!   " #$$%& '(#$$)&
*   
    
+  ,     
  -
  &  &
  
    
    . - '
& 
  
     
    /  
0 1 )22)  -
&   3  1 )224 
     
 ( &       
    
         

-  &   5
   
     -


 
 


6 7(&8 


 
 9  9 
( 
&9#$

 
 
-' "( 
  : 
'



:'
-'
0--   

  

 
   9 
(: ' 
;
-

 
  


 !


 
 


    

  


 
 


    


  

 !"  


 




 

 

 
   

 
   
 

 


 
  

 

 
 




 ! 

 

"



 
# 

 

$  !%
 !

   
& 
$

'  

 
'  

($
 

' 

# %
 %
)   %
*  %
'  
  $


'
 

 

+ 
 


" %
 
 
 

&

'  !

#  




  
$,

 

( 

$



  

 
 
-
 
 
   
. 
 
   

 
 

 
 
  

 
  
 

  

 


 ! 

"-
 
 


 


 


(

  %
 

 



  


  


 


. 



 
 %

 %

 %
 
 %




$ 

  
 

 
$



$ -




 
 

 
 -

 






  

 

 


 


-
-

/

/
 
$$$   

0 

 

1"
1"#23.
" 
 







  


4&
)*
5
/
+)

  
 6
78%
99:::
& %
  

) -
2 

; 

*
 

&





 
 



/- 
<
7=:9
4&
)*
5
/
+)

"
3 
 

"
 

& 
7=:9
 IN THE NAME OF GOD
THE MERCIFUL BENEFICENT



 To My Daughter,
Brother, Mother, And Father;
All My Family Members



 Acknowledgements

My thanksgiving and adoration due to the Almighty,

Who admitted me to the garden of opportunity,
To accomplish well my duty,
To the best of my ability!
Then, my sincere gratitude,
To whom gave me fortitude,
Throughout all the venture,
On putting me ashore,
Dr. Abassian, my supervisor,
Who has equipped me with fertilizer!

Warm appreciation to Dr. Eftekhari, Akef, and Ameri,

For the clues and comments, and precious guidance extended to me!
Deep gratefulness to Dr. Khaki, Kariminia, and Manafi,
Who helped me select the corpus, collect the data for the study!



 Table of Contents

Dedication -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
Acknowledgements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Table of Content ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
List of Tables ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
List of Figures --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
List of Abbreviations ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Chapter One: Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------- 9

1.1 Background--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
1.2 Statement of the problem ---------------------------------------------------------- 11
1.3 Purpose of the study ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
1.4 Significance of the study ----------------------------------------------------------- 14
1.5 Research questions ----------------------------------------------------------------- 16
1.6 Research hypotheses --------------------------------------------------------------- 16
1.7 Theoretical framework -------------------------------------------------------------- 16
1.8 Limitations of the study ------------------------------------------------------------ 18
1.9 Delimitations of the study --------------------------------------------------------- 18
1.10 Definition of key terms ----------------------------------------------------------- 18

Chapter Two: Review of the Related Literature -------------------------------- 22

2.1 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
2.2Translation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
2.3Translation and equivalence -------------------------------------------------------- 25
2.3.1 Concept of equivalence ------------------------------------------------------- 25
2.3.2 Non-equivalence among languages ----------------------------------------- 29
2.4Translation problems ---------------------------------------------------------------- 30
2.5 Translation strategies --------------------------------------------------------------- 33
2.6 Translation shifts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
2.7Translation of lexis ------------------------------------------------------------------ 40
2.7.1 Unit of translation ------------------------------------------------------------- 40
2.7.2 Meaning and concepts -------------------------------------------------------- 41
2.7.3 Meaning and language comparison ----------------------------------------- 42
2.7.4 Universalism and relativism ------------------------------------------------- 43
2.7.5 Synonymy in translation ------------------------------------------------------ 45
2.7.6 A words meaning components ---------------------------------------------- 46
2.7.7 The generic-specific relations between words ----------------------------- 47
2.7.8 Class labels and semantic sets ----------------------------------------------- 48
2.7.9Meaning, sense, and collocations -------------------------------------------- 48
2.8 The Holy Quran --------------------------------------------------------------------- 49
2.8.1The Translation of the Holy Quran ------------------------------------------ 50
2.8.2 Divine Attributes in context -------------------------------------------------- 52



2.9 Gender and translation ------------------------------------------------------------- 55
2.10 Corpus-based and descriptive translation studies ----------------------------- 60
2.11 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61

Chapter Three: Methodology ------------------------------------------------------- 62

3.1 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63
3.2 Participants and source materials ------------------------------------------------- 63
3.2.1The Holy Quran ---------------------------------------------------------------- 64
3.2.2The translators and their translations ---------------------------------------- 65
3.2.2.1 Tahereh Saffarzadeh -------------------------------------------------- 65
3.2.2.2 Mohammad-Ali Kusha ----------------------------------------------- 66
3.2.2.3 Fazlollah Nikayin ----------------------------------------------------- 67
3.3 Instrumentation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
3.4 Procedure ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70
3.5 Research design --------------------------------------------------------------------- 71
3.6 Data analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 71
3.7 Ethical considerations -------------------------------------------------------------- 73

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion -------------------------------------------- 75

4.1 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76
4.2 Analysis and results ---------------------------------------------------------------- 76
4.2.1 Translation of DAs ------------------------------------------------------------ 76
4.2.1.1 Translation of  ----------------------------------------- 77
4.2.1.2 Translation of  ----------------------------------------- 80
4.2.1.3 Translation of -------------------------------------------- 92
4.2.1.4 Translation of -------------------------------------------- 98
4.2.2 Adopted translation strategies ----------------------------------------------110
4.2.2.1 Description of Saffarzadehs translation strategies --------------110
4.2.2.2 Description of Nikayins translation strategies ------------------112
4.2.2.3 Description of Kushas translation strategies --------------------113
4.2.2.4 Total strategy adoption in the corpus under study ---------------115
4.2.3 Consistency in the works of translators ------------------------------------117
4.3 Discussion --------------------------------------------------------------------------118

Chapter Five: Conclusion, Implications, and Suggestions -------------------121

5.1 Overview ----------------------------------------------------------------------------122
5.2 Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------122
5.3 Implications -------------------------------------------------------------------------128
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research ------------------------------------------------129
References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------130



 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Miremadis Translation Problems ----------------------------------------- 17

Table 1.2 Chestermans Production Strategies --------------------------------------- 17
Table 2.1 Abdul-Raofs Level of Equivalence --------------------------------------- 28
Table 2.2 Chestermans Production Strategies (elaborated)------------------------ 36
Table 4.1 Translation of  ------------------------------------------------- 79
Table 4.2 Translation of  --------------------------------------------------- 86
Table 4.3 Translation of  ----------------------------------------------------- 95
Table 4.4 Translation of  --------------------------------------------------102
Table 4.5 Strategies Adopted by Saffarzadeh in Translation of DAs -----------111
Table 4.6 Strategies Adopted by Nikayin in Translation of DAs ----------------112
Table 4.7 Translation Strategies Adopted by Kushas Team----------------------114
Table 4.8 Total Strategy Adoption in Translation of DAs in the Corpus --------115
Table 4.9-Compared Frequency and Percentage of Translation Strategies -----116
Table 4.10 Consistency and Variety in Translation of DAs ----------------------117



 List of Figures

Figure 4.1 T Strategies Adopted by Saffarzadeh in Quranic DAs ---------------111

Figure 4.2 Strategies Adopted by Nikayin in Quranic DAs ----------------------113
Figure 4.3 Strategies Adopted by Kushas Team in Quranic DAs ---------------114
Figure 4.4 Strategy Adoptions in Translation of DAs in Corpus -----------------115
Figure 4.5 Consistencies, Variety in Translation of DAs -------------------------118



 List of Abbreviations

DAs Divine Attributes

DTs Descriptive Translation Studies
QCM Quran Cognitive Model
SL Source Language
ST Source Text
TL Target Language
TS Translation Studies
TT Target Text
UT Unit of Translation
UG Universal Grammar



 Chapter One
Introduction



1.1Background
According to Desilver (2013), around twenty-five percent of the world
population is Muslim, from which over eighty percent (about 1.6 billion) does
not know Arabic and use the translated versions of the Holy Quran to
understand the meaning and the messages of the Allahs word. So, the quest for
Quran translation has rapidly grown since the first translation rendered into
English by Alexander Ross in 1649, followed by the translations of George
Sales in 1734, J. M. Rodwell in 1861, M. Pickthall in 1930, by A. Y. Ali in
1934 (Al-Shabab, 2008, 2012; Mustafa Hamilah, 2014), and then by the Iranian
translators into English and Persian such as Mohammad Mahdi Fuladvand in
1974, Seyyed Ali Garmarudi in 1984, Fazlollah Nikayin in 2000, Tahereh
Saffarzadeh in 2001, Laleh Bakhiari in 2007, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel in
2011, and Bahaedin Khoramshahi in 2012, as well as Ali Meshkini Ardebili in
2015.
So investigating the way these translations are done and the quality of the
translations are of great importance and it is necessary to pay due attention to
the consistency, reliability, and the accuracy of the translations of the Holy
Quran whose Arabic is, according to those who know, unparalleled ]
(Abdul-Raof, 2001, pp. 2-23, 10-38); and its translation -- due to the language
and cultural bound linguistic and rhetorical features -- according to Abdul-Raof
(2001, p. 12) are simply inimitable and un-producible into other languages
to a satisfactory level and remains in limbo for the word of God cannot be
reproduced by the word of man" (Abdul-Raof, 2001, p. 1).
The selection of the linguistic items (most appropriate equivalence) in the
TL for conveying the meaning of the ST is of great importance in every act of
translation and is of greater significance when it comes to Quranic terms. As
Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence (DAs) are among the most frequently
used concepts throughout the Holy Quran, their significance becomes quite
evident to every person.
This study focused on four translations done in the current century in two
languages of Persian and English namely translations by Kusha and his team in
Persian (1942-now), by Nikayin (1938-now) in English, and the two versions of
Quran translations done by the late Tahereh Saffarzadeh in Persian and English
(1936-2008).



 Although there have been several studies on the translation of the Quran
(e.g. Hossein Mohyeddin Elahi Ghomshei, 1992; Abdul-Raof, 2001a, 2005;
Amjad, 2013; Khoramshahi, 2012), the issue of team-work in the translation of
the Holy Quran done via the collaboration of the male and the female translators
has not been raised in terms of finding a mechanism for translating divine texts
with conceptual premises. To cast a light on this issue, the researcher
endeavored to investigate what specific strategies the translators (male and
female individually and jointly) have adopted in translation of these Quranic
Arabic Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence (DAs) into English and
Persian and argued the cases for a more consistent and adequate translation
through doing team-working translations of the Holy Book.

1.2Statement of the Problem

The selection of linguistic items of the target language repository for conveying
the meaning of the source text is of great importance in every act of translation
and translator does his/her best to find the most appropriate equivalence for the
source text linguistic items. However, the problem arises as there is no
complete equivalence between the corresponding linguistic items of the two
language systems, Arabic (particularly Quranic Arabic) verses English, and
Arabic verses Persian.
In the case of this venture, the languages of English, Persian, and Arabic
are structurally, conceptually, and culturally different from each other.
Linguistically speaking, English and Persian are two branches of the family of
Indo-European languages, while Arabic is related to the family of Semitic
languages (Violatti, 2014). The problem is even aggravated as the Quranic
Arabic is a Quranic specific language deferring from Arabic language. So this
would pose noticeable problems to the translator, as Adul-Raof (2001, p. 25) is
against the notion of exact correspondence between languages. He provides
examples that support his argument of "Quranic cultural voids" like () and
other Quranic expressions enjoying culture-bound overtones; these include
lexical items like ()". Moreover, he says "cross-cultural variations among
languages lead to non-equivalence and can be translation traps; they can also be
a source of misunderstandings among target language audience. Qur'an
translation is a unique case of non-equivalence in inter-textual translation. The



semantic mapping of each language is different from those of all other
languages" (2001, p. 13).
Lorscher (1991/ 2005), Chesterman (1997, pp.92-112) and some others
believe that a translation strategy is goal-oriented and problem-oriented,
requires making coordinated decisions and is potentially conscious (Baker and
Saldanha, 2013, pp. 283-285). The aforementioned two prototype translation
strategies have these characteristics. Since a translation strategy involves
problem solving, a categorization of translation problems would correspond to a
categorization of translation strategies. The difficulty with this, however, is that
there are a number of ways in which problems can be categorized. For instance,
the categorization criterion can be the prior knowledge required to solve them,
the nature of the goal involved, and the complexity of the problems involved
(Robertson, 2001, p. 6).
On the other hand, research on gender and translation has been
experiencing a remarkable growth in the last few years, with many publications
(e.g. Simon, 1996, Bassnett, 1992, Flotow, 1997 ) academic articles (e.g.
Manafi Anari, 2009, Castro, 2012, Karoubi, 2007, Golavar, 2014 ) and
conferences devoted to exploring the multifaceted nature of translation theory
and practice as approached from a gender perspective. The studies have
revealed that translators male and female treat text differently due to the
differences they have in their ideology, thought and language ability or
capability. Sharifi et al. (2013) found that Iranian female and male translators
behave differently toward lexical equivalences in translation of literary texts
based on perceived gender, ideology, and gender-specific language style.
Amjad (2013) has also studied problems and strategies in English translation of
Quranic divine names disregarding the effects of translators gender. Despite
these studies, some significant literature gaps can still be identified at the
dialogic interplay between translation studies and feminist studies
- No room is there for the joint gender team (male-female team) translations
in the produced theories and studies on gender and translation
- Most of the existing research on the topic failed to reflect the gender-
related problems and strategies within the religious texts
- The greater focus on literary translation at times disregards the
contributions of non-literary translation particularly religious translation



 to national and transnational productions and circulation of knowledge
around the globe
- There seems to be a lack of exploration of the links between joint gender
(male-female team) translation and other disciplines, despite the fact that
translation studies is an interdisciplinary field
By addressing these four main gaps, this research on a gender-based
approach sougth to define problems and used strategies in translating DAs, to
generate an innovative approach to the study of translation in the contemporary
era of globalization specifically on the translation of the religious text, the
Holy Quran in particular.
Taking a corpus-based approach, the present study -- through the
comparison of the of the Holy Quran (in Arabic) with its four versions
translated into English and Persian by male, female and co-gender translators --
attempted to find the most frequent problems and the probable relationship
between the translators` gender and the problems and strategies they adopt to
overcome the problems in translations of the Holy Quran's DAs in a bid to
suggest that a more consistent/ lexically adequate translation of the Holy Quran
is possible through the cooperation of male-female translators (co-gender
translators).

1.3Purpose of the Study

The study, first of all, aimed to run a corpus-driven research on the strategy
types and extents adopted by the three professional translators namely
Mohammad-Ali Kusha and his team including his wife (currently under the
translation), the late Tahereh Saffarzadeh (2001), and Fazlollah Nikayin (2006),
to achieve semantic equivalence when translating DAs of the Holy Quran.
Another purpose of this study was to investigate the problems concerning
the translation of DAs. This study also aimed to investigate the existence and
the extent of variety in equivalents provided attributes referring to Allah in
different contexts and their consistency by the translators. And finally, the
research aimed to explore more the role of translators gender in the translation
of Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence (DAs)
Although research on gender and translation under the name of feminist
translation began as a Western-dominated praxis and remained for decades, an
increasing interest in the subject across different cultures and disciplines is


recently seen (Castro, 2013). However, some significant literature gaps can still
be identified at the dialogic interplay between translation studies and feminist
studies
- No room is there for the joint gender team (male-female team) translations
in the produced theories and studies on gender and translation
-Most of the existing research on the topic failed to reflect the gender-related
problems and strategies within the religious texts
-The greater focus on literary translation at times disregards the
contributions of non-literary translation -- particularly religious translation --
to national and transnational productions and circulation of knowledge
around the globe
-There seems to be a lack of exploration of the links between joint gender
(male-female team) translation and other disciplines, despite the fact that
translation studies is an interdisciplinary field
By addressing these four main gaps, this study aimed to play a catalystic
role in the growth of the field (translation studies) theoretically and practically.
Taking this into account and moving in line with the recent developments in the
field of translation studies, the present study took a corpus-based approach to
explore these English and Persian translations of the Holy Quran in terms of the
strategies adopted by the translators namely Mohammad-Ali Kusha and his
team including his wife (currently under the translation), the late Tahereh
Saffarzadeh (2001), and Fazlollah Nikayin (2006) to achieve semantic
equivalence when translating DAs.
In a bid to determine the problems and the masculine- and feminine-
specific strategies in translating Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence
(DAs), the researcher conducted a descriptive comparative study on the four
versions of the Holy Quran translated from Arabic to Persian and English by
three main Iranian contemporary translators an English version by female
translator, a Persian version by female translator, an English version by male
translator, and a Persian version being translated by a male-female committee .

1.4Significance of the Study

Since the language of the Holy book is not Arabic as describs by Manafi-
Anari, (2012, p. 1) it is Quranic Arabic, which is a Quranic-specific language
the translators would face more noticeable problems in obtaining lexical


adequacy and semantic equivalence (in finding the most adequat equivalents)
for the source linguistic items. And as Reiss (2000, p.53) says, the semantic
component of a text is a key factor in preserving the content and meaning of the
original text and if the translator ignores them, much room will be left for
criticism And according to Saffarzadeh (2001, p.1445), the greatest values of
the Holy Quran which almost all commentators and translators in English and
Persian have failed to translate justly and accurately are Allahs Names of
Outstanding Excellence. She believes that any translation void of attention to
the meanings of these Divine Atttributes loses a substancial part of its validity
(Saffarzadeh, 2001, p.1445).
Like other aspects of the Quran translation, the translators may confront a
number of problems in translation of Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence
(DAs). The present study was an attempt to investigate problems encountered
by three translators in translations of Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence
(DAs). It will also allow for the study of strategies adopted by these translators
for obtaining lexical adequacy and semantic equivalence. The results gained
from this study may provide the translators with insights into how to translate
certain Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence (DAs), from the language of
the Holy Quran into Persian and English. The trilingual corpus provided under
the present study will be a powerful tool for students, teachers, translators, and
the researchers to search for and study equivalent items between the three
languages under investigation.
The corpus provided under this research can also be of practicable use for
translation students. By referring to this corpus, they can find out about the
possibility of the use of language in the right content and learn about the
language of the translated religious texts more effectively. So this study
purported that female and male translators in the religious texts and particularly
in the translation of Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence (DAs) treat
differently adopt gender-based strategies to overcome their problems
Finally , this study would also be significant in that it provides a basis for
producing a more consistent and adequate translation of the Holy Quran as a
whole.



1.5Research Questions
The problem and the purpose of the study as described will answer the
following research questions:
RQ1. What are the problems in the translation of Allahs Names of
Outstanding Excellence (DAs) based on Miremadis framework"
RQ2. What translation strategies have been adopted by each translator to
achieve lexical adequacy and semantic equivalence in the translation of
Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence (DAs) based on Chestermans
model"
RQ3. Which strategies are the most frequent ones in the translation of DAs?
RQ4. Does the TTs language have any effect on the frequency of the
strategies?
RQ5. Does the gender of translator have any effect on the frequency of the
strategies?
RQ6. Is the committee translation produced through cooperation of male and
female translators more consistent than the translation produced by male or
female translator individually?
RQ7. Which translation is the most consistent one in terms of DAs?

1.6 Research Hypotheses

The three null hypotheses of this study are as follows:
RH1. The TTs language has no effect on the translators consistency in
adopting a certain strategy for translating a Name of Outstanding
Excellence, in different content of the Quranic verses.
RH2. The gender of the translator has no effect on the translators
consistency in adopting a certain strategy for translating a DA in its different
occurrence.
RH3. Committee translation produced through the cooperation of male and
female translators is more consistent than the translations produced by male
or female translator individually.

1.7Theoretical Framework
This study was an effort to consider and describe the translation of Quranic
Arabic DAs by the three professional translators in terms of English and Persian
equivalents. To do so, the model suggested by Chesterman (1997) for



translation strategies and Abdul-Raofs (2001) framework of study on the
Quranic discourse, which provides a through account of Qurans unique
syntactic, semantic, phonetic, prosodic, pragmatic, and rhetorical features
(Abdul-Raof, 2001, p. xiii) were employed. To explore the problems for
translating Quranic Arabic DAs, Miremadis framework was followed too.
Translation problems categorized by Miremadi (as cited by Owji, 2013), can be
tabled as follows:
Table 1.1
Miremadis Translation Problems
Lexical Problems (LPs) Syntactic Problems (SPs)
LPs1. Straight / Denotative meaning Due to the differences in the systems of structural
(ST matched TT without missing images e.g. Mother organizations
or father)
LPs 2. Lexical / Connotative meaning Word classes
(intentions beyond the words are important/ (word level)
contextual meaning)
LPs3. Metaphorical expression Grammatical relations
(idioms and similar expressions) (Sentence level: word order/ style / pragmatic
LPs4. Semantic voids aspects)
(extra-linguistic factors: words have referents in a
certain speech community but not in others,
Intra-linguistic factors: concepts that may exist in
two language communities but the structure of their
use may be completely different)
LPs5. Proper names
(proper names refer to individuals, is problematic
when carrying specific meaning)
Chestermans model (1997) of translation strategies is of two main parts:
A) Comprehension strategies: the analysis of the source text and the whole
nature of the translation commission
B) Production strategies: the results of various comprehension strategies i.e.
how the translator manipulates the linguistic material in order to produce an
appropriate target text. The second part is comprised of three sections
namely, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic strategies:
Table 1.2
Chestermans Production Strategies
Syntactic strategies Semantic strategies Pragmatic strategies
Sy1.literal translation Se1. synonymy Pr1. cultural filtering
Sy2. loan, calque Se2. Antonymy Pr2. explicitness
Sy3. transposition Se3. hyponymy Pr3.information change
Sy4. unit shift Se4. converse Pr4.interpersonal change
Sy5. phrase structure change Se5. abstraction change Pr5.illocutionary change
Clause structure change Se6. distribution change Pr6. coherence change
sentence structure change Se7. emphasis change Pr7. partial translation
Sy7.cohesion change Se8. paraphrase Pr8. visibility change
Sy8. level shift Se9. trope change Pr9. Transediting
Sy9. scheme change Se10. other semantic strategies Pr10. other pragmatic changes



1.8Limitations of the Study
The availability of only one male-female committee translation of the Holy
Quran in Iran, and the unavailability of English version of the Holy Quran co-
translated by male and female translators were among the main limitations
imposed on the study.
Of course, the limited number of the Holy Qurans translated versions from
the same form (in poetry or in prose) also strongly limits the scope of sampling
of the study. Lack of due cooperation of other Quran translators, translation
scholars and researchers as inter-raters in line with increasing the reliability of
the findings was also among other limitation the researcher has faced with.

1.9 Delimitations of the Study

The researcher delimited the scope of the research by studying the works of
Iranian Muslim contemporary translators who live (d) in Iran and are natively
Persian speakers. The translators ideology, attitudes, religions and the
translations publishers have not been studied either. The present study relied
only on a large corpus of Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence (DAs), in
the content; a lot of time was spent on building a corpus. Using Noor
Commentary Collocation software, DAs that appears in twins from the Opening
Surah of the Holy Book to At-Tubah (Repentance or Baraat the Dissolve of
Obligations with the Treaty-Breakers) were extracted along with their
translations revealed by the translators under the study.

1.10 Definition of Key Terms

Adequacy
A term used by some commentators on translation to discuss the nature of the
relationship between ST and TT (Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997, p.5)
However, where the two terms are used side by side adequacy generally refers
to a looser, less absolute ST-TT relationship than equivalence. Shevister
(1988, as quoted in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997, P.5) defines adequacy in
terms of the translators response to the communicative situation: adequacy
proceeds from the assumption that a decision taken by the translator frequently
has the nature of a compromise, that translation demands sacrifices, that in the
translation process, the translator frequently has to resign himself to certain



losses for the sake of conveying the main, essential aspects of ST (i.e. its
predominant functions) (1988, p.96 translated).

Corpora (Singular Corpus)

In descriptive translation studies, according to Baker (1995, p. 225), corpora is
a collocation of texts held in machine-readable form and capable of being
analyzed automatically or semi-automatically in a variety of ways. McEnery
defines corpus as a collection of sampled texts, written or spoken in machine-
readable form which may be annotated with various forms of linguistic
information" (McEnery et al, 2006, p. 4).

Divine Attributes (DAs)

Divine Attributes (DAs) are Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence known
as Asmaul-Hosna. According to Saffarzadeh (2001, p. 1445), it is a major
factor which has caused confusion and brought about an evident sign of
incompleteness of the meanings of the Words of Revelations throughout the
Holy Quran. She believes that the Devine fascination of Allahs Names of
Outstanding Excellence is one of the secrets by which a believer holds on for
the stand of the Holy Quran as a Miracle.

Descriptive Translation Studies (DTs)

Descriptive Translation Studies (DTs) is a branch of Translation Studies (TSs)
developed in most detailed by Toury (1995), involving the empirical, non-
prescriptive analysis of STs and TTs with the aim of identifying general
characteristics and laws of translation (Hatim and Munday, 2004, p. 338).
According to Munday (2001, p 10-11), DTs is a branch of 'pure' research in
Holmes's map of TS and has three possible foci: examination of the product, the
function, and the process.

Equivalence or Translation Equivalence

Baker (2001, p. 77) defines equivalence as the relationship between a ST and a
TT that allows the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the first
place. Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a
procedure that "replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using
completely different wording" (cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997, p. 51).



Gender
According to Karoubi (n. d., p.5), gender is a socially constructed phenomenon
that "attributes qualities of masculinity or femininity to people. It is one of the
key elements that defines the identity of people as masculine and feminine
and gender identity can greatly change the person's view of life, her or his
beliefs, behavior and language.

Problem
According to Barthes (1970, p.10), problem is what appears as
unconventional or hard to understand depends on the readers competence,
and is not an objective text characteristic. Chesterman (1997) also describes
a problem as a perceived difficulty in getting from the present state to the
desired goal state.

Consistency
Consistency in the selection of terms is usually promoted as an essential feature
of good technical writing, and has been cited as one of the advantages of
machine translation over human translation (Vasconcellos 2001, p. 697).

Lexical Cohesion
Halliday and Hasen (1976) showed that wellwritten documents exhibit lexical
cohesion in terms of what they call reiteration and collocation. Reiteration is
achieved via repetition as well as the use of synonyms and hypernyms. A
collocation is a sequence of words / terms that co-occur regularly in text.
Examples of collocated pairs of words include fast food, bright idea and
nuclear family.

Translation
According to Kelly (2005, pp.26-27), translation is the skill of understanding
the ST and rendering it into the TL by using the register, the background
knowledge, and other language resources according to the intended purpose.
According to Chesterman (1997), translation is a memetic activity. The activity
of translation is at the heart of cultural development, of the evolution of ideas.
Translation as defined by Miremadi (1991, p.23) is a reciprocal process from
one culture to the other and from other cultures into one culture. In other
words, there is a give- and-take process. In this process, translators deal with



some non-equivalent words for which they should find an appropriate
equivalent.

Translation (Parallel) Corpus

A corpus contains an original text and at least one translation of it into another
language (Halliday et al., 2004, p.171).

Translation Problems
According to Miremadi (1991), translation problems are divided into two main
categories: lexical problems and syntactic problems. Chesterman (1997) also
describes a problem as a perceived difficulty in getting from the present state to
the desired goal state. For all these kinds of problems, various standard
solutions are available that are worth trying.

