Translation Theories

Exemplified from Cicero

to Pierre Bourdieu
Arabic-English

A Coursebook on Translation

Ali Almanna

2013
SAYYAB BOOKS LTD
Published by SAYYAB BOOKS LTD.

3 Lower Teddington Road

Kingston upon Thames
Surrey
KT1 4ER
London – UK
www.sayyab.org
contact@sayyab.org

© SAYYAB BOOKS LTD. 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
written permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record of this book is available from British Library

ISBN 978-1-906228- 56 9
Cover designed by Jawad al-Mudhaffar
Typeset by Al-Janub Typesetters, Iraq, Basra
Cover painting: Karim al-Doasry
Acknowledgement
My deep indebtedness and sincere appreciation naturally go to Professor
Mohammad Farghal who read Chapter Four and provided me with useful
comments and advice.

I should like to express my gratitude to Dr Raymond Chakhachiro who

read Chapter Three and provided me with valuable suggestions and
comments.

I am greatly indebted to Dr Allen Clark who read Chapters One and Six
and provided me with his valuable comments and suggestions.

I am also grateful to Dr Ramadan Sadkhan for reading Chapter One.

My special thanks are due to Fred Pragnell, Mike Hall and Paul Starkey
who offered valuable insights into, and guidance on, the many and
varied aspects of the linguistic and analytical challenges of translating
Arabic, in particular Chapters Eight and Nine.

Finally, no word could ever express my deepest love and gratitude to my

family who have supported me in this work.

List of abbreviations
BCE = Before common Era
CE = Common Era
SL = Source Language
ST = Source Text
TL = Target Language
TT = Target Text
Transliteration System
The following Arabic transliteration system has been consistently
employed throughout this book:

Arabic Transliteration A. T. A. T.
‫ء‬ ’ ‫ز‬ z ‫ق‬ q
‫ب‬ b ‫س‬ s ‫ك‬ k
‫ت‬ t ‫ش‬ sh ‫ل‬ l
‫ث‬ th ‫ص‬ s ‫م‬ m
‫ج‬ j ‫ض‬ d ‫ن‬ n
‫ح‬ h ‫ط‬ t ‫ة‬/‫هـــ‬ h
‫خ‬ kh ‫ظ‬ z ‫و‬ w
‫د‬ d ‫ع‬ ‘ ‫ي‬ y
‫ذ‬ dh ‫غ‬ gh ‫ى‬/‫ا‬ a
‫ر‬ r ‫ف‬ f

Vowels
Arabic Transliteration
‫ ـــَـــ‬fathah a
‫ َــــَـــ‬kasrah i
‫ ـــَـــ‬dammah u
‫ ََا‬alif ā
‫ََي‬yaa' ī
‫ََو‬waaw ū

Notes:
- In the case of َ)‫ ) ــــّـــ‬shaddah, a consonant is doubled;
- the names of Arab authors whose works have been published in
English are spelled as they appear on the publication without applying
this transliteration system;
- any Arab names that appear in quotations follow the transliteration
system of the reference quoted and not the above one; and
- the following names remain as they commonly appear in English and
are not transliterated to avoid confusion: Nawal El-Saadawi, Mahfouz,
Mohammed Choukri and so on.
Contents

Chapter 1: Historical Background 7

Chapter 2: Equivalence Vs Indeterminacy 25

Types of equivalence 31
Nida’s Formal Equivalence Vs Dynamic Equivalence 32
Catford’s Formal Correspondent Vs Textual Equivalent 34
House’s Overt Translation Vs Covert Translation 36
Newmark’s Semantic Translation Vs Communicative Translation 37
Gutt’s Direct Translation Vs Indirect Translation 38
Venuti’s Domestication Vs Foreignization 38

Chapter 3: Translation Process 42

Linguistic approach 43
Hermeneutic approach 46
Interpretive approach 49
Cognitive approach 52
Cultural approach 55
Ideological approach 60
Normative approach 65
Sociological approach 70

Chapter 4: Translation Strategies 74

J. P. Vinay & J. Darbelnet’s strategies 75
J. L. Malone’s strategies 80

Chapter 5: Translation Brief & Macro Factors 95

Cultural clashes 97
Ideological and habitual considerations 100
Master discourse & dominant poetics of translation 103
Generic conventions 105
Purpose of translation (Skopos) 106
Readership 108
Text type 110
Chapter 6: System Theories 115
Polysystem theory 115
Manipulation theory 117
Norm theory 118

Chapter 7: Register & Translation 122

Field of discourse 122
Tenor of discourse 127
Mode of discourse 133

Chapter 8: Discourse Analysis & Translation 136

Role of language 138
Aspects of pragmatics 140
Aspects of textuality 142
Cultural aspects 146
Stylistic aspects 148

References 154

Index 171
Chapter 1: Historical Background
Key Concepts

Domestication; Foreignization; Holmes’s Map; Imitation;

Metaphrase; Paraphrase; Pragmatic Theories; Register-based
Theories; Relevance Theory; Sense-for-sense; Sociological
Approaches; Translation Principles; Word-for-word.

Overview

It is not necessary for everyone to know translation theory in order to

translate the text at hand. However, acquiring a solid foundation in
translation theory will enable you to produce a text reflecting the
author’s intention, maintaining the text-type focus and living up to the
target-reader’s expectations. In this regard, Schulte and Biguent (1992:
1) state that
a study of the various theoretical concepts either drawn from or
brought to the practice of translation can provide entrance into
mechanisms that, through the art of translation, make crosscultural
communication and understanding possible.
In this chapter, we will introduce, in brief, the most important translation
theories that have held sway on the development of translation studies.
In his oft-cited book After Babel, George Steiner (1975/1998) divides
the literature on translation theories into four periods which extend from
Cicero and Horace until currently prevailing views. These four periods,
however, overlap to a certain degree and are not chronologically well-
structured (cf. Bassnett 1980: 48). These stages, therefore, with slight
modification, will be divided in this chapter into five periods:
1- Translation Theories in Antiquity;
2- Translation Theories in the Middle Ages;
3- Translation Theories in Renaissance;
4- Translation Theories in Modern Times; and
5- Contemporary Translation Theories

7
 1. Translation Theories in Antiquity

The Birth: Cicero, Horace & St. Jerome

In the western world, translation, in particular literary translation, can be
traced back to 'the age of Romans' (Friedrich 1965/1992: 12). Although
translation, at that time, played a significant role in reflecting Greek
literature and philosophy in Latin, the attempts in translation were “an
act of submission that caused awkward lexical Graecisms to enter into
the translations” (ibid). It was not long before the Romans viewed
translation from a different perspective; it meant for them
“transformation in order to mold the foreign into the linguistic structures
of one’s own culture” without tying themselves up with the lexical or
syntactic features of the source language (SL) (ibid). Such a fundamental
change towards showing respect to the linguistic system of the target
language (TL) and not violating it with foreign lexis and hybrid stylistic
idiosyncrasies can be elicited from Cicero’s attitude regarding
translation:
I translate the ideas, their forms, or as one might say, their shapes;
however, I translate them into a language that is in tune with our
conventions of usage […]. Therefore, I did not have to make a word-
for-word translation but rather a translation that reflects the general
stylistic features […] and the meaning […] of foreign words
(Cicero printed in Schulte and Biguent 1992: 12).
Cicero and Horace (first century BCE) were the first theorists who made
a distinction between word-for-word translation and sense-for-sense
translation. Their comments on translation practice influenced the
following generations of translation down to the twentieth century.
Five centuries later, St. Jerome adopted Cicero and Horace’s position on
the occasion of his Latin translation of the Greek Septuagaint, in his
letter to Pammachius on the best method of translating:
Now I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from
Greek – except of course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where
even the syntax contains a mystery – I render not word-for-word,
but sense-for-sense.
(St. Jerome cited in Robinson 1997: 25)

8
Although his was not an excellent translation, it is still the official Latin
translation of the Bible (cf. Bassnett and Lefevere 1990: 15). His
“approach to translating the Greek Septuagint Bible into Latin would
affect later translations of the scriptures” (Munday 2001: 7). It wasn't
long before the Romans tilted the scale of balance towards the TL; they
considered the original translation “as a source of inspiration for the
creation of new expressions in one’s own language” (Friedrich
1965/1992: 13).

2. Translation Theories in the Middle Ages

In Europe, the Middle Ages falls roughly between late 5th century and
the 15th century A.D. while it continues “till the advent of European
Colonialism (about eighteenth century) in the 'Oriental' and African
countries” (cf. Firdaus 2008: 281). Since Cicero and Horace (c. 1st
century BCE), St. Jerome (c. mid-4th century CE), and continuing on
until the 9th century CE, discussion about translation had focused on
whether it be carried out word-for-word or sense-for-sense as well as the
position of the TT, in terms of its inferiority or superiority to the ST (cf.
Bassnett 1980; Schulte and Biguent 1992; Robinson 1997; Munday
2001/2008). A shift occurred during the 9th century and 10th centuries, a
time in which heated debate on translation theories and practices had
died down in the western world, with the exception of the Irish
theologian and philosopher John Scotus Eriugena (c. 800-877 CE).
Eriugena made a distinction between the translator of the text and its
'expositor' (for more details, see Robinson 1997: 37).

Abbasid Period (c. 750-1250 CE)

During the Islamic conquests and the expansion of the Islamic Empire,
Arabs began looking into the riches of their great scholarly tradition. The
translation movement, which had been inactive in the Arab world,
unwent dramatic changes during the Abbasid period in which it passed
through two phases (cf. al-‘Anī (No Date): 156-157). The first of which
occurred during the reign of the second Caliph, Abu Ja‘far al-Mansūr,
who “commissioned a number of translations and set up a translation
chamber” (Baker 1995: 391). Among the most famous translators of this
phase are Ibn al-Batrīq and Ibn al-Muqaffa‘. They translated books from

9
Persian and Greek literature. The second phase was during the reign of
the seventh Caliph, al-Ma’mūn, who built in Baghdad 'Bait al-Hikma'
(The House of Wisdom c. 830 CE), the greatest institute of translation at
that time, which also became “the most celebrated centre of translation
in Arab History” (ibid). No doubt the credit of founding the first
organized, large-scale translation institute in history goes to the Abbasids
‫ ـــ‬starting during the Umayyad Dynasty (c. 661-750 CE) and reaching its
apex during the reign of the Abbasids (for more details, see Baker 1998:
318).
Al-Safadī (printed in Khalūsī 1982: 4; also discussed in Baker 1998:
321) stated that there were two methods of translation during al-
Ma’mun’s reign: 1) word by word; and 2) transferring the whole
meaning of the sentence into mind. The first method was adopted by
Yūhana Ibn al-Batrīq, Ibn Nā‘ima al-Himsī, and others who would look
up the meaning of each Greek word to find its equivalent in Arabic and
then moved on to the following word untill they had the whole text
translated. Hunayn Ibn Ishāq and al-Jawāhirī adopted the second
method wherein they set down the transferred materials in fluent Arabic
without violating the majesty of the TL.
Al-Safadī (cited in Khalūsī 1982: 4) criticized the first method for two
reasons: 1) the relative difficulty in finding an equivalent Arabic word
for each Greek counterpart, resulting in the infiltration of foreign words
into Arabic and 2) while the two languages are not only syntactically
different, they differ in their way of using figures of speech that could be
infrequently translated literally (ibid).
Baker (ibid: 321), in line with al-Safadī, argues that the second method
prioritizes “the requirements of the target language and the target reader
from outset”. She adds that “readability and accessibility” were stressed
“in a way which suggests that translations were conceived as having a
didactic function” (ibid).
Following the prosperity of translation and improvement of translators’
lifestyle during this period, a number of theoretical issues arose, such as
whether “translation of certain text types was overall possible, whether
translated texts in general offered a reliable source of information, and
the effect of interference from Greek and Syriac on the structure of
Arabic”, had been brought to discussion, in particular by al-Jāhiz (ibid).
In an extract from his book ‫‘ كتاب الحيوان‬Kitāb al-Haywān’ (lit. The Book
of the Animal, but generally translated into English as Book of Animals)

10
al-Jāhiz (c. 776-868 CE) considered translation inferior to the original ‫ــــ‬
translation, as he argued, “can never attain the sublime heights of
philosophers’ wisdom. It cannot get to the essence of this wisdom. It
remains secondary to the original” (Mazid 2007: 59).
Among many translation-related issues that al-Jāhiz touched on in Book
of Animals is translator competency. He argued that the translators
should not only have an excellent command of both the SL and the TL,
but they should have a solid foundation in the structure of language, be
familiar with the people’s habits and customs, and their ways of
understanding one another (i.e., their culture). He also drew attention to
the importance of the translator’s familiarity/unfamiliarity with the
original text and its subject matter. He argued when the field of
discourse becomes more complex and narrow in scope, and the number
of specialists in the field dwindles, it becomes more arduous on the
translator, which in turn increases the possibility of error.
‫ ﻭﺃجﺪﺭَ ﺃن‬،‫ كان ﺃﺷﺪﱠ ﻋﻠﻰ الﻤتﺮجﻢ‬،‫ ﻭالﻌﻠﻤاﺀُ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻗﻞﱠ‬،‫كﻠﱠﻤا كان الﺒابُ ﻣﻦ الﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻋﺴﺮَ ﻭﺃﺿيﻖ‬
)77-76 ‫ ص‬،‫يخطئ ﻓيﻪ (الجاحظ‬

Further, in his comments on translating poetry, al-Jāhiz argued that the

TT could not be, at any rate, an equivalent to the ST both semantically
and aesthetically unless the translator is “genius, innovator and
qualified” (cf. Mazid 2007: 59). Concerning the difficulty of translating
poetry, al-Jāhiz remarked:
،‫ ﻭحﻘاﺋﻖ ﻣﺬاﻫﺒﻪ‬،‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺼاﺋﺺ ﻣﻌاﻧيﻪ‬،‫ﺇنﱠ التﺮجُﻤانَ ﻻ يﺆﺩﱢﻱ ﺃﺑﺪاً ﻣا ﻗاﻝ الحكي ُﻢ‬
،‫ ﻭيﺆﺩﱢﻱَ اﻷﻣاﻧﺔ ﻓيﻬا‬،‫ن يوﻓيﻬا حﻘوﻗﻬا‬
‫ﹶﹾ‬‫ ﻭﻻ يﻘﺪﺭ ﺃ‬،‫ ﻭﺧﻔيﱠاﺕ حﺪﻭﺩﻩ‬،‫ﻭﺩﻗاﺋﻖ اﺧتﺼاﺭاتﻪ‬
،‫ﹺ ﻣﻌاﻧيﻬا‬‫ ﻭكيﻒ يﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺩاﺋﻬا ﻭتﺴﻠيﻢ‬، ّ‫ﹶ ﻭيجبُ ﻋﻠﻰ الجﺮﻱ‬ َ‫ﻭيﻘوﻡَ ﺑﻤا يﻠﺰﻡُ الوكيﻞ‬
‫ﻭاﺳتﻌﻤاﻝ‬
‫ﹺ‬ ،‫يكون ﻓي الﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﻤﻌاﻧيﻬا‬
‫ﹶ‬ ‫ﺇﻻ ﹶﺃﹾ‬
‫ن‬ ‫ ﹼ‬،‫ﻭاﻹﺧﺒاﺭ ﻋﻨﻬا ﻋﻠﻰ حﻘﻬا ﻭﺻﺪﻗﻬا‬
‫ ص‬،‫ ﻣﺜ َﻝ ﻣﺆلﱢﻒ الكتاب ﻭﻭاﺿﻌﻪ (الجاحظ‬،‫ﺭجﻬا‬ ‫ ﻭتﺄﻭيﻼﺕ ﻣخا ﹺ‬،‫تﺼاﺭيﻒ ﺃلﻔاﻇﻬا‬
)76-75
The translator will never be able to convey what a specialist has said in
terms of the nuances of his semantics, the facts about his doctrine, the
details of his brevity, the secrets of his limitations; he cannot develop
these things in detail or treat them faithfully; he cannot do what a
fiduciary or trustee should do. How could he be able to do this and
impart their meaning or convey them faithfully or truthfully unless he
possessed knowledge of their meanings, their uses, the exigencies of
their articulations on the same level as the text's author?

11
In the late 10th/early 11th century, the Islamic Empire experienced a long
period of gradual disintegration. However, they provided the world with
“impetus for the development of all branches of knowledge in the West,
including natural sciences and philosophy, could not have taken place
had it not been for the intense programme of translation carried out
under the Abbasids” (Baker 1998: 321).

Pre-renaissance: Dante (1265-1321) & Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Three centuries later, the Italian poet, Dante, who had written most of his
poetry works in vernacular rather than in formal Latin, argued in his first
book 'Convivio' when he wrote in Latin, he would translate from his
mother tongue into Latin, thus his writing was not as elegant or
controllable. In defence of the vernacular language, he added that it
would be “an intelligent servant” as it would show obedience to his/her
user. Obedience of language, as he described it, “must be sweet, and not
bitter; entirely under command, and not spontaneous; and it must be
limited and not unbounded” (cited in Robinson 1997: 48).
In the late 15th century/early and mid 16th century, Martin Luther (c.
1483-1546 CE), one of the most notable theologians in Christian history
and responsible for initiating the Protestant Reformation, shifted the
focus of attention towards the TT and its intended reader (Robinson
1997: 84). Like Dante, he proclaimed that in order to produce a good
translation, one needs to find out how ordinary people in the TL
communicate such that their voice and style of speech can emerge
through translation. He translated the New Testament into German,
giving ordinary lay people the opportunity to read God’s word for
themselves and, for the first time ever, Bibles were distributed among
the German people. Although this was one of the brightest moments in
Bible history, it was a dark time of depression in Luther’s life. Luther
“advised the would-be translator to use a vernacular proverb or
expression if it fitted in with the New Testament” (Bassnett 1980: 56). In
an open letter on translating, Luther (c. 1530 CE) stated:
Sondern man mus die mutter ihm hause / die kinder auff der
gassen / den gemeinen man auff dem marckt drümb fragen / und
den selbigen auff das maul sehen / wie sie reden / und darnach
dolmetschen / so verstehen sie es denn / und mercken / das man
Deudsch mit ihn redet.

12
 Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the
street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by
their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating
accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we
are speaking German to them.
(Luther translated by Michael D. Marlowe June 2003 retrieved
from (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html)
Luther drew attention to “the the importance of the relationship between
style and meaning” (Luther cited in Bassnett 1980: 54). He argued that
“in speech the meaning and subject matter must be considered, not the
grammar, for the grammar shall not rule over the meaning” (ibid).
Infusing the Bible with the language of ordinary people annoyed the
Roman Catholic church (cf. Munday 2008: 24), which adhered to the
principle that, “any translation diverging from the accepted interpretation
was likely to be deemed heretical and to be censured or banned” (ibid, p.
23). However, Luther's views on translation influenced greatly numerous
translations of the Bible (see William Tyndale below) not only in
Western Europe, but in other parts of the world (Nida 1991: 22).

3. Translation Theories in Renaissance

Sixteenth Century: Etienne Dolet (c. 1509-1546 CE) & William

Tyndale (c. 1494-1536 CE)
The 16th century witnessed the emergence of ‘Protestantism’ or
‘Reformation’ against “the domination of church authorities over all
other social classes by/of the kings and princes against the pope. This
movement spread all over Europe and influenced the thinking of the
people” (Firdaus 2008: 283). This movement led the church authorities
to forbid “the lay people to read Bible in their native language” (ibid) on
the one hand, and to the execution of two famous translators, on the
other. The first was the French humanist Etienne Dolet (c. 1509-1546
CE) who was tortured first and then burned at the stake in Paris. The
second translator who was executed was William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536
CE) who was strangled and then burnt in the city of Antwerp in 1536.
One of the earliest attempts to establish a set of fundamental translation
principles was made by Etienne Dolet, who was found a heretic for his
mistranslation of one of Plato’s dialogues, The phrase “rien du tout”

13
(nothing at all) illustrated to the Church his disbelief in immortality
ultimately leading to his aforementioned execution (for more details, see
Nida 1964: 15; Bassnett 1980: 58; Munday 2008: 23; Hermans 1997: 14-
40; Firdaus 2008: 283). In his essay La maniere de bien traduire d’une
langue en autre ‘The Way to Translate Well from one Language into
Another’, Dolet (c. 1540 CE) concluded that:
1- the translator must understand perfectly the content and intention
of the author;
2- the translator should have an excellent command in both
languages: SL and TL;
3- the translator should avoid word-for-word renderings;
4- the translator should avoid the uncommon use of archaic words
and expressions, but rather should focus on the common usage of
the language; and
5- the translator should devote their attention to the rhetorical
devices (for more details see, Nida 1964: 15-16; Bassnett 1980:
61; Robinson 1997: 95-96; Munday 2008: 27; Firdaus 2008:
283).
Dolet tried to strike a balance between the SL and TL, while not seeking
“to distinguish between the relative degree of control the translator must
have in the source and the receptor language” (Nida 1964: 16). The
translator, according to Dolet’s principals, “is far more than a competent
linguist, and translation involves both a scholarly and sensitive appraisal
of the SL text and an awareness of the place the translation is intended to
occupy in the TL system” (Bassnett 1980: 61). It is worth noting here
that Dolet’s principals are routinely followed today by most translators,
particularly in the translation of materials that belong to literary genre, as
well as any expressive discourse in which emphasis is placed on
impressing the receptor of the text such as creative adverts commentaries
embued with flowery language. This falls in line with Nida (1964: 16)
who holds that “Dolet’s emphasis upon avoidance of literalism and upon
the use of vernaculars is strikingly relevant for all types of translation
aimed at a general audience”. However, we are of the view that Dolet’s
principals may be less useful for technical translators, though they are
likely to encounter technical passages where his principles, with some
modifications, make sense.

14
Tyndale was a scholar, translator, as well as a leading figure in the
Protestant Reform. Fascinated by Luther’s teachings, Tyndale tried to
imitate Luther’s feat and translate the Bible into English, and in doing so
became the first person to translate the original text to English. The
Catholic church was outraged, leaving Tyndale to flee to Germany
where he, with the help of his friend Marin Luther, managed to publish
an English version of both the Christian texts and the Torah, which were
then smuggled into England. His fellow church revisionist and fellow
religious scholar Henry VIII put a price on Tyndale’s head and
eventually had him arrested in Belgium, where he was put to death in
1536. He was accused of heresy and imprisoned for over 500 days in
Vilvoorde Castle. His translation of the Bible is credited with
influencing the King James version (for more details, see Bassnett 1980:
55-56; Munday 2008: 23; BBC at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/william_tyndale).
The translation of the Bible remained subject to many conflicts between
western theories and ideologies of translation for more than a thousand
years ‫ ـــــ‬these conflicts on Bible translations were intensified with the
emergence of the Reformation in the 16th century when translation
“came to be used as a weapon in both dogmatic and political conflicts as
nation states began to emerge and the centralization of the Church
started to weaken, evidenced in linguistic terms by the decline of Latin
as a universal language” (Bassnett 1980: 53).

Seventeenth Century: Sir John Denham (c. 1615-1669 CE), Abraham

Cowley (c. 1618-1667 CE), John Dryden (c.
1631-1700 CE)
The 17th century witnessed the birth of many influential theorists, such as
Sir John Denham, Abraham Cowley and John Dryden. Sir John Denham
viewed the translator and the original writer as equals who operated in
different social and temporal contexts (Bassnett 1980: 66; Firdaus 2008:
284). The translator’s task, according to Denham, was to reflect what
they perceived from the original text as the essential core of the work
(ibid). In his poem ‘To Sir Richard Fanshawe upon his Translation of
Pastor Fido’ (1648) and in his Preface to his translation of The
Destruction of Troy (1656), Denham stresses “both the formal aspect
(Art) and the spirit (Nature) of the work”. However he warned “against
applying the principle of literal translation to the translation of poetry”

15
(Bassnett 1980: 65). Abraham Cowley, on the other hand, emphasized
that the aim of translation was not to let the intended reader know
exactly what the original writer mentioned in their text by leaving certain
information out while adding some segments of the original text (see
Bassnett 1980: 66; Firdaus 2008: 284). To put this differently, Cowley
was in favour of free translation, thus ignoring the opinions of some
critics, such as Dryden (see below), who might make light of his
translation by terming it an ‘imitation’; not a translation.
John Dryden was and still remains well known for the essays that he
wrote on translation. Dryden, like many commentators from the time of
the Roman Empire onwards, argued that all translation may be reduced
to these three heads:
1- ‘metaphrase’, i.e., rendering word by word, sentence by
sentence, etc. from one language into another;
2- ‘paraphrase’, i.e., “translation with latitude” in which
the translator keeps an eye on the author of the source
text, rendering his sense without firmly sticking to his
exact words; and
3- ‘imitation’, i.e., translation in which the translator
experiences a degree of freedom, “not only to vary from
the words and sense, but to forsake them both as he sees
occasion”.
(Dryden 1680/1992: 17; emphasis added)
Having reduced translation into three main types, Dryden explained his
position towards them criticizing the first type: “’tis a faith like that
which proceeds from superstition, blind and zealous” (Dryden, p. 18).
Similarly, he stood against the third type of translation claiming
“imitation of an author is the most advantageous way for a translator to
show himself, but the greatest wrong which can be done to the memory
and reputation of the dead” (Dryden, p. 20). He was in favour of the
middle path, that of paraphrase.
Dryden, as a translator as well as a translation theorist, obtained wide-
spreading admiration from Sir Walter Scott and George Saintsbury to
William Frost and Thomas Steiner. They “have found a consistently
effective balancing within the translations of Dryden’s own skills as a
poet with a reasonably accurate fidelity to his originals” (O’sullivan Jr
1980: 144).

16
Dryden’s attitude in favour of paraphrase was not static, but rather it
underwent “a movement from the slight preference for the conservation
of ideas which he displayed in ‘The Preface to Ovid’s Epistles’ (1680),
through his revaluation of this opinion in the ‘Prefaces’ to his poems
from Sylvae (1685), to his reversal of it in his ‘Discourse concerning
Satire’ (1693)” (O’sullivan Jr: 1980: 144). Later on in ‘The Dedication
of the Aeneis’ (1697), he tilted the scale towards literalness situating
himself between metaphrase and paraphrase. Dryden’s justification for
such a change was that “he had come to believe that a translator must try
to recreate the original’s style as closely as possible” (ibid, p. 26):
On the whole matter, I thought fit to steer betwixt the two
extremes of paraphrase and literal translation; to keep as near
my author as I could, without losing all his graces, the most
eminent of which are the beauty of his words […].
(Dryden 1697 printed in O’sullivan Jr: 1980: 26)

Dryden’s writings on translation were “very perspective, setting out what

has to be done in order for successful translation to take place” (Munday
2008: 26).

4. Translation Theories in Modern Times

In the 18th century, the translator was likened to an artist with a moral
duty both to the work of the original author and to the receiver (cf.
Bassnett 1980: 68; Munday 2008: 27). With the development of new
theories and volumes on the translation process, the study of translation
started to be codified and systematized ‫ ــــ‬Alexander Fraser Tytler's
volume Principles of Translation (1791) (see below) is a case in point.
Tytler drew attention to three principles that should be taken into
account by translators:

1- the contents and/or ideas of the ST should be transferred

completely into the TT;
2- the style and manner of the ST should be retained in the TL; and
3- the translation should have all the ease of the original
composition (cf. Bassnett 1980: 69; Venuti 1995: 69; Munday
2008: 27).

17
Examining Tytler’s principals, in particular the first two, one can readily
observe that his principles represent, albeit indirectly, the age-old debate
of the nature of translation: whether the translator had to opt for word-
for-word translation or sense-for-sense translation. While the first
principle requires translators to be faithful to the content of the original
text, the second principle encourages translators to be free “from
linguistic constraints involving form and denotation in favour of a more
functional perspective” (Farghal 2010: 91). We see in his third principle,
Tytler developing the concepts of ‘fluency’ (see Venuti 1995: 68-69),
‘naturalness’ (discussed later by Nida 1964) and domestication
(discussed first by Schleiermacher (see below) and later by Venuti 1995,
1998, 2000). In his comment on Tytler’s three principals, Johnson
(1709-1784), held that
if elegance is gained, surely it is desirable, provided nothing is
taken away. The right of the individual to be addressed in his own
terms, on his own grounds, is an important element in the
eighteenth century translation and is linked to the changing
concept of originality.
(Johnson cited in Firdaus 2008: 285)

In describing a good translation, Tytler (1978: 15) stated that it is the

translation “in which the merit of the original work is so completely
transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and
as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language
belongs […]” (Tytler 1978: 15; also cited in Venuti 1995: 68). Although
Tytler was of a view that translators had to clarify obscurities in the
original by way of omission or addition, he stood against ‘paraphrase’,
which was supported by Dryden (see above) ‫ ــــ‬holding that “the
concept of ‘paraphrase’ had led to exaggeratedly loose translations”
(Bassnett 1980: 69).

Nineteenth Century: Friedrich Schleiermacher & Muhammad Ali Pasha

(Romanticism & Reformism)

The 19th century was characterized by two conflicting tendencies: 1)

considering translation as a “category of thought, with the translator seen
as a creative genius”, who “enriches the literature and language into
which he is translating”; and 2) viewing the translator in terms of
performing the mechanical function of making a text or an author known
(see Bassnett 1980: 71). The 19th century witnessed the emergence of

18
Romanticism, which led to the birth of many theories and translations in
the domain of literature. Poetic translations in particular gained in
popularity such as Edward Fitzgerald's (c. 1809-1863 CE) Rubaiyat
Omar Al-Khayyam (1858) (for more details, see Bassnett 1980: 76).

As stated previously, debates about translation had been raging since

Cicero and Horace up to the 19th century concerning whether translations
should be carried out word-for-word or sense-for-sense. Translation in
the 17th century was considered as ‘essentially copying’, prohibiting
translators from passing on their comments or their interpretations, and
that can be traced back to the Septuagint’ (Kelly 1979: 35). In the 18th
century, the concept of ‘copying’ was slightly modified to mean “a
recreation in terms of the other language” (ibid) ‫ ــــ‬the translator’s duty
was “to create the spirit of the ST for the reader of the time” (Munday
2008: 28).

With the rise of hermeneutic theories, translation in the 19th century was
conceived as an “interpretive recreation of the text” (Kelly 1979: 34).
However, this does not rule out the existence of the other school of
translation theory that considered translation as being a “transmission of
data” (ibid). The theologian and translator, Friedrich Schleiermacher
(1813), considered the founder of the modern hermeneutics, took the
discussion a step further in his essay entitled 'On the Different Methods
of Translating' in which he focused on the “methodologies of
translations”, rather than “illuminating the nature of the translation
process” (Shulte and Bigeunet 1992: 6). Schleiermacher argued that a
translator:
Either […] leaves the writer alone as much as possible and moves
the reader towards the writer", or "leaves the reader alone as much
as possible and moves the writer towards the reader". He further
added: "Both paths are so completely different from one another
that one of them must definitely be adhered to as strictly as
possible, since a highly unreliable result would emerge from
mixing them, and it is likely that author and reader would not
come together at all.
(Schleiermacher 1813/ 1992: 41-42)

In the Arab World, in particular in Egypt, a succession of schools was

established in the 1820s for both the army and navy branches of the
armed services. In addition to the purely military school, a number of

19
civilian arts and sciences schools were started up, most of which had
some military aspect in their administration. The largest was the medical
school, founded at the suggestion of the French physician Clot, and just a
year after his arrival in 1825 the building was completed. Schools of
veterinary science, agriculture, pharmaceutics, mineralogy, engineering,
and other subjects followed in the 1820s and 1830s. Clot also played a
part in reforming the primary and secondary school systems (for more
details, see Baker 1998: 323-324).

During this time, Muhammad Ali began sending students abroad,

particularly to France some of whom learned specific skills individually,
while others were sent to Paris in a series of education missions. It was
not long before those students became experts in French and through
their stay abroad acquired Western techniques and adopted the western
style of learning. Upon their return, they began translating significant
texts into Turkish and Arabic, teaching in the new schools and
translating what the foreign experts were teaching. During that time,
Rifā‘ah al-Tahtāwī rose to prominence as a translator as well as the
author of Takhlis Al-Ibriz fi Talkhis Bariz a famous account of his
journey. A figure of importance in the revival of the Arabic language
and literature, known as Nahda, al-Tahtāwī, became the second director
of what began as the School of Translation and was in 1837subsequently
renamed the School of Languages. Despite its title, this was more of a
translation bureau than a language school.

The establishment of these new schools required textbooks, which

became the chief product of the new government printing press set up in
Bulāq, the port of Cairo, in 1822. This was the first permanent press in
Egypt, second only to the short-lived press brought by the French
expedition (1798-1801) that was removed upon French withdrawal. With
his expedition Napoleon brought scientists and savants in all fields,
along with a printer that could type in Arabic, Greek and French. The
first translation done by the French mission from French into Arabic was
Napoleon’s proclamation addressing the Egyptians.

At a time when the western was involved in theorizing about translation,

Arabs, or more accurately those who lived in the Arab World, apart from
al-Jāhiz, gave priority to organize the work of the translation by setting
up translation houses, like Bayt al-Hikma in Abbasid period, sending

20
people to study and acquire new skills from others, and establishing
schools for translation (cf. Baker 1998: 321-324).

5. Contemporary Translation Theories

In his paper entitled ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’,

Holmes (1972/2004) developed a paradigm conceptualizing translation
as “an overall framework, describing what translation studies covers”
(Munday 2008: 9). In Holmes’s map of Translation Studies (1972/2004:
172-185; also discussed in Toury 1995; Baker 1998; Munday
2001/2008; Hatim 2001; Hatim and Munday 2004; Chakhachiro 2005
among others), translation, as a discipline, is divided into two main
branches, viz. 'pure translation studies' and 'applied translation
studies'. While the former concerns itself with theoretical and
descriptive studies, the latter exclusively deals with issues related to
translator training, translator aids and translation criticism. Below is an
illustration of the framework for translation studies and is considered the
founding statement for the discipline (cf. Toury 1995; Munday
2001/2008; Gentzler 2001; Snell-Hornby 2006).

Translation Studies

'Pure' 'Applied'

Theoretical Descriptive

General Partial Product Process Function Translator Translation Translation

Oriented Oriented Oriented Training Aids Criticism

Medium Area Rank Text-type Time Problem

restricted restricted restricted restricted restricted restricted

Holmes’s basic map of Translation Studies (Toury 1995: 10)

21
The 1990s, as translation begins to find its footing as an independent
scholarly discipline, could be boldly described as ‘the bloom of
translation studies’ (Gentzler: 1993: 187). There appear two “different
paradigms … to be driving research”:
1- Text Linguistic, which relates the notion of equivalence to text
typology; and
2- Cultural Studies, which shifts focus of attention towards “how
values, ideologies, and institutions shape practices differently in
different historical periods” (Venuti 1998: 315; see also Chapter
Two).

We endeavour here to shed some light on the most influential theories of

translation that emerged in the 1990s.

Pragmatic theories, which drew upon Speech Act theory introduced

first by Austin (1962) and later developed by Searle (1975), bring
particular attention to the importance of linking the illocutionary force
(i.e., the communicative force of the utterance) to its perlocutionary
effect (i.e., the effect of the utterance on the receptor). Thus, not only the
“referential meaning of individual elements” should be taken into
account by the translator, but “the illocutionary force of each speech act”
and its effect on the reader/hearer as well (Hatim and Mason 1990: 61;
for more details on pragmatics, see Chapter Eight in this book).

Register-oriented theories in translation, which were based on early

formulation of Register theory presented by Halliday et al (1964) and
later by Gregory and Caroll (1978), focus on the analysis of the text
according to its user, taking into account three variables: 1) field of
discourse; 2) mode of discourse (i.e. the channel of communication); and
3) tenor (i.e. the relationship between the participants) (for more details
on register, see Chapter Seven in this book). Hatim and Mason (1990:
51) argue that:

[…] there is overlap between all three variables, filed, mode and tenor
[…]. The three variables are interdependent: a given level of formality
(tenor) influences and is influenced by a particular level of technicality
(field) in an appropriate channel of communication (mode). Translators
who are required to produce abstracts in a target language from SL

22
 conference paper, for example, will be attentive to the subtle changes in
field, mode and tenor that are involved.

Simultaneously, the psycholinguist scholar, Ernst-August Gutt (1991)

introduces his Relevance theory in which he argues that language users
tend to use the least amount of effort to convey the maximum amount of
information. He draws attention to the importance of “the inferential
approach of relevance theory” to obtaining “a deeper and precise level of
understanding texts” (Gutt 1992: 20). He further argues that “the
intended interpretation of the translation”, in order to 'resemble' the ST,
“should make it adequately relevant to the audience” (ibid). Similarly,
the translation needs be presented in a way that easily tells “the intended
interpretation without putting the audience to unnecessary processing
effort” (Gutt 1991: 101-102; for more details, see Chapter Two).

The notion of translator’s invisibility, as opposed to visibility, is

introduced by Venuti. By invisibility, he means that translators tend to
hide their voices, thus producing a 'fluent' piece of translation by
avoiding “any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities” that make “it seem
transparent” (Venuti 1995: 1-2). To put this differently, the TT sounds as
if it were not a 'translation', but rather the 'original'. By contrast,
visibility, according to Venuti, refers to that type of translation in which
translators, whether deliberately or not, leave their fingerprint in the TT,
thus producing a piece of work full of linguistic and stylistic features that
strike the TL reader as marked and unusual. Having traced back a
distinction made by the German theologian and translator Friedrich
Schleiermacher (aforementioned), Venuti (ibid) argues that translation
strategy can be either domesticating or foreignizing.

Domestication entails filtering out all foreign features, producing a text

more acceptable and readable by the TL reader.

Foreignization involves translators leaving the linguistic and cultural

features of the SL, thus producing a text full of foreignness, i.e.,
“moving the reader to the writer” (Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 41-42).

Over the past five decades, there has existed a series of shifts from word
to sentence, from sentence to text, from text to context, from language to
culture and/or society, hence the growing interdisciplinary interest
between Translation Studies and Sociology. In the past two decades,

23
there has been increased attention “toward more sociologically-and
anthropologically-informed approaches to the study of translation
processes and products” (Inguilleri 2005: 125), in particular those of
Pierre Bourdieu, Niklas Luhmann and Bruno Latour (see Chapter Three
for more details).

24
Chapter 2: Equivalence Vs Indeterminacy

Key Concepts

Adequacy; Communicative Translation; Covert Translation;

Direct Translation; Domestication; Dynamic Equivalent;
Equality; Equivalence; Foreignization; Formal Equivalence;
Formal Correspondence; Functional Equivalent; Ideational
Equivalent; Indeterminacy; Indirect Translation; Intralingual
Translation; Interlingual Translation; Intersemiotic
Translation; Overt Translation; Quality; Sameness; Semantic
Translation; Shift; Textual Equivalent; Translation Process;
Translation Product; Resemblance.

Overview

Equivalence, by dictionary definition, is “something that has the same

value, importance, size, or meaning as something else” (Cambridge
Learner’s Dictionary 2001: 238). Here, one would not hesitate to
conclude that the two things are not identical, but rather similar. Such a
conclusion is in line with Bassnett (1980/1991/2002) and House
(1977/1981/1997). Bassnett (2002: 36) is of a view that equivalence
“should not be approached as a search for sameness, since sameness
cannot even exist between two TL versions of the same text, let alone
between the SL and the TL versions”. In a similar vein, House (1997:
26) comments that equivalence should not be envisaged as “virtually the
same thing” since, linguistically speaking, it would be naïve to think of
equivalence as a complete identity.
Reviewing a considerable number of arguments on translation
equivalence, and its nature, types, possibility of achievement in the TL,
among others, one would find out that scholars when introducing their
views lay stress on certain aspects (cf. Abdul-Roaf 2001; Farghal 2009).
Some scholars pay extra attention to cultural (Casagrande 1954; Larson
1984; House 2000), situational or sociolinguistic (Vinay and Darbelnet
1958/1995), dynamic (Nida 1964; Popovic 1970), formal (Catford
1965), semiotic equivalence (Jäger 1975), while others stress
communicative (Lefevere 1975; Neubert and Shreve 1992; Newmark

25
1988), textual (Van Dijk 1972; Beaugrande de 1980; Beaugrande de and
Dressler 1981), functional (Kuepper 1977; de Waard and Nida 1986;
Bell 1993; Neubert 1994), ideational (Farghal 1994), stylistic (Al-Najjar
1984; Ghazala 1996; Almanna 2013d), and/or pragmatic equivalence
(Baker 1992; Emery 2002; Bayar 2007).

Farghal (1994, 2009, 2012) argues that all the above-mentioned views
concerning equivalence can be boiled down to a trichotomy, namely
'formal equivalence', 'functional equivalence' and 'ideational
equivalence' (2009: 7, 2011: 7-8, 2012: 45-48).

By and large, local strategies, such as cultural translation, paraphrasing,

omission, addition, etc. (Baker 1992: 72-78; see also Chapter Four) lead
to one of the three types of equivalence: formal vs. functional vs.
ideational equivalence. When the form of the SL expression, i.e. the
image conjured up in the mind of the SL reader, is given full
consideration by the translator, then the result is a formal equivalent.
However, when special attention is paid to the function of the SL
expression, independently of the form and its image conjured up in the
mind of the SL reader, it is a functional equivalent. At times, the
interfacing languages conceptualize the world experience linguistically
in a similar way, giving rise to 'optimal equivalence' in which both
formal and functional equivalents coincide (see Baker 1992: 72; Farghal
2012: 47), as in:

e.g. Birds of a feather flock together. .‫إن الطيور على أشكالها تقع‬

e.g. Necessity is the mother of invention. .‫الحاجة أم االختراع‬

e.g. The end justifies the means. .‫الغاية تبرر الوسيلة‬

When a formal equivalent is unworkable or not a priority and a

functional equivalent is not reachable, then the focus is shifted towards
the sense, i.e. the idea of the SL expression, independently of the form
and function. By way of illustration, let us consider the following
example quoted from Almanna and Almanna (2008: 46):

26
 e.g. He is still cracking the same old jokes despite being at
death’s door.

- Formal equivalent:
.‫ما زال يردد نكاته القديمة نفسها على الرغم من أنه يقف في باب الموت‬
Back-translation: He is still repeating his same old jokes although he is
standing at death's door.

- Functional equivalent:
.‫ما زال يردد نكاته القديمة نفسها على الرغم من أن رجله تتدلى في القبر‬
Back-translation: He is still repeating his same old jokes although his
foot is dangling into the grave.

- Ideational equivalent:
.‫كبر سنِ ِه‬
ِ ‫ما زال يردد نكاته القديمة نفسها على الرغم من‬
Back-translation: He is still repeating his same old jokes despite his old
age.

As stated above some scholars relate the notion of equivalence to

'sameness' (Bassnett 1980/1991/2002). Others, such as Halverson (1997:
210), take the discussion a step further when discussing 'equality' in
addition and relation to 'sameness':
The contentious nature of the concept thus lies in both the
philosophical questions it implies, i.e. comparison and
sameness, and in its problematic questions remain: what
entities are/can be equivalent, how alike/similar/equal are they
and how do we define 'alike/similar/equal', and in which
feature are they equivalent?
Halverson (cited in Sanchez-Ortiz 2000: 90)
Another point of view, which seems quite fitting here, is voiced first by
Gutt (1996) and, later, advocated by Farghal (2009: 7). That is that
optimum translation is unattainable, “hence the suggestion to replace the
'translation equivalence' with 'translation resemblance' in translation
studies literature”. In a similar vein, Bayar (2007: 214) states:
Equivalence is by definition an approximation of the ST, the
identical duplication of which is indeed impossible in another

27
 language […]. Optimum translation however, is the closest
equivalence degree attainable, given the circumstances, the
linguistic and extra-linguistic resources actually available to
the translator.
Some scholars, on the other hand, relate the notion of equivalence to
adequacy (cf. Even-Zohar 1975; Shveitser 1993; Toury 1995). For
instance, Even-Zohar (1975: 43 quoted in Toury 1995: 56) argues that
any translation is considered adequate when it reflects “in the target
language the textual relationship of a source text with no breach of its
own linguistic system”. Building on such an assumption, Toury (ibid:
56) adds that what “determines a translation’s adequacy as compared to
the source text” is the “adherence to the source norms”. By contrast,
Reiss (1983: 301 cited in Al-Taher 2008: 107) clearly discriminates
between the two terms. She believes that adequacy is process-oriented,
i.e. a relationship between the available strategies and the translation
purpose, while equivalence is product-oriented, i.e. a relation between
the ST and TT.

While acknowledging and appreciating the above-mentioned views, we

hold that there is a strong connection between equivalence and quality. It
is held that equivalence and quality are so related that once we start
talking about one, we are involved in touching on the other. So, from a
translation point of view, translation equivalence and translation quality
can take different shapes, depending on the person who evaluates the
text (be it a translator, translation critic, translation teacher, assessor,
commissioner and so on). In other word, what is considered a correct
equivalent by one person might not be by another. So, here, one would
not hesitate to say that the appropriateness of equivalent would depend
on the type of equivalent the translator tries to achieve. Of course, such a
decision is not left for the translator’s discretion only. Rather, it is
governed by a number of factors, at the forefront of which come the
translation purpose, the intended readership, not to mention the
translator’s social, religious and ideological background. This accords
well Sanchez–Ortiz (2000: 93) who writes:
Equivalence can be analysed from different concept views.
None of them should be considered as more correct than the
other; on the contrary, they should be considered equally
satisfactory, their use depending on the kind of equivalence
one wants to apply, but, above all, depending on the

28
 translator’s notion of which approach can fulfil his/her initial
purpose better.

By way of illustration, let us consider the following example quoted

from ‘Abdul-Rahmān al-Rubai‘ī’s (1993) story ‫' ذلك األنين‬Groaning'
which is translated for the purpose of this study by four translators from
different perspectives:

،‫ ثم أسكب من زجاجة الماء في الكأس‬،‫ أشعل المصباح المنضدي‬،‫أستفيق من حلمي‬

.‫أكرع الماء بسرعة ألبعد عن حلقي التخشب واليبوسة‬

Translation 1: I woke up from my dream, switched on the table lamp,

poured a glass of water from the bottle, drank it quickly
to moisten my dry throat.

Translation 2: I woke up from my dream, switched on the table lamp,

poured a glass of water from the bottle and sipped it
quickly to moisten my rough, parched throat.
Translation 3: I awaken from my dream, switch on the table lamp, pour
a glass of water from the bottle and sip it quickly to
relieve my throat of dryness and roughness.

Translation 4: I wake up from my dream; I switch on the table lamp.

Then, I pour a glass of water from the bottle; I sip it so
quickly to get rid of the dryness and roughness in my
throat.

Here, as long as we may have more than one translation, equivalence can
be linked to the Indeterminacy theory. The Indeterminacy theory is a
thesis propounded by 20th century American analytic philosopher W. V.
Quine. The classic statement of this thesis can be found in his 1960 book
‘Word and Object’, which gathered together and refined much of
Quine’s previous work on subjects other than formal logic and set
theory. He denies an absolute standard of right and wrong in translating
one language into another. Rather, he adopts a pragmatic stance toward
translation, that is to say a translation can be consistent with the
behavioural evidence (cf. Quine 1976, 1992; Bostrom 1995). And while

29
Quine does admit the existence of standards for good and bad
translations, such standards are peripheral to his philosophical concern
with the act of translation, hinging upon such pragmatic issues as speed
of translation, and the clarity and conciseness of the results. The key
point is that more than one translation meets these criteria, and hence
that no unique meaning can be assigned to words and sentences (for
more details, see Quine 1976, 1992).

Exercise

Translate the following text into Arabic to be published in

one of the local magazines in your country. Then, try to
annotate (comment on) your own translation in terms of the
types of equivalents achieved. You are allowed to use
dictionaries, the Internet and the like.

My friend and colleague Jehad Mashhrawi is usually the last to leave

our Gaza bureau. Hard-working but softly spoken, he often stays late,
beavering away on a laptop that is rarely out of arm’s reach.
He is a video editor and just one of our local BBC Arabic Service staff.
But on the Wednesday before last ‫ ـــ‬only an hour or so after Gaza’s
latest war erupted with Israel's killing of Hamas military commander
Ahmed al-Jabari ‫ ـــ‬Jehad burst out of the editing suite screaming. He
sprinted down the stairs, his head in his hands, his face ripped with
anguish.
He had just had a call from a friend to tell him the Israeli military had
bombed his house and that his 11-month-old baby boy Omar was dead.
Most fathers will tell you their children are beautiful.
Standing in what is left of his burnt-out home this week, Jehad showed
me a photo on his mobile phone. It was of a cheeky, chunky, round-
faced little boy in denim dungarees, chuckling in a pushchair, dark-eyed
with a fringe of fine brown hair pushed across his brow.

30
 Exercise

Translate the following proverbs into Arabic three times to

have three equivalents, viz. formal, functional and ideational:

1. A drowning man clutches at straw.

2. Silence gives consent.
3. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
4. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
5. A burnt child dreads the fire.

Types of Equivalence

Since Cicero and Horace the debate around word-for-word rendering, i.e.
literal translation, and sense-for-sense rendering, i.e. free translation, has
been raging. In the twentieth century, modern linguists, such as Jakobson
(1959), Nida (1964), Catford (1965), House (1977), Newmark (1981), to
mention but some, have shifted the focus of attention towards modern
linguistic concepts, such as meaning and equivalence in an attempt to
systemize analyses of translation (cf. Munday 2008: 36). To begin with,
Roman Jakobson (1959/1992: 145) in his essay ‘On Linguistic Aspects of
Translation’ argues that there are three types of translation:
1- Intralingual translation or rewording: It is “an interpretation of
verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language”, i.e.
replacing certain lexical items, expressions or phrases by means
of other lexical items, expressions or phrases of the same
language, as in replacing the lexical item ‘purchase’ with ‘buy’.
2- Interlingual translation or translation proper: It is “an
interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language”,
i.e. translating certain lexical items, expressions or phrases from
one language into another. For example, when the lexical item
‘purchase’ is translated into ‫يشتري‬, it is then an example of
interlingual translation.
3- Intersemiotic translation or transmutation: It is “an
interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign
system”, i.e. it is an interpretation activity from a non-linguistic
communication system to a linguistic one. For instance, when

31
 you see ‘the red light’ while driving, and you stop, it is an
intersemiotic translation.

Jakobson (1959/1992: 154-147) then moves on to discuss issues, such as

equivalence and meaning. He argues that optimal equivalents, i.e. full
equivalents, hardly exist between languages. This is because these
linguistic units (i.e. the SL linguistic unit and the TL linguistic unit)
belong to different linguistic systems, i.e. languages, and languages
normally morphologize, lexicalize, phraseologize, idiomaticize,
syntacticize, contextualize, pragmaticize and culturalize world
experiences differently. By way of explanation, let us consider the
meaning of the lexical item ‘heavy’ (in English) along with its
established equivalents (in Arabic) in terms of collocation:
e.g. heavy rain = ‫مطر غزير‬
e.g. heavy meal = ‫وجبة دسمة‬
e.g. heavy wind = ‫ريح شديد‬
e.g. heavy smoker = ‫مفرط‬/‫مدخن نهم‬
e.g. heavy industries = ‫صناعات ثقيلة‬

Nida’s (1964) Formal Equivalence Vs Dynamic

Equivalence

Nida (1964) argues that there are two different types of equivalence, viz.
‘formal equivalence’ ‫ــــ‬which in the second edition by Nida and Taber
(1969/1982) is referred to as ‘formal correspondence’ ‫ ـــــ‬and ‘dynamic
equivalence’.

Formal equivalence or correspondence pays special attention to “the

message itself, in both form and content”, (1964: 159). To put this
differently, formal equivalence is text-/author-oriented, representing the
closest equivalent of SL elements. Typically, formal equivalence
“distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language,
and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to
misunderstand or to labor unduly hard” (Nida and Taber 1969/1982:
201).

32
Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, is based upon “the principle of
equivalent effect”, i.e. the translation should produce on the TL reader
the same effect that the ST produced on its readers. In other words, it is
reader-oriented, paying much attention to the linguistic and stylistic
patterns of the TL at the expense of the message per se.
Like Jakobson (1959/1992), Nida and Taber (1969/1982) make it clear
that there are not always formal equivalents between the interfacing
languages (see above). Believing that in translation the change in the
form cannot be avoided at any rate, Nida and Taber (1982: 200) list three
rules that need to be followed by translators in order to achieve a faithful
translation. They are:
1- the rules of back transformation in the SL;
2- the rules of contextual consistency in the transfer; and
3- the rules of transformation in the receptor language.

For Nida (1964: 164; see also Munday 2008: 42), there are four basic
requirements of a successful translation. They are:
1- making sense;
2- conveying the spirit and manner of the original;
3- having a natural and easy form of expression; and
4- producing a similar response.
It is worth noting here that these requirements of a successful translation
are reader-oriented except the second one, i.e. reflecting the spirit and
manner of the original, which is text-/author-oriented.
Taking into account the macro context in which Nida was dealing with
the translation phenomenon, i.e. the translation of the Bible, one can
readily observe that Nida is in favour of dynamic equivalence.

33
 Catford’s (1965) Formal Correspondent Vs Textual
Equivalent

Following Firthian and Hallidayan linguistic model, Catford (1965) in

his oft-cited book ‘A Linguistic Theory of Translation’ introduces two
types of translation, namely: ‘formal correspondent’ and ‘textual
equivalent’. Formal correspondent is “any TL category (unit, class,
element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as
possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL
category occupies in the SL” (Catford 1965: 27). Textual equivalent,
however, is defined by Catford as “any TL text or portion of text which
is observed on a particular occasion [...] to be the equivalent of a given
SL text or portion of text” (p. 27).

Although Catford’s formal correspondence is a useful tool to be used in

comparative linguistics and translation teaching, it seems that it is not
really relevant in terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST
and TT. Further, the translation process cannot simply be reduced to a
linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford, since there are also other
factors, such as textual, cultural and situational aspects, etc., which need
to be given full consideration when translating (Snell-Hornby 1988).

Further, Catford (ibid) distinguishes between two types of translations,

namely rank-bound translation and unbound translation. In rank-bound
translation, an equivalent is sought in the TL at the level of morphemes
or words, “thus leading to ‘bad translation’ = i.e. translation in which the
TL text is either not a normal TL form at all, or is not relatable to the
same situational substance as the SL text” (Catford 1965/2004: 143). In
unbound translation, however, equivalents are not tied to a particular
rank, but rather they are sought at the level of phrase, clause or sentence.

As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as

“departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the
SL to the TL” (p. 73). Catford argues that there are two main types of
translation shifts, namely:

a. level shifts where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar)
has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis). For example, to
express a progressive aspect in English, one can express it

34
 grammatically as in: 'He is reading a novel', 'He has been reading a
novel', 'He will be reading a novel', etc. However, to express it into
Arabic, which has no grammatical category for a progressive aspect,
one can resort to lexical items/expressions, such as ‫ما يزال‬/‫' ال يزال‬still',
‫' اآلن‬now', ‫' في هذه األثناء‬at this moment', ‫منهمكا‬/‫' ُمنكبا‬busy with' and so on.
b. category shifts which are divided into four types:
1- Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between
the structure of the ST and that of the TT. Consider the following
example in which an active voice is changed into a passive voice:
‫ تبعتها‬.‫ بيدها للنافذة المطلة على الحديقة ال تستطيع النطق‬،‫ كالخرساء‬،‫أشارت فتاة‬
.... ‫ ثم الباقيات‬،‫األخرى‬
(Samīra al-Māni‘ 1997: 7)
A girl gestured with her hand at the window overlooking the
garden, like a dumb person, unable to speak. She was
followed by another girl, then by the others …. (Starkey
2008: 1)
2- Class-shifts, which occur when a SL item is translated into a TL
item which belongs to a different grammatical class. For
examples, there are a great number of verbs in Arabic, such as
‫فرح‬, ‫حزن‬, ‫سئم‬, ‫جاع‬, ‫ عطش‬and the like that are best substituted with
a linking verb (verb to be, feel, become, get, etc.) plus an
adjective in English, as in: 'be/feel happy', 'be/feel sad',
'be/become bored, 'be/feel/become hungry', 'be/feel thirsty'
respectively (for more details, see Translation Strategies in this
book).
3- Unit-shifts or rank-shifts, which involve changes in rank, such as
translating a phrase in one language into a sentence in another, as
in translating ‫بسمل‬, ‫كبر‬, and the like.
4- Intra-system shifts, which occur where SL and TL possess systems
which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution,
but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding
term in the TL system (p. 80). Consider the following example in
which a simple present tense expressed by ‘show’ can be translated
into a simple past tense in the TL as the emphasis is on the
completion of the action, rather than on its continuity or frequency:
Statistics show that about 9 out of 10 tobacco users start before
they're 18 years old’ which could be translated into
.‫ يبدأون التدخين قبل سن الثامنة عشر‬10 ‫ أشخاص من أصل‬9 ‫أظهرت اإلحصائيات أن‬

35
 House’s (1977) Overt Translation Vs Covert
Translation

Influenced by the functional aspect of the Hallidayan approach, House

(1977) distinguishes between two types of translation, namely ‘overt
translation’ and ‘covert translation’. For House, in an overt translation,
the TL reader is not directly addressed, thus there is no need to attempt
to recreate a 'second original' as an overt translation “must overtly be a
translation” (House 1977: 189). Covert translation, on the other hand, is
a translation “which enjoys the status of an original source text in the
target culture” (ibid: 69). Unlike an overt translation, which is text-
/author-oriented, a covert translation is reader-oriented, paying special
attention to issues such as acceptability and readability, i.e. naturalness,
at the expense of accuracy and faithfulness.
House (p. 203) sets out the types of texts that would probably yield overt
or covert translations. For example, in translating a tourist brochure, the
translator can easily produce a TT that does not strike the TL reader as
unusual, i.e. it sounds natural. However, in translating a political speech,
an overt translation is normally resorted to. This is because the purpose
of a political speech is hortative in nature and aims at persuading the
original audience, whereas the TT merely informs outsiders (i.e. the TL
readers/listeners) what the speaker is saying to his/her original audience.
Consider the following political speech delivered by the former
President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak along with its overt translation
offered by Ovidi Carbonell (2014: 21).

... ‫بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم‬

‫االخوة المواطنون االبناء شباب مصر وشاباتها أتوجه بحديثي اليوم لشباب مصر بميدان‬
.‫التحرير وعلى اتساع ارضها اتوجه إليكم جميعا بحديث من القلب حديث االب ألبنائه وبناته‬

‫أقول لكم أنني أعتز بكم رمزا لجيل مصري جديد يدعو إلى التغيير الى األفضل ويتمسك به‬
. ‫ويحلم بالمستقبل ويصنعه‬

Overt translation
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Fellow citizens, sons and daughters, young people in Tahrir Square and

36
 across Egypt. I am speaking to you all with a speech from the heart, the
speech of a father to his children.
I tell you I'm proud of you, the symbol of a new Egyptian generation
asking for the change for the better, who is committed to it, and dreams
of the future and its construction.

House’s theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more

flexible than Catford’s. This is because she provides the reader with
authentic translation examples, uses complete texts and, more
importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source
and target text.

Newmark’s (1981) Semantic Translation Vs

Communicative Translation

In touching on the problem of equivalence, Newmark (1981) argues that

there are two methods of translation, namely ‘communicative
translation’ and ‘semantic translation’. Like Nida’s (1964) dynamic
equivalent, Newmark’s communicative translation is reader-oriented,
trying to “produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that
obtained on the readers of the original” (Newmark 1981: 39). Semantic
translation, however, is text-/author-oriented, trying “to render, as
closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language
allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original” (ibid).

Unlike Nida’s formal equivalent, semantic translation, like

communicative translation also adheres to linguistic constraints within
the TL. The difference between communicative translation and semantic
translation is that the former “translates at the readership’s level,
whereas the latter translates at the text’s and/or author’s level” (Farghal
2012: 39-40).

Newmark (ibid) suggests that communicative translation is

recommended for texts with informative and vocative functions as the
main language function of such texts is to produce the same effect on the
TT reader as that produced on the ST reader. On the other hand,
semantic translation is the most appropriate translation for literary and

37
religious writing as well as works of outstanding value where
individualistic expression of the original author is given priority.

Gutt’s (1991) Direct Translation Vs Indirect

Translation

A decade later than Newmark, Gutt (1991), influenced by the insights of

Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance theory, distinguishes between two types
of translation, namely ‘direct translation’ and ‘indirect translation’.
Direct translation follows the contextual constraints of the ST; it is
specifically concerned with the style and function of the ST (Boase-
Beire 2006: 46). It is text-/author-oriented, aiming at giving the TL
reader a clear picture of what is happening in the ST. Indirect translation,
however, is an interlingual interpretive use, that only interpretively, not
actually, resembles the ST. So, it is reader-oriented, having recourse to
the contextual constraints associated with the emerging TT.
It is worth noting that Gutt’s (1991) indirect translation is different from
Toury’s (1995) ‘indirect translation’, which refers to a translation from
another translation, such as the translation of the Holy Quran into French
from English.

Venuti’s (1995) Domestication Vs Foreignization

In touching on visibility, as opposed to invisibility, Venuti (1995)

introduces two types of translation, namely ‘foreignization’ and
‘domestication’. As stated in Chapter One, visibility refers to that type of
translation in which translators, whether deliberately or not, leave their
fingerprint in the TT, thus producing a piece of work full of linguistic
and stylistic features that easily strike the TL reader as unusual. On the
contrary, invisibility indicates that the translators tend to hide their
voices, thus producing a 'fluent' piece of translation by avoiding “any
linguistic or stylistic peculiarities” that make “it seem transparent”
(Venuti 1995: 1-2).

Venuti (ibid), having traced back a distinction made by the German

theologian and translator Friedrich Schleiermacher (for more details, see

38
Chapter One), argues that translation strategies can be either
domesticating or foreignizing. Domestication, for him, means filtering
all foreign features that can catch the TT via translating, thus producing
a text more acceptable and readable, i.e. having a TT which is reader-
oriented. In foreignization; however, the translators adopt a text-/author-
oriented translation where the translators do not take off the linguistic
and cultural features of the SL, thus producing a text full of foreignness,
i.e. “moving the reader to the writer” (Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 41-
42).
The diagram below summarizes the highlights of the on-going
rumination of the classical ‘word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’
translation. It is a U-shaped movement, the closer the paralleled strokes
of the letter U are, the more the TT foreignized (it is text-/author-
oriented, i.e. Nida’s formal equivalent/ Catford’s formal correspondent/
House’s overt translation/ Newmark’s semantic translation/ Gutt’s
direct translation/ Venuti’s foreignization), and the remoter the
paralleled strokes are, the more the TT is domesticated (it is reader-
oriented, i.e. Nida’s dynamic equivalent/ Catford’s textual equivalent/
House’s covert translation/ Newmark’s communicative translation/
Gutt’s indirect translation/ Venuti’s domestication):

text-/author-oriented
reader-oriented
ST TT1 TT2 TT3 TT4 TT5 TT6

decision-making

39
Later on, many attempts in addressing the notion of equivalence have
emerged, for example but not limited to, Baker (1992) divides her book
‘In Other Words’, into chapters, each chapter addresses a type of
equivalence: ‘word equivalence’, ‘beyond word equivalence’,
‘grammatical equivalence’, ‘textual equivalence’ and ‘pragmatic
equivalence’.

FURTHER READING:
Abdul-Roaf, H. (2001); Baker, M. (1992, 1998/2009); Bassnett, S.
(1980/1991/2002); Catford, J. C. (1965); Farghal, M. (1994, 2009,
2012); Gentzler, E. (1993/2001); Gutt, E-A. (1991, 1996); Hatim, B.
(2001); Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004); House, J. (1977/1981/1997);
Jakobson, R. (1959/1992); Munday, J. (2001/2008, 2009); Newmark, P.
(1981); Nida, E. A. (1964); Nida, E. A. and Taber, C. R. (1969);
Shuttleworth, M. and Cowie, M. (1997); Venuti, L. (1995, 2004).

Exercise

What are the differences between Nida’s (1964)

formal equivalence and Newmark’s (1981)
semantic translation on the one hand, and
semantic translation and literal translation on the
other?

Exercise

Venuti (1995) introduces two types of translation,

namely ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’. For
Venuti, to foreignize is to maintain a socio-cultural
gap between the TL reader and the TT; however, to
domesticate is to bridge such a socio-cultural gap.
Provide the reader with an example that can be
foreignized and/or domesticated in translation.

40
 Exercise

Discuss the level shifts and category shifts (if any) in

the translation of the following extract quoted from
Karīm ‘Abid’s (1993) story ‫' غرام السيدة عين‬The
Passion of Lady A' translated by Eric Winkel (2010):

‫ شعرت بأن الشرفة على وشك أن تنه َّد‬،‫ عندما كانت السيدة (ع) تتوقع مروره‬،‫في شقتها الفخمة الهادئة‬
ْ
.‫تماسكت على الكرسي‬ ‫ لكنها‬،‫بها وتنهمر على أشجار الرصيف المجاور‬

In her grand, stately apartment, while Lady A was waiting for her passer-by, it
seemed to her that the balcony was going to collapse and rain down on the
trees lining the neighborhood sidewalk. But she pulled herself together in the
chair.

Exercise

The following extract is taken from a tourist brochure

(Dickins et al 2002: 208). According to House (1997)
such a text type should yield a covert translation. Do
you think this is a covert translation?

‫الزائر العزيز‬
‫لقد كرست هذه النشرة السياحية للتعريف بثالث محافظات يمنية تقع جميعها في إطار النطاق‬
‫الصحراوي الواقع في الزاوية الداخلية بين المرتفعات اليمنية الغربية والجنوبية المعروفة‬
.‫تأريخيا بمفازة صيهد واليوم رملة السبعتين‬
Dear Visitor,
This tourist brochure aims to introduce you to three Yemeni provinces
all of which lie within the inland desert region between the southern and
western Yemeni highlands. This area was known historically as the
Sayhad Desert and today is called Ramlat al-Sabaatain.

41
Chapter 3: Translation Process

Key Concepts

Cognitive Approach; Cultural Approach; Hermeneutic

Approach; Ideological Approach; Interpretive Approach
(Sense Theory); Linguistic Approach; Normative Approach
(Norm Theory); Sociological Approach.

Overview

In general, translation, as a process or product, is envisaged as a

linguistic activity. However, scholars divide translation theories into two
main categories: literary theories, e.g., Dryden 1680/1992; Friedrich
1965/1992; Lefevere 1992; Steiner 1975; Even-Zohar 1990, and
linguistic theories, e.g., Nida 1964; Catford 1965; House 1977; Wilss
1982; Newmark 1981, 1988; Hatim and Mason 1990 (cf. Chakhachiro
2011).

Literary translation theories conceive translation as an art, and “view

translation as an activity, which is essential for a comparative study of
literature” and lack the objectivity (Aziz and Lataiwish 2000: 14). In this
regard, Delisle (1982: 48) argues that literary translation theories “have
tried to justify their own concept of the art of translation rather than
trying, through studies and empirical data, to deduce general hypotheses
and rules, hence their effort is unscientific” (Chakhachiro 2011: 79).

Linguistic translation theories, however, see translation as a scientific

activity, seeking more objective criteria for translation studies, by using
various linguistic theories as well as empirical data to deduce general
hypotheses and claims. According to Nida (1976: 69), linguistic
translation theories “are based on a comparison of linguistic structures of
source and receptor texts rather than on comparison of literary genres
and stylistic features”. Chakhachiro (2011: 79), building on Campbell’s
(n.d.) views, holds that linguistic theories of translation can be classified

42
into: prescriptive, evaluative and descriptive. He elaborates while
prescriptive studies “advise translators on how a translation should be
done [and] evaluative studies review translation that has taken place,
[…] descriptive studies are based on observation and empirical data”
(ibid).

The analysis of the translation process entails a great deal of complexity.

It is constrained by intrinsic difficulties inherent in studies, which aim at
tapping into any kind of cognitive processing: it is not amenable to direct
observation. Further, the difficulties related to the investigation of the
translation process are magnified by the different phases through which
the process unfolds and by the complexity of the interwoven abilities and
forms of specialized knowledge which play an integral part in it.

Several attempts at describing the process of translation within the

context of the general science of Translation have been made. Scholars
and researchers in the field of Translation Studies have put forward
several approaches of analysis about the translation processes carried out
by translators. Eight of the most representative approaches are described
in this chapter.

Translating as a linguistic activity ‫ ــــــ‬a linguistic

approach

As stated above, linguistic theories see translation as a question of

replacing the linguistic units of the ST with equivalent TL units without
reference to factors, such as context (be it a context of situation and/or a
cultural context) or co-text in which those linguistic units used (cf.
Catford 1965). The proponent figures of the linguistic theories are E.
Nida (1964), E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber (1969) and J. C. Catford
(1965).

Nida (ibid: 66), being influenced by the American linguist Noam

Chomsky (1957) who stresses that the deep structures of language do not
change, but what changes is only the surface structure, introduces the
concept of ‘kernel sentences’. By kernel sentences, Nida means the

43
minimal structures in a language “from which all other structures are
developed by permutations, replacements, additions, and deletions”
(ibid: 68). He further states that in the actual act of translation, in order
to determine the overall meaning adequately, translators need to focus on
the deep structure, rather than just adhering to the meaning in terms of
the surface structure, hence the importance of transferring the deep
structure as an important factor in the translation process. Translation
process, according to Nida takes a U-shaped movement, starting from
the surface structure of the source text down to its deep structure, ‘kernel
sentence’, which is transferred into a kernel sentence in the TL, which,
by addition, deletion, modification and other strategies results in the
surface structure. In other words, the surface structure of the ST is
decoded first to the basic elements of the deep structure, then transferred
into the target language and, finally, encoded semantically and
stylistically into the surface structure of the TT.
It is both scientifically and practically more efficient (1) to reduce the
source text to its structurally simplest and most semantically evident
kernels, (2) to transfer the meaning from source language to receptor
language on a structurally simple level, and (3) to generate the
stylistically and semantically equivalent expression in the receptor
language (ibid: 68).

(A) Source (B) Receptor

(Surface structure message in SL) (Surface structure message in TL)

Analysis Restructuring

Y X
(Deep Structure) (Deep Structure)

A year later, Catford (1965: 48) in his oft-cited book ‘A Linguistic

Theory of Translation’ describes the translation process differently. For
him, the analysis or description of the translation process should make
use of categories set up for the analysis and description of language. In
his description of the translation process, Catford (1965: 48) rejects the
idea of transference on the grounds that “in transference, there is an
implantation of SL meanings into the TL text”. He believes that in the

44
process of translation “there is a substitution of TL meanings for SL
meanings, not transference of SL meaning into TL” (ibid).
As there are differences between the interfacing languages, the process
of substituting implies that there should be a 'shift'. By shift, he means
“the departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from
the Source Text to the Target Text” (p. 37). A formal correspondent
refers to “any TL category (unit, class, element of structure, etc.) which
can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the 'same' place in the
'economy' of the TL as the given SL category occupies in SL (p. 27) (for
more details, see Chapter Two). In order for the ST and TT to be
equivalent, they have to share situational features; hence their similar
function in a given context.

FURTHER READING:
Baker, M. (1998); Bassnett, S. (1980/2002); Hatim, B. and Munday, J.
(2004); Gentzler, E. (1993/2001); Munday, J. (2001/2008); Nida, E. A.
(1964); Nida, E. A. and Taber, C. R. (1969); Shuttleworth, M. and
Cowie, M. (1997).

Exercise

What are the differences between Nida’s (1964)

three-stage system of translation, i.e. analysis,
transfer and restructuring and Catford’s (1965)
linguistic approach to translation?
Exercise

How do you define kernel sentences? Give

illustrating examples.
Exercise

Explain the process of translation from a linguistic

perspective.

45
 Translating as a hermeneutic motion ‫ـــــــ‬ a
hermeneutic approach

Hermeneutics is a term derived from the Greek verb ‘hermeneuein’, i.e.

‘to interpret’. It refers to the methods and processes involved in
interpreting texts with a view to figuring out the meaning of a text, i.e. to
understand the text. The proponents of this approach hold that texts are
distant in time and culture; therefore, interpretive methods, according to
the hermeneutic approach, lay emphasis on how understanding the
meaning of the text is influenced by these factors. Further, the interpreter
tries to interpret textual meaning from an inside point of view (cf.
Almanna 2013b).
The importance of the hermeneutic approach lies in the fact that there is
no translation without understanding and interpreting ‫ ـــ‬the initial steps
in any kind of translation. Misunderstanding or inappropriate
interpretation inevitably results in inadequate translations, if not
absolutely wrong translations. However, such an understanding/
interpreting is subjective, relying on the interpreter’s inner feeling and
intuition (cf. Munday 2008, 2009; Almanna 2013b).
Originally, hermeneutics only referred to the interpretation of the Bible.
However, the more modern use of the approach can be traced back to the
German Romanticists Schleiermacher (1768–1834) and Dilthey (1833–
1911). Schleiermacher argues that the processes of understanding
include empathy as well as intuitive linguistic analysis. He believes that
understanding is not merely the decoding of encoded information, and
interpretation is built upon understanding ‫ ــــ‬understanding/interpreting
has a grammatical as well as psychological moment.

1- the grammatical thrust places the text within a particular

literature (or language) and reciprocally uses the text to redefine
the character of that literature (language); and
2- the psychological thrust is more naïve and linear. In it, the
interpreter reconstructs and explicates the subject’s motives and
implicit assumptions.

46
As such, a successful interpreter, according to Schleiermacher, is an
interpreter who is able to understand the author better than the author
understood himself/herself because the interpretation highlights hidden
motives and strategies.

Dilthey, however, takes the discussion a step further. He emphasizes that

texts and actions are as much products of their times as expressions of
individuals, and their meanings are consequently constrained by both.
Therefore, meanings are delineated by the author’s world-view, thus
reflecting a historical period and social context. Understanding, the basis
for methodological hermeneutics, thus involves tracing a circle from text
to the author’s biography and immediate historical circumstances and
back again. Interpretation, or the systematic application of understanding
to the text, reconstructs the world in which the text is produced and
places the text in that world (for more details, see Dilthey 1996: 233–
258).
Although the hermeneutic approach owes its origins to Schleiermacher,
Dilthey and Heidegger, it is George Steiner’s oft-cited book After Babel
(1975) which is considered the key advance of the hermeneutics of
translation (cf. Munday 2008: 163). In his book After Babel (1975/1998:
312-319), Steiner describes the process of translation as a fourfold
‘hermeneutic motion’, comprising four stages, namely:
1- initiative trust where the translator needs to trust and believe
that s/he will find something in the ST that can be understood and
translated. For Steiner (p.313), nonsense rhymes and the like “are
untranslatable because they are lexically non-communicative”.
2- aggression where the translator “invades, extracts, and brings
home”, i.e. s/he penetrates the original text, elicits meaning and
takes it away. (p. 314).
3- incorporation where the translator brings the extracted meaning
in the second stage to the TL. As there are differences between
the interfacing languages, the TT is either
a. domesticated by paying special attention to the linguistic and
stylistic norms of the TL, thus taking its place in the TL
canon, or
b. marginalized by giving full consideration to the ST, thus
importing its foreignness into the target culture (p. 315).

47
 4- compensation where the translator, after interpreting and
appropriating the ST meaning, tries to make up for the lost
elements during the nexus of translation. Steiner “understands the
upholding of the equality in status between an ST and its TT,
which becomes necessary after a translator has interpreted and
appropriated the ST meaning, leaving behind an ST which has
lost something. Only when this loss has been compensated is the
translation process complete” (Munday 2009: 194-195).

Steiner’s influence can be seen on modern theorists, such as Lawrence

Venuti (1995). Like Steiner, Venuti lays emphasis on importing the
foreignness of the ST into the target culture. For Venuti, a good
translation should reflect the foreignness of the ST and let the target
reader be more open to cultural differences. This can be achieved
through a true process of intercultural understanding for a true
globalization of cultures rather than a tool for reinforcing existing
representations and images of one culture about the other (for more
details, see Venuti 1998).

FURTHER READING:
Almanna, A. (2013b); Bassnett, S. (1980/2002); Dilthey, W. (1996);
Gadamer, H. G. (2004); Munday, J. (2001/2008, 2009); Nida, E. A. and
Reyburn, W. D. (1981); Palmer, R. E. (1969); Robinson, D. (1998);
Schleiermacher, F. (1813/1992/2004); Shuttleworth, M. and Cowie, M.
(1997); Steiner, G. (1975/1998, 2004); Venuti, L. (1998/2004).

Exercise

Do you think that Steiner’s (1975) hermeneutic

approach to translation can be applied to all types of
translations?

Exercise

Why is hermeneutics relevant to translation?

48
 Translating as an interpretive act ‫ ـــــ‬an interpretive
approach

Interpretive approach (also known as the theory of sense) is originally

designed to reflect the processes which are involved in conference
interpreting; it is associated with a group of scholars known as the Paris
School (cf. Salama-Carr 1998: 113-114; Lederer 2003: 23-35; Almanna
2013b: 36-39). The interpretive approach is mainly based on the fact that
different languages conceptualize world experiences in different ways.
The proponents of this approach (e.g. Danica Selekovitch 1968, 1975
and Marianne Lederer 1981, 1994/2003) argue that interpreting and/or
translation is not merely reflecting what is expressed by the original
writer/speaker by using corresponding words/expressions in the TT as
this will result in a text that the target readers may or may not
understand, depending on the availability of correspondence in the TT
(Lavault 1996: 97 cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie: 1997: 85).
The process of translation, according to the interpretive approach, takes
the three interrelated stages, namely: understanding, de-verbalization and
re-expression (or reformulation):
1- the understanding stage in which the interpreter/translator tries
to understand the ST by forming a personal point of view (Ross
1980: 20), thus resorting to other cognitive inputs, such as
encyclopaedic knowledge and contextual knowledge (cf. Albir
and Alves 2009: 55);
2- the de-verbalization stage in which the actual wording is
divorced from the SL linguistic and stylistic norms; and
3- the re-expression (or reformulation) stage in which the
interpreter/translator starts searching for an idiomatic means of
expression that can render the sense of the original by complying
with the usage and customs of the TL.

To understand the text linguistic knowledge is not enough; rather

understanding the text requires translators/interpreters to interact with
the text at hand (cf. Lederer 2003: 31; Munday 2008: 63; Albir and
Alves 2009: 55). Such an interaction requires them to activate their

49
cognitive skills, conceptual abilities, background knowledge as well as
consulting pieces of information, ideas, attitudes and beliefs stored in
their memory. In this regard, Bell (1991: 235; emphasis his) holds:
Interactive processing combines bottom-up with top-down which permits
processing to take place simultaneously in both directions with each
process 'feeding' the other with information and, eventually, arriving at
an agreed conclusion, unless the data is too degenerate to process or too
ambiguous, etc.
To re-express the sense of the original, translators/interpreters need first
to de-verbalize the meaning as “the existence of an intermediate phase of
deverbalization resulting from the phase of understanding and the
beginning of the phase of re-expression” plays a fundamental role in the
interpretive approach to translation process. This is because the
reformulation or re-expression stage is “achieved through deverbalized
meaning and not on the basis of linguistic form” (Albir and Alves
2009:55).
As far as written translation is concerned, Jean Delisle (1980/1988) adds
a final phase, i.e. verification, in which translators check and evaluate
their final TT ‫ ـــ‬it can be “described as a process of back-translation
which allows the translator to apply a qualitative analysis of selected
solutions and equivalents” (Salama-Carr 1998: 114).
Further, the proponents of this approach distinguish between
‘correspondence’ and ‘equivalence’. They argue when correspondence is
possible, the interpreter/translator can move directly from understanding
to re-expression/reformulation. If not, s/he retrieves what the original
text is saying, that is the sense, and looks for its equivalent in the TL (for
more details, see Almanna 2013b: 36-39). To apply these stages, let us
consider the following example:
People start smoking for a variety of different reasons. Some think
it looks cool. Others start because their family members or friends
smoke.
- Understanding & de-verbalizing:

... ‫ بعضهم يبدأ ألنه يشعر أنه أمر‬،‫يبدأ الناس التدخين ألسباب مختلفة‬
[equivalent needed( ‘cool’ here means: ‘fashionable’, ‘trendy’,
‘attractive’, ‘impressive’, so one may suggest something like: ‫ظريف أو‬
‫… ]مثير لإلعجاب‬

50
 .‫وآخرون ألن أحد أفراد عائلتهم أو أصدقائهم يدخن‬
- re-expressing:
‫ فبعضهم يبدأ التدخين ألنه يشعر أنه أمر مثير‬،‫يبدأ الناس التدخين ألسباب مختلفة‬
.‫لإلعجاب وآخرون يبدأون بسبب تأثرهم بأحد أفراد عائلتهم أو أصدقائهم‬

- verifying:
People start smoking for different reasons. Some start smoking
because they feel it is attractive while others start because
being influenced by one of their family members or friends.

FURTHER READING:
Albir, A. H. and Alves, F. (2009); Almanna, A. (2013b); Baker, M.
(1998); Salama-Carr, M. (1998); Lederer, M. (1994/2003);
Selekovitch, D. (1968/1978, 1975/2002).

Exercise

The interpretive approach appears quite similar to

Nida’s (1964) three-stage system of translation, i.e.
analysis, transfer and restructuring. Compare the
interpretive approach with Nida’s (1964) linguistic
approach.
Exercise

What are the weaknesses of the interpretive

approach?

Exercise

What are the differences and similarities between the

interpretive approach and hermeneutic approach?
Give illustrating examples.

51
 Translating as a cognitive activity ‫ ــــــ‬a cognitive
approach

Building on linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives, Bell (1991: 20)

states that the translation process mainly happens within ‘memory’ in the
sense that the transformation process involves two main phases, namely:
1- semantic, syntactic and pragmatic “analysis of one language-
specific text (the source language text…) into a universal (non-
language-specific) semantic representation”; and
2- the synthesis of that semantic representation into the second
language-specific text (the target language text)” (Bell 1991:
20; emphasis his).
Bell’s approach accounts for translation in terms of information
processing and requires both short-term and long-term memories for the
decoding of SL input and the encoding of TL output (for more details,
see Bell 1991: 43-76). Like Nida’s (1964) three-stage system of
translation, Bell’s approach takes a U-shaped movement, albeit using
different terminologies. To put this differently, it follows a top-
down/bottom-up structure as follows:
1- it starts with the visual recognition of the lexical items of the
ST;
2- then it undergoes syntactic parsing in combination with
mechanisms of lexical search processed by a frequent
structure analyzer;
3- this is followed by semantic and pragmatic processing to
generate a semantic representation supported by an idea
organizer and a planner.
Once the decision to translate is taken at the level of semantic
representation (see the figure below), the input is reprocessed by
synthesizers distributed in pragmatic, semantic and lexico-grammatical
levels to be encoded in a new writing system, thus producing a TT as in
the figure below quoted from Bell (1991: 21):

52
 Source Language Text

Memory

Analysis

Semantic
Representation

Synthesis

Target
Language
Text

Bell’s model of the translation process

By way of illustration, let us consider the following example quoted

from Mahfouz’s novel ‫' زقاق المدق‬Midaq Alley' (1947: 105):

:‫فقالت ضاحكة وكأنها وثقت من امتالكه لألبد‬

!‫أحطك في عيني وأكحل عليك‬

1- visual recognition of the lexical items;

2- syntactic parsing: subject (‫ )هي‬+ main verb (‫ )قال‬+ adverb of
manner (‫ )ضاحكة‬+ clause of manner (‫)وكأنها وثقت من امتالكه إلى األبد‬
+ quotation (‫;)أحطك في عيني وأكحل عليك‬
3- mechanisms of lexical search: implicit ‫‘ هي‬she’ + ‫‘ قالت‬said’ +
‫‘ ضاحكة‬laughing’ + ‫‘ وكأنها وثقت من امتالكه لألبد‬as if she had him
forever’ + !‫“ أحطك في عيني وأكحل عليك‬I’ll put you in my eyes and
close them”;
4- semantic and pragmatic processing: While laughing she said as
if she was certain of possessing him forever: “I’ll put you in my
heart”.

53
 5- encoding the input (the draft) semantically, pragmatically and
lexico-grammatically in the TL: As if she were certain of
possessing him forever, she said while laughing: “I’ll put you in
my heart and lock it up on you”.
It is worth noting that although the input should be processed at the
syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels, “no fixed order is established a
priori and there is always the possibility of regression, which allows for
constant online revision and changes in previous decisions” (Albir and
Alves 2009: 56).

FURTHER READING:
Albir, A. H. and Alves, F. (2009). Baker, M. (1998); Bell, R. T. (1991,
1998); Munday, J. (2001/2008, 2009).

Exercise

What are the similarities and differences between

Bell’s (1991) cognitive approach and Nida’s (1964)
linguistic approach? Give illustrating examples.

Exercise

Explain Bell’s cognitive approach while translating

the following text into Arabic:
Like heroin or other addictive drugs, the body and mind
quickly become so used to the nicotine in cigarettes that a
person needs to have it just to feel normal.

54
 Translating as a cross-cultural act ‫ ــــــ‬a cultural
approach

Over the past three decades, the focus of translation studies has been
shifted from endless debates about equivalence to broader issues,
including culture and its effect on both process and product of
translation. Further, recent studies (cf. Bassnett 1980/1991; Snell-
Hornby 1988; Vermeer 1989/2004) have shown that the translation
process can no longer be seen as being merely between two linguistic
systems. It is, however, envisaged as being between two cultures. In this
regard, Snell-Hornby (1988: 46), echoing Vermeer’s (1986) views, holds
that translation is “a cross-cultural transfer, and the translator should be
bicultural, if not pluricultural”. This goes in line with Bassnett’s (1998:
93) claim:
Translation never takes place in a vacuum; it always happens in a
continuum, and the context in which the translation takes place
necessarily affects how the translation is made. Just as the norms and
constraints of the source culture play their part in the creation of the
source text, so the norms and conventions of the target culture play
their inevitable role in the creation of the translation.

Culture is defined by Nida (1964: 157) as “the total beliefs and practices
of a society. Words only have meaning in terms of the culture in which
they are used, and although languages do not determine culture, they
certainly tend to reflect a society's beliefs and practices”. Culture is not
“a material phenomenon”, consisting of “things, people, behavior, or
emotion” (Goodenough 1964: 39-40). Rather, it is
an organization of these things. It is the forms of things that
people have in mind, their models for perceiving, relating, and
otherwise interpreting them. As such, the things people say and
do, their social arrangements and events, are products or by-
products of their culture as they apply it to the task of
perceiving and dealing with their circumstances (ibid: 39-40).

This entails that there should be some sort of an agreement among

people in a given society to accept a new belief, behaviour, custom,
moral, habit, emotion and so on. It is this agreement that “seems to

55
alienate any attempt to introduce any new beliefs, emotions, behaviours,
etc. which [do] not conform to the society's communal memory” (Al-
Taher 2008: 60).

Katan (1999: 26), however, defines culture as a “shared mental model or

map” for interpreting reality and organizing experience of the world.
This model of the world, according to him, is a “system of congruent and
interrelated beliefs, values, strategies and cognitive environments which
guide the shared basis of behavior” (ibid). Transferring a text from one
language to another will not be without difficulties, in particular when
SL people and TT people conceptualize their experiences of the world in
a different way. Nida and Reyburn (1981: 2) hold that the difficulties
that arise out of cultural differences “constitute the most serious problem
for translators and have produced the most far-reaching
misunderstandings among readers”. These cultural differences will
definitely slow down translators’ progress while rendering the text at
hand. This is because translating a text full of cultural expressions is not
simply a matter of substitution of lexical items and structures in the ST
with TT ones, although this type of interchange may be possible in
certain circumstances (see the example below).

Avoiding certain taboos, reconciling cultural clashes, satisfying certain

cultural preferences and so on show how translators suffer while
finalizing the draft of the TT (Mazid 2007: 39). Such cultural
asymmetries place extra efforts on the translators, requiring them to
probe the “deep/symbolic level […] of the source language” in order to
“capture the cultural implications meant by the source author” (Al-Masri
2004: 112). To this end, these cultural issues need be dealt with from
“the perspective of cultural insider” (ibid: 112). The term 'insider' or
'emic' as opposed to 'outsider' or 'etic' were first introduced by linguist
Kenneth Pike (1954). These two terms 'etic', derived from phonetic and
'emic', derived from phonemic, were created as a response to the “need
to include nonverbal behavior in linguistic description” (Pike 1990: 18;
also see Al-Masri 2004: 35). Anderson (2003: 391) highlights the
importance of taking into account both the 'etics', i.e. the superficial level
of the language and 'emics', i.e. the symbolic level of the language while
dealing with the text at hand.

56
To reflect such a symbolic level of language, translators adopt different
local strategies. By way of illustration, let us consider the following
example quoted from Mahfouz's (1961: 8; emphasis added) ‫اللص والكالب‬
'The Thief and the Dogs' and translated by Le Gassick and Badawi
(1984: 14; emphasis added):
‫ألم أعلمك الوقوف على قدمين؟‬
It was me, wasn’t it, who taught you to stand on your own feet.
Here, the translators, being influenced by such a cultural constraint
imposed on them by the expression ‫' الوقوف على قدمين‬lit. standing on two
feet' have opted for a literal strategy. One can argue that the translators
have succeeded in being insiders in the source culture, i.e. understanding
the cultural experience in the SL. However, the expression ‘to stand on
your own two feet’ has a number of different meanings, depending on the
context in which it is used. In such a context, it does not refer to the
physical activity of standing on two feet, rather, it is used figuratively –
it simply refers to teaching somebody how to depend on his/herself (cf.
Abdel-Hafiz 2003: 231). As such, the translators have succeeded in
being insiders in the source culture, i.e. understanding the cultural
experience in the SL, and being insiders in the target culture, i.e.
encoding the cultural experience in the TL. In this example, it so
happens that both languages, Arabic and English, linguistically
conceptualize and utilize such a world experience in a similar way;
therefore, a literal translation is sufficient. However, at many times, the
translator fails to be an insider in the TL culture because of his/her over
familiarity with the ST expression. In this regard, Al-Masri (2004: 140-
41) rightly comments:
The translator might sometimes fall into the trap of being a 'cognitive
blinder'. That is, when the translator's over familiarity with the source
language leads him to assume/presuppose the target readers'
familiarity with what they read […]. In other words, this makes the
translator blind to what could be marked to target readers.
As such, one can conclude that the translator should be an insider in both
source language culture (SLC) and target language culture (TLC) while
dealing with culture-bound expressions. In other words, s/he should be
an insider in the source culture using his/her knowledge to understand
the SL culture-bound expression on the one hand, and being an insider in
the target culture to record such an experience of the world in the TL.
Let us consider the following rendition offered by Le Gassick and

57
Badawi (1984: 17) to the following extract quoted from Mahfouz's
(1961: 11) novel ‫' اللص والكالب‬The Thief and the Dogs':
.‫اسكت يا ابن الثعلب‬
Shut up, you cunning bastard.
Here, the translators have succeeded in being insiders in both the SLC
and TLC. In general, the translation of swearing is not an easy task as it
“(a) refers to something that is taboo and/or stigmatised in the culture;
(b) should not be interpreted literally; [and] (c) can be used to express
strong emotions and attitudes” (Andersson and Trudigill 1990: 53).
Being laden with these two types of constraints, namely cultural
constraint imposed by the use of such a culture-specific expression, and
norm-imposed constraint, i.e. taking into account the TL expectation, the
translators have opted for a combination of both a cultural translation
'bastard', reflecting the swearing act plus a pragmatic approach,
maintaining the connotative meaning associated with the word 'fox', i.e.
'cunning'.
To further demonstrate how (not) being an insider in both cultures may
seriously affect the quality of the TT, let us consider the following
example quoted from Choukri’s (2000: 176-177; 6th edition) ‫الخبز الحافي‬
‘For Bread Alone’ translated by Paul Bowles (1993: 131):
‫ الغزال! فأين ماشي؟‬-
‫ شغلك؟‬-
“Where are you off to, handsome?”
“What do you care where I'm going?”
Here, taking into account that the use of literal translation, i.e. ‘gazelle’,
would fail to capture the cultural implications meant by the original
writer and instead would linger within the bounds of literalness, the
translator has successfully opted for a functional equivalent, i.e.
‘handsome’, thus reflecting the intended meaning semantically and
pragmatically. To put this differently, the translator has succeeded in
being an insider in the source culture, i.e. understanding the cultural
experience in the SL, and being an insider in the target culture, i.e.
encoding the cultural experience in the TL. However, the very terse
response ‫ شغلك؟‬is given a somewhat formal, lengthy and comparatively
polite rendition in the TT, thereby changing the register of the text. Had
the translator given full consideration to the tenor and mode of the
discourse, he could have suggested something like: ‘None of your
business!’.

58
This brief discussion shows translators’ sufferings while trying to
finalize their own draft. After having probed the deep symbolic levels of
the original language and captured the cultural implications meant by the
original writer, the translators’ progress is automatically slowed down in
an attempt to decide on the available local strategies that would reflect
such a cultural issue in the TL “in a way that language and content will
allow the [target] reader to interact in parallel fashion to the source text
reader” (Hall 2008: 224).
To finish off this section, it is worth noting that the surface level and
symbolic level appear quite similar to Nida’s (1964) classification of
structures, viz. surface structures and deep structures. However, the
cultural approach gives the translator more freedom in dealing with
culture-specific expressions (cf. Almanna 2013b: 37).
FURTHER READING:
Almanna. A. (2013b); Al-Masri, H. (2004); Anderson, M. (2003);
Bassnett, S. (1980/1991); Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A. (1998);
Vermeer, H. J. (1989/2004); Snell-Hornby, M. (1988); Munday, J.
(2001/2008, 2009); Pike, K. L. (1990); Venuti, L. (2004); Vermeer, H.
J. (1989/2004).

Exercise

Discuss the differences between Nida’s (1964)

linguistic approach and the cultural approach. Give
illustrating examples.
Exercise

The following excerpt is quoted from Mahfouz’s

(1986: 239; 6th edition) novel ‫‘ أوالد حارتنا‬Children of
the Alley’ and translated by Peter Theroux (1996:
196). Discuss his translation to the culture-specific
expression !‫ يا ما تحت الساهي دواهي‬.‫ أنت‬according to the
etic-emic approach.
- “You! Well, well how surprised should I be?”

59
 Translating as an ideological move – an ideological
approach

Ideology has generally been used in negative political terms mostly

within the scope of traditional Marxist definitions whereby it is, “a form
of cognitive distortion, a false or illusory representation of the real”
(Gardiner 1992: 60). Most researchers in translation studies and allied
fields, however, see ideology as “the tacit assumptions, beliefs, value
system which are shared collectively by social groups” at a certain time
(Hatim and Mason 1997: 144). In a direct link to translation, ideology is
viewed by Lefevere (1998: 41) as an approach through which 'readers' in
general and 'translators' in particular approach texts, which is the view
adopted in this study.

In approaching texts, translators are influenced, whether consciously or

subconsciously, by their own beliefs, backgrounds, assumptions and the
like; hence their employment of certain linguistic devices, such as
'transitivity', 'cohesive device', 'over-lexicalisation', 'style-shifting' and so
on (Hatim and Mason 1997: 143-163). Farghal (2008: 1) sees
translators’ ideological moves as “superimposing certain directionality
on the text in order to approximate it to, or even have it meet, their own
or some other agent’s goal”. Mazid (2007: 121) provides us with a clear
example in which the translator does not mention 'Israel' or 'Palestine'
when translating the map of the Arab world, which contains Israel in the
original. The translator simply uses 'Gaza Strip' and 'West Bank', i.e. ‫قطاع‬
‫غزة والضفة الغربية‬. Hypothetically speaking, giving the same text to
another translator who is an Israeli to translate it into Arabic, we might
find Israel mentioned and Gaza Strip and West Bank ignored.
Presumably, translators, being influenced by their own beliefs,
backgrounds, social and political commitments, opt for various types of
local strategies, such as naming strategy, i.e. the “choice of one type of
name over another” (Simpson 1993: 141), addition, omission, style shift,
viewpoint shift, modality shift, toning, euphemizing, dysphemizing,

60
befogging, manipulation, emphatic shift, among others, which together
may interact to produce a manipulated kind of discourse (for more
details, see Chapter Four).

Farghal (2008, 2012) distinguishes between two types of managing in

translation, namely: intrinsic managing and extrinsic managing. He
(2012: 180) states that
unlike intrinsic managing, which […] is meant to facilitate things for the
TL reader by offering translations that read smoothly and naturally,
extrinsic managing mainly aims to reorient and/or delude the TL reader
by presenting thought-worlds that are different at varying degrees from
those expounded in the SL text.

By way of explanation, let us consider the following example quoted

from Farghal (2008: 3-4):
In an interview with Newsweek yesterday, the Israeli Defense
Minister said that the Palestinian suicide operations constitute
the main cause for the Israeli troops' entering cities in the West
Bank.

‫ادعــى ير ــح الاــحي ال ـ يو فــي مقابلــة مــل مجلــة النيوزويــك أم ـ أن العملي ـ‬

‫االستشـ د الفلسـطينية هـي السـبب الـرئي فـي اجتيـ قـوا االحـتل اسســحاييل‬
. ‫للمدن الفلسطيني في الضفة الغربية الماتل‬

In the above example, the translator has made many ideological moves
through several local strategies, including framing (‫ ادعى‬instead of ‫)قال‬,
dysphemism (‫ وزير الحرب الصهيوني‬instead of ‫)وزير الدفاع اإلسرائيلي‬,
euphemism (‫ العمليات االستشهادية‬instead of ‫)العمليات االنتحارية‬, toning (‫اجتياح‬
instead of ‫)دخول‬, addition (‫ قوات االحتالل اإلسرائيلي‬instead of ‫)القوات اإلسرائيلية‬,
etc.

To see how what may seem a small ideological move at the lexical level
can twist the message in varying degrees, let us consider the following
BBC news item extracted from a text sent to ten students (4th year,
Department of Translation, Basrah University) to be translated into
Arabic:

61
 ‫‪He [Jihad] had just had a call from a friend to tell him the Israeli‬‬
‫‪military had bombed his house and that his 11-month-old baby boy‬‬
‫‪Omar was dead.‬‬

‫(‪ )1‬حيث استلم اتصاال هاتفيا من صديق له يخبره بأن الجيش اإلسرائيلي قد فجر منزله‬
‫وإن طفله عمر البالغ من العمر أحد عشر شهراً قد مات‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )2‬كان صديق له قد اخبره عن طريق مكالمة هاتفية بان القاوت االسرائيلية قد فجرت‬
‫منزله واسفر ذلك االنفجار عن وفاة طفله عمر الذي يبلغ من العمر ‪ 11‬شهرا‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )3‬لقد تلقى جهاد أتصاال من أحد أصدقائه يفيد بأن ألقوات أالسرائيلية قصفت منزله و‬
‫أن ابنه ذي ال ‪ 11‬شهرا قد قتل‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )4‬لقد تلقى للتو اتصال من صديق أخبره بأن الجيش اإلسرائيلي قد فجر منزله و إن‬
‫ابنه عمر البالغ من العمر احد عشر شهرا قد مات‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )5‬حينها تلقى جهاد اتصاالً هاتفيا ً من احد أصدقائه اخبره انا القوات االسرائيليه قد‬
‫دمرت بيته وان طفله عمر ذو الحادية عشر شهراً قد استشهد‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )6‬إن ما دفل جهاد للتصرف بهذا الشكل هو تلقيه التصال من صديق له يخبره بأن‬
‫الجيش اإلسرائيلي قد قام بتفجير منزله مما تسبب باستشهاد ابنه الذي يبلغ عمره‬
‫احد عشر شهرا‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )7‬إذ تلقى جهاد للتو مكالمة من صديق يخبره إن الجيش اإلسرائيلي قصف بيته َّ‬
‫وإن‬
‫طفلهُ ‪ُ -‬ع َمر‪ -‬ذو اإلحدى عشر شهرا ً قد لق َّي حتفهُ!‬
‫(‪ )8‬كان قد تلقى للتو مكالمة هاتفية من صديق يخبره بأن الجيش االسرائيلي قصف‬
‫منزله إذ توفي أثره ابنه (عمر) ذو االحد عشر شهراً‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )9‬إن ما جعل جهاد يتصرف بهذه الطريقة هو تلقيه التصال من صديق له يبلغه‬
‫بتفجير بيته من قبل القوات اإلسرائيلية مما تسبب باستشهاد ابنه عمر ذو اإلحدى‬
‫عشر شهرا‪.‬‬
‫(‪ )11‬فقد تلقى للتو اتصاالَ من صديق يخبره أن الجيش االسرائيلي قد قصف منزله‪ .‬وان‬
‫ابنه عمر والبالغ من العمر أحد عشر شهراَ قد توفي‪.‬‬

‫‪As can be observed, three students (5), (6) and (9) have extrinsically‬‬
‫‪managed the text to approximate it, or have it meet their own political‬‬
‫‪attitudes, religious and cultural commitment, and accumulated value‬‬
‫‪systems – they have changed the neutral lexical item ‘dead’ into‬‬
‫’‪ ‘be martyred‬استشهد ‪politically and religiously loaded lexical items, viz.‬‬
‫‪ ‘martyrdom’ in (6) and (9). Here, it is clearly evident that‬استشهاد ‪in (5),‬‬
‫‪they have been motivated by their own ideology since they are not‬‬
‫‪affiliated to any specific body that might impose on them certain‬‬
‫‪editorial translation guidelines.‬‬

‫‪62‬‬
However, changing the direction of the text is not always motivated by
the translator’s beliefs, backgrounds, commitments and accumulated
value systems, i.e. ideology; rather, the direction is sometimes changed
due to the translator’s inability to cope with the text. By way of
explanation, let us consider the following example extracted from
Greene’s The Bomb Party (1980: 9-10) and translated into Arabic by a
number of students (4th year, Department of Translation, Basrah
University):
I think that I used to detest Doctor Fischer more than any other
man I have known just as I loved his daughter more than any other
woman.

‫) لم أبغض في حياتي أكثر من شخص الدكتور فشر ولم أعشق امرأةً أكثر من‬1(
.‫أبنته في ذات الوقت‬
‫) أعتقد بأني بدأت امقت الدكتور فيشر أكثر من أي رجل اعرفه وذلك بمجرد ما‬2(
.‫إن تعرفت بابنته التي عشقتها أكثر من أي امرأة أخرى‬
‫) أظن إنني اعتدت على كرهي للدكتور فشر أكثر من أي رجل عرفته وكان مقدار‬3(
.‫هذا الكره كمقدار حبي البنته التي أحببتها أكثر من أي امرأة أخرى‬
‫) تماما كما أحببت إبنته اكثر من أي إمرأة أخرى أعتقد إني اعتدت على كره‬4(
.‫الدكتور "فيشر" أكثر من أي شخص عرفته‬
ً
‫ تماما كما احببت‬،‫) إنني كنت أمقت الطبيب فيشر أكثر من أي رجل آخر عرفته‬5(
.‫ابنته أكثر من أي امرأة أخرى‬

As can be observed, the students have failed to intrinsically manage the

text ‫ ــــ‬they have failed to deal with issues, such as the ST parallelism
and antonyms (‘detest’ vs. ‘love’ and ‘man’ vs. ‘woman’), not to mention
grammatical and spelling errors. As far as extrinsic managing is
concerned, three students have extrinsically managed the text ‫ ــــ‬they
have changed a mere possibility expressed by ‘I think’ in the ST into an
absolute certainty in (1), (4) and (5). At the syntactic level, extrinsic
managing may manifest itself through the translator’s treatment of
modality among other issues (for more details, see Farghal 2012: 184-
196).

63
FURTHER READING:
Almanna, A. (2013a, 2013d); Baker, M. (1998); Bassnett, S. and
Lefevere, A. (1998); Farghal, M. (2008, 2012); Farghal, M. and
Shunnaq, A. (1999/2011); Gardiner, M. (1992); Hatim, B. and Mason, I.
(1997); Lefevere, A. (1992, 1998); Mason, I. (1994); Mazid, B. (2007);
Munday, J. (2001/2008); Niranjana, T. (1992); Simpson, P. (1993).

Exercise

There are two types of managing in translation, namely:

intrinsic managing and extrinsic managing. Illustrate the
differences with examples.

Exercise

The following excerpt is quoted from Darwish’s poem ‫إذا‬

‫‘ كان لي أن أعيد البداية‬If I Were to Start All over Again’
which is translated by Abdullah al-Udhiri (1984 cited in
Farghal 2012: 200). Is there any extrinsic managing in
the translation?
‫ إلى وردتي نفسها وإلى خطوتي نفسها‬،‫أعود إذا كان لي أن أعود‬
.‫ولكني ال أعود إلى قرطبة‬
If I will return if I have to return, to my roses, to my steps
But I will never go back to Cordoba.

64
 Translating as a norm-governed activity ‫ـــــــ‬ a
normative approach

Norms, in general, are conventional, social, behavioural routines,

according to which the members of a certain culture behave when they
find themselves under particular circumstances. This means that in each
community there exist such norms that regulate what is correct and what
is not, what is appropriate and what is not, and so on. Translational
norms, however, “embody the general values and expectations of a given
community at a given time regarding the correctness and appropriateness
of both the process and product of translation” (Al-Khafaji 2006: 40).

Toury and Hermans were the first to seriously bring the concept of norm
to the fore in translation studies. Norms, according to Toury (1980: 51),
are “the translation of general values or ideas shared by a certain
community ‫ ــــ‬as to what is right and wrong, adequate and inadequate ‫ــــ‬
into specific performance-instructions appropriate for and applicable to
specific situations”. Norms therefore are “social regulation mechanisms
which make certain choices and decisions by the translator more likely
than others” (Hermans 1998: 156). As such, norms consist of two main
aspects: 1) a 'directive aspect', which lays pressure on people to “behave
in a certain way”, and 2) a 'content aspect', which is “an intersubjective
notion of correctness”, i.e. what is appropriate and correct and what is
not in certain situations (ibid).

Toury (1995: 56-59) talks of three types of norms:

1- Preliminary norms which refer to the 'translation policy' and
'directness of translation'. Translation policy covers the factors
that determine the selection of the ST for translation. Directness
of translation deals with the question whether the translation is
directly from the SL or through another language;
2- Initial norms which refer to the general choices made by the
translators when they make decisions to either pay attention to
the norms of the SL, guaranteeing the adequacy, or to take into
account the norms of the TT, achieving the acceptability of the
ST in the TL; and

65
 3- Operational norms which cover both 'matricial norms', referring
to the completeness of the TT, thereby questioning issues such as
omission, addition, relocation, etc. and 'textual-linguistic norms'
related to the linguistic material, such as lexical items, phrases
and stylistic features.

More recently, Chesterman (1997/2000: 68-69) discusses four translation

norms:
1- Expectancy norm, i.e. the translator has to take into account the
TL grammaticality, acceptability, appropriateness and so on in a
certain text type;
2- Accountability norm or ethical norm, i.e. the translator should
make sure of tricky points and confusing matters by double
checking the draft of a translation, asking “professionals [for]
their opinion” and so on;
3- Relation norm, i.e. the relationship between ST elements and TT
elements; and
4- Communication norm, i.e. referring to the communicative
maxims in terms of quantity, quality, relevance and manner (see
also Chapter Five).

Such norms serve as guidelines for translators, thereby delimiting any

intentional departure that might be inconsistent with the expected norms
(cf. Chesterman 1997/2000: 78). Al-Khafaji (2006: 41) argues that
“instances of deliberate departures from the expected norms can often be
detected in translated texts”. He relates such departures to “stylistic
considerations”. However, it is held here that any departure from the
expected norms is due to the domination of one constraint over another.
By way of explanation, let us consider the following example quoted
from ‘Izz al-Dīn al-Madanī’s ‫' حكاية القنديل‬The Tale of the Lamp',
translated by and cited in Husni and Newman (2008: 26-27; emphasis
added), where the final shape of the translation seems to be a result of, at
least, four types of constraints, namely the norm of naturalness,
translation competence, translator’s idiolect, and extra-linguistic factors:

.(‫ )نعم يا موالي السلطان إنه يهللا قنديل من النحاس‬:‫فقال الرجل‬

66
 Yes, my lord – a lamp made out of copper.

According to the norm theory, when dealing with the text at hand,
translators either focus on the SL and its norms or on the TT and its
norms. If they tend to observe the ST norms, the TT will be adequate.
However, when they tend to observe the norms of the TL, they will
guarantee the acceptability of the ST in the target culture. In the
translation of the above extract, it is clear that special attention is paid to
the linguistic and cultural norms of the TL (i.e. initial norms), hence the
omission of ‫السلطان‬, i.e. 'sultan' and ‫هللا‬, i.e. 'Allah' (i.e. operational
norms). One of the main reasons for omission is when the element is not
important to the development of the text and omitting it does not harm
the author’s intentions or alter the text-type focus, but, on the contrary,
retaining it in the TT might complicate the structure and strike the TL
receptor as unusual. Another reason for omitting certain elements is to
maintain a desired level of naturalness that requires the translator to
navigate between obligatory and optional pieces of information in order
to opt for explicit or implicit expressions.

To further demonstrate how (not) taking these norms into consideration

may affect the final shape of the TT, let us examine the following
excerpt quoted from Fu'ad al-Takarlī’s ‫' خزين الالمرئيات‬A hidden
Treasure', which is translated by and cited in Husni and Newman (2008:
234-235):
.‫ثم جاءها النصيب أخيراً فتزوجت منذ خم سنوات واستقرت بها الحياة هنا‬
Finally, she got married five years ago. Now she’s settled here.

Here, guided by 'the initial acceptability norm' (Toury 1995) and 'the
expectancy norm' (Chesterman 1997/2000), the translators have resorted
to deleting the fatalistic nuance in ‫' جاءهـا النصـيب‬lit. the fate came to her'
regarding the concerned event, viz. ‫' تزوجـت‬she got married' as, for them,
rendering it literally would be unidiomatic and nonsensical in English
(operational norm). However, making such a decision has
underestimated 'the initial adequacy norm' (Toury 1995) and 'the relation
norm' and 'communication norm' (Chesterman 1997/2000). Had the
translators given full consideration to this fatalistic shade of meaning,
they could have offered something like:

67
 - ‘her turn came and she got married;
- 'her luck changed and she got married'; or
- 'life smiled on her and she got married'.

It is worth noting that translators, being influenced by these conflicting

norms, normally opt for acceptability/expectancy norm (i.e. focusing on
the TL and its norms, thus producing an acceptable and readable text) or
for adequacy/relation norm (i.e. focusing on the ST/SL and its norms,
thus producing an accurate and adequate text). However, they sometimes
succeed in striking a balance or reaching a compromise between these
conflicting norms.

It is of greater importance for translators to be aware of the common TL

conventions and language-specific rules that determine the text’s
naturalness. For instance, while naturalness requires the translator to
adopt a strategy that would reflect features such as 'well-formedness',
'acceptability', 'idiomaticity', 'authenticity', 'contemporaneity' as well as
'intelligibility', 'accessibility' and 'readability' (As-Safi and Ash-Sharifi
1997: 60-61), text type, say a legislative text, forces the translator to
adopt a different strategy, thus sacrificing naturalness for accuracy.
Consider the following example quoted from the Law of Income Tax
imposed on companies in the Sultanate Oman, 1981:
‫للمدير من وقت آلخر بعد الحصول على موافقة الوزير أن يفوض عنه أي موظف معين‬
‫لتنفيذ أغراض هذا القانون في ممارسة صالحيات محددة موكول تنفيذها إلى المدير‬
... ‫أصال بموجب هدا القانون‬
The Director shall from time to time, having obtained the
agreement of the Minister, appoint any designated officer to carry
out the objects of this Law in the exercise of defined powers the
execution of which was originally entrusted to the Director by
virtue of this Law ….

The translator of this example, due to the constraints imposed on him/her

by virtue of text type, has opted for a literal rendition (initial norms).
Since in such a text type priority is given to 'all-inclusiveness', 'clarity'
and 'precision', literal translation is preferable over other types of
translation (Almanna 2005: 44). Ignoring such a constraint and/or norm
imposed by virtue of the text type that requires literalness and giving
priority to the norm of expectancy, one could suggest a version more
natural than that stated above, yet it would not satisfy the majority of

68
people in the field who are in favour of a literal translation (cf. Hatim
2007b: 11):
Having obtained the Minister’s agreement, the Director may
authorize an appointed officer from time to time to implement the
objects of this Law …

FURTHER READING:
Al-Khafaji, R. (2006); Almanna, A. (2013a); Chesterman, A. (1993,
1997/2000); Hermans, T. (1991, 1998); Munday, J. (2001/2008, 2009);
Toury, G. (1995/2004); Venuti, L. (1998, 2004); Wolf, M. and Fukari, F.
(2007).

Exercise

Some scholars and researchers (e.g. Simeoni 1998;

Hermans 1999; Gouanvic 2005; Yannakopoulou
2008) believe that norms cannot effectively account
for all cases of deviant translation practices.
However, there are a number of other factors that
motivate translators to opt for one strategy, or a
combination of many strategies, and exclude others –
translators can sometimes decide to translate counter
to norms. What is your opinion?

Exercise

What are the differences between strategies and

norms? Give illustrating examples.

69
 Translating as a socially-regulated game ‫ـــــــ‬ a
sociological approach

As indicated in Chapter One, over the past five decades, there has
existed a series of shifts from word to sentence, from sentence to text,
from text to context, from language to culture and/or society, hence the
growing interdisciplinary interest between Translation Studies and
Sociology. In this regard, Inguilleri (2005: 125) states that “the increased
attention to sociological approach in the last two decades is indicative of
a paradigmatic shift within the discipline, toward more sociologically-
and anthropologically-informed approaches to the study of translation
processes and products”.

Viewing translation as a socially regulated activity has therefore opened

up broader contexts, explicitly giving ample room for studying the socio-
cultural factors which not only influence the selection, representation,
production and consumption of the foreign materials, but also cast some
light on the specific role of individual agents involved in the translation
process at its macro level (be they translators, ST authors, TT readers,
editors, proof-readers, revisers, translation project managers, translation
quality controllers and so on). In this regard, Inghilleri (2009: 282;
emphasis in origin) holds that “unlike FUNCTIONALIST
APPROACHES, where the analysis of the translator’s role is concerned
to describe this position in largely neutral terms within a wider
functional network, sociological approaches have identified translators’
professional trajectories and social positionings as crucial to both the
process and products of translation activity”.

Translation Studies, over the last two decades, has been characterized by
the increasing use of sociological theories, in particular those of Pierre
Bourdieu, Niklas Luhmann and Bruno Latour. The serious attempt to
conceptualizing a general translation sociology was in 2005 when one of
the leading journals in Translation Studies, The Translator, dedicated a
special issue to the theme of “Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translating
and Interpreting” edited by Inghilleri as a guest editor as well as an
international conference with the title “Translating and Interpreting as a
Social Practice” was held ‫ ــــ‬the papers delivered in the conference were

70
selectively published in an edited book entitled Constructing a Sociology
of Translation edited by Wolf and Fukari (2007). Later, a number of
individual attempts have been made to describe translation by adopting
sociological approaches (cf. Sela-Sheffy 2005; Chesterman 2006, 2009;
Hanna 2006; Yannakopoulou 2008; Mialet 2010; Tyulenev 2012;
Almanna 2013b). However, to the best of our knowledge, only a few
studies have adopted a sociological approach to examine the translation
process between Arabic and English (cf. Hanna 2005, 2006; Almanna
2013b).

According to sociological approaches, the process of translation is seen

as a social game referring to a collective belief shared by the members of
any social game that indicates the game is “worth playing and that the
stakes created in and through the fact of playing are worth pursuing” (see
also Hanna 2006: 87-88; Almanna 2013b: 46-51).

As such, in order to be part of a game or accept to be invested in a game,

people need to agree with the current members to be in the field and get
involved in its conflicts on the one hand, and accept the terms and
conditions of the social game on the other. Such acceptance of the terms
and conditions of the game and the familiarization with the current
members are termed by Bourdieu )1990): ‘habitus’. In this regard,
Yannakopoulou (2008: 7) comments that habitus
gives the agents a ‘feel for the game’, a prism through which to
perceive reality, a guideline on how to act and react in a way
that is considered proper in each circumstance. It should be
noted here that the habitus does not determine one’s actions,
but merely guides them. All this is not done in a conscious and
deliberate manner. Rather, it is moulded through a long process
of inculcation according to the agents’ personal trajectories
through institutions, such as their family and school, their
class, as well as the position they hold within the particular
field.

Accepting the terms and conditions of the social game, in the case of
translation, and familiarizing themselves with the current members of
such a game at times require translators to adopt global and/or local
strategies that they are not quite happy with or reluctantly accept the
amendments and modifications made by editors, revisers, translation
project managers, translation quality controllers or publishers to their

71
translations. On the other hand, translators, translation project managers,
or translation quality controllers sometimes remove some parts of the
text or manipulate the text, i.e. changing the direction of the ST in order
to be in line with their target readers’ expectations (expectancy norm
and/or translatorial habitus) and/or their own accumulated value system,
beliefs and assumptions (ideological moves and/or translatorial habitus).

A good, individual example is Nawal El-Saadawi’s novel ‫الوجه العاري‬

‫' للمرأة العربية‬A Hidden Face of Eve' in which two chapters, namely
'Women’s Work at Home' and 'Arab Women and Socialism' have been
completely omitted (Amerieh 2000: 224). El-Saadawi in these two
omitted chapters criticizes capitalism in favour of socialism, thereby
annoying the publisher or translation project manager who has decided
to omit the two chapters entirely. Further, a whole passage in which El-
Saadawi encourages Arab women to stop thinking that Arab traditions,
culture and society are more oppressive, and to start thinking that they
are in an equal position to their Western counterparts, has been deleted
completely. Both the author and the translator, Sherif Hetata, have
accepted the deletion of these two chapters and the passage most likely
because of their desire to stay in the social game and acquire, maintain,
or redistribute some sort of capital, be it cultural, social or economic (for
more details, see Hanna 2005, 2006; Gouanvic 2005; Inghilleri 2005;
Sela-Sheffy 2005; Yannakopoulou 2008; Almanna 2013b, among
others).

FURTHER READING:
Bourdieu, P. (1986, 1990, 1998); Chesterman, A. (2006); Gouanvic, J.
(2005); Hanna, S. F. (2005, 2006); Inghilleri, M. (2005, 2009); Mialet,
E. B. (2010); Siisiainen, M. (2000); Simeoni, D. (1998); Tyulenev. S.
(2012); Yannakopoulou, V. (2008); Wolf, M. and Alexandra, F. (2007).

Exercise

Why do some translators, in particular literary

translators, spend time, effort, energy and at times
money to translate for free?

72
Exercise

Why do some translators and/or people in charge of

translation quality control avoid translating materials
which are considered by them as blasphemous?

Exercise

Why do some translators tend to re-translate famous

literary works written by well-known writers?

Exercise

Why do some translators and/or original writers

reluctantly accept the amendments and modifications
made on their translations/writings?

73
Chapter 4: Translation Strategies ---
Global Vs Local

Key Concepts

Adaptation; Amplification; Assimilative; Borrowing; Calque;

Condensation; Convergence; Cultural Approximation;
Diffusion; Direct Translation; Divergence; Equation;
Equivalence; Exoticizing Procedures; Global Strategy; Lexical
Creation; Literal Translation; Local Strategy; Ob lique
Translation; Modulation; Naturalization; Procedures;
Recognized Exoticism; Reduction; Reordering; Rich
Explicatory Procedures; Strategy; Substitution; Transposition.

Overview

Strategies (also labelled methods, procedures and techniques) have been

discussed by a great number of scholars, theorists, teachers and
translators (cf. Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995; Nida 1964; Catford
1965; Malone 1988; Newmark 1988; Baker 1992; Ghazala 1995/2006;
Chesterman 1997/2000; Farghal and Shunnaq 1999 among others).

Generally speaking, a strategy can be defined as the potential “conscious

procedure” adopted by translators to tackle problems they face in
rendering the text or “any segment of it” from one language into another
(Löescher 1991: 8). So, the strategy is different from the process of
translation, sometimes called translating. The former is conscious, while
the latter is not. Among the conclusions drawn from studies based on
Thinking-Aloud Protocols (TAPs) in investigating the translation
process is that translators’ behaviour can be divided into two types:
“strategic behaviour” and “non-strategic behaviour” (Löescher, ibid).
Jääskeläinen (1993: 116) goes further when differentiating between
‘global’ strategy, the general strategy adopted by the translator to deal
with the whole text, whether (to use Venuti’s (1995) terminology) to
domesticate or foreignize it, and ‘local’ strategy, which is a problem-

74
motivated strategy adopted by the translators to solve the problem they
face in dealing with segments of the text.

Translators, when deciding on the most appropriate global strategy, are

influenced by a number of factors at the forefront of which come the
purpose of translation and intended readership. It is crucial for
translators “to know why a text is translated and what the function of the
translated text is” (Xiao-jiang 2007: 64). This is in line with Vermeer’s
Skopos rule, which tells us “translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that
enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is
used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way
they want it to function” (Nord cited in Hatim 2001: 74). Additionally,
the publisher’s attitude, or the agency’s policy, the presence of the ST in
a bilingual edition and so on are of equal influence on deciding the
appropriateness of the global strategy to adopt by the translator.

J. P. Vinay & J. Darbelnet

Probably the most important book on translation strategies/procedures is

Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais by the French Canadian
linguists J. P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet (1958/1995). The book was
translated (1995) as ‘The Comparative Stylistics of French and English’
by Juan Sager and M. J. Hamel. In their book, Vinay and Darbelnet,
carried out a study between French and English from a stylistic
perspective. They adopted a comparative model in which the interfacing
languages were contrasted to each other in an attempt to pinpoint the
differences and nuances that result from the use of different strategies.
The book has paved the way to similar books between different pairs of
languages, such as German and English, Spanish and English, etc.
Fawcett (1997: 34) stresses that Vinay and Darbelnet’s classification is
based on
a) “the apparatus of Saussurean linguistics: langue/parole,
signifier/signified”; and
b) “the notion that each language has its own ‘spirit’ which
systematically compels it to express itself in one way rather than
another”.

75
They divide strategies or procedures into seven types, namely:
‘borrowing’, ‘calque’, literal translation’, transposition’, modulation’,
‘equivalence’ and ‘adaptation’. The first three types of strategies are
labelled ‘direct translation’, whilst the other four strategies named
‘oblique translation’ (Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995: pp. 84-91).

1- Borrowing means transferring the SL lexical item into the TL

directly due to, for instance, a gap in the TL lexicon or to
introduce “an element of local colour” (p. 85).
2- Calque refers to that type of borrowing in which the SL
expression is first transferred into the TL, then its components
are translated literally, resulting in either “lexical calque” or
“structural calque” (p. 85). They hold that like borrowing, many
calques with time become “an integral part of the language” and
with some “semantic change” could turn into false friends (p.85).
Calque is classified by them into two types:

a. ‘lexical calque’, which “respects the syntactic structure of

the TL while introducing a new mode of expression”, such as
pluralizing, for instance the borrowed word ‫ موبايل‬in Arabic
after being transliterated first from English.
b. ‘structural calque’, which “introduces a new construction”,
such as using the forced passive voice ‘by-structure’, i.e. ‫من‬
‫ قبل‬in Arabic.

3- Literal translation refers to the capability of transferring the ST

expression, phrase, sentence and so on into the TT literally
without any change apart from those required by the TL
grammar.

They add that when the translators, after having tried all three
procedures of direct translation, feel the outcome is unacceptable,
they could recourse to one of the four procedures of oblique
translation. They further comment that direct translation should be
avoided if

i. it changes the meaning;

ii. it is meaningless;
iii. it is ‘structurally impossible’;

76
 iv. it does not correspond to anything in the target-language
‘metalinguistic experience’;
v. it does have a correspondence in the TL, but within a
different register (p. 87).

4- Transposition refers to a change of one part of speech for

another without changing the meaning. Vinay and Darbelnet
comment that from a stylistic perspective the transposed
materials might have different impact; thus they advise
translators to opt for a transposition only if “the translation […]
obtained fits better into the utterance, or allows a particular
nuance of style to be retained” (p. 89).
5- Modulation refers to “a variation of the form of the message,
obtained by changing point of view” (p. 89). For stylistic reasons,
to avoid repetition, or for other reasons, translators, at times, opt
to use an antonym plus a negation element, change the passive
form into active form or vice versa, change a concrete noun to an
abstract one, or reorder the cause-effect sequence, etc. Like
transposition, modulation, according to Vinay and Darbelnet,
could be ‘optional’ or ‘obligatory’. By way of illustration, let us
consider the following example quoted from them that can be
translated into Arabic in two different ways:

It is not difficult to show … (p. 89)

... ‫ليس من الصعب أن تبين‬ -
... ‫من السهل أن تبين‬ -

6- Equivalence, in the sense Vinay and Darbelnet use the term,

refers to the possibility of rendering an idiom, proverb, cliché,
nominal or adjectival phrase, etc. by “using completely different
stylistic and structural methods” as long as it is used in the same
situation in the interfacing languages, as in the Arabic idiomatic
expression ‫ على أحر من الجمر‬which may well be translated into
English as ‘to be on pins and needles’.
7- Adaptation is special kind of equivalence, i.e. “a situational
equivalence”; it is used when the TL culture does not have a
similar situation in its experience that could accommodate the
situation of the original culture. They suggest “the translators

77
 have to create a new situation that can be considered as being
equivalent” (p. 91). A good example of adaptation in the sense
that Vinay and Darbelnet use the term is when the translator, for
instance, change the proper name used as a vehicle in a simile
like ‘he is as rich as Croesus’ into another proper name such as
‘Qaroun’ in Arabic, as in ‫‘ يملك مال قارون‬lit. he has Qaroun’s
wealth’ (for more details, see Almanna 2010: 118-120).

Vinay and Darbelnet argue that translation is “an exact discipline” and
only partially an art (p. 7). In this regard, Newmark (1991: 31)
comments that
they appear unaware that they are only discussing non-literary
translation and that their references to literary translation, copious
but not exemplified, are confined to the contents of their
bibliographies. Further, they often ignore the valid alternatives to
their suggested translations, so that their discipline, though it aims
to be ‘scientific’, linking with Nida (1964) and therefore partly
influenced by Chomsky, only ends up as an approximation.

Since Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995), scholars have offered a plethora

of strategies to compensate for the lack of cultureme equivalence.
Kwieci´nski (2001: 157) has summarized these into four groups:
1- Exoticizing procedures, i.e. reflecting the exotic source culture
and its cultural strangeness by opting for a more or less a literal
translation, such as: ‫‘ = توكل على هللا‬put your trust on Allah’, or
borrowing the foreign term into the TL, such as ‘falafil’, ‘thob’,
‫البتوب‬, ‫بنك‬, etc. (for more examples, see Malone’s (1988) equation
below). This strategy provides the TL reader with local colour
and atmosphere (cf. Newmark 1988: 82).
2- Rich explicatory procedures, i.e. evaluating the denotational
equivalent chosen to see whether it is self-sufficient or not. If not,
the translator needs to explicate it by means of synonymy,
expansion, paraphrase and the like as in the translation of lexical
items, such as ‘solicitor’, ‘barrister’, ‘bookshop’ into ‫محام مكتبي‬,
‫ محام مترافع‬and ‫ مكتبة لبيع الكتب‬respectively (for more details and
examples, see Malone’s amplification below). To further
illustrate these procedures, consider the following example
quoted from Orwell’s (1960: 9) novel ‘Animal Farm’ cited in and
translated by Al-Rubai’i 2005: 37; emphasis added):

78
 Napoleon was a large, rather fierce-looking Berkshire boar,
the only Berkshire on the farm, not much of a talker, but with
a reputation for getting his own way.

‫ من ساللة بيركشر ]التي تتميز‬،‫كان نابليون خنزيراً شرس المظهر نوعا ً ما‬
‫ کان الوحيد من هذه الساللة‬.[‫ وتسلطها‬،‫ وغلبة اللون األسود عليها‬،‫بضخامتها‬
.‫ ولكنه عرف بأنه يفعل ما يريد‬،‫ ال يحسن الحديث‬،‫في الحقل‬

3- Recognized exoticisation or exoticism, i.e. opting for accepted

translations according to the TL when translating some well-
known geographical and personal names and titles, such as ‫نهر‬
‫ الفرات‬or ‫ النبي عيسى‬which are translated into English as:
‘Euphrates’ and ‘Jesus’ respectively. However, it is worth
noting that these accepted translations may change over time. A
good example is the current use of words like ‫ بيجنغ‬and ‫ مومبي‬for
Beijing and Mumbai respectively, instead of the age-long Arabic
domesticated versions ‫ بكين‬and ‫ بومبي‬respectively.
4- Assimilative procedures, i.e. transforming the original terms
and/or expressions into close functionally equivalent target terms
and/or expressions, or alternatively reducing them to sense. So,
similes like ‘as bitter as a lemon’, ‘as clear as water/sky’ are
English cultural equivalents of ‫مر مثل العلقم‬, ‫واضح وضوح الشمس‬
respectively, i.e. they are functional equivalents. This is because
words like ‘lemon’ and ‘water/sky’ may be as effective as ‫علقم‬
and ‫ شمس‬in Arabic as long as they are not a leitmotif in
themselves in the TL (cf. Nida and Taber 1969: 4). When a
functional equivalent is not reachable, then the focus is shifted
towards the sense, i.e. the idea of the SL expression,
independently of the form and function, thus producing an
ideational equivalent, as in ‫ مر جدا‬and ‫ واضح جدا‬respectively (for
more details on types of equivalence, see Chapter Two).

79
 J. L. Malone

Malone (1988: 3) highlights the importance of modern synchronic

linguistics, “which views language functionally and structurally”, to
translation studies. Malone (ibid: 15; emphasis added) provides a list of
local strategies that the translator may recourse to when dealing with the
text at hand, these are:

1- Matching: (equation vs. substitution);

2- Zigzagging: (divergence vs. convergence);
3- Recrescence: (amplification vs. Reduction);
4- Repackaging: (diffusion vs. condensation); and
5- Reordering.

The first eight strategies appear as pairs, that is to say, one is the
opposite of the other. For instance, when translating the English verb ‘to
wear’ into Arabic, it is a divergence strategy since we have to carefully
select the most appropriate equivalent from a potential range of
alternatives, such as: ‫يلبس‬, ‫يضع‬, ‫يرتدي‬, ‫يتعطر‬, ‫يصفف‬, ‫يربي‬, etc. Conversely,
translating one of the Arabic verbs above into English undergoes
converging. By way of explanation, let us consider this example quoted
from Almanna and Almanna (2008: 53; emphasis added):

- The party will be next week. What are you going to wear to the
party?
- I don’t know – I’m confused.
- Why don’t you wear a black dress?
- No, I think I’m going to wear a white dress and black shoes.
- What about you? Are you going to wear your beard?
- Yes, I will wear it. Will you wear your glasses to the party? And
are you going to wear your hair up? You will look most
attractive
- Okay, I will see.

‫ ماذا سترتدين للحفلة؟‬،‫سيكون موعد الحفلة األسبوع المقبل‬

.‫ فأنا متحيرة‬،‫ال أعرف‬

80
 ‫ل َم ال ترتدين ثوبا ً أسود؟‬
ً
.‫ أعتقد أنني سأرتدتي فستاتا أبيض وحـذاء أسود‬،‫ال‬
‫ هل ستربي ذقنك؟‬،‫وما ذا عنك‬
‫ ستبدين‬،‫نعم سأفعل وأنت هل ستضعين نظارتك في الحفلة؟ وهل ستصففين شعرك إلى األعلى‬
.‫جذابة جدا‬
.‫ سأرى‬،‫حسنا‬

Equation Vs Substitution

Equation is the most common strategy in dealing with culturally specific

words and neologies. Generally speaking, culture-specific words like
‫فالفل‬, ‫إمام‬, ‫جهاد‬, etc. are loaned in English as ‘falafil’, ‘Imam’, ‘jihad’. In
reverse, scientific terms, such as ‘computer’, ‘camera’, ‘blue tooth’,
‘internet’, ‘email’, ‘mobile’, ‘fax’, ‘video’, ‘satellite’, ‘film’, ‘telephone’,
‘cassette’, etc. are loaned in Arabic as: ‫كمبيوتر‬, ‫كاميرا‬, ‫بلوتوث‬, ‫انترنت‬, ‫إيميل‬,
‫موبايل‬, ‫فاكس‬, ‫فيديو‬, ‫ستاليت‬, ‫فيلم‬, ‫تلفون‬, ‫كاسيت‬. As the examples above exhibit,
this strategy is sometimes expanded to include terms that have already
had equivalents in the TL, as in ‘bank’, ‘telephone’, ‘cassette’, ‘mobile’,
etc. which their equivalents in Arabic are respectively ‫مصرف‬, ‫هاتف‬, ‫شريط‬,
‫جوال‬/‫نقال‬/‫خليوي‬/‫محمول‬. This strategy is labelled by Baker (1992: 34)
‘translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation’. She states
that it is of paramount importance that the loaned word is to be followed
by an explanation, in particular when it is “repeated several times in the
text” (ibid). Starkey (2008: 1) in his translation of ‫ سميرة المانع‬Samīra al-
Māni‘ (1997: 7) novella ‘Oppressors’, has opted for equation when
using ‘Satt’ for the Arabic word ‫ ست‬followed by an explanation in the
form of a footnote:

،‫ اثناء ما تكون السماء ملتصقة باالرض من شدة العتمة‬،‫في ليلة من ليالي شتاء بغداد‬
‫ هرعت ست‬.‫سُمع صياح وضوضاء خارجا ً من احدى غرف داخلي طالبات كلية اآلداب‬
.‫ مهيئة نفسها لمعاقبة العابثات المزعجات‬،‫ مديرة الداخلي منفزعة‬،‫ماري‬

One Baghdad winter’s night, ‫ ـــ‬a night so dark that the sky seemed
to merge into the earth, ‫ ـــ‬a great commotion could be heard
coming from a room in the Faculty of Language girls’ boarding
house. Satt* [* Satt indicates title of Miss] Marie, the House
Principle, hurried out in alarm, preparing herself to punish the
girls who were to blame.

81
Another form of equation, which is labelled by Newmark (1988: 82) as
‘naturalisation’, and Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995: 85) as ‘calque’, is
when the SL word is well adapted to the TL morpho-phonological
system. In this case, the loaned word, after having undergone a number
of procedures, such as the modification of the pronunciation and/or
spelling runs for a shelter in the hosting language so that it could be used
in different forms, such as singular, plural, masculine, feminine and so
on, changed to a different word class, such as noun, adjective, adverb,
verb, etc. Consider the following examples:

Photograph ‫فوتوغراف‬
Morpheme ‫مورفيم‬
Technology ‫تكنلوجيا‬
Biology ‫بايولوجي‬

The third type of equation, which is labelled by Farghal and Shunnaq

(1999: 29) ‘lexical creation’, occurs when the translator coins “new
lexical items in the TL to stand for SL culture-specific elements”, such
as ‘co-wife’ for ‫ الضرة‬and ‫ عيد الحب‬for ‘Valentine Day’, etc.

At times, the translator opts for ‘double presentation’, i.e. the use of the
loan word plus its equivalent in the TL (Pym: 1992: 72). Taylor (1998:
50) warns against sliding into the “traps associated with the word-for-
word equation”, particularly that of faux amis, i.e. false friends, “where
the meanings of deceptively similar terms do not match across
languages. For instance, the colloquial Arabic word, used in some Gulf
countries, ‫ جبس‬recalls the English word ‘chips’, whilst it refers to ‘crisp’
in the UK.

Substitution, on the other hand, refers to a type of rendering that “may

bear little or no morpho-syntactic or semantic relations to the source
text” (Taylor 1998: 52). For example the idafa-construction in Arabic is
substituted with of-structure, Saxon genitive or adjective-noun
expression in English. Consider the following examples:
the man’s car ‫ سيارة الرجل‬-
the process of translation ‫ عملية الترجمة‬-

In the same vein, some adverbs in English are replaced with a

prepositional phrase followed by a qualifier in Arabic, as in:

82
 - dramatically = ‫بشكل كبير‬
- reasonably = ‫بشكل معقول‬
- surprisingly = ‫بشكل مفاجيء‬

Further, there are a great number of verbs in Arabic, such as:

‫فرح‬, ‫حزن‬, ‫سئم‬, ‫عطش‬, ‫جاع‬, ‫اندهش‬, ‫انزعج‬, ‫اقتنع‬, ‫خجل‬, ‫تفاءل‬, ‫تشاءم‬, ‫أجاد‬, ‫تحلى‬
)‫(بالصبر‬, ‫تعب‬, ‫كل‬, ‫مل‬, ‫أسف‬, ‫غضب‬, ‫ أفلس‬and the like that are best substituted
with a linking verb (verb to be, feel, become, get, etc.) plus an adjective
in English, as in:

be/feel happy, be/feel sad, be/become bored, be/feel thirsty,

be/feel/become hungry, be/become surprised, be/become annoyed,
be/become content, be/become shy, be/become optimistic,
be/become pessimistic, be/become excellent, be patient, be/become
tired, be/become weary, be/feel sorry, be/become/get angry,
become bankrupt, etc.

At a more semantic rather than morpho-syntactic level, the translator’s

decision to use a particular strategy will largely depend on:
a. “how much licence is given to him/her by those who commission
the translation”; and
b. “The purpose of the translation” (Baker 1992: 31; see also
Chapter Five).

The proverb ‘A fox is not taken twice in the same snare’ can be replaced
with ‫ ال يلدغ المؤمن من جحر مرتين‬and the simile ‘as green as grass’ can be
replaced with ‫( أخضر كالعشب‬for more details, see Almanna 2010: 109-
120). Although in such a strategy the propositional meaning of each
individual word is not taken into account, it is still operative, particularly
“in general texts, publicity and propaganda, as well as for brief
explanation to readers who are ignorant of relevant SL culture”
(Newmark 1988: 83). Such a ‘cultural approximation’ can be achieved at
the level of lexis, phrases, clichés, proverbs, etc. (Farghal and Shunnaq
1999: 26). Consider the following examples along with their suggested
translations provided by Farghal and Shunnaq (ibid):

- Lexical item: God is replaced with ‫هللا‬.

- Phrase: American Secretary of State is replaced with ‫وزير الخارجية‬
‫األمريكي‬.

83
 - Clichés: as busy as a bee is replaced with ‫زي أم العروس‬.
- Proverb: like mother like daughter is replaced with ‫إقلب الجرة على‬
‫ثمها بتطلع البنت ألمها‬.

Such a variation of the form of the message, obtained by changing point

of view is labelled by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995: 89)
‘modulation’ (see above). Consider the following example of modulation
in which the translator has changed the active form into passive form:

‫ تبعتها‬.‫ بيدها للنافذة المطلة على الحديقة ال تستطيع النطق‬،‫ كالخرساء‬،‫أشارت فتاة‬
.... ‫ ثم الباقيات‬،‫األخرى‬
(Samīra al-Māni‘ 1997: 7)

A girl gestured with her hand at the window overlooking the

garden, like a dumb person, unable to speak. She was followed
by another girl, then by the others …. (Starkey 2008: 1)

In a similar vein, Chesterman (1997/2000: 103) highlights the possibility

of using the converse, i.e. a lexical item that “expresses the same state of
affairs from oppositing viewpoint”, such as ‘buy’ and ‘sell’, ‘come’ and
‘go’ and so on. Although he labels it ‘converse’, it is still a type of
substitution at a pure semantic level.

Divergence Vs Convergence

Divergence, as hinted above, involves the process of selecting the most

appropriate equivalent from a potential range of alternatives. When
translating Arabic words like ‫محام‬, ‫شركة‬, ‫رئيس‬, ‫نائب‬, ‫صوت‬, ‫مدير‬, etc. into
English, we have to select the most suitable equivalent among
alternatives available such as ‘solicitor/ barrister’, ‘company/ partner’,
‘president/ chair’, ‘-vice/ deputy’, ‘sound/ voice/ vote/ volume’,
‘manager/ director’, etc. Reversely, in translating, for instance words
like ‫عم‬/‫ خال‬or ‫عمة‬/‫خالة‬, we converge them into ‘uncle’, ‘aunt’
ِ ‫ أن‬/ َ‫ ’أنت‬are
respectively. Similarly, the Arabic pronouns ‫ أنتن‬/ ‫ أنتما‬/ ‫ أنتم‬/ ‫ت‬
all converged into 'you’ in English, leaving the context and/or co-text to
determine the meaning. Dickins et al (2002: 56) state that when the

84
denotative meaning of the TT word is wider than that of its counterpart
in the ST, it is, then, converging, or to use Dickins’ et al terminology
translating by ‘hyperonymy’ or ‘generalisation’. However, when the
denotative meaning of the TT word is narrower and more specific than
the ST word, it is divergence, or as Dickins et al (ibid) label it translating
by ‘hyponymy’ or ‘particularisation’. By way of illustration, let us
consider the following translation offered by a trainee translator:
Smoking is a hard habit to break because tobacco contains
nicotine, which is highly addictive.
‫التدخين هو من األمور التي ال يمكن التخلص منها بسهولة بسبب احتواء التبغ على‬
.‫مادة مسببة لإلدمان وهي النيكوتين‬
Here, the translation offered by the student translator contains a
generalizing translation in which the denotative meaning of the lexical
item ‫' األمور‬lit. things' in the TT is wider and less specific than its
counterpart in the ST, i.e. 'habit'.

Baker (1992: 26), in her list of strategies used by professional

translators, suffices with the second strategy ‘convergence’ under the
rubric ‘translation by a more general word (superordinate)’.

Amplification Vs Reduction

Amplification, here, implies the process of expanding the ST expression

by the addition of some elements to it. Such amplification occurs owing
to the fact that
1- the original word is not lexicalized in the TL (Baker 1992: 38);
2- the original word is culturally specific;
3- the original verbal sign has a cultural connotation; or
4- the original social deixis makes references to gender, or social
classes (Harton cited in Al-Masri 2004:75).

At times, amplification is used

5- to make up for the loss of the ST effect by creating a similar
effect in the TT;
6- to meet the requirements of the TL genre;

85
 7- to change emphasis or thematic focus (Chesterman 1997/2000:
104); or
8- for the purpose of greater comprehensibility (Taylor 1998: 55).

Other factors that may justify addition include the differences in

‘presupposition’ and ‘intertextuality’ (cf. Al-Bainy 2002). He goes on to
stress that “what is assumed and presupposed in the Arab culture may
not be necessarily available in English culture and vice versa”. In
addition, “the intertextuality may be completely different from that of
the TL”, hence the differences in interpretation of the ST. In this case, as
he suggests, “the translator should step in and aid the [TL] reader to
guarantee […] interpretation” similar to that intended by the original
author (ibid). Such an addition can be in the form of a footnote, endnote,
bracketed addition, or can be incorporated in the body of the text.

However, Nida and Taber (1969: 167) warn against inserting

“information indispensable to the understanding of the message” in the
body of the text itself. They argue that such pieces of information “may
only be part of the general cultural backgrounds shared by the
participants in the Source Language”. Consider the following examples
in which amplification occurs for different reasons:

- Non-lexicalized term:

In the words of a Lonrho affidavit dated 2 November 1988, the

allegations ….
2 ‫وحسب النص الوارد في افادة كتابية مشفوعة بيمين قدمتها مؤسسة لونرو بتاريخ‬
.... ‫ فإن االدعاءات‬،1988 ‫نوفمبر‬
(printed in Baker 1992: 38; emphasis hers)

- Culture-specific term:

‫وحيث إنـها ما زالت في العدة الشرعية فإنني أرجعها إلى عصمتي‬

Whereas she is still within the legally prescribed waiting period
before marriage, I return her to my matrimonial authority.
(cited in Hatim, Shunnaq and Buckley 1995: 99)

86
- Differences between source and target signifying systems
He is as wise as an owl.
.[‫حكيم كالبوم ]والبوم عند الغرب يضرب به المثل بالحكمة‬
(adapted from Al-Rubai’i 2005: pp. 38-9; emphasis added)

- For greater comprehensibility:

‫يسري هذا العقد لمدة عام وتبدأ هذه المدة من التاريخ الذي يغادر فيه المتعاقد موطنه‬
.‫متوجها ً إلى المملكة‬

(cited in Hatim, Shunnaq and Buckley, ibid: 147; emphasis added)

This contract is valid for the year starting from the date on which
the employee leaves his home country on his way to the kingdom
of Saudi Arabia.

(Al-Ahmadieh’s translation printed in Al-Bainy 2002: 165;

emphasis added)

- For generic purposes:

‫ يعمل لدينا بالمشغل‬... ‫ أن السيد‬... ‫ صاحب مشغل سامر للحدادة في مدينة‬... ‫أشهد أنا‬
.... ‫بمهنة معلم حدادة‬

I, (name), owner of Samir smithery in the city of …hereby certify

that Mr. … has been employed by us in the simthery as a smith ….

(cited in Hatim, Shunnaq and Buckley 1995: 27; emphasis added)

Addition can be resorted to by translators to reflect, for example,

colloquialism, semiotic dimension, pragmatic value, etc. or to solicit the
receptor’s reaction. Consider the following examples quoted from Al-
Rubai’i (2005: 37, 45):

- To reflect a semiotic dimension:

87
Napoleon was a large, rather fierce-looking Berkshire boar, the only
Berkshire on the farm, not much of a talker, but with a reputation for
getting his own way. (p. 37)

‫ من ساللة بيركشر ]التي تتميز‬،‫كان نابليون خنزيراً شرس المظهر نوعا ً ما‬
‫ کان الوحيد من هذه الساللة في‬.[‫ وتسلطها‬،‫ وغلبة اللون األسود عليها‬،‫بضخامتها‬
.‫ ولكنه عرف بأنه يفعل ما يريد‬،‫ ال يحسن الحديث‬،‫الحقل‬

- To reflect colloquialism:

‘Listen at you, now’, Luster said. ‘Ain’t you something, thirty-

three years old, going on that way...’. (p. 45)
‫ أليس عجيباً أنك في الثالثة‬.‫ "اسمع أنينك اآلن‬:[‫قال لستر ]بالعامية التي يتحدثها السود‬
."‫ وتستمر على هذا النحو‬،‫والثالثين من عمرك‬

Reduction, on the other hand, involves the omission of some elements

in the TT. Such omission frequently occurs in rendering a text from
Arabic into English and vice versa. The main reason for such reduction
is when the element is not important to the development of the text and
omitting it does not harm the author’s intentions or alter the text-type
focus, but, on the contrary, retaining it in the TT might complicate the
structure and strike the TL receptor as unusual. Consider this example
quoted from Izz al-Dīn al-Madanī’s ‫‘ حكاية قنديل‬The Tale of the Lamp’:

‫ وأدخله نفسه وبحضور‬،‫ثم خلع عليه السلطان خلعة من الدقمس والحرير ُموشاة بالذهب‬
‫ فهي كما قال الشاعر‬... ‫ فوجدها الرجل عروسا ً من أجمل ما رأى‬.‫الحاشية على ابنته‬
:‫ هلل دره‬،‫القديم‬

The Sultan then dressed the traveller in a gold-embroidered silk

robe of honour and guided his guest to the princess in the presence
o fth e courtiers. When the man saw his bride-to-be, he thought she
was the most beautiful girl his eyes had ever beheld. She brought
to mind the words o fth e ancient poet:
(printed in and translated by Husni and Newman 2008: 26-7)

88
Another reason for omitting certain elements is to maintain a desired
level of naturalness that requires the translator to coordinate “obligatory
and optional information through the choices of explicit or implicit
expression” (Trotter 2000: 199). It is of greater importance for the
translator to be aware of the common TL conventions and language-
specific rules that determine the text naturalness. By way of illustration,
let us consider the following example quoted from Izz al-Dīn al-
Madanī’s ‫‘ قنديل حكاية‬The Tale of the Lamp’ printed in and translated by
Husni and Newman (2008: 24-5; emphasis added):

.)‫ (نعم يا موالي السلطان إنه وهللا قنديل من النحاس‬:‫فقال الرجل‬

‘Yes, my lord – a lamp made out of copper’.

Sometimes when the word or expression used in the ST is redundant, it

provides the translator with a reasonable justification to omit it, as is in
the following example quoted from Jandari’s story ‫‘حكاية قديمة‬An Old
Tale’ printed in and translated by Almanna and Alrubai’i (2009: 114-
115; emphasis added):

‫ غطوا أنوفهم‬،‫ وال الحركة‬،‫ولما لم أجب ولم أتحرك أدركوا اني ال أستطيع الكالم‬
.‫بكوفياتهم وسحلوا الجثة وازاحوها عن فوهة الحفرة‬
When I neither moved nor replied, they realized that I wasn’t able
either to speak or to move. They covered their noses with their
kaffiehs and dragged the carcass away from the opening of the
hole.

In such a context when one drags something implies ‘moving it aside’.

So, such a ST semantic repetition is avoided by emerging the two
phrases into one phrasal verb ‘to drag away’ in the TT. Stylistically
speaking, Arabic shows preference for semantic repetition in which, at
least, two synonyms, or near synonyms, are used in juxtaposition. To
translate such a semantic repetition from Arabic into English, translators
may opt for one of the four techniques suggested by Dickins et al (2002:
59-61). These are ‘merging’, ‘grammatical transposition’, ‘semantic
distancing’ and ‘maintenance’.

89
 Diffusion Vs Condensation

Unlike amplification and reduction which deal with the addition or

omission of some elements for the sake of naturalness, better style,
avoidance of repetition and the like as shown above, diffusion and
condensation are “concerned with phenomenon of linguistically
slackening and tightening source text expressions for the target text
version, that is, providing more or less elaboration” (Taylor 1998: 56).
For instance, some verbs in English need to be diffused into a verb plus a
preposition in Arabic, as in:

- waive ‫يتنازل عن‬

- stress ‫يؤكد على‬
In reverse, some Arabic verbs need to be diffused in English, as in:
have mercy upon ‫يرحم‬ -
play with ‫يتالعب‬ -
sit down with/keep company with ‫يجالس‬ -
joke with/make fun with ‫يداعب‬ -
wait for ‫ينتظر‬ -

In the same vein, words like ‫معلومات‬, ‫نصائح‬, ‫أخبار‬, ‫أثاث‬, ‫مالبس‬, ‫أدلة‬, ‫بحوث‬,
etc. need to be diffused in English in order to convey the plurality, as in:
‘pieces/items of information’, ‘pieces of advice’, ‘items/pieces of news’,
‘articles of furniture’, ‘articles of clothes’, ‘pieces of evidence’, ‘pieces
of research’ respectively.

Unlike Arabic, English is characterized by its highly productive process

in creating a great number of new words, expressions and the like. Thus,
structures like ‘U-shaped movement’, ‘age-related diseases’, are
compressed structures which are hardly transferred into Arabic unless
the translator unfolds its structures. So, structures like ‘U-shaped
movement’ and ‘age-related disease’ mean ‘a movement which is in the
shape of the letter U’ and ‘the diseases which are related to age’
respectively, that is:
.‫ باإلنكليزية‬U ‫ حركة على شكل حرف الـ‬-
.‫ األمراض المتعلقة بالعمر‬-

90
In the other direction, phrasal verbs in English, such as ‘put an end to’,
‘go on well’, ‘to get behind with’, ‘to get (something) back’, etc. involve
condensation when being rendered into Arabic, as follows:
‫ يسترد‬،‫ يتخلف عن‬،‫ ينسجم مع‬،‫ينهي‬

Reordering

Reordering, as the name suggests, is a strategy that involves the

inversion of ST sequences, such as adjective-noun, verb-adverb,
collocation sequences, subject-object sequences, etc. to fit in the TL and
read more cogently. In Arabic, for instance, the adjective is preceded by
the noun, as in: ‫الكتاب النافع‬, but in English it should be the other way
round, the adjective is followed by the noun, as in: ‘the useful book’.

Another example that fits in here is the inversion of the verb-subject

sequences while translating ً‫ جاء الرجل متأخرا‬into ‘the man came late’. At
times, some sequences of collocates require translators to reorder them
when translating from English into Arabic or vice versa, as in the
following examples (for more details, see Shama 1978; Trotter 2000):

black and white = ‫أبيض أسود‬ -

day and night = ‫ليل نهار‬ -
pins and needles = ‫أبر ودبابيس‬ -
with soap and water = ‫بالماء والصابون‬ -
giving and taking = ‫أخذ وعطاء‬ -
right and wrong = ‫الخطأ والصواب‬ -
vice and virtue = ‫الفضيلة والرذيلة‬ -
come and go = ‫ذهاب وآياب‬ -
food and water = ‫الماء والزاد‬ -
sooner or later = ً‫آجالً أم عاجال‬ -
with knife and fork ‫بالشوكة والسكين‬ -

The divergent patterns of coherence between the interfacing languages

have an influential role in activating the reordering strategy. Generally
speaking, languages conceptualize and record their experiences of the
world differently. So, what is acceptable in one language cannot be taken
for granted in another. In the following example quoted from
Abdulsattar Nasir’s story ‫‘ ثالث قصص ليست للنشر‬Three Stories not for

91
Publishing’ (cited in Almanna and Alrubai’i 2009: 15), the ST word
‫‘ السعادة‬happiness’ is used as a doer of the action which is not only
acceptable but a finer style in Arabic as well.

..‫لكن السعادة كانت قد غمرت أهل المدينة كلهم‬

To record such an experience of the world in English, one may well say
‘people are filled with/ glow with/ weep with/ feel happiness’, but not
the other way round in which happiness is the doer of the action. To put
this differently, textual restructuring, i.e. reorganizing “chunks of textual
material in the TT in order to make them read more cogently” is
sometimes needed in translation (cf. Dickins et al 2002: 173).

Apart of these compulsory cases that require translators to activate the

reordering strategy, translators sometimes, for stylistic reasons, skew the
ST structure to fit in the TL syntax and read more cogently. Consider the
following example cited in and translated by Husni and Newman (2008:
44-45; emphasis added) in which the ST structure is skewed into more
congruent English syntax:

،‫ ((سيعود إليك زوجك‬:‫قال الشيخ سعيد وهو يرمي في وعاء الجمر نتفا ً من البخور‬
‫ فندت عنها‬،‫ وكان صوته وقوراً هادئا ً منح عزيزة الطمأنينة‬.))‫ولن يتزوج مرة ثانية‬
.))ً‫ ((ولكن عملي يتطلب ماالً كثيرا‬:‫ ابتهج لها وجه الشيخ وقال‬،‫آهة ارتياح طويلة‬

He threw bits of incense into the dish filled with live coal, and said:
“Your husband will return to you, and he will not take another
wife.” His voice was sedate and soft, and soothed Aziza, who heaved
a deep sigh of satisfaction. The Sheikh’s face lit up. “However, my
work doesn’t come cheap,” he said.

To conclude this chapter, it is worth noting that these local strategies do

not have clear-cut borders; rather they overlap to a certain degree. What
is called, for instance translation by paraphrasing, it can be named
translation by illustration on a different occasion. Also, sometimes
adopting one strategy leads to another. In this regard, Komissarvo (cited
in Fawcett 1997: 52) rightly comments that “the ability to translate does
not mean the ability to formulate one’s thought processes”. However,

92
“knowing the names and practicing the techniques of translation […]
may correct the deficiencies and the wrong intuition, creating a
liberating effect without being a constraint”. Therefore, highlighting the
strategies available for translation students is of greater importance in
enhancing novice translators’ analytical ability. Equally important, along
with naming these strategies for inexperienced translators, some light
needs be cast on
a. the linguistic and cultural differences between the interfacing
languages;
b. stylistic considerations and pragmatic effects of the message;
c. registeral considerations;
d. text type;
e. generic conventions (see Chapter Five in this book).

Such a comprehensive textual analysis will definitely increase novice

translators’ awareness of using certain strategies that solve the problem
that they face with a minimum loss. By doing so, the critique raised by
critics, such as Kelly (1979), Chuquet and Paillard (1987) and Larose
(1989) that such taxonomies are not predictive, i.e. naming the strategy
does not tell the translator when to use it, will be demolished (see
Fawcett 1997: 50-51). Interestingly enough, the relationship between
motivations and strategies is not a one-to-one relationship, but rather the
strategy is sometimes motivated by many factors.

FURTHER READING:
Baker, M. (1992); Belhaaj, A. E. (1998); Catford, J. C. (1965);
Chesterman, A. (1997/2000); Farghal, M. and Shunnaq, A. (1999/2011);
Fawcett, P. (1997); Ghazala, H. (1995); Kwieci´nski, P. (2001); Malone,
J. L. (1988); Munday, J. (2001/2008); Newmark, P. (1988); Nida, E.
(1964); Taylor, C. (1998); Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. (1958/1995).

Exercise

Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995) classify strategies or

procedures into two main types, namely ‘direct
translation’ and ‘oblique translation’. Explain these two

93
 types by providing the reader with authentic translation
examples.
Exercise

To make up for the lack of cultural equivalence,

translators normally opt for different local strategies.
Kwieci´nski (2001) has summarized these local strategies
into four groups. What are they?

Exercise

Discuss the local strategies that have been adopted by

Johnson-Davies (1969/1999), the translator of the
following extract quoted from al-Tayyb Salih’s (1968: 5)
‫‘ موسم الهجرة إلى الشمال‬Season of Migration to the North’
and then outline the strategies that you are with or against.

‫ كنت خاللها‬،‫ سبعة أعوام على وجه التحديد‬،‫عندما عدت إلى أهلي يا سادتي بعد غيبة طويلة‬
‫ المهم انني عدت وبي‬.‫ لكن تلك قصة أخرى‬،‫ وغاب عني الكثير‬،‫ تعلمت الكثير‬.‫أتعلم في أوربا‬
‫ سبعة أعوام وأنا أحن إليهم‬.‫شوق عظيم إلى أهلي في تلك القرية الصغيرة عند منحنى النيل‬
‫ فرحوا بي وضجوا‬،‫ ولما جئتهم كانت لحظة عجيبة أن وجدتني حقيقة قائما ً بينهم‬،‫وأحلم بهم‬
‫ فكأنني مقرور‬،‫ ولم يمض وقت طويل حتى أحسست كأن ثلجا ً يذوب في دخيلتي‬،‫من حولي‬
‫ فقدته زمانا ً في بالد (تموت من البرد‬،‫ ذلك دفء الحياة في العشيرة‬.‫طلعت عليه الشمس‬
.)‫حيتانها‬

It was, gentlemen, after a long absence – seven years to be exact,

during which time I was studying in Europe – that I returned to my
people. I learned much and much passed by – but that is another story.
The importance thing is that I returned with great yearning for my
people in that small village at the bend of the Nile. For seven years I
had longed for them, had dreamed of them, and it was an extraordinary
moment when I at last found myself standing amongst them. They
rejoiced at having me back and made a great fuss, and it was not long
before I felt as though a piece of ice were melting inside of me, as
though I were some frozen substance on which the sun had shone – that
life warmth of the tribe which I has lost for a time in a land ‘whose
fishes die of the cold’.

94
Chapter 5: Translation Brief: Macro Factors

Key Concepts

Cultural Clash; Genre; Habitus; Ideology; Master Discourse

of Translation; Patronage; Poetics of Translation; Purpose of
Translation (Skopos); Readership; Text Type; Translation Brief

Overview

Translators, when deciding on the most appropriate global strategy, are

“required to ask several questions that determine the genre aims and
properties, the TT audience, the intended function(s) of the TT and all
the information needed to form the strategic decision before embarking
on translation” (Sharkas 2009: 48). It is of crucial importance for
translators “to know why a text is translated and what the function of the
translated text is” (Xiao-jiang 2007: 64). This is in line with Vermeer's
(1989/2004: 223) Skopos rule, which requires translators to translate the
original text in a way that makes it function in the situation where it is
used and with the people who intend to use it in the way they want it to
function. In this regard, Hatim and Mason (1997: 11) remark:
“Translators’ choices are constrained by the brief for the job which they
have to perform, including the purpose and status of the translation and
the likely readership and so on”. Parallel to these, the publisher’s
attitude, or the agency’s policy, the presence of the ST in a bilingual
edition, and the relationship between the source and target cultures (self
and other) are often of equal influence in deciding the appropriateness of
a particular global strategy. Venuti (2004: 468) comments:
Translation never communicates in an untroubled fashion because
the translator negotiates the linguistic and cultural differences of
the foreign text by reducing them and supplying another set of
differences, basically domestic, drawn from the receiving language
and culture to enable the foreign to be received there.

In sum, translators do not work randomly, but are rather influenced by

particular constraints and parameters that are of a macro nature. The

95
translator sometimes receives some information (the translation brief)
from the translation commissioner (client, agent, translation project
manager or publisher), which implicitly or explicitly gives indications as
to what global strategy to adopt.

Cast in less practical terms, the translation commissioner, be it a client,

translation agent, publisher and so on sometimes provides the translator,
whether implicitly or explicitly, with certain information that would help
him/her in adopting a certain global strategy. Such information is
labelled by Fraser (1996) as translation brief, which includes, whether
implicitly or explicitly, the text function, the TT readership, the time and
place of text reception, the tenor of text and the purpose of translation
(cf. Nord 1997; Sager 1989; Munday 2001/2008; Sharkas 2005, 2009).
Sharkas (2005), echoing Nord (1997: 31), states that although the
translation brief “helps the translator draw profiles of the ST and the
required TT as well as decide from the very beginning what type of
translation is needed” (p.26), it “is not intended to tell the translator what
translation strategy or type to choose” (p.27). This is precisely what
Hervey and Higgins (1992: 14) mean when they write:
Strategic decisions are decisions which the translator makes before
actually starting the translation, in response to such questions as
'what are the salient linguistic characteristics of this text?'; 'what
are its principal effects?'; 'what genre does it belong to and what
audience is it aimed at?'; 'what are the functions and intended
audience of my translation?'; 'what are the implications of these
factors?'; and 'Which, among all such factors, are the ones that
most need t o be respected in translating t his particular text?'
Dickins et al (2002: 230) stress the importance of such information, and
“its role as a parameter in assessing the relevance of ST and TT textual
features”. By knowing what the client (be it a publisher or other
commissioner) exactly wants, the translator can formulate a clear picture
of the future user of the translated text.

FURTHER READING:
Dickins, J., Hervey, S. and Higgins, I. (2002); Fraser, J. (1996);
Hervey, S. and Higgins, I. (1992); Nord, C. (1997); Munday, J.
(2001/2008); Sharkas, H. (2005, 2009).

96
 Cultural clashes

When translating from language/culture A to language/culture B,

translators are influenced by the way in which they look at the other and
vice versa. This way of viewing the other and/or the way in which the
other sees 'us' influences the translation process at every stage of
translation. In this regard, Bassnett and Trivedi (1999: 2) write:
“Translation is not an innocent, transparent activity but is highly charged
with signification at every stage; it rarely, if ever, involves a relationship
of equality between texts, authors or systems”. As such, they argue that
translation is a cultural act, associated with “a highly manipulative
activity that involves all kinds of stages in the process of transfer across
linguistic and cultural boundaries” (for more details, see the cultural
approach in this book).

Approached from such a perspective, another type of pressure derived

from the struggle between the culture we are translating from and the
culture we are translating to, can be identified. Faiq (2008: 27-30)
emphasizes that translation presents prime sites for examining a great
number of issues, such as power relations, race, gender, (post-)
colonialism, publishing strategies, censorship and otherness, whereby all
parties involved in the translation process at its macro-level (be they
publishers, editors, translation project managers and translators) are
highly influenced by their own culture and the way it views the cultures
they are translating from or to. The way, in which they see self and other
(source and target), influences, among other factors (see below), every
single aspect of the translation process, starting from selecting the ST for
translation up to presenting it to the target reader. As far as the
relationship between the source culture and target culture is concerned, it
is worth noting that the relationship is not always equal, but rather a
target culture, as Robyns (1994: 409-420) concludes, may take one of
the following positions towards the source culture:

1- Imperialist, i.e. the target culture encourages transporting

foreign materials from the source culture, provided that the
transported materials are naturalized in accordance with the

97
 established systems of the target culture and its norms and
conventions;
2- Defensive, i.e. the target culture regards the source culture as a
threat to its identity, thereby avoiding any influence the target
culture might exercise;
3- Trans-discursive, i.e. the two cultures see each other equally;
4- Defective, i.e. the target culture looks at the source culture as a
capable culture that can compensate for the target cultural
deficiencies.

Consequently, whatever the relationship between the interfacing cultures

is, be it imperialist, defensive, trans-discursive or defective, there will be
some sort of influence on the translator prior to embarking on the actual
act of translating. However, the influence may well reach its peak when
the relationship is imperialist whereby the target culture adopts a
colonial approach in transporting the foreign materials. Such an
imperialist relationship between the source and target cultures has
encouraged the translation of literary works, which usually deal with
blasphemy, fundamentalist Islam, human rights, sex and the like. This is
because such issues are in line with existing stereotypical representations
conjured up in the target readers’ minds towards the original culture.
Western publishers do not have only encouraged the literary works that
readily feed into the target culture’s stereotypical images of the source
culture, but also they have stepped in to interfere in the actual act of
translating at its micro-level, viz. omission, deviation, addition,
reordering and so on. Consider the following example quoted from
Mohmmed Choukri’s (2000: 176; 6th edition) novel ‫' الخبز الحافي‬For
Bread Alone' translated by Paul Bowles (1993: 131):

.‫أظنك أنك تستطيع أن تذهب وحدك إلى فندقك‬ -

.ً‫لم أعد طفال‬ -

“Can you get to your hotel all right?” he said.

“Of course. You think I'm two years old?”
“Remember. Don't go back to the whorehouse”.
“No, I told you I'm not crazy”.

98
Here, after having changed the structure in ً‫ لم أعد طفال‬into this structure
'You think I'm two years old?' in the second utterance, the translator or
the editor has decided to expand the utterance by adding two more
utterances echoing the previous ones, namely 'Remember. Don't go back
to the whorehouse' and 'No, I told you I'm not crazy'.

Even worse, some parts of the text are sometimes deleted by publishers
and/or editors as in the case of Nawal El-Saadawi’s novel ‫الوجه العاري‬
‫' للمرأة العربية‬A Hidden Face of Eve' in which two chapters, namely
'Women's Work at Home' and 'Arab Women and Socialism' have been
completely omitted (Amerieh 2000: 224). El-Saadawi in these two
omitted chapters criticizes capitalism in favour of socialism, thereby
annoying the publisher or editor who has decided to omit the two
chapters entirely. Further, a whole passage in which El-Saadawi
encourages Arab women to stop thinking that Arab traditions, culture
and society are more oppressive, and to start thinking that they are in an
equal position to their Western counterparts, has been deleted completely
(ibid).

FURTHER READING:
Abuelma’atti, Z. (2005); Baker, M. (1998); Bassnett, S.
(1980/1991/2002); Bassnett, S. and Trivedi, H. (1999); Bassnett, S. and
Lefever, A. (1998); Faiq. S. (2008); Farghal, M. (2012); Katan, D.
(1997); Lefever, A. (1992); Munday, J. (2001/2008); Robyns, C. (1994);
Veuti, L. (1995, 1998, 2000).

99
 Ideological and habitual considerations

In any social game, individual agents (be they translators, revisers,

proof-readers, editors, translation project managers, translation quality
controllers and so on, depending on the company infrastructure) are
influenced whether consciously or subconsciously by their own beliefs,
assumptions and accumulated value system, i.e. by their own ideology.
Ideology has generally been used in negative political terms mostly
within the scope of traditional Marxist definitions whereby it is “a form
of cognitive distortion, a false or illusory representation of the real”
(Gardiner 1992: 60). Most researchers in translation studies and allied
fields, however, see ideology as “the tacit assumptions, beliefs, value
system which are shared collectively by social groups” at a certain time
(Hatim and Mason 1997: 144). In a direct link with translation, ideology
is viewed by Lefevere (1998: 41) as an approach through which 'readers'
in general and 'translators' in particular approach texts. This is the view
adopted in this study (for more details, see Chapter Three).
In approaching texts, translators and/or commissioners are influenced,
whether consciously or subconsciously, by their own beliefs,
backgrounds, assumptions and the like; hence, their employment of
certain linguistic devices, such as 'transitivity', 'cohesive device', 'over-
lexicalisation', 'style-shifting' and so on (Hatim and Mason 1997: 143-
163) to superimpose certain directionality on the text in order to have it
meet their own ideology.
News translators/interpreters and/or editors often intervene in the
original news item by changing, deleting or adding segments in order to
change the direction of the original text to have it meet their own
ideologies or the ideology of the body that they are affiliated to (cf.
Farghal 2012: 204). By way of illustration, let us consider the following
extract taken from a joint press conference held in the presidential palace
in Cairo on July 20th, 2013 between EU foreign policy chief Catherine
Ashton and Egyptian Vice President Mohammed El-Baradei:

Ashton:
I met with many people including general El-Sisi, President
Mansour .. with you Vice President, foreign affairs minister,

100
 with representatives from Nour Party .. from Tamarod Group
and others. Particularly I met with representatives from
Freedom and Justice Party [and] Mohammed Morsi last
evening.

Interpreter:
‫اني تقابلت وتشاورت مع العديد من الفصائل بما في ذلك اللواء السيسي ونائب‬
‫الرئيس بجانب وزير الخارجية أيضا إلى جانب حزب النور وحركة تمرد إلى جانب‬
‫ وعلى وجه التحديد لقد حظيت بمقابلة مع حزب الحرية‬.‫أحزاب سياسية أخرى‬
. ‫والعدالة ومع الرئيس السابق محمد مرسي‬

Here, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has repeatedly referred

to the ousted President Mohammed Morsi by name only, without any
title. Such a conscious refusal to go for other available options, such as
‘ousted President’, ‘deposed President’, ‘formal President’ or ‘ex
President’, clearly reflects her own ideology or, at least, the ideology of
the body that she is affiliated to, thus sending an implicit message to all
conflicting parties that there seems to be a strong will on all parties to
find a peaceful way forward, though they had very different views and
starting-points. However, the interpreter has referred to him as the
deposed President (and later in another example Dr Morsi). Taking into
account that first she was interpreting Ashton’s speech consecutively, i.e.
she did not have enough time to reflect on the message and,
consequently, extrinsically manage the original text to have it meet her
own beliefs, assumptions and accumulated value system, and second the
conference was held in Cairo a few days after Morsi had been ousted,
one can readily conclude that her decision was habitus-oriented. In a
similar vein, she has extrinsically managed the text when interpreting the
verb ‘meet’ in ‘I met with representatives from Freedom and Justice
Party [and] Mohammed Morsi last evening’ as ‫ حظيت بـ‬in ‫لقد حظيت بمقابلة‬
‫‘ مع حزب الحرية والعدالة ومع الرئيس السابق محمد مرسي‬lit. I had the honour to
meet representatives from Freedom and Justice and the formal President
Mohammed Morsi’, thus subconsciously superimposing certain
directionality on the text to approximate it to her unswerving loyalty to
her country represented in this context by representatives from Freedom
and Justice Party and the ousted President Mohammed Morsi. Now, let
us compare the interpreter’s version with the subtitling offered by Al-
Nile Chanel on July 30th, 2013:

101
 ‫ معك‬،‫ الرئيس منصور‬،‫تعلمون أنني قابلت شخصيات كثيرة بينها الجنرال السيسي‬
.‫ ووزير الخارجية ومع ممثلين من حزب النور وحركة تمرد وآخرين‬،‫نائب الرئيس‬
.‫ وتقابلت مع محمد مرسي مساء أمس‬،‫تحديدا قابلت ممثلين من حزب الحرية والعدالة‬

Here, the subtitler has reflected the original text accurately and faithfully
when referring to Mohammed Morsi by name only. The subtitler’s local
strategy might be motivated by his/her being a member of a specific
body that has its own political attitude and has its own criteria and
descriptions that form established systems with specific norms and
conventions for selecting, representing, producing and consuming the
foreign materials, i.e. it is a habitus-motivated decision. Or, one may
argue that s/he might be motivated by his/her own political attitude
towards the ousted President Morsi, which so happens that it is in line
with Aston’s, i.e. it is an ideological-motivated decision.
To demonstrate how the political commitment and attitude that a
particular body adopts influence selecting, representing and consuming
the translated materials, let us have a look at two BBC news items on the
same topic (one in English and the other in Arabic):
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton says Egypt’s ousted
President Mohammed Morsi is "well", but that she does not
know where he is being held.
‫قالت مسؤولة السياسة الخارجية باالتحاد األوروبي كاثرين اشتون إن الرئيس‬
‫المصري المعزول محمد مرسي يتمتع بـ "صحة جيدة" ولكنها ال تعرف المكان‬
.‫المحتجز به‬
As can be seen, the translators and/or editors of both versions have
extrinsically managed the texts by inserting ‘ousted President’ and ‫الرئيس‬
‫المعزول‬, thereby reflecting a neutral attitude towards such a sensitive
political issue.

FURTHER READING:
Bourdieu, P. (1986, 1990, 1998); Chesterman, A. (2006); Farghal, M.
(2008, 2012); Farghal, M. and Shunnaq, A. (1999/2011); Farghal, M.
and Almanna, A. (2013); Gardiner, M. (1992); Gouanvic, J. (2005);
Hanna, S. F. (2005, 2006); Inghilleri, M. (2005, 2009); Lefevere, A.
(1998); Mason, I. (1994); Munday, J. (2001/2008); Tyulenev. S. (2012);
Yannakopoulou, V. (2008); Wolf, M. and Alexandra, F. (2007).

102
 Master discourse & dominant poetics of translation

In addition to being influenced by their own culture and the way they see
the other, translators, before starting the actual act of translating, may
find themselves working for and affiliated to specific bodies with certain
criteria and descriptions that are formulated for the translated materials.
Such criteria and descriptions form established systems with specific
norms and conventions for selecting, representing, producing and
consuming the foreign materials, thereby producing a master discourse
of translation through which identity and difference (self and other) are
discussed and negotiated, and within which translating is done (cf. Faiq
2007, 2008). Adhering to the constraints imposed by virtue of a master
discourse on all parties involved in a macro-level of translation, self and
other (source and target) become situated into ways of representation
inherited in the shared experience and institutional norms of the self.
Otherness is therefore measured according to a number of possibilities
within the master discourse. Faiq (2008: 30; emphasis his) rightly
comments:
When the other is feared, the lexical strategies (language choices)
one expects are those that realize hierarchy, subordination and
dominance. Otherness can and often does lead to the establishment
of stereotypes, which usually come accompanied by existing
representations that reinforce the ideas behind them. The
presentation of others through translation is a powerful strategy of
exclusion used by a self as normal and moral (Said, 1995). Not
surprising, this exclusion is also accompanied by an inclusion
process of some accepted members from the other as long as the
acceptees adopt and adapt to the underlying master discourse and
its associated representational system and ideology of the
accepting self, acceptors [...].

Closely related to the master discourse of translation are ideological and

poetological considerations. Lefevere (1992) holds that these ideological
and poetological issues place extra effort on those involved in the
process of translation at its macro level (be they translators, publishers,
translation quality controllers and translation project managers) on every
level of the process. In this regard, Lefevere (ibid: 39) states:

103
 On every level of the translation process, it can be shown that, if
linguistic considerations enter into conflict with considerations of
ideological and/or poetological nature, the latter tend to win.

In his description of the literary system, Lefevere (ibid: 15-26), holds

that there are three main factors that superimpose certain directionality
on the TT. They are:
1. Professionals within literary system, such as critics, reviewers,
teachers, translators, translation project managers and so on;
2. Patronage outside the literary system, such as publishers,
distributors, academic journals, educational establishment, the
media, political parties and the like;
3. The dominant poetics, which refers to the standards to which a
certain literary work is judged good or not ‫ ــــ‬in any era, there is a
set of dominant poetics that plays a fundamental role in
encouraging the translation of certain works and excluding
others.

FURTHER READING:
Faiq, S. (2004, 2007, 2008, 2013); Lefevere, A. (1992); Munday, J.
(2001/2008).

104
 Generic conventions

Another type of pressure placed on the part of the translator prior to

starting the actual act of rendering is related to genre. Following Kress
(1985: 19), Hatim and Mason (1990: 69-70) define genre as
“conventionalized forms of text which reflect the functions and goals
involved in the language activity characteristic of particular social
occasions”. These genres, according to Kress (1985: 9), “provide a
precise index and a catalogue of the relevant social occasions of a
community at a given time”. These generic conventions, on the one
hand, help translators expect the lexical items, the syntactic structures,
the register members and the like which are normally used in such a
genre, and restrict them from opting for “non-member candidate
selections from entering the generic sphere”, on the other (Bayar 2007:
137).
Again, translators are not working randomly; rather, they operate under
generic constraints, which represent the conventionalized forms
associated with various social occasions. For example, the Arabic
marriage contract makes the translator understand ‫ معجل‬and ‫ مؤجل‬in the
following example as ‫ مقدم‬and ‫مؤخر‬, and help him/her select 'down-
payment' and 'deferred payment' respectively in English rather than other
options available as possible equivalents. Also, it is the generic
conventions that make the translators opt for 'male spouse' and 'female
spouse' rather than 'bridegroom' or 'bride' respectively:

‫قال وكيل الزوجة والدها مخاطبا ً الزوج المذكور نفسه زوجتك وأنكحتك موكلتي‬
‫ابنتي _____ على مهر معجل قدره ______ وتوابعه المذكوره ومهر مؤجل قدره‬
‫________ فأجاب الزوج فوراً وأنا قبلت ورضيت بزواجها ونكاحها لنفسي على‬
.‫المهرين المذكورين وتوابعهما‬

The representative for the female spouse (her father) said,

addressing the aforementioned male spouse, “I have given you
my daughter ________ in marriage for a dowry the down-
payment of which is________ , the extras of which are
mentioned above and the deferred payment of which is
________”. The male spouse immediately replied, “I accept

105
 your daughter in marriage and confirm the dowry’s down-
payment, deferred payment and extras stipulated above”.
(Adapted from Hatim et al 1995: 86-87; emphasis added)

Here, it is the generic conventions that could possibly give rise to such
unidiomatic renderings as 'male spouse' and 'female spouse', which are
not often used in other genres. However, legislative writings still retain
particular remarkable features that distinguish them from other genres,
such as the length of sentences, the complex structures, the use of
archaic expressions, the use of a lexical item and its synonym, the use of
a particular preposition and its synonym, the dearth of punctuation marks
and so on (cf. Crystal and Davy 1969; Almanna 2005).

FURTHER READING:
Almanna, A. (2013a); Farghal, M. (2004, 2012); Hatim, B. and Mason,
I. (1990, 1997); Kress, G. (1985).

Purpose of translation

The translation purpose or skopos (as it is known in the literature) is a

crucial parameter that determines the final shape of the translation.
Drawing on the theory of Translational Action introduced by the
Finland-based German, Justa Holz-Manttari, Skopos theory claims that
the crucial factor that determines the final shape of the TT is the purpose
of the translation. Skopos theory “relies on key concepts in pragmatics,
such as intention and action” (Hatim 2001: 74). According to Skopos
theory (cf. Nord 1997: 27-28; also discussed in Hatim 2001: 74), there
are three types of purpose:
a) The general purpose, i.e. the purpose of the translator in
translating the text, i.e. the translator’s motivation, such as
gaining reputation, earning a living and so on;
b) The communicative purpose, i.e. what is the purpose of the
TT? Is it for persuading, instructing or just for information;
c) The purpose of the translation strategy, i.e. why is a certain
strategy adopted while others are excluded?

106
The general rules of Skopos theory can be summarized as follows:
1- It is the skopos of the translation that determines the shape of
the translation. Knowing the purpose behind the translation
enables the translator to opt for a certain global strategy,
thereby excluding other available strategies;
2- There should be 'intertextual coherence' or 'fidelity' between
the TT and the ST as long as the TT is “an offer of
information about an existing offer of information”, i.e. the
ST and TT should be intertextually coherent with each other.
The TT is “judged to be intertextually coherent to the extent
that there is consistency between the intentionality of the
source text producer, the way this is interpreted, and the way
it is reexpressed with target language” Hatim (2001: 75-6);
3- The third rule addresses the integrity of the TT itself, i.e. the
TT must be intratextually coherent.
It follows that each of these skopos rules exerts certain constraints on the
translator. Firstly, adopting a global strategy will undoubtedly affect the
local strategies taken by the translator, i.e. reasoned decisions, such as
addition, omission, deviation, lexical choice, maintaining or ignoring
some stylistic features, reflecting or changing the register concerning
specific problems of grammar, punctuation, syntax, style,
comprehension and accuracy. Secondly, as long as the relationship
between the ST and the TT is considered, the fidelity rule is related, to a
considerable extent, to the accuracy of the translation or 'the relation
norm' (cf. Chesterman 1997/2000). Thirdly, the rule of the integrity of
the TT brings to the fore notions such as acceptability, accessibility and
naturalness (for more details, see readership below).

FURTHER READING:
Almanna, A. (2013a); Baker, M. (1998); Hatim, B. (2001); Hatim, B.
And Munday, J. (2004); Nord, C. (1997); Munday. J. (2001/2008,
2009); Reiss, K. and Vermeer, H. J. (1984).

107
 Readership

Another factor that plays a crucial role in determining the final shape of
the translation is the translator’s need to take into account the target
reader’s expectations. This requires translators to take a number of
fundamental decisions concerning the levels of acceptability and
accessibility. In this regard, Baker (1992: 219) states that the TT
acceptability does not “depend on how closely it corresponds to some
state in the world”, but rather on how the target readers access the TT
and decide on its reality “whether believable, homogenous or relevant”.
To this end, the translator needs to render the “exact contextual meaning
of the ST [...] through the medium of a TL which is acceptable to the TL
reader and easily understood by him” (Adab 1997: 9-10). Hall (2008: 23)
writes:
To achieve effective communication, the translator needs to take
account of the cognitive and cultural environment of the targeted
language community and its likely expectations of the transmitted
text and make his/her translation as informative and accessible as
possible.

This brings to mind two notions, viz. naturalness and explicitness vs.
implicitness. To begin with, the salient features of naturalness,
according to As-Safi and Ash-Sharifi (1997: 60-1), are 'well-
formedness', 'acceptability', 'idiomaticity', 'authenticity',
'contemporaneity', 'intelligibility', 'accessibility' and 'readability'. The
retention of a certain level of naturalness sometimes requires the
translator to take a wide variety of fundamental decisions in this regard,
such as skewing the SL syntactic structure to conform to the TL syntax;
slackening and/or lightening the ST propositional contents for the TT
version; coordinating between obligatory and optional information and
so on. As for explicitness vs. implicitness, it is very much related to
“assumptions about the universe” (Bell 1991: 188), i.e. the amount of
information that the text producer, in our case the translator, assumes
that s/he shares with the text receiver, i.e. the TT reader. As such, when
the translators assume that the amount of information is shared between
them and their intended readers, they do not need to make every piece of
information explicit in the surface structure. Actually, the translator’s
decisions on what is relevant to the target reader are “based on his

108
intuitions or beliefs” (Gutt 1991: 112). Gutt holds that “the translator
does not have direct access to the cognitive environment of his audience,
he does not actually know what it is like ‫ ــــ‬all he can have is some
assumptions or beliefs about it”.

Building on such assumptions or beliefs they have about their target

readers, translators opt for certain local strategies in order to live up to
the target readers’ expectations and realize global strategies. For
instance, the English translation of Fu'ad al-Takarlī’s ‫' خزين الالمرئيات‬A
hidden Treasure' exhibits fundamental changes whereby elements of
ambiguity and culture-specific elements in the original have been
omitted and/or modified to cater for the target readers’ expectations:
.‫ثم جاءها النصيب أخيراً فتزوجت منذ خمس سنوات واستقرت بها الحياة هنا‬
Finally, she got married five years ago. Now she’s settled here.
(Husni and Newman 2008: 234-235)
In the above example, there is a fatalistic nuance in ‫' جاءها النصيب‬lit. the
luck came to her' regarding the concerned event, viz. ‫' تزوجت‬she got
married'. The translators, being aware of this culture-specific segment,
have resorted to deletion as rendering it literally would be unidiomatic
and, indeed, nonsensical in English. However, from a stylistic
perspective, the translators should have taken this fatalistic shade of
meaning into account offering something like 'her luck changed and she
got married' or 'Life smiled on her and she got married'. Therefore, this
is a case where the translators have followed a reductionist strategy
whereby a culture-specific shade of meaning has been deleted. It is true
that the target reader would not feel a gap in the translation but,
nonetheless, a significant aspect of the original utterance is lost.

FURTHER READING:
Adab, B. (1997); Almanna, A. (2013a); As-Safi, A. and Ash-Sharifi, I.
(1997); Baker, M. (1992); Bell, R. (1991); Gutt, E-A. (1991); Hall, M.
(2008).

109
 Text Type

Texts have traditionally been divided into different groups on the basis
of their subject matter. It is believed, according to this method of
organizing texts, that some texts share certain characteristics, such as the
frequency of occurrence of particular lexical items or syntactic
structures. These linguistic characteristics enable them to be organized
into different types, such as poetic, legislative, technical, scientific and
so on. In this respect, Bell (1991: 202) writes:

Individual texts resemble other texts and it is this resemblance

which is drawn upon by the text-processor in "making sense" of
the text. This knowledge is, clearly, of crucial importance to the
language user and any attempt to explain how texts are created and
used must include an answer to the question "How is it, given that
each text is unique, that some texts are treated as the same?"

Although this method of organizing texts according to their subject

matter has been used for a long time in programmes of translation
teaching, there is a substantial difficulty in working with such a text
typology, in particular that related to defining the text type itself, for
instance, what is meant by a literary text? There is undoubtedly “a
substantial degree of overlap which suggests that content, per se, is
inadequate as discriminator” (Bell 1991: 203). He adds that “such an
approach will work with some highly ritualized genres (some types of
poetry, for example) but not in the case of the majority of texts where
again, and now at the formal level, there is overlap” (ibid).

In the early 1970s, the German scholar, Katharina Reiss, drawing upon
the functional relationship between the ST and the TT, gave attention to
the importance of linking translation method to text type. In her book co-
authored with Vermeer (1984), they divided texts into three types:
informative, expressive and operative, relying on a classification of
language functions, presented by the German psychologist, Karl Bühler,
who classified language functions into three types, namely informative,
expressive and vocative. Having distinguished these three text types one
from the other, Reiss (1977/1989: 109) added that in translating an
informative text, since the main aim is to convey information to the

110
reader, priority is given to the content rather than the form, whereas in
translating an expressive text where the main aim is to impress the
reader, particular attention should be paid to the aesthetic effects.
However, in translating an operative text where the main aim is to
persuade the reader, the focus of attention should be shifted towards
extra-linguistic effect at the expense of aesthetic values and semantic
content (for more details, see Munday 2008: 72-74).

Working on the textuality model proposed by Beaugrande and Dressler

(1981), Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997) designed a model of text types in
translation that endorses the notion that despite the fact that texts are
essentially hybrid, one particular function tends to predominate over the
other functions. In their model, they classify texts into three main types,
viz. exposition, argumentation and instruction:
a) Instructional texts focusing on influencing future behaviour on
the part of the text receiver. This text type is subdivided into:
1- Instruction with option as in the case of advertizing;
2- Instruction without option as in contracts, treaties and so on.
b) Expository texts where the text producers are engaged in
presenting concepts, states, events, entities and relations in a non-
evaluative manner. They are subdivided into:
1- Descriptive texts “focusing on objects spatially viewed”;
2- Narrative texts “focusing on events temporally viewed”;
3- Conceptual texts “focusing on the detached analysis of
concepts and yielding a number of text forms” (Hatim 2001:
197).
c) Argumentative texts focusing on the evaluation of the relations
between concepts. This text type is subdivided into:
1- Counter-argumentative texts where a thesis is cited, then
opposed, i.e. stating a viewpoint to be followed by a counter-
claim along with a substantiation outlining the grounds for
the opposition; and
2- Through-argumentative texts where a thesis is cited, then
supported or defended, i.e. stating a viewpoint to be argued
through without any explicit reference to opposition of the
viewpoint claimed.

111
Regardless of the method adopted in classifying texts, what is of greater
importance in this regard is that there is some sort of correlation between
text type and the global strategy to be applied by the translator (cf. Hatim
1997b; Reiss 2000; Haddad 2004; Bayar 2007; Hall 2008, among others)
as different text types put different demands on the translator. In this
regard, Hatim (1997b: 11) states:
Being aware of the extent to which a particular text is evaluative
determines the translation strategy to be adopted. […], literal
translation works admirably well with legal language ‫لغة النص القانوني‬,
slightly less well with exposition ‫ السرد‬and not always well with the
more involved types of argumentation ‫الجدل‬, which necessitates a free
translation.

In a similar vein, Bayar (2007: 144) rightly comments:

These macro-structural dimensions govern the selection of text
realisation devices to create the ST just as much as they should do (i.e.
as much as the translator is aware they do, and is willing to let them
exert the same impact) during the TT production.

These views accord well with the hybrid nature of texts. Any text type
can sometimes utilize the formats of the other texts. Yet, its type is not
determined according to the formats borrowed from the other text type,
but is rather determined by “the text’s over-all function and super-
ordinate goal” Bayar (2007: 143-144).

FURTHER READING:
Baker, M. (1998); Bayar, M. (2007); Bell, R. (1991); Chesterman, A.
(1989); Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990, 1997); Munday, J. (2001/2008);
Reiss, K. (1981/2000, 1977/1989); Reiss, K. and Vermeer, H. J. (1984).

112
Exercise

According to Skopos theory, there are three types of

purpose. What are they?

Exercise

In selecting a text for translating, in particular a

literary text, there are a number of factors with macro
nature that need to be taken into account. What are
they?

Exercise

What is translation brief?

Exercise

What does the expression ‘master discourse of

translation’ mean, and how does it differ from the
expression ‘dominant poetics’?

Exercise

Bassnett and Trivedi (1999: 2) write: “Translation is

not an innocent, transparent activity but is highly
charged with signification at every stage; it rarely, if
ever, involves a relationship of equality between
texts, authors or systems”. What is your opinion?

Exercise

Translation presents prime sites for examining a great

number of issues, such as power relations, cultural
clashes, race, gender, (post-)colonialism, publishing

113
 strategies, ideological moves, censorship and
otherness, whereby all parties involved in the
translation process at its macro-level (be they
publishers, editors, translation project managers and
translators) are highly influenced by a great number
of factors. What are they?

Exercise

There is a strong relation between some sort of text

type and the global strategy to be applied by the
translator as different text types put different
demands on the translator. Explain this by providing
the reader with examples.

114
Chapter 6: System Theories

Key concepts

Canonized Forms; Literary System; Manipulation Theory;

Non- Canonized Forms; Norm Theory; Polysystem Theory;

Overview

System theories, such as Polysystem theory, Manipulation theory and

Norm theory, have focused almost exclusively on literary translation.
They have moved the study of translations out of a static linguistic
analysis of shifts (cf. Catford 1965) and equivalents (Nida 1964 and
Nida and Taber 1969) towards the “investigation of the position of
translated literature as a whole in the historical and literary systems of
the target culture” (Munday 2008: 122).

Polysystem theory envisages translated literature as a system that is ever-

evolving and in a constant struggle to occupy the central position within
competing social, literary and historical systems of the TL culture.
Proponents of Manipulation theory, however, argue that the ST is
sometimes manipulated through the nexus of translation for different
reasons, superimposing certain directionality on the text, thus aligning it
with a particular model which should secure social acceptance in the
target culture (Hermans 1985: 11). In the 1970s, Toury shifted the focus
of attention towards finding a methodology for descriptive translation
studies with a view to identifying “the patterns of behaviour in the
translation and thereby to ‘reconstruct’ the norms at work in the
translation process” (Munday 2008: 122).

Polysystem theory

In 1978, Polysystem theory was first introduced by the Israeli scholar

Itamar Even-Zohar in Papers in Historical Poetics. The main
contribution of the theory was the concept of system, which can be

115
understood as a structure with different levels whose related elements
interacted with one another. In this regard, Even-Zohar (1978a: 22)
states:
The idea of the literary polysystem need not detain us long. I first
suggested this concept in 1970 in an attempt to overcome difficulties
resulting from the fallacies of the traditional aesthetic approach, which
prevented any preoccupation with works judged to be of no artistic
value.

Polysystem theory holds that a literary system, covering various types of

literary works, functions under a variety of social constraints (ibid).
Even-Zohar distinguishes between two forms in literature: 'high' or
'canonized' forms (such as poetry) and 'low' or 'non-canonized' forms
(such as children’s literature, thrillers and translated literature). Despite
his position of low forms of literary systems, Polysystem theory claims
that it is important to take into account “the so-called 'low' forms as well
as 'high' forms in dealing with the literature of any nation” (Hatim 2001:
67).

Although the Polysystem theory proffers a general model for

understanding, analyzing and describing the function and evolution of
literary systems, it focuses particularly on specific applications to the
study of translated literature (Shuttleworth 1998: 176).

Even-Zohar contends that low or non-canonized forms, such as thrillers,

detective stories, sentimental novels, pornographic literature, and
children’s literature, are unimportant literary systems or genres; arguing
that their translation “has no influence on major processes and is
modelled according to norms already conventionally established by an
already dominant type in the target literature” (Even-Zohar 1978b: 195).
Translation achieves primary position in terms of playing an innovative
role in the target culture:
a) when a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to
say, when a literature is “young,” and in the process of being
established;
b) when a literature is either “peripheral” or “weak,” or both;
c) when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums in a
literature (for more details, see Even-Zohar 1978b: 192-197).

116
Even-Zohar further explains the position of translation, whether it be
primary or secondary in the system, in this theoretical translation model.
He argues that if the translation, for one of the above reasons, occupies a
primary position, translators do not stick to the target-language literature
models, thus producing an accurate and adequate TT, i.e., text-/author-
oriented (see Chapter Two for more details). However, when translation
is secondary in the system, translators “tend to use existing target-culture
models for the TT”, thereby producing an acceptable and readable TT,
i.e., a domesticated TT to borrow Venuti’s (1995) term (Munday
2001/2008: 109).

FURTHER READING:
Baker, M. (1998); Even-Zohar, I. (1978a, 1978b/2004); Hatim, B.
(2001); Munday, J. (2001/2008: 109); Shuttleworth, M. (1998);
Shuttleworth, M. and Cowie, M. (1997), Venuti, L. (2004).

Manipulation theory

Adopted by a group of scholars from Belgium, the Netherlands and

Israel, working within the field of descriptive translation studies (DTS),
Manipulation theory is associated with a particular approach to the
translation of literature; what has become known as the ‘Manipulation
School’ or the ‘Descriptive, Empirical or Systemic School’ (Hermans
1995: 217). The International Comparative Literature Association held
several meetings and conferences around the theme of translated
literature in Belgium (1976), Israel (1978) and the Netherlands (1980)
(cf. Munday 2008: 118). The name of the school comes from the seminal
publication ‘The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in literary
translation, edited by Theo Hermans (1985); this work “viewed
translation as a primary literary genre and as a fundamental aspect in the
evolution of cultural systems” (Munday 2009: 206).

Proponents of this theory argue that the ST is sometimes manipulated

through the nexus of translation for a certain purpose, thus bringing the
TT in line with a particular model in hopes of securing social acceptance

117
in the target culture (Hermans 1985: 11). To do so, translators, in
particular literary translators, need to pay special attention to the
linguistic and stylistic norms of the TL. Their approach to literary
translation was “descriptive, target-organized, functional and systemic”
and their methodology was based on a search for translational “norms
and constraints that govern the production and reception of translations”
(Hermans 1985: 11; for more details on norms, see Chapter Three).

Unlike linguistic theories that view translation as a science (see Chapter

Three in this book), Manipulation theory views translation as an art that
allows translators to superimpose certain directionality on the text,
aligning itself with the poetics of translation. To put this differently,
according to Manipulation theory, the translation process is seen as a
rewriting process in which the translator has the right to manipulate the
TT wording in an attempt to make it acceptable in and appealing to the
target language and culture.

FURTHER READING:
Hermans, T. (1985, 1991); Lambert, J-R. (1991); Leuven-Zwart van, K
and Naaijkens, T. (1991); Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995); Toury, G.
(1980); Munday, J. (2001/2008, 2009).

Norm theory
As was mentioned in Chapter Three, there are a number of norms in any
society that regulate people’s behaviour, i.e., what is and isn’t correct,
what is and isn’t appropriate. Norms, in general, are conventional, social,
behavioural routines, according to which the members of a certain
culture behave when they find themselves under particular circumstances
(for more details, see Toury 1978/2004, 1980, 1995; Hermans 1998; Al-
Khafaji 2006; Munday 2001/2008, 2009).

Approached from a translational perspective, norms, however, “embody

the general values and expectations of a given community at a given
time regarding the correctness and appropriateness of both the process
and product of translation” (Al-Khafaji 2006: 40). According to Toury

118
(1980: 51), norms are “the translation of general values or ideas shared
by a certain community‫ــــ‬as to what is right and wrong, adequate and
inadequate‫ــــ‬into specific performance-instructions appropriate for and
applicable to specific situations”.

Approached from this perspective, translation is seen as a kind of

activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two
cultural traditions. In other words, it is an activity with two sets of norm-
systems on each level (Toury 1978/2004: 200):
1- being a text in a certain language, and hence occupying a
position, or filling in a slot, in the appropriate culture, or in a
certain section thereof;
2- constituting a representation in that language/culture of
another, preexisting text in some other language, belonging
to some other culture and occupying a definite position
within it (ibid).

In this regard, Toury (1978/2004: 200; emphasis his) argues:

These two types of requirement derive from two sources which—even
though the distance between them may vary greatly—are nevertheless
always different and therefore often incompatible. Were it not for the
regulative capacity of norms, the tensions between the two sources of
constraints would have to be resolved on an entirely individual basis,
and with no clear yardstick to go by. Extreme free variation may well
have been the result, which it certainly is not. Rather, translation
behavior within a culture tends to manifest certain regularities, one
consequence being that even if they are unable to account for
deviations in any explicit way, the persons-in the-culture can often tell
when a translator has failed to adhere to sanctioned practices.

Toury (1995: 56-59) classified norms into three types:

1- Preliminary norms, of which there are two varieties i.e.,
'translation policy' and 'directness of translation':
- Translation policy is based on those factors and parameters
which translators, publishers, and translation project managers
take into consideration when selecting source texts for
translation;
- Directness of translation questions whether the translation is
taken directly from the SL or from another language.

119
 2- Initial norms refer to the global strategies adopted by translators
when they make decisions to either a) pay attention to the
linguistic and stylistic norms of the SL, thus guaranteeing the
adequacy/accuracy, or b) take into account the linguistic and
stylistic norms of the TL, thereby achieving TT
acceptability/readability;
3- Operational norms are of two types:
- matricial norms, refer to the completeness of the TT, and
question issues such as omission, addition, relocation, etc;
and
- textual-linguistic norms, deal with linguistic material, such
as lexical items, phrases and stylistic features.

Chesterman (1997/2000: 68-69) categorizes translation norms into four

types:

1- Expectancy norms take into account TL grammaticality,

acceptability, readability and appropriateness in certain text types;
2- Accountability norms look upon tricky points and complex,
sophisticated and sometimes confusing language by double
checking the draft of a translation and/or asking professionals for
their opinion;
3- Relation norms examine the relationship between ST and TT
elements ensuring 'intertextual coherence' or 'fidelity' between the
two as long as the TT is “an offer of information about an existing
offer of information”, meaning that the ST and TT should be
intertextually coherent with each other (Hatim 2001: 75-76);
4- Communication norms refer to communicative maxims of
quantity, quality, relevance and manner (for more details, see
Chapter Three).

FURTHER READING:
Al-Khafaji, R. (2006); Baker, M. (1998); Chesterman, A. (1997/2000);
Hatim, B. (2001); Hermans, T. (1998); Munday, J. (2001/2008); Toury,
G. (1978/2004, 1980, 1995); Venuti, L. (2004).

120
Exercise

The following excerpt is quoted from Mahfouz’s

(1947) novel ‫‘ زقاق المدق‬Midaq Alley’ and translated
by Le Gassick (1975: 57). Discuss his translation to
the culture-specific expressions ‫طاهر النية وسيدنا الحسين‬
and ‫ قلب المؤمن دليله‬according to Norm theory.

‫ ميلي بنا إلى الشارع‬.‫ ال تسرعي هكذا يا حميدة‬.‫طاهر النية وسيدنا الحسين‬
‫ أنت تعلمين وال شك‬.‫ ينبغي أن تصغي إلي‬.‫ أريد أن أقول لك كلمة هامة‬.‫األزهر‬
... ‫ أال تعلمين؟ أال تشعرين؟ قلب المؤمن دليله‬.‫بما أريد أن أقوله‬

My intentions are completely pure. Don’t rush off Hamida,

let’s turn into Azhar Street. I’m sure you know what I want to
say. Don’t you feel anything? One’s emotions are the best
guide.

Exercise

What are the main differences between linguistic

theories and Manipulation theory?
Exercise

When can translation achieve a primary position

according to the Polysystem theory?

Exercise

Does translation into Arabic occupy a primary or

secondary position?

Exercise

How does the position of translation, whether primary

or secondary in the system, relate to translation
strategy?

121
Chapter 7: Register & Translation

Key concepts

Accessibility; Circumstances; Field of Discourse;

Formality; Inaccessibility; Informality; Impersonalization;
Mode of Discourse; Participants; Personalization;
Politeness; Process; Tenor of Discourse; Register.

Overview

Register is defined by Halliday (1978: 23) as “the set of meanings, the

configuration of semantic patterns, that are typically drawn upon under
the specific conditions, along with the words and structures that are used
in the realization of these meanings”. So, from a communicative point
of view, register-based studies are concerned with “the meaning in the
writer’s linguistic choices and systematically [relate] these choices to a
wider sociocultural framework” (Munday 2001: 90). Following Halliday
and Hasan (1976), register can be defined as the linguistic features that
are employed by the writer/speaker to be in line with those of situation,
by paying special attention to the three variables: field, tenor and mode.

What is of greater importance to the current research is the study of

constraints imposed on the translators when analyzing and acquainting
themselves with the variables of the ST register and the strategies
available for them to produce a TT with an exactly comparable register.
There are three variables that constitute the register of any text, viz.
field, tenor and mode.

Field of discourse

In analyzing discourse and register, Halliday provides a model based on

studying systemic grammar. He spent many years working on his model.
After various attempts, Halliday (1994) came up with a comprehensive
model for register analysis. In contrast with the traditional grammarians,
who view the concept of transitivity as a reference to verbs that take
objects, Halliday (1976: 199) defines transitivity from a functional point
of view as “the set of options relating to cognitive content, the linguistic

122
representation of extralinguistic experience, whether of the phenomena
of the external world or of feelings, thoughts and perceptions”. In the
sense that Halliday uses the term, transitivity generally refers to the way
in which the meaning is encoded and presented in the clause. So, in
transitivity, a number of processes can be identified as to whether they
represent an action, behaviour, saying, state of mind, state of being or
state of existing, inter alia, process of doing, process of behaving,
process of saying, process of sensing, process of being and process of
existing respectively. There are three main components of the process of
transitivity: 1) the process, 2) the participants and 3) the circumstance.

1- The process:
a) Material process (i.e. process of doing)
e.g. The man drives his car.
[Actor + process of doing + goal]

e.g. The boy cries.

[Actor + process of doing + no goal]

It is worth mentioning here that material processes can be classified into

event process (i.e. the actor is inanimate) and action process (i.e. the
actor is animate).

b) Mental process (i.e. process of sensing)

e.g. She got what you mean.
[Sensor + process of sensing + phenomenon]

c) Behavioural process (i.e. process of behaving)

e.g. His father laughed at what he said.
[Behaver + process of behaving + phenomenon]

123
 d) Verbal process (i.e. process of saying)
e.g. The teacher said that the exam would be on Friday.
[Sayer + process of saying + verbiage]

e) Relational process (i.e. process of being)

e.g. She is a teacher.
[Identified + process of identifying/being + identifier]
e.g. He has a car.
[Carrier + process of attributive/owning + attribute]

f) Existential process (i.e. process of existing).

e.g. There are three girls in the class.
[Existent + process of existing + circumstance]

2- Participants:
a. Actor/goal for doing process
b. Sensor/phenomenon for sensing process
c. Carrier/attribute vs. identified/identifier for relational process
d. Behaver for behaving process
e. Sayer/verbiage/receiver for saying process
f. Existent for existing process

3- Circumstances: the circumstantials of time, place, manner and so

on are normally expressed by prepositional phