Thesis

MSc Applied Linguistics (2 years)

Through the Translation Looking Glass:

Differences in Writing Styles of Male and
Female English Language Writers

Submitted by: Tanwir Hussain Shah

UMT Id#: (080318001)

Submitted to: Mr. Moazam Hashmi

Dept. of English Language and Literature (DELL), SSSH

 ABSTRACT

Literary studies refer to the male sentence and the female sentence, but the definition of
such sentences is highly subjective, and frequently untangible. This study uses a quantitative
approach to determine the differences between male and female sentences. Urdu translations of
four short stories written by female writers were compared with four other Urdu translations of
short stories written by male writers, by calculating the frequencies of masculine and feminine
nouns used to describe the male and female characters in each story. The stories were from ‘A
Selection of Short Stories and One Act Plays for BA students’ by Prof. Salim Ahmad Siddiqi.
All eight writers were native English speakers. The nouns for each character were gathered by
selecting words used by the narrator to describe the character, words used by the character to
describe himself or herself, words other characters used to describe the character, and the names
of any objects the character interacted with in the story. These words were divided into two
groups, masculine and feminine, and the percentage of masculine and feminine nouns was
calculated. In order to determine any differences between male and female writers, the
percentage of masculine nouns allocated to male characters and the percentage of feminine
nouns allocated to female characters were separated and grouped according to whether they were
created by a male or female author. These figures where then represented as bar graphs. The
results of the study show that male writers tend to create male characters with higher levels of
masculine nouns and female characters with higher levels of feminine nouns. In contrast female
writers have fewer characters with high frequencies of either masculine or feminine nouns.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor, Mr. Moazam Hashmi, for all
his help. He was the person who gave me the original idea that eventually led to this thesis. He
was always ready to listen to my thoughts patiently, no matter how far fetched (or foolish) they
seemed, and was always there to offer advice and encouragement when needed. I will always
remember his kindness, patience, thoughtfulness and a wisdom beyond his years. He was
unstinting and generous with his time and hospitality and always succeeded in putting me at my
ease at times when I despaired of ever finishing or when I had trouble getting to grips with the
Urdu language, with which I constantly struggled. He was never frugal with his praise,
something that made one warm to him quickly.

Above all, I loved his modesty. He always felt he had something to learn from others and
listened with interest to what they had to say. He was never one to blow his own trumpet or be
pedantic in any way. He allowed me to pursue my ideas in my own way, giving me the chance to
make my own mistakes and follow false leads and dead ends because they were an important
part of my learning experience. For that, and everything else, I thank him from the bottom of my
heart.

I would like to thank Professor Dr. Anjum Saleemi for suggesting that I use a book of
translation of the English stories used in this study, instead of translating the words myself,
which would have been far from satisfactory. This marked an important turning point in my
research.

Thanks are also due to Professor Dr. Zafar Iqbal for listening to my proposal and
declaring it a good idea. I would also like to thank him for encouraging me to pursue a Masters
degree in Linguistics. Without his initial advice, this wonderful journey of discover would never
have been possible.

Finally, I really appreciate all the help I received from staff at the University’s IPC
computer lab, who were always available to provide advice on computer related problems, and
the staff of the library who were eager to point out all the facilities available for research in their
department, many of which are underused by students. Without all of these facilities at my
fingertips, this study would have been a much harder task to accomplish.

3
 DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to the ‘me’ who said, “I couldn’t.”

I proved him wrong.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 07

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 08

RESEARCH QUESTION 08

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 08

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 09

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 10

2.1 TRANSLATION STUDIES 10

2.1.1 Approaches to Translation 11

2.1.1.1 Linguistic Approaches 11

2.1.1.2 Descriptive Approaches 12

2.1.1.3 Functional Approaches 12

2.1.1.4 Cultural Approaches 13

2.1.2 A Relevant Translation 14

2.2 GRAMMATICAL GENDER 22

2.2.1 A Possibe Origin of Grammatical Gender 22

2.2.2 A Definition of Grammatical Gender 22

2.2.2.1 Semantic Principles 22

2.2.2.2 Formal Principles 23

2.2.3 Research in Grammatical Gender 23

2.3 GENDER STUDIES 27

5
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 33

3.1 MATERIALS 33

3.2 PROCEDURE 33

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35

4.1 RESULTS FOR ALL EIGHT SHORT STORIES 35

4.2 RESULTS FOR ALL MALE CHARACTERS 40

4.3 RESULTS FOR ALL FEMALE CHARACTERS 42

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 46

5.1 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 46

APPENDIX A The Duchess and the Jeweller by Virginia Woolf (female writer) 47

APPENDIX B The Little Willow by Frances Towers (female writer) 51

APPENDIX C The Fly by Katherine Mansfield (female writer) 55

APPENDIX D A Conversation with my Father by Grace Paley (female writer) 58

APPENDIX E Araby by James Joyce (male writer) 61

APPENDIX F Rappaccini’s Daughter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (male writer) 64

APPENDIX G The Killers by Ernest Hemingway (male writer) 68

APPENDIX H The Shadow in the Rose Garden by D. H. Lawrence (male writer) 71

6
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

We live in a world where gender stereotypes exist in all cultures. Distinctions are made
between men and women in myriad ways. What these stereotypes are and how common they are,
varies from society to society. There have been many studies on how societies portray men and
women and their roles within a particular culture. Many studies have also looked at the role
language plays in this portrayal of gender. The stylistic analysis of literature reveals how words
associated with each of the two genders help to perpetuate gender stereotypes.

In recent years there have been moves to change this scenario. French and Spanish
feminist writers have sought to address the problem of a ‘phallogocentric history’ by attempting
to rewrite it. (Ordonez, J.E., 1987). Others also have tried to balance the scales by emphasizing
the need for the documentation of the ‘masculine experience’ (Schwenger, P., 1979). This
suggests that, in literature at least, the words men and women use, are influenced by their gender.
Therefore, the gender of the author of a piece of work may play an important role in the way
readers perceive fictional characters in a story.

The biological sex of writers is predetermined before birth, but the way they express or
think about their gender, and the characters they create, and write about, may be determined
through their cultural experiences and the norms of the society to which they belong. These
norms will usually help to shape a writer’s sexuality and the way they view their own and other
people’s gender. Generally speaking, male members of a particular society would be expected to
adopt qualities from a list of traits considered to be masculine in that society. Similarly, females
would need to conform to a set of female traits. Even gay and lesbian individuals, be they writers
or characters in a story, would need to select certain traits from within their cultural norms even
though they may not be wholly masculine or wholly feminine.

This research study focuses on points that consider the role grammatical gender plays in
reinforcing writers’ sexual stereotypes in a particular language and whether these stereotypes
travel across languages during translation. In addition, as with the feminist writers of France who
translate from French to English in an attempt to neutralize the effect of grammatical gender
which they consider to be sexist, we must consider whether these stereotypes can be controlled.

7
 In the case of translation from English to Urdu we move towards a target language (TL)
which possesses grammatical gender. Despite the fact that grammatical gender is not revealed in
English, the source language (SL), there is evidence to suggest that a so-called ‘metaphorical
gender’ plays a role in placing connotative gender meaning to words. This was claimed by
Deborah Cameron (Wheeler, A., 2003) who conducted research on native English speaker who
were not familiar with any other languages. A similar study in French and Spanish (Forbes, J. N.
et al., 2008) where images of various everyday objects were shown to subjects and asked to
decide their gender, if they were animated for a film, showed that grammatical gender did play a
role in the allocation of biological gender. This may have important implications in the way
writers select words to create and portray characters in literature.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To explore whether the gender bias of writers, writing in English, travels across
languages during translation from English to Urdu, and whether this bias is revealed through the
grammatical gender of Urdu.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION

Does Urdu grammatical gender highlight the gender bias of male and female writers in
literature translated from English to Urdu?

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study brings together the areas of grammatical gender, translation, literature and
gender studies. The focus is grammatical gender, but previous studies on bilingual subjects such
as those conducted by Forbes, J. N. et al., (2008), and Phillips and Boroditsky (2003), have
concentrated on single words or pairs of words, whereas this study will consider larger samples
of discourse and consider the collective effect of gendered words within these larger samples.
Previous research has not considered the effects played by grammatical gender when translating
literature. This will be a significantly new contribution to the field of gender studies as the
analysis of literature translated from English to Urdu aims to highlight gender biases amongst
male and female writers of English literature through the identification of any stereotypical
images of the characters they may create.

8
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Grammatical gender is one of many different types of linguistic information that is

available to readers of a piece of literature which enables them to make sense of what they read
and helps them to understand and follow the story. If we take nouns out of the context of the
story, we lose much of the detail that readers rely upon to create a mental picture of what the
story is about and the kind of character they are reading about. From this context, they will
already know that a particular character is male or female when they interact with words that
describe him or her, and will respond to the words accordingly. Grammatical gender will help to
reinforce the image they have of male and female story characters.

This study makes the assumption that the information via grammatical gender, which is
transferred from the source text (ST) to the target text (TT), reflects the ideas of the author of the
source text. In reality, the words used in the target text are determined by the translator and may
play a significant role in influencing the meaning of the TT.

As the stories are only translated into one language, Urdu, the results can only be said to
hold true for this language. A general theory could only be formulated if similar trends were
observed in translations in other languages.

9
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 TRANSLATION STUDIES

‫جے میں دیکھاں اپنے عمالں ولے تے کجہ نہیں میرے پلے‬

‫جے میں دیکھاں اوہدی رحمت ولے تے بلے بلے بلے‬

Muhammad, M., (1898)

If I look at my deeds, I have achieved nothing.

If I look towards His mercy, balay, balay, balay!

(own translation)

Let me begin by saying that I am not a translator, nor am I completely fluent in the
Punjabi language, but I think most translators who might attempt to translate the two lines of
Punjabi poetry above would fall into difficulties. The last three words of the second line,
consisting of one word repeated three times – balay, balay, balay, would probably cause the
greatest hardship. I have not even attempted a translation. Instead I have transliterated the words
from the Urdu script into English letters. This is because I cannot find an equivalent word for
‘balay’ that would adequately encompass the whole meaning of this Punjabi word.

The other words that I have managed to translate, may not entirely meet the approval of
other translators as they may understand the two lines of poetry differently, and may choose
more appropriate words, in their minds, to convey the meaning of the original more clearly and
precisely. One reason for this is that I have not made a word for word, literal translation. I have
tried to convey the sense of the words. If I had just translated each individual word then we
would have to do something like this:

‫جے میں دیکھاں اپنے عمالں ولے تے کجہ نہیں میرے پلے‬

mind my not then deeds my look I if

something at

10
 ‫جےمیں دیکھاں اوہدی رحمت ولےتے بلے بلے بلے‬

Balay balay then at mercy His look I if

balay

But we must also allow for the fact that the two scripts run in opposite directions. Urdu moves
from right to left and English travels from left to right. Thus the finished translation would be:

If I look my deeds at then something not my mind.

If I look his mercy at then balay, balay, balay.

It is obvious that although a certain amount of sense can be made out of these two lines,
they lack the appropriate syntax to make them English sentences. It is now beginning to seem
clear that in order for a translation to be effective, it must be approached from a number of
different perspectives.

2.1.1 Approaches to Translation

Malmkjær (2005) identifies four approaches to translation:

 Linguistic

 Descriptive

 Functional

 Cultural

2.1.1.1 Linguistic Approaches

This approach seeks to use linguistic theory to create a theory of translation. This is based
on Catford’s notion that “translation is an operation that is performed on languages: a process of
substituting a text in one language for a text in another. Clearly, then, any theory of translation
must draw upon a theory of language – a general linguistic theory.”

11
This makes a considerable amount of sense. The two lines of poetry by Mian Muhammad are in
the Punjabi language. Their translation is encoded into English. This will involve changing the
set of phonemes that make up the piece of literature into a different set of phonemes. These new
phonemes must share the same meanings, as close as possible, to the original ones. The words
must also be adjusted to fit a new syntactic framework.

This approach is all very well, but it does not help us with the word ‘balay’, which
remains untranslated. In this case no substitution is possible without using a vast quantity of
English words in order to fully illustrate all the facets of this word.

2.1.1.2 Descriptive Approaches

This is a target oriented approach which recognises the target text for what it is, the
translation, and the source text for what it is, the original. This approach does not make it a
requirement that the target text must be equivalent to the source text. It regards “translation
equivalence as an empirical phenomenon discovered by comparing SL and TL texts.” As a result
of this view of the relationship between ST and TT, “translation equivalence is no longer an ideal
and unattainable relationship, but an empirical fact.” This approach accounts for “the concept of
translation which operates in a given culture”, and the ‘norms’ that control it. These norms are
likened to laws (of translation) and are realized through the observation of the empirical
phenomena, namely translations and their source text. It is this description of empirical
phenomena which gives this approach its name.

This approach does not help the translator in the process of translation. It is a study of the
finished product in a non-judgmental way which explains what the translator has done without
commenting on whether this is right or wrong.

2.1.1.3 Functional Approaches

This approach gives weight to the notion that “the action of translating is determined by
its purpose.” This is based on the Skopos theory, where the Greek word skopos means purpose.
Functional linguists are also important influences in this approach to translation. This approach
gives key importance to the purpose of the text. If the purpose of the text in the source language
is to influence its readers in a particular way, this purpose must also be fulfilled in the target text.

12
Thus “the purpose is more important in shaping the target text than the form and content of the
source text.” The target text could, therefore, deviate greatly from the source text as long as it
fulfilled its purpose. In order to achieve this, the translator must place the audience at the
forefront of his/her mind, and must cater to ‘the perceived needs and expectations of the target
text recipients.’

If this approach is applied when translating Muhammad’s poem, we will need to consider
the target audience, especially when thinking about the translation of the word ‘balay’. If the
‘target text recipients are bilingual or familiar with both English and Punjabi, then this word will
not pose much of a problem to them, but for a wider audience, more careful consideration will
have to be taken so that meaning is not lost in translation.

2.1.1.4 Cultural Approaches

In this approach there is the expectation that the translator is familiar with the cultures of
the language he or she is dealing with. The importance given to this approach to translation is
based on the assumption that “aspects of culture shape aspects of text” and in many cases vice
versa. Stress is placed on the role language plays in the making and the maintenance of meaning.
Cultural approaches to translation are often used to “highlight the relationship between
translation and ideology.” A translator may choose to “maintain, question or alter relationships
of dominance of certain cultural groups by others.” The field of translation studies has tended to
focus on cultural groups represented in the realms of Post-colonial translation and gender
oriented translation. Translators also concentrate on very specific difficulties in translating
cultural text which describe culture specific events, activities, metaphors and proverbs.

Therefore the best person to translate Muhammad’s poem would be someone who is a
home with Muhammad’s culture and language. Only then will he or she be able to recreate the
subtle hues of meaning in their translation. In order to do this they would also need to be familiar
with English and its cultural background so that the matching of connotative meanings in both
languages are well suited in both the respective cultures.

It is unlikely that translators in Pakistan would consciously consider these four

approaches and opt for one of them before beginning the work of translation. One would be hard
pushed to find any courses on the theory and practice of translation in this country where issues

13
related to translation could be studied, and translators themselves are few and far between. It is
more likely that common sense would prevail when a translator produced a target text from a
source text. They would necessary consider the reasons why they were making the translation.
These reasons would probably result in an eclectic mix of approaches that would best help fulfil
the translator’s purposes.

The translator of the book used in this study would have the audience of the translation
foremost in his mind, as it is a book designed for students, and so would primarily follow a
functional approach. However, there are also indications that he has considered cultural
differences and has also fluctuated between word for word translations, and sense for sense
translations, with varying effectiveness. Hence, there does not seem to be any clear approach
which the translator has followed.