Translation Strategies
According to Baker and Saldanha (2013, p. 282), the term strategy connotes a
teleological course of action undertaken to achieve a particular goal in an
optimal way. Problems arise, however, in defining the concept more
precisely. Chesterman (1997, pp. 87-116) describes strategies as established
ways (tactics or procedures) of solving problems: potentially conscious;
intersubjective.




 Chapter Two
Review of the Related Literature



2.1 Introduction
In this section, some key issues related to the translation, such as translation
problems, strategies, equivalence, and non-equivalence are discussed. Then, a
brief theoretical background to Quran translation, corpus-based and DTs, gender
and translation, translation and relativism / universalism are provided. Finally,
the related studies are reported.

2.2 Translation
Translation is a complicated task, during which the meaning of the source-
language text should be conveyed to the target-language readers. In other
words, translation can be defined as encoding the meaning and form in the
target language by means of the decoded meaning and form of the source
language. However, different theorists state various definitions for translation.
Kelly (2005, pp. 26-27) defines translation as the skill of understanding the
source text and rendering it into the target language by using the register, the
background knowledge, and other language resources according to the intended
purpose. Therefore, a translator is a mediator of the two languages and cultures
who can transfer the SL to the TL.
Hatim and Munday (2004, p.6) define the ambit of translation as follows:
1. The process of transferring a written text from SL to TL, conducted by
translator, or translators, in a specific socio-cultural context.
2. The written product, or TT, which results from that process and which
functions in the socio-cultural context of the TL.
3. The cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural, and ideological phenomena that
are an integral part of 1 and 2.
Newmark (1981, p.7) indicates that translation is a craft that attempts to
replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same
message or statement in another language. In addition, he views translation as
a science, a skill, an art, and a matter of taste. As a science, translation includes
the knowledge and assessment of the facts and the language that describes them;
as a skill, translation contains the appropriate language and acceptable usage; as
an art, translation differentiates good writing from bad and involves innovative,
intuitive and inspired levels; and lastly, viewing translation as a matter of taste
includes the fact that the translator resorts to his/her own preferences; so, the
translated text varies from one translator to another.


 Catfords definition (as cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997, p.181)
focuses on linguistic aspects of translation. According to Nida and Taber (as
cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997, p.182), Translating consists in
reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the
source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of
style.
According to Chesterman (1997), translation is a memetic activity. And the
Translation Studies is a branch of memetics. Memetics is the study of
memes, which was proposed and first used by Dawkins (1976). Dawkins
(1976, p. 206) defines [a meme] as a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of
imitation (Chesterman, 2000i). Memes were explicitly brought into Translation
Studies by Chesterman (1996, 1997). He described memes as everything we
have learned by imitating other people. Memes spread like genes, they
replicate, often with mutation. Some memes spread, and thus survive, better
than others. Memes also spread via translations, of course. In fact, this is really
what the whole translation business is about: spreading memes from one place
to another, making sure that they get safely across cultural borders. Therefore,
Translation Studies (TS) is a way of studying memes and their transmission
under particular circumstances (Chesterman, 2000i).
Chesterman (1997) also refers to some supermemes including the source-
target meme, the equivalence meme, the untranslatability meme, and the free vs.
literal meme, and suggests that if we look at translation itself as a memetic
activity, this means that we see it as being based on replication: an additive
relation. It is the additive relation that most closely represents what is essential
about the act of translation. He believes that there is dynamic movement over
time; something still remains at the source after the translation process is
completed -- source texts or messages do not disappear simply because they
have been translated (Chesterman, 2000i). He also describes the activity of
translation as at the heart of cultural development, of the evolution of ideas.
Because memetic replication (almost) always involves variation, we need to
focus on the way texts change as they are translated, and examine the nature and
motivation of such changes. Therefore, the translators role, and gender, is of
great importance according to Chesterman (2000i).



 Toury (1995), through the polysystem theory argues that translational
phenomena could ultimately be explained by their systemic position and role in
the target culture. He also proposes two exemplary laws of the way translators
produce translations: the law of increasing standardization, and the law of
interference from the source text. He believes translators are influenced by the
norms that govern translation practice in the target culture. (1995, p. 271).
Generally speaking, it can be understood from the above discussion that the
term translation can refer to both the process and the product. If it deals with
the process, it will examine the act of producing a translation and if it is
concerned with the product, it will deal with the text that has been translated.
Obviously, the focus of this study is on the latter aspect i.e. the product.
Moving in line with DTS, this study endeavors to consider and describe the
works of three professional translators of the Holy Quran with respect to the
translation of DAs.

2.3Translation and Equivalence

The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most problematic and
controversial areas in the field of translation theory. A much-used and abused
term in Translation Studies (Bassnett 2002, p. 34), equivalence, has caused,
and it seems quite probable that it will continue to cause heated debates within
the field of Translation Studies (TS). It has been analyzed, evaluated, and
extensively discussed from different points of view and has been approached
from many perspectives.

2.3.1Concept of Equivalence
Equivalence is a central concept in translation theory, but it is also controversial
one. It has always been an indispensable concept in translation studies and in
Quran translation, of course. According to Baker (2011, p. 96), the question of
equivalence can differ radically: some theorists define translation in terms of
equivalence relations (Catford 1965; Nida and Taber, 1969; Toury, 1980a; Pym
1992a, 1995a, 2004; Koller, 1995) while others reject the theoretical notion of
equivalence claiming it is either irrelevant (Snell-Hornby ,1988) or damaging
(Gentzler, 1993/2001) to translation studies .
According to Abdul-Raof (2001, p.7), One cannot deny the centrality of
equivalence in translation theory; it will continue to dominate translation



training programs and translation in general. He believes that whether at a
micro-level or at a macro-level, one cannot achieve absolute symmetrical
equivalence for languages since their multiple layers of meaning and their
cultures in which they flourish are drastically different (p.7). So each
translator -- either male or female -- may focus on a specific kind of
equivalence, such as denotative, aesthetic and translate accordingly ending up
with a different translation.
Halverson (1997, pp. 207-210) defines equivalence as a relationship existing
between two entities, and the relationship is described as one of likeness/
sameness/ similarity/ equality in terms of any of a number of potential qualities.
Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) view equivalence-oriented translation as a
procedure that "replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using
completely different wording" (cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997, p. 51).
According to Pym (1992, p. 37) equivalence is supposed to define translation,
and translation, in turn, defines equivalence.
Baker (1992, p. 6) holds a more neutral approach arguing that equivalence is
a relative notion because it is influenced by a variety of linguistic and cultural
factors. In particular, she talks about different kinds of equivalence, that is, at
the level of word, phrase, grammar, text, and pragmatics. Hence, terms such as
grammatical, textual, and pragmatic equivalence come up. Adopting a bottom-
up approach, Baker acknowledges the importance of individual words during
the translation process, since the translator looks firstly at the words as single
units in order to find their equivalent in the TL. Baker goes on to provide a
definition of the term word referring to its complex nature since a single word
can sometimes be assigned different meanings in different languages.
Consequently, parameters such as number, gender, and tense should be taken
into consideration when translating a word (pp. 9-49). Finally, Bakers
grammatical equivalence refers to the diversity of grammatical categories across
languages and the difficulty of finding an equivalent term in the TT due to the
variety of grammatical rules across languages (pp. 93-129). Her textual
equivalence refers to equivalence that may be achieved between a ST and TT in
terms of cohesion and information (pp. 190-223). In addition, her pragmatic
equivalence deals mainly with coherence, implicatures, and the intended
message of the SL that needs to be rendered comprehensively into TT (pp. 230-



240). Baker's contribution to the field of translation studies is widely
acknowledged because of her providing a systematic approach to training
translators through the elaboration of specific strategies that can be used to deal
with the numerous translation problems translators encounter daily. Hence, by
addressing both theoretical and practical issues in translation, this book forms a
sound basis for translators.
Equivalence has led to a number of divergent opinions: some theorists
(Catford (1965), Koller (1995, pp. 191-222), Nida and Taber (1969), Pym
(1992) and Toury (1980) define translation in terms of equivalence relations
while others Snell-Hornby (1988) and Gentzler (1993) reject the theoretical
notion of equivalence, claiming it is either irrelevant or damaging to TS.
Newman (as cited in Baker 1998, p.77) stresses that not all the variables in
translation are relevant in every situation and the translators must decide which
consideration should be given priority at any one time, thus establishing a kind
of functional equivalence. Baker (1992, p. 5-6) uses the notion of equivalence
for the sake of convenience because most translators are used to it rather than
because it has any theoretical status. According to Baker (2001, p. 77),
equivalence is the relationship between a ST and a TT that allows the TT to be
considered as a translation of the ST in the first place.
Catford (1965, p. 21) suggests that the goal of translation theory is to define
the nature of translation equivalence. According to him, the central problem of
translation practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central task
of translation theory is that of finding the nature and conditions of translation
equivalents.
Nida (1964, p. 159) draws his distinction between formal and dynamic
equivalence. Formal equivalence focuses on transferring the message.
Dynamic equivalence focuses on producing the equivalent effect of the
message.
Obviously, there is no unanimous agreement among translation theorists as
to what the concept of equivalence in translation means. This notion has always
been used in a fuzzy sense; there has been even a call to abandon the term but
no other useful term has been offered in place, (Neubert and Shreve 1992, p.
143). While Nida (1964, p.159) talks of formal and dynamic equivalence,
Hatim and Mason (1990, p. 8) warn the translators of the obvious problem



concerning the use of term equivalence in connection with translation and that
complete equivalence is not achievable since that there is no such things as
formally or dynamically equivalent
TL version of a source language text. They, instead, opt for the relative
sense of the term that is the closest possible approximation to the ST meaning.
The notion of approximation has now become dominant criterion in translation
studies; it is approximation rather than equivalence which the translator to
achieve because there are no such things as identical equivalents (Belloc,
1931a&b, cf. Nida 1964, p.157).
Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 8) argues that there are eight kinds of equivalence (see
table 2.1, p.29) and he is skeptical about whether all these levels will be met
satisfactorily by the TT with regards to the Quranic Arabic text. Therefore, it
can be understood that the major translation hurdle is the ST textuality that
involves linguistic, rhetorical, stylistic, and phonetic characteristics that are
prototypical to Quranic Arabic.
Table 2.1
Abdul-Raofs Levels of Equivalence
Linguistic (textual material) Nida 1964 formal equivalence, Catford 1965
Cultural Larson 1984, Newmark 1982
Stylistic Popovic 1976 (in Bassnett-McGuire 1980, Bell 1991
Semantic (Content) Kade 1968a, Nord 1991
Structural (Textuality) Filipec 1971 (in Snell-Hornby 1995),
Reiss 1971 (in Snell-Hornby 1995),
Wills 1982, Koller 1972, Neubert 1985
Hatim and Mason 1990, Neubert and
Shreve 1992
Response (effect) Nida 1964a, 1964,1966, Nida and Taber
1969, Newmark 1982, Adab 1996
Communicative Beaugrand 1978, Neubert and Shreve 1992
Functional Nida and Taber 1969, Kuepper1977, House 1981, de Waard and
Nida 1986, Newmark 1991
The notion of Equivalence, therefore, has turned out to be a major
problem, because different scholars have proposed different frames of reference
(Gutt, 1991, p.10 as cited in Abdul-Raof, 2001, p.7). "A translator who aspires
to achieve total lexical and/or textual equivalence is chasing a mirage: total
equivalence at any level of language is impossible, relative equivalence at any
level is possible Abdul-Raof, 2001, p.7). Amid the circularity of these
contradictory definitions of the notion of equivalence, the translator is at a loss
(Abdul-Raof, 2001, p.7). Therefore, equivalence has been perceived in various
ways being regarded as a necessary condition for translation, an obstacle to


progress in TS or a useful category for describing translations (Chifaine, 2012).
To conclude, according to Alhaj (2015, p.55) equivalence in translation can be
measured by a scale of degrees that range from optimal equivalence to zero
equivalence. These degrees of equivalence might be measured by the levels of
approximation or distance from the ST super ordinate goal. While optimal
equivalence is considered as the highest level in equivalence, or the
approximate degree from the ST, zero equivalence is related to the lowest
degree of equivalence or the most distance degree from the ST goal.

2.3.2 Non-Equivalence among Languages

According to Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 9), the linguistic universal fact of lack of
absolute synonymy between two lexical items in a given language leads us to
believe that non-equivalence in translation among languages is an expected
linguistic phenomenon. 
According to Jakobson (as cited in Munday, 2001, p.37),"there is ordinarily
no full equivalence between code units". Describing the differences between
structures, terminology, grammar, and lexical forms of languages as the main
reasons of non-equivalence, he (as cited in Munday, 2001, p.37) states,
"equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal
concern of linguistics. In his theory, the general principle of cross-language
difference and the concept semantic field has been established.
Catford (1996) found that there are two factors that affected the equivalence
i.e. linguistic and cultural factors, leading to two kinds of equivalents i.e.
linguistic and cultural equivalents.
Among many approaches introduced in this regards, Baker (1992) was the
most outstanding theorist dramatically focusing on equivalence at word level
since, as being claimed by her, word is the basic unit to be considered in
meaning of translation text. Her analysis on word level is particularly clear, and
easy to comprehend. It is virtually impossible to offer absolute guidelines for
dealing with various types of non-equivalence which exist among languages,
(Baker, 1992, p. 17). According to Baker (1992/2006, pp. 21-26) Non-
equivalence at the
word level means that the TL has no direct equivalent for a word which
occurs in the ST. She identifies the following common types of non-equivalence
at word level:


 (a) Culture-specific concepts
(b) The SL concept is not lexicalised in the TL
(c) The SL word is semantically complex
(d) The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning
(e) Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective
(f) Differences in expressive meaning
(g) Differences in form
(h) Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms
(i) Loan words in the ST
Contrary to Catford , Snell-Hornby (1988) claims that textual equivalence
introduced by Catford is circular and his examples are isolated and even
absurdly simplistic (pp. 19-20), criticizing that equivalence in translation is an
illusion because there are many aspects, including textual, cultural and
situational ones, get involved in the equivalent degree of the translation.
Equivalent effect, as judged by Newmark (1988), is the desirable result,
rather than the aim of any translation (p.134). Accordingly, the equivalent
effect is a result that all translators long to achieve. Further, he argues that the
text may reach a 'broad equivalent effect only if it is 'universal' that means cross
culture share common ideas. Lack of equivalence among languages at lexical,
textual, grammatical, or pragmatic level is a common fact and a problem that is
always encountered by translators. Larson (1984, p.57) says that there is no
exact equivalence between the words of one language and the words of another.

2.4 Translation Problems

Abdul-Rauf (2001, p.9) believes that the intrinsic, syntactic, semantic, and
pragmatic differences in languages lead to cases of both non-equivalence and
untranslability between languages; we are therefore shackled by these
limitations. The translater, therefor, he says, has to manage to throw off these
shackles in order to achieve and acceptable informative and affective translation
by observing the target language lingustic and cultural norms. Thus, the ST
suffer structural changes which are inevitable in any proccess of translation.
However, for a sacred and highly sensetive text like Quran, the translation,
magnum opus, or otherwise cannot escape the trap of exegetical inaccuracies,
(Abdul-Raof, 2001,p. 9). A translated Quran will, of course, have structural,
texual, and rhetorical features ad hoc to the target language. House (1973, p.


166) refers to the problem of meaning and how the posibility of translation is
restricted if we take connotation into account. Miremadi (as cited by Owji,
2013) states that translation problems are divided into two main categories:
lexical and syntactic problems.

1. Lexical problems (LP)

In the interpretation of lexical problems, Miremadi states that, although words
are entities that refer to objects or concepts, a word in one language may not be
substituted with a word in another language when referring to the same concepts
or objects. He divides lexical problems into five subcategories
LP1. Straight/ denotative meaning This kind of meaning refers to those
words of the source text that can be matched with those of the target text
"without missing images" (e.g. mother, father, etc.).
LP2. Lexical meaning Lexical meaning refers to words or phrases which
seem to be equivalence, although in that situation this may not be the case; the
translator must be aware of the intention beyond the words in order not to
misrepresent the author's message
LP3. Metaphorical expression This subcategory refers to the problematic
issues of translating idioms and similar expressions. Broeik (1981) quoted by
Miremadi (1991) offers the following suggestions for translating idiomatic
expressions
a. Distinguishing between ordinary expressions and metaphors
b. Having access to the resources of translating a single metaphor
c. Being aware of different contexts and their constraints on using metaphors
d. Correctly realizing the constraints on the translation, and rendering the
message
LP4. Semantic voids This subcategory includes those words and/or
expressions that represent concepts that cannot be found in other special
communities. The close equivalents may be found, although the exact
equivalent cannot
According to Miremadi (1991), this may happen in two cases, subjects to
extra-linguistic factors such as those words that have referents in a certain
speech community but not in others, and subject to intra-linguistic factors such
as those concepts that may exist in two language communities but the structure
of their use may be completely different. Dagut (as cited in Miremadi, 1991)



believes that this case occurs when the systems of lexicalization of shared
expressions are different from each other
LP5. Proper names Although proper names refer to individuals and can be
transcribed from one language into another, sometimes the specific meaning
that they carry, which do not exist in the target speech community, may be lost
(e.g. Asghar Rizeh in Persian).

2. Syntactic Problems (SP)

Syntactic problems are the other main category of translation problems. As
Miremadi (1991) quoted Nida (1975), one can find no two languages that have
the exact identical systems of structural organizations (i.e. language structure
varies from one language to another). These differences include
- Word classes Languages differ from each other in the internal word
formation of language classification
 Grammatical relations This difference exists among the languages in the
way that a constituent of a sentence functions within that sentence
 Word order
 Style
 Pragmatic aspects
See table 1.1 chapter one
Chesterman (1997) also describes a problem as a perceived difficulty in
getting from the present state to the desired goal state.
Difficulty because:
Means to reach goal state are not known
> a MEANS problem (e.g. alchemy)
Cannot decide what the best means is
> a CHOICE problem (chess)
Cannot see goal state clearly
> a GOAL problem (creative writing)
Translation problems come in many shapes and sizes, and so do
strategies. Some problems have to do with where to find a given term;
others are comprehension problems. Still others have to do with the
selection of the optimal equivalent. In addition, others again concern such
things as translators block, getting stuck, losing the flow. For all these



 kinds of problems, various standard solutions are available that are worth
trying. They are possible short cuts, you might say: tricks of the trade.
Considering all these problems, a translator is expected to convey the
message of the source text to taraget readers; however, there is no
completely exact translation between any two languages. Werner (as cited in
Owji, 2013) says, the
degree of approximation between two language systems determines the
effectiveness of the translation. However, conveying the message or how
translation varies depending on many individual factors such as translator
strategies.

2.5 Translation Strategies

Different kinds of problems require different types of strategies. Different
scholars have various perspectives to the aspects of the act of translation, so,
they define and describe different types, categorizations, and classifications for
the strategies in translation. Chesterman (1997) believes that there is
"considerable terminological confusion" in translation strategies' field. He
describes strategy memes as one of the most useful sets of professional
translation memes. By strategy, he means any well-established way of
solving a translation problem. These strategies are widely used and well known
in the profession (not necessarily under the same names, of course). He (p. 87-
116) describes strategies as tactics or procedures whose terminology varies,
saying that strategies are established ways of solving problems: potentially
conscious; intersubjective. As mentioned in Chapter One, different kinds of
problems require different types of strategies. According to Chesterman
(2000i):
a. MEANS problems are in need of search strategies (reference works,
parallel texts, databases, terminologies, Internet, telephone, etc.)
b. CHOICE problems are in need of textual strategies (also called
procedures, shifts). Some of these are language-pair specific, of the kind: if
there is structure X in the English source text, try structure Y in a Persian
translation (contrastive analysis).
c. GOAL problems: creativity or distancing strategies... survival strategies!
How to keep up the feeling of flow? What to do when you get stuck?
Followings are some examples suggested by the EU translation services:


 When producing text:
Plan frequent small breaks
Share the job with others
Switch to another task for a bit
Leave overnight
Change internal state (e.g. from creative mode to checking mode; e.g.
by changing chair, posture)
Consult someone else (real or imagined; a different point of view)
When decoding:
Put yourself in the place of the author
Read another document on the same subject
Get the subconscious working ... (music?)
When revising:
Learn to forget
Change the medium (screen, print)
Give the text to someone else to read
Imagine you are someone else reading
Start reading in the middle
Adopt a regular proofreading routine
Separate the tasks involved:
>completeness
>accuracy of numbers, spelling, names, formatting
>clarity of syntax and style
>transmission of the message
Chesterman (1997) also suggests the general characteristics of translation
strategies as follows:
1. They involve text manipulation.
2. They must be applied to the process.
3. They are goal-oriented.
4. They are problem-centered.
5. They are applied consciously.
6. They are inter-subjective. (It means the strategies must be empirical and
understandable for the readers not the person who used them.)



 So in brief, Bergen's (n. d.) classification of the strategies as cited in
Chesterman (1997) includes three categorizations: (a) Comprehension
strategies, (b) Transfer strategies, (c) Production strategies. By this
classification, he meant: first, we read and comprehend a text. Second, we
analyze the differences between the source text and the target one, and we must
decide on the kinds of strategies that we are up to use them. Lastly, we produce
the equivalent text in the target language.
Chesterman (1997) also states that that the taxonomy of translation
strategies can be presented simply. It includes a basic strategy that is: change
something. He (1997) does not refer to the replacement of elements in the
source text words by their equivalent in the target text; which means that this
replacement cannot be the only task of a translator and it is not sufficient. The
normal types of changes made by the translators can be classified as:
a. The words that are used in the source text
b. The structure of these words
c. The natural context of the source text
Chesterman (1997), translation strategies are divided into two main parts:
A) Comprehension strategies: the analysis of the source text and the whole
nature of the translation commission
B) Production strategies: the results of various comprehension strategies i.e.
how the translator manipulates the linguistic material in order to produce an
appropriate target text. The production strategies can be categorized into 1.
semantic, 2. syntactic, and 3. Pragmatic changes; each group has its own
subcategories. In addition, there is no obvious distinction between them, so it is
difficult to say which exact strategy is being used.
Chestermans first category syntactic strategies deals specifically with
the structure and organization of the phrases; the second category semantic
strategies concentrates on the meaning of sentences associated with the lexical
choice, based on syntactic terms that best fit in a certain context; and the last
category pragmatic strategies goes beyond syntactic and semantic aspects
and deals with meaning in terms of what content is important to be present in
the TT. The above-mentioned strategies, which can be, as Chesterman (1997)
suggests, the basic strategies of translation, can be tabled as follows:



Table 2.2
Chestermans production strategies (elaborated)
Syntactic strategies
Sy1. Literal translation
maximally close to the SL
form, but nevertheless
grammatical
Sy2. Loan, calque
A deliberate choice, not the
unconscious influence of desired
interference
Sy3. Transposition
any change of word class, from
noun to verb, adjective to
adverb
Sy4. Unit shift
A ST unit (morpheme, word,
phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph) is translated as a
different unit in the TT
Sy5. Structure changes at level
of phrase
A number of changes at the
level of the phrase, including
number, definiteness and
modification in the noun phrase,
and person, tense and mood in
the verb tense
Sy6. Cohesion change
it affects intra-textual reference,
ellipsis, substitution,
pronominalization and repetition,
or the use of connectors of
various kinds / micro-structure
level (sentence or a paragraph)
Sy7. Level shift
the mode of expression of a
particular item is shifted from
one level (phonology,
morphology, syntax and lexis) to
another
Sy8. Scheme change or change
of rhetorical scheme or pattern
Kinds of changes that
translators incorporate in the
translation of rhetorical schemes
such as parallelism, repetition,
alliteration, metrical rhythm,
etc.
Semantic strategies
Se1. Synonymy (near-)
closest synonym, which is not the
first literal translation of the source
text word or phrase
Se2. Antonymy
Translator uses a word with the
opposite meaning. This word
mostly combines with a negation
Se3. Hyponymy or a superordinate
shifts within the hyponymy
relation are common
Se4. Converse
refers to pairs of opposites
expressing similar semantic
relationships from the opposite
perspectives (e.g. send-receive
take-give)
Se5. Abstraction change
a different selection of abstraction
level may either move from
abstract to more concrete or from
concrete to more abstract
Se6. Distribution change
condensing or diluting
change in the distribution of the
same semantic components over
more items (expansion) or fewer
items (compression)
Se7. Emphasis change
it adds to, reduces or alters the
emphasis or thematic focus, for
one reason or another
Se8. Paraphrase
It results in a TT version that can
be described as loose, in some
contexts even undertranslated.
Semantic components at the
lexeme level tend to be
disregarded, in favor of the
pragmatic sense of some higher
unit such as a whole clause
Se9. Trope change/ figure of
speech
using a term or phrase to compare
two things that are unrelated with
the purpose of revealing their
similarity (i.e. figurative
expressions, metaphor,
personification)
Se10. Other semantic strategies
include other modulations of
various kinds, such as change of
(physical) sense or of deictic
direction
Pragmatic strategies
Pr1. Cultural filtering
also referred as naturalization,
domestication, foreignization or
adaptation (translating culture-bound
items)
Pr2. Explicitness change
either towards more explicitness
(explicitation) or more implicitness
(Implicitation)
Pr3. Information change
either the addition of new (non-
inferable) information which is
deemed to be relevant to the TT but
not present in the ST, or the omission
of ST information deemed to be
irrelevant
Pr4. Interpersonal / Formality change
it alters the formality level, the
degree of emotiveness and
involvement, the level of technical
lexis and the like: anything that
involves a change in the relationship
between text/author and reader
Pr5. Illocutionary change / Speech
act
linked with other strategies:
changing the mood of the verb from
indicative to imperative, a change
from statement to request
Pr6. Coherence change
Logical arrangement of information
in a text / concerns a higher textual
level ( combining different
paragraphs to each other in a way
different from the source text)
Pr7. Partial translation
Translating a part of a text
(summary translation, transcription,
translation of the sounds only, and
the like)
Pr8. Visibility change
A change in the status of the
authorial presence, or to the overt
intrusion or foregrounding of the
translatorial presence. For instance,
translators footnotes, bracketed
comments or added glosses
explicitly
Pr9. Transediting
refers to extensive editing of the
original text when necessary
Pr10. Other pragmatic changes
Changes in the layout of the text,
for example; or in the dialect choice



 In the meantime, Lorscher (1996, p. 28) identifies nine basic elements, or as
he called, building blocks of translation strategies. These building blocks are as
follows:
Original elements of translation strategies
1. Realizing a translational Problem
2. Verbalizing a translational Problem
3. Searching for a possible solution to a translational Problem
4. Solution to a translational Problem
5. Preliminary Solution to a translational Problem
6. Parts of a Solution to a translational Problem
7. Solution to a translational Problem is still to be found
8. Negative Solution to a translational Problem
9. Problem in the reception of the Source Language text
The levels on which these translation strategies work differ from each other;
and this may lead to terminological confusion among researchers who are
concerned with translation studies. Furthermore, Venuti (2001) states, from
Vinay and Darbelnet's (1958) point of view, translators can select two main
methods of translating which are called:
Direct/literal translation and oblique translation. When literal translation is not
possible because of lexical and syntactical differences between the two
languages, oblique translation is used. Oblique translation includes seven
subcategories that are as follows:
- Borrowing: Is using source language terms in the target text to tackle a
meta-linguistic difference.
- Calque: The borrowed expression is literally translated into the target
language.
- Literal translation: Is rendering a source language text into the
appropriate idiomatic or grammatical equivalent in the target language.
- Transposition: Is substituting one word class with another without
changing the meaning of the message.
- Modulation: Is changing in point of view (e.g. changing part of speech).
- Equivalence: Refers to rendering two situations by different stylistic and
structural methods; these two texts include the ST and its equivalent TT.



