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

net/publication/267927155

Arabic/English translation and interpreting teaching in Britain

Article · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

0 6,652

1 author:

James Dickins
University of Leeds
47 PUBLICATIONS   255 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Dickins on 08 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 List restructuring in
Arabic–English translation

James Dickins
School of Modern Languages and Cultures, University of Leeds

1.  Background issues: semantic repetition

Semantic repetition is the repetition of meaning, and specifically of synonyms or

near-synonyms, in a coordinating structure (with or without a coordinator, such
as, in Arabic, ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’, or ‫ أو‬aw ‘or’). Semantic repetition is a fairly common
feature of Arabic, but is used in a much more restricted way in English. Dickins,
Hervey and Higgins (2002a: 59–60) suggest four typical translation techniques for
translating Arabic semantic repetition into English. Braces (curly brackets) are
used here and throughout this paper to pick out elements in STs and TTs of par-
ticular importance to the argument.

1. Maintenance of repetition
Definition: Maintenance of the Arabic ST repetition in the English TT.
Example: ST {‫ السلوك {الهمجي والرببري‬as-suluuk {al-hamaji al-barbari}. TT: ‘this {savage
and barbaric} behaviour’.
Comment: Likely to be appropriate where the English has strong emotive force.
Also used in formulaic language.

2. Merging
Definition: combining two Arabic words into one English word.
Example: ST {‫ تدابري {صارمة وقاسية‬tadaabiir {ṣaarima wa-qaasiya}.1 Literally: ‘{severe
and harsh} measures’. More idiomatic TT ‘{severe} measures’.

1.  In my Arabic transcription throughout this paper, I have adopted what is known in Arab-
ic as the sakkin taslam approach. This can be roughly translated as ‘miss off the (normally) vo-
calic endings, and you’ll be okay’. Arabic has a complex system of endings, representing noun
and adjective cases and verbal moods amongst other things. These are not normally represented
in the script, and constitute a particular hazard, even for educated Arabs, who sometimes get
them wrong since they are not features of the colloquial dialects which constitute their native
language. I have only added case endings in transcription in the relatively few instances (par-
ticularly before pronominal suffixes) where to miss them out would be felt odd by Arabic na-
tive speakers.

Babel 56: 4 (2010), 341–362.  © Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel
doi 10.1075/babel.56.4.04dic  issn 0521–9744  e-issn 1569–9668
342 James Dickins

Comment: Likely to be appropriate where there is no obvious meaning difference

(in the context) between the two ST words concerned.
3. Grammatical transposition
Definition: retention of equivalents of the two ST words but conversion of one
into a subordinate element to the other.
Example: ST {‫ تحلل {القيم واألخالقيات‬taḥallul al-qiyam wa-l-axlaaqiyaat. Literally: ‘the
dissolution/collapse of {morals and values}’. More idiomatically: ‘the collapse
of all {moral values}’.
Comment: Likely to be appropriate where English offers an acceptable collocation
involving a subordinating structure.
4. Semantic distancing
Definition: translation of two coordinated ST Arabic words which are close in
meaning by two coordinated English words which are more clearly semantic-
ally differentiated from one another.
Example: ST {‫ كان منظرها {يدهشه ويذهله‬kaana manaru-ha {yudhišu-hu wa-yuḏhilu-
hu}. Literally: ‘her appearance had {baffled/startled and baffled/startled her}’.
More idiomatically: ‘her appearance had both astonished and alarmed him’.
Comment: Likely to be appropriate where English offers two words which are suf-
ficiently semantically different from one another that the use of a doublet is
perceived as giving two bits of separate information.
Semantic repetition in Arabic may be purely ornamental. Frequently, however, it
also has an emphatic effect. This is brought out in the English translation of the
use of ‘both . . . and’ in the translation of {‫ كان منظرها {يدهشه ويذهله‬kaana manaru-ha
{yudhišu-hu wa-yuḏhilu-hu}.

2. Listing

Listing can be defined as the coordination of two or more words or phrases, and
primarily nouns or noun-phrases, which normally belong to a relatively coherent
semantic field (Baker 1992: 17–23). Prototypical lists involve more than two coor-
dinated entities. Listing can be regarded as an extension of semantic repetition in
two ways, firstly listing prototypically involves more than two entities, and second-
ly listing involves elements whose semantic relationship is rather looser than the
synonyms or near-synonyms involved in semantic repetition.
The typical pattern for listing in English is for asyndetic linkage (linkage with-
out a coordinator) between all except the last two members of the list: ‘books and
pens’, ‘books, pens and ink’, ‘books, pens, ink and paper’. In Arabic, the typical
pattern is for syndetic linkage with ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’ throughout; ‫ الكتب واالقالم‬al-kutub wa-
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  343

l-aqlaam ‘books and pens’, ‫ الكتب واالقالم والحرب‬al-kutub wa-l-aqlaam wa-l-ḥibr ‘books
and pens and ink’, etc. However, asyndetic linkage also occurs in Arabic listing.
This has become more common in Modern Standard Arabic than in the Classical
language apparently under the influence of French and English (Badawi, Carter
and Gully 2004: 539–41), although it is also found in Classical Arabic (ibid.: 359).2
In origin, listing can be regarded as a response to basic communicative demands:
if we make a list of goods which we want to buy from the supermarket, we do so for
practical purposes, not because of rhetorical or stylistic preferences. However, as
Al Jubouri (1984: 105–6) points out, listing may be used for rhetorical effect. This
is true of both English and Arabic.

3.  Techniques for Arabic–English list translation

3.1.  List retention

The boundary between what constitutes a rhetorical use of language and what does
not is not entirely clear: style is a pervasive feature of language, even casual narra-
tive. Where, however, communicative demands for stating the entities involved in
a situation are paramount, the likelihood that listing has a strong rhetorical elem-
ent to it is reduced. Particularly in such cases, it may be appropriate to retain the
Arabic ST list in the English TT – a technique analogous to maintenance of Arabic
ST semantic repetition in the English TT (Section 1). Consider the following ex-

2.  One well-known example of asyndetic listing occurs in the Quran ‫التائبون العابدون الحامدون السائحون‬
ِّ‫( الراكعون الساجدون اآلمرون باملعروف والناهون عن املنكر والحافظون لحدود الله ر‬Chapter 9, Surat At-Tawba,
‫وبش املؤمنني‬
Verse 112): at-taa’ibuuna l-aabiduuna l-ḥaamiduuna s-saa’iḥuuna r-raakiuuna s-saajiduuna
al-aamiruuna bi-l-maruufi wa-n-naahuuna an al-munkari wa-l-ḥaafiuuna li-ḥuduudi llaahi
wa-bašširi l-mu’miniin. This can be translated literally, with instances of asyndetic coordination
marked as {Ø}, as “the repenters, {Ø} the worshippers, {Ø} the praisers, {Ø} the wanderers, {Ø}
the bowers, {Ø} the prostraters, {Ø} the enjoiners of the known/good, {and} the forbidders of
the unknown/evil {and} the preservers of the boundaries of God; and give good news to the be-
lievers”. Yusuf Ali translates this as “Those that turn to Allah; that serve him, and praise him;
that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe
the limit set by Allah” (Ali 2003: 471). Assuming that ‫ اآلمرون باملعروف والناهون عن املنكر‬al-aamiruuna
bi-l-maruufi wa-n-naahuuna an al-munkari “the enjoiners of the known/good and the forbid-
ders of the unknown/evil” is an embedded coordinated phrase (Section 3.3), the overall struc-
ture of the phrase ‫] والحافظون لحدود الله‬. . .[ ‫ التائبون‬at-taa’ibuuna [. . .] li-ḥuduudi llaahi “the repenters
[. . .] and the preservers of the boundaries of God” is the same as that which is typical of Eng-
lish: all non-embedded elements except the last ‫ والحافظون لحدود الله‬wa-l-ḥaafiuuna li-ḥuduudi lla-
ahi “and the preservers of the boundaries of God” are asyndetically connected. This last phrase
is syndetically connected to the other list members. Note also that Ali’s translation makes use
of multiple embedding.
344 James Dickins

ample from a medical text on skin tests (from Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002a:
185). In this and other Arabic texts discussed in this article, the following abbre-
viations and symbols are used in the following senses: part = untranslatable par-
ticle; [ ] = additional words not in Arabic original; ( ) = words in Arabic origin-
al not required for the English translation); { } indicates key elements in the text.
1a. ST (Arabic script)
‫رشى‬
ّ ‫التامس وخاصة {املهنية ويف ال‬
ّ ‫ كام هي الحال يف أكزميا‬،‫يلجأ اىل هذه االختبارات لتعيني وتحديد املواد املحسسة أو الضارة‬
.‫املعاند ويف األرج الغذايئ أو الدوايئ ويف حاالت التحسس بالجراثيم والفطر والخمريات ومفرزاتها‬

