chinese comparative study and translation (p. 1). Shanghai: Foreign Languages
Education Press.
Bassnett, S. (2005). Translation studies. Vasa (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis
e-Library).
Beekman, J., & Callow, J. (1974). Translating the word of god: With scriptures and topical
indexes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London and New York:
Longman.

[email protected]
Bibliography 139

Benfoughal, A. (2010). Students’ difficulties and strategies in translation: The case of third year
students (PhD thesis). University of Constantine, Algeria.
Bentivogli, L., & Pianta, E. (2000). Looking for lexical gaps. In Proceedings of the Ninth
EURALEX International Congress (pp. 1–6). Trento, Italy. Retrieved from http://dialnet.
unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4616045.
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3),
355–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6.
Cambridge University Press. (2008). Cambridge online dictionary. Retrieved at April 23, 2008,
from the website temoa: Open Educational Resources (OER) Portal at http://www.temoa.
info/node/324.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: Language and language learning (1st
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. (2001). Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath. The Translator, 7(2), 139–154.
Chesterman, A. (2012). Catford revisited. In Shall we play the festschrift game? (pp. 25–33).
Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30773-7.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Recent contributions to the theory of innate ideas: Summary of oral pres-
entation. In J. Searle (Ed.), Philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collins COBUILD English Grammar. (2005). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Collins, H. (2006). CoBuild advanced learner’s English dictionary. Glasgow, Scotland: Harper-
Collins.
Conner, D. (1983). Understanding semantics. Exeter: Exeter University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (1997). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cui, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Translation of rhetorical figures in the advertising discourse: A case
study. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language (IJSCL), 2(2), 57–67.
Darwish, A. (2010). Elements of translation. Melbourne: Writescope.
Daryabadi, A. (2007). The glorious Quran: Text translation and commentary. London: Islamic
Foundation.
Delisle, J. (1984). L’Analyse du Discours comme Methode de Traduction. (Theorie et pratique)
Initiation i la traduction francaise des textes pragmatiques anglaisn (Model for Transla-
tion-Oriented Text. Analysis). Editions de l’Unuversite d'Ottawa.
Delisle, J. (1988). Translation: An interpretive approach. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of
Ottawa Press.
Dickens, J., Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (2005). Thinking Arabic translation: A course in transla-
tion method—Arabic to English. London: Routledge.
Dweik, B., & Abu Shakra, M. (2010). Strategies in translating collocations in religious texts from
Arabic into English. Atlas Global Journal for Studies and Research, 5(1), 5–41.
Emara, S. (2014). Extraordinary vocabulary of the Qur’an and related translation problems.
International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 248–272. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i1.3309.
Emara, S. A. E. (2013). Extraordinary vocabulary of the Qur’an and related translation problems.
International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 248–272. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i1.3309.
Even-Zohar, I. (1979). Polysystem theory. Poetic Today, 1(1978), 1–2.
Even-Zohar, I. (1997). Itamar Even-Zohar: Polysystem studies 1990. International Journal for
Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication, 11(1), 88.
Even-Zohar, I. (2000). The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem. In L.
Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 192–197). London: Routledge.
Fernando, C. 1996. Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Translation:
Literary, linguistic, and philosophical perspectives. London and Toronto: Associated Univer-
sity Presses.
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary translation theories. London and New York: Routledge.
Ghali, M. (2005). Towards understanding the ever–glorious Qur’an. Cairo: Dar An–Nashr Lil-
jami.
Ghazala, H. (2008). Translation as problems and solution. Beirut: Dar El-Ilm Lilmalayin.