 - Adaptation: Refers to those situations when cultural differences occur
between the SL and the TL.
The above-mentioned strategies show some similarities with Chesterman's
classification. However, as we will see Chesterman's (1997) classification is
clearly more detailed.
Baker (1992, pp. 23-43) lists eight strategies to cope with the problematic
issues while doing a translation task:
(a) Translation by a more general word (superordinate): Is one of the most
common strategies to deal with many types of non-equivalence. As Baker
believes, it works appropriately in most, languages, because in the semantic
field, meaning is not language dependent. (b) Translation by a more neutral/
less expressive word: Is another strategy in the semantic field of structure. (c)
Translation by cultural substitution: Involves replacing a culture-specific item
or expression with a TL item considering its impact on the target reader to make
the translated text more natural, more understandable, and more familiar to the
target reader. The translator's decision to use this strategy will depend on:
- The degree to which the translator is given license by those who
commission the translation
- And the purpose of the translation
(d) Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation: Usually used
in dealing with culture-specific items, modern concepts, and buzzwords. (e)
Translation by paraphrase using a related word: Used when the source item in
lexicalized in the TL but in a different form. (f) Translation by paraphrase
using unrelated words: Used when the concept in the source item is not
lexicalized in the TL. (g) Translation by omission: It may be even useful to
omit translating a word or expression in some contexts to avoid lengthy
explanations. (h) Translation by illustration: When the target equivalent item
does not cover some aspects of the source item; the equivalent item can be
illustrated to avoid over-explanation and to be concise and to the point.
Consequently obvious, each theorist offers his/her own strategies according to
his/ her perspective; if one wants to examine the applicability of these
strategies, there would be no clear borderline between them, however, based on
Owji (2013), Bakers (1992) taxonomy of translation strategies include the most



applicable set of strategies. There is no hierarchical order of more or less often-
used strategies; Chestermans strategies have been considered in this study.

2.6 Translation Shifts

The term shifts is used to refer to changes that occur or may occur in the process
of translation. Popovic (as cited in Baker 1998, p.229) distinguishes between
constitutive shifts that are system-bound and individual shifts that are prompted
by the stylistic propensities and the subjective idiolect of the individual
translator. He (p. 78) believes that each individual method of translation is
determined by the presence or absence of shifts in the various layers of the
translation.
Catford (1965) states that there are two main types of translation shifts:
Level shifts and Category shifts. According to him, level shifts where the SL
item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different
level (e.g. lexis), and Category shifts which are divided into four sub-types:
- Structure-shifts: Involve a grammatical change between the structure of the
ST and that of the TT
- Class-shifts: When a SL item is translated into a TL item belonging to a
different grammatical class, i.e. a verb into a noun
- Unit-shifts: Involve changes in rank
- Intra-system shifts: Occur when the SL and TL possess approximately
corresponding systems, but where the translation involves selection of a
non-corresponding term in the TL system (p. 80).
Al-Zoubi and Al-Hassnawi (2001, p. 2) defines shifts as the result of the
translator's effort to establish translation equivalence between two different
language systems. They describe shifts as all the mandatory and optional
actions of the translator to which s/he resorts consciously for the purpose of
natural and communicative rendition of an ST into TL.
Different studies have been done on the above issue and scholars called the
phenomenon differently; Larson (1984) named this phenomenon skewing.
Vinay and Darbelnet ( as cited in Baker, 1998) used the term transposition as
one of the four procedures of oblique translation and define it as a change of
one part of speech for another without changing the sense. They see this
phenomenon as probably the most common structural change undertaken by
translators.


 Finally, according to Newmark (1988), shift consists of four types: The
first type of shift is the change from singular to plural. A second type is
required when a SL grammatical structure does not exist in the TL. The third
type of shift is the one where literal translation is grammatically possible but
may not accord with natural usage in the TL. The fourth type of transposition is
the replacement of a virtual lexical gap by a grammatical structure (pp. 86- 87).

2.7 Translation of Lexis

There are rapidly growing interests in corpus-based approaches to the study of
lexis. Catford (as cited in Alhaj, 2015, p. 42) also points out the significance of
meaning in the process of translation and speaks about both the formal
relations and the contextual relations that are entered by the units of s
language. Four kinds of translation have been proposed by Catford (as cited in
Stubbs, 1996, p. 67) like phonological translation, graphological translation,
grammatical translation, and lexical translation. In phonological translation, the
SL phonology of a text is replaced by the TL phonology. Grammar and lexis of
the SL text remain unchanged. In graphological translation, the SL graphology
of a text is replaced by equivalent TL graphology. In grammatical translation,
the SL grammar of a text is replaced by equivalent TL grammar but lexes
remain un-replaced. In lexical translation, the SL lexis of a text is replaced by
equivalent TL lexis, but with no replacement of grammar.

2.7.1Translation Units
As mentioned before, Catford (1965, p.21) suggests that the goal of translation
theory is to define the nature of translation equivalence. To him, the central
problem of translation is that of finding TL translation equivalents. In
translation studies, much discussion in translation literature has focused on what
should be equivalent in translation. Accordingly, this has given rise to the
emergence of the concept of translation units.
Moreover, according to Nord (1997/ 2001, p. 68), the unit of translation
(UT) has been raised by Vinay and Darbelnet in 1958. Who totally draw on the
concept of word as a basis for UT. They (as cited in Hatim and Munday, 2004,
p. 138) consider three following terms as being equivalent: "unit of thought",
lexicological unit" and "unit of translation". What they suggest as a definition
for UT is" "the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such



a way that they should not be translated literally". Their lexicological units
contain "lexical elements grouped together to /from a single element of
thought".
Furthermore, Hatim and Munday simply call it normally the linguistic unit
which the translator uses when translating (2004, p. 25). In addition, Snell-
Hornby (1988/1995, p. 16) defines UT as a cohesive segment lying between
the level of the word and the sentence. According to Baker (2001, p. 286), the
term 'unit of translation', considered from a product-oriented approach, is
defined as "the TT unit that can be mapped onto a ST unit". However,
Newmark (1991, pp. 66-68) assumes the main translation units to be a
hierarchy: text, paragraph, sentence, clause, group, word, and morpheme. He
describes "sentence as a natural unit of translation, (1988, p .65), Then
considers some other sub-units of translation in the sentence, the first of which
is the morpheme.
Finally, Malmkjr (1998, p. 286) defines the unit of translation from a
product point of view as the target text unit that can mapped onto a source-text
unit. He suggests the target texts in which the units are larger appear more
acceptable than those in which the units are smaller. He later says that the
translator will be influenced by his familiarity with text as a whole, as well as
the languages and cultures, genre, conventions, and perhaps other words by the
ST writer in making decisions about equivalence within the units s/he is
translating, even though, in the actual translating process, the units are
considered one at a time (p. 288). He believes that selective attention does not
mean attention to units in isolation from the rest of linguistic, cultural, or textual
world in which the units are situated (p. 288). El-Ezabi (as cited in Abulhassan
Hassan 2014, p. 18) considers the communicative message to be the unit of
translation.

2.7.2 Meaning and Concepts

The most important task for translation lies in the preservation of meaning
across two different languages, (House, 1977, p. 25). According to Newmark
(1981, p. 7), Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written
message and/or statement in one language by the same message and/or
statement in another language. Translation, Newmark (1981, p. 7) says,
consists of studying the lexicon, grammatical structure, communication


situation, and cultural context of the source language text; analyzing it in order
to determine its meaning; and then reconstructing this same meaning using the
lexicon and grammatical structure which are appropriate in the receptor
language and its cultural context.
Translating consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest
natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and
secondly in terms of style (Nida and Taber, 1982). Malmkjr (2001, p. 287)
also says that equivalence can be established between the source and target texts
at one level or a number of levels (of sound, structure, meaning, genre, text,
discourse, function, and ). According to Nida (1984, p.119), translation is the
reproduction of the message of the SL in the receptors language in such a way
that the receptors in the TL may be able to understand adequately how the
original receptors in the SL understood the original message. Armstrong (2005,
p. 10), believes that languages do not put names on things but on concepts.
In the words of Lobner (2002, p. 20), a word does not carry its description
with it. What a word in fact carries with it is its form. He described that
recognition of the meaning of a word is possible if sound pattern and form of a
word is stored in ones mind as part of ones linguistic knowledge. The
meaning is, therefore, mental description, generally called concept. To
Lobner (p. 21), concept, however, should not be equated with visual image.
We have words such as thought, noise, mistake, mood that are not visible
image. But even for categories of visual things, the mental description is by no
means exhausted by specification of their visual appearance. In general, he
says, a word can only be considered established if its form and meaning are
linked in the minds of a great number of language users.

2.7.3 Meaning and Language Comparison

If structuralisms assumption that every individual language has its own system
is right, Lobner (2002, p. 153) says, we should expect that languages are very
different and have terms for different things or different ways of the same
things. However, how big are the differences between the languages? Are all
languages essentially alike, allowing the expression of the same thoughts, the
communication of the same things, only differing in this perspective ways or
formulation? Alternatively, are languages different to the extent that it may be
altogether impossible to express in one language what can be expressed in


another? Are semantic systems completely arbitrary or are they constrained by
universal principles? (Lobner, 2002, p. 153)

2.7.4Universalism in Translation
How different are languages? The possible position regarding this question
ranges between two extensions of Universalism and Relativism. According to
Amjad (2013), there is a view in contemporary translation studies (TS) that our
field is too Eurocentric, or too Western, and therefore needs to expand to
incorporate non-Western approaches. Such an expansion, he believes, is seen as
offering solutions to some current trends that challenge the development of
translation theory. Underlying this general view, there seems to be the
assumption that TS as a research field is particularly affected by cultural
relativity, and has been dominated for too long by European culture (Amjad,
2013).
According to Universalists, Lobner (2002, p.161) says, all languages obey
same principles. The structure of every language is some variant of universal
grammar (UG), and the UG is part of the human genetic equipment. For
biological reasons all human beings perceive themselves and their environment
essentially in the same way. Lobner (p.161) believes, they form the same kinds
of concepts and organize them into the same kinds of complete model of the
world. Ultimately, the Universalists would argue that all languages make use of
the same mental resources. They differ in the way in which these resources are
used (p.161).
The opposite of universalism is relativism. To an extreme relativist, each
language is radically different. Due to its unique grammar and uniquely
structural lexicon, it represents a unique way to talking about the word and
corresponds to a particular way of thinking. Each language represents and
causes a word view of its own (Amjad, 2013).
Moreover, Culler (as cited in Baker, 1992, p. 10), if language were simply a
nomenclature for a set of universal concepts, it would be easy to translate from
one language to another. It would be much easier, Culler (as cited in Baker,
1992, p. 10) says, to learn a new language than it is now. However, concepts of
one language may differ radically from those others, because each language
articulates or organizes the world differently. Languages do not simply name
existing categories, they articulate their own.


 Furthermore, according to Chesterman (2013, pp. 82-90), the idea that there
are (or might be) universal features of translations is an old one, although it is
only during the past couple of decades or so that serious research has been done
on this topic. It has long been realized that there are always differences between
translations and their originals, including interference, explicitation, or
increasing standardization. Differences between the TT and non-translated texts
in the TL include simplification and the under-representation of target-
language-specific. In a polemical piece against the whole notion of universals,
House (2008, p. 11) argues, The quest for translation universals is in essence
futile, mainly because she sees the only valid universals as those pertaining to
language pragmatics in general, not translation in particular.
Chesterman (pp. 82-90) says, the term universals was popularized by
Baker (1993) and later influenced by Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar,
has meant formulating generalizations about language structure that are claimed
to be based on the constraints of human cognition, and underlie the structures of
individual languages. However, with respect to translation, Chesterman (pp.
82-90) believes, the term must be interpreted differently, for several reasons.
The notion of translation is categorically different from that of language.
Translations as instances of parole, not langue, are different from language in
forms and sizes, from a single spoken word to a whole book. There is
enormous variation of usage and interpretation, both culturally and historically.
Chesterman (2013, pp. 82-90) holds the view that ultimately, the quest for
universals is not more than the usual search for patterns and generalizations that
guides empirical research in general. Conditioned generalizations, at a lower
level of generality, specific to particular languages, genres, translator profiles,
working conditions and so on, may bring a wealth of new information about
translation (pp. 82-90).
An important issue is the need for a standardized terminology.
Universalists have been arguing for more agreement on TS terminology. So,
whereas the terminology problem is one that still remains without a generally
agreed solution and if any standardized terms are to be agreed for, say, English,
this still leaves open the problem of their standardized translations in other
languages.



 2.7.5 Synonymy in Translation
The study of synonymity and synonymous words has many aspects in common
with the TSs and translated language (Jantunen, 2004, p. 103). When we say
that two words have equivalent reference, we are talking about synonymy or
same meaning. According Armstrong (2005, p. 45) even within a language full
equivalence of meaning is rare. He maintains that the examples of lack of
synonymy across languages are equally prevalent.
Blum-Kulka and Levenston (as cited in Jantunen, 2004, p. 103) suggests, the
use of common level or familiar synonyms may account for lexical
simplification in translations. Synonyms can also be considered appropriate
items in the analysis of untypical patterns in translation. It is claimed that each
number of a group of synonymous words has distinct contexts in which they are
used, and that this trait differentiates the word from its synonyms. Thus, we can
analyze, firstly, what kind of contextual restrictions synonymous words have in
language A, and secondly, whether the same restrictions and usage of synonyms
are present in translations into the same language.
Cruse (as cited in Jantunen, 2004, p. 104) believes that the meaning of
synonymous words is similar with respects to their central semantic traits, but,
due to minor or peripheral traits, synonyms are not interchangeable in all
contexts. This is to say that synonyms are context dependent. He says that few,
if any, synonymous words pass the test of absolute synonymity, meaning that
lexical items would appear in exactly the same contexts.
According to Armestrong (2005, p. 86), near-synonymy occurs when the
sense of two words that are polysemic overlap in one semantic area. Near-
synonymy is also dependent on linguistic context and results in selectional
restriction.
Corpus-based analysis of lexical or grammatical patterns suits particularly
well the description of the use of nearly synonymous words (Biber et al., 1998,
as cited in Jantunen 2004, p. 105). In their corpus-based presentation of
language structure and use, Biber, Conrad, and Reppen clarify the systematic
differences in some groups of synonymous words. For example, they believe,
nearly synonymous adjectives big, large, and great have clearly different
collocational association patterns in academic prose: big collocates mostly
with enough, large with number and great with deal.



 The analysis listed here clearly shows that the contextually-dependent use of
near-synonyms seems to differentiate them from each other. According to
Armestrong (2005, pp. 86-7), the lexical relation of synonymy relates to
sameness of meaning.
Languages seem to reflect the desire of speakers to economize mental
processing by assigning more than one meaning to certain words, so avoiding
the storage and retrieval problem associated with a one-word-one-meaning
system. Languages seem to prefer to add new meaning to the lexicon by
extending the function of existing words. Translation problems arise where
languages extend the meaning of a word in different directions.
Armestrong is on the belief that complete or absolute synonymy is rare
because it is not needed; why have two words to designate a concept on
precisely the same way, where one will suffice? if not totally absent, he argues,
complete synonymy is said to be very rare. [] near-synonyms in English like
begin and commence, finish and terminate, like countless other pairs,
are differentiated by their formality, which in turn depends on their Anglo-
Saxon or Greco-Latin origin. The use of a term rather than another can also
depend on the theoretical intent of the author of the text. [] the very fact that
one term is preferred over another can reflect the authors theoretical intentions,
or their wish to impart an archaic flavor to a text, for whatever reason. It may
be then complete synonymy, in its restrict definition, does not exist. In the
words of Armestrong, the rarity of complete synonymy is due either to simple
differences of denotation, or differences of connotation (stylistic level, affective
meaning, reflected meaning, etc.). Wide readings in the SL, as well as
systematic ransacking of reference book, especially perhaps the thesaurus, are
needed to ensure the correct synonym or circumlocution is selected (p. 88).

2.7.6 A words Meaning Components

The experience or environment that a word symbolizes, regardless of how little
or how much that experience or environment includes, is treated as a unit of
meaning. These unites are divisible into parts called semantic components.
Semantic components are the building blocks that are joined together to give the
meaning of a word; and they, as well as the words themselves, can be divided
into four different classes. These are conveniently labeled thing, event,
abstraction, and relation, abbreviated as T, E, A and R (Beekman and



Callow, 1974, p.68). In their beliefs, things are inanimate entities and animate
beings; events are actions and processes (e.g. run, and die); abstractions include
qualities and quantities (e.g. soft, red, round, many, and quickly) and relations
are the relationships between any pair of T, E, or A such as coordinate,
simultaneous, sequential, attributive, agentive, part-whole and cause-effect.
Even though words are semantically complex, one of the components is nuclear
which may be expressed by a generic term that includes the meaning of the
word. The generic term, however, lacks some specifications (p. 69).

2.7.7 Generic-Specific Relation between Words

When a word is compared with some other words in the same language, it can
be described as generic or specific. For example, chair is generic when
related to different types of chairs and specific when related to different items of
furniture. All the words or phrases in a generic-specific list remain in the same
semantic class. In other words, if nuclear component is classed as an Event
regardless of how many words may appear in the generic-specific hierarchy; if
an Abstraction, always an Abstraction; if a Thing, always a Thing
(Beekman and Callow, 1974, p.71).
As Armstrong (2005, p. 88) states, hyponymy is the lexical relation of
dominance or inclusion: an umbrella term, or superordinate, expresses the board
meaning of each of the hyponyms governed by the superordinate. In its turn,
each of the hyponyms expresses a more detailed area of meaning within the
general sense expressed by the superordinate. Differing numbers of words
cover or encode particular sectors of experience in each semantic field. Subtler
examples of differences in hyponymic systems occur where languages
categorize experience using different grids.
According to Baker (1992, p. 20), any propositional meaning carried by
superordinate or general word is, by necessity, part of the meaning of each of its
hyponyms, but not vice versa. She suggests that we can sometimes manipulate
this feature of semantic fields when we are faced with semantic gaps in the TL.
Translators often deal with semantic gaps by modifying a superordinate word or
by means of circumlocutions based on modifying superordinates.
This characteristic of the vocabulary of all languages, i.e. that words are in a
generic-specific relationship, make it possible to state class labels
(superordinates) which can be used to list words that are related semantically.


This in turn makes it possible to determine the components of meaning of a
particular word. According to Beekman and Callow (1974, p.72), the generic-
specific character of the vocabulary of each language may be utilized to
advantage by the translator to arrive at a more explicit and thus a more accurate
understanding of important terms used in his translation.

2.7.8 Class Labels and Semantic Sets

As Beekman and Callow (1974, p. 72) believe, Table, chair and cabinet are an
example of a semantic set. The generic term furniture may be converted into a
class label by adding the phrase different items of to give different items of
furniture, the expression semantic set is used, therefore, to describe a group of
words which are specific relative to one another, and to which a class label may
be attached to identify them as a group. A generic term, they say, is utilized to
make a class label such as different types of (generic term). Such a label
facilitates the listing of members of a semantic set. A large number of words in
any language defy being under any heading (Carter and McCarty, Lehrer, as
cited in baker 1992, p. 19).
Words like just, nevertheless, and only, to name but a few, cannot be
easily filled under any particular semantic field. In the words of Baker (p.16),
limitations aside, there are two main areas in which an understanding of
semantic fields and lexical sets can be useful to a translator: (a) appreciating the
value that a word has in a given system; and (b) developing strategies for
dealing with non-equivalence. Understanding the differences in structure
semantic fields in the source and target languages allows a translator to assess
the value of a given item in lexical set, to appreciate the significance of the
writers or speakers choice. The translator can understand not only what
something is, but also what something is not. In general, Baker (p.17)
concludes that the notion of semantic fields can provide the translator with
useful strategies for dealing with non-equivalence in some contexts. It is also
useful in and of the significance of any choice made by the speaker in a given
context.

2.7.9Meaning, Sense, and Collocates

The area of experience or segment of ones environment symbolized by a word
may be divided into components of meaning. However, a single word may



symbolize more than one area of experience or different segments of ones
environment, whether large or small. Each such distinct area of reference
symbolized by a word is called a sense of that word. For example the word
dress in they dress themselves quickly means put clothes on, but in she
will dress the chicken for dinner it means pluck and clean in readiness for
cooking. These two different areas of experience are symbolized by the same
word, so that it is said that dress has (at least) two senses (Beekman and Callow,
1974, p.74).This example show that illustrates the fact that one cannot speak of
analyzing the components of meaning of a word before choosing the sense of
that particular word and that occurs within the context. According to Beekman
and Callow (1974, p. 75), the significant words associated with a word in
context are referred to as it collocates, so we can say that each sense is
associated with a particular collocate. It then becomes quite evident that context
-- more specifically the collocation of word under analysis is basic in
determining whether a word has a meaning consisting of several senses or of
only one. When the senses have been worked out, then the generic term or
expression that includes that sense may be determined.

2.8 The Holy Quran

Outstanding Muslim scholars have held spectra of views about the etymology of
the origin of the word Quran and its meanings. Some of them consider it a
verb and noun, which is equivalent in meaning to Giraah, as both come from
the verb Garaah which mean to read (Alhaj, 2015, p. 58). The subject matter
of the Holy Quran is humankind; the main theme running throughout the book
is called to the belief in Allah and the doing of righteous deeds as defined by
Allah.
According to Alhaj (2015, p. 60), since the aim of the Holy Quran is to
guide humankind, it discusses things only to the extent relevant to this aim and
leaves out unnecessary and irrelevant details. The Holy Quran is not only
unique in the way in which it present its subject matter, but also it is also unique
in that it is a miracle itself. By term miracle characters that, in spite of the
sparse personal details provided about them, come across a vivid figures. For
those who read the Holy Quran in Arabic, all prevailing rhythm which, in
conjunction with the sustained use of the rhymed prose, creates a spell binding



effect that is impossible to reproduce in many Surah of the Holy Quran,
(Abdullah, p. 22, as cited by Alhaj, 2015, p.62).

2.8.1Translation of the Holy Quran

The Holy Quran has been translated into English and many other languages
over the years. According to Hussain Khan (1983), the first attempt of
translating the Quran was into Latin. At the request of the Abbot of the
Monastery of Cluny, it was made by Robert of Ketton in 1143, yet was not
published until 1543. Then, the Holy Quran was translated into other languages
like Italian, German, and French respectively in 1547, 1616, and 1647. The first
English translation was that of Alexander Ross, published in 1649. By the
1900s, the Qur'an had been translated into nearly every major language of
Europe and Asia. Because of the growing Muslim communities in English-
speaking countries, as well as greater academic interest in Islam, there has been
a blossoming in recent years of English translations.
According to Manafi-Anari, the Holy Quran is the very Word of Allah, so
the content and the container both are divine and inseparable from each other.
The language of the Holy book is not Arabic (it is Quranic Arabic, which is a
Quranic-specific language), so translation of the Holy Quran is very hard
compared with other Arabic books and more difficult than any other religious
works (Manafi-Anari, 2012, p. 1).
As Arberry (as cited in Alhaj, 2015, p. 64) says, the Quran is neither prose
nor poetry, but a unique fusion of both. Therefore, he believes, a translator --
either male or female -- cannot imitate its form, as it is a Quranic-specific form
enjoying both the features of prose and poetry and utilizing beautifully the
peculiar properties of the original language. Moreover, its form, Arberry says,
is so delicately fused with its content that neither form-focused nor content-
focused translation can reproduce an equivalent translation in terms of either
form or content. In the preface of his translation of the Holy Quran he also
says, "Since the Koran is to the faithful Muslim the very word of God, from
earliest times orthodox opinion has rigidly maintained that it is untranslatable, a
miracle of speech which it would be blasphemous to attempt to imitate. I have
called my version an interpretation, conceding the orthodox claim that the
Koran (like all other literary masterpieces) is untranslatable."



 Also Pickthall (1930, p. vii) says that it is believed that the Qur'an cannot be
translated. Although I have sought to present an almost-literal and appropriate
rendering worthy of the Arabic original, I cannot reproduce its inimitable
symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy.
Furthermore, Jakobson (1959/2000, p.114) states that the translators need to
find an equivalent with the same concept in the target text (TT). In cases where
concepts are not identical, Jakobson believes, they cannot be used
interchangeably in even two dialects of the same language. There are many
words in each language for which there is no full equivalent in the TT.
Larson (1998, p.163) also states that one of the most difficult problems a
translator faces is how to find lexical equivalents for the areas and aspects
which are not known in the receptor culture i.e. there is not a corresponding
word or phrase in the receptor language easily available for the translation.
Considering the two languages and cultures are of great importance, he says,
there will be some concepts in the SL that do not have lexical equivalents in the
target language. This, Larson believes, may be due to different geography,
customs, beliefs, worldview, and various other factors. Even if close
equivalents are found, they can rarely reveal and convey exactly the same
massages.
Meanwhile, there are some words or phrases in one language which are
unknown for another language; this phenomenon is called semantic void or
lexical gap (Gambier et.al, 2004, p.11). In some cultures, lexical gap may be
observed in a way that people make distinctions between different aspects of a
concept. For instance, the Arabs use 20 different words to identify different
kinds of camels and they conceptualize camels more specificallyin their
cultural groups (Stemberg et.al, 2009, p.388). However, people in other
countries like Iran do not make any distinctions between different kinds of
camels and use a generic word for all these different aspects. In their hypothesis
of linguistic relativity, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf (as cited in
Armstrong, 2005, p.16) also hold that the language we speak both affects and
reflects our view of the world. In a popular 1940 article, Whorf referred to
Eskimo languages having seven distinct words for snow. In some communities,
this concept may not have been lexicalized. For example in some parts of the



world, the inhabitants have not seen snow; hence, they do not have any word to
carry the concept.
Thus, translation of the Qur'an necessitates the discussion of its Sura and
Aya in great depth, thus providing examples of the ways in which the
interpretation of the text makes possible deeper understanding of the pillars on
which the message of the Qur'an is based. Hervey and Higgins (1992, p. 139)
hold that "the subject matter of theological and religious works implies the
existence of a `spiritual world'. As Forster (1958, p. 1) indicates "a perfect
translation is one which fulfills the same purpose in the new language as the
original did in the language in which it was written, not a mere approximation
to that purpose, " the translator of the Quranic text needs to be familiar with the
Qur'an Cognitive Model (QCM) in order to render the same purpose in the TT
as the ST did.
Overall, the translator needs to know the pillars of the QCM if s/he plans to
render the same impression the ST has on its readers. If authenticity is stressed
and the right image of the ST, emphasis is to be allotted to the QCM (see
Chapter Three).

2.8.2 Divine Attributes in Context

The greatest values of the Holy Quran which almost all commentators and
translators, argues Saffarzadeh (2001, p. 1542), have failed to translate justly
and accurately are Allahs Names of Outstanding excellence known as Asma ul
Husna. This factor, she believes, is major flaw that has caused confusion and
brought about an evident sign of incompleteness of the meanings of the words
of Revelations throughout the Book. Any translation void of attention to these
meanings that usually confirm and complete each verse loses a substantial part
of its validity.
Dealing with collocations is one of the problems encountered by translator
of the Holy Quran. According to Armstrong (2005, p. 97), while selectional
restriction has to do with the constraints that prevent words co-occurring in
ways that produce nonsense, collocational restriction operates to produce
largely arbitrary variation between near-synonyms. The difference between
near-synonyms will be revealed through the context in which they appear.
These collocational restrictions are arbitrary in the sense that there is no strong
semantic reason for their coming together; the language has selected them this


way for no very apparent reason. As Baker (as cited in Armstrong, 2005, p. 97)
points out, collocation has to do with semantically arbitrary restrictions which
do not follow logically from the propositional meaning of word. The difficulty
for the translator is not to be led stray by the TL from into a literal translation
that might be stilted or even misleading.
Astington (as cited in Armstrong, 2005, p. 98), makes the point that while
English has the possibility of combining problem with answer and
solution, French has narrower scope, being limited to the related terms
resoudre and solution. This breadth or narrowness of expressive possibility
may of course work in either direction between TL and SL; that is, the TL may
have more than one collocative option where the SL has only one, as in the
proceeding example, or the converse may be true.
Saffarzadeh (2001, pp. 1446-48) recognizes three main aims included in
creation of DAs:
1. Monotheism or the Unity of Allah the Almighty God is made clear by a
group of Divine Attributes which appears in twins, yet seem to be contradictory
in nature, such as  (the Eternal Live),  (the One yet the
Dominant) and (The Holy King). She argues that such attributes
belong to Allah only and they rule out any resemblance between the Creator and
the created ones; since Allah the Almighty God is the only one who owns the
Eternal life; and only Allah is the One yet the Dominant over all things and
powers, and also Allah is the only Pure and Flawless king; even among the
perfect human beings i.e., the Messengers of Allah, such examples cannot be
traced.
2. Remembrance of the Names of Outstanding Excellence provides a
manifest effect in mans spiritual and mental upbringing, provided that they are
learned and pondered over profoundly. Allah has guided man to regard these
DAs as his models in self-cultivation towards perfection: when Allah introduces
Himself as the Mighty Forgiving ( ), it is to be understood by the
believers that notwithstanding owing the Supreme Might, Allah chooses
Forgiveness; or when introduces Himself as the Knowing Decreer (
), a believer learns that a decreer has to pass its judgments on the basis of
the knowledge and truth.



 Saffarzadeh (2001, pp. 1446-48) believes that the attributes should be
translated according to the context, particularly when they appear as twins, the
task of translator doubles; thus they are not to be treated as synonyms and not to
be separated by the related punctuation i.e. comma. Not only according to the
context should translation be done, but also one of the attributes, according to
the context should stand as an adjective for the other one as a noun; otherwise,
the mighty Forgiving will come out as the Mighty, the Forgiving, and the
Knowing Decreer as the Knowing, the Wise. In the latter, with reference to
the context which contains decrees regarding distribution of heritage, the right
equivalent, the Knowing Decreer has been substituted by the Wise, the
Knowing; consequently the two wrongly considered separate Attributes have
failed in contributing any coherent meaning to one another and naturally to the
whole message (2001, p. 1447).
Saffarzadeh (2001, pp. 1447) supports her ideas by giving an example. She
claims that in one context means the Knowing Dominion-Expander
when the Ayat deals with vastness of Allahs ownership of the earth (Quran,
2:115) but when the Ayat promises the increase of wealth for those who spend
for Allahs sake in charity, then it means the Knowing Bounty-Increaser
(Quran, 2:261); in the case of Talut against those who argue about his lack of
merits to be a king, due to lack of wealth, their prophet says: He has been
granted power of knowledge and physical strength, so here  is the
Knowing Power-Bestower (Quran, 2;247). In all three different contexts, the
following translations show separation between the Attributes:
1. Arberry: God is All Embracing, All Knowing
2. Pictall: Allah is All Embracing, All Knowing
3. Mir Ahmad Ali: God is All Pervading, All Knowing
4. Yusuf Ali: God is All Pervading, All Knowing
The reason that they copy one another is to be traced in the point they have
not regarded with the due precision the nuances of the Names and the Attributes
according to the different contexts.
3. If appreciation of the meaning is provided, a believer may receive the
Divine Tranquility [or ] by invoking to Allahs Attributes and
remembrances which has been enjoined emphatically in the Holy Quran and a
believer can hope for the benefit of intercession of the DAs (2001, pp. 48).



2.9 Gender and Translation
The present study aimed at investigating whether the gender factor may be the
source of differences in ways male and female translators address the problems
and adopt strategies in rendering the Quranic DAs in English and Persian or not.
For this purpose, the concept of gender should be discussed first. The most
influential movement that pays attention to differences between men and
women and tries to overcome the stereotypical view of women in the patriarchal
societies is Feminism. The traces of Feminism, as Bressler (2007, p. 171)
believes, began in early 1900s when women started playing social roles. They
tried to introduce themselves as one important part of the society by obtaining
the suffrage, but still they were not equal to men.
Virginia Wolf, an outstanding figure in the history of feminist criticism, in
her famous book A Room of Ones Own in 1929, talked about why the
picture of talented women in the history of the world literature is not seen. In
1960s with the rebirth of feminist criticism, the writings about and of women
became important again bringing about two distinct pictures of women. The
first one is the picture of women in the works of men writers: the physical,
social, behavioral, and psychological characteristics that male authors gave to
their female characters. The second focus of feminist criticism was on women
as writers. Showalter in her well-known book, A Literature of Their Own
(1977), as cited in Bressler (2007, p.176), divides female writings into three
historical phases:
The first is called the "feminine phase" (1840-1880) in which women writers
like Charlotte Bronte and George Eliot wrote under the influence of a male
dominant society and male pseudonyms. In her view, they were isolated from
their social lives (p.176).
In the second period or the "feminist phase (1880-1920), female writers
helped dramatize the plight of the slighted woman, depicting the harsh and often
cruel treatment of female characters at the hands of their more powerful male
creations," (p.176).
Finally, in the third or "female phase" (1970- present) women writers reject
the secondary and passive role of women in the two previous phases. In this
period, for the first time we can see "female understanding of female



experience" (p.176). In Showalters view, women in this phase try to uncover
the misogyny or the male hatred of women in the texts (pp.175-76).
Moreover, in her essay "Toward a Feminist Poetics" (1979) Showalter (as
cited in Guerin et al, 2005, pp. 225-26) introduces the term "gynocriticism" by
which she means that the female theorists must develop a female framework for
analyzing and evaluating womens literature.
Another issue related to translation and gender ideology is what Hatim and
Munday (2004) called "translation project. They define it as "an approach to
literary translation in which a feminist translator openly advocates and
implements strategies (linguistic and ) to foreground the feminist in the
translated text" (p.105). They, also, believe that the opposite strategy occurs
when "gendered-marked works are translated in such a way that their distinctive
characteristics are effaced" (p.106). This usually is done by non-feminist or
gender-neutral translators of feminist works.
The concept of gender is taken by so many people as the equivalent for
sex, but there is a basic difference between the two terms. While sex
(biological gender) refers to physical features of people "based on their anatomy
(external
genitalia, chromosomes, and internal reproductive system)," gender is a
socially constructed phenomenon that "attributes qualities of masculinity or
femininity to people" (Karoubi, n.d., p.5).
Gender also differs from feminism in that feminism usually has
something to do with politics and in fact, it is a political movement rather than
merely a social one, while gender frees itself from such a political sense. As
Lima Costa (2006) asserts, gender "does not carry with it a necessary statement
about inequality of power nor does it name the aggrieved (and hitherto)
invisible party. (p.70). Therefore, gender is one of the key elements that
defines the identity of people as masculine and feminine and gender identity
can greatly change the person's view of life, her or his beliefs and behavior.
Language reflects, on the one hand, mens power and social advantage, and
on the other hand, womens lack of power and social disadvantage. Spender
(1980) believes that because men have shaped language they tried to show their
superiority over women in it, while women were involved in making and using



language all the time. However, because they were powerless they were
regarded as inferior in that so-called man-made language (p. 3).
The role of power in using language was also interesting for many other
researchers. For example, Zimmerman and West (1975) prove that men
interrupt women in order to show their power and superiority over them in
conversation. Miller and Swift (1976) in their researches endorse the idea of
power and its effect on language use.
Weatherall (2002) names the two major components of this field: "sexism
and language and gender differences in language use. (p.147). Defining them,
she takes the essentialist and realist approach to identity and categorizes them
from this angle into two distinct parts:
The first one is people's attitudes towards men's and women's speech which
leads to evaluating them, and the other one is "speech cues" that tap gender
identity of the speaker (p.123).
One of the most typical representations of language use among different
societies and various cultures is translation, and therefore, the identity of
translators as special users of language is very effective. Simon (1996, p. 7)
states, "Where identity enters into play is the point at which the translator
transforms the fact of gender into the social or literary project". Having this in
mind, she concludes that the translator transmits her or his own cultural
perspective regarding gender and in this way clarifies his or her cultural
position. Regarding gender ideology in translation, she refers to Spivaks
(1993) ideas that a "feminist translator" views language as a means of
"workings of gendered agency" (p.179). Simon also takes the "writers agency"
into account and believes that the translators as well as the writers ideologies
are presented in the translated text (p.142).
In addition, Weatherall (2002), based on the constructionist view of
language, and in the field of gender issues in particular, believes that "the
meaning associated with the two gender categories unavoidably cloud every
aspect of thought, perception, and behavior" (p.81). In this way, a social
constructionist perspective of language and discourse, produces and makes
gender a crucial and basic social category that shapes language. In such an
approach, the "ideological-symbolic" aspect of language is highlighted and



makes gender a "social process" rather than an unchanged notion in human
psyche.
Shafiee in his article published in the Journal of Teaching and Language
Skills in 2011, defines the notions of ideology and translation clearly related to
language, which is the main concern in translation. He suggests that, any
translator primarily works on the first language, and then s/he transfers the
message to the receptor via second language.
Language, however, is not a neutral means of transferring ideas and beliefs.
A brief glance over the history of language reveals that it is one of the most
important means of showing power, and because history -- according to some
feminist critics -- was patriarchal, men were mostly the sources of power by
which they shaped language as they desired. In other words, language is man-
made and raises gender-related issues in which patriarchal ideologies are
dominant. Hence, the significance of gender is related to language and
translation (Shafiee, 2011)
Since both women and translation have tended to be allocated a subordinate
role in many societies, interest has centered on the intersection between gender
and translation. This relationship is usually referred to as feminist translation
studies, the focus of which has been on challenging the traditional metaphors
of translation and on feminist translators work (e.g. Simon 1996). Such studies
grew out of the
feminist protest movements which had developed in Western Europe and
North America by the mid-1960s as a reaction to the dominance of the so-called
patriarchal world; in these terms, translation was understood as a form of
communication, power and manipulation. Through a series of strategies,
including the selection of texts, the feminist translators in, for example, the
Canadian translation project (see Lotbinire-Harwood 1991; Simon 1996)
manipulated words and meanings in order to mark their presence in society
since they had been silenced and oppressed for too long, (Munday, 2009).
Recent translation studies have been increasingly focusing on translators and
have helped us see how the translators identity as a necessarily gendered-
rewriter impact their works. According to Chamberlain (1998, p.96), the issues
relating to gender in the practice of translation are myriad, varying widely
according to the type of text being translated, the language involved, cultural



practices and countless other factors. Von Flotow (1997, pp. 14-34 ) offers a
comprehensive overview of research areas in which the issue of gender and
translation could be investigated
- Historical studies (who translated what when and how, and how did gender
play into this?)
- Theoretical considerations (how do different gender affiliations, definitions,
constructions play themselves out in translation and translation research")
- Issues of identity (how does gendered identity or a lack of it affect
translation, translation research?)
- Post-colonial questions (does our largely Anglo-American "gender" apply
in other cultures and their texts? Does it translate into other languages? And
what does it mean if it doesnt?)
- More general questions of cultural transfer (is the current government-
supported export of Canadian womens writing, a hot commodity in some
literary markets, really about Canadian tolerance and egalitarianism?)
Besides the role of the translators gender in translation, it can be said that
translation of the Holy Quran has its own specific difficulties and is more
difficult than any other religious works and even Arabic books. As Arberry (as
cited in Alhaj, 2015, p. 64) says, the Quran is neither prose nor poetry, but a
unique fusion of both; is a Quranic-specific form having both the features of
prose and poetry. So it is inimitatable for both male and famle translators.
Moreover, its form is so delicately fused with its content that neither form-
focused nor content-focused translation can reproduce an equivalent translation
in terms of either form or content. The translations problems and strategies
here are, therefore, Quranic-specific besides being probebly gender-specific that
are in need of being more focused in order to find the mostadequate
equivalences for the ST linguistic item.
Womens involvement in translating the Holy Quran into English is a very
recent phenomenon. According to Hassen (2012)The first English translation of
the Holy Quran by a woman was published in 1995, almost four hundred years
after Alexander Ross published the first ever English version of the Holy book
in 1649. Today there are five female-male team English translations of the Holy
Quran mainly by husbands and wives



2.10 Corpus-Based and Descriptive Translation Studies
The word corpus was originally used for any collection of writings by a specific
author (Baker 1995, p. 225). Nowadays, corpus means primarily a collection of
texts held in electronic form, capable of being analyzed automatically or semi-
automatically rather than manually. It includes spoken as well as written texts
from a variety of sources, on different topics, by many writers and speakers
(Kruger, 2000, 2002).
Corpus-based translation research emerged in the late 1990s as a new area of
research in the discipline of translation studies. It is informed by a specific area
of linguistics known as corpus linguistics that involves the analysis of large
corpora of authentic running text by means of computer software. Within
linguistics, this methodology has revolutionized lexicographic practices and
methods of language teaching (Kruger and Wallmach and Munday 2011, p.
Introduction).
Corpus-based translation studies has strong links with target-oriented and
descriptive translation studies with regard to its object of study while at the
same time envisages a methodology which draws on the insights and the
analytical tools of a linguistic perspective (Laviosa 2002, p.22).
Several studies (corpus-based studies or descriptive studies) have so far
explored effect of gender in Translation at the international arena such as The
Effect of Translators Gender on Translation Evaluation (Golavar, 2014), A
Critical Review of Gender and Translation (Khoshakhlaq, 2012), Gender in
English and Arabic with Reference to Translation (Muttalib, n.d.), and
English Translation of the Quran by Women: the Challenges of Gender
Balance in and through Language (Hassen, 2011), as well as Inflectional
Deviation of Gender in the Quran (Al-Azam and Al-Quran, 2014).
Problems and strategies in English translation of the Quran have been also
examined by a couple of researchers including Loss and Gain and Translation
Strategies with Reference to the Translations of the Glorious Quran (As-Safi,
n.d.), Comparative Analysis of two English Translation of Ya Seen: a Schema-
Based Approach (Khodadady, 2013), Issues in Translating Collocation of the
Holy Quran (Al-Shajea, 2014), Some Issues in Translating Nouns in Yusuf
Alis Translation of the Meaning of the Holy Quran (Abu-Mahfuz, 2011),
Investigating Some Semantic Problems in the Translation of the Holy Quran



(Fawzi, 2006), and The Socio-Political Implications of Translating the Quran
(Seyed-Alavi, 2012), as well as Problems and Strategies in English Translation
of Quranic Divine Names (Amjad, 2013).
The studies have revealed that translators male and female treat text
differently due to the differences they have in their ideology, thought and
language ability or capability. Sharifi et al. (2013) found that Iranian female
and male translators behave differently toward lexical equivalences in
translation of literary texts based on perceived gender, ideology, and gender-
specific language style. Amjad (2013) has also studied problems and strategies
in English translation of Quranic divine names disregarding the effects of
translators gender.

2.11 Conclusion
With respect to the above-mentioned literature, taking a point of view similar to
Bakers in this research, and drawing on a multilingual corpus named Noor
Comprehensive Commentary Collection, the researcher tried to study and
describe the works of 3 professional Quran translators concerning the strategies
they used for translating DAs in the Holy Quran.



 Chapter Three
Methodology



3.1 Introduction
This chapter contains three main parts. The first part is devoted to the design
and the framework of the study. The second part provides an introduction to
each corpus including the Holy Quran and its four translated editions. Some
information regarding the translators themselves, their own statements about
their works, besides some quotations about the translators and the translations
by some other scholars are also included in this part. Finally, the third part
recounts the procedures and the method of analysis used by the researcher.

3.2 Participants and Source Materials

In conducting this research, the researcher selected four editions of the Holy
Quran translations (two into Persian one by male and one by female
translators-- and two into English one by female and one by joint male and
female translators) in order to compare and contrast them with the original
Arabic text. These four translations have been done by Mohammad-Ali Kusha
and his team including his wife (currently under the translation into Persian),
the late Tahereh Saffarzadeh into English and Persian (2001), and Fazlollah
Nikayin into English(2006).
For this study, a total of 21 DAs which appear in twins from the Opening
Surah of the Holy Book to At-Tubah (Repentance or Baraat the Dissolve of
Obligations with the Treaty-Breakers) together with their English and Persian
renderings were selected for analysis. The reason behind the selection of these
21 DAs was that their translation seemed to the researcher as more challenging
cases than others for translation. Furthermore, they had not been worked on
before by other researcher. And as Saffarzadeh (2001, p. 1445) says the
greatest values of the Holy Quran which almost all commentators and
translators both in English and Persian have failed to translate justly and
accurately are Allahs Names of Outstanding Excellence known as Alsma ul
Hosna. Saffarzadeh describes translating DAs as the major flaw that has
caused confusion and brought about an evident sign of incompleteness of the
meanings of the words of revolutions throughout the Book and any translation
void of attention to these meanings loses a substantial part of its validity.
According to Saffarzadeh (2001, p. 1446), monotheism or the unity of Allah,
the Almighty God, is made clear by a group of DAs which appears in twins, yet
to be contradictory in nature such as   (The Eternal Live). Such


attributes, Saffarzadeh (2001, p. 1446) explains, belong to Allah only and they
rule out any resemblance between the Creator and the created ones; since Allah,
the Almighty God, is the only One Who owns the Eternal Life. She, then,
emphasizes that Allah has guided man to regard these DAs as his role models in
self-cultivation towards perfection: when Allah introduces Himself as the
Knowing Decreer (Zu Z), a believer learns that a decreer has to pass his
injunctions and judgments on the basis of knowledge and truth.

3.2.1The Holy Quran

The Quran has indubitably been the most influential book in the history of
humankind, and the Holy Prophet (P.B.A.H.) to whom it was revealed has been
also the most influential people around the globe. Together they have been
harbingers of a new era in the history of humankind. As Arberry (1973, p. x, as
cited in Alhaj, 2015, p. 64) says, the Quran is neither prose nor poetry, but a
unique fusion of both. It surpasses all human composition with the celestial
music of its rhythms, the profundity of its meanings, its universality of appeal,
its wonderful clarity eloquence, sublime rhetoric, and above all its deep and
passionate concern for the good of all human beings, which permeates all its
chapters and verses. Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 9) holds the view that "languages
differ considerably from one another syntactically, semantically and
pragmatically. At the heart of translation lies the problem of meaning. "
According to Shia Studies.net, the beauty and the sublimity of the Quranic
discourse is something which has to be discovered directly to everyone to the
extent of his/her capacity and efforts, for the richness of the Quran is
inexhaustible. Unlike other masterpieces of world literature and scriptures,
whose interest and appeal is limited to an audience with particular literary taste
or some religious creed, the Quran is the book of ordinary human being, and
meant for each and every human being. It addresses every human individual
qua human being and creature of God (see www. shiastudies.net).
Abdul-Raof (2001) also highlighted the distinction between the Holy Quran
and its translated versions and how the latter cannot replace the original.
Maurata and Chittic (1995, as cited in Abdul-Raof, p.19) have made a similar
distinction and described it as normal procedure in the Muslim view of things,
in marked contrast to Christian view, according to which the Bible is the Bible,



no matter what language it may be written in. For Muslims, Maurata and
Chittic (1995, as cited in Abdul-Raof, p.19), the divine word assumed a specific
Arabic form and that form is as essential as the meaning that the words convey.
Hence only the Arabic Quranic is the Quran and translations of the Quran
proclaims its own inadequacy and is no more than an approximation of the
meaning of the Quran (Maurata and Chittic, 1995, as cited in Abdul-Raof,
p.19).
Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 12) holds "in the translation of the Qur'an, language
and cultural-bound linguistic and rhetorical features are simply `inimitable' and
`unproduceable' into other languages to a satisfactory level that can create an
equivalent mystical effect on the target audience similar to that on source
language readers. He emphasizes that "the translation of the Qur'an remains
in limbo for the word of God cannot be reproduced by the word of man" (p. 1).
As Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 8) argues, there are eight kinds of equivalence (see
table 2.1, p.29) and is skeptical about whether all these levels will be met
satisfactorily by the TT about the Quranic Arabic text. Therefore, it can be
understood that the major translation hurdle is the ST textuality that involves
linguistic, rhetorical, stylistic, and phonetic characteristics that are prototypical
to Quranic Arabic.

3.2.2 The Translators and Their Translations

3.2.2.1Tahereh Saffarzadeh
Tahereh Saffarzadeh is an Iranian poet, writer, researcher, and translator, who
received the title of Woman Scholar of the Islamic World in 2005 by the
Organization of Afro-Asian. She was a professor at Shahid Beheshti University
and several other academic centers in Tehran. In addition, she has published
fourteen volumes of poems including "The Red Umbrella, "The Journey of
Five," "Move and Yesterday," "Seven Journeys", and "The Visit to the
Morning". She has indeed written ten books on the principles of translation,
literary, scientific, and Quranic texts.
As published on the Tehran Times (2007), Saffarzadeh has presented several
theories on the effectiveness of the science of translation. She has also written
the book dubbed Translating the Fundamental Meanings of the Holy Quran
(1999), in which she examines the main flaws and shortcomings of previous
translations of the Quran by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. In her book


"The Translation of Basic Concepts of the Holy Quran", she discovered one of
the important deficiencies of Persian and English translations of the Holy book,
that is to say, the disconnection between the attributes of Allah from one side
and verses of the Holy Quran from the other side. Such achievement could be a
prelude of reformation in translation of the Divine words of Allah into different
languages (The Tehran Times, 2007).
Moreover, she translated the Holy Quran into both Persian and English. Her
translation is the fruition of 27 years of studying the Holy Book, learning Arabic
as well as investigating and studying interpretations and Quranic sources which
commenced when she referred to Quran for applying concepts and words in
poetry and terminated when she finished the translation of it into two languages
of Persian and English. Quran translations into English and Persian by the late
Saffarzadeh are provided in tafsiricly prose forms regardless of the rhyme,
the alliteration, or any conventional literary element while absorbed and stunned
by ecstasy of the meanings. Her both translations are provided with
interpretation, related information, and commentary of the Words of
Revelations -- according to the background and situation of their descent
through words within brackets or footnotes to convey the concise meaning
within the framework of the message (Saffarzadeh, 2001, p.1449).
According to Khodadady and Eslami (2013), Saffarzadeh, in her English
translation, has secured the content validity of her translation by offering
appropriate semantic, syntactic, and para-syntactic equivalents for the Arabic
schemata. Mohammad-Beigi and Rezai (2012) define Saffarzadehs English
and Persian translations based on the interpretive approach that has significantly
influenced on her choice of translation equivalents. However, their findings
indicate that Saffarzadehs English translation is more accurate and less
interpretive than her Persian translation of the holy Quran. Manafi-Anari
(2015), in an exclusive phone interview with the researcher, also described
Saffarzadehs Quranic works both in Persian and English as absolute
interpretive and explanatory translation.

3.2.2.2 Mohammad-Ali Kusha

Mohammad-Ali Kusha is a lecturer, writer, translator, editor, and critic. He had
taken courses on Fiqh and the principles of the Islamic law in Qom for 14 years
with the prominent Iranian Alyatollahs such as Ayatollah Hossein Nouri


Hamedani, Ayatollah Mirza-Javad Tabrizi, Ayatollah Vahid Khorasani, and
grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri. Kusha studied the hadith (Arabic for
narrations) and Qurans Tafsir (interpretation / exegesis of the Holy Quran)
under grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri and Ayatollah Nematollah Salehi
Najafabadi for 8 years. Then, he began conducting researches on Quran
translations and tafsirs (interpretations). More than 150 translations of the Holy
Quran out of 170 translations (published since 4th century) have been criticized
by him in a book published under the title of A Research on the Holy Qurans
Translations in 2011 in Tehran (Kusha, 2015, in an exclusive interview with
the researcher).
Kusha, who has written more than 40 books and 350 articles on Quran and
its translations, and edited several religious books translations including
Nahajolbalaqeh and the Holy Quran (e.g. the works in Persian by Ayatollah
Nematollah Salehi Najafabadi,Abul-Qasim Imami, Mustafa Khorramdel,
Muhammad Salavati, and Mohammad-Hussein Ibrahimi-Kazeruni, as well as
Seyyed Muhammad Taqi Dibaji) is now teaching the criticism of the Holy
Quran Translations at Qom universities in the center of Iran (Kusha, 2015, in an
exclusive interview with the researcher).
According to Kusha (2015), his Quran translation is based on analysis and
team working. It is a comparative translation which has been analyzed,
criticized and discussed academically, syntactically and morphologically by the
university students at the Quran translation criticism classes, Kusha (2015, in
and exclusive interview with the researcher).
He described his work as a precise and accurate translation, providing
less syntactic, etymological, grammatical and rhetorical errors, compared to
other works.
His translation is written in prose with interpretation and commentary of
the words, phrases, and sentences -- based on their syntax, and morphology --
on footnotes (2015, in and exclusive interview with the researcher). He began
translating the Holy Quran five years ago and will publish it by the next year.

3.2.2.3 Fazlollah Nikayin

Fazlollah Nikayin, a lecturer, translator, and linguist, was born in Tehran in
1938. He has taught at the Cambridge University, England, and the Islamic
Azad University, Tehran. Since 1989, he devoted all his time and talent to this


poetic translation of the Holy Quran that was published in Chicago in 2000. In
his translation, he tries to keep both the semantic and literary beauties of the
original text.
According to Nikayin (2015) in an exclusive interview with the researcher, a
good translation is that in which exact meanings along with employing all the
capabilities, possibilities, elegant and novel points are conveyed into TL so that
the native speaker could feel most of the beauty, eloquence, and the artistic
subtleties hidden in the original text when reading it.
Nikayin describes his new translation of the Holy Quran is, therefore, a
most humble effort intended, if God will, to carry over into the English
language some of the beauty and sublimity, elegance and eloquence and
enhancing force of the original, to echo those captivating little nuances, which
in the Quran, are always lying between prose and poetry, and to let non-
Muslims acquaint themselves with a Book that is to Muslims both scripture and
literature at the same time (Nikayin, 2000, p. xi). Nikayins translation with
brief footnotes is not didactic or interpretive, and is in the iambic, the majesty of
the English poetry, though often in pentameters. There is no fixed rhyme
scheme: rhymes of all sorts, parallel, lopsided. Internal, etc. have been
employed at the service of more fluency in communicating the Message,
disregarding to the stylistics of the original Quranic Arabic, which has no
application in English Nikayin(2000, p. xi).
Nikayins Quran given a poetic rendering will give Americans a taste of the
original masterpiece. Musa Qutub, a lecturer from Northeastern Illinois
University says, Never before has a translator of the Quran come as close to
reflecting the beauty, eloquence, and sublimity of the original Arabic in any
language . an obligatory reading for all English-speaking Muslims, especially
their second generation in North America (Amjad, 2013).