1b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:

yulja’ ila haaḏihi l-ixtibaaraat li-tayiin wa-taḥiid
is-resorted to these the-tests for-[the]-specification and identification [of]
al-mawaadd al-muḥassisa aw aḍ-ḍaarra kama hiya l-ḥaal {fi akzima
the-substances the-allergenic or the-harmful as it [is] the-state {in eczema
  at-tamaass wa-xaaṣṣatan al-mihniyya wa-fi š-šurraa
[of] the-contact and-particularly the-occupational and in-the-urticaria
l-muaanid wa-fi-l-araj al-ġiḏaa’i aw ad-dawaa’i wa-fi ḥaalaat
the-chronic and-in-the-allergy the-alimental or the-medicinal and-in cases [of]
at-taḥassus bi-l-jaraṯiim wa-l-fuṭr wa-l-xamiiraat
the-sensitivity with-[the-]bacteria and-the-fungi and-the-yeasts
wa-mufrazaati-ha}.
and-products-their}.
This has been translated (ibid.) as:
1c. Idiomatic TT:
They [Literally: ‘These tests’] are conducted in order to specify and diagnose the
allergenic or harmful substances, as for example {in the case of contact eczema, es-
pecially occupational, in chronic urticaria, and in food or drug allergies, or in sen-
sitivities to bacteria, fungi, or yeasts and their products}.
Here the complex listing of the Arabic ST is preserved in its entirety. In a technical
text of this nature, there is unlikely to be much scope for changing the information
provided in the original list.
Even in cases in which the list elements of the ST are all important, however,
stylistic norms may come into play. English has a preference for lists which are
fairly short; extremely long lists virtually never occur. The following comes from
an article in the Egyptian magazine Ruz Al-Yusuf (reproduced in Hetherington
1996: 16–17). The general theme of the article is religiously inspired political ex-
tremism in the Middle East. At this point, the writer is developing the idea of the
value of rationality in human behaviour. The relevant list here involves asyndet-
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  345

ic coordination, except for the last element ‫ وحسن املروءة‬wa-ḥusn al-muruw’a “and-
[the]-goodness [of] the-manliness”:
2a. ST (Arabic script):
،‫ الحلم‬،‫ الحياء‬،‫ الصرب‬،‫ الصدق‬،‫ الرحمة‬، ‫ الحب‬،‫ العدل‬،‫ {العلم‬.. ‫ولو أزال الله نعمة العقل عن إنسان فقد حرمه من كافة الفضائل‬
.. }‫ وحسن املروءة‬،‫ كتامن الرس‬،‫ طهارة الخلق‬،‫ الكرم‬،‫ الشجاعة‬،‫ الوفاء‬،‫ االنفة‬،‫ الصفح‬،‫ العفو‬، ‫ القناعة‬،‫ االمانة‬،‫ التواضع‬،‫االدب‬
.‫ لو حافظ إنسان عىل نصفها فقط ملك الدنيا واآلخرة‬،‫ فضيلة‬١٢ ‫وعدد هذه الفضائل‬
2b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
wa-law azaal allaah nimat al-aql an insaan
and-if removed God [the] blessing [of] the-rationality from [a] man
fa-qad ḥarrama-hu min kaaffat al-faḍaa’il . . . {al-ilim, al-adl,
so-part deprived-him of all the-virtues . . . {the-knowledge, the-justice
al-ḥubb, ar-raḥma, aṣ-ṣidq, aṣ-ṣabr, al-ḥayaa’, al-ḥilm,
the-love, the-mercy, the-honesty, the-patience, the-self-restraint, the-discernment,
al-adab, at-tawaaḍu, al-amaana, al-qanaaa,
the-manners, the-modesty, the-trustworthiness, the-contentment,
al-afw, aṣ-ṣafḥ, al-anafa, al-wafaa’, aš-šajaaa,
the-forgiveness, the-pardoning the-self-respect, the-fidelity, the-bravery,
al-karam, ṭahaarat al-xalq, kitmaan as-sirr,
the-generosity, [the-]purity [of] the character, [the-]preservation [of] the-secret
wa-ḥusn al-muruu’a} . . . wa-adad haaḏihi
and-[the]-goodness [of] the-manliness} . . . and [the] number [of] these
l-faḍaa’il 21 faḍiila, law ḥaafa insaan ala niṣfi-ha faqaṭ
the-virtues [is] 21 virtue[s], if upholds [a] man (on) half-their only
malak ad-dunya wa-l-aaxira.
he-owns the-world and the-hereafter.
A translation of this (based on Hetherington 1996: 16–17) reads as follows:
2c. Relatively idiomatic TT:
If God were to remove the blessing of rationality from a man, he would deprive
him of all virtues – {knowledge, justice, love, mercy, honesty, patience, self-re-
straint, discernment, good manners, modesty, trustworthiness, contentment, for-
giveness, pardoning of misdemeanours, self-respect, fidelity, bravery, generosity,
purity of character, preservation of secrets, and chivalry}. The number of these
virtues is 21. If anyone upholds only half of them he will be greatly blessed in this
world and the next.

The final conditional structure (in Arabic ‫ لو حافظ انسان عىل نصفها فقط ملك الدنيا واآلخرة‬law
ḥaafa insaan ala niṣfi-ha fa-qaṭ malak ad-dunya wa-l-aaxira; in English ‘If any-
one upholds only half of them he will be greatly blessed in this world and the next’)
346 James Dickins

provides an explicitly religious context, indicating to the Arabic reader that the list
here is taken from a Hadith (a saying of the Prophet Muhammad). Such Hadith
have authoritative religious status in Islam. This example thus poses something of
a dilemma for the translator: not to translate each of these virtues might be to un-
dermine the authority being indirectly claimed by the ST. To translate all of them,
however, is to produce a TT which sounds highly unnatural.