2.1.2 A Relevant Translation

When we consider the notion of a relevant translation, the first question that arises is
what do we mean by the word relevant? Derrida, J., (2001) responds to this question by saying
“whatever feels right, whatever seems pertinent, apropros, welcome, appropriate, opportune,
justified, well-suited or adjusted, coming right at the moment when you expect it – or
corresponding as is necessary to the object to which the so called relevant action relates.” This
suggests that translation is a very subjective task, and the translator, one who follows his or her
own whims. The meaning of a word depends on what they decide it means, after all what may
‘feel right’ for them may not necessarily ‘feel right’ for someone else. Humpty Dumpty comes to
mind when he says: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more
nor less.” One can imagine the mind of the translator working in a similar way. Alice, quite
rightly, raises the question as to whether it is possible to make words mean so many different
things (Carroll, L., 2010).

If there is one word in a source text, and ‘n’ number of translators use ‘n’ number of
words to translate it into the target text, how could they possibly all be relevant, and further
more, echoing (more or less) Alice’s thoughts, how could one word possibly have so many
alternative meanings?

14
 Let’s take the example of ‘The Pine Tree’ (Ein Fichtenbaum) by Heinrich Heine. The
Source text, in the German language is as follows:

Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam

Im Norden auf kahler Höh.
Ihn schläfert; mit weißer Decke
Umhüllen ihn Eis und Schnee.

Er träumt von einer Palme,

Die, fern im Morgenland,
Einsam und schweigend trauert
Auf brennender Felsenwand.

Now consider the target texts created by four different translators:

A single fir-tree, lonely,

On a northern mountain height,
Sleeps in a white blanket,
Draped in snow and ice.

His dreams are of a palm-tree,

Who, far in eastern lands,
Weeps, all alone and silent,
Among the burning sands.

Translated by A. S. Kline

There stands a lonely pine-tree

In the north, on a barren height;
He sleeps while the ice and snow flakes
Swathe him in folds of white.

He dreameth of a palm-tree
Far in the sunrise-land,
Lonely and silent longing
On her burning bank of sand.

Translated by Emma Lazarus

15
A lonely pine is standing
In the North where high winds blow.
He sleeps; and the whitest blanket
wraps him in ice and snow.

He dreams—dreams of a palm-tree
that far in an Orient land
Languishes, lonely and drooping,
Upon the burning sand.

Translated by Louis Untermeyer, in: Heinrich Heine: Paradox and Poet: The Poems (New York: Harcourt, Brace
and Company, 1937), p. 84.

A pine tree towers lonely

In the north, on a barren height.
He's drowsy; ice and snowdrift
quilt him in covers of white.

He dreams about a palm tree

That, far in the East alone,
Looks down in silent sorrow
From her cliff of blazing stone.

Translated by Aaron Kramer, in: The Poetry of Heinrich Heine, ed. Frederic Ewen (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press,
1969, p. 74).

To begin with, the translators cannot agree on the name of the subject of this poem, Ein
Fichtenbaum. One calls it a fir tree, two a pine tree and the fourth just a pine. To make matters
worse, only two translators confer with one another on the translation of only one line out of the
eight lines of poetry. Both Emma Lazarus and Aaron Kramer agree that the translation of the
second line should be ‘In the north, on a barren height.’ Finally, to add insult to injury, not a
single one of these academics have used the same word for ‘Morgenland’. Are Eastern lands, the
sunrise-land, an Orient land and the East all appropriate translations of the one word
‘Morgenland’? Are all four translators justified in settling on different words? With so much
subjectivity, it would be highly likely that a dozen more translators would interpret this poem in

16
a dozen more different ways. How can they all be right? How can they all be relevant
translations?

Translation seems an impossible task. Derrida, too, makes a similar comment when he
says that nothing is translatable, and then promptly contradicts himself by saying that nothing is
untranslatable. In order to understand this apparent dichotomy, we must follow Derrida’s
argument a little further and consider the ‘principle of economy’. Derrida divides this into two
parts, property and quantity. Property deals with what is proper, and stresses “the most proper
meaning of the original text.” This is judged by the factors we have mentioned earlier, namely
those of appropriateness and relevance. The second is that of quantity, which relates to the
number of words that are used to create the translation. Therefore, according to Derrida, the most
relevant translation is that translation whose economy, in terms of both property and quantity, is
the best.

Thus, it would seem that all four translations of Heine’s poem are acceptable as far as the
principles of economy are concerned, and we must accept that, even though there are differences,
all are equally appropriate and relevant, at least from the point of view of each of the four
translators. However, Muhammad’s two lines of verse are a different matter. It would be near
impossible to find one word in the English language that would be deemed appropriate and
relevant in translation to substitute the word ‘balay’, and the necessity of using a long description
to explain what this word means to the English reader would violate the quantity part of the
principle of economy. In the words of Derrida, how would the English language “welcome ... all
the connotations that have accumulated in this word.”

So Derrida is right. “Nothing is translatable, and nothing is untranslatable.” When we

step into one language from another, the principle of economy cannot be achieved completely
and so nothing is translatable, but if we disregard this principle, then nothing is untranslatable.
This is much akin to Alice’s experiences when she stepped through the looking glass into a room
which seemed equivalent to the one she had left. She quickly discovered that this similarity was
only superficial and on closer inspection, things were very, very different indeed.

There is, however, another facet of translation to explore. Culture, especially when
translating literature, cannot be ignored if it is to be successfully transferred from one set of

17
language users to another. This is one of the approaches cited by Malmkjær, and Derrida has
touched upon it when he talks about transferring all the connotations of one word into another
language. The culture of the target language (TL) will play a significant role in determining the
final appearance of a TT.

Toury, G., (1981) extends the idea of a relevant translation expressed by Derrida by
saying that not only must the ST become part of the TT’s linguistic system, by being encoded
into the TL’s linguistic code, it must also become part of the TT’s literary system. He claims that
the resulting literary TT owes its identity to the target literary system to which it now has
become part, and not to the ST from which it came.

He argues that those who see the act of translation as a replacement of ST by TT desire a
close relationship between the two texts. This relationship is termed equivalence, the better the
translation, the greater the equivalence of TT with ST. Therefore, the benchmark for translation
is the ST and the TT is required to mirror ST as much as possible.

Toury does not see translation in this way. He judges the value of TT wholly within its
sphere of operation within the TL, “irrespective of how it came into being”, thus believing the
notion of equivalence to be of secondary importance. This is in sharp contrast to Kohlross, C.,
(2009), who echoes the views of other academics, when he says that “it is first and foremost the
original that determines how the translation is to be interpreted.”

Toury believes there are two equivalences that need to be considered. The first,
equivalence1, is a theoretical equivalence seen from the point of view of the ST. It is the potential
TT that could be created from this ST. The second, equivalence2, is considered from the
viewpoint of the TT, and refers to the TT as a final product. This is a descriptive approach to
translation and observes the empirical equivalence that exists between ST and TT without the
prescriptive shackles of what is judged to be a good or bad translation.

As far as relevance is concerned, Toury does not opt for the two poles of translatable and
untranslatable that Derrida adopts. Instead, he suggests that there are hierarchies of relevance. He
considers translation equivalence to be a relative property and cites two reasons for this. First, he
feels that the translation must be relevant for something, this could be for a particular situation or
a certain type of audience. He also believes that it must be relevant from a certain point of view,

18
this could encompass the belief systems of the translator and/or the target audience. With such
factors to consider, absolute relevance would be completely impossible to achieve, and even if it
were possible it would be highly undesirable as the resulting translation would not fulfil the
purpose for which it was undertaken. Therefore, an appropriate translation for something or from
a certain point of view would need to select relevant shared features (“sounds, letters, syllables,
morphemes, morpheme meanings, words, word meanings, compounds, meanings of compounds,
syntactic patterns, sentences, sentence meanings, textual segments, and principles of
segmentation, etc”) (Toury) to achieve translation equivalence.

However, it may be the case that even after careful selection, equivalence may still not be
achieved because “relevance for ST does not imply relevance for TT even when the features in
question are shared by both ST and TT” (Toury). A good example of this is the use of idioms.
The English idiom ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’ does have an equivalent in Urdu but it
does not include the words frying pan or fire. The meaning of ‘falling from the sky and getting
stuck in a date palm’ would be lost to a speaker of English, even though it is the equivalent
meaning to the English idiom.

Bar-On, D., (1993), overcomes this problem of equivalence by putting forward the notion
of translation-meaning. She says that “the translation-meaning of a linguistic item is the set of
features which would be associated with it by SL (Source Language) users, and which are
relevant to its translation in a given context.” Therefore, translation-meaning can vary from
context to context. So, in the English context we would talk of frying pans and fires, whereas in
the Urdu context it would be skies and date palms, but the translation-meaning would be the
same.

But even allowing for this flexible approach to translation, Bar-On concedes that it is
frequently not possible to achieve exactness. The reason she gives is because “there are
systematic and pervasive mismatches between source and target languages which can stand in
the way of maximal preservation of relevant features.”

She identifies three types of mismatches:

 Lexical Mismatches

19
  Grammatical Mismatches

 Pragmatic Mismatches

When discussing these mismatches, Bar-On uses the word designator to represent “a pattern
of phonemes which (a) stands for, or represents something, (e.g. an object, or class of objects, a
phenomenon, an experience); and (b) performs its symbolic/representative function by
encapsulating ... a complex of extra linguistic features.”

A lexical mismatch occurs when the TL does not have an appropriate designator equivalent
to the one in the SL. There are two types of lexical mismatches. The first is a referential
mismatch, which occurs when “an SL designator stands for idiosyncratic aspects of the extra-
linguistic environment of the SL speaker – whether natural or socio-cultural – which are missing
from the environment of the TL speakers.” Bar-On gives examples of the Hebrew words hamsin,
which describes a certain type of weather condition found only in the Middle East, and ma’apil
“a so-called illegal immigrant, arriving in Israel by boat at the time of the British Mandate.”
Similar examples can be found in Urdu. Looh is the word for a hot summer wind that blows in
the Indian Subcontinent, and mohajir, although not illegal, are those people who migrated from
India to Pakistan during the partition of these two countries.

The second kind of lexical mismatch is “when the relevant elements, though present in the
background of both SL and TL speakers, are, for whatever reason, compressed by a single
designator in the one language but not in the other.” In Vietnamese, for example, there is a single
lexical item which means “someone leaves to go somewhere and something happens at home so
that he has to go back home”. The Punjabi word ‘balay’ could also be considered to be a lexical
mismatch if it had been translated into English, as it is an interjection which signifies praise,
wonderment, happiness and other positive emotions, which can also be expressed in English
using many more lexical items.

Grammatical mismatch occurs when information contained within the syntax of a sentence in
one language does not exist in another language. A good example is the lack of the subjunctive
in Chinese as reported by Bloom, A. H., (1981). He conducted a controversial study where he
concluded that this grammatical mismatch meant that the Chinese had difficulties in
counterfactual reasoning, Carroll, D. W., (2004). This, of course, has been refuted, Au (1983,

20
1984) and Liu (1985). The notion of differences in languages leading to difficulties in reasoning
is a dangerous one. The Chinese may have a different way of understanding and processing this
type of information. This is supported by Jakobson, R. (1959), who says that “languages can
express everything, but using different means” (Brisset, A., 2010).

Bar-On mentions a grammatical mismatch between English and Malagasy. She gives an
example of a sentence with a relative clause that loses a locative preposition on translation from
English to Malagasy. The English sentence is:

“The table on top of/under which Rabe put the basket was damaged.”

The English rendering of the Malagasy sentence is:

“The table which was basket-put by Rabe was damaged.”

The Malagasy sentence does not indicate whether the basket was placed on top of or under the
table. Bar-On hastens to add that this does not imply that the Malagasy speaker is ignorant or
unaware of this information, only that the sentence remains silent on this issue.

Another type of grammatical mismatch, which is pertinent to this study, is the marking of
grammatical gender. Many languages, including Urdu, have markers for gender on pronouns,
verbs, adjectives, determiners and/or possessives. When referring to a person, especially in the
third person singular, the sentence shows whether the person’s natural gender is male or female.
In addition to this all inanimate objects are divided into groups, called noun classes. These are
usually masculine and feminine, but they can vary from language to language.

Pragmatic mismatch is associated with the assumptions speakers (or readers) make when
confronted with certain types of language. In French, for example, the use of tu and vous carry
certain implications which would not be apparent in the English translation as both would be
translated as you. This situation is similar to the use of tum and aap in Urdu. In both French and
Urdu the words tu and tum presuppose that the person being addressed thus is intimate with the
speaker, has equal social status, or is younger than the speaker. Vous and aap give an indication
of higher social status or seniority to the speaker. The blanket use of the word you does not
contain this presupposition.

21
2.2 GRAMMATICAL GENDER

“Fairies do not make a strong distinction between the animate and the inanimate. They
believe that stones, doors, trees, fire, clouds and so forth all have souls and desires, and
they are either masculine or feminine.”

Clarke, S., (2004)

2.2.1 A Possibe Origin of Grammatical Gender

Many ancient philosophers believed that grammatical gender was a portrayal of the
inherent traits of objects regardless of whether they were animate or inanimate (Phillips and
Boroditsky, n.d.). The Greeks, for example, believed that grammatical gender carried
‘connotative meanings of femininity and masculinity’ (Konishi, 1993). Protagoras, a Greek
philosopher from the 5th century BC, divided Greek nouns into feminine, masculine and
inanimate and described this division of nouns into three classes as gender (Aikhenvald, A.Y.,
2000).This belief, that all objects possessed either masculine, feminine or neuter qualities, may
have been because other forms of grammatical information indicated meaningful differences that
were observable in the environment. The assumption was that since other forms of syntactic data
carried meaning, the allocation of grammatical gender to both animate and inanimate objects
must be based on characteristics that members of a group have in common. In fact, the
grammatical gender of objects in many languages is determined by semantic principles (see
below).

2.2.2 A Definition of Grammatical Gender

Another name for grammatical gender is noun class. Nouns are divided into various
classes. The number of classes can vary from language to language and the allocation of nouns to
these classes is determined by one or both of two principles:

2.2.2.1 Semantic Principles

Nouns are grouped according to their meaning. For example, Dyirbal, an Australian
language, has four classes. Gender I includes male humans plus animals, gender II covers only

22
female humans, gender III has non-flesh food, and gender IV deals with all other nouns (Comrie,
1999).

2.2.2.2 Formal Principles

The form of the noun determines which gender they are assigned to. In Spanish, for
example, most nouns ending in –o are masculine, while most nouns ending in –a are feminine.

It is believed that no language system can be based on completely formal principles, but
some are purely semantic. In many languages noun allocation is determined by both semantic
and formal principles. Swahili, for example, has eight grammatical genders. They are more
complex than English, and some are governed by semantic principles whereas others are
determined by form. Class 1 is the personal class and denotes human beings; class 2 consists of
the names of trees and plants; class 3 contains the names of most animals, some fruits and a large
number of non-Bantu words; class 4 consists mostly of the names of concrete things, but also
allows the inclusion of words from other categories when their prefixes are changed to indicate
smallness; class 5 has no singular prefix except before a vowel or monosyllabic root when ji- is
prefixed, there are also many non-Bantu words, and words from other categories modified to
show largeness are also included in this class ; class 6 consists of nouns beginning with u or,
before a vowel, w. Most nouns in this category are abstract or the names of substances like flour
which have no plural; class 7 contains only one word mahali; and class 8 contains all infinitives
used as verbal nouns, (Perrott, 1965).

2.2.3 Research in Grammatical Gender

Studies in grammatical gender have mostly focused on the acquisition of grammatical

gender in L1, the relationship between grammatical gender and natural/biological gender, the
study of bilinguals where or both languages have grammatical gender, and the connection
between grammatical gender and thought.

Child language acquisition is a popular area of research. The acquisition of grammatical

gender has been studied by many people. For example, Comrie has looked at how children from
Gabon, in Africa, acquire Isangu as their first language. This Bantu language has ten genders and
children go through a number of stages while acquiring them.

23
 Ramos and Roberson, (2010), reported an experiment in which Spanish and English
speakers were asked to categorise “pictures of objects as masculine and feminine.” 85% of
Spanish speakers matched the grammatical gender patterns of Spanish, whereas in English
speakers this figure was 53%. This figure did not vary in English speakers of different ages,
ranging from kindergarten children to adults. Amongst Spanish speakers, young children were
less accurate than older children, whose performance was similar to that of Spanish adults.