3.3 Instrumentation
The researcher took advantage of several tools to conduct the study and increase
the reliability of the findings such as taking interviews with the Holy Qurans
Translators and critics (e.g. Salar Manafi-Anari, Fazlollah Nikayin,
Mohammad-Ali Kusha, Morteza Kariminia, and Mohammad Noei). The Noor
Comprehensive Commentary Collection software, Quran Arabic Corpus, and a



reliable scholarly website, namely Qul website, were also among the tools in
carrying out the research.
1. The Noor multilingual software did not contain Nikayins English,
Kushas Persian translations, as well as Saffarzadehs Persian translation of the
Holy Quran, so the researcher had to do three out of four of the task regarding
these translators manually with paper version.
2. To comply with the analysis part of Chestermans model (1997) to get
the analysis of meanings and the functions of each DA -- the Quran Arabic
Corpus and the Qul scholarly website were used. Established by the Language
Research Group of the Leeds University, the Quran Arabic Corpus (Quran
Dictionary) is an annotated linguistic resource that shows the Arabic grammar,
syntax, and morphology for each word in the Holy Quran. The corpus provides
three levels of analysis: morphological annotation, a syntactic tree-bank, and a
semantic ontology. Qul is an Islamic website aiming to cater to religious,
ethical, and spiritual interests of the Islamic and non-Islamic communities at
large by providing a vast range of quality and relevant information. The
information Qul offers is sourced from the most reliable and the most in-depth
books, websites, and people of knowledge ranging from scholars to Sheikhs.
3. Abdul-Raofs Qur'an Cognitive Model (QCM) was also utilized as a
descriptive tool for the analysis of Quranic discourse. QCM presents a
framework against which translations can be commented on, saying that how far
the translation of the meaning of the Holy Qur'an is close or not so close to
QCM. According to El-Hadary (2008), Abdul-Raofs new cognitive concept
(QCM) is proposed as another type of Lakoff's ICM (Idealized Cognitive
Models). Lack of knowledge of QCM hinders understanding since it
illuminates the Islamic profession of faith.
According to QCM, the Holy Qur'an contains the Divine constitution that is
applicable anywhere at any time. QCM holds that only through the guidance of
the Qur'an does the individual learn where he/she came from, where he/she is
going, why the universe exists, and what his/her role is in the universe. An
intrinsic part of QCM is that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah. The Qur'an
articulates truth and the necessary attributes to live by it, which provides a good
deal of self-identity in the world. Irving, et al. (2002, pp. 5-6) have elaborated
the theme: "The Book contains the Divine Word, uncreated, unaltered, and



intact. The Book reveals those aspects of Divine Reality whose knowledge is
required to develop a correct relationship with God and His creation, even
though the totality of the Divine Reality remains beyond human comprehension.
As such, the real intent of the Revelation is not the disclosure of God's Person,
but of His Will. "
Abdul-Raof (2003, p. 105) describes monotheism, prophet-hood, eschatology,
and reward and punishment as the `four Quranic notions', `roots of Islam', and e
`tenets of faith' at the same time. In addition, the Islamic monotheism is
symbolized by La Ila-ha Illa Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but
Allah) which is the core of the notion of QCM.

3.4 Procedure
The researcher took the following steps to conduct the study:
1.The selected DAs over the first nine parts of the Holy Quran (from the
Opening Surah of the Holy Book to At-Tubah (Repentance or Baraat the
Dissolve of Obligations with the Treaty-Breakers) were spotted; the total
number of their occurrences were determined, and the scope of their meanings,
interpretation (by means of Noor and Nemuneh Interpretations), syntax, and
morphologies were defined.
2. The DAs and the number of their occurrences together with their English
and Persian renderings by each of the three translators along with their syntax
and position in the Holy Quran were tabled to be juxtaposed for analysis.
3. Taking a descriptive and comparative methodology and utilizing the
production part of Chestermans model (1997) which is shown in table 3.1 at
the end of this chapter, problems were explored and the strategies each
translator adopted for each DA along with their frequencies were coded and
then tabled. It should be noted that in some cases the translators had utilized
more than one strategy. In these cases, the researcher has mentioned a
combination of them.
4. Discussions -- based on Abdul-Raofs Qur'an Cognitive Model (QCM) as
a descriptive tool for the analysis Quranic discourse --were provided beneath
each table for the sample of the DAs selected for this study. The variety of
rendered equivalents and consistency of translators performances were
investigated. Where applicable, the differences in grammatical patterns of



English, Persian, and Arabic, collocational clashes, shifts, word order change
and some other factors were discussed.
5. Finally, the concluding tables were provided to show the frequency and
consistency of each translators strategy adoption for translation of DAs.

3.5 Research Design

This study is based on Holmes-Toury framework of Descriptive Translation
Studies (DTS). According to Holmes (cited in Monday 2001, p.11), DTS has
three possible foci: examination of the product, the function, and the process.
The focus of this study then is on the first foci the product of translation.
Product-oriented DTS examines existing translations, which involves the
description or analysis of a single ST-TT pair or a comparative analysis of
several TTs of the same ST (into one or more TLs). These smaller-scale studies
can build up into a larger body of translation analysis looking at a specific
period, language, or text/discourse type. Larger-scale studies can be either
diachronic or synchronic and. As Holmes states, one of the eventual goals of
product-oriented DTS might possibly be a general history of translations.
Taking these points into account, the present study falls under the umbrella of
product-oriented DTS and focuses on the product of translation. In doing so,
the researcher examined four TTs of the same ST into two TLs in order to find
out the translators strategies in dealing with the translation problems of
Quranic Arabic DAs into English and Persian and define most consist
translation as wade (2007), beliefs lexical consistency has long been recognized
as a means of evaluating various aspects of the translation, so to evaluate the
translations quality, the researcher has focused mostly on the lexical
consistency of the tasks of the four translators.

3.6 Data Analysis

This study was conducted to examine four (two Persian and two English)
translations of the Holy Quran, done by Saffarzadeh, Kusha (and his team) and
Nikayin with respect to the translation of DAs appearing in twins. To do so, the
researcher selected 21 DAs appearing in twins in the Holy Quran (from the
Opening Surah of the Holy Book to At-Tubah (Repentance or Baraat the
Dissolve of Obligations with the Treaty-Breakers) which seemed to him more
challenging attributes for translation due to their contradictory nature such as



( , The Eternal Life) and not being worked on in another research.
According to Saffarzadeh (2001, p.1446), such DAs belong to Allah only and
they rule out any resemblance between the creator and the created ones, since
Allah, the Almighty God, is the only One Who owns the Eternal Life.
Through the five steps in conducting the study, the researcher took the
following points into consideration for the data analysis:
1. Through the first step, the scope of the DAs meaning and interpretation
were determined based on the Noor and Nemuneh Interpretations available on
the Noor Comprehensive Commentary Collection software. Syntax and
morphologies of the SL items were also defined by means of this software. The
software did not contain Nikayins English, Kushas Persian translations as well
as Saffarzadehs Persian translation of the Holy Quran, so the researcher had to
do three out of four of the task regarding these translators manually with paper
version, which was extremely time consuming as she had to look up more than
750 (3 x 250) translation cases of these 21 DAs by three translators in paper
versions. Looking up the other approximately 250 translation cases of the other
translator Saffarzadehs English version -- whose translation existed in the
Noor software, was also a laborious task because the software could only
recognize a single keyword not attributes in twins.
2. The number of occurrences of each DA together with their English and
Persian renderings by each of the three translators along with their syntax and
position in the Holy Quran were also tabled to be juxtaposed for analysis.
3. Taking a descriptive and comparative methodology and utilizing the
Miremadis model for translation problems (see Table 1.1) and the
Chestermans production strategies (see Table 2.2), problems were explored,
and strategies each translator had adopted for each DA along with their
frequencies were coded and then tabled. It should be noted that in some cases
the translators had utilized more than one strategy. In these cases, the
researcher has mentioned a combination of them. A short introduction to each
DA, their meanings and functions analysis were provided based the Quran
Arabic Corpus and the Qul website beneath each DAs table.
The Quran Arabic Corpus provides three levels of analysis: morphological
annotation, a syntactic tree-bank, and a semantic ontology. Qul website also



provides a vast range of quality and relevant information and description on the
meanings of DAs in the Holy Quran (ST).
4. For analysis of the Quranic discourse, Abdul-Raofs Qur'an Cognitive
Model (QCM) as a descriptive tool was used and discussions based on QCM
were provided beneath each table for the sample of the DAs selected for this
study. Variety of rendered equivalents and consistency of translators
performances were investigated. Where applicable, the differences in
grammatical patterns of English, Persian, and Arabic, collocational clashes,
shifts, word order change and some other factors were also discussed.
5. Finally, based on the total concluding tables and by using SPSS software
the frequency and consistency of each translators strategy adoption for
translation of DAs were compared and analyzed.

3.7 Ethical Considerations

To address ethical considerations (based on the American Psychological
Associations APAs -- standards and principles) the researcher tried to:
Respect the participants individual private zone; in case of not being
healthy (Dr. Mahdieh Qomshehei) or going on travel abroad (Dr. Fazlollah
Nikayin) or even being engaged in political issues (Dr. Gholam-Ali
Haddadadel), the researcher did try to understand them and did not insist on her
will any more. So the researcher upholded professional standards of conduct,
clarified her professional roles and obligations, accepted appropriate
responsibility for her behavior and sought manage conflicts of interest that
could lead to exploitation or harm.
In some cases, in reply to the researchers 10-number list of questions, there
was only two or three questions were replied and even she was asked to report
unanimously (Dr. Rahim Khaki / Dr. Noei). Therefore, the researcher strived to
benefit those with whom they work and took care to do no harm and
safeguarded their rights.
The researcher over several sections of negotiation have established
relationships of trust with participants to take the information and description
she required with the participants consent (e.g. the Persian translation of the
Holy Book by Mohammad-Ali Kusha and his team, which has not been yet
published, was received by the researcher).



 Sometimes, the researcher consulted with, refer to, or cooperate with other
scholars, institutions and bodies to the extent needed to serve the best interests
of those with whom they work (e.g. Islamic Ideology Dissemination
Organization IIDO , Tehran Universitys Research Center, press and
publications and ).
To promote accuracy, honesty and truthfulness, the researcher all over the
study observed the quotation roles -- directly or indirectly. The researcher
exercised reasonable judgment through establishing intra-ability to ensure that
her potential biases, the boundaries of her competence and the limitations of her
expertise did not lead to or condone unjust practices.



 Chapter Four
Results and Discussion



4.1 Introduction
This chapter includes four sections. Beginning with restatement of the
problems of the study, it talks about the analysis of each original DA under
investigation and its English and Persian renderings in the second section. The
strategies adopted by each translator for translating these DAs, the numerical
information obtained based on the coded data are discussed in the third section.
The obtained results tabled and shown in bar graphs are described in the fourth
section. Finally, the consistency in performance of the translators in translating
the DAs in question is discussed in the last section. The present study based on
the three null and explanatory hypotheses (see Chapter One Section 1.6) was
conducted to investigate (1) the major problems in the translation of DAs based
on Miremadis framework (2) the translation strategies adopted by each
translator to achieve lexical adequacy and semantic equivalence in the
translation of DAs based on Chestermans model (3) define the most frequent
strategies totally and in accordance with the translators gender and the TTs
language and finally (4) the consistency of strategy adoption according to the
translators gender and the TTs language.
As stated in the previous chapter, the meanings and the functions of each
DA in this study were analyzed based on the Quran Arabic Corpus and the Qul
website, after being investigated in Noor Commentary Collocation software.
Consequently, a short introduction to each DA was quoted from these sites,
preceding the frequency table of each DA. It should be noted that there were
similar Arabic or Persian sources for unpacking the meanings, defining Arabic
grammar, syntax, and morphology of the DAs under the study. Whereas, the
information of these two resources -- the Quran Arabic Corpus and the Qul
website -- were originally written in English and provide three levels of analysis
-- morphological annotation, a syntactic tree-bank and a semantic ontology --,
the researcher found them more accurate for the purpose of the study.

4.2 Analysis and Results

4.2.1 Translation of DAs
The meanings of each DA, their position and functions in ST as well as their
frequencies, their syntax, and morphology in ST and TTs explored by the
researcher by means of the Noor Comprehensive Commentary Collection, the



Quran Arabic Corpus, and the Qul website are provided in the following sub-
sections.

4.2.1.1 Translation of uYuY / "Al-Rahman al-Rahim"

"Al-Rahman al-Rahim" are two of the Attributes of Allah which remind people
of His mercy, of the fact that His act of affecting goodness and rewards reach
whomsoever He pleases, thus warding off evil from them. "Al-Rahman" and
"al- Rahim" are two concurrent Attributes of His, each conveying more
meanings of mercy than the other. "Al-Rahman" is an Attribute specifically
relevant to Allah; none besides Him can be called or referred to as such,
whereas "Al-Rahim" can be applied to people: One may be described as
"Rahim," merciful or kind, but a human cannot be "Rahman" (Qul).
Al-Rahman / uY: According to the Quran Arabic Corpus, this
words triliteral root r h mm (s) occurs 339 times in the Quran, in nine
derived forms:
28 times as the form I verb ra hima (8u
> @)
12 times as the noun ar hm (Z8u:3O)
four times as the noun ar ham (8u:3O)
once as the noun ru h'm (:u9)
57 times as the nominal ra hmn (8u
: @)
114 times as the noun ra hmat (8u
: 8)
116 times as the nominal ra hm (>u@)
once as the noun mar hamat (8u
8 78 )
> )
six times as the active participle r himn (>u
This word may have a range of meanings depending on context. Here in this
study, the researcher studied only those appeared in twins with uY, which
were all nominal and play the role of none and adjective as follows:
(1) Noun
ZF5S835SZ3<|>uY8<35S:4 9 35S8
(2:163:8) l-ramnu
9>uFY 48u: FY 89



 (2) Adjective
l-ramni 5>uFY 58u: FY >F Y5
: ]5
(1:3:1) al-ramni 5>uFY 58u: FY
In the verse 2:163, Al-Rahman is a masculine singular noun and is in the
nominative case (). The noun's triliteral root is r h mm (s).In the verse
1:1 and other Suras first verses, Al-Rahman is a masculine singular adjective
and is in the genitive case (n). The adjective's triliteral root is r h mm (s
). And in the verse 1:3, it is a masculine singular adjective and is in the genitive
case (n). The adjective's triliteral root is r h mm (s).
It is an Attribute demonstrating that mercy can be possible only through
Him. It means, "The One Who grants mercy beyond which there is no other
mercy at all and the like of which does not at all exist." Though derived from
mercy, "al-Rahman" is both a noun and an adjective. Neither contradicts the
other. It is commonly known that mercy means one's desire or power of will to
bring goodness to one who is much less than him in status (Qul).
Al-Rahim / uY:"Al-Rahim" is derived from "Rahmah, mercy or
compassion. "Rahmah" implies the salvation of those who receive it from harm
and loss, and their being blessed with guidance, forgiveness, and sound
conviction. Al-Rahim is the One Who bestows countless blessings. The root
word for it is "Rahmah, that is, favors from Allah and blessings; surely His
blessings cannot be counted, nor can they ever be exhausted (Qul).
This word may have a range of meanings depending on context. Here in this
study, the researcher studied only those appeared in twins with uY which
were all nominal and play the role of adjective, as follows:
(1) Adjective
(1:1:4) l-rahmi 5>uFY 58u: FY>F Y5
: ]5
(1:3:2) l-rahmi 5>uFY 58u: FY
89 ZF5S835SZ3<|>uY8<35S:4 9 35S8
(2:163:9) l-ramu
9>uFY 48u: FY
In the verses 1:1 and 1:3 and all other Suras first verses, Al-Rahim is a
masculine singular adjective and is in the genitive case (n). The adjective's



triliteral root is r h mm (s). In the verse 2:163, it is a masculine singular
adjective and is in the nominative case (). The adjective's triliteral root is r
h mm (s).

Table 4.1
Translation of uYuY
 Saffarzadeh (P) Saffarzadeh (E) Nikayin Kusha (P) Positions
(E) /Functions in
10 ST
10 1:1s
the Beneficent, Near-sy 1:3
the Merciful Structure (Adj., Adj.)
change 2:163
Scheme (N., Adj.)
change
10 1:1s
the Merciful Emphasis 1:3
Beneficent change (Adj., Adj.)
save in 2-163 2:163
Structure change (N., Adj.)

10 1:1s
du|z]d Compression 1:3
f Structure change (Adj., Adj.)
Compression 2:163
Transposition (N., Adj.)

10 1:1s
Z]f* Near-synonymy 1:3
Structure change (Adj., Adj.)
Transposition 2:163
(N., Adj.)

This DA has found 10 times over the chapters of the Holy Quran under the
study. In all of its occurrences, Kusha and his team, Nikayin and Saffarzadeh
(in Persian and English) have complete consistency in presenting a certain
equivalent for this specific DA. Here, it is evident that the translators decisions
have not been influenced by the SL contexts.
Saffarzadeh (in her English translation) and Kusha, however, have changed
the word order of the original (emphasis change) in the verses under the study.
Word order has a semantic, rhetorical, and pragmatic role in every Quranic
communicative event (Abu Musa, 1998, as cited in Abdul Raof, 2001, p. 43).
Word order, according to St. Jerome (Schwartz, 1995, as cited in Abdul-Raof,
2001) contains a mystery trans-editing human understanding.



 In her Persian translation, Saffarzadeh has also adopted compression in all
10 cases under the study.
The interesting point here is about Kushas Persian equivalent Z] for
Al-Rahman.Z]in Persian is adjective and also noun, which is the concise
rendering for Al-Rahman playing the roles of adjective and noun in the
verses 1-1/1-3 and 2-163.
The most frequent strategy observed by 100% in the four TTs is structure
change for this DA. The remarkable point here is the STs definite article Y
which has been rendered into both English and Persian TTs by Nikayin,
Saffarzadeh, and the Kushas team through structure change strategy; however,
the ways of its presence in the two target texts are different from each other. In
English TTs, the definiteness is recognized in the presence of the definite article
of the, and in Persian TTs, the definiteness is defined in the absence of the
indefinite articles of at the beginning of an item or at the end of an
item. So, it may be assumed that the main reason behind such dereference is a
syntactic void the Persian language has here in terms of a certain definite article
compared to the two other target languages which are both equipped with
certain definite articles.

4.2.1.2 Translation of vYY / Al-Aziz al-Hakeem

Al-Aziz / Y: According to the Quran Arabic Corpus, this words
triliteral root ayn zy zy () occurs 119 times in the Quran, in seven derived
forms:
once as the form I verb azza (F8 )
once as the form II verb (:F8 )
once as the form IV verb (G>e4 )
three times as the noun (68 3O)
once as the noun (6>)
101 times as the nominal (58 )
11 times as the noun (F>)



 This word may have a range of meanings depending on context. Here, the
researcher due to the scope of the study investigated those Y/ Al-Aziz
which has been appeared with vY/ Al-Hakeem were all nominal and play
the role of none and adjective as follows:
(1) Noun
(2:129:15) l-azzu 9>v
8 7 Y 458 7 Y 8d7 3O8F 5S:5 J39 8
(2:209:11) <>u8 158 8F YF3OY93 : Z3
(2:220:25) <>u8 158 8F YF5S:4 f3 3 : 3P3 9F Y8LZ3:3 8
(2:228:39) azzun <>u8 158 9F Y81m8 88{F5 : 3 8 5Z8mJ>8
F5 >4 7 3O>37 8 3 Z8>:4 : 3 8 8sZ3m9 Z33 3m: 3y3 75T3
(2:240:26) azzun
<>u8 158 9F Y8?4: 8 7>
(2:260:38) azzun <>u8 158 8F YF3O:3 : Y8Z;: 8 83 >e7P8 F9 9 :{Y@i4

(3:6:12) l-azzu 8 7 Y 458 7 Y 89 ZF5S835SZ3

9>v
(3:18:17) l-azzu 8 7 Y 458 7 Y 89 ZF5S835SZ3>
9>v : >7 Z5]Z;>WZ357 >7 Y44O8
(3:62:14) l-azzu 8 7 Y 458 7 Y 89 3 8F YF5S89F YZF5S?35S7>Z88
9>v
(4:56:19) azzan Z;>u8 Y058 3Z38F YF5S8[Y3~8 7 YY44~8 >
(4:158:7) azzan Z;>u8 Y058 9F Y3Z38>: 3 5S9F Y98 3 87]8
3Z3859 GY8|: ]8 1n
@ u9 >F Y38 5ZF>348 ZFX3 >
(4:165:14) azzan
Z;>u8 Y058 9F Y
(5:38:12) azzun <>u8 158 9F Y8>F Y3>Z0Z33 Z8^
8 3 Z8]5 ;LY3m8

(5:118:10) l-azzu 9>v

8 7 Y 458 7 Y 8d7 3O8F 5T3 :9 3 7>7 e3 75S8

(8:10:17) azzun <>u8 158 8F YF5S>F Y>|7 >7>ZF5S4

: F YZ88
(8:49:17) azzun <>u8 158 8F YF5T3 >F Y38 7F 8f3 8 78 8
(8:63:19) azzun <>u8 158 9F 5S:9 3 : ]8 8F 3O8F YF>38
(8:67:19) azzun <>u8 158 9F Y833>yN7Y9|59 9F Y8Z87 A|Y838 39|5e4

(2) Adjective
>|7 >7>ZF5S4
: F YZ88
(3:126:16) l-
5>v
8 7 Y 558 7 Y >F Y



 Z87 9 7 Y8>>F Y48 >3 8
(9:40:42)
<>u8 158 9F Y8
F5S9F Y99 9 u8 78 8 8>W34O
(9:71:23)
<>u8 158 8F Y

In the verse 3:126, Al-Aziz is a masculine singular adjective and is in the

genitive case (n) while in the verse 2:129 is a masculine singular noun and is
in the nominative case (). Or in the verse 3:126 , Al-Aziz is a masculine
singular adjective and is in the genitive case (n), and in the verse 2:209, it is
an indefinite masculine singular noun and is in the nominative case (), while
in verse (4:56) it is an indefinite masculine singular noun and is in the
accusative case ([).
The root word of this Attribute is `izz, might, power, strength, victory,
elevation, non-submission. Its verb means to strengthen or to support.
Linguistically, its verb means: to overcome, to gain the upper hand, and ... .Al-
Aziz is the one who Alone has all honors; He is never humiliated, nor He is
ever wronged; neither imagination nor intellect can ever conceive Him. He is
the One who cannot be overcome or in any way harmed, the One Who has no
peer, nor a similitude, who is very much needed, can never be reached (Qul).
Al-Hakim/ vY: According to the Quran Arabic Corpus, this words
triliteral root h kf mm (s) occurs 210 times in the Quran, in 13 derived
forms:
45 times as the form I verb hakama (83 u8 )
twice as the form II verb yuhakkimu (9Jv
8 9 )
twice as the form IV verb uh'kimat (:d8 >u: 4O)
once as the form VI verb yatahkamu (93 Z8vf3 8 )
twice as the noun ahkam (3u: 3O)
three times as the noun hakam (3u8 )
30 times as the noun huk'm (7u9 )
20 times as the noun hik'mat (87 >u)



 97 times as the nominal hakm (>u8 )
five times as the active participle hkimn (>>)
once as the active participle hukkm (ZFu9 )
once as the form IV passive participle muh'kamt (c83 v
: A )
once as the form IV passive participle muh'kamat (83 v
: A )
Here in this study, the researcher dealt with its nominals appearing with
Y in twins, playing the roles of none and adjective as follows:
(1) Adjective
8d7 3O8F 5SZ3f3 : F 8 Z8ZF5SZ33 87 >Z383 Z8v^: 9 Y4Z3
(2:32:12) l-
9>v8 7 Y 9>8 7 Y
(2:129:16) l- 9>v
8 7 Y 458 7 Y8d7 3O8F 5S:5 J39 838 7 >v7 Y88[Z3f>7 Y99 9 J8 9 8
8F YF3OY93 : Z39cZ3D ^8 7 Y94 e7 8LZ8mZ8>|: ]8 7>:f4 7 3 875T3
(2:209:12)
<>u8 158
(2:220:26) <>u8 158 8F YF5S:4 f3 3 : 3P3 9F Y8LZ3:3 8
(2:228:40) <>u8 158 9F Y81m8 88{F5 : 3 8 5Z8mJ>8
9F Y8?4: 8 7>F5 >4 7 3O>37 8 3 Z8>:4 : 3 8 8sZ3m9 Z33
(2:240:27)
<>u8 158
(2:260:39) <>u8 158 8F YF3O:3 : Y8Z;: 8 83 >e7P8 F9 9 :{Y@i4
89 ZF5S835SZ39LZ38 8: 3 5Z8u:3P7 Y>:4 9D8 9 >~F Y89
(3:6:13) l-
9>v 8 7 Y458 7 Y
(3:18:18) l- 8 7 Y 458 7 Y89 ZF5S835SZ3>
9>v : >7 Z5]Z;>WZ357 >7 Y44O8

(3:62:15) l- 8 7 Y 458 7 Y89 3 8F YF5S89F YZF5S?35S7>Z88

9>v
(3:126:17) l- 5>v
8 7 Y 558 7 Y>F Y>|7 >7>ZF5S4
: F YZ88
(4:11:71) Z;>u8 Z;>8 3Z38F YF5S>F Y3>0
3 53
(4:17:20) Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y3Z38:5 : 3 8 9F Y9[4f8 8>W34P3
8F YF5S5
3 53 7 Y>|: ]8 7>>]5 :f4 :
3 Y3e3 Z8>:4 : 3 8 8sZ3m9 Z38
(4:24:42)
Z;>u8 Z;>8 3Z3
9F Y8:4 : 3 8 8[4f8 8:4 >^: 3 7>3>~F Y33 9 :4 8 >|: 8 8
(4:26:14)
<>u8 <>8



 8[Y3~8 7 YY44~8 >Z83: 3 Y;{4m9 :9 Z37 @|]8 :9 9{4m9 :dn
8 >3 Z8F 4
(4:56:20) akman
Z;>u8 Y058 3Z38F YF5S
3Z38>F Y3>0]8 :e3 5: 8 ]5 Z3ff3 9 5: 3: 3 9Z8>3 :|n
5 8 :3 78 3
(4:92:60)
Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y
(4:104:22) Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y3Z3839m78 Z3Z8>F Y3>39m73e8
9F Y3Z38>>7 3 38 9^9 >7 8 Z8F 5T3 Z;i7 5S:\>7 8 78 8
(4:111:11)
Z;>u8 Z;>8
(4:130:11) Z;>u8 Z;>Y89F Y3Z38>>f8 8 7>ZH4 9F Y57 9 Z3F3 f3 8 75S8
(4:158:8) Z;>u8 Y058 9F Y3Z38>: 3 5S9F Y98 3 87]8
8|: ]8 1n
@ u9 >F Y38 5ZF>348 ZFX3 >35>~7 9 835J^8 9 Z09 9
(4:165:15)
Z;>u8 Y058 9F Y3Z3859 GY
9F Y3Z385:3P7 Y8>cY8Z8
@ Y>Z8>F >F5T3 Y44 7 e3 75S8
(4:170:23)
Z;>u8 Z;>8
9F Y8>F Y3>Z0Z33 Z8^
8 3 Z8]5 ;LY3m8 Z89 8 >|: 3OY93 7 Z3
(5:38:13)
<>u8 158
(5:118:11) l- 9>v
8 7 Y 458 7 Y8d7 3O8F 5T3 :9 3 7>7 e3 75S8
(8:10:18) <>u8 158 8F YF5S>F Y>|7 >7>ZF5S4
: F YZ88
(8:49:18) <>u8 158 8F YF5T3 >F Y38 7F 8f3 8 78 8
(8:63:20) <>u8 158 9F 5S:9 3 : ]8 8F 3O8F YF>38
(8:67:20) <>u8 158 9F Y833>yN7Y9|59 9F Y8Z87 A|Y838 39|5e4
:9 7 >33 : 3P3 4^: 3 7>8F YY4Z3y:|3 3 8f3 3 Z8>yY9|59 75S8
(8:71:13)
<>u8 <>8 9F Y8
(9:15:11) <>u8 <>8 9F Y89LZ38 78 38 9F Y9[4f8 8
F5S8LZ375S>>
7 3 7>9F Y94 >7 9 8:
8 3 03 : 8 :f4 7 >y75S8
(9:28:27)
<>v 8 < >8 8F Y
(9:40:43) <>u8 158 9F Y8Z87 9 7 Y8>>F Y48 >3 8
(9:60:22) <>u8 <>8 9F Y8>F Y3>0
3 53
(9:71:24) <>u8 158 8F YF5S9F Y99 9 u8 78 8 8>W34O
(2) Noun
(6:18:6) l 45^z
3 7 Y 9>v
8 7 Y 89 8>>{Z8^>3:3 4>Z37 Y89 8



(6:73:23) l- 45^z
3 7 Y 9>v
8 7 Y 89 858{Z8
F Y85\: 3 7 Y9>Z8
(6:83:13) <>8 <>u8 8]@ 8F5S9LZ33 78 ?cZ8m88{93 73
(6:128:34) <>8 <>u8 8]@ 8F5S9F Y8LZ3Z8ZF5SZ8>3>|>Z3y
In the verse 2:129, vY is a masculine singular adjective and is in the
nominative case (). In addition, in the verse 4:56, it is an indefinite
masculine singular adjective and is in the accusative case ([). In the verse
5:38 is an indefinite masculine singular adjective and is in the nominative case
(). In the verse 6:83 is an indefinite masculine singular noun and is in the
nominative case () (Quran online dictionary: The Quranic Arabic Corpus).
"Hakeem" is a superlative form, a form for the glorification of the One who
has all the wisdom; hence, al-Hakeem is the very greatest in His wisdom. Allah
is the wisest in creating everything and in perfecting such a creation. His
wisdom means His prior knowledge of everything and His bringing everything
into existence most wisely and most perfectly. Wisdom means the best way of
knowing something utilizing the very best of means. "Al-Hakeem" carries the
same meaning as that of "al-`ALeem. Nobody knows Allah except Allah;
therefore, al- Hakeem cannot be anyone but Allah: He knows the origins of all
things through His eternal and perpetual knowledge that nobody can ever
conceive as being liable to extinction.
"Al-Hakeem" may also mean His being holy, too Holy to do anything which
does not beseem Him. Some scholars have said that al-Hakeem is equitable in
His assessment, benevolent in His management of affairs, the One Who has
determined the measure of everything, and the One whose wisdom is the
ultimate end, the One Who places everything in its right place. Nobody can
really appreciate Allah's wisdom other than Allah Himself. Al-Hakeem is not
free from seeking any self-interest, nor can anyone object to anything He does.
Al-Hakeem is adorned with wisdom, and wisdom knows the best of things
through the best means. The best of everything is Allah; so, He is the Absolute
al-Hakeem; He knows everything by the very best means of eternal and
everlasting knowledge, the knowledge that nobody can conceive as ever coming
to naught, nor can there be any doubt about it, and nobody can be described as
such except Allah. Some scholars say that wisdom means getting to know the



truth for its own sake, and to know goodness in order to act upon it. A servant
of Allah, though his portion of knowledge and potential may be little, such a
shortcoming is evident in him when compared to Allah's knowledge and might
and to the knowledge and ability of the angels.
Scholars have said that wisdom means knowledge. Knowledge may either
know what can exist without our choice or doing, which is theoretical
knowledge or it may be knowledge of what can happen by our choice and
doing, which is practical knowledge. Wisdom is the greatest knowledge, and its
greatness depends on the greatness of what is known, and surely there is nothing
greater than Allah. Anyone who gets to know Allah is wise even if his share of
all other secular branches of knowledge is most modest. (Qul)

Table 4.2
Translation of vYY/ u / ZuY
 Saffarzadeh (P) Saffarzadeh (E) Nikayin (E) Kusha (P) Positions /
6 Function in
ST
the Mighty , the 1
Most Wise Near-sy 3:126
Compress (Adj. -Adj.)
Explicitness /
Unit shift
Structure change
Scheme change
1 2:129
All-Powerful, Near-sy/ (Adj.N.)
All-Wise Compress
Explicitness
Transpo/ Unit
shift / Scheme
Change
3 3:6
the Mighty, Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
the All-wise Compress 3:18
Explicitness / (Adj.N.)
emphasis change 3:62
Transpo/ Unit (Adj.N.)
shift / Scheme
change /
Structure change
1 5:118
the Mighty, the Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
All-Wise Explicitness/
emphasis change
/ Transpo /
Structure change
/ Scheme change

-------------- 4 3:126
Source-Wisdom Near-Sy / (Adj.Adj.)



Supremepower Emphasis change 2:129
/ Unit shift / Near- (Adj.N.)
Sy / Compress / 3:6
Explicit (Adj.N.)
5:118
*Structure change (Adj.N.)
lack

The Invincible 1 3:18

Mighty Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
Sovereign compress /explicit
/ unit shift /
structure change

1 3:62
Source-Wisdom Near-sy / Explicit (Adj.N.)
Almighty / Substitution /
Compress /
Transpo /
emphasis change /
Unit shift
*Structure change
lack
-------------- 4 3:126
Synonymy / (Adj. -Adj.)
Explicit 2:129
/Compression / (Adj.N.)
Unit shift / 3:6
Structure change (Adj.N.)
3:62
(Adj.N.)
1 3:18
Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
Compression /
Emphasis change
/ Unit shift /
Structure change
 1
|e|Zf] Synonymy / 5:118
Explicitness / Unit (Adj.N.)
du
shift / Compress /
Zdv Structure change
 6 3:126
|n|a Near-sy / (Adj.Adj.)
Z Explicitness / 2:129
Transpo / (Adj.N.)
Compress / Unit 3:6
shift / Structure (Adj.N.)
change 3:18
(Adj.N.)
3:62
(Adj.N.)
5:118
(Adj.N.)
ZuY
3
1 4:56
All-Wise, All- Near-sy (Adj.N.)
Powerful Explicitness



 Transpo
Substitution
Scheme change
Unit shift
Compress

Structure change

1 4:158
the Mighty- the Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
All-Wise compress /
Explicitness/
emphasis change
/ Transpo / Unit
shift / Scheme
change
*structure
change lack
1
Almighty, full Near-sy / 4:165
of Wisdom Addition / (Adj.N.)
compress / unit
shift / structure
change
-------------- 1 4:56
Invincible- Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
Mighty Decreer Compress / Unit
shift / Explicit /
expansion /
Structure change
1 4:158
Source Wisdom Near-Sy / Explicit (Adj.N.)
Supremepower / Emphasis
change / Near-Sy /
Compress
Structure change
1 4:165
Source- Near-Sy / (Adj.N.)
Wisdom Emphasis change
Supremepower / Near-Sy /
Compress / Unit
shift / Explicit
Structure change
-------------- 1 4:56
{Zf]|{u Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
c| Compression /
Emphasis change
/ Unit shift /
Explicit
*structure change
lack
2 4:158
Z|e|Zf] Synonymy / (Adj.N.)
du Compression /unit 4:165
shift / explicit (Adj.N.)
*structure change
lack
 3 4:56
 Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
Explicitness / 4:158



 Z|n|a Transpo / (Adj.N.)
Compress 4:165
*structure (Adj.N.)
change lack

u
10
4 2:209
the Almighty, Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
the Wise Compres / 2:220
Transpo (Adj.N.)
*structure 2:240
change lack (Adj.N.)
Scheme change 8:67
(Adj.N.)
1 2:228
the Almighty, Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
the All Wise Explicitness /
unit shift /
compress /
Transpo /
Scheme change
*structure
change lack
1 5:38
Is All-Powerful, Near-sy (Adj.N.)
All- Wise Explicitness /
Transpo / Unit
shift / compress /
Scheme change
Structure change
1 8:10
Is Most- Near-sy (Adj.N.)
Powerful, All Explicitness /
Wise Unit shift /
Transpo
Structure change
Is Mighty and 1 8:49
Wise Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
Compress /
Transpo /
Cohesion change
/ Structure
change
1 8:63
Is it Might Near-sy / Unit (Adj.N.)
Exalted, and shift / Paraph /
All-wise Explicitness /
Cohesion
Change /
Compress /
Structure change
-------------- 3 2:209
Invincible Near-sy / Unit (Adj.N.)
Mighty Decreer shift / Compress / 2:220
Explicitness / (Adj.N.)
Structure change 8:67
(Adj.N.)
2 2:228



 Supreme Near-sy / (Adj.N.)
Mighty Decreer Expansion / Unit 2:240
shift / Compress / (Adj.N.)
Structure change

4
Source - Near-Sy / Unit 2:260
Wisdom shift / Emphasis (Adj.N.)
Supremepower change / Near-Sy / 8:10
Compress / (Adj.N.)
Explicit / 8:49
Structure change (Adj.N.)
8:63
(Adj.N.)
1 5:38
Mighty Decreer Literal / Compress (Adj.N.)
/ Structure change
u-------------- 2 2:209
c|{Zf]| Near-Sy / (Adj.N.)
Explicitness / 8:67
Compression / (Adj.N.)
Emphasis change
/ Unit shift /
*structure change
lack
4
{Zf]|{u Near-sy / 2:220
c| Compression / (Adj.N.)
Emphasis change 2:228
/ transpo / Unit (Adj.N.)
shift / Explicit 2:240
*structure change (Adj.N.)
lack 5:38
(Adj.N.)
Z|e|Zf] 4
du Near- Synonymy / 2:260
Compression / (Adj.N.)
unit shift / transpo 8:10
*structure change (Adj.N.)
lack 8:49
(Adj.N.)
8:63
(Adj.N.)
 9 2:209
Z|n|a (Adj.N.)
Near-sy / 2:220
Explicitness / (Adj.N.)
Transpo 2:228
*structure (Adj.N.)
change lack 2:240
(Adj.N.)
5:38
(Adj.N.)
8:10
(Adj.N.)
8:49
(Adj.N.)
8:63
(Adj.N.)
8:67



 (Adj.N.)
1
Z|n|Ye Near-sy / 2:260
Explicitness / (Adj.N.)
Compressio /
Transpo /
structure
change
The interesting point here is that this DA has found 19 times over the
selected 10 fist chapters of the Holy Quran. In all of its occurrences save one,
Kusha and his team have presented complete consistency in presenting a certain
equivalent for this specific DA. Here it is evident again that in these 19 cases or
19 contexts, the decision of Kushas team was so fixed that the effects of these
different contexts were not to the extent that it could change the equivalent.
Another remarkable point regarding Kushas renderings for this DA is that
unlike other translators who have failed to show the indefiniteness of the Arabic
items in their TTs choices, Kushas team just in one out of 13 cases -- has
rendered the Arabic indefinite article e into the Persian indefinite article
which has been appeared at the end of |Ye; in other 12 cases he faced
with failure in this regard.
Nikayin, however, has provided a variety of equivalents. He has given 10
different equivalents for one certain DA in different contexts (verses) of the
Holy Quran. Another point is that Nikayin has changed the word order of the
original in the verse 4-56 -- All-Wise, All-Powerful -- and has shifted the unit of
translation (unit shift) in the verse 8-63 -- Is in Might Exalted, and All-wise .
He has also taken advantage of schema change strategy in 14 cases out of 19.
Generally speaking, in all choices provided by Nikayin for vY, the key
words wise, might, and power are present. It can be, then, implies that
these words are his recognized and accepted equivalents in English for Al-
Hakeem, and respectively.
Saffarzadeh has provided 4 different equivalents for one certain DA in
different contexts (verses) of the holy book in her Persian translation and 6
different equivalents for one certain DA in different contexts of the book.
Mostly used strategy by Saffarzadeh in her English and Persian translations of
this certain DA is substitution (8 cases in Persian and 11 cases in English). In
her Persian translation, Saffarzadeh has also adopted unit shifts in 11 cases out



of 19 equivalents. Another remarkable point here is the issue of her failure to
convey the indefiniteness of all the indefinite DAs to Persian.
In English translations, Nikayin and Saffarzadeh have also failed to render
the indefiniteness of all the Quranic attributes.
Taking these points into consideration, it can be said here that there might be
an implication behind the translation of the definite and indefinite articles of
DAs between the three languages of Persian, English and Arabic. It may be
assumed that the syntactic problem remain unsolved because of the syntactic
voids the three languages have compared with each other. In Persian, there is
no definite article; this language just enjoys the indefinite articles, which
appears before (in the form of ) or after (in the two form of Y, ) an
item. However, English language is equipped with both types of articles;
definite and indefinite articles.
However, according to the syntax of this language, the global uniqueness of
something is obliged to be defined by a definite article (e.g. the Sun, the Moon,
and ). The same is true for the God.

4.2.1.3 Translation of Y / Al-Wasi al-ALeem

Al-ALeem / Y: According to the Quran Arabic Corpus, this words
triliteral root ayn lm mm () occurs 854 times in the Quran, in 14 derived
forms:
382 times as the form I verb (8>8 )
41 times as the form II verb (8F 8 )
twice as the form V verb (9F 8 f3 8 )
twice as the noun (3: 3O)
49 times as the nominal (3: 3O)
73 times as the noun (>3 8 )
four times as the nominal (F 8 )
once as the noun (d83 8 )
105 times as the noun (7>)
163 times as the nominal (>8 )



 twice as the adjective (d84: @ )
18 times as the active participle (>8 )
11 times as the passive participle (4: @ )
once as the form II passive participle (F8 9 )
This word may have a range of meanings depending on context. Here in
this study, the researcher due to the scope of the study investigated those
appeared in collocation with Y, which were all nominal playing the
role of adjective as follows:
(2:115:12) <>8 <>Y88F YF5S>F Y9m: 8@j3 3 YG8e4 Z83 : 3P3
(2:247:43) <>8 < >Y89F Y89LZ38 78 93 7 9 >e7R9 9F Y8
(2:261:24) <>8 <>Y89F Y89LZ38 78 >9>Z39 9F Y8
9F Y8Z0
7 3 897 >03>7 8 :4 9|>8 9F Y8
(2:268:13)
<>8 <>Y8
9F Y89LZ38 78 >>e7R9 >F Y>|8 ]5 3
7 3 7 YF5S74
(3:73:32)
<>8 <>Y8
9F Y89LZ38 78 >>e7R9 >F Y47 3 8>3}
(5:54:37)
<>8 <>Y8
In all the above verses, is an indefinite masculine singular adjective
and is in the nominative case (). The adjective's triliteral root is lm
mm ().
Al-`ALeem" is derived from `ilm, knowledge, which results from
comprehending the truth about something and from the sure conviction which
agrees with reality. "Al-`ALeem," when applied to the Almighty is the One
who is most knowing; surely His knowledge encompasses everything in
existence even before anything begins to exist. Nothing at all can escape His
knowledge. He is the One whose knowledge is inclusive, be it apparent or
hidden, minute or magnanimous. He knows its beginning and its end, what is
above or underneath it, and what results there from. Al-`ALeem is also the One
Who knows what has happened and what will. The knowledge of the unknown
is with Him, and so is the knowledge of the Hour; He knows what the wombs
bear, when the rain falls, what every soul earns, what evil intentions one



harbors, what worldly desires he/she conceals, when and where anyone will die.
Al-`ALeem is the One Who knows the details of all things, the particulars of
things, what one's conscience and soul hide. Nothing at all, not even the weight
of an atom in the earth or in the heavens, can ever escape His knowledge. From
the word `ilm have many other words been derived (Qul).
Al-Wasi / Y: According to the Quran Arabic Corpus, this words
triliteral root ww sn ayn () occurs 32 times in the Quran, in six derived
forms:
six times as the form I verb (8>8)

six times as the noun (88 )

five times as the n oun (:9)
nine times as the active participle (>8)
four times as the active participle (8>8)
twice as the form IV active participle (>9)
This word may have a range of meanings depending on context. Here, in
all the cases under the study, the researcher has investigated those Y
appeared in twins with , and are noun as follows:

(2:115:12) <>Y88F YF5S>F Y9m: 8@j3 3 YG8e4 Z83 : 3P3 <>8

(2:247:43) <>8 < >Y89F Y89LZ38 78 93 7 9 >e7R9 9F Y8

(2:261:24) <>Y89F Y89LZ38 78 >9>Z39 9F Y8 <>8
(2:268:13) <>Y89F Y8Z0
7 3 897 >03>7 8 :4 9|>8 9F Y8 <>8
9F Y89LZ38 78 >>e7R9 >F Y>|8 ]5 3
7 3 7 YF5S74
(3:73:32)
<>Y8 <>8
(5:54:37) 7 3 8>3} <>8
<>Y89F Y89LZ38 78 >>e7R9 >F Y4
In all the above verses Y is an indefinite masculine active participle, in
the nominative case (). The active participle's triliteral root is ww sn
ayn () (Corpuse.Quran.com).
"Al-Wasi`" is one of Allah's Attributes, and its root word is derived from
si`a, spaciousness, expanse, capacity, abundance, plentitude, etc. One may have
an abundance of knowledge if he is acquainted with a good deal of it, or he may


have an abundance of means. In his book Al-Nihaya, Ibn al-Atheer, who
discusses Allah's Attributes, says that al-Wasi` can enrich everyone who is
indigent, whose mercy encompasses everything. His authority never ends; His
benevolence is unlimited; His domain is endless. He never stops giving; He is
never distracted by knowing something from knowing another, nor by one issue
from taking care of another. His knowledge encompasses everything.
His knowledge encompasses everything; His might suffice everything. His
mercy is spacious; He is independent; His authority is above everything; His
knowledge, might, and benevolence are the greatest. He is the One for the
meanings of Whose Attributes there can be no limit, Whose knowledge is
spacious, and so are His mercy and forgiveness; His domain is tremendous.
The Absolute al-Wasi` is Allah, Glorified and exalted is He. There is no shore
for the spacious ocean of His knowledge. Had the seas been ink, they would
have been consumed before His words can ever be exhausted. There is no end
for what He is capable of giving and blessing.
We ought to ponder on Allah's vast knowledge; for He is the Absolute al-
Wasi` Whose Grace has encompassed everything in existence, in fact, even
prior to their existence, and even before the existence of time itself, since He
has always been for all eternity. His knowledge encompasses everything.
Nothing He knows distracts Him from knowing something else. His might
overwhelms everything; no issue distracts Him from another. His Hearing
encompasses everything; no person's supplication can distract Him from hearing
the supplication of another. His benevolence includes all His creation; His
helping one particular needy person does not prohibit Him from helping another
(Qul).

Table 4.3
Translation of <>8 <>Y8


Saffarzadeh (P) Saffarzadeh (E) Nikayin (E) Kusha (P) Positions /
Function in ST
1
The Ample- Near-sy / Unit 2:215
Giving shift / (N., Adj.)
Knower Compress/
Omission /
Explicit /
Emphasis
change
*Structure



 change lack
1
All-Knowing, Near-sy / 2:247
Embracing Expan / Unit (N., Adj.)
shift /
Compress /
Transpo /
Structure
change
1
Munificent and Near-sy / 2:261
Wise is God Transpo / (N., Adj.)
alone Compress /
Near-sy /
Explicit / Unit
shift / Scheme
change /
Emphasis /
Paraph /
Structure
change
2
Munificent, Near-sy / 2:268
All Knowing Transpo / (N., Adj.)
Explicit / 3:73
Compress / (N., Adj.)
Unit shift /
Structure
Change
1
is Bounteous Near-sy / 5:54
and Hes the Compress (N., Adj.)
Knower /Transpo /
infinite Expansion /
Unit shift /
Paraph
*Structure
change lack
--------------- 1 2:215
Knowing - Near-sy/ Unit (N., Adj.)
Dominion- shift
Bestower /Compression /
Structure change
1
Knowing Near-sy / Unit 2-247
Space- shift / (N., Adj.)
Expander Compression /
Expan / Structure
Change 2:261
---------------------- (N., Adj.)
Knowing- 2 2:268
Bounty- Near-sy / Unit (N. Adj.)
Increaser shift /
Compression /
Explicit /
Structure change
1 3:73
Knowing- Near-sy / (N., Adj.)
Grace- Compression /
Bestower Unit shift /



 Explicit /
Structure change

1
Knowing- Near-sy / 5:54
Grace- Compression / (N., Adj.)
Increaser Unit shift /
Explicit /
Structure change
--------------- 1 2:215
Y]ZY{|z] Compression / (N., Adj.)
y Near-sy /
Addition / Unit
shift /
*Structure change
lack
1
Y]ZY{f Near-sy / 2:247
Compression / (N., Adj.)
Explicit / Unit
shift
*Structure change
lack
2 2:261
ZY{ff Compression / (N., Adj.)
Near-sy 2:268
*Structure change (N., Adj.)
lack
 2 3:73
ZY{ffu Compression / (N., Adj.)
Near-sy 5:54
*Structure change (N., Adj.)
lack
 4
Near-sy / 2:215
ZY{Z Compress (N., Adj.)
*Structure 2:261
change lack (N., Adj.)
2:268
(N., Adj.)
3:73
(N., Adj.)
1
ZY{cY}{f Unit shift / 2:247
Near-sy (N., Adj.)
*Structure
change lack
1
ZY{Z Compress / 5:54
Near-sy / (N., Adj.)
Structure
change
This DA is repeated 6 times over the selected 10 fist chapters of the Holy
Quran. None of the translators has complete consistency in providing a certain
equivalent for this DA. Nikayin has provided 5 different renderings for this DA
and Saffarzadeh has given 5 and 4 renderings in her English and Persian



versions respectively. Kush and his team have also provided 3 renderings of
this certain DA.
One of the features of Quranic discourse is its lexical comparison. As it is
evident the equivalents tabled above cannot attain this important feature, most
of them have been changed by compression, expansion and the unit shift
strategies of the ST. In 6 out of 6 cases of renderings, Nikayin has adopted unit
shift (syntactic), compression (semantic), and expansion (semantic) to overcome
the lexical problems. Saffarzadeh has taken advantage of compression
(semantic) and near-synonymy strategies in all her English and Persian
renderings.
The interesting point here is that Kusha and his team again in one case (in
the verse 5-54) has rendered the indefiniteness of the ST into the TT. In other
cases, he has followed like other translators and the indefiniteness of the
collocational Quranic attributes have not been defined in the TTs under the
study.

4.2.1.4 Translation of vYY/ uZ / u /

Al-ALeem al-Hakeem
AlHakeem/ : According to the Quran Arabic Corpus, this words
triliteral root h kf mm (s), occurring 210 times in the Quran, in 13
derived forms:
45 times as the form I verb hakama (83 u8 )
twice as the form II verb yuhakkimu (9Jv
8 9 )
twice as the form IV verb uh'kimat (:d8 >u: 4O)
once as the form VI verb yatahkamu (93 Z8vf3 8 )
twice as the noun ahkam (3u: 3O)
three times as the noun hakam (3u8 )
30 times as the noun huk'm (7u9 )
20 times as the noun hik'mat (87 >u)
97 times as the nominal hakm (>u8 )
five times as the active participle hkimn (>>)



 once as the active participle hukkm (ZFu9 )
once as the form IV passive participle muh'kamt (c83 v
: A )
once as the form IV passive participle muh'kamat (83 v
: A )
Here in this study, the researcher dealt with the nominal appearing with
in twins and playing the roles of none and adjective
"Hakeem" is a superlative form, a form for the glorification of the One who
has all the wisdom; hence, al-Hakeem is the very greatest in His wisdom.
Al-ALeem: According to the Quran Arabic Corpus, this words triliteral
root lm mm () occurs 854 times in the Quran, in 14 derived forms:
382 times as the form I verb (8>8 )
41 times as the form II verb (8F 8 )
twice as the form V verb (9F 8 f3 8 )
twice as the noun (3: 3O)
49 times as the nominal (3: 3O)
73 times as the noun (>3 )
four times as the nominal (3 8 )
once as the noun (d8 3 8 )
105 times as the noun (7>)
163 times as the nominal (>8 )
twice as the adjective (d84: @ )
18 times as the active participle (>8 )
11 times as the passive participle (4: @ )
once as the form II passive participle ( )
This word may have a range of meanings depending on context. Here in
this study, the researcher investigated those appeared in collocation with
and were all nominal playing the role of adjective as follows:
(1) Noun
8F 5SZ3f3 : F 8 Z8ZF5SZ33 87 >Z383 Z8v^: 9 Y4Z3
(2:32:11) l-
9>v 8 7 Y 9>8 7 Y 8d7 3O



 (4:11:70) Z;>u8 Z;>8 3Z38F YF5S>F Y3>0
3 53

3Z38:5 : 3 8 9F Y9[4f8 8>W34P3

(4:17:19)
Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y
(4:24:41) Z;>u8 Z;>8 3Z38F YF5S
(4:26:13) <>u8 <>8 9F Y8:4 : 3 8 8[4f8 8
3Z38>F Y3>0]8 :e3 5: 8 ]5 Z3ff3 9 5: 3: 3 9Z8>3
(4:92:59)
Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y
3Z3839m78 Z3Z8>F Y3>39m7e3 8
(4:104:21)
Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y
>>7 3 38 9^9 >7 8 Z8F 5T3 Z;i7 5S:\>7 8 78 8
(4:111:10)
Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y3Z38

3Z385:3P7 Y8>cY8Z8
@ Y>Z8>F >F5T3
(4:170:22)
Z;>u8 Z;>8 9F Y
:9 7 >33 : 3P3 4^: 3 7>8F YY4Z3y:|3 3
(8:71:12)
<>u8 <>8 9F Y8

(1) Adjective 
8]@ 8F5S9LZ33 78 ?cZ8m88{93 73
(6:83:14)
<>8 <>u8
8]@ 8F5S9F Y8LZ3Z8ZF5SZ8>3>|>Z3y
(6:128:35)
<>8 <>u8
(6:139:22) <>8 <>u8 9F 5S:9 3
: 8:5 5n
: 8 8

(2) Adjective u

9LZ38 78 38 9F Y9[4f8 8

(9:15:10)
<>u8 <>8 9F Y8
8LZ375S>>
7 3 7>9F Y94 >7 9 8:
8 3
(9:28:26)
<>u8 <>8 8F YF5S
(9:60:21) <>u8 <>8 9F Y8>F Y3>0
3 53
(9:97:15) 38 9F Y337 3OZ88{9|u9 Y93 : 8 ZF3O98|m: 3O8



 <>v
8 < >8 9F Y8>>98
:5 : 3 8 9[4f8 Z@5S8:9 ]9 J~8 9 Z@S5
(9:106:11)
<>u8 <>8 9F Y8
(9:110:14) <>u8 <>8 9F Y8:9 ]9 44 8F 3 e3 73OZF5S
In the verse 2:32, Y is a masculine singular noun and is in the
nominative case (). The noun's triliteral root is lm mm (). In the
verses 4:26 and 8:71, is an indefinite masculine singular noun and isin the
nominative case (). The noun's triliteral root is lm mm ().In the
verses 4:11, 4:17, 4:24, 4:92, 4:104, 4:111, 4:170, Z is an indefinite
masculine singular noun and is in the accusative case ([). The noun's
triliteral root is ayn lm mm ().In the verses 9:15, 9:28, 9:60, 9:97, 9:106,
9:110, 6:83, 6:128, 6:139, is an indefinite masculine singular adjective
and is in the nominative case (). The adjective's triliteral root is ayn lm
mm ().
"Al-`ALeem" is derived from `ilm, knowledge, which results from
comprehending the truth about something and from the sure conviction which
agrees with reality. "Al-`ALeem," when applied to the Almighty is the One
who is most knowing; surely His knowledge encompasses everything in
existence even before anything begins to exist. (For the detailed definition of
the word and more description on it, return to 4.1.2)
Regarding the roles of u, in the verses 2:32, 4:26, 8:71, vY is a
masculine singular adjective and is in the nominative case (). The
adjective's triliteral root is h kf mm (s). In the verses 4:11, 4:17, 4:24,
4:92, 4:104, 4:111, 4:170, Zu is an indefinite masculine singular adjective
and is in the accusative case ([). The adjective's triliteral root is h kf
mm ().In the verses 9:15, 9:28, 9:60, 9:97, 9:106, 9:110, is an
indefinite masculine singular adjective and is in the nominative case ().
The adjective's triliteral root is h kf mm (s).And in the verses 6:83, 6:128,
and 6:139, u is an indefinite masculine singular noun and is in the
nominative case (). The noun's triliteral root is h kf mm (s).