[email protected]
140 Bibliography

Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1993). What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language 31, 485–
506.
Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, J. C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose:
Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576–593. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90014-4.
Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idiom meanings and allusional content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi
(Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Guillaume, A. (1990). Islam. London: Penguin Books.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language
of William Golding’s The inheritors. In S. B. Chatman (Ed.), Literary style: A symposium
(pp. 330–365). London and New York: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1972/1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). Language theory and translation practice. Rivista Internazionale Di
Tecnica Della Traduzione, 1(1), 15–25.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). Towards a theory of good translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.),
Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content (pp. 13–18). Berlin
and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and education. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Publishing
House.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional
grammar (4th ed.). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis e-Library). https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203431269.
Halliday, M. A. K., Macintosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1965). The linguistic sciences and language
teaching. London: Longman Publishing House.
Haque, M. Z. (2012). Translating literary prose: Problems and solutions. International Journal of
English Linguistics, 2(6), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n6p97.
Harvey, K. (1995). A descriptive framework for compensation. The Translator, 1(1), 56–86.
Harvey, M. (2000). A beginner’s course in legal translation: The case of culture-bound terms.
ASTTI/ETI, 2(24), 357–369.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1993). The discourse and the translator (4th ed.). London and New
York: Longman Inc.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (2005). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. London and New
York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis e-Library).
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking translation: A course in translation method—
French-English. New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).
Hodges, P. (2009). Compare and contrast two theoretical approaches to translation in Zainur-
rahman. The theories of translation from history to procedures. Language and Education.
Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enandq=De+Waard+NidaandbtnG=
Searchandas_ylo=andas_vis=0#8.
Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984). Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Academiae
Scientarum Fennicae.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
House, J. (2001, January). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description ver-
sus social evaluation. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 46(2), 243–257. https://doi.
org/10.7202/003141ar.
House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. In Translation: A multidisci-
plinary approach (pp. 241–264). London and Chicago: Palgrave Macmillan.

[email protected]
Bibliography 141

Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B. (2014). Semantics: A coursebook. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ibn Ashour, M. (1984). Tafsir Attahrir Wattanwir [Liberation and enlightenment interpretation
book] (first). Tunis: Tunisian Publishing House.
Ilyas, A. I. (2013). Intra-textuality in translating some problematic Qur’anic verses. Arab World
English Journal, 2(Special Issue on Translation), 86–95.
Irving, T. (1985). The Noble Qur’an. Cedar Rapids: Iowa Publisher.
Irving, T. (1988). The Noble Qur’an. Cedar Rapids: Iowa Publisher.
Jaber, I. (2010). Translating the genre of Quran: The challenge of translating the inimitable. Jour-
nal of College Education for Women, 21(4), 943–954.
Jakobson, R. (1959/1966/2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On
translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, K. (2001). What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The handbook of
contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 439–479). https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405102537.200
3.00016.x.
Kabali, S. (2006). Semantics of metaphor: An overview of MAJAZ interpretation in the Holy
Qur’an (Unpublished PhD thesis). Islamic University, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://lib.
iium.edu.my/mom2/cm/content/view/view.
Kalakattawi, F. A. (2005). Lexical relation with reference to polysemy in translation (Unpub-
lished paper). College of Education, Jadda, Saudi Arabia.
Katan, D. (1993). The English translation of 1l Nome della Rosa and the Cultural Filter. In L.
Avirovic & J. Dodds (Eds.), Umberto Eco, Claudio Magris: Autori e Traduttori a Confronto
(pp. 149–165). Udine: Campanotto Editore.
Kehal, M. (2010). Problems in English Arabic translation of reference pragmatic aspects
(Unpublished MA thesis). Mentori University- Constontine, Algeria. Retrieved from http://
bu.umc.edu.dz/theses/anglais/KEH1119.pdf.
Kenny, D. (1998). Equivalence. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of translation stud-
ies. London and New York: Routledge.
Khalifa, M. (1989). The sublime Qur’an and orientalism (2nd ed.). Karachi: International Islamic
Publisher (Pvt.) Ltd.
Khan, M. M., & Al-Hilali, T. U. (1996). Interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’an.
Riyadh: Maktaba Dar-us-Salam.
Khorami, M. (2014). Eloquence of repetition in Quran and Arabic old poetry. Language Related
Research, 5(2), 90–110.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy
in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1006/
brln.2001.2518.
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2005). Processing homonymy and polysemy: Effects of sen-
tential context and time-course following unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language,
95(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.03.001.
Koller, W. (1976/1979). Einführung die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle and
Meyer.
Koller, W. (1989). Equivalence in translation theory. In A. Chesterman (Ed. and Trans.), Read-
ings in translation theory (pp. 99–104). Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target, 7(2),
191–222.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. English Linguistics/Journal of the Eng-
lish Linguistic Society of Japan, 22(1), 205–231.
Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based-translation. Oxford: University Press of American Inc.
Leuven-Zwart, K. V. (1989). Translation and originals: Similarities and dissimilarities I. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Levý, J. (1967). Translation as a decision process. In L. Venuti (Ed.), To honour Roman Jakobson
on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Vol. 2, pp. 1171–1182). The Hague: Mouton.
Levy, J. (1976). Translating as a decision process. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies
reader (pp. 148–189). London: Routledge.