A number of studies have been made to explore the relationship between grammatical
gender and natural gender. Forbes et al, (2008), studied French – English and Spanish – English
bilinguals. By asking participants to suggest a male or female voice for everyday objects, they
found that French – English and Spanish – English bilinguals selected voices according to
French and Spanish grammatical gender. Thus, clearly showing that grammatical gender
influenced their decision making.

Another study by Konishi, (1998), explored the notion of grammatical gender carrying
“connotative meaning of femininity and masculinity.” German and Spanish speakers,
participating in the study, were asked to assess two lists of words describing Type I and Type II
words. Type I words were feminine in German but masculine in Spanish, and Type II words
were masculine in German and feminine in Spanish. Participants were required to determine the
level of potency of these words. The outcome of this study revealed that “German speakers
judged Type II words higher in potency than Type I words, whereas Spanish speakers judged
Type I words higher in potency than Type II words.” This indicated that “masculine words were
judged significantly higher in potency than feminine gender words.”

Phillips and Boroditsky (2003) introduce the idea of linguistic relativity. They ask the
question “Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think?” They conducted a series of
experiments in order to probe for an answer to this question. Some were similar to the
experiments already mentioned. “Spanish and German speakers were asked to rate the similarity
of objects and animals to human males and females.” In another experiment, Spanish and
German bilinguals were used to gauge how their choices are affected when both the languages
they speak have grammatical gender and where some of the words have opposite grammatical
genders. In this case they found that participants’ scores were biased towards the language in
which they were more proficient.

24
 The researchers sought to eliminate cultural influences by teaching participants a fictional
language, Gumbazi, which distinguished objects as being either soupative or oosative. The
teaching involved the viewing of pictures of males and females, as well as inanimate objects, and
instructing participants on which were soupative and which were oosative. The researchers made
sure that the soupative and oosative distinction corresponded with biological gender. After
mastering Gumbazi, participants were asked to consider the similarity of pairs of pictures
consisting of a person and an object. They observed that participants rated pictures as more
similar when they corresponded in gender, and so concluded that “people’s thinking about
objects can be influenced by aspects of grammar that differ across languages.”

One of the most interesting experiments was a “thought experiment” conducted by

Deborah Cameron (Wheeler, 2003). She presented participants with pairs of words and asked
them “to identify which of the two was masculine or feminine. The words included: knife/fork,
Ford/Chevrolet, salt/pepper, and vanilla/chocolate.” Cameron observed that participants were
able to perform this task with ease, and that “there was near total agreement on the ‘right’
classification. Knife, Ford, pepper and chocolate were masculine, while fork, Chevrolet, salt and
vanilla were feminine.”

Bearing in mind that English has no grammatical gender, Cameron’s results seem
strange. It must be remembered, however, that there was a time when English did have
grammatical gender. In Old English, nouns were masculine feminine and neuter. If we consider
the Old English words for stone, tale and ship; stān, talu and sċip respectively; and create
paradigms for all three, i.e. tables which show “the variety of different forms” (Hogg, 2002) for
each word, a number of differences will be observed:

25
 TABLE 1

Paradigms for the Old English words for stone, tale and ship

Case Singular Plural

Nominative stān stānas

Accusative stān stānas

Genitive stānes stāna

Dative stāne stānum

Case Singular Plural

Nominative talu tala

Accusative tale tala

Genitive tale tala

Dative tale talum

Case Singular Plural

Nominative sċip sċipu

Accusative sċip sċipu

Genitive sċipes sċipa

Dative sċipe sċipum

Stān is masculine, talu is feminine and sċip is neuter. The gender of these words is
apparent from the differing suffixes of the nominative and accusative plurals. Words that share
the same paradigm, are allocated to the same declension class. The singular and plural suffixes
on the nouns determine assignment to declensional classes. Therefore, stān (and other masculine
nouns with the same paradigm) belongs to the General Masculine declension, talu belongs to the
General Feminine declension, and sċip is a member of the General Neuter declension.

Present day English has lost these declensions and genders, but when they were in place,
in Old English, it seems highly likely, from the evidence gathered from speakers of present day

26
languages possessing grammatical gender, that the speakers of Old English made connections
between grammatical gender and natural/biological gender. As time progressed certain
connotations based on gender may have begun to be associated with certain words, and the
objects to which they referred, may have been seen to possess the qualities of a particular gender.
Cameron’s observations may be these very qualities that, even in today’s present day English,
continue to influence speakers of English through a ‘metaphorical gender system’ that has its
origins in history.

2.3 GENDER STUDIES

This field of study is usually associated with literature and translation. It aims to examine
the relationship between language and the sexes.

Gender studies relates writing styles to the body. The assumption being made here is that
our bodies are an integral part of who we are. Thus our sex will influence the ideas formed in our
minds, and will consequently colour the literature that we write. Schwenger (1979) quotes James
Dickey, who says that “the body is nothing less or more than the sense of being of a particular
creature at a particular time and place. Everything he perceives and thinks depends upon his
bodily state.” Schwenger supports this notion further by saying that “more than obesity,
emaciation, sickliness, or robustness, or any of the infinite variations of physical type, the
underlying fact of one’s sexuality must affect the perception not only of oneself but of the
world.” This is with reference to the male body, but the female body, too, is a rallying point for
most, if not all, feminist writers. These writers reject the male heritage of texts, and seek to
create a new world order by presenting “the female body as a sign in opposition to the binary
system of meaning which they associate with men,” Ordonez, J. E., (1987). This is seen as a way
of breaking free from the constraints history has imposed upon women, which confine them to
roles and norms defined and controlled by men.

It must also be noted that there are people who do not consider gender to be a biological
phenomenon, nor do they believe that reference to the female body is merely a natural, biological
construct which may lead it to become “the locus of reference for all socially constructed
meaning,” Waniek, E., (2005). Instead, they view gender as a cultural phenomenon, reinforced
by language and discourse, resulting in the creation of gender-specific meanings which are

27
wholly determined by social conventions. Thus, it is argued that such meanings “can be changed
by discursive interventions.”

Writings on gender can be divided into at least three different view points. The first is
where writers complain about the status quo, which is seen to be a paternalistic, phallagocentric
society where the male is considered to be the subject, or real gender, and the female is the object
or unreal sex, Venske, R., (2009). Literature produced in this vein, creates a picture of a divided
society where men and women are separated as a result of emotional estrangement – the male
being void of emotions, and the female overflowing with them.

The second view point is determined to reverse the status quo, and wishes to see women
take the role of subject and denigrate men to the position of objects. The kind of literature that
reflects this point of view deals in the construction (or reconstruction) of woman with a new
female identity, and deals with a female desire which unapologetically takes pleasure in the male
and subjects him and his masculinity to the inferior status of object (Venske).

A third way of looking at gender is to identify situations which conceal one of the
genders, or where ambiguity is created by concealing both. In the first instance, grammar in
languages, like French, seems to conspire against the feminine and hide it from view in certain
situations. Wheeler (2003) gives an example of a mass murder at Ecole Polytechnique in
Montreal in December 1989, where a man killed fourteen women and then turned the gun on
himself. The incident was reported as: “il y a eu quinze morts,” rather than “mortes,” which has
the feminine ending. If the killer had been female then the feminine ending would have been
applied, but as it stands the fourteen dead women are overruled by the single male killer. Thus,
the fifteen dead people become, grammatically at least, male. This situation occurs because the
rules of French grammar dictate that “le masculine l’emporte sur le feminin” – the masculine
wins over the feminine. There are calls, however, for “a more equitable French grammar”
(Wheeler), which takes into account the majority, and the gender agreement of verbs, adjectives
etc. are adjusted accordingly.

When discussing ambiguity, two main ideas must be considered. First, the ambiguity of
the identity of the writer, and secondly, the ambiguity of the writing he/she produces. If we are to
go by Schwenger’s notion that a person’s perception of the world is determined by his or her

28
sexuality, then we could quite easily say that a male heterosexual writer will write in a male
literary style, a female heterosexual writer in a female literary style, a homosexual writer in a
homosexual literary style, and a lesbian in a lesbian literary style. This could be extended further
to include inter-sex individuals who could choose any one of the four sexuality categories
mentioned above, or all of them if they so wished.

These clear distinctions are exemplified by Ernest Hemingway and Yukio Mishima. Both
are male writers, and both committed suicide. It could be argued that both lost the fight against
the heavy burden of trying to achieve perfection by maintaining the male status as subject. For
Mishima, death was the way he chose to resolve the constant struggle of tuning his body towards
perfection. He wished to achieve this body through a strenuous training regime that would help
him to achieve perfect physical development. Mishima was in search of “a language of the
body,” which had a “close relationship between his pursuit of virility and his art as a writer.” He
considered his style as “something appropriate to my muscles.” He began to learn “how to
pursue words with the body (and not merely pursue the body with words).” Schwenger feels that
“having cast himself in the role of warrior, he (Mishima) found his masculine body merely
decorative, and therefore effeminate, unless it lived up to its implicit purpose, to confront death.”

Hemingway is held up as the archetypal heterosexual writer. His “hard, lean, terse” prose
style is “representative of an especially clear and particularly manly brand of literary realism,”
St. Pierre, S., (2010). He achieves this manliness in his prose by writing “on the verge of non-
communication,” by deliberately distancing himself from the self-awareness of emotion.
Hemingway’s writing is able “to convey feeling by omitting it,” (Schwenger). His characters are
“consciously devoid of emotion”. It seems that “real men don’t write decorative prose, nor do
they decorate interior,” (St. Pierre). These are seen as signs of femininity and homosexuality. In
contrast, Hemingway’s style of “clarity and simplicity have become the tell-tale signifiers of
heterosexuality and masculinity.”

However, the choice of writing style made by writers may not be as clear-cut as this.
Writers may vary their style depending on the sex of the character they wish to portray, they may
select a particular style to suit the needs or sensitivities of a particular audience, or they may
wish to conceal their own sexuality from their readers. It is clear then, that it is perfectly possible
for a writer to deliberately choose a writing style that is contrary to his or her own sexuality.

29
 Yukio Mishima was, in fact, a homosexual. “In Confessions of a Mask Mishima tells us
of his intense attraction, as a schoolboy, to the body of Omi, an older boy. He resists at that time
every indication that Omi is other than pure object.” Mishima’s obsession with his body and the
writing he produced, were a result of his struggle with the complexities of his life in which his
“desire to be Omi – that is, to be an object” – consumed him completely. He wished to free
himself of the self awareness, something that Hemingway also chose to reject, which was the
antithesis of what Mishima believed to be male. His act of hara-kiri brought an end to this
struggle – his desire to be an object juxtaposed with his belief in the male as a subject. “That
moment was for Mishima the union of subject and object, of the knower with the known, in an
ultimate gesture of virility,” (Schwenger).

Hemingway, too, does not escape scrutiny. His highly disciplined style of writing that
systematically strips away all emotions, and invites readers to “flesh out emotions” themselves
and “feel something more than they understand” (Schwenger), raises questions in some quarters.
This censorship of emotions seems too excessive and could be seen by some to be too mannered.
This is a grave accusation to be levied against the stalwart of manly writing, as it implicates him
in the charge of homosexuality. It is suggested that “the restraint in Hemingway’s style is largely
about a fear of saying too much, of giving oneself away, of being, like a closeted gay man,
exposed by verbal indiscretion” (St. Pierre).

James Joyce is an example of a writer modifying his style in order to better describe a
female character. In his novel Ulysses, the last chapter of the book, entitled ‘Penelope’, is Molly
Bloom’s soliloquy, an interior monologue consisting of extremely long, punctuation-free
sentences. His audience is heterosexual male readers, and his aim is to create a character to
which these readers will relate, Henderson, D. E., (1989).There is no denying that this female
representation is successful, as far as the target audience is concerned, but from the feminist
point of view, the resulting feminine voice has an exaggerated air about it, akin to a caricature
rather than an accurate rendering of the female.

Some note that “once the missing punctuation and other typographical absences have
been made good, the language of this episode is relatively conventional,” Attridge, D., (1989).
Consequently, Molly Bloom “remains a somewhat patronising version of the feminine,”
(Henderson), such that Molly cannot claim ownership of the language she uses. Henderson

30
believes that Joyce keeps Molly “firmly fitted into his own narrative structure as well as his
private linguistic order, two frameworks that confirm Joyce’s verbal and rational control over his
subject, masculine form over feminine matter.”

Therefore, it seems that male writers exaggerate both masculinity and femininity. On the
one hand they create images of strong macho men, with all the vestiges of emotion and feeling
eliminated from their characters, on the other hand they concoct a picture of women who “are
reflectors of masculine sexuality, or they threaten it, or they stand and wait, excluded from the
male redemption” found in male activities to which women are not privy (Schwenger).

Women, however, see things in a very different light. Virginia Woolf refers to the female
sentence as “being of a more elastic fibre than the old” (traditionally male literary sentence),
Livia, A., (2003). Do we take Woolf’s definition of the female sentence as a literary
commentary, as Livia suggests, or can it also be considered in terms of linguistics? In other
words, is the female sentence “a cultural property of the author, or a morphological property of
the text?” Perhaps both properties will apply to the female sentence. The cultural norms which
define the traditional roles of men and women are “formed by the discourse they use.” Through
this discourse they are allocated to a particular gender because they are restricted to certain types
of syntactic structures and vocabulary which help to define the traditional roles of men and
women. Using language outside the constraints of these norms would render their language
unintelligible.

Feminists consider these constraints to be based on patriarchal principles (Venske).

Nicole Brossard writing about patriarchy says:

D’avoir fait en sorte, par la force du code et de la loi et par habitude ensuite, que chaque femme fasse sienne la
substance sémantique patriarcale est la plus grande réussite du patriarcat. Mais cela n’a pourtant pas empêché que
bien assimilée, mal assimilée ou non assimilée, cette langue étrangère qui pourtant nous habite familièrement, nous
la parlons toutes avec un accent.

The greatest achievement of patriarchy is to have caused, through the force of the code, law, and then by habit, a
situation where each woman takes patriarchal semantic substance as her own. This has not, however, altered the fact
that whether well assimilated, poorly assimilated, or not assimilated at all, this foreign language which inhabits us so
familiarly, is spoken by all of us women with an accent.
Wheeler, (2003)

31
 The accent, suggests that such patriarchal language is not their first language. Women
have been forced to define themselves in a foreign language, but now they wish to decode their
L1 and rediscover their “real sex”. “The goal of decoding images of women is to liberate woman
from the status of object that is ascribed to her in male philosophical and literary discourse,”
(Venske).
One way of elimination of the “patriarchal semantic substance” from language is to
create “characters without gender”. Feminist writers in French and English have sought to do this
by removing all grammatical clues “as to whether the main protagonists are male or female,”
(Livia). This is more difficult in French where the third-person pronouns are gendered but can be
overcome by writing in the first person singular which is gender neutral. When referring to the
third person, the pronoun is avoided and the person is mentioned by name, “or in terms of parts
of the body rather than the whole,” making the character feel disjointed and inanimate (Livia).
Another way of removing gender is to create neutral pronouns such as in Woman on the Edge of
Time, by Marge Piercy, where the “futuristic community of Mattapoiestt are anatomically male
and female, but this distinction is almost entirely irrelevant in determining their social roles.”
These people are given the invented pronouns person and per in place of he/she and his/her/hers,
(Livia).
L’ecriture feminine is associated with French feminism, and seeks “to devise a mode of
expressivity outside dominant or paternal discourse.” It also aims “to structure a language closer
to the female body and identified with the mother rather than the father,” The ultimate goal is to
empower both “mother and daughter to the status of subjects in possession of their own
discourse,” Ordonez, E. J., (1987). Therefore, the words and meanings of words associated with
men in a male dominated, paternalistic society are rejected. In its place there is a desire to create
a language that “can wield an explosive, hysterical power which breaks up the hold of
constrictive structures and clears the way for free expression,” (Ordonez).
It is clear that when women write from their own point of view, whether this is from the
feminist platform or as an object from a paternalistically defined language, the resulting
discourse will be different to that of the male. This study aims to explore these differences in
Urdu translations of English literary texts, and see whether the linguistic gender system of Urdu
could help to contribute towards the definition of a male and female sentence.