3.2.  List reduction/merging

Where the listed elements in the ST are less individually important, one simple
solution to the mismatch between stylistic norms in terms of list length in Arabic
and English is simply to reduce the length of the list in the English TT. This tech-
nique parallels merging with respect to Arabic semantic repetition (Section 1).
Consider the following, from the same text as the previous example. Here the writ-
er is describing the attitude of members of extremist politico-religious groups to
those who do not belong to their particular group (Hetherington 1996: 20):
3a. ST (Arabic script):
.‫ واإللحاد‬،‫ والكفر‬،‫ والجاهلية‬،‫ والفساد‬،‫] وما عداهم يعيشون يف الحرام‬. . .[
3b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
[. . .] wa-maa adaa-hum yaiišuun fi-l-ḥaraam,
[. . .] and-what [is] other-than-them live in-the-forbiddenness,
wa-l-fasaad, wa-l-jaahiliyya, wa-l-kufr, wa-l-ilḥaad.
and-the-corruption and-the-ignorance, and-the-disbelief, and-the-atheism.
3c. Literal TT:
Those other than them live in forbiddenness, corruption, ignorance [of religion],
disbelief and atheism.
3d. Idiomatic TT (adapted from Hetherington 1996: 20):
Everyone outside the group is impious, corrupt, and irreligious.
Here the terms involved in the ST list largely have specific meanings which are par-
ticular to the Islamic world-view. ‫ حرام‬ḥaraam is that which is forbidden by Islamic
law, ‫ جاهلية‬jaahiliyya is a state of ignorance of true religion (of a type which existed in
pre-Islamic Arabia), ‫ كفر‬kufr is disbelief in some or all aspects of Islam. Even the two
other words in the list – ‫ فساد‬fasaad and ‫ إلحاد‬ilḥaad – which might be taken to have
more general meanings, have strong Islamic associations. ‫ فساد‬fasaad is frequent-
ly translated as ‘corruption’, and is commonly used to refer to financial corruption
in a modern context. However, it is also a Quranic word with a rather wider range
of meanings in the Quran (Penrice 1970: 110). ‫ إلحاد‬ilḥaad, which in modern Arab-
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  347

ic has become roughly an equivalent of ‘atheism’, originally seems to have more the
sense of ‘profanity’ (ibid.: 130).
It seems that the intention of the ST writer is not so much to identify a precise
set of ways in which non-group members contravene the principles of Islam, Rather,
he is utilising terms which have a strong and intrinsically negative sense from an
Islamic point of view to stress the extent to which extremist religious groups reject
everyone who is not a member of their group. In a TT – especially one written for
a non-specialist audience – the deployment of equivalents for each of these terms
would give an effect of far greater technicality than that intended by the ST. This is
partly because there are no standard lexicalised English equivalents for many of the
terms in the ST list, but it is also because such a long list in English would tend to
suggest a high degree of ‘semantic commitment’ to each of the elements in it.
This example illustrates the fact that English not only prefers shorter lists than
Arabic. There is also a well known rhetorical tendency for lists in English to involve
three members, a device sometimes known as the ‘rule of three’, or more classically
as ‘tricolon’ (Lanham 1991: 154). For current purposes, we can identify English trip-
lets of this kind as potentially having the rhetorical purpose of emphasis (although
emphasis is admittedly a very vague designation, and may disguise more than it re-
veals). Like English, Arabic seems to make some use of triplets to convey empha-
sis. However, longer lists in Arabic are also used for the same general effect. This
suggests that in some contexts lists which consist of more than three members in
Arabic may be successfully reduced in the English TT to triplets by elimination or
merging of specific elements (it is not always clear which of these two theoretically
possible approaches has, in fact, been adopted). The tactic of elimination/merging
is adopted in the above example.
Earlier in the paper (Section 1), the notion of semantic repetition was dis-
cussed. Semantic repetition is, in fact, a form of listing, normally involving only
two elements, in which there is no clear distinction in meaning between the first
element and the second. In the example just discussed, the meanings of some of
the elements involved are very close to one another. Thus, removal of some of the
elements (or arguably the merging of some of the elements into a single ST ele­
ment) does not imply significant loss of meaning.

3.3.  Embedded coordination

One technique for reducing overall list length is to embed a coordinated element.
Such embedding is a form of subordination. It corresponds to grammatical trans-
position with respect to semantic repetition (Section 1), which also involves sub-
ordinating one element to another. Consider the following:
348 James Dickins

books, pens, ink, paper, rubbers, and rulers

This can be symbolised as
A B C D E and F
This list has six main elements.
One alternative way of organising this list is to have:
books and pens, ink, paper, rubbers, and rulers
This can be symbolised as:
X C D E and F
Here X stands for ‘books and pens’. This list has only five main elements: 1. ‘books
and pens’; 2. ‘ink’; 3. ‘paper’; 4. ‘rubbers’; 5. ‘rulers’. ‘Books and pens’ (the X elem-
ent) is one of the constituents of the main list. Embedded within ‘books and pens’,
however, there is a further secondary coordination: the linkage provided by ‘and’
between ‘books’ and ‘pens’. Such embedded coordination can be deployed at vari-
ous points in a list, and more than once in the same list. Thus we could have:
books and pens, ink and paper, and rubbers and rulers
This could be symbolised as:
X Y and Z
Here the constituents of the main list are: 1. ‘books and pens’; 2. ‘ink and paper’;
and 3. ‘rubbers and rulers’. Each of these constituent can be further analysed as
involving embedded coordination: ‘books and pens’, ‘ink and paper’, ‘rubbers and
rulers’.
As noted above, embedded coordination is a form of subordination. However, it is
a rather unusual form in that a basically coordinating element (‘and’, ‘or’) is being
deployed in an embedded context, such that each member of the embedded coor-
dinating construction is individually subordinated with respect to the overall co-
ordinating construction. Thus in ‘books and pens, ink, paper, rubbers, and rulers’,
the two elements in the initial embedded coordinating construction, ‘books’ and
‘pens’ are individually subordinated with respect to the overall coordinating con-
struction ‘books and pens, ink, paper, rubbers, and rulers’. The phrase ‘books and
pens’, as a (compound) member of the overall list is, of course, coordinated with
the other members of this list: ‘ink’, ‘paper’, ‘rubbers’ and ‘rulers’).
Embedded coordination can be used as a technique both to restructure lists
in Arabic–English translation and to reduce list length. The following example
makes use of both list reduction (merging) and embedded coordination, reducing
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  349

an Arabic list of six elements to four in the English TT. The example is taken from
an article by a well-known Egyptian columnist, Mustafa Amin, in which he argues
for the virtues of democracy, and, by implication, the need for more democracy
in the Arab world. The article, which was originally published in the Saudi-owned
‫ الرشق االوسط‬/ Aš-šarq Al-awsaṭ newspaper in 1982, is discussed by Al-Jubouri (1984).
4a. ST (Arabic script):
‫ ال عىل {العمدة وشيخ الخفر واملحافظ ورجال الرشطة وأنصار‬،‫هو الذي يخوض املعارك السياسية معتمدا عىل مبادئه وأنصاره‬
.}‫كل حكومة وطابور املنافقني واملنتفعني‬
4b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
huwa llaḏi yaxuuḍ al-maaarik as-siyaasiyya mutamidan ala
it [is] which enters the-battles the-political relying on
mabaadi’i-h wa-anṣaari-h, la ala {l-umda wa-šayx al-xafar
principles-its and-supporters-its, not on {the-mayor and-[the] chief [of] the-guard
wa-l-muḥaafiẓ wa-rijaal aš-šurṭa wa-anṣaar kull
and-the-governor and-[the] men [of] the-police and-[the]-supporters [of] every
ḥukuuma wa-ṭaabuur al-munaafiqiin wa-l-muntafiiin}.
government and-[the]-rank(s) [of] the-hypocrites and-the-profite(e)rs}.
4c. Literal TT:
It [=A political party with popular support] is that which enters political battles
relying on its principles and its supporters, not on {the mayor, and the chief of the
guard, and the governor, and the men of the police, and the supporters of every
government, and the rank(s) of the hypocrites and the profite(e)rs}.
4d. Idiomatic TT:
It is prepared to brave the storms of political life, and to enter the fray relying only
on the commitment of its members, rather than {the support of government offi-
cials and the police, party hacks, hypocrites and opportunists}.
The ST here utilises a list of six elements ‫( العمدة‬a)l-umda (‘the mayor’),‫ شيخ الخفر‬šayx
al-xafar (‘the chief of the guard’), ‫( املمحافظ‬a)l-muḥaafiẓ ‘the governor’), ‫ رجال الرشطة‬ri-
jaal aš-šurṭa (‘the men of the police’), ‫ أنصار كل حكومة‬anṣaar kull ḥukuuma (‘the sup-
porters of every government’), and ‫ طابور املنافقني واملنتفعني‬ṭaabuur al-munaafiqiin wa-l-
muntafiiin (‘the rank(s) of the hypocrites and the profite(e)rs’). The final element
here subsumes (embeds) a further list of two elements ‫ املنافقني واملنتفعني‬al-munaafiqiin
wa-l-muntafiiin (‘the hypocrites and the profite(e)rs’).
The idiomatic TT reduces this list to four main elements: ‘government officials
and the police’, ‘party hacks’, ‘hypocrites’, and ‘opportunists’. Here the first main
element involves a further embedded list ‘government officials’ and ‘the police’. In
the idiomatic TT, the three ST elements ‫( العمدة وشيخ الخفر واملحافظ‬a)l-umda wa-šayx
al-xafar wa-l-muḥaafiẓ (‘the mayor, and the chief of the guard, and the governor’)
350 James Dickins

have been merged into one element ‘government officials’ (providing some kind
of summary analysis of what these people are). The phrase ‫ رجال الرشطة‬rijaal aš-šurṭa
(‘the men of the police’) has been rendered more briefly and idiomatically as ‘the
police’; ‫ أنصار كل حكومة‬anṣaar kull ḥukuuma (‘the supporters of every government’)
has been rendered by the negative ‘party hacks’. Finally the elements ‫املنافقني واملنتفعني‬
al-munaafiqiin wa-l-muntafiiin (the hypocrites and the profite(e)rs’), which form
a subsidiary listing in the ST are ‘promoted’ to full members of the idiomatic TT
list, with ‘profite(e)rs’ being replaced by the more idiomatic ‘opportunists’. The
idiomatic TT list thus consists of four main elements (plus one embedded list),
while the ST consists of six main elements (plus one embedded list). The cohesion
of the idiomatic TT is also helped by extensive use of alliteration and assonance,
particularly of ‘p’, ‘s’, ‘t’, and ‘s’ in ‘police, party hacks, hypocrites and opportunists’.

3.4.  Standard subordination

As noted in Section 3.3, embedded coordination involves a kind of subordination,
albeit of a rather unusual form. Other more standard forms of subordination (cf.
grammatical transposition: Section 1) are, however, also commonly found in the
translation of Arabic lists into English. The following extract is taken from a book
entitled ‫ العسكر والحكم يف البلدان العربية‬al-askar wa-l-ḥukm fi l-buldaan al-arabiyya ‘The
Military and Power in the Arab World’ by ‫ فؤاد اسحاق الخوري‬Fu’aad Isḥaaq Al-Xuuri (cf.
Humphrys 1999). This extract provides an interesting example where the Arabic
ST has an overall coordinated triadic structure, but with further embedded coor­
dination.
5a. ST (Arabic script):
}‫ يحدد ويحذر‬،‫ {يدخل اىل قاعة االجتامعات يحارض ويتوعد‬،]‫كنا نخافه [ـه = الضابط‬
5b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
kunna naxaafu-hu [hu = aḍ-ḍaabiṭ] {yadxul ila qaaat
we-were we-fear-him [‘him’ = the officer] {enters into [the] hall [of]
al-ijtimaaaat, yuḥaair wa-yatawaad, yuḥaddid wa-yuḥaḍḍir}
the-meetings, he-lectures and-he-threatens, he-defines and-he-warns}
5c: Literal TT
We used to fear him [= ‘the officer’] {entering the meeting hall, lecturing and
threatening, defining and warning}.
Here the overall Arabic structure has three coordinated list elements: ‫يدخل اىل قاعة‬
‫‘ االجتامعات‬entering the meeting hall’,‫ يحارض ويتوعد‬yuḥaair wa-yatawaad ‘lecturing and
threatening’, and ‫ يحدد ويحذر‬yuḥaddid wa-yuḥaḏḏir ‘defining and warning’. The three
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  351

major (non-embedded) list elements are asyndetically connected. The second and
third of these list elements yuḥaair wa-yatawaad ‘lecturing and threatening’ and
yuḥaddid wa-yuḥaḏḏir ‘threatening and defining’ each, however, contains an em-
bedded coordinated element, in this case signalled by the use of ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’. The
following is an idiomatic translation of this extract (Humphrys 1999: 3):
5d. Idiomatic TT:
We fear the officer {forcing his way into civilian life, imposing his will and laying
the law down}.
Here the translator has retained the overall triadic structure of the ST. However, he
has grammatically transposed and to some extent merged the embedded coordi-
nated elements ‫ يحارض ويتوعد‬yuḥaair wa-yatawaad ‘lecturing and threatening’, and
‫ يحدد ويحذر‬yuḥaddid wa-yuḥaḏḏir ‘defining and warning’. In the idiomatic TT, the
coordinated ‫ يحارض ويتوعد‬yuḥaaḍir wa-yatawaad (‘lecturing and threatening’) be-
comes ‘imposing his will’ (arguably a rather free translation), while yuḥaddid wa-
yuḥaḏḏir (‘defining and warning’) becomes ‘laying the law down’. The idiomatic
English TT list consists of three coordinated phrases (‘forcing his way into civil-
ian life’, ‘imposing his will’ and ‘laying the law down’), each of which has a subor-
dinating internal structure consisting of a verb and dependent object/complement
elements.

3.5.  Embedded coordination plus standard subordination

As might be imagined, it is possible to employ both embedded coordination and
standard subordination as translation techniques in the same list. The following
occurs in the text on religious extremism, from the Egyptian magazine Ruz Al-Yu-
suf, which was discussed in Section 3.1 (cf. Hetherington 1996: 19):
6a. ST (Arabic script):
}‫ والناطقون الرسميون باسم الله‬،‫ واصدقاء الله‬،‫ واصفياء الله‬،‫ وجند الله‬،‫وكل مجموعة يرى اتباعها انهم {أولياء الله‬..
6b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
wa-kull majmuua yara atbaau-ha anna-hum
and-every group believes followers-its that-they [are]
  {awliyaa’u llaah, wa-jundu llaah, wa-aṣfiyaa’u
{[the] companions [of] God, and-[the]-army [of] God, and-[the]-chosen [of]
llaah, wa-aṣdiqaa’u llaah, wa-n-naaṭiquun ar-rasmiyyuun
God, and-[the]-friends [of] God, and-the-speakers the-official
bi-smi llaah}.
in-[the]-name [of] God}.
352 James Dickins

6c. Literal TT:

And each group, its followers believe that they are {the companions/saints of God,
and the army of God, and the chosen of God, and the friends of God, and the of-
ficial spokesmen of God}.
6c. Idiomatic TT:
The followers of each sub-sect see themselves as the companions of God, His
chosen soldiers and friends – and His official spokesmen.
Here the ST has a list of five composite elements, each involving ‫( الله‬a)llaah (‘God’):
‫ أولياء الله‬awliyaa’u llaah ‘the companions/saints of God’, ‫ جند الله‬jundu llaah ‘the army
of God’, ‫‘ اصفياء الله‬the chosen (or: close friends) of God’, ‫ اصدقاء الله‬aṣdiqaa’u llaah ‘the
friends of God’, and ‫( الناطقون الرسميون باسم الله‬a)n-naaṭiquun ar-rasmiyyuun bi-smi llaah
‘the official spokesmen of God’. Each of these phrases apart from the last is a genitive
structure. In accordance with the standard preference of English for so-called lex-
ical variation as contrasted with a general preference in Arabic for lexical repetition
(Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002a: 108–12), the TT removes the lexical repetition
of ‫( الله‬a)llaah ‘God’, replacing other occurrences apart from the first with ‘His’.
More importantly from the current perspective, the TT reduces the five ST list
elements to three: ‘the companions of God’, ‘His chosen soldiers and friends – and
His official spokesmen’. ‘The companions of God’ is a fairly direct translation of ‫أولياء‬
‫ الله‬awliyaa’u llaah ‘the companions/saints of God’; ‘His chosen soldiers and friends’
by contrast involves a double restructuring: the ‘army’ element in ‫ جند الله‬jundu lla-
ah ‘the army of God’ is translated as ‘soldiers’ and combined in an embedded coor-
dinated structure with the ‘friends’ element ‫ اصدقاء الله‬aṣdiqaa’u llaah ‘the friends of
God’; the ‘chosen’ element in ‫‘ اصفياء الله‬the chosen (or: close friends) of God’ is trans-
lated as a subordinate attributive adjective element ‘chosen’, to give the composite
phrase (involving both subordination and coordination) ‘His chosen soldiers and
friends’. Finally, the ‘punch-phrase’ ‫( الناطقون الرسميون باسم الله‬a)n-naaṭiquun ar-rasmi-
yyuun bi-smi llaah ‘the official spokesmen of God’ is translated directly. The dash
preceding it is intended to relay the element of surprise (and corresponding intona-
tion pattern in spoken English) associated with the fact that the previous elements
of the list have described traditional religious features, while the final element pre-
sents religious extremists ironically, as if they were the official mouthpieces of a gov-
ernment run by God.

3.6.  Ostensive definition vs. summary definition

Lyons (1977: 208) notes that one way of defining things is to point out instances of
it in the world (e.g. if we want to define the notion ‘lorry’, we point out to our in-
terlocutor some actual lorries in the street). In the following example, from ‫العسكر‬
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  353

‫ والحكم يف البلدان العربية‬al-askar wa-l-ḥukm fi l-buldaan al-arabiyya ‘The Military and

Power in the Arab World’ (cf. Humphrys 1999), the Arabic ST includes a list of six
main elements, the final one of which involves an embedded listing of three fur-
ther elements:
7a. ST (Arabic script):
‫ واقتناء‬،‫ البذخ‬،‫ الزمل‬،‫ الحرس الخاص‬،‫ القصور‬،‫ {البيوت املفتوحة‬:‫ يرصون عىل مامرسة الوجاهة بجميع فروعها‬،‫فهم كالسياسيني‬
.}‫ما عز من االلبسة والحيل والحلل‬
7b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
  fa-hum ka-s-siyaasiyyiin, yuṣirruun ala mumaarasat
and/so they like-the-politicians, they-insist on [the] practices [of]
al-wajaaha bi-jamii furuui-ha: {al-buyuut al-maftuuḥa, al-quṣuur,
the-prestige with-all branches-its: {the-houses the-open, the-palaces
al-ḥaras al-xaaṣṣ, az-zalam, al-baḍax, wa-qtinaa’ maa
the-guard the-private, the-luxury, the-opulence and-[the]-acquiring [of] what
azza min al-albisa wa-l-ḥuliyy wa-l-ḥulal}.
is-precious of the-clothes and-the-jewellery and-the-apparel}.
7c. Literal TT:
So they, like politicians, insist on practising prestige with all its branches: {open
houses, palaces, private guard, luxury, opulence, and the acquisition of what is pre-
cious of clothes, jewellery, and apparel}.
Here the main listing chiefly involves asyndetic coordination; ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’ is used to
connect only the last main listed element: ‫ البيوت املفتوحة‬al-buyuut al-maftuuḥa ‘open
houses’, ‫ القصور‬al-quṣuur ‘palaces’, ‫ الحرس الخاص‬al-ḥaras al-xaaṣṣ ‘private guard’, ‫ الزمل‬az-
zalam ‘luxury’, ‫ البذخ‬al-baḏax ‘opulence’, ‫[ واقتناء‬. . .] wa-qtinaa’ [. . .] ‘and the acquisi-
tion [. . .]’. The embedded list ‫ االلبسة والحيل والحلل‬l-albisa wa-l-ḥuliyy wa-l-ḥulal ‘clothes,
jewellery, and apparel’ is more standardly connected by ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’ throughout. An
actual translation of this extract (Humphrys 1999: 7–8) reads:
7d. Idiomatic TT:
Like politicians, they insist upon all the outward trappings of privilege: mansions,
palaces, bodyguards, opulence, and all the finery that money can buy.
Here the translator has kept the main list elements ‘mansions’, ‘palaces’, ‘body-
guards’, ‘opulence’. However, he has reduced the embedded list in the final ele­
ment ‫ واقتناء ما عز من االلبسة والحيل والحلل‬wa-qtinaa’ maa azza min al-albisa wa-l-ḥuliyy
wa-l-ḥulal (‘and acquisition of what is precious of clothes, jewellery, and appar-
el’) through de facto merging of ‫ االلبسة والحيل والحلل‬al-albisa wa-l-ḥuliyy wa-l-ḥulal
(‘clothes, jewellery and apparel’) into the single element ‘finery’, with some com-
pensatory expansion and strengthening of the Arabic ‫[ واقتناء ما عز من‬. . .] wa-qtinaa’
354 James Dickins

maa azza mim [. . .] “and the acquisition of what is precious of [. . .]’. The merging
of the list ‫ االلبسة والحيل والحلل‬al-albisa wa-ḥuliyy wa-l-ḥulal (‘clothes, jewellery and ap-
parel’) seems to be motivated partly by the synonymy (or virtual synonymy) of ‫البسة‬
‘clothes’ and ‫ حلل‬ḥulal ‘apparel’. However, it also has the effect of avoiding a complex
double listing structure in the English TT.
Grammatically, ‘all the finery money can buy’ replaces the ST coordinating
structure ‫ االلبسة والحيل والحلل‬al-albisa wa-l-ḥuliyy wa-l-ḥulal (‘clothes, jewellery and
apparel’) with a TT subordinating structure. From another perspective, however,
we can see the ST as operating with a kind of ostensive definition ‫ والحيل والحلل‬al-
albisa wa-l-ḥuliyy wa-l-ḥulal (‘clothes, jewellery and apparel’) provides examples
of the kind of personal possessions the military elite can expect to enjoy. The TT,
by contrast, operates with what might be called a summary definition: the mili-
tary elite enjoy all the finery that money can buy. Summary definition goes beyond
merging in that it does not merely combine the meaning of two or more ST list
members into a single TT list member. Rather, it looks at the notions expressed by
the ST list members which it translates from a different and more ‘analytical’ per-
spective.
Not infrequently, Arabic ST lists combine ostensive-type elements with sum-
mary-type definitions. Consider the following, which is taken from an interview
on Al-Jazeera television (reproduced in transcript form) with the well-known Is-
lamic Egyptian religious figure ‫ يوسف القرضاوي‬Yuusuf Al-Qaraḍaawi (Abdel-Salam
2005). The Sheikh essentially uses Standard Arabic throughout the interview with
the occasional ‘lapse’ (whether deliberate or not) into Egyptian colloquial, along
with one or two accidental ungrammatical usages. Here the Sheikh is discussing
whether a woman can lead men in public prayer:
8a. ST (Arabic script):
‫النساء كانوا يصلون يف مسجد النبي صىل الله عليه وسلم وكان النساء خلف الرجال {ومل يكن بني النساء والرجال اي حاجز ال من‬
]. . .[ }‫خشب وال من بناء وال من قامش او اي يشء ال يوجد‬
8b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
an-nisaa’ kaanu yuṣalluun fi masjid an-nabi – ṣalla allaahu
the-women were they-pray in [the] mosque [of] the Prophet – bless God
alay-hi wa-sallam – wa-kaan an-nisaa’ xalf ar-rijaal
(on)-him and-give-peace – and-were the-women behind the-men
{wa-lam yakun bayn an-nisaa’ wa-r-rijaal ayyi ḥaajiz
{and-not was between the-women and-the-men any barrier
laa min xašab wa-laa min binaa’ wa-laa min qumaaš
not of wood and-not of building-material and-not of cloth
aw min ayyi šay’ laa yuujad} [. . .]
or of any thing not is-found} [. . .]
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  355

8c. Literal TT:

The women used to pray in the mosque of the Prophet – God bless him and give
him peace – and the women were behind the men {and there was not between the
women and the men any barrier, not of wood, and not of building material, and
not of cloth, or anything was not found} [. . .]
An actual translation of this (Abdel-Salam 2005: 10) reads:

8d. Idiomatic TT:

[. . .] women used to pray in the Prophet’s mosque behind the men {with no kind
of barrier between them whatsoever} [. . .]
Here the ST contains elements which provide an ostensive-type definition ‫خشب‬
xašab (‘wood’), ‫ بناء‬binaa’ (‘building material’) and ‫ قامش‬qumaaš (‘cloth’), and elem-
ents which provide summary definition: ‫ حاجز‬ḥaajiz (‘barrier’) and ‫ أي يشء‬ayyi šay’
(‘anything’). The translator has removed the ostensive elements of the list ‫ال من خشب‬
‫ وال من بناء وال من قامش‬laa min xašab wa-laa min binaa’ wa-laa min qumaaš ‘not of wood,
and not of building material, and not of cloth’, and has chosen to retain only an
element summarising the situation: ‘with no kind of barrier between them what-
soever’.
A similar example in which English favours reproduction of the summary def-
inition only is provided by the following, from the same ST as the previous ex-
ample:

9a. ST (Arabic script):

‫] ومل يحدث يف تاريخ االسالم اكرث من أربعة عرشة قرنا واملسلمون لهم مساجدهم {يف الرشق والغرب ويف الشامل‬. . .[
]. . .[ }‫والخنوب ويف كل قارات العامل‬

9b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:

[. . .] wa-lam yaḥuṯ fi taariix al-islaam akṯar min arba at ašar
[. . .] and-not happen in [the] history [of] the-Islam more than four ten
qarn wa-l-muslimuun la-hum masaajidu-him {fi š-šarq wa-l-ġarb
century and-the-Muslims to-them mosques-their {in the-east and-the-west
wa fi-š-šimaal wa -l-junuub wa fi kull qaarraat al-aalam} [. . .]
and in-the north and-the-south and in all continents [of] the-world} [. . .]

9c. Literal TT:

[This] has not happened in the history of Islam, more than fourteen centuries, and
the Muslims [have] their mosques {in the east and the west and in the north and
the south and in the continents of the world} [. . .]
This has been translated as follows (Abdel-Salam 2005: 11):
356 James Dickins

9d. Idiomatic TT:

This has never happened in the history of Islam throughout more than fourteen cen-
turies, bearing in mind that Muslims have mosques {in the four corners of the globe}.
Here the Arabic ST element ‫ يف الرشق والغرب ويف الشامل والجنوب ويف كل قارات العامل‬fi š-šarq wa-l-
ġarb wa fi-š-šimaal wa-l-junuub wa fi kull qaarraat al-aalam (literally: ‘in the east
and the west and in the north and the south and in all continents of the world’)
does two things. First of all it exemplifies the directions or areas in which mosques
are found (east, west, north, and south), then it makes a more abstract statement
(‘in all continents of the world’). The first aspect (east, west, north, and south)
could be regarded as a kind of ostensive definition. The second element (‘in all the
continents of the world’) adopts a more analytical, summary approach, defining
the areas in which mosques are found. The English TT ‘in the four corners of the
globe’ loses some of the precision of the ST, but maintains an implied reference to
the four compass points. The use of a slightly poetic-sounding idiom ‘in the four
corners of the globe’ can also be said to compensate for the loss of the rhetorical
elegance of the use in Arabic of directional opposites (Cruse 1986: 223–4) ‫يف الرشق‬
‫ والغرب ويف الشامل والجنوب‬fi š-šarq wa-l-ġarb wa fi-š-šimaal wa -l-junuub “in the-east and-
the-west and-in the-north and-in the-south”.
In the two previous examples, the Arabic ST involved a combination of osten-
sive-type elements and summary statement. Sometimes, however, Arabic makes
use of only ostensive-type elements with no summary elements. Consider the fol-
lowing, from the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar (2 March 1999), which describes
a meeting of the Maronite-based Phalange (‫ كتائب‬Kataa’ib) political party in Leba-
non in 1999 (Jones 1999).
10a. ST (Arabic script):
‫ كان حارضا بقوة مع كل {االجتامعات والتحالفات واللقاءات الجانبية} {عىل الرشفات ويف املكاتب الجانبية وعىل‬٢٩٩١ ‫شبح‬
.}‫السلم الخارجي‬
10b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
  šabaḥ 1992 kaana ḥaaḍiran bi-quwwa maa kull {al-ijtimaaaat
[the] ghost [of] 1992 was present in-force with all {the-meetings
wa-t-taḥaalufaat wa-l-liqaa’aat al-jaanibiyya} {ala š-šurfaat
and-the-alliances and-the-meetings the-side(ly) {on the-balconies
wa-fi-l-makaatib al-jaanibiyya wa-ala s-sullam al-xaariji}.
and-in-the-offices the-side and-on the-stair the-outside}.
10c. Literal TT:
The ghost of 1992 was present in force with all {the meetings and the alliances and
the side encounters} {on the balconies and the side offices and on the outside stair}.
An actual translation of this reads as follows (Jones 1999: 8) :
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  357

10d. More idiomatic TT:

The ghost of 1992 was present in force, with {countless meetings} taking place
in any available space: {on the balconies, in side offices, and even on the outside
stairs}.

The Arabic ST here has two lists: [‫[ كل] االجتامعات والتحالفات واللقاءات الجانبية‬kull] al-
ijtimaaaat wa-t-taḥaalufaat wa-l-liqaa’aat al-jaanibiyya (‘[all] the meetings and
the alliances and the side encounters’), and ‫عىل الرشفات ويف املكاتب الجانبية وعىل السلم الخارجي‬
ala š-šurfaat wa-fi-l-makaatib al-jaanibiyya wa-ala s-sullam al-xaariji (‘on the bal-
conies and the side offices and on the outside stair’). The first of these is summa­
rized in English as ‘countless meetings’, while the second is retained in full (and in
fact strengthened by the addition of ‘even’ before ‘on the balconies’). However, be-
fore the second list in the English, the translator has inserted the additional sum-
marizing phrase ‘in every available space’. (The translation also contains a some-
what unfortunate mixed metaphor ‘ghost [. . .] present in force’.)

4.  Wider perspectives 1: Arabic coordination vs. English subordination

Consider the following (from Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002a: 126; based on
Montgomery 1994), which is taken from the short story ‫ نخلة عىل الجدول‬naxla ala l-
jadwal ‘A Palm-Tree on the Water-Channel’ by the Sudanese writer ‫ الطيب صالح‬El
Tayeb Saleh. The intersentential and interclausal uses of the coordinators ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’
and ‫ ف‬fa- ‘and/and so/so’ have been picked out in curly brackets in the ST as have
their correspondents (including zero:{ø}) in the fairly literal and idiomatic TTs :
11a. ST (Arabic script):
‫ {فـ}ـرمى آخر ما يف جعبته من سهام قاسية مسمومة ظل يسددها‬،‫{و}كأن القدر أراد أن ينسيهم كل يشء يربطهم بحسن‬
‫ {و}جمع لها الحشيش {و}أرشكها‬،‫ {و}أصاب السهم األخري النعجة »الربقاء« التي رباها حسن‬.‫ تباعاً وبدون توقف‬،‫منذ عامني‬
‫طعامه {و}أنامها يف فراشه‬
11b. Transcribed ST and interlinear TT:
{wa}-ka’anna al-qadar araad an yunsiya-hum kull šay’
{and}-as-that the-fate wanted that it-makes-forget-them every thing
  yarbuṭu-hum bi-ḥasan, {fa-}rama aaxar maa fi
[which] connects-them with-Hasan, {and/so}-it-threw [the]-last [of] what [is] in
jabati-h min sihaam qaasiya masmuuma alla yusaddidu-ha
quiver-its of arrows harsh poisoned it-continued it-sends-them
tibaaan wa-bi-duun tawaqquf. {wa-}aṣaab as-sahm al-axiir an-naja
consecutively and-without stopping. {and}-hit the-arrow the-last the-ewe
358 James Dickins

l-barqaa’ llati rabbaa-ha ḥasan, {wa-}jama la-ha l-ḥašiiš

the-piebald which raised-it Hasan, {and}-he-collected for-it the grass
{wa-}ašraka-ha ṭaaama-hu {wa-}anaama-ha fi firaaši-h.
{and}-he-shared-it food-his {and}he-made-sleep-it in bed-his.

11c. Fairly literal TT:

{And} as if the fate wanted to make them forget everything which linked them to
Hasan; {and/and so/so} it threw the last of what was in its quiver of harsh, poi-
soned arrow which it continued to send consecutively and without ceasing. {And}
the final arrow hit the ‘piebald’ ewe which Hasan raised, {and} he collected for it
the grass {and} shared it his food {and} made it sleep in his bed.

11d. Idiomatic TT (from Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002b: 80):

{ø} It was as if Fate had wanted to make them forget everything which linked
them to Hasan. {ø} Removing from its quiver the last of the harsh poisoned ar-
rows which it had been relentlessly firing over the past two years, {ø} it took aim.
{ø} This arrow hit the piebald ewe which Hasan had raised with his own hands, {ø}
gathering grass for it, {and} sharing his own food {and} bed with it.
This example provides a good illustration of common changes in terms of coordin-
ation/subordination of clauses in Arabic–English translation. Intersentential and
interclausal linkage in Arabic is achieved largely through the use of the coordina-
tor ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’ or less commonly through the use of the coordinator ‫ ف‬fa- ‘and/and
so/so’. The Arabic ST has five examples of linkage with wa- ‘and’ of this kind, and
one example of linkage with fa- ‘and/and so/so’. The English TT, by contrast, has
only two corresponding uses of ‘and’; one of these links non-finite verbs (‘gather-
ing’ and ‘sharing’) while the other one links two nouns (‘food’ and ‘bed’), although
this corresponds via grammatical transposition to a linkage between two verbs in
the ST. In two cases where ‫ و‬wa- ‘and’ begins a sentence in Arabic (a very common
phenomenon), there is no corresponding English coordinator, in accordance with
stylistic norms of English. In two other cases where the Arabic has interclausal wa-
‘and’, however, the English TT makes use of a subordinating structure ‘Remov{ing}
from it quiver [. . .], it took aim’ rather than the more literal ‘It removed from its
quiver [. . .] and it took aim’; and ‘gathering grass for it’, rather than the more lit-
eral ‘and gathered grass for it’.
Interclausally, Arabic thus displays a general tendency to use coordination,
while English makes greater use of subordination (e.g. Holes 1995: 220–1). In this
light, we may consider again the list restructuring tactic, which involves as one of
its elements the combination of conjoined (coordinated) noun phrases into non-
coordinated noun phrases, i.e. phrases involving a single noun and other elements
which are subordinated to it. The tendency to shift from coordination in Arabic to
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  359

subordination in English seems to operate both in respect of clauses and of noun-

phrases: that is to say, in two areas of analysis which might on the surface seem
to be rather different, the same fundamental differing tendencies between Arabic
and English are evidenced.

5.  Wider perspectives 2: ostensive presentation vs. analytical summary?

Barbara Johnstone has argued that ‘Arabic argumentation is structured by the no-
tion that it is the presentation of an idea – the linguistic forms and the very words
that are used to describe it – that is persuasive, not the logical structure of proof
which Westerners see behind the words’ (Johnstone 1991: 117). This view has been
rightly criticized as extreme and partial (e.g. Holes 1995: 272). Holes (ibid.) points
out that certain styles of Arabic argumentation are almost entirely lacking in such
ornamentation, and that argumentation in English has, at various period, made
heavy use of such devices. Even accepting that Arabic may typically make greater
use of ornamentation than English, it also seems implausible that people in the
Arab world are in general any more (or less) likely to be persuaded by arguments
which lack logical coherence than are people in the West.3
However, in this general light it is worth reconsidering ostensive definition
and summary definition as two ways of presenting ideas. It has been suggested
that in listing Arabic tends to make greater use of ostensive definition and Eng-
lish greater use of summary definition. Listing involves the coordination of noun
phrases, adjective phrases, etc. I have argued in this paper that coordination is also
a pervasive feature in Arabic of relations between larger elements of text – clauses
and even sentences. If Arabic makes greater use than English of ostensive defin-
ition in listing – i.e. small-scale coordination structures involving noun phrases,
etc. – it may also make greater use than English of ostensive definition in larg-
er scale coordination structures, e.g. those involving coordination of clauses and

3.  The successful use of rhetoric to disguise logical incoherence is probably more widespread in
English than is generally recognised. In a lecture to the American University of Cairo on June
21, 2005, the American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared “For sixty years, the United
States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East – and we achieved nei-
ther”. The use of ‘neither’ in the second clause suggests that the policy pursued by America in
the Middle East over the past sixty years could have been expected to achieve both stability and
democracy (the notion that ‘stability’ and ‘democracy’ are concomitant notions being reinforced
by the syllabic similarity between the two words, and the assonance in the phrase ‘stability at the
expense of democracy’). The logic of the first clause does not, however, support this conclusion.
If a country pursues stability at the expense of democracy, it may be expected to achieve stability,
but certainly not democracy. Condoleezza Rice’s statement was widely quoted and commented
on in the media. As far as I am aware, however, no-one pointed out that it was incoherent.
360 James Dickins

even sentences. This would imply a general tendency for a rather different style of
overall textual organisation in Arabic than in English: ‘ostensive’ vs. ‘summarising’.
These thoughts are, of course, quite speculative. However, Arabic and English text
structures often seem intuitively rather different from one another – and in ways
which have, as yet, in general defied clear explanation.4 Attempts to generalise
from phenomena at smaller levels to those at larger ones may provide some in-
sight into these differences. From a translation perspective, such large-scale differ-
ences are likely to present problems. The restructuring of small ST elements in a
TT is likely to be perceived as ‘acceptable’ adjustment towards TL naturalness. The
greater the domain of restructuring, however, the more such restructuring is like-
ly to be perceived as unacceptable ‘interference’ with the original message. Even if
it is the case that Arabic tends more towards large-scale ostensive definition than
English, it may be that the Arabic–English translator will have to retain this ‘osten-
sive’ approach in his or her TT: we are beyond the point at which translator inter-
vention is likely to be considered acceptable in retaining TL naturalness.

References

Abdel-Salam, Asma. 2005. Translation of discussion with ‫ الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي‬aš-šayx Yuusuf Al-
Qarḍaawi on Al-Jazeera television programme. ‫ الرشيعة والحياة‬al-šariia w–l-ḥayaat (“Islamic
Law and Life”). BA translation project: University of Durham. 13 pp.
Al-Jubouri, Adnan. 1984. “The role of repetition in Arabic argumentative discourse.” In English
for Specific Purposes in the Arab World. ed. by John Swales and Hassan Mustafa. 99–117.
Aston: University of Aston Language Studies Unit.
Ali, Yusuf. 1999 [1938]. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. Beltsville: Amana Publications. lxii +
1759 pp.
Badawi, El-Said, Michael Carter and Adrian Gully, A. 2004. Modern Written Arabic: a Compre-
hensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge. xi + 812 pp.
Baker, Mona.1992. In Other Words. London and New York: Routledge. x + 304 pp.
Beeston, Alfred F. L. 1983. “The role of parallelism in Arabic prose” In The Cambridge History
of Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period. ed. by Alfred F. L. Beeston.167–74.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, David A. Lexical Semantics. 1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xiv + 310 pp.
Dickins, James, Sándor G. J. Hervey, and Ian Higgins. 2002a. Thinking Arabic Translation. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge. xi + 256 pp.
Dickins, James, Sándor G. J. Hervey, and Ian Higgins. 2002b. Thinking Arabic Translation: Tutor’s
Handbook. London and New York: Routledge. vii + 133 pp.

4.  Some interesting work has been done on differences between Arabic and English text struc-
tures. Hatim (1997: 44–6) and Hatim and Mason (1997: 133–41), for example, propose that
Arabic and English argumentative texts often employ different modes of argument, English pre-
ferring counter-argumentation, and Arabic preferring through-argumentation.
 List restructuring in Arabic–English translation  361

Hatim, Basil. 1997. Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text
Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. xvi+235 pp.
Hatim, Basil and Mason, Ian. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London and New York:
Longman. xii + 244 pp.
Hetherington, Martin. 1996. Translation of ‫ لعبة الضفادع والعقارب يف عواصم الرشق االوسط‬labat aḍ-ḍafaadi
wa-l-aqaarib fi-awaaṣim aš-šarq al-awsaṭ (“The Game of Frogs and Scorpions in the Cap-
itals of the Middle East” by ‫ عادل حمودة‬Aadil Áamuuda (from ‫ روز اليوسف‬Ruz Al-Yusuf magazine,
no. 3521, 1995). BA translation project: University of Durham. 37 pp.
Holes, Clive. 1995. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties. London and New York:
Longman. xiii + 343 pp.
Humphrys, Stephen. 1999. Translation of extract from ‫ العسكر والحكم يف البلدان العربية‬al-askar wa-l-
ḥukm fi l-buldaan al-arabiyya (“The Military and Power in the Arab World”), by ‫فؤاد اسحاق‬
‫ الخوري‬Fu’aad Isḥaaq Al-Xuuri (1990. Beirut: Al-Saqi Books). BA translation project: Uni-
versity of Durham. 14 pp.
Johnstone, Barbara. 1991. Repetition in Arabic: Paradigms, Syntagms and the Ecology of Lan-
guage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. viii + 130 pp.
Jones, Lucy. 1999. Translation of ‫ أصوات‬٧ ‫ الحاج رئيسا للكتائب بفارق‬al-ḥaajj ra’iisan li-l-kataa’ib bi-faariq
7 aṣwaat (“The ‘Hajji’ Leader of the Phalange by a Margin of 7 Votes:) (from ‫ النهار‬An-Nahar
newspaper, 2 March 1999). BA translation project: University of Durham. 21 pp.
Lanham, Richard A. 1991 (2nd ed.). A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press. xiii + 182 pp.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics (vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xiii + 371 pp.
Montgomery, Alan. 1994. Translation of ‫ نخلة عىل الجدول‬naxla ala l-jadwal (“A Palm-Tree on the
Water-Channel”) by ‫ الطيب صالح‬El Tayeb Saleh (1953. Beirut: ‫ دار العودة‬daar al-awda). BA trans-
lation project: University of Durham. 72 pp.
Penrice, John. 1973. A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran. London: Curzon Press. viii + 166 pp.

Abstract

This paper deals with the translation from Arabic to English of lists, i.e. phrases consisting of
at least two, and typically three or more, noun phrases, adjective phrases, etc. which belong
to a relatively coherent semantic field. Section 1 considers four standard techniques for trans-
lating Arabic semantic repetition into English: maintenance of repetition, merging, grammat-
ical transposition, and semantic distancing. Section 2 defines listing as an extension of seman-
tic repetition, and identifies basic listing structures in English and Arabic. Sections 3–3.5 look
at techniques for translating Arabic lists into English on the basis of the first three translation
techniques for semantic repetition discussed in Section 2. Section 3.1 looks at list retention (cf.
maintenance of repetition), considering where this is and is not acceptable. Section 3.2 looks at
list reduction/merging (cf. semantic merging). Sections 3.3–3.5 look at techniques which paral-
lel grammatical transposition as a technique for translation semantic repetition: embedded co-
ordination, as a form of subordination (Section 3.3), standard subordination (Section 3.4), and
the combination of embedded coordination with standard subordination (Section 3.5). Section
3.6 considers summary definition, as a translation technique which goes beyond merging. Sec-
tion 4 considers the significance of listing patterns in Arabic and English in the context of the
more general preference in Arabic for coordination and in English for subordination. Section 5
362 James Dickins

raises the possibility that the preference for coordination in Arabic may correlate with a larger
textual preference for ostensive presentation, while the preference for subordination in English
may correlate with a larger textual preference for analytical summary. I suggest that, if true, this
may give rise to translation issues which are effectively intractable.

Résumé

Cet article traite de la traduction des listes de l’arabe en anglais, c’est-à-dire des phrases compre-
nant au moins deux et généralement trois syntagmes nominaux, adjectivaux, etc. ou davantage,
qui appartiennent à un champ sémantique relativement cohérent.
La partie 1 examine quatre techniques standard permettant de traduire une répétition sé-
mantique de l’arabe en anglais : le maintien de la répétition, la fusion, la transposition gramma-
ticale et la distanciation sémantique.
La partie 2 définit une liste comme étant une extension d’une répétition sémantique et iden-
tifie les structures de base des listes en anglais et en arabe. Les parties 3–3.5 examinent les tech-
niques de traduction des listes de l’arabe en anglais, sur la base des trois premières techniques
de traduction de la répétition sémantique dont il est question à la partie 2.
La partie 3.1 examine la rétention de la liste (le maintien de la répétition) en étudiant quand
elle est acceptable ou non. La partie 3.2 se penche sur la réduction/fusion des listes (fusion sé-
mantique). Les parties 3.3–3.5 examinent des techniques qui assimilent la transposition gram-
maticale à une technique de répétition sémantique de la traduction : la coordination intégrée en
tant que forme de subordination (partie 3.3), la subordination standard (partie 3.4), et la com-
binaison de la coordination intégrée et de la subordination standard (partie 3.5). La partie 3.6
considère qu’une brève définition est une technique de traduction qui va au-delà de la fusion.
La partie 4 étudie la signification des caractéristiques des listes en arabe et en anglais, dans le
contexte d’une préférence plus marquée de l’arabe pour la coordination et de l’anglais pour la
subordination.
La partie 5 évoque la possibilité que la préférence de l’arabe pour la coordination puisse cor-
respondre à une plus grande préférence textuelle pour une présentation ostensible, alors que la
préférence de l’anglais pour la subordination pourrait correspondre à une plus grande préfé-
rence textuelle pour un résumé analytique. Si c’est le cas, je pense que cela peut induire des pro-
blèmes de traduction vraiment sans issue.

About the Author

James Dickins is Professor of Arabic at the University of Leeds. His publications include Ex-
tended Axiomatic Linguistics (1998, Mouton de Gruyter), Standard Arabic: an Advanced Course
(with Janet C. E. Watson, 1999, Cambridge University Press), Thinking Arabic Translation (with
Sándor Hervey and Ian Higgins, 2002, Routledge), “Two models for metaphor translation” (in
Target 17: 2, 2005), “Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: the translation of Arabic
bad into English” (in Babel 51: 3, 2005), and Sudanese Arabic: Phonematics and Syllable Struc-
ture (2007, Otto Harrassowitz).
Address: Dept. of Arabic and Middle Eastern Studies, School of Modern Languages and Cultures,
University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
E-mail: J. Dickins@leeds.ac.uk

View publication stats