[email protected]
142 Bibliography

Lobner, S. (2002). Understanding semantics. Sonipat, India: Replika Press.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Manfredi, M. (2008). Translating text and context: Translation studies and systemic functional
linguistics (Vol. 1) Translation theory (2nd ed., p. 97). Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguis-
tico-Culturali (CeSLiC). https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/2441. In: Quaderni del
CeSLiC. Functional Grammar Studies for Non-Native Speakers of English.
Manfredi, M. (2014). Translating text and context: Translation studies and systemic functional
linguistics. Volume 2: From theory to practice (p. 158). Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguis-
tico-Culturali (CeSLiC). https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/3219. In: Quaderni del
CeSLiC. Functional Grammar Studies for Non-Native Speakers of English.
Mäntylä, K. (2004). Idioms and language users: The effect of the characteristics of idioms on
their recognition and interpretation by native and nonnative speakers of English. Disser-
tation Abstracts International, C: Worldwide. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/85637231?accountid=8330%5Cnhttp://library.anu.edu.au:4550/resserv?gen-
re=dissertations+&+theses&issn=&title=Idioms+and+Language+Users:+The+Ef-
fect+of+the+Characteristics+of+Idioms+on+Their+Recognition+and+Interpretation+by+N.
Mares, R. (2012). Cultural difficulties in translations from English into Arabic. Analele Univer-
sitatii Crestine Dimitrie Cantemir, Seria Stiintele Limbii, Literaturii Si Didactica Predarii,
1(33), 1–7.
Mishra, P. (2009, September). Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow etymological
analysis of the English language words. Language in India, 12, 63–75.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (2nd ed.). London
and New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge companion to translation studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation: Text. Hertfordshire: Pearson Education Limited.
Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Newmark, P. (1998). Approaches to translation. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. in Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge companion to translation studies. London and
New York: Routledge.
Ni, L. (2009). For translation and theories. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 78–83.
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and proce-
dures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. (2000). Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies readers
(pp. 126–140). London and New York: Routledge (first published in 1964).
Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1982). The theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. A. (1959/1975). Principles of translating as exemplified by Bible translating. In A. S.
Dil (Ed.), Language structure and thought: Essays by Eugene A. Nida. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Nida, E. A. (1994). Translation: Possible and impossible. Turjuman: revue de traduction et d'in-
terprétation=Journal of Translation Studies, 3(2), 147–163.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E.J.Brill.
Nord, C. (1989). Loyalty instead of loyalty. Proposals for a functional translation typology. Liv-
ing Languages, 34(3), 100–105.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.
Nord, C. (2008). Persuading by addressing: A functional approach to speech-act comparison.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 26(2), 283–293.
Nugroho, A. B. (1999). Meaning and translation. Journal of English and Education, 2(3),
94–112.
Ogden, M., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. New York and London: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.

[email protected]
Bibliography 143

Ordudari, M. (2007). Translation procedures, strategies and methods. Translation Journal, 3(5),
781–789.
Palmer, F. (1981). Semantics: A new outline. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pickthall, M. (2001). The meaning of the glorious Qur’an. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust.
Panou, D. (2013). Equivalence in translation theories: A critical evaluation. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 3(1), 1–6.
Popovič, A. (1976). Dictionary for the analysis of literary translation Edmonton. Alberta:
Department of Comparative Literature, University of Alberta.
Pym, A. (2001). Introduction: The return to ethics in translation studies. The Translator, 7(2),
129–138.
Pym, A. (2004). The moving text: Localization, translation, and distribution. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (2018). A typology of translation solutions. Journal of Specialized Translation, 30,
41–65.
Quine, W. V. O. (1959). Translation and meaning. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Reprinted in L. Venuti (Ed.). (2000). The translation
studies reader (pp. 94–112). London: Routledge).
Quinn, A. (1993). Figures of speech: 60 ways to turn a phrase. Utah: Gibbs Smith Publisher.
Rasekh, A. E., Dastjerdi, H., & Bassir, A. (2012). On homonymous expressions in the Qur’an: A
case study of the English translations of the term (fasad). The Journal of International Social
Research, 5(22), 136–148.
Razmjou, L. (2004). To be a good translator. Translation Journal, 8(2). Retrieved from https://
translationjournalnet/journal/28eduhtm.
Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: M. Hueber
[Trans. E. F. Rhodes. (2000). Translation criticism: Potential and limitations]. Manchester:
St. Jerome and American Bible Society.
Reiss, K. (2004). Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision making in translation. In L.
Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 168–179). New York: Routledge.
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied lin-
guistics. London: Longman Publishing Group.
Sadiq, S. (2008). Some semantic, stylistic and cultural problems of translation with special refer-
ence to translating the glorious Qur’ân. Sayyab Translation Journal, 1(1), 37–59.
Sadiq, S. (2010). A comparative study of four English translations of Sûrat Ad-Dukhân on the
semantic level (1st ed.). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Said Ghazala, H. (2012). Translating the metaphor: A cognitive stylistic conceptualization (Eng-
lish – Arabic). World Journal of English Language, 2(4), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.
v2n4p57.
Sale, G. (1734). The Koran. London: Frederick Warne.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shakernia, S. (2014). Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and Newmark ’s
(semantic and communicative translation) translating theories on two short stories. Merit
Research Journal of Education and Review, 2(1), 1–7.
Shakir, M. (1999). The Holy Quran. New York: TahrikeTarsile Quran.
Sharifabad, E., Mahadi, T. S., & Kenevisi, M. S. (2012). Linguistic ambiguity in the Holy Qur’ān
and its English translations. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 352–362.
Shehab, E. (2009). The problems involved in translating Arabic cognitive synonyms into English.
Majallat Al-Jaam ’Ah Al-Islamiyyah, 17(1), 869–890.
Shunnaq, A. (1992). Functional repetition in Arabic realized through the use of word-strings with
reference to Arabic-English translation of political discourse. NouveltesDe La Fit-Newsletter,
2(1), 5–39.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical
ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 120–136.

[email protected]
144 Bibliography

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cul-
tures. London and New York: Continuum.
Stanojević, M. (2009). Cognitive synonymy: A general overview. Facta Universitatis—Linguis-
tics and Literature, 7(2), 193–200.
Steiner, G. (1975/1998). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press.
Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation (p. 159). Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for
Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.
Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203360064.
Venuti, L. (2000). Translation, community, Utopia. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies
reader (pp. 468–488). London: Routldge.
Venuti, L. (2004). The translation studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. (1986). Übersetzen als kultureller transfer. In M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.) (1990), Lin-
guistic transcoding or cultural transfer? A critique of translation theory in Germany (pp.79–
86). In S. Bassnett & A. Lefevere (Eds.).
Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/2004). A methodology for translation. In J. C. Sager & M.-J.
Hamel (Trans.) and L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 128–137). London
and New York: Routledge.
Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s speeches. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 1(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.254-261.
Wendland, E. R. (2012). Framing the frames: A theoretical framework for the cognitive notion of
“Frames of Reference.” Journal of Translation, 6(1), 27–50.
Whang, Y. C. (2004). To whom is a translator responsible—Author or reader? In S. E. Porter &
R. S. Hess (Eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems and prospects (pp. 46–62). New York:
Continuum and T&T Clark International.
Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilss, W. (1982). The science of translation: Problems and methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Wilss, W. (1996). Knowledge and skills in translator behaviour. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Xu, X. (2008). The rhetoric and translation of English advertisement. International Journal of
Business and Management, 3(11), 83–86.
Yinhua, X. (2011). Equivalence in translation: Features and necessity. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 1989–1991.
Zaky, M. M. (2001). Translation and language varieties. The Translation Journal, 5(3). Retrieved
from http://translationjournal.net/journal/17theory.htm.
Zhuanglin, H. (1988). A course of linguistics. Peking: Peking University Press.