32
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 MATERIALS

A translation of ‘A Selection of Short Stories and One Act Plays for BA students’ by
Prof. Salim Ahmad Siddiqi, and the original book in English compiled and edited by Dr. Nasim
Riaz Butt. A variety of Urdu to English dictionaries and an Urdu dictionary of the history of
Urdu were used to confirm the gender of words.

3.2 PROCEDURE

Eight stories were chosen from the fifteen short stories in the book. This number of
stories was selected to ensure an equal number of male and female writers. As only four of the
stories were by female authors, the maximum number that could be chosen was eight. Of the
eleven male writers some were not chosen because the writer was not a native speaker of English
and the original story was not written in English. Stories with very few characters or where one
of the main characters was an animal were avoided. In the case of ‘The Fly’ by Katherine
Mansfield, One of the main characters was a fly, but still this story was included as it was by a
female writer, and female writers were few in number.

Urdu Nouns associated with each character in each story were identified and their
grammatical gender was confirmed by consulting the dictionaries. These words were then
collated into lists which separated the words according to their grammatical gender. Each Urdu
word was accompanied by its equivalent from the source text (English). These nouns were
selected on the basis of the following criteria:

 Nouns the narrator’s voice uses to describe the character

 Nouns the character uses to describe himself/herself

 Nouns other characters use to describe the character

 Nouns that represent objects with which the character interacts

33
 Once words for all the characters in a particular story were gathered, the amount of
masculine and feminine words for each character was calculated and their percentages
determined. This gave the frequency of masculine and feminine nouns for each character.

The frequency of masculine nouns for all male characters in all eight short stories were gathered
and then divided into two groups, which was determined by whether the character was created by
a male writer or a female writer. The figures for these groups were then transformed into bar
graphs. Male characters created by female writers were compared with male characters created
by male writers. In addition, the average frequency for each group was calculated.

The same procedure was followed for the frequency of feminine nouns for all female
characters in the short stories.

34
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 ALL EIGHT SHORT STORIES

The following eight tables represent the sum of the nouns used for each character in each of the
eight stories. One table represents one of the stories. The words used to create these tables are to
be found in appendices A to H.
TABLE 2

The Duchess and the Jeweller by Virginia Woolf (female writer)

Masculine Feminine

No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage Total No. of

words

Oliver (m) 80 59 56 41 136

Duchess (f) 28 51 27 49 55

TABLE 3

The Little Willow by Frances Towers (female writer)

Masculine Feminine Total No. of

words
No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage

Richard 3 37.5 5 62.5 8

Harkness (m)

Robert 8 57 6 43 14

Oliver (m)

Stephen 3 50 3 50 6

Elliot (m)

Simon (m) 40 59 28 41 68

Lisby (f) 45 59 31 41 76

Brenda (f) 49 53 43 47 92

Charlotte(f) 35 52 32 48 67

35
 A reversal of gender appears in ‘The Little Willow’ when Brenda’s hair is described as
being like ‘an inverted sheaf of corn.’ The translator has transformed corn into wheat, and in
doing so the gender has been changed, corn being feminine, and wheat masculine (see appendix
B, table 2). But how could the translator mistake corn for wheat? This is assuming that the
change in the name of the cereal was a mistake, but it may be the case that this change was
intentional and that there was no mistake at all. It may be that within the context of the Urdu
readers’ culture, wheat has a much closer connection to hair than corn. If this is the case, then the
reader of the Urdu translation would be able to form a much clearer picture of the hairstyle
Brenda was supporting in the story. After all, the translator’s purpose is to make the text easy
enough to understand for Bachelors level students so that they can get through their English
examinations. Therefore his choice of words will be limited to those that he would expect an
average student to understand. Had this book been for more literary minded people, the choice of
words may well have been very different. The result of this sense for sense translation is that
Brenda has one extra masculine noun in her total of masculine nouns. The subsequent change in
percentages would have meant that there would have been a 1% increase in her feminine nouns
and a corresponding 1% decrease in her masculine nouns.

TABLE 4

The Fly by Katherine Mansfield (female writer)

Masculine Feminine Total No. of

words
No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage

Boss (m) 48 60 32 40 80

Woodifield (m) 18 53 16 47 34

Son1 (m) 11 50 11 50 22

Macy (m) 5 83 1 17 6

Gertrude (f) 6 67 3 33 9

Fly (f) 12 46 14 54 26

If the words from the ST are translated word for word, there may be problems in the TT
when adequate equivalency is not achieved leading to lexical mismatches. An example of this
can be seen in ‘The Fly’ (see appendix C, table 5) when the boss, impressed with the fly’s

36
tenacity and perseverance, refers to it as a ‘little beggar’. The translator has made a word for
word translation to create ‘choti bekaran’ using the feminine ending in bekar-an since the fly is
also feminine. The Urdu translation of ‘little beggar’ does not have the same connotative
meaning as the original. The English expression has a hint of admiration which is not present in
the Urdu translation.

TABLE 5

A Conversation with my Father by Grace Paley (female writer)

Masculine Feminine Total No. of

words
No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage

Father (m) 17 55 14 45 31

Daughter (f) 5 31 11 69 16

Mother (f) 33 52 30 48 63

Son2 (m) 31 70 13 30 44

A seemingly odd translation choice is where the translator has decided to translate an
Urdu (or Hindi) word which was transliterated in the source text. In the story ‘A Conversation
with my Father’, one of the characters exclaims “I’m going on the natch” while describing a
spiritual transformation of an Indian nature. It is strange then that the translator does not use the
word ‘natch’ as it is in the Urdu translation. Instead he has translated it as ‘kowlha’(see appendix
D, table 4).

TABLE 6

Araby by James Joyce (male writer)

Masculine Feminine Total No. of

words
No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage

Narrator (m) 78 57 59 43 137

Mangan’s Sister 19 58 14 42 33
(f)

Young stall lady 4 57 3 43 7

(f)

37
 Uncle (m) 13 93 1 7 14

Aunt (f) 1 25 3 75 4

Mrs. Mercer (f) 2 29 5 71 7

The gender count is affected in ‘Araby’, where the word ‘image’ is translated in two
different ways (see appendix E, table 2). The first is ‘tassawar’ and the second is ‘shabeeya’.
The former is masculine and the latter is feminine. This is noteworthy because the word ‘image’
is used twice in this story and in both instances it is used in the same context, namely to refer to
Mangan’s sister. In the first occurance the narrator says, “Her image accompanied me even in
places the most hostile to romance.” In the second instance he narrates, “At night in my bedroom
and by day in the classroom her image came between me and the page I strove to read.” It seems
odd that that the same word used in the same context for the same person should be translated in
two different ways resulting in two words with differing grammatical gender. However, this type
of occurrence is rare and would not have an affect on the final figures as the opposing genders
cancel each other out. Had the translator used the same word to represent ‘image’, there would
have been a slight shift towards either masculine or feminine, but the final result would not have
created a significant difference in the figures.

TABLE 7

Rappaccini’s Daughter by Nathaniel Hawthorn (male writer)

Masculine Feminine Total No. of

words
No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage

Giovanni (m) 77 63 45 37 122

Beatrice (f) 38 38 61 62 99

Dr.Rappaccini(m) 37 66 19 34 56

Prof.Baglioni(m) 12 67 6 33 18

Lisabetta (f) 6 67 3 33 9

38
 Another interesting example of a sense for sense translation can be found in
‘Rappaccini’s Daughter’, where the main female character, Beatrice is described as a ‘poisonous
thing’. The translated equivalent of the word ‘thing’ is ‘nagin’, a female snake. The original text
has no reference to a snake, male or female, but the translator has chosen a word that more aptly
describes Beatrice’s character with in the context of his own cultural sphere. In this particular
case, however, there is no gender change as both ‘thing’ and ‘nagin’ are feminine (see appendix
F, table 3).

TABLE 8

The Killers by Ernest Hemingway (male writer)

Masculine Feminine Total No. of

words
No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage

Max (m) 18 67 9 33 27

Al (m) 24 75 8 25 32

George (m) 18 60 12 40 30

Sam (m) 10 71 4 29 14

Ole Andreson 17 85 3 15 20
(m)

Nick (m) 15 60 10 40 25

Mrs. Bell (f) 4 67 2 33 6

It is interesting to note in table 8 (above) that all but one of the characters in the story
‘The Killers’ are male. The only female character, Mrs. Bell, is a minor character with only six
words attributed to her. The general observation is that male writers tend to have more minor
female characters and less minor male characters in their stories when compared with female
writers. I have taken minor characters to be those who are described using less than ten words.
Therefore, 80% of female characters written by male writers are minor, whereas only 13% of
male characters are classified as minor. The percentage for female writers’ characters is almost
the same. 37.5% of all female characters and 36% of all male characters are minor.

39
 TABLE 9

The Shadow in the Rose Garden by D. H. Lawrence (male writer)

Masculine Feminine Total No. of

No. of words Percentage No. of words Percentage words
Frank (m) 62 57 46 43 108
Wife (f) 68 54 57 46 125
Archie (m) 32 63 19 37 51
Mrs. Coates (f) 1 17 5 83 6
Granddaughter 0 0 5 100 5
(f)
Gardener (m) 4 67 2 33 6
Keeper (m) 3 60 2 40 5

Marmalade and jam are two English words that the translator has transliterated into Urdu.
The former is mentioned in ‘The Shadow in the Rose Garden’ (see appendix H, table 1), and the
latter appears in ‘The Fly’ (see appendix C, table 6). Both are fruit preserves and both have been
given a masculine grammatical gender in Urdu. The translator may have considered cultural
factors when leaving these two words untranslated. Even though fruit is preserved in sugar in the
Indian Subcontinent, it is usually done so whole or in large chunks, whereas the fruit in jam and
marmalade is pureed, and, in the case of marmalade, peel is added in thin slivers. The Indian
preserve is called ‘maruba’, and is usually used for medicinal purposes rather than for spreading
on toast and eaten for breakfast. Having ‘maruba’ for breakfast would perhaps sound strange for
an Urdu reader and may give the impression that the breakfaster is not well. This fact may have
prompted the translator to opt for a transliteration of marmalade and jam rather than a translation.
This decision has not affected the gender count as ‘maruba’ is also masculine.

40
4.2 RESULTS FOR ALL MALE CHARACTERS

The following two tables show the percentages of masculine nouns of all male characters.
These figures are gathered from tables 2 to 9 above, and represent all the male characters from
the eight stories used in this study. The characters have been divided into two groups. Table 10
contains all the male characters created by female writers, and table 11 shows all those male
characters created by male writers.

TABLE 10 TABLE 11

Female Writers’ Characters Male Writers’ Characters

Characters Masc nouns % Characters Masc nouns %

Oliver (m) 59 Narrator (m) 57
Richard 37.5 Uncle (m) 93
Harkness (m) Giovanni (m) 63
Robert Oliver 57 Dr. Rappaccini 66
(m) (m)
Stephen Elliot 50 Prof. Baglioni 67
(m) (m)
Simon (m) 59 Max (m) 67
Boss (m) 60 Al (m) 75
Woodifield (m) 53 George (m) 60
Son1 (m) 50 Sam (m) 71
Macy (m) 83 Ole Andreson 85
Father (m) 55 (m)
Son2 (m) 70 Nick (m) 60
Average = 58 Frank (m) 57
Archie (m) 63
Gardener (m) 67
Keeper (m) 60
Average = 67

Averages taken of both of these groups show a nine percent difference beween the number of
masculine nouns used by male authors and the number used by female authors. These results
reveal clear differences between male and female writers. If we consider the number of
masculine nouns used to describe male characters, the figures show that male writers use more
masculine nouns than female writers. Only three of the eleven male characters written by women
writers have more than 60% of nouns that are masculine, whereas ten of the fifteen male
characters written by male writers pass the 60 per cent mark. These differences can be more
clearly seen in diagrams 1 and 2 (below).

41
 DIAGRAM 1

Bargraph of the frequency of masculine nouns of all male characters written by female writers

DIAGRAM 2

Bargraph of the frequency of masculine nouns of all male characters written by male writers

42
4.3 RESULTS FOR ALL FEMALE CHARACTERS

TABLE 12 TABLE 13

Female Writers’Characters Male Writers’ Characters

Characters Fem nouns % Characters Fem nouns %

Duchess (f) 51 Young stall lady 43
Lisby (f) 41 (f)
Brenda (f) 47 Mangan’s Sister 42
Charlotte (f) 48 (f)
Fly (f) 54 Aunt (f) 75
Gertrude (f) 33 Mrs. Mercer (f) 75
Daughter (f) 69 Beatrice (f) 62
Mother (f) 48 Lisabetta (f) 33
Av =49 Mrs. Bell (f) 33
Wife (f) 46
Mrs. Coates (f) 83
Granddaughter 100
(f)
Av =59

When considering feminine nouns used to describe female characters, figures for the
majority of characters created by feminine writers hovered around the 40 to 50% mark. Only
one female character (the daughter in ‘A Conversation with my Father’) had over 60% of
feminine nouns.This may have been intentional on the writer’s part because the daughter is
caring for her sick father and is dutifully following his lead in order to avoid anything that my
upset him. The other characters are individuals in their own right and assert their
personalities.This is true even in the case of the fly in the story ‘The Fly’. The figures for
male writers were very different. Half of the female characters described by male writers
showed figures of over 60%. Diagrams 3 and 4 (below) illustrate these figures more clearly.

43
 DIAGRAM 3

Bargraph of the frequency of feminine nouns of all female characters written by female writers

DIAGRAM 4

Bargraph of the frequency of feminine nouns of all female characters written by male writers

44
 If we assume that the number of masculine nouns used to describe a male character is
proportional to the level of masculinity of that character, and the number of feminine nouns
used to describe a female character is proportional to the level of femininity of that character,
then the figures clearly indicate that male writers tend to create male characters that are more
masculine, and female characters that are more feminine than their female writer
counterparts.

These findings are in concordance with the ideas found in gender studies, namely that
there is a difference between male and female sentences, and that the male writing style is
strongly influenced by the domination of a paternalistic society which has vice-like control
on how men and women are defined and described within a particular culture. These notions
are aided by evidence that suggests that people make connections between grammatical
gender and biological gender, so that there is a greater likelihood of using more male nouns
for men and more female nouns for women if you are a male writer because this helps to
maintain the gender roles determined by the connotative meanings of words which have been
influenced by their grammatical gender.

The influence of the translator is also an important factor that must be considered in
order to fully understand these findings. In the case of this study, the translator has created
the target text using three different approaches, word for word translation, sense for sense
translation and the transliteration of words from the source language to the target language.
The transliterated words are of greatest interest because once they become part of an Urdu
sentence, they must be given a gender. The majority are given a masculine gender on the
basis of formal principals. The vast majority of these transliterated words are commonly used
in this way in Urdu. Therefore words like piano, doctor, glass, coffee, sandwich, telephone,
clinic, film and train would not have an effect on the balance of masculine and feminine
nouns. Bottle, station and hospital would also be used in Urdu with a slight change in
pronunciation. A number of scientific words, namely potassium, nitroglycerine and oxygen
tank, are transliterated too as they would not have an Urdu equivalent. There are also some
words related to clothing that use the same word in both Urdu and English. Thus, words like
muffler, button, pin, overcoat, cuff, collar, boot and tie fall under this category. The only
exception is the word ‘hat’. The grammatical gender of this transliterated word is masculine,
whereas if it had been translated into the word ‘topee’, the word would have been feminine.

45
 An additional factor which may influence the target text is the fact that the translator
is male, who hails from a part of the world which is more strongly male dominated than other
places. This fact could influence the way he has interpreted the stories in question and the
subsequent selection of what he has felt to be the most appropriate words for translation
purposes. A female translator may have considered other words to be more appropriate.

46
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

By analysing the grammatical gender of nouns associated with characters from eight
short stories, four by female writers and four by male writers, which were translated from
English into Urdu, clear distinctions between male and female writers have been revealed.
Male writers are more likely to create female characters with higher levels of feminine nouns,
and male characters with higher levels of masculine nouns than female writers, who tend to
create characters with similar figures of masculine and feminine nouns. Thus it is clear that
when translating English literature into Urdu, grammatical gender reveals significant
differences between male sentences and female sentences.

5.1 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has concentrated on translations, but it would be useful to consider original
texts in Urdu, and determine whether a similar pattern of male and female sentences emerges
when exploring literature written by Urdu writers. This would eliminate the issue of
transliterated words. It may be worth exploring whether similar results are obtained in other
languages which possess grammatical gender, through both translations into those languages
or by studying the original texts.

It would also be useful to explore what effect gender differences within literature, has
on readers of that literature, and whether the gender of the reader plays any role in the way
they interpret the gender of characters in literature. The book chosen for this study was
designed for BA students in Pakistan. This book contained fifteen short stories, eleven of
which were by male writers and only four by female writers. Therefore, the book is heavily
biased towards male writers. It would be interesting to explore the effect this bias has on
readers and whether there would be any differences if the book was biased towards women
writers, or if half the stories were by male writers and half by female writers.

This would be especially important where the books are used in schools and colleges.
It would be of great interest to ascertain the psychological effects of books with varying
degrees of gender representation, and how they might affect the writing of students
themselves. This in turn could potentially have far reaching effects on how texts are selected
for use in schools and colleges, and the reasons for these choices.

47
 The division of the nouns of a translated text into transliterated, translated word for
word and translated sense for sense, in order to calculate the frequencies of masculine and
feminine nouns, may reveal different results when interpreting the text. Research in this area
could reveal implications in the way people interpret these different target texts.

48
 APPENDIX A

The Duchess and the Jeweller by Virginia Woolf (female writer)

TABLE 1

Oliver (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫مکان‬ House ‫منزل‬ storey

‫فلیٹ‬ Flat ‫آگ‬ fire

‫خط‬ Letters ‫زندگی‬ life

‫ناخن‬ Nail ‫گلی‬ alley

‫دعوتنامہ‬ Invitation ‫ٹانگ‬ leg

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫پتلون‬ trousers

‫منہ‬ face/mouth ‫اصلیت‬ dismantled

‫توس‬ Toast ‫آرزو‬ ambition

‫کوئلہ‬ Coal ‫عقل‬ sense

‫اخبار‬ Newspaper ‫گھڑیاں‬ watches

‫آغاز‬ Beginning ‫دکان‬ shop

‫بوٹ‬ Boot ‫تھپکی‬ nudge

‫لڑکا‬ Boy ‫بڑبڑاہٹ‬ murmur

‫تھیال‬ Wallet ‫گاڑی والی پہیوں دو‬ hansom cab

‫ہیرا‬ Diamond ‫کار‬ car

‫زمرد‬ Emerald ‫جالیاں‬ trellises

‫کمرہ‬ Room ‫التیں‬ legs

‫اعصاب‬ Spike ‫چھٹیاں‬ holidays

‫جوہری‬ Jeweller ‫تصویر‬ picture

‫لباس‬ Dress ‫ہتھیلی‬ palm

‫دریا‬ River ‫ناک‬ nose

‫بنگلہ‬ Villa ‫سونڈ‬ trunk

‫گالب‬ Rose ‫زمین‬ ground

49
 ‫پھول‬ Flower ‫چراگاہ‬ pasture

‫بٹن‬ Button ‫کھمبی‬ truffle

‫سوراخ‬ Hole ‫ٹائی‬ tie

‫آتشدان‬ Mantelpiece ‫چھڑی‬ cane

‫شرط‬ bet ‫چیز‬ something

‫ہاتھی‬ elephant ‫تارکول‬ asphalt

‫نتھنا‬ nostril ‫سڑک‬ path

‫نکسورا‬ nostril ‫بک چیک‬ cheque book

‫سور‬ hog ‫قسمت‬ lot

‫موتی‬ pearl ‫جھیل‬ lake

‫اوورکوٹ‬ overcoat ‫واسکٹ‬ waistcoat

‫دستانے‬ gloves ‫انگلی‬ finger

‫زینہ‬ stairs ‫کھڑکی‬ window

‫شخص‬ man ‫دیوار‬ wall

‫اونٹ‬ camel ‫بارود‬ gunpowder

‫پنساری‬ grocer ‫آواز‬ sound

‫کھجور‬ palm ‫میز‬ table

‫درخت‬ tree ‫گھنٹی‬ buzz

‫جھنڈ‬ fringe ‫قمیض‬ shirt

‫دروازہ‬ door ‫گولیاں‬ marbles

‫جنگال‬ grating ‫چیری‬ cherry

‫تالہ‬ lock ‫اوجھڑی‬ tripe

‫سپرنگ‬ spring ‫آنکھ‬ eye

‫تختہ‬ paneling ‫مالقات‬ meeting

‫سیف‬ safe ‫بطخ‬ duck

‫مخمل‬ velvet ‫کلیجی‬ liver

‫نمدہ‬ pad ‫شیمپین‬ champagne

‫آنسو‬ tear ‫برانڈی‬ brandy

‫آسمان‬ sky ‫گنی‬ guinea

‫سر‬ head ‫پشت‬ back

‫گھوڑا‬ horse ‫لفظ‬ word

50
 ‫ٹیلیفون‬ telephone ‫مچھلیاں‬ fish

‫شہنشاہ‬ emperors ‫آدمی‬ man

‫کف‬ cuff

‫ہونٹ‬ mouth

‫ٹلڑے‬ ropes

‫برتن‬ pans

‫مجمح‬ crowds

‫پتھر‬ stone

‫چمڑا‬ leather

‫خول‬ case

‫گھنٹہ‬ clock

‫سموسے‬ pate

‫گالس‬ glass

‫سگار‬ cigar

‫پہلو‬ beside

‫قدم‬ footsteps

‫تعلق‬ link

‫دوست‬ friends

‫دشمن‬ enemies

‫استاد‬ master

‫انگوٹھا‬ thumb

‫فقرہ‬ sentence

‫دریا‬ river

‫قلم‬ pen

‫خواستگار‬ pardon

‫بیٹا‬ son

51
 Table 2 (The Duchess (female))

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫کاونٹر‬ counter ‫بیگم نواب‬ duchess

‫لباس‬ dress ‫خوشنودی‬ pleasure

‫دروازہ‬ door ‫بیٹی‬ daughter

‫کمرہ‬ room ‫کرسی‬ chair

‫وقار‬ prestige ‫جنابہ‬ grace

‫فخر‬ pride ‫گردس غالم‬ passage

‫ہلکورا‬ nod ‫خوشبو‬ aroma

‫مور‬ peacock ‫شان‬ pomp

‫پر‬ feathers ‫لہر‬ wave

‫چمڑا‬ leather ‫انگلی‬ finger

‫ہاتھ‬ hand ‫سعاع‬ ray

‫دستانے‬ gloves ‫چمک‬ flash

‫تعلق‬ link ‫کلغی‬ plume

‫دوست‬ friends ‫موٹی‬ fat

‫دشمن‬ enemies ‫سکرٹ‬ skirt

‫دل‬ heart ‫جوانی‬ prime

‫منہ‬ mouth ‫بہار‬ spring

‫بیگ‬ bag ‫چھتری‬ parasol

‫بٹوہ‬ pouch ‫استانی‬ teacher

‫گھٹنے‬ knees ‫پشت‬ back

‫ہونٹ‬ lip ‫وادی‬ valley

‫خانہ تہ‬ down there ‫خاتون‬ woman

‫راز‬ secret ‫جھری‬ wrinkle

‫آنسو‬ tear ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫ہیرا‬ diamond ‫عزت‬ honour

‫گال‬ cheek ‫ماں‬ mother

‫چیک‬ cheque ‫سلوٹیں‬ creases

‫لفظ‬ word

52
 APPENDIX B
The Little Willow by Frances Towers (female writer)

TABLE 1

Charlotte Avery (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫لباس‬ Clothes ‫دیوار‬ wall

‫سایہ‬ Shadow ‫باڑ‬ border

‫پانی‬ Water ‫آواز‬ voice

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫دقت‬ difficulty

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫تعزیت‬ condolence

‫سکون‬ Peace ‫لہر‬ throb

‫لب‬ Lip ‫ہمدردی‬ sympathy

‫خط‬ Letter ‫حیرت‬ strange

‫روپے‬ Pounds ‫بات‬ thing

‫گالب‬ Rose ‫موسیقی‬ music

‫ساز‬ Cello ‫صفت‬ quality

‫امر‬ Fact ‫حقیقت‬ fact

‫دلکشی‬ Charm ‫روشنی‬ light

‫چراغ‬ Lamp ‫مخلوق‬ creature

‫زمانہ‬ Age ‫زہر‬ hemlock

‫حسن‬ Beauty ‫دمک چمک‬ glow

‫جام‬ Cup ‫مہک‬ fragrance

‫سحر‬ Magic ‫کیفیت‬ condition

‫جال‬ Snare ‫شادی‬ wedding

‫غالم‬ Captive ‫خزاں‬ autumn

‫پھول‬ Flower ‫عینک‬ glasses

‫دوست‬ Friends ‫دلچسپی‬ attraction

‫بانہوں‬ Arms ‫بخیہ‬ seam

53
 ‫مرکز‬ Centre ‫بجلی‬ electricity

‫کتاب حساب‬ Account ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫لفافہ‬ Envelope ‫شباہت‬ appearances

‫تحفہ‬ Present ‫خوبی‬ quality

‫ٹکٹ‬ Stamp ‫گھاس پمپاز‬ pampas grass

‫معاملہ‬ Thing ‫ڈاک‬ post

‫دھاگا‬ Thread ‫لڑکی‬ girl

‫پن‬ Pins ‫عورت‬ woman

‫قمقمہ‬ Lamp ‫بہن‬ sister

‫نقاب‬ Veil

‫کنارے‬ Corners

‫سرور‬ Trance

TABLE 2

Brenda Avery (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫لباس‬ Clothes ‫دیوار‬ wall

‫سایہ‬ Shadow ‫باڑ‬ border

‫پانی‬ Water ‫صفت‬ quality

‫چراغ‬ Lamp ‫حقیقت‬ fact

‫زمانہ‬ Age ‫روشنی‬ light

‫حسن‬ Beauty ‫مخلوق‬ creature

‫گالب‬ Rose ‫زہر‬ hemlock

‫جام‬ Cup ‫دمک چمک‬ glow

‫سحر‬ Magic ‫مہک‬ fragrance

‫جال‬ snare/web ‫بالی‬ sheaf

‫غالم‬ Captive ‫زلفیں‬ hair

‫پیانو‬ Piano ‫دوستی‬ friendship

‫گندم‬ Corn ‫باتیں‬ things

54
 ‫دوست‬ Friends ‫طبیعت‬ behavior

‫انداز‬ Way ‫بھنویں‬ eyebrows

‫پھل‬ Fruit ‫حال صورت‬ situation

‫مٹھاس‬ Sweetness ‫محبت‬ love

‫ذہن‬ Mind ‫خوشی‬ gaiety

‫بخار‬ Febrile ‫بہشت‬ heaven

‫عاشق‬ Lover ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫مزاج‬ Mood ‫لہر‬ spasm

‫دل‬ Heart ‫عالمت‬ symbol

‫غم‬ Sorrow ‫نزاکت‬ delicacy

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫ڈائرکٹری ٹیلیفون‬ telephone directory

‫شانے‬ Shoulders ‫گاہ رہائش‬ address

‫حس‬ Feeling ‫تصویر‬ picture

‫خیاالت‬ Thoughts ‫کتاب‬ book

‫تصور‬ Idea ‫تقسیم‬ division

‫سرئں‬ Tones ‫شاعری‬ poetry

‫کتاب حساب‬ Account ‫منگنی‬ engagement

‫تحفہ‬ Present ‫انگوٹھی‬ ring

‫رحجان‬ Inclination ‫بجلی‬ electricity

‫ہیٹ‬ Hat ‫ڈیوڑھی‬ porch

‫کمرا‬ Room ‫قبر‬ grave

‫معاملہ‬ Matter ‫مکڑی‬ spider

‫اقسام‬ Categories ‫شبنم‬ dew

‫مطلب‬ Meaning ‫آواز‬ voice

‫ناول‬ Novel ‫بید‬ willow

‫کنول‬ Cyclamen ‫چیز‬ thing

‫قمقمہ‬ Lamp ‫لڑکی‬ girl

‫فرشتہ‬ Angel ‫عورت‬ woman

‫افق‬ Horizon ‫بہن‬ sister

‫پتا‬ Leaf ‫سہیلیئں دلہن کی‬ bridesmaids

‫قطرہ‬ Drop

55
‫انعکاس‬ Reflection

‫اجنبی‬ Stranger

‫درخت‬ Tree

‫خط‬ Letter

‫تعویز‬ Tombstone

TABLE 3

Lisby Avery (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫احساس‬ Feeling ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫افق‬ Horizon ‫کرسی آرام‬ armchair

‫الفاظ‬ Words ‫آرزو‬ desire

‫انعکاس‬ Reflection ‫بات‬ saying

‫بچپن‬ Child ‫بچی‬ child

‫بدن‬ Body ‫بصیرت‬ insight

‫پپوٹا‬ Eyelid ‫بید‬ willow

‫پتا‬ Leaf ‫پسلی‬ breastbone

‫پھول‬ Flower ‫تنخواہ‬ salary

‫تاریں‬ Strings ‫ٹوکری‬ basket

‫تخیالت‬ Thoughts ‫جھلک‬ flash

‫تصور‬ Conception ‫چاندنی‬ moonlight

‫تنکے‬ Sprigs ‫چیز‬ thing

‫جال‬ Web ‫جگہ خالی‬ breach

‫جوزا‬ Orion ‫خوشی‬ happiness

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫ڈیوڑھی‬ porch

‫خط‬ Letter ‫سوسن‬ lily

‫خیال‬ Idea ‫شادی‬ wedding

‫درخت‬ Tree ‫شبنم‬ dew

‫درد‬ Agony ‫شکل‬ diagram

56
‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫کافی‬ coffee

‫دل‬ Heart ‫کلی‬ bud

‫ذہن‬ Mind ‫گھنٹیاں‬ cymbals

‫راستہ‬ Way ‫لرزش‬ trembling

‫رخسار‬ Face ‫لڑکی‬ girl

‫رنگ‬ Colour ‫محبت‬ love

‫رنگت‬ Complexion ‫محبوبہ‬ girl

‫روغن‬ Paint ‫مرضی‬ will

‫ریکارڈ‬ Record ‫مشابہت‬ resemblance

‫سر‬ Head ‫مکڑی‬ spider

‫سینڈوچ‬ Sandwich ‫میز‬ table

‫صوفہ‬ Sofa

‫قطرہ‬ Drop

‫کان‬ Ear

‫کمرا‬ Room

‫گرجا‬ Church

‫گلدستہ‬ Bouquet

‫گھٹنے‬ Knees

‫لباس‬ Clothes

‫لوگ‬ unknown millions

‫مذاق‬ Mockery

‫من‬ Mind

‫مہمان‬ Guest

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand

‫ہال‬ Hall

57
 TABLE 4

Simon Byrne (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫آدمی‬ person

‫ہسپتال‬ Hospital ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫آواز‬ voice

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫امید‬ hope

‫شخس‬ Person ‫اہمیت‬ importance

‫خوف‬ Horror ‫باتیں‬ things

‫حسن‬ Beauty ‫بیٹھک‬ drawing room

‫سحر‬ Magic ‫بید‬ willow

‫درخت‬ Tree ‫پیاس‬ thirst

‫صحرا‬ Desert ‫تشدد‬ violence

‫حلق‬ Throat ‫تہہ‬ core

‫کانٹے‬ Thorns ‫ثبت‬ print

‫لفظ‬ Word ‫دہلیز‬ threshold

‫سر‬ Tune ‫خوشی‬ delight

‫شعلہ‬ Flame ‫جھلک‬ look

‫سایہ‬ Shadow ‫حد‬ limit

‫سبزہ‬ Greenery ‫موسیقی‬ music

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫چیز‬ thing

‫گھر‬ House ‫حرکت‬ gesture

‫سپنا‬ Dream ‫زمین‬ ground

‫دل‬ Heart ‫شے‬ thing

‫سینہ‬ Chest ‫مسکراہٹ‬ smile

‫خط‬ Letter ‫چابی‬ key

‫نام‬ Name ‫شخصیت‬ personality

‫قیدخانہ‬ Offlag ‫صفت‬ quality

‫حامل‬ Bearer ‫مسرت‬ happiness

58
 ‫سکون‬ Peace ‫حاالت‬ things

‫شاعر‬ Poet ‫وفات‬ death

‫درد‬ Pain

‫رخسار‬ Face

‫محبوب‬ Love

‫آسمان‬ Sky

‫آغاز‬ Beginning

‫امر‬ Fact

‫انداز‬ Way

‫بم‬ Shell

‫پانی‬ Water

‫تاال‬ Lock

‫تھیال‬ Kit

‫ٹینک‬ Tank

TABLE 5

Richard Harkness (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫بانہوں‬ Arms ‫پیڑیاں‬ steps

‫دوست‬ Friends ‫خزاں‬ autumn

‫خانہ قید‬ prison camp ‫شادی‬ wedding

‫گاہ قربان‬ alter

‫کیفیت‬ condition

59
 TABLE 6

Robert Oliver (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫پیغام‬ Message ‫آدمی‬ man

‫دوست دولہا کا‬ best man ‫بات‬ talk

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫چابی‬ key

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫کھڑکی‬ window

‫ڈاکٹر‬ Doctor ‫گنجائش‬ capacity

‫راز‬ Secret ‫نظر‬ look

‫لمحہ‬ Moment

‫لہجہ‬ Voice

TABLE 7

Stephen Elliot (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫تصویر‬ picture

‫کمرا‬ Room ‫پیالی‬ cup

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫کافی‬ coffee

60
 APPENDIX C
The Fly by Katherine Mansfield (female writer)

TABLE 1

Boss (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫میز‬ table

‫مالک‬ Boss ‫کرسی‬ chair

‫دفتر‬ Office ‫تراش کاغز‬ paper knife

‫گالب‬ Rose ‫حقیقت‬ fact

‫رنگ‬ Colour ‫قالین‬ carpet

‫برس‬ Year ‫کتاب‬ book

‫نسق و نظم‬ organisation ‫الماری‬ wardrobe

‫ذمےدار‬ responsibility ‫ٹانگ‬ leg

‫ورق‬ Page ‫حرارت‬ heater

‫کمرا‬ Room ‫نالی‬ sausage

‫مفلر‬ Muffler ‫تصویر‬ photograph

‫دائرہ‬ Ring ‫شفقت‬ kindness

‫فرنیچر‬ Furniture ‫چیز‬ thing

‫چاٹھا‬ Treacle ‫گھڑی‬ watch

‫تانبا‬ Copper ‫زنجیر‬ chain

‫برتن‬ Pan ‫چابی‬ key

‫فوٹوگرافر‬ photographer ‫بوتل‬ bottle

‫احساس‬ Feeling ‫خرگوش‬ rabbit

‫قطرہ‬ Drop ‫انگلی‬ finger

‫لیبل‬ Label ‫مونچھیں‬ moustaches

‫گالس‬ Glass ‫آنکھ‬ eye

‫رومال‬ handkerchief ‫ریال‬ assault

‫پپوٹے‬ Eyelids ‫بات‬ thing

‫قدم‬ Steps ‫سرزمین‬ earth

61
 ‫جسم‬ Body ‫ہستی‬ self

‫لمہا‬ Moment ‫جگہ‬ place

‫ہاتھ‬ Hands ‫امید‬ promise

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫ٹرین‬ train

‫آنسو‬ Tears ‫بادئں مبارک‬ congratulations

‫لفظ‬ Word ‫گالئی‬ wrist

‫غم‬ Grief ‫تعریف‬ admiration

‫وقت‬ Time ‫گھنٹی‬ bell

‫صدمہ‬ Shock

‫نقصان‬ Loss

‫کاروبار‬ Business

‫نہج‬ Road

‫معنی‬ Meaning

‫تار‬ Telegram

‫شخص‬ Man

‫کھنڈرات‬ Ruins

‫قلم‬ Pen

‫سکھ‬ Relief

‫سانس‬ Sigh

‫خیال‬ Notion

‫بٹن‬ Button

‫عالم‬ Condition

‫کالر‬ Collar

‫باپ‬ Father

62
 TABLE 2

Son (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫زار سبزہ‬ Park ‫تصویر‬ photograph

‫بادل‬ Cloud ‫وردی‬ uniform

‫انتقال‬ Death ‫کبر‬ grave

‫دفتر‬ Office ‫نیند‬ sleep

‫کاج کام‬ the ropes ‫پیدائش‬ birth

‫انداز‬ Way ‫جنگ‬ war

‫عملہ‬ Staff ‫ٹرین‬ train

‫تعلق‬ Concern ‫عزیزی ہردل‬ popularity

‫الفاظ‬ Words ‫تعریف‬ praise

‫لڑکا‬ Boy ‫شخصیت‬ self

‫بیٹا‬ Son ‫گفتگو‬ dialogue

TABLE 3

Mr. Woodifield (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫چمڑا‬ Leather ‫آواز‬ voice

‫وقت‬ Time ‫آرامکرسی‬ armchair

‫گھر‬ House ‫میز‬ table

‫ہفتہ‬ Week ‫طفل‬ baby

‫منگل‬ Tuesday ‫گاڑی بچہ‬ pram

‫لباس‬ Clothes ‫گفتگو‬ talk

‫بال‬ Hair ‫آدمی‬ man

‫شہر‬ City ‫شکل‬ figure

‫سگار‬ Cigar ‫بات‬ thing

63
 ‫الفاظ‬ Words ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫منہ‬ Mouth ‫چمک‬ glean

‫ذہن‬ Mind ‫زندگی‬ life

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫سردی‬ cold

‫دھبے‬ Patches ‫وہسکی‬ whisky

‫جبڑے‬ Chaps ‫کرسی‬ chair

‫لمحہ‬ Moment ‫داڑھی‬ beard

‫دماغ‬ Brain

‫دروازہ‬ Door

TABLE 4

Macy (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫بال‬ Hair ‫توقع‬ expectation

‫چپراسی‬ Messenger

‫مقام‬ Cubbyhole

‫کتا‬ Dog

‫گھنٹہ‬ Hour

64
 TABLE 5

Fly (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫پہلو‬ Sides ‫مکھی‬ fly

‫ٹکڑا‬ Patch ‫دوات‬ inkpot

‫جسم‬ Body ‫ٹانگیں‬ legs

‫پر‬ Wings ‫روشنائی‬ ink

‫پتھر‬ Stone ‫سان‬ grindstone

‫وقفہ‬ Pause ‫درانتی‬ scythe

‫پنجے‬ Toes ‫خوشی‬ joy

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫زندگی‬ life

‫خطرہ‬ Danger ‫دوڑ‬ race

‫قطرہ‬ Drop ‫ہمت‬ courage

‫حوصلہ‬ Courage ‫کوشش‬ effort

‫جزبہ‬ Spirit ‫ٹوکری‬ basket

‫بلی‬ cat

‫بھکارن‬ beggar

TABLE 6

Gertrude (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫انداز‬ Way ‫جگہ‬ place

‫ہوٹل‬ Hotel ‫لڑکی‬ girl

‫جام‬ Jam ‫بیٹی‬ daughter

‫برتن‬ Pot

‫پیسے‬ Money

‫بھر چمچ‬ Spoonful

65
 APPENDIX D
A Conversation with my Father by Grace Paley (female writer)

TABLE 1

Father (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫بستر‬ Bed ‫مشین‬ motor

‫دل‬ Heart ‫روشنی‬ light

‫سر‬ Head ‫ٹانگ‬ leg

‫جسم‬ Body ‫پوتاشیم‬ potassium

‫وزن‬ Weight ‫کہانی‬ story

‫گھر‬ House ‫مراد‬ mean

‫پٹھے‬ Muscles ‫جزئیات‬ details

‫تکیا‬ Pillow ‫گری کاری‬ craft

‫خیال‬ Idea ‫شام‬ evening

‫مقصد‬ Purpose ‫نائیٹروگلیسرین‬ nitroglycerine

‫ڈاکٹر‬ Doctor ‫گولی‬ pill

‫مصور‬ Artist ‫نالی‬ tube

‫آداب‬ Technique ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫ٹینک اکسیجن‬ oxygen tank ‫بات‬ word

‫ڈائل‬ Dial

‫نکسورا‬ Nostril

‫نتھنا‬ Nostril

66
 TABLE 2

Daughter (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫مزاق‬ Joke ‫کہانی‬ story

‫انداز‬ Way ‫گلی‬ street

‫مزاح‬ Humour ‫آواز بلند‬ aloud

‫امر‬ Fact ‫چیز‬ thing

‫خاندان‬ Family ‫حس‬ sense

‫والی لکھنے‬ writer

‫حیثیت‬ status

‫زندگی‬ life

‫صورت‬ case

‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫داری زمہ‬ responsibility

TABLE 3

Mother (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫کمرا‬ Apartment ‫گلی‬ street

‫پڑوس‬ neighbourhood ‫تہزیب‬ culture

‫تعلق‬ Friendship ‫نگائیں‬ looks

‫نوجوان‬ Youth ‫شخصیت‬ person

‫بال‬ Hair ‫دلچسپی‬ interest

‫غیرملکی‬ Foreigner ‫محبت‬ love

‫والدین‬ Parents ‫دنیا‬ world

‫خاندان‬ Stock ‫شادی شدہ‬ married

‫شہر‬ City ‫غیر شادی شدہ‬ unmarried

67
 ‫اعتماد‬ Trust ‫ہمسائی‬ neighbour

‫جذبہ‬ Excitement ‫چھاتی‬ chest

‫گرویدہ‬ Attachment ‫عادت‬ habit

‫وقت‬ Time ‫جبلت‬ reflexes

‫گھر‬ Home ‫گولی‬ pill

‫خانہ باورچی‬ Kitchen ‫چیز‬ thing

‫سنگترہ‬ Orange ‫مرچ‬ chilli

‫رس‬ Juice ‫نسل‬ generation

‫شہد‬ Honey ‫کوشش‬ effort

‫دودھ‬ Milk ‫سطح‬ level

‫حیاتین‬ Vitamins ‫شام‬ evening

‫ہفتہ‬ Week ‫حالت‬ condition

‫احمق‬ Fool ‫استانی‬ teacher

‫شخص‬ Person ‫دکان‬ store

‫المیہ‬ Tragedy ‫نوکری‬ job

‫باز نشے‬ Junkie ‫خاتون‬ woman

‫رکن کا سماجی‬ social worker ‫ماں‬ mother

‫مکان‬ House ‫لڑکی‬ girl

‫کلینک‬ Clinic ‫عورت‬ woman

‫استقبالیہ‬ Reception ‫امی‬ mom

‫گاہک‬ Customers ‫استانی‬ teacher

‫حامل‬ Bearer

‫تجربہ‬ Experience

‫آشنا‬ Friends

68
 TABLE 4

Son (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫بیٹا‬ Son ‫پیدائش‬ birth

‫کمرا‬ Apartment ‫طفولیت‬ infancy

‫لڑکا‬ Boy ‫مضامین‬ articles

‫نشہ‬ Junkie ‫فلم‬ film

‫پڑوس‬ neighbourhood ‫پٹھے‬ muscles

‫شہر‬ City ‫شریاں‬ arteries

‫خیال پرست‬ Ideologue ‫انگلی‬ finger

‫شخص‬ Person ‫روح‬ soul

‫ہائی سکول‬ high school ‫شان‬ glory

‫اخبار‬ newspaper ‫سمجھ‬ wits

‫قارئین‬ Audience ‫سانس‬ breathing

‫رابطے‬ connections ‫مشق‬ exercise

‫سٹینڈ‬ Stand ‫بات چیت‬ conversation

‫ڈھول‬ Drum

‫رسالہ‬ Periodical

‫جرم‬ Guilt

‫اعصابی سلسلہ‬ nerve connections

‫گوشت‬ Flesh

‫شانہ‬ Shoulder

‫دانت‬ Teeth

‫سر‬ Head

‫منہ‬ Mouth

‫عزم‬ determination

‫سیب‬ Apple

‫اخروٹ‬ Walnut

‫ساگودانہ‬ Wheatgerm

69
‫سویابین‬ Soyabean

‫تیل‬ Oil

‫دوست‬ Friend

‫کولھا‬ Natch

‫بل‬ Twist

70
 APPENDIX E
Araby by James Joyce (male writer)

TABLE 1

Narrator (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫پمپ سائیکل‬ cycle pump ‫کتاب‬ book

‫کھانا‬ Dinner ‫رات‬ night

‫بربط‬ Harp ‫ہوا‬ air

‫جسم‬ Body ‫پکار و چیخ‬ shouts

‫کھیل‬ Play ‫جھونپڑی‬ cottage

‫قبائل‬ Tribes ‫سزا‬ gauntlet

‫باغ‬ Garden ‫آواز‬ voice/sound

‫گرھا‬ Pit ‫راکھ‬ ash

‫طویلہ‬ Stable ‫بو‬ odour

‫خانہ باورچی‬ Kitchen ‫کھڑکی‬ window

‫سایہ‬ Shadow ‫روشنی‬ light

‫تابع‬ Resignation ‫بات‬ thing

‫دروازہ‬ door/entrance ‫سمت‬ direction

‫جنگال‬ Railings ‫سیڑھیاں‬ steps

‫خانہ دیوان‬ front parlour ‫صورت‬ figure

‫فرش‬ Floor ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫پردہ‬ blind/veil ‫جگہ‬ place

‫درتچہ‬ Sash ‫رومان‬ romance

‫دل‬ Heart ‫فضا‬ space

‫راستے‬ Ways ‫گلی‬ street

‫الفاظ‬ Words ‫بھیڑ‬ crowd

‫لہو‬ Blood ‫زندگی‬ life

‫بالوا‬ Summons ‫پیل ریل‬ crowd

71
‫پیکٹ‬ Packet ‫دعا‬ prayer

‫بازار‬ Market ‫تفریحات‬ praises

‫تاثر‬ Sensation ‫بیٹھک‬ drawing room

‫وسط‬ Middle ‫برسات‬ rainy

‫جام‬ Chalice ‫پرستش‬ adoration

‫دشمن‬ Enemy ‫اندھیری‬ dark

‫لمحات‬ Moments ‫شام‬ evening

‫ہونٹ‬ Lips ‫بوند‬ rain

‫آنسو‬ Tears ‫زمین‬ earth

‫سیالب‬ Flood ‫سوئیاں‬ needles

‫سینہ‬ Bosom ‫ہتھیلی‬ palm

‫مستقبل‬ Future ‫حماقت‬ folly

‫تار‬ Wire ‫خوابگاہ‬ bedroom

‫گھر‬ House ‫جماعت کمرہ‬ classroom

‫شیشہ‬ Pane ‫خاموشی‬ silence

‫چراغ‬ Lamp ‫روح‬ soul

‫حواس‬ Senses ‫جماعت‬ class

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫خواہشات‬ desire

‫کچھ‬ Something ‫شکل‬ figure

‫خیاالت‬ Thoughts ‫چائے‬ tea

‫دن‬ Days ‫میز‬ table

‫مدرسہ‬ School ‫شپ گپ‬ gossip

‫وقت‬ Time ‫مٹھی‬ fist

‫صفحات‬ Pages ‫عالمت‬ sign

‫سحر‬ enchantment ‫چمک‬ glare

‫سوال‬ Question ‫ٹرین‬ train

‫کام‬ Work ‫نشست‬ seat

‫بچہ‬ Child ‫تاخیہ‬ delay

‫ماتھا‬ Forehead ‫عمارت‬ building

‫گھنٹہ‬ Clock ‫غالمگردش‬ gallery

‫زینہ‬ Staircase ‫دکان‬ stall

72
 ‫مکان‬ House ‫عبادت‬ service

‫کمرہ‬ Room ‫چینی‬ porcelain

‫ساتھی‬ companions ‫جیب‬ pocket

‫پیسے‬ Money ‫مخلوق‬ creature

‫خانہ باورچی‬ Kitchen ‫کرب‬ anguish

‫اسٹیشن‬ Station

‫خریدار‬ Buyer

‫ہجوم‬ Crowd

‫لیمپ‬ Lamp

‫سفر‬ Journey

‫مقسد‬ Purpose

‫ڈبہ‬ Carriage

‫ڈائل‬ Dial

‫شخص‬ Man

‫گرجا‬ Church

‫مرکز‬ Centre

‫سکہ‬ Coin

‫گلدان‬ Vase

‫برتن‬ Set

‫مرتبان‬ Jar

‫قیام‬ Stay

‫استہزا‬ Derision

‫ناز‬ Vanity

‫غصہ‬ Anger

73
 TABLE 2

Mangan’s sister (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫زینہ‬ Doorstep ‫صورت‬ figure

‫لباس‬ Dress ‫چائے‬ tea

‫بال‬ Hair ‫روشنی‬ light

‫راستے‬ Ways ‫چوٹیاں‬ coils

‫نام‬ Name ‫رسے‬ ropes

‫تصور‬ Image ‫سمت‬ direction

‫اشارے‬ Gestures ‫انگلی‬ finger

‫الفاظ‬ Words ‫عبادت‬ retreat

‫بازار‬ Bazaar ‫گردن‬ neck

‫کڑا‬ Bracelet ‫شبیہ‬ image

‫خانقاہ‬ Convent ‫محبت‬ love

‫جنگال‬ Railing ‫چاندی‬ silver

‫سریا‬ Spike ‫گالئی‬ wrist

‫سر‬ Head ‫بہن‬ sister

‫دروازہ‬ Door

‫چراغ‬ Lamp

‫خم‬ Curve

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand

‫دامن‬ Border

74
 TABLE 3

Uncle (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫چچا‬ Uncle ‫سطریں‬ lines

‫ہال‬ Hall

‫کمرہ‬ Room

‫ہیٹ‬ Hat

‫سٹینڈ‬ Stand

‫برش‬ Brush

‫دروازہ‬ Door

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand

‫قفل‬ Latch

‫کنجی‬ Key

‫اوورکوٹ‬ Overcoat

‫کھانا‬ Dinner

‫نظم‬ Poem

TABLE 4

Aunt (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫بازار‬ Market ‫گلی‬ street

‫بھیڑ‬ crowd

‫چچی‬ aunt

75
 TABLE 5

Mrs. Mercer (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫مقصد‬ Purpose ‫انگیٹھی‬ fire

‫ٹکٹ‬ Stamp ‫رات‬ night/late

‫ہوا‬ air

‫خاتون‬ woman

‫بیوہ‬ widow

TABLE 6

Young Stall Lady (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫گفتگو‬ conversation

‫لہجہ‬ Accent ‫بات‬ speech

‫مرتبان‬ Vase ‫خاتون‬ lady

‫موضوع‬ Subject

76
 APPENDIX F
Rappaccini’s Daughter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (male writer)

TABLE 1

Lisabetta (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫خاتون‬ woman

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫مسکراہت‬ smile

‫راہنما‬ Leader ‫ہتھیلی‬ palm

‫کمرے‬ Rooms

‫دروازہ‬ Door

‫تاال‬ Lock

TABLE 2

Pietro Baglioni (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫مراسلہ‬ Letter ‫گفتگو‬ conversation

‫شخص‬ Person ‫بوتل‬ bottle

‫کھانا‬ Dinner ‫شراب‬ alcohol

‫وقت‬ Time ‫کتاب‬ book

‫تعلقات‬ connections ‫کہانی‬ story

‫تخیل‬ imagination ‫چاندی‬ silver

‫موضوع‬ Subject

‫مقصد‬ Purpose

‫مادہ‬ Substance

‫زینے‬ Stairs

‫دوست‬ Friend

‫سائنسدان‬ Scientist

77
 TABLE 3

Beatrice (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫مقدر‬ Fate ‫چیخ‬ cry

‫یقین‬ Faith ‫تلوار‬ sword

‫ہونٹ‬ Lips ‫انسانیت‬ human

‫غم‬ Grief ‫مالقات‬ meeting

‫جذبات‬ Passion ‫ہوا‬ air

‫جسم‬ Body ‫عالمات‬ signs

‫تحائف‬ Gifts ‫شخصیت‬ personality

‫حصہ‬ Part ‫جان‬ life

‫پھول‬ Flower ‫زہر‬ poison

‫لباس‬ Clothes ‫گرفت‬ grasp

‫دستانے‬ Gloves ‫موجودگی‬ presence

‫پودا‬ Plant ‫ادا‬ nature

‫بازو‬ Arms ‫خلیج‬ gulf

‫فرائض‬ Duties ‫دنیا‬ region

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫مخلوق‬ creature

‫سر‬ Head ‫موت‬ death

‫سانس‬ Breath ‫دعا‬ prayer

‫کردار‬ Character ‫چیز‬ thing

‫دل‬ Heart ‫یاد‬ memory

‫قدم‬ Foot ‫روح‬ spirit

‫سینہ‬ Chest ‫غزا‬ food

‫کیڑا‬ Insect ‫محبت‬ love

‫مالک‬ Owner ‫برائ‬ evil

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫دوا‬ medicine

‫انداز‬ Manner ‫ہمدردی‬ sympathy

‫فوارہ‬ Fountain ‫زمین‬ ground

78
 ‫آثار‬ Signs ‫جنت‬ heaven

‫شریک‬ Partner ‫آواز‬ voice

‫علم‬ Knowledge ‫روش‬ doorway

‫سوال‬ Question ‫زندگی‬ life

‫الفاظ‬ Words ‫صحت‬ health

‫انسان‬ Human ‫قوت‬ rich/strength

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫تحویل‬ trust

‫معاملہ‬ Matter ‫شان‬ splendor

‫جسم‬ Body ‫خوشبو‬ fragrance

‫سحر‬ Magic ‫صورت‬ face

‫دوشیزہ‬ Maiden ‫بو‬ smell

‫بچہ‬ Child ‫سادگی‬ simplicity

‫مٹھاس‬ sweetness

‫صالحیت‬ quality

‫صلیب‬ cross

‫کشش‬ attraction

‫توجہ‬ attention

‫بال‬ evil spirit

‫حیرت‬ surprise

‫خوشی‬ happiness

‫باتیں‬ words

‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫موڑ‬ turn

‫دوشیزگی‬ maidenhood

‫بچی‬ child

‫ناگن‬ thing

‫عورت‬ woman

‫دختر‬ daughter

‫لڑکی‬ girl

‫بہن‬ sister

‫خاتون‬ woman

79
 ‫بیٹی‬ daughter

‫حور‬ heaven

‫استانی‬ teacher

‫ملکہ‬ queen

TABLE 4

Giacomo Rappaccini (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫شخص‬ Person ‫شکل‬ figure

‫مزدور‬ Labourer ‫عمر‬ age

‫لباس‬ Clothes ‫علمیت‬ learning

‫بال‬ Hair ‫باغبان‬ gardener

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫روح بد‬ evil spirit

‫پودا‬ Plant ‫آواز‬ voice

‫راستہ‬ Path ‫زندگی‬ life

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫محنت‬ labours

‫جانور‬ Animal ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫فضا‬ Atmosphere ‫تعلیم‬ education

‫شکار‬ Prey ‫دنیا‬ world

‫کام‬ Task ‫صورت‬ face

‫دستانے‬ Gloves ‫شخصیت‬ personality

‫ٹہنی‬ twig/branch ‫محبت‬ love

‫پھول‬ Flower ‫طریق‬ manner

‫منہ‬ Mouth ‫سائنس‬ science

‫ناک‬ Nose ‫کامیابی‬ victory

‫خطرہ‬ Danger ‫فتح‬ victory

‫کپڑا‬ Cloth ‫مہارت‬ skill

‫خزانہ‬ Treasure

80
 ‫ڈاکٹر‬ Doctor

‫تعلقات‬ connections

‫سایہ‬ Shadow

‫منظر‬ Scene

‫ادویات‬ Medicines

‫پاگلپن‬ Madness

‫تجربہ‬ Experiment

‫سائنسدان‬ Scientist

‫علم‬ Science

‫دماغ‬ Brain

‫تاثرات‬ Expression

‫نظریہ‬ Belief

‫کردار‬ Character

‫شبہات‬ Doubts

‫انسان‬ Human

‫والد‬ Father

‫ابو‬ Father

TABLE 5

Giovanni Guasconti (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫نظارہ‬ View ‫زہر‬ poison

‫مشاہدہ‬ Observation ‫عمارت‬ building

‫شبہ‬ Doubt ‫خوبصورتی‬ beauty

‫خوف‬ Fear ‫تعلیم‬ education

‫مسافر‬ Traveller ‫بات‬ thing

‫گھر‬ Home ‫توقع‬ expectation

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫کھڑکی‬ window

‫ذہن‬ Mind ‫صورت‬ face

81
‫تصور‬ Wonder ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫عوض‬ in return ‫نیند‬ sleep

‫دل‬ Heart ‫کرن‬ ray

‫تنہائ‬ Alone ‫قدرت‬ nature

‫احساس‬ Sense ‫گفتگو‬ conversation

‫درد‬ burning feeling ‫حرکت‬ movement

‫نشان‬ Mark ‫سرسراہٹ‬ rustle

‫رومال‬ handkerchief ‫موجودگی‬ presence

‫خیال‬ Thought ‫غشی‬ faintness

‫آمد‬ Appearance ‫موڑ‬ turn

‫بچپن‬ Childhood ‫تکلیف‬ pain

‫ساتھی‬ Companion ‫پشت‬ back

‫دستانے‬ Gloves ‫چیز‬ thing

‫مقدر‬ Fate ‫مالقات‬ meeting

‫قدم‬ Feet ‫عالمات‬ signs

‫امر‬ Fact ‫حد‬ limit

‫بازار‬ Market ‫محبت‬ love

‫آئینہ‬ Mirror ‫حالت‬ state

‫رنگ‬ Colour ‫روح‬ soul

‫نظام‬ System ‫دوستی‬ friendship

‫جسم‬ Body ‫زندگی‬ life

‫پتھر‬ Stone ‫چمک‬ glean

‫نوجوان‬ Youth ‫پھونک‬ breath

‫پیسے‬ Money ‫خواہش‬ desire

‫کمرہ‬ Room ‫یاد‬ memory

‫محل‬ Palace ‫چاہت‬ hunger

‫غم‬ Sorrow ‫بجلی‬ lightening

‫پودے‬ Plants ‫گہمی گہما‬ warmth

‫سائے‬ Shadows ‫مخلوق‬ creature

‫سر‬ Head ‫موت‬ death

‫سورج‬ Sun ‫مایوسی‬ despair

82
 ‫باغ‬ Garden ‫برائی‬ evil

‫مصرف‬ Occupation ‫دوا‬ medicine

‫وقت‬ Time ‫ہمدردی‬ sympathy

‫فوارہ‬ Fountain ‫آدمی‬ men

‫پانی‬ Water ‫دکان‬ shop

‫آہٹ‬ Noise ‫دیوار‬ wall

‫تصور‬ imagination

‫اجنبی‬ Stranger

‫چہرہ‬ Face

‫بستر‬ Bed

‫خواب‬ Dream

‫امتیاز‬ Distinction

‫مراسلہ‬ Letter

‫کھانا‬ Dinner

‫پھول‬ Flower

‫ہاتھ‬ Hand

‫تحفہ‬ Gift

‫بازو‬ Arm

‫دوست‬ Friend

‫چہرہ‬ Face

‫سکہ‬ Coin

‫سینہ‬ Breast

‫سکون‬ Calm

‫سانس‬ Breath

‫غصہ‬ Anger

‫شوق‬ Enjoyment

‫بادل‬ Cloud

‫خون‬ Blood

‫ہونٹ‬ Lips

‫الفاظ‬ Words

‫لوگ‬ People

83
‫کیڑے‬ Insects

‫حشرات‬ Insects

‫کوٹ‬ Breast

‫راز‬ Secret

‫حواس‬ Senses

‫بھائی‬ Brother

‫محبوب‬ Lover

84
 APPENDIX G
The Killers by Ernest Hemingway (male writer)

TABLE 1

Max (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫کاونٹر‬ Counter ‫آدمی‬ man

‫کھانا‬ Dinner ‫فہرست‬ menu

‫کارڈ‬ Card ‫کہنیاں‬ elbows

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫تھالی‬ platter

‫قدکاٹھ‬ Size ‫سمت‬ direction

‫لباس‬ Clothes ‫چیت بات‬ talk

‫بھائی جڑواں‬ Twin ‫کمر‬ waist

‫اوورکوت‬ Overcoat ‫بجلی‬ electricity

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫گلی‬ street

‫دستانے‬ Gloves

‫شخص‬ Man

‫آئینہ‬ Mirror

‫خیال‬ Suppose

‫گھنٹہ‬ Clock

‫دروازہ‬ Door

‫کھمبا‬ Post

‫مسخرہ‬ Vaudeville

‫جوڑا‬ Team

85
 TABLE 2

Al (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫کاونٹر‬ Counter ‫آدمی‬ man

‫کھانا‬ Dinner ‫فہرست‬ menu

‫گھنٹہ‬ Clock ‫کہنیاں‬ elbows

‫شخص‬ Man ‫کھڑکی‬ slit/wicket

‫ہیٹ‬ Hat ‫تصویر‬ picture

‫اوورکوٹ‬ Overcoat ‫نالی‬ muzzle

‫بٹن‬ Button ‫بجلی‬ electricity

‫سینہ‬ Chest ‫گلی‬ street

‫چہرہ‬ Face

‫ہونٹ‬ Lips

‫گلوبند‬ Muffler

‫دستانے‬ Gloves

‫لباس‬ Clothes

‫سٹول‬ Stool

‫خانہ باورچی‬ Kitchen

‫دروازہ‬ Door

‫کشی تصویر‬ photography

‫کانونٹ‬ Convent

‫گن شارٹ‬ Shotgun

‫ابھار‬ Bulge

‫کھمبا‬ Post

‫مسخرہ‬ Vaudeville

‫جوڑا‬ Team

‫بھائی جڑواں‬ Twin

86
 TABLE 3

George (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫گھنٹہ‬ Clock ‫دیوار‬ wall

‫انداز‬ Way ‫تھالیاں‬ platters

‫خانہ باورچی‬ Kitchen ‫پلیٹیں‬ plates

‫فلسفی‬ philosopher ‫کھڑکی‬ wicket/window

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫چیز‬ thing

‫عقل‬ Head ‫سینما‬ cinema

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫فلم‬ film

‫کام‬ Work ‫ران‬ leg

‫سر‬ Head ‫قسمت‬ luck

‫گوشت‬ Meat ‫ریس‬ races

‫انڈا‬ Egg ‫آدمی‬ man

‫سینڈوچ‬ Sandwich ‫بیوی‬ wife

‫کاغز‬ Paper

‫لفافہ‬ Bag

‫تولیہ‬ Towel

‫لڑکا‬ Boy

‫بابو‬ Boy

‫گونگا‬ Dumb

TABLE 4

Sam (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫خانہ باورچی‬ Kitchen ‫پشت‬ back

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫باچھ‬ corner of mouth

87
 ‫اپرن‬ Apron ‫رسی‬ rope

‫کانونٹ‬ Convent ‫سہیلی‬ girlfriend

‫جوڑا‬ Couple

‫منہ‬ Mouth

‫تولیہ‬ Towel

‫انگوٹھا‬ Thumb

‫بچہ‬ Boy

‫حبشی‬ Nigger

TABLE 5

Ole Andreson (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫باشندہ‬ Citizen ‫گولی‬ bullet