Table 4.4
Translation of vYY
 Saffarzadeh Saffarzadeh Positions /
Nikayin (E) Kusha(P)
19 (P) (E) Function in ST
1
Near-sy /
Explicit/com
Alone the
press / 2:32
Knower*,
emphasis (Adj., N.)
Full of
change / unit
Wisdom
shift /
structure
change
3
Near-sy /
Transpo / 4:26
Compress / (Adj., N.)
Unit shift 4:17
*Structure (Adj., N.)
All-knowing,
change lack 6:139
Wise
in 4:26 (Adj., N.)
Structure
change in
4:17, 6:139
1
emphasis
The 8:71
change /
Knower* (Adj., N.)
Compress /
Wise
Structure
change
1
Near-sy /
compress /
The All- Transpo / 4:11
Knowing, Unit shift / (Adj., N.)
the Wise Schema
change
*Structure
change lack
1
The emphasis
4:24
Knower*, change /
(Adj., N.)
Wise Compress
*Structure
change lack
1
Compress /
Knowing, Transpo / 4:9
All-Wise Near-sy / (Adj., N.)
Unit shift /
Structure
change
2
Knows
Unit shift / 4:104
Everything,
Explicit / (Adj., N.)
and He is
Compress / 4:111
All-Wise
Structure (Adj., N.)
change



 1
Near-sy /
All-Knowing Unit shift /
4:170
Wise explicit /
(Adj., N.)
Compress /
Structure
change
1
Transpo /
Near-sy /
The All-
Explicit /
Knowing, 6:83
Compress /
the Most- (Adj., N.)
Unit shift /
Wise
Schema
change
*Structure
change lack
1
emphasis
The All- change /
6:128
Knower* Explicit /
(Adj., N.)
Wise Compress /
Unit shift
*Structure
change lack
3
Near-sy /
9:15
Unit shift /
All- (Adj., Adj.)
Scheme
Knowing, 9:28
change (All)
All-Wise (Adj., Adj.)
/ Explicit /
9:97
Compress /
(Adj., Adj.)
Structure
change
1
Near-sy /
Unit shift /
Explicit /
9:60
All-Knowing Cohesion
(Adj., Adj.)
and All-Wise change (and)
/ Scheme
change (All)
/ Structure
change
1
Near-sy /
9:106
All- Unit shift /
(Adj., Adj.)
Knowing, Explicit /
Most Wise Compress /
Structure
change
1
Compress /
Near-
syTranspo /
The Wise, 9:110
unit shift /
All- Knower (Adj., Adj.)
Explicit
*Structure
change lack



 1
---------- unit shift /
Source- compress 2:32
Wisdom *Structure (Adj., N.)
Knower change lack

4
Near-sy /
Explicit /
Compress / 4:26
emphasis (Adj., N.)
change save in 4:11
Absolute
6:128 (Adj., N.)
Knowing
*Structure 4:92
Decreer
change lack in (Adj., N.)
4:26 6:128
Structure (Adj., N.)
change
in4:11,4:92,6:1
28
1
Near-sy /
Compress / 8:71
the Knowing
emphasis (Adj., N.)
Sovereign
change /
structure
change
2
Near-sy /
4:17
Compress /
Absolute- (Adj., N.)
emphasis
Knowing 4:24
change / unit
Decreer (Adj., N.)
shift / structure
change
4:104
(Adj., N.)
8 6:139
Near-sy / (Adj., N.)
Compress / 9:15
emphasis (Adj., Adj.)
change in 9:28
Knowing 4:104 , (Adj., Adj.)
Decreer 6:139Transpo 9:60
in9:15, 9:28, (Adj., Adj.)
9:60, 9:97, 9:97
9:106, 9:110 / (Adj., Adj.)
Structure 9:106
change (Adj., Adj.)
9:110
(Adj., Adj.)
1
Near-sy /
Compress / 4:111
Knowing
emphasis (Adj., N.)
Judge
change /
structure
change
Absolute 1 4:170
Knowing Near-sy / (Adj., N.)
Sovereign Compress /



 emphasis
change /
Explicit /
Structure
change
1
Near-sy /
Explicit
Absolute- Unit shift /
6:83
Knowing Compress /
(Adj., N.)
Judge emphasis
change /
structure
change
2:32
(Adj., N.)
4:26
(Adj., N.)
8:71
(Adj., N.)
4:11
(Adj., N.)
4:17
9 (Adj., N.)
Near-sy / 4:24
Compress / (Adj., N.)
Implicitness 4:92
/omission / (Adj., N.)
Structure 4:104
change (Adj., N.)
------------- in2:32,4:26,8:7 4:111
Z|n5ZY{ 1 (Adj., N.)
*Structure 4:170
change lack in (Adj., N.)
4:11, 4:17, 6:83
4:24, 4:92, (Adj., N.)
4:104, 4:111, 6:128
4:170, 9:15, (Adj., N.)
9:28, 9:60, 6:139
9:97, 9:106, (Adj., N.)
9:110, 6:83, 9:15
6:128, 6:139 (Adj., Adj.)
9:28
(Adj., Adj.)
9:60
(Adj., Adj.)
9:97
(Adj., Adj.)
9:106
(Adj., Adj.)
9:110
(Adj., Adj.)
3
6:83
Near-sy /
(Adj., N.)
Compress /
6:128
ZY{Z|n Implicitness /
(Adj., N.)
Omission
6:139
*Structure
(Adj., N.)
change lack
------------ 1 2:32



 duZZY{ Compress/ (Adj., N.)
implicitness /
Unit shift /
Structure change
1
Compress/implic
]ZY{|u itness / Unit 4:26
yY shift / emphasis (Adj., N.)
change /
structure change
1
Compress/
Y]ZY{Yu implicitness /
Unit shift / 8:71
y
Emphasis (Adj., N.)
change /
Expansion /
Structure change
4:11
6
(Adj., N.)
Compress /
4:24
Expansion / Unit
(Adj., N.)
shift / Emphasis
]ZY{|{u 4:104
change in 4:11,
(Adj., N.)
yY 4:24, 4:104,
4:111
4:111 / Transpo
(Adj., N.)
in9:15, 9:97
9:15
*Structure
(Adj., Adj.)
change lack
9:97
(Adj., Adj.)
1
Addition /
|{uY{ Compress / Unit 4:17
ZY{ shift / Emphasis (Adj., N.)
change /
*Structure
change lack
1
]ZY{|{u Compress / Unit
4:92
shift / Emphasis
yY (Adj., N.)
change / Explicit
*Structure
change lack
1
Compress
]ZY{Yu Unit shift
Emphasis 4:170
yY
change (Adj., N.)
Expand
*Structure
change lack
1
Near-sy /
{Zf]Y{ Explicit /
Implicit/ 6:83
ZY{
compress / Unit (Adj., N.)
shift
*Structure
change lack
|{Zu 1 6:128



 yY]ZY{ Compress (Adj., N.)
Unit shift
Explicit

*Structure
change lack

2
Compress / Unit
6:139
ZY{|{u shift / Emphasis
(Adj., N.)
change just in
9:106
9:106
(Adj., Adj.)
*Structure
change lack
2
Near-sy /
ZY{|{u 9:28
Compress / Unit
tZY] (Adj., Adj.)
shift /
9:60
y Explicit/Emphas
(Adj., Adj.)
is change
*Structure
change lack
1
near-sy /
Explicit /
Z|{u 9:110
Compress / Unit
(Adj., Adj.)
ZY{ shift / Emphasis
change
*Structure
change lack

This DA has found 19 times over the chapters of the Holy Quran under the
study. In translating this DA, only Kushas team is completely consistent in
their Persian renderings. They have also totally respected to word order of the
STs noun phrases and due structure change, they have adopted strategy; noun
has been rendered to noun and adjective-to-adjective. Here it is again evident
that in these 19 cases or 19 contexts, the decision of Kushas team was so fixed
that the effects of these different contexts were not to the extent that it could
change the equivalent.
Nikayin, in his poetic English renderings, has over again provided a variety
of equivalents. He has given 14 different equivalents for this certain DA in
different contexts (verses) of the Holy Quran. Mostly used strategy by Nikayin
in his English translations of this certain DA is compression / implicitness and
omission (in all 19 cases). He has also adopted the unit shift in 14 cases out of
19 cases under the study. In the verses 9-15, 9-28, and 9-97 (All-Knowing, All-
Wise) and 9-60 (All-Knowing and All-Wise), Nikayin has also employed
scheme change for rendering this certain DA into English.



 In all choices provided by Nikayin for vYY, the key words wise,
knowing are seen. It can be, then, implies that these words are his recognized
and accepted equivalents in English for Al-Hakeem and Al-ALeem
respectively. The main interesting point here is that in the different contexts, all
the translators has used same equivalent for the ST attributes referring to God
(e.g. Knowing is Nikayins recognized and accepted equivalent in English for
vY and the contexts and their collocation have not had any effect on his
selection of their meanings scope. So, no collocational clashes have been
found among the twins in various contexts).
Saffarzadeh has provided 8 different English equivalents and 12 different
Persian equivalents for this certain DA in different contexts (verses) of the Holy
Book under the study. An interesting point here in Saffarzadehs all Persian
(except in 2:32) and all English versions she has used somehow structure
change strategy beside a cohesion change strategy and changed the position and
the function of the twins with each other in order to preserve her renderings'
grammatical cohesion and make them more syntactically and semantically
fluent.
Cohesion is one aspects of the translation textual analysis. Baker (1992)
includes cohesion in the study of textual equivalence defining it as the network
of lexical, grammatical, and other relations which provide links between various
parts of a text. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the cohesive devices
are divided into grammatical and lexical cohesion. Accordingly, grammatical
cohesion embraces four different devices:
a) reference: this mechanism relates one element of the text to another one
for its interpretation, which can be present or not (endophoric and exophoric
reference).
Reference is a semantic relation.
b) Substitution: the replacement of one item by another
c) Ellipsis: the omission of an item
d) Conjunction: particular expressions contribute to create discursive
connections.
To sum up, mostly used strategies by Saffarzadeh in her English and Persian
translations of this certain DA is unit shift (adopted in all 19 cases) and then
structure change / cohesion change (18cases out of 19 renderings). What has



been found here again is that in the four TTs, translators have mostly
disregarded the definiteness and the indefiniteness of the ST. The interesting
point here again is indefiniteness of the ST which has not been rendered into the
TTs (both English and Persian) by Nikayin, Saffarzadandeh, and Kushas team
due to the syntactic voids the two target languages have in terms of Quranic
DAs compared with the English ST. Taking this point into reflection, it can be
said here that Miremadi (1991)s classification of translation problems (Table
4.1.) may need to be upgraded with adding syntactic voids as another
subcategories of the syntactic problems.
Based on the whole analysis provided above, it can be understood that there
is an omission of meaning components in the translation of DAs into both
Persian and English. Based on Miremadis classification of translation
problems (Table 4.1.), semantic voids may be described as the main reason
behind such omission, compression, and implication. (I.e. in rendering the
meanings of vY no word in English can be found describing the various
meanings of the words at different layers: 1. The God has a knowledge that is
all-inclusive, absolute, unique, and the highest simultaneously, 2. The God is,
also, the Decreer, Whose decree is obliged to be implemented.
The meaning aspects omission (lexically semantic problem) is a problem
arisen from the lexical compression of Quranic DAs. These DAs were
equipped with several layers of meaning encapsulated is a sole linguistic item.
This fact
Again made the translators allocate a considerable extent of adopted
strategies from expansion, explicitation, and paraphrase to some other strategies
such as unit change, cohesion and emphasis changes to resolve the lexically
semantic and pragmatically syntactic problems.
Another main problem was the distortion of the emotive overtones and
expressive effects that the original DAs created on the SL readers (Miremadis
syntactically pragmatic problems). There are a number of evident linguistic and
cultural differences between English, Persian, and Arabic. Linguistically
speaking, English and Persian are two branches of the family of Indo-European
languages, while Arabic is related to the family of Semitic languages (Violatti,
2014). Adul-Raof (2001, p. 25) is also against the notion of exact
correspondence between languages. He provides examples that support his



argument (2001, p. 25) "Quranic cultural voids like (u) and other Quranic
expressions have culture-bound overtones; these include lexical items like
(vY)". Moreover, (2001, p. 13) "cross-cultural variations among languages
lead to non-equivalence and can be translation traps; they can also be a source
of misunderstandings among target language audience. Qur'an translation is a
unique case of non-equivalence in inter-textual translation. The semantic
mapping of each language is different from those of all other languages. "
Therefore, based on the above findings, the translator cannot almost always
find solutions for problems of equivalence in the rendition between English and
Arabic or Persian and Arabic. Therefore, it is quite evident that providing an
equivalent for an Arabic word in English or Persian can hardly save the specific
emotive overtones and expressive effects of the original item. For example the
Arabic morphological pattern like Sifat Al-Moshabbaheh (Perpetual Attribute
e.g. Y) caused a handful of problems for the translators as they had certain
weights and effects in Arabic language structure which could not be similarly
reproduced in both English and Persian.
Difference in the frequencies of the original DAs in the source language and
their counterparts in the target language was among other problems the Quran
translators encountered to. For example, as discussed above, the word vY
which is a multilayer term in the Quran Arabic enjoys a very high frequency in
the Holy Quran while its contextual equivalents in Persian and English have not
half of such frequency.

4.2.2 Adopted Translation Strategies

Various strategies were adopted in translating the Quranic DAs under the study
in this research. However, the extent of each translators adoption of certain
strategies was different. The description of each translators work follows in
the next sections.

4.2.2.1 Description of Saffarzadehs Translation Strategies

The frequency and percentage of translation strategies adopted by Saffarzadeh
in her Persian and English versions of the Holy Quran are presented in the
following table 4.5:



Table 4.5
Frequency and Percentage of Translation Strategies Adopted by Saffarzadeh in
P&E
Adopted Strategy Frequency P Percentage
Frequency E
Near-Synonymy 18 8.78%
41 16.59%
27 13.17%
Addition / Expansion / Explicitness
27 10.12%
53 25.85%
Omission / Compression / Implicitness
41 16.59%
32 15.60%
Transposition
12 4.85%
Literal 0 0
2 0.80%
Unit Shift 35 17.07%
28 11.33%
Emphasis change 22 10.73%
29 11.74%
19 9.26%
Structure Change
67 27.12%
205 100%
Total
247 100%
The data in the above table can be shown in the following bar graph in a
more explicit way:

^W
^

Figure 4.1 Percentages of Translation Strategies Adopted by Saffarzadeh in

English and Persian Translations of DAs



 As the bar graph shows, Saffarzadeh in her Persian translation employed
compression (25.85%), as her most frequent strategy. Next to this strategy,
the unit shift by 17.07% and transposition by 15.60% were her most frequent
strategies in Persian translation. Based on Chesterman production strategies
classification, compression is semantic strategy, while unit shift and
transposition are syntactic. It may be, therefore, concluded that Saffarzadehs
Persian translation that is in tafsiricly form is also semanto-syntactic translation
regarding the renderings of DAs.
In her English edition, Saffarzadeh has taken mostly advantage of structure
change strategy (by 27.12%). Near-synonymy and compression to an equal
extent of 16.69% were her second most frequent strategies. Based on
Chesterman model, structure change strategy is syntactic, while near-synonymy
and compression are semantic. Therefore, the probable conclusion may be that
Saffarzadehs English translation is also semanto-syntactic translation.

4.2.2.2 Description of Nikayins Translation Strategies

The frequency and percentage of translation strategies adopted by Nikayin are
presented in the following table 4.6:

Table 4.6
Frequency and Percentage of Translation Strategies Adopted by Nikayin
Adopted Strategy Frequency Percentage
Near-Synonymy 48 18.39%
Addition / Expansion / Explicitness 31 11.87%
Omission / Compression / Implicitness 40 15.32%
Literal 0 0
Transposition 28 10.72%
Unit Shift 36 13.79%
Emphasis change / word order 12 4.59%
Cohesion Change 3 1.14%
Scheme Change 25 9.57%
Structure Change 38 14.55%
Total 261 100%
The data in the above table can be shown in the following bar graph in a
more explicit way:



 E




W

E  K d h   ^ ^






E

Figure 4.2. Percentages of Translation Strategies Adopted by Nikayin in the

Translation of DAs
As presented in the figure 4.1, near-synonymy (18.39%) and omission,
compression, implicitness (15.32%) and then structure change by 14.55%, unit
shift by 13.79% were respectively the most frequent strategies used by Nikayin.
Overall, it is evident that he has used a variety of strategies (a number of 8
strategies) in his poetic translation of the holy Quran.
Based on Chestermans production strategies elaborated on table 2.2, near-
synonymy, and compression are among the semantic strategies while structure
change and unit shift are syntactic strategies. Therefore, it may be proposed that
Nikayins poetic translation is semanto-syntactic translation due to his
syntactic-semantic adoption strategies (based on Chestermans model) in line
with resolving the lexical problems DAs translation have.

4.2.2.3Description of Kushas Translation Strategies

The frequency and percentage of translation strategies adopted by Kusha and his
team are presented in the following table 4.7:



Table 4.7
Frequency &Percentage of Translation Strategies Adopted by Kusha & His
Team
Adopted Strategy Frequency Percentage
Near-Synonymy 58 36.70%
Addition / Expansion / Explicitness 22 13.92%
Omission / Compression / Implicitness 37 23.41%
Transposition 20 12.65%
Unit Shift 7 4.43%
Structure Change 14 8.86%
Total 158 100%
The tabled data can be shown in the following bar graph in a more explicit
way:

<,d

W

E  K d h   ^ ^





<,d

Figure 4.3. Percentages of Translation Strategies Adopted by Kusha &his

Team in Translations of DAs
As presented in the figure 4.3, after near-synonymy with the percentage of
36.70%, compression by 23.41%, and expansion by 13.92% are the most
frequent strategies used by Kusha and his team. Other strategies have low
frequency. Based on Chesterman's model, near-synonymy, compression, and
expansion are among the semantic strategies, accordingly it may be concluded
that Kushas team working translation is a semantic.
Overall, it is evident that Kusha and his team have taken advantage of the
lowest variety of strategies in translating the holy Quran compared with other
translators whose works are under the study and Nikayin has adopted the
highest variety of strategies. Kushas team had the lowest rate of unit shift
strategy adoption compared with other translators under the study, while
Nikayin received the first top position in this regard. Regarding the frequency
rate of near-synonymy strategy adoption, Kushas team took the first position


by 58% and Saffarzadeh got the last position by 18%. Nikayin was the only
translator who has taken cohesion and schema change strategies into
consideration respectively by 1.14% and 9.57%. In the ranking of the structure
change strategy adoption, Saffarzadehs English translation (by 27.12%) took
the first place, while Kushas team (by 8.86%) took the last place.

4.2.2.4Total Strategy Adoption in the Corpus under Study

Beside describing each translators strategy adoption separately and
comparatively with each other, the researcher took into account the whole cases
of DAs translation in the corpus under study with a total number of 216 and
ended up with the following frequencies and percentage:
Table 4.8
Frequency & Percentage of Total Strategy Adoption in Translation of DAs in
the Corpus under Study
Adopted Strategy Frequency Percentage
Near-Synonymy 165 18.92%
Addition / Expansion / Explicitness 107 12.27%
Omission / Compression / Implicitness 171 19.61%
Transposition 92 10.55%
Literal 2 0.22%
Unit Shift 106 12.15%
Emphasis Change 63 7.22%
Cohesion Change 3 0.34%
Scheme Change 25 2.86%
Structure Change 138 15.82%
Total 872 100%

Extent of strategy adoption from translator to translator is shown in the

following bar graph in a more explicit way:

W

E  K d h   ^ ^



Figure 4.4 Comparing Percentages of Total Strategy Adoption in Translation of

DAs in the Corpus under Study



 As it is shown in the figure 4.4., on the whole and regardless of the gender
of the translators and the form of the translations, the most frequently used
strategies for translating Quranic DAs in the corpus under the study were
omission (19.61%), near-synonymy (18.92%) and structure change (15.82%)
respectively. The less frequently used strategies were also literal, cohesion, and
scheme change respectively with the total adoption rate of 0.22%, 0.34%, and
2.86% respectively.
The frequency percentages of translation strategy adoption in the four TTs
were also compared based on the translators gender and the TTs language. The
comparison is shown in the following table:

Table 4.9
Compared Frequency Percentages of Translation Strategies (Gender-Based
and Language-Based)

As it is shown in the table 4.9, the most common strategy used by the male
translator under the study was near-synonymy by 51.33%, and the most
frequent strategy adopted by the female translator was compression by 45%.
The most common strategies in the Persian renderings were compression
(24.63%) and expansion (24.50%) while the most frequent strategies in



 English translations were structure change (52.50%) and near-synonymy
(44.50%).

4.2.3 Consistency in the Works of the Translators

Considering the equivalents of 54 DAs that have occurred more than once over
the parts of the Holy Quran under the investigation, the following results were
obtained:
- Kusha and his team was completely consistent in 51cases, providing the
same equivalent for certain DA, and mostly consistent in 3 cases.
- Saffarzadeh in her Persian translation was completely consistent in 40
cases, providing the same equivalent for certain DA, and mostly
consistent in 9 cases.
- Saffarzadeh in her English translation was completely consistent in 38 cases,
providing the same equivalent for certain DA, and mostly consistent in 13 cases.
- Nikayin was completely consistent in 27 cases, providing the same equivalent
for certain DA, and mostly consistent in 11 cases. The result regarding the
Nikayins poetic translation is different from what has been obtained by Amjad
(2013) saying, Nikayin was not completely consistent at all, only in 4 cases he
has mostly consistent. The above-mentioned results can be tabled as follows:

Table 4.10
Frequency and Percentages of Consistency and Variety in Translation of DAs
Translator Completely Mostly A Variety of Total DAs
Consistent Consistent Equivalents occurring
Equivalents Equivalents more than
ones
F P F P F P F
Nikayin 27 50% 11 20.37% 16 29.62% 54
Saffarzadeh p 40 74.07% 9 16.66% 5 9.25% 54
Saffarzadeh E 38 70.37% 13 24.07% 3 0.61% 54
Kusha 51 94.44% 3 5.55% 0 0% 54
The above tabled-data can be shown in the following bar graph in a more
explicit way:



 E ^ ^ <


 D
  s
 

Figure 4.5. Percentages of Consistency and Variety in Translation of DAs

As it is shown in the figure 4.5, Nikayins semanto-syntactic translation,
which is in English and poetry form, was completely consistent in half of the
cases and provided the most various equivalents rendering for the Quranic DAs
under the study compared with other translators.
On the contrary, Kushas semantic translation, which is in Persian and
tafsiricly prose form, is completely consistent in nearly all cases of his DAs
translation, save in 3 cases.
Finally Saffarzadehs semanto-syntactic Persian and English translations,
which are in tafsiricly prose form, are consistent in over 90% of the cases and
there are only 5 and 3 cases of inconsistency found in her DAs Persian and
English renderings respectively.

4.3 Discussion
Based on the Table 4.3.2 and the Figure 4.5 demonstrating the consistency rate
in the works of the translators, Nikayin was completely consistent in 27 cases,
providing the same equivalent for certain DA, and mostly consistent in 11 cases.
The researchers result concerning the Nikayins poetic translation is different
from what has been received by Amjad (2013) saying, Nikayin was not
completely consistent at all, and he has presented mostly consistent equivalents



only in 4 cases. This study can be, however, described as a complementary to
the Amjads research published in 2013which has studied problems and
strategies in just English translation of the Quranic divine names (bilingual
corpuses) disregarding the effects of translators gender and the involvement of
the Persian translation of the Quranic divine names (trilingual corpuses).
Moreover, Amjad studied all the divine names in the Holy Book but, the
researcher, here in this study, investigated the divine attributes appeared in
twins over the first ten chapters of the Holy Quran.
The previous studies conducted on literary texts have revealed that
translators (male and female) treat text differently due to the differences they
have in their
Ideology, thought and language ability or capability -- e.g. Sharifi et al.
(2013) found that Iranian female and male translators behave differently toward
lexical equivalences in translation of literary texts based on perceived gender,
ideology, and gender-specific language style. Through this study conducted on
the translation of the Holy Quran, the researcher found Sharifis findings on
literary text in support of her findings on religious text.
Based on the above findings, the researcher described Saffarzadehs
Persian and English translations as semanto-syntactic, while previous findings
such as Khodaday and Eslami (2013) found that Saffarzadeh English translation
offered appropriate semantic, syntactic, and para-syntactic equivalents for the
Arabic schemata. Mohammad-Beigi and Rezai (2012) had also defined
Saffarzadehs English and Persian translations based on the interpretive
approach that has significantly influenced on her choice of translation
equivalents.
All-in-all, the researchers findings has once again approved the
unworkability of the translation hypothesis, when it concerned to the Quranic
DAs appearing in twins, as Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 12) says "in the translation of
the Qur'an, language and cultural-bound linguistic and rhetorical features are
simply inimitable and un-producible into other languages to a satisfactory
level that can create an equivalent mystical effect on the target audience similar
to that on SL readers. In addition, as Manafi-Anari (2012) believes the
language of the Holy book is not Arabic (it is Quranic Arabic, which is a
Quranic-specific language), so translation of the Holy Quran is very hard



compared with other Arabic books and more difficult than any other religious
works (Manafi-Anari, 2012, p. 1).



 Chapter Five
Conclusion, Implications, and
Suggestions



5.1 Overview
As mentioned before, the study was conducted to investigate (1) the major
problems in the translation of DAs based on Miremadis framework (2) the
translation strategies adopted by each translator to achieve lexical adequacy and
semantic equivalence in the translation of DAs based on Chestermans model
(3) define the most frequent strategies totally and in accordance with the
translators gender and the TTs language and finally (4) the consistency of
strategy adoption according to the translators gender and the TTs language. As
shown in the previous chapter, the three translators (Nikayin, Saffarzadeh, and
Kushas team) have confronted a variety of problems and used different
strategies in an attempt to overcome the problems and attain lexical adequacy
and semantic equivalence in their English and Persian translations. In this
chapter, which is the final chapter, the procedure and results are summarized,
then, conclusions are drawn. The pedagogical implications of the study and
some suggestions for further researches are also provided in this chapter.

5.2 Conclusions
The following steps were taken to conduct the study:
The selected DAs over the first nine parts of the Holy Quran (from the
Opening Surah of the Holy Book to At-Tubah (Repentance or Baraat the
Dissolve of Obligations with the Treaty-Breakers) were spotted; the total
number of their occurrences were determined and the scope of their meanings,
interpretation (from Noor and Nemuneh Interpretations), syntax, and
morphologies were defined.
The DAs and the number of their occurrences together with their English
and Persian renderings by each of the three translators along with their syntax
and position in the Holy Quran were tabled to be juxtaposed for analysis.
Taking a descriptive and comparative methodology and utilizing the
production part of Chestermans model (1997) which is shown in table 3.1 at
the end of this chapter, the strategies each translator had adopted for each DA
along with their frequencies were coded and then tabled. It should be noted that
in some cases the translators had utilized more than one strategy. In these cases,
the researcher has mentioned a combination of them.



 Discussions -- based on Abdul-Raofs Qur'an Cognitive Model (QCM) as a
descriptive tool for the analysis Quranic discourse -- were provided beneath
each table for the sample of the DAs selected for this study. The variety of
rendered equivalents and consistency of translators performances were
investigated. Where applicable, the differences in grammatical patterns of
English, Persian, and Arabic, collocational clashes, shifts, word order change
and some other factors were discussed.
Finally, the concluding tables were provided to show the frequency and
consistency of each translators strategy adoption for translation of DAs.
To sum up, it was found that male and female translators treated differently
in translating religious texts and particularly DAs in the Holy Quran; they
adopted gender-based strategies to overcome the translation problems and a
more consistent translation of the Holy Quran was the one conducted by the
cooperation of male and female translators.
As to the first question on the problems of DAs translation, based on
Miremadi (1991)s translation problems categorization, the researcher defined:
Lexical compression of the Quranic Arabic DAs as the main problem the
translators have faced with. Based on the whole analysis and discussion
provided in the previous chapter, it was clear that there has been always some
omission in meaning renderings of DAs components into both Persian and
English due to layers of meaning encapsulated in a sole linguistic item of the
Quranic Arabic text. Miremadi described semantic voids as the main reason
behind such omission, compression, and implication. (I.e. in rendering the
meanings of , no word in English and in Persian can be found describing
the various meanings of the words at different layers: 1. The God has a
knowledge which is all-inclusive, absolute, unique, and the highest
simultaneously, and 2. The God is, also, the Decreer Whose decree is obliged to
be implemented.
Another main problem was the distortion of the emotive overtones and
expressive effects that the original DAs created on the SL readers (Miremadis
syntactically pragmatic problems) due to the large evident cultural, structural,
and linguistic differences between the three languages of Arabic, Persian, and
English under the study. Therefore, many examples were found showing that
translators were not succeeded to find a solution for problems of equivalence in



the rendition between English and Arabic. As Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 25) calls
the words "Quranic cultural voids" which enjoy culture-bound overtones, and
as such cannot be captured in translation, it is quite evident that providing an
equivalent for an Arabic word in English and Persian can hardly save the
specific emotive overtones and expressive effects of the original item. For
example the Arabic morphological pattern like Sifat Al-Moshabbaheh
(Perpetual Attribute e.g. ) caused a handful of problems for the translators
as they had certain weights and effects in Arabic language structure which could
not be similarly reproduced both in English and Persian.
Some problems occur not only because of the semantic voids between the
SL and TLs as cited by Miremadi (1991), but also due to the syntactic voids
there is between the three languages of Persian, English and Arabic concerning
the Quranic DAs. For example, in Arabic, there are two types of articles
representing definiteness and indefiniteness of the DAs (e.g. in accusative or
nominative cases or followed by ) in various contexts, but in English, God
and Attributes referred to Him are obliged to be written with a definite article of
the to show its universally uniqueness (similar to what is used for the sun,
the moon and so on). In Persian, no article is there to show the global
uniqueness and the definiteness of the Almighty, the God and Attributes
referring to Him. However, it enjoys two indefinite articles of /yek and
/ei or /ye respectively appearing before and after a noun in Persian to
show its indefiniteness. Another point here is that in an English noun phrase,
the definiteness/indefiniteness of the noun has collocational effect on the
adjective appeared in twins with it and makes the adjective definite or
indefinite, too (i.e. there is no need to add the article of the at the beginning of
the adjective in the noun phrase. Such collocational effects cannot be found in
Persian. However, in Arabic noun phrase the definite and indefinite articles are
attached to both of the noun and adjective.
Among major problems found by the study were collocational word class
or word order problems e.g.  vs.  (described by
Miremadi under the main categorization of syntactic problems). For
example, as discussed in previous chapter, the word appeared with
in twins playing two functions in various Ayas/ contexts. When it was in
the former position played the noun function (e.g. 6-83, 6-128, and 6-139), and



in the later position played the adjective role (e.g. 9-15, 9-28, 9-60, 9-97, 9-106,
9-110). According to Abdul-Raof (2006, p.101) different word orders express
variegated propositional attitudes and carry an illocutionary force, i.e. they lead
to different inferable interpretations on the part of the addressee.
Difference in the frequencies of the original DAs in the SL and their
counterparts in the TL was among other problems the Quran translators
encountered to. For example, as discussed above, the word , which is a
multilayer term in the Quran Arabic in term of meaning, enjoys a very high
frequency in the Holy Quran while its contextual equivalents in Persian and
English have not half of such frequency.
All-in-all, the above-mentioned voids -- semantic voids (categorized by
Miremadi, 1991) and syntactic voids (categorized by the researcher) , lexical
compression along with word class or word order, which were Quranic-
specific, has made rendering of the Quranic terms more different and more
difficult than any other Arabic or religious texts into English and Persian as
Manafi-Anari (2012) believes that the Holy Quran is the very Word of Allah,
so the content and the container both are divine and inseparable from each
other. The language of the Holy Book is not Arabic (it is Quranic Arabic, which
is a Quranic-specific language), so translation of the Holy Quran is very hard
compared with other Arabic books and more difficult than any other religious
works (Manafi-Anari, 2012, p. 1).
As to the second and third questions on the strategies and their frequency, it
was found that the translators based on Chestermans model (see Table 2.2)
adopted a considerable extent of strategies from near-synonymy, structure
change, expansion, explicitness, and paraphrase to some other strategies
such as unit shift, cohesion and emphasis changes as well as
transposition to resolve the lexically semantic (lexicosemantic) and
pragmatically syntactic (pragmatosyntactic) problems. The mostly used
strategies by the translators under the study were, first, semantic, and then,
syntactic.
As the figure 4.4 shows, on the whole and regardless of the gender of the
translators and the language and the form of the translations, the most
frequently used strategies for translating Quranic DAs in the corpus under the
study were omission (19.61%), near-synonymy (18.92%) and structure



change (15.82%) respectively. The less frequently used strategies were also
literal, cohesion, and scheme change respectively with the total adoption
rate of 0.22%, 0.34%, and 2.86% respectively.
The most frequent strategies adopted by Saffarzadeh in her Persian
translation were compression by 25.85%, unit shift by 17.07% and
transposition by 15.60%. In her English translation, Saffarzadeh has taken
mostly advantage of structure change strategy by 27.12%. Near-synonymy
and compression to an equal extent of 16.69% were her second most frequent
strategies. She has not used cohesion and schema change strategies in her
English and Persian translations under the study.
Nikayin, however, preferred near-synonymy strategy to other strategies as
he used it in 18.39% of his DAs translation cases. Next to this strategy, he
adopted mostly compression strategy by 15.32% and then structure change
by 14.55% and unit shift by 13.79% in his renderings. Overall, most various
types of strategies (a verity of 8 strategies) have been adopted by Nikayin his
poetic translation of the Holy Quran under the study.
Finally, Kusha and his team have employed mostly near-synonymy with
the percentage of 36.70%, compression with the percentage of 23.41% and
expansion with the percentage of 13.92% to resolve the translation problems
of the DAs under the study. Other strategies had low frequency. He has not
taken advantage of emphasis change, cohesion and schema change in his
translation under the study.
To sum up, it is evident that Kusha and his team have taken advantage of the
lowest variety of strategies in translating the Quranic DAs under the study
compared with other translators whose works were investigated through the
research. Moreover, Nikayin has adopted the highest variety of strategies. The
lowest rate of unit shift strategy adoption was devoted to Kushas team, while
the highest rate of this strategys usage was for Nikayin. Regarding the
frequency rate of near-synonymy strategy adoption, Kushas team took the
first position by 58% and Saffarzadeh got the last position by 18%. Nikayin
was the only translator who has considered cohesion and schema change
strategies respectively by 1.14% and 9.57%. In the ranking of the structure
change strategy adoption, Saffarzadehs English translation (by 27.12%) took
the first place, while Kushas team (by 8.86%) took the last place.



 It may be assumed that adoption of these strategies counteract lexical
compression, a significant feature of the Quranic discourse, in the translated
versions, but still compression (implicitness or omission) is the most used
frequent strategy, approving the unsuccessfulness of the translators in adequate
renderings of the DAs into English and Persian, which has been emphasized by
Abdul- Raof (2001, p.40) saying, the Quran itself will be lost when translated;
its unique linguistic architecture, rhetorical beauty, music, and prototypical
texture will be wasted. Accordingly, the translation hypothesis has been proved
to be unworkable, when it concerned to the Quranic DAs appearing in twins, as
Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 12) says "in the translation of the Quran, language and
cultural-bound linguistic and rhetorical features are simply inimitable and
un-producible into other languages to a satisfactory level that can create an
equivalent mystical effect on the target audience similar to that on SL readers."
As to the last four questions about the consistency of strategy adoption
according to the translators gender and the TTs language, as shown in the
Tables 4.9 and 4.10, the most common strategy used by the male translator
under the study was near-synonymy (51.33%). While the female translators
most common strategy was compression (45%). Moreover, the most frequent
strategies in Persian renderings were compression by 24.63%, and
expansion by 24.50% respectively. The most frequent strategies in English
translations were structure change (52.50%) and near-synonymy (44.50%).
Nikayin, who has provided his semanto-syntactic translation in English and
in poetry form, was completely consistent in half of the cases and provided the
most number of inconsistent cases in his renderings of the Quranic DAs under
the study compared with other translators. This finding is in contrast with
Amjads findings in 2013, saying that Nikayin was not completely consistent in
any cases of his equivalent renderings.
On the contrary, Kusha and his team, who have provided their semantic
translation in Persian and tafsiricly prose form -- with interpretations on
footnotes explaining the reasons behind the selection of each equivalence based
on the Quranic Arabic language syntax and morphology to enable readers
possessing an advanced knowledge of Arabic to follow the meaning of the
Quranic Arabic text -- were completely consistent in nearly all the cases of his
DAs translation by 94.44%, save in 3 cases.



 Finally Saffarzadeh, who has also provided her semanto-syntactic Persian
and English translations both in tafsiricly prose form -- with interpretation and
commentary of the Words of Revelations according to the background and
situation of their descent -- was consistent in more than 90% of the cases and
there were 5 and 3 cases of inconsistency found in her DAs Persian and
English renderings respectively.
To sum up, the research has once again approved the unworkability of the
translation hypothesis, when it concerned to the Quranic DAs appearing in
twins, as Abdul-Raof (2001, p. 12) says "in the translation of the Qur'an,
language and cultural-bound linguistic and rhetorical features are simply
inimitable and un-producible into other languages to a satisfactory level
that can create an equivalent mystical effect on the target audience similar to
that on SL readers. And as Manafi-Anari (2012) believes the language of the
Holy book is not Arabic (it is Quranic Arabic, which is a Quranic-specific
language), so translation of the Holy Quran is very hard compared with other
Arabic books and more difficult than any other religious works (Manafi-Anari,
2012, p. 1).

5.3 Implications
Based on the findings of the research, the need for the expansion of Miremadis
translation problems framework was arisen. It is suggested to describe the
syntactic voids as the newest branch of the syntactic problems.
It has been also found that in translating religious texts and particularly DAs
in the Holy Quran, male and female translators treat differently adopt gender-
based strategies -- to overcome the translation problems. And it would be in a
position to conclude that a more consistent translation of the Holy Quran is the
one which have been done through the cooperation of male and female
translators (e.g. a joint translated version of the Holy Quran encapsulate more
beautiful features of this Holy Book as Abdul-Raof (2001, p.58) beliefs no
single translated version can ever encapsulate all the beautiful features of the
Quran. Even no combination of all translated versions by male, female, or co-
gender translators can ever reflect all the beautiful features of the original text).
Therefore, the fourth period of the evolution of women's writing, dubbed
female-male phase, has most probably just arrived since 2015. This phase,



the researcher suggests, can be described as a complementary to the female
writings historical phases, originally divided by Showalter (1977) into three
phases feminine, from 1840 to the death of George Eliot in 1880;
feminist, from 1880 to 1920, the date of female suffrage in America; and
female, from 1920 to the present. This research is, therefore, a probable
harbinger of a new era in the history of women's writings. Welcome to this
new era (age) in womens writing!
Moreover, the results gained from this study may provide the translators
with insights into how to translate certain DAs, from the language of the Holy
Quran (which is Quranic-specific Arabic) into Persian and English.
The trilingual corpus provided under the present study would be a powerful
tool for students, teachers, translators, and the researchers to search for and
study equivalent items between the three languages under the investigation.
The corpus provided under this research can also be of practicable use for
translation students. By referring to this corpus, they can find out about the
possibility of the use of language in the right context and learn about the
language of the translated religious texts more effectively.

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research

These findings afford an avenue for additional research on Quran translations
into other languages rather than English or Persian. Conducting research on the
quality analysis of the corpus of the study is suggested. Replication of the study
by means of the same and different theoretical frameworks concerning
strategies and exploration of problems is recommended. To reach a more
reliable result, taking advantage of at least three English translations of the Holy
Book by female and three English translations by male, three Persian
translations of the Holy Book and three French translations by three male and
three female translators is also suggested. The effects of other factors such as
the translators (their culture and ...) and the TTs (genre and ) on the
consistency of the Quranic terms translation can also be useful. This venture
attempted to identify the effect of translators gender and the TTs language on
the consistency of equivalents renderings; it is suggested to study the effects of
these two factors on the appropriateness and adequacy of equivalents
renderings too.



 References
Abdul-Raof, H. (2001). The Quran Translation -- Discourse, Texture, and
Exegesis. London: Routledge.

Abdul-Raof, H. (2006). Arabic Rhetoric: A Pragmatic Analysis. London:

Routledge.

Abdul-Raof, H. (2005a). Consonance in the Qur'an: A Conceptual, Intertextual,

and Linguistic Analysis. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.

Abdul-Raof, H. (2005b). "Cultural Aspects in Qur'an Translation". In Lynne

Long (cd.) Translation and Religion: Holy Untranslatable? Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

Abdul-Raof, H. (2004a). Quranic Stylistics: A Linguistic Analysis. Muenchen:

Lincom Europa.

Abdul-Raof, H. (2004b). "The Quran: Limits of Translatability". In Faiq, Said

(ed.) Cultural Encounters in Translation from Arabic. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

Abdul-Raof, H. (2003). Exploring the Quran. Dundee: al-Maktoum Institute

academic Press.

Alhaj, A. (2015). New Theory of the Holy Quran Translation: A Textbook for
Advanced University Students of Linguistics and Translation. United
States: Anchor Academic Publishing

Al-Shabab, O.S. (2008). Linguistic and Cultural Translation in the

Translations of the Holy Quran into European Languages. In Scientific
Journal of King Faisal University, Vol.9, Issue No. 2

Al-Shabab, O.S. (2008). From Necessity to Infinity: Interpretation in Language

and Translation, London: Janus

Al-Shabab, O.S. (2012). Textual Source and Assertion: Sales Translation of

the Holy Quran. In Journal of King Saud University- Languages and
Translation, Volume 24, Issue 1 January 2012, Pages 1-21.



Arberry, A. J. (1955). The Koran Interpreted. New York: The Macmillan
Company.

Arberry, A. J. (1955), The Koran Interpreted Translation.UK (2004): Oxford

University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-
9780192835017/islam-9780192835017-miscMatter-6

Armstrong, N. (2005). Translation, Linguistics, Culture: A French-English

Handbook. Clevedon, Buffalo, and Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Asadi Amjad. F. (2012). Problems and Strategies in English Translation of

Quranic Divine Names. Retrieved from
http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/view/3301/pdf

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation, London,

and New York: Routledge.

Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (2011). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation

Studies, London, and New York: Routledge.

Baker, M. (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and

Applications. In: M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text
and Technology: In Honor of John Sinclair. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins, pp. 23350.

Bassnett, S. (1992). Writing in no Man's Land: Questions of Gender and

Translation: University of Warwick

Beekman, John, and John Callow (1974). Translating the Word of God. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan.

Benjamin, W. (2000). The Task of the Translator. In Venuti, L., (Ed.),

Translation studies reader, (pp. 75-85). New York: Routledge.

Bergen, D. (n. d.). Translation Strategies and the Students of Translation.

Jorma Tommola, 1, 109-125. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from
http://www.hum.utu.fi/oppiaineet/englantilailentilologia/exambergen.pdf



Bressler, C. E. (2007). Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and
Practice (fourth Ed.). London: Pearson.

Bronte, E. (2000). Bolandihaaye Baadgir, Eshgh Hargez Nemimirad,

(Wuthering Heights) Trans. A. Bahram Beigi. Tehran: Jaami.

Bronte, E. (2007). Bolandihaaye Baadgir, Eshgh Hargez Nemimirad,

(Wuthering Heights) Trans. N. Gholampour. Tehran: Nashre Roozegaar.

Broomand, M. H. (2009). A Poetic Translation of the Holy Quran. Iran: Echo

Islam). Retrieved from http://www.sailanmuslim.com/news/wp-
content/uploads/A-Poetic-Translation-of-the-Holy-Quran.pdf

Castro, O. (2013) Feminist Translation Studies. Aston University, Birmingham,

UK. Retrieved from
https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/GL/article/viewFile/16185/pdf

Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in

Translation Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Chesterman, A. (2000i). Memetics and Translation strategies. Synapse 5, 1-17.

Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/~chesterm/2000iMemetics.html

Chesterman, A. (1996) Teaching translation theory: the significance of

memes. In Cay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel (Eds), Teaching Translation
and Interpreting 3. New Horizons. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 63-71.

Chesterman, A. (1998). Communication Strategies, Learning Strategies, and

Translation Strategies. In Kirsten Malmkjaer (ed.) Translation and
Language Teaching. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 135-144.

Chifane, C. (2012). Equivalence vs. Non-Equivalence in Economic Translation.

Retrieved from
http://www.strategiimanageriale.ro/images/images_site/articole/article_8acf
67ed1d9c462dd868aa5d1d8e487g.pdf

Cohen, A.D. (1984). On Taking Tests: What the Students Report. Language
testing, 11 (1). 70-81.



De Lima Costa, C. (2006). Lost (and found?) in Translation: Feminism in
Hemispheric Dialogue. Latino Studies, 4, 62-78.Retrieved December 5,
2007, from http://www.palgrave- journals.com/1st.

Desilver, D. (2013), Worlds Muslim Population More Widespread than You

Might Think. Washington: Pew research center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-
population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

El-Hadary, T. H., (2008). Equivalence and Translatability of Quranic

Discourse: A Comparative and Analytical Evaluation. England: Leeds
University Press

Everaert, A. (2005). First and Second Reference. Retrieved from

http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/grammar/engineering/articles/6.xml

Fawcett, P. (2001). Ideology and Translation. In Baker, M., (Ed.), Routledge

Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, (pp. 106- 110). London: Routledge.

Flotow, L.V. (1997). Translation and Gender. Canada: University of Ottawa

Press.

Flotow, V. (1997). Translating in the Era of Feminism. Canada: University of

Ottawa Press.

Gambier, Y. & Miriam, S, Radegundis, S (2004). Doubts and Directions in

Translation Studies. The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Golavar, E. (2014). The Effect of the Translator's Gender on Translation

Evaluation. Retrieved from
http://translationjournal.net/journal/48gender.htm

Guerin, W. L. et al. (2005). A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature

(fifth Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Guillou. L. (2003). School of Informatics University of Edinburgh Scotland,

United Kingdom. Retrieved from L.K.Guillou@sms.ed.ac.uk



Guillou, L. (2013). Analyzing Lexical Consistency in Translation. Scotland,
UK: University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270878754_Analysing_Lexical_C
onsistency_in_Translation

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:

Longman.

Haster, M. P. & Weber, J. J. (1992). Power and Mutuality in Middlemarch. In

Toolan, M., (Ed.), Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics, (pp.
163-178). London: Routledge.

Hassen, R (2011). English Translation of the Quran by Women: The Challenges

of 'Gender Balance' in and through Language. Universitat de Valencia:
Alicante, Espn. Retrieved from
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2651/265119725008.pdf

Hassen, R. (2012). English Translations of the Quran by Women: Different or

Derived? England: Warwick University Press. Retrieved from
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/55511

Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. New York:

Routledge.

IQNA (1392). Tehran: Iran Quran News Agency. Retrieved from

http://www.iqna.ir/fa/News/1366965

Hervey, S. and Higgins, H. (1992). Thinking Translation: A Course in

Translation Method: French to English. London: Routledge.

IRIB (2008). Tributes to Dr. Tahereh Saffarzadeh. Tehran: IRIB. Retrieved

from http://english.irib.ir/programs/iran/item/54473-tributes-to-dr-tahereh-
saffarzadeh

Jaaskelainen, R. (1999). Tapping the Process: an Explorative Study of

Cognitive and Effective Factors Involved in Translating. Joensuu:
University of Joensuu Publications in Humanities.



Jakobson, R. (1959/ 2000) "On Linguistics Aspects and Translation", in L.
Venuti (ed.) (2000), pp. 113-18.

Jantunen, J.H., 2004, Untypical Patterns in Translations: Issues on Corpus

Methodology and Synonymity, in M. Maraunen (ed.), Translation
Universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 101-126.

Karoubi, B. Gender, and Translation. Retrieved December 5, 2007 from

http://www.TranslationDirectory.com.

Khan, Mofakhar Hussain. English Translations of the Holy Quran: A Bio-

Bibliographic Study. Islamic Quarterly 30 (1986): 82-108.

Khodadady, A. & Eslami, S. A. (2013) 168 A Comparative Analyses of Two

English Translations of Ya Seen (Q.36): A Schema-Based Approach.
Mashhad: International Journal of Business and Social Science. Retrieved
from http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_13_October_2013/19.pdf

Krings, H.P. (1986). Translation Problems and Translation Strategies of

Advanced German Learners of French. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka
(Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 263-75).
Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Kruger, A. & Wallmach. K. & Munday, J., 2011). Corpus-Based Translation

Studies: Research and Application. London and New York: Bloomsbury.

Kruger, A. (2000). Lexical Cohesion and Register Variation in Translation: the

Merchant of Venice in Afrikaans. Unpublished D. Litt. et Phil. thesis,
Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Kruger, A. (2002). Corpus-Based Translation Research: Its Development and

Implications for General, Literary and Bible Translation. Retrieved from
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/5455/29593.

Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross Equivalents.

Lanham: University Press of America.



Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings,
Applications. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi B.V.

Lobner, S. (2002). Understanding Semantics. UK: Oxford University Press.

Leonardi, V. (2007). Gender and Ideology: Do Women and Men Translate

Differently, Bern: Peter Lang - International Academic Publishers.

Lorscher, W. (1991). Translation Performance, Translation Process, and

Translation Strategies: a Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tbingen: G. Narr.

Lotfipour-Saedi, K. (1997). Lexical Cohesion and Translation Equivalence:

Erudit, Meta: journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal, vol. 42, n
1, 1997, p. 185-192. URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/004014ar

Manafi Anari, S. (2012). An Approach to English Translation of Islamic Texts

1. Iran: Samt.

Manafi-Anari, S. (2009). The Role of Gender in Translation Accuracy.

Retrieved from http://en.journals.sid.ir/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=170948

Melamed, D. (1997). Measuring Semantic Entropy. In Proceedings of the

SIGLEX Workshop on Tagging Text with Lexical Semantics, pages 4146.

Miremadi, S. A. (1991). Theories of Translation and Interpretation. Tehran:

SAMT.

Mohammad-Beigi, Sh. & Rezai, S. (2012). A Comparative Study of Tahereh

Saffarzadehs Persian and English Translations of the Holy Quran. Iran:
Scientific Information database. Retrieved from
http://en.journals.sid.ir/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=349966

Morris, J., and Hirst, G. (1991). Lexical Cohesion Computed by Thesaural

Relations as an Indicator of the Structure of Text. Computational
Linguistics, 17(1), 2148.

Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications,

London: Routledge.



Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, London:
Routledge.

Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Nikayin, F. (2006). THE QURAN: The First Poetic Translation. Skokie,

Illinois: The Ultimate Book, Inc.

Noor Comprehensive Commentary Collection. (2010). DVD-ROM. Qom:

Computer Research Center of Islamic Sciences.

Islamic Development Organization (2011). Qurani Works of Tahereh

Saffarzadeh. Tehran: IDO

Retrieved from http://old.ido.ir//en/en-a.aspx?a=1390082207

Ordoudari, M. (2015), Strategies Adopted in Translating the Islamic Terms and

Concepts of the Holy Quran into English. Iran: Allameh Tabatabei
University. Retrieved from
http://icnc.ir/index.aspx?pid=289&metadataId=0ff2111a-03ad-47d4-b46c-
748b7c41b1d9

Owji, Z. (2013), Translation Strategies: A Review and Comparison of Theories.

Retrieved from http://translationjournal.net/journal/63theory.htm

Pickthall, M. M. (1930). The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: An Explanatory

Translation. New York: Alfred A. Knof. Retrieved from
http://www.islamicbulletin.org/free_downloads/quran/quran_pikhtal.pdf

Porta, Donatella Diella & Keating, Michael (2008), Approaches and

Methodologies in the Social Sciences A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge
University Press.

Quranic Arabic Corpus (2009), England: University of Leeds. Retrieved from

http://corpus.quran.com/

QUL Website. (2011). Asma-ul-Husna. Retrieved from

http://www.qul.org.au/the holy quran/asma-ul-husna



Reiss, K. (1971). Mglichkeiten und Grenzen der bersetzungskritik, Munich:
M. Hoeber. Trans. E. F.

Reiss, K. (2000). Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations.

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Rhodes (2000). Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations,

Manchester: St Jerome and American Bible Society.

Mustafa Halimah, A. (2014). Translation of the Holy Quran A call for

Standardization. Retrieved from
http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/viewFile/251/240

Robertson, S. I. (2001). Problem Solving. Hove: Psychology Press.

Rogers M. (2007). Terminological Equivalence: Probability and Consistency in

Technical Translation. EU-High-Level Scientific Conference Series LSP
Translation Scenarios: Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from
http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2007_Proceedings/2007_Rog
ers_Margret.pdf

Rogers, M. (2007a): Lexical Chains in Technical Translation: A Case Study in

Indeterminacy. In B. Antia (ed.): Indeterminacy in LSP and Terminology:
Studies in Honour of Heribert Picht. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.15-35.

Rogers, M. (2007b): Terminological Equivalence in Technical Translation: A

Problematic Concept? St. Jerome and Technical Translation. In Synaps 20.
13-25.

Rogers, M. (1997): Synonymy and Equivalence in Special-Language Texts. A

Case Study in German and English Texts on Genetic Engineering. In A.
Trosborg (ed.): Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.217-45.

Saffarzadeh, T. (2001). The Holy Quran: English and Persian Translation with
Commentary. Tehran: Honar Bidari Publisher.



Sandrini, p. (2006). LSP Translation and Globalization. In: Gotti, Maurizio;
arevi, Susan (Eds): Insights into Specialized Translation. Linguistic
Insights 46. Bern Berlin Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Sguinot, C. (1989). The Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications.

Simon, S. (1996). Gender in Translation. London: Routledge.

Shafiee-Sabet, S.G, (2011), The Effect of the Translator's Gender Ideology on

Translating Emily Brontes Wuthering Heights. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/JTLS3811348950600.pdf

Tehran Times (2007). New English Translation of Holy Quran Published in

Iran. Iran: TT. Retrieved from
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=154462.

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam

and Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.

Toury, G. (2004). Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
http://www.itcanet.ir/ITCA/e-
books/Translation/Claims,%20Changes,%20and%20Challenges%20in%20T
ranslation%20Studies.pdf

Venuti, L. (1998). Strategies of Translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

translation studies (pp. 240-244). London and New York: Routledge.

Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and

English: A Methodology for Translation: Benjamins.

Violatti, C. (2014). Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

http://www.ancient.eu/Indo-European_Languages/

Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, Language, and Discourse, London: Routledge.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1985). Gender, Language, and Discourse. In
Van Dijk, T. A., (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (4th ed.), (pp. 103-
124). London: Academic Press.



Wells, J. M. (2009). Word Choice. The Writing Lab &the OWL at Purdue and
Purdue University. Retrieved from
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/2/2/66/

Wiersema (2004). Globalization and Translation. Retrieved from

http://translationjournal.net/journal//27liter.htm.