[email protected]
Index

A
Aesthetic function, 27, 54 F
Appellative, 54 Fixed expressions, 121, 123
Audiomedial texts, 54, 61 Formal equivalence, 9, 22, 23, 51,
132
Form-based, 9, 34
B The Functional hierarchy of translation prob-
Baker, M., 9, 12, 44–46, 48–50, 69, 96, 97, lems, 57
101, 117, 124–130 Functions of texts, 27

C G
Catford, J.C., 1, 9, 12, 14, 26, 29, 30, 34, Gender, 6, 69, 84, 85
40–44, 63 Ghazala, H., 6, 69, 70, 109, 111
Chomsky, N., 11, 23 Grammatical category, 69, 86
The Cognitive approach, 9, 53 Grammatical problems, 69–70, 84
Collocations, 6, 27, 69, 95, 111, 123, 124,
128–130, 132
The Communicative stage, 10 H
Communicative translation, 26–28 Halliday, M.A.K., 1, 3–5, 9, 35–37, 39, 40,
Covert translation, 19–21, 33 50, 53
Culturally bound terms, 121, 122 Harvey, M., 29, 122, 131
Culture, 1, 3–6, 13, 19, 23, 61, 69, 97, 116, Homonymy, 95, 103, 104
121, 122, 130
Culture-specific collocations, 129, 130
I
Idioms, 123
D Informative function, 27
Darbelnet, J., 3, 9, 12, 13, 15–17, 22, 29, 30, Informative texts, 54
34, 97, 133, 134 Interlingual translation, 21
Delisle, J., 121 Intersemiotic translation, 22
Direct and oblique translation, 9, 12, 17 Intralingual translation, 21
Dynamic equivalence, 9, 22–23, 25, 26, 33, 45, 51 Invariance, 18, 51

E J
The Engrossing effect of source text pattern- Jakobson, R., 9, 12, 21, 22, 33, 34,
ing, 129 44
Expressive function, 27 Juliane House, 9, 18

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 145

N. Abdelaal, Translation between English and Arabic,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3

[email protected]
 146 Index

K Problem in translation, 69, 70, 84, 86, 87, 90, 123

Katan, D., 121 Pym, A., 60–62, 133, 134
Koller, W., 9, 12, 51

R
L Reiss, Katharina, 2, 3, 45, 51, 54, 59–61
Larson, M., 6, 9, 34, 35 Rhetorical devices, 95, 109
Levy, J., 2 The Role of the ST analysis, 57
Lexical ambiguity, 95, 102, 103
Lexical gaps, 95, 96
Linguistic stage, 10 S
Semantic field, 95, 96
Semantic translation, 26, 28, 33, 34, 91, 113
M Shifting, 69, 90
Malinowski, 121 Skopos, 9, 45, 59, 60
Manfredi, M., 3, 40, 53 Skopos theory, 9, 59
Marked collocations in the source text, 130 Steiner, George, 10, 11
Meaning-based, 9, 34 Strategies to translate culturally bound terms,
Metalingual function, 27 121, 130
Munday, J., 2, 3, 10, 12, 17, 22, 23, 34, 51, 56, Synonymy, 30, 95, 106
60, 61 Syntactic order, 69, 87

N T
Newmark, P., 3, 9–12, 26–28, 32–34, 70, 95, Tense, 6, 38, 40, 42, 50, 69, 70, 74, 77
97, 102, 103, 111, 121, 122 The Tension between accuracy and natural-
Nord, C., 55–59 ness, 130
Translation brief, 56–58, 60
Translation methods, 28
O Translation procedures, 13–15, 17, 20, 24,
Operative texts, 54 28, 32
Overt and covert translations, 9, 18 Translation unit, 1, 3–4
Overt translation, 19

V
P Van Leuven-Zwart, 9, 17, 18
Passivization, 69, 91 Venuti, L., 2, 12, 19, 23, 34, 63, 130
Phatic function, 27 Vermeer, Hans, 45, 56, 59, 60
Polysemy, 95, 103 Vinay, J.P., 3, 9, 12, 13, 15–17, 22, 29, 30, 34,
Polysystems, 9, 63–64 97, 133, 134
The PolySystems theory, 9 Vocative function, 27
Popovič, A., 9, 52

[email protected]
View publication stats