‫کھانا‬ Dinner ‫دیوار‬ wall

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫آدمی‬ man

‫کمرہ‬ Room

‫لباس‬ Clothes

‫بستر‬ Bed

‫باز مکہ‬ Fighter

‫پلنگ‬ Bed

‫سر‬ Head

‫تکیہ‬ Pillow

‫ریستوران‬ Restaurant

‫شخص‬ Man

‫چکر‬ Difficulty

‫لہجہ‬ Voice

‫اکھاڑا‬ Ring

‫چہرہ‬ Face

‫یاثر‬ Way

88
 TABLE 6

Nick (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫کانونٹ‬ Convent ‫پشت‬ back

‫جوڑا‬ Couple ‫گلی‬ street

‫منہ‬ Mouth ‫گھنٹی‬ bell

‫تولیہ‬ Towel ‫کار‬ car

‫کھمبا‬ Post ‫رسی‬ rope

‫بٹن‬ Button ‫بات‬ talk

‫راستہ‬ Tracks ‫نکڑ‬ corner

‫مکان‬ House ‫روشنی‬ arc-light

‫زینے‬ Stairs ‫آواز‬ voice

‫برآمدہ‬ Corridor ‫سہیلی‬ girlfriend

‫شخص‬ Somebody

‫دروازہ‬ Door

‫کمرہ‬ Room

‫ریستوران‬ Restaurant

‫لڑکا‬ Boy

TABLE 7

Mrs. Bell (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫گلی‬ street

‫زینے‬ Stairs ‫خاتون‬ woman

‫برآمدہ‬ Corridor

‫نام‬ Name

89
 APPENDIX H
The Shadow in the Rose Garden by D. H. Lawrence (male writer)

TABLE 1

Frank (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫سمندر‬ Sea ‫کھڑکی‬ window

‫بنگلہ‬ Cottage ‫اخبار‬ newspaper

‫قد‬ Height ‫میز‬ table

‫گھنٹہ‬ Clock ‫چاندی‬ silver

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫گھڑی‬ watch

‫تحمل‬ Endurance ‫دیوار‬ wall

‫کمرہ‬ Room ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫پیانو‬ Piano ‫زات‬ self

‫ڈھکن‬ Lid ‫قدر شناسی‬ appreciation

‫تاال‬ Lock ‫خود ضبطی‬ self commiseration

‫آئنہ‬ Mirror ‫پشت‬ back

‫اظہار‬ Expression ‫جیکٹ‬ jacket

‫سونے کا کمرہ‬ Bedroom ‫بات‬ thing

‫خد و خال‬ physiognomy ‫راہ‬ path

‫مکان‬ House ‫چائے کی پیالی‬ teacup

‫درخت‬ Tree ‫جھنکار‬ chink

‫سیب‬ Apple ‫ڈبل روٹی‬ bread

‫پھل‬ Fruit ‫کافی‬ coffee

‫دانت‬ Teeth ‫پیالی‬ cup

‫سفر‬ Journey ‫چٹانیں‬ cliffs

‫زینہ‬ Steps ‫آواز‬ sound/voice

‫بستر‬ Bed ‫حرکات‬ movements

‫چولھا‬ Hearth ‫چال‬ tread

90
 ‫قالین‬ Rug ‫بےصبری‬ impatience

‫پوست‬ Poppy ‫جھلک‬ tinge

‫بازو‬ Arm ‫رگیں‬ veins

‫پائپ‬ Pipe ‫موجودگی‬ presence

‫سکھ کا سانس‬ sigh of relief ‫گفتگو‬ conversation

‫گاوں‬ Village ‫کان‬ mine

‫شخص‬ Person ‫رسوائی‬ ignominy

‫ڈنر‬ Dinner ‫روح‬ soul

‫ہیٹ‬ Hat ‫مٹھ‬ catch

‫قدم‬ Tread ‫زبان‬ tongue

‫معاملہ‬ Matter ‫واسکٹ‬ waistcoat

‫ہاتھ‬ Hands ‫راکھ‬ ash

‫غصہ‬ Anger ‫اذیت‬ torture

‫گال‬ Throat ‫پیٹھ‬ back

‫دھواں‬ Smoke ‫مرضی‬ will

‫سلسلہ‬ Series ‫مراد‬ meaning

‫دل‬ Heart ‫چال بازی‬ baiting

‫بجلی واال‬ Electrician ‫شادی‬ marriage

‫ضرر‬ Injury ‫خلیج‬ gulf

‫دروازہ‬ Door ‫چوڑائی‬ width

‫منہ‬ Mouth ‫خالف ورزی‬ violation

‫ہونٹ‬ Lips ‫مونچھیں‬ moustache

‫سر‬ Head ‫تصاویر‬ paintings

‫تختہ‬ Panel

‫زخم‬ Wound

‫نمک‬ Salt

‫پاگل پن‬ Madness

‫پیر‬ Foot

‫سوال‬ Question

‫خیال‬ Thought

‫صدمہ‬ Shock

91
 ‫باغ‬ Garden

‫ڈوڈا‬ Fruit

‫نوجوان‬ young man

‫خاوند‬ Husband

‫شوہر‬ Husband

‫مرد‬ Man

‫بچہ‬ Child

‫مارملیڈ‬ Marmalade

TABLE 2

Wife (female)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫ہیوال‬ Figure ‫پیشانی‬ forehead

‫سمندر‬ Sea ‫دنیا‬ world

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫لٹ‬ curl

‫بال‬ Hair ‫مسکراہٹ‬ smile

‫قطع‬ Carriage ‫ململ‬ muslin

‫لباس‬ Dress ‫سجاوٹ کی اشیا‬ ornaments

‫کمرہ‬ Room ‫شانہ‬ shoulder

‫شیشہ‬ Glass ‫راہ‬ path

‫خانہ‬ Shelf ‫بات‬ thing

‫باغ‬ Garden ‫آزادی‬ freedom

‫زینہ‬ Steps ‫ماضی‬ past

‫بازو‬ Arm ‫انگلی کی چتکی‬ fingertip

‫قد‬ Stature ‫اوپر کی منزل‬ upstairs

‫گھر‬ Home ‫چھتری‬ sunshade

‫گاوں‬ Village ‫پگڈنڈی‬ track

‫کپڑا‬ Cloth ‫گلی‬ lane

‫ریزہ‬ Crumb ‫دیوار‬ wall

92
 ‫میزپوش‬ Tablecloth ‫آرزو‬ yearning

‫لمہا‬ Moment ‫منت‬ coax

‫سر‬ Head ‫حرکات‬ movements

‫ڈنر‬ Dinner ‫راحت‬ joy

‫خطوط‬ Letters ‫ہستی‬ one

‫دھبا‬ Mark ‫پتی‬ petal

‫سکرٹ‬ Skirt ‫تتلی‬ butterfly

‫ہیٹ‬ Hat ‫زات‬ self

‫گالب‬ Rose ‫نشست‬ seat

‫پھول‬ Flower ‫زندگی‬ existence/life

‫رومال‬ Scarf ‫مکھی‬ fly

‫سائہ‬ Shadow ‫قوت‬ strength

‫فرش‬ Floor ‫ہونٹ‬ lips

‫پتھر‬ Stones ‫محبت‬ love

‫قرب و حوار‬ surroundings ‫عالمت‬ symbols

‫گرجا‬ Church ‫روح‬ soul

‫دروازہ‬ Doorway ‫خاموشی‬ silence

‫صحن‬ Courtyard ‫کنکری‬ pebble

‫مکان‬ House ‫بالئی منزل‬ upstairs

‫لہجہ‬ tone/note ‫چیز‬ thing

‫تاثرات‬ Expressions ‫کیفیت‬ condition

‫رنج‬ Pain ‫شاخ‬ spray

‫قدم‬ Feet ‫ہوا‬ wind

‫گوشہ‬ Corner ‫طبیعت‬ constitution

‫راستہ‬ Path ‫شے‬ thing

‫انداز‬ Way ‫گھنٹی‬ bell

‫رنگ‬ Colour ‫خواب گاہ‬ bedroom

‫چبوترا‬ Terrace ‫حالت‬ position

‫مجمع‬ Crowd ‫حد‬ limit

‫جذبات‬ Excitement ‫آواز‬ voice

‫غلبہ‬ Excess ‫گوٹ‬ hem

93
 ‫گھٹنا‬ Knee ‫منگیتر‬ fiancée

‫دل‬ Heart ‫مالقات‬ meeting

‫خوف‬ Horror ‫جگہ‬ place

‫کھانا‬ Dinner ‫مراد‬ meaning

‫دوست‬ Friend ‫عقل‬ reason

‫عجلت‬ Haste ‫خالف ورزی‬ violation

‫بستر‬ Bed ‫خاتون‬ woman

‫عشق پیچاں‬ Ivy ‫بیوی‬ wife

‫خون‬ Blood ‫ماں‬ mother

‫حصہ‬ Part

‫احساسات‬ Feelings

‫عذاب‬ Torment

‫وجود‬ Being

‫تاال‬ Lock

‫تعجب‬ Surprise

‫ساتھی‬ Companion

‫محبوب‬ Lovers

‫عشق‬ Love

‫لفظ‬ Word

‫صدمہ‬ Shock

TABLE 3

Archie (male)

Masculine Feminine

Urdu English Urdu English

‫سائہ‬ Shadow ‫صورت‬ figure

‫سلیپر‬ Slippers ‫شکل و صورت‬ appearance

‫لینن‬ Linen ‫چال‬ gait

‫کوٹ‬ Coat ‫آنکھیں‬ eyes

‫بال‬ Hair ‫آواز‬ voice

94
 ‫لباس‬ Clothes ‫بنچ‬ bench

‫ہاتھ‬ Hands ‫انگلی‬ finger

‫سگار‬ Cigar ‫انگوٹھی‬ ring

‫الفاظ‬ Words ‫ران‬ thigh

‫تمباکو‬ Tobacco ‫جیب‬ pocket

‫مقدمات‬ Lawsuits ‫دنیا‬ world

‫سر‬ Head ‫جیکٹ‬ jacket

‫پائپ‬ Pipe ‫چیزیں‬ things

‫کاروبار‬ Business ‫بات‬ thing

‫کام‬ Work ‫تھیلی‬ pouch

‫لمہا‬ Moment ‫کیفیت‬ state

‫پاگل‬ Lunatic ‫ذہانت‬ intelligence

‫انداز‬ Way ‫فوج‬ army

‫چہرہ‬ Face ‫آدمی‬ man

‫پاگل پن‬ Mad

‫منگیتر‬ Fiancé

‫افریقہ‬ Africa

‫محبوب‬ Lovers

‫مجنوں‬ Lunatic

‫مرد‬ Man

‫نوجوان‬ young man

‫فوجی‬ Soldier

‫مونچھیں‬ Moustache

‫شخص‬ Man

‫بیٹا‬ Son

‫افسر‬ Officer

‫سب لیفتینٹ‬ sub-lieutenant

95
 TABLE 4

Mrs. Coates (female)

Masculine Feminine
Urdu English Urdu English
‫کمرہ‬ Room ‫ٹرے‬ tray
‫آنکھیں‬ eyes
‫مالکن‬ landlady
‫خاتون‬ woman
‫دادی ماں‬ gran

TABLE 5

Granddaughter (female)

Masculine Feminine
Urdu English Urdu English
‫ٹرے‬ tray
‫میز‬ table
‫پوتی‬ granddaughter
‫لڑکی‬ girl
‫الڈلی‬ pet

TABLE 6

Gardener (male)

Masculine Feminine
Urdu English Urdu English
‫قدم‬ Step ‫بید‬ wicker
‫ہاتھ‬ Hand ‫ٹرے‬ tray
‫مالی‬ Gardener
‫مرد‬ Man

TABLE 7

Keeper (male)

Masculine Feminine
Urdu English Urdu English
‫تمباکو‬ Tobacco ‫نشست‬ seat
‫شخص‬ Man ‫تھیلی‬ pouch
‫چوکیدار‬ Keeper

96
REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, A.Y., (2000). Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford:

Oxford University Press

Attridge, D., (1989). Molly’s flow: the writing of Penelope and the question of women’s
language. Modern Fiction Studies, 35/3, 543-565. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from Project
MUSE database.

Au, T. K., (1983). Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
revisited. Cognition, 15, 155-187.

Au, T. K., (1984). Counterfactuals: In reply to Alfred Bloom. Cognition, 17, 289-302.

Bar-On, D., (1993). Indeterminacy of translation: Theory and practice. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, 53:4, 781-810. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from JSTOR.

Bloom, A. H., (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought: A study in the impact of language on
thinking in China and the West. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Brisset, A., (2010). Cultural perspectives on translation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Butt, N. R., (Ed.), (1994). A selection of short stories and one-act plays for B. A. English
compulsory (S. A. Siddiqui, Trans.) Lahore: College Book Depot. (Original work published
?)

Butt, N. R., (Ed.), (2009). A selection of short stories and one-act plays (for B.A students).
Lahore: Caravan Press

Carroll, D. W., (2004). Psychology of language. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson

Learning

Carroll, L., (2010). Alice’s adventures in Wonderland. New Dehli: Rupa & Co.

Clarke, S., (2004). Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. London: Bloomsbury

Derrida, J., (2001). What is a relevant translation? Critical Inquiry, 27, 174-200. Retrieved
April 13, 2011, from Chicago Journals.

97
Forbes, J. N., Poulin-Dubois, D., Rivero, M. R. & Sera, M. D., (2008). Grammatical gender
affects bilinguals’ conceptual gender: implications for linguistic relativity and decision
making. The Open Applied Linguistic Journal, 1, 68-76. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from
http://benthamscience.com/open/toalj/articles/V001/68TOALJ.pdf

Henderson, D. E., (1989). Joyce’s modernist woman: whose last word? Modern Fiction
Studies, 35/3, 517-528. Retrieved July 06, 2011, from Project MUSE database.

Hogg, R., (2002). An introduction to Old English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Jakobson, R., (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. Brower, ed. On translation.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 232-239.

Liu, L. G., (1985). Reasoning counterfactually in Chinese: Are there any obstacles?
Cognition, 21, 239-270.

Livia, A., (2003). One man in two is a woman: linguistic approaches to gender in literary
texts. In J. Holmes, & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender
(Blackwell handbooks in linguistics) (pp. 142-158). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Muhammad, M., (1898). Saif Ul-Malook. Jhelum: Universal Press

Ordonez, J. E., (1987). Inscribing difference: L’ecriture feminine a new narrative by women.
Reading for Difference: Feminist Perspectives on Women Novelists of Contemporary Spain
45-58. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from JSTOR.

Perrott, D. V., (1965). Concise Swahili and English dictionary. London: Hodder Headline
Plc.

Phillips, W., & Boroditsky, L. (2003). Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think?
Grammatical gender and object concepts. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference of
the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from
http://public.wsu.edu/~fournier/Teaching/psych592/Readings/Gender_Grammar.pdf

Schwenger, P., (1979). The masculine mode. Critical Inquiry, 5/4 621-633. Retrieved
January 15, 2011, from Chicago Journals.

98
St. Pierre, S., (2010). Bent Hemingway: straightness, sexuality, style. GLQ: A Journal of
Lesbian and Gay Studies, 16/3, 363-387. Retrieved July 06, 2011, from Project MUSE
database.

Toury, G., (1981). Translated literature: system, norm, performance: Towards a TT oriented
approach to literary translation. Poetics Today, 2:4, 9-27. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from
JSTOR.

Venske, R., (2009). Männlich im Sinne des Butt or Am Ende angekommen? Images of Men
in Contemporary German-Language Literature by Women. Women in German Yearbook:
Feminist Studies in German Literature & Culture 25, 5-9. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from
Project MUSE database.

Waniek, E., (2005). Meaning in gender theory: Clarifying a basic problem from a linguistic –
philosophical perspective. Hypatia, 20/2, 48 – 68. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from Project
MUSE.

Wheeler, A., (2003). Issues of translation in the works of Nicole Brossard. The Yale Journal
of Criticism, 16:2, 425-454. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from Project MUSE.

Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam by Heinrich Heine with English translations. Retrieved
September 13, 2011 from http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/heinepoem.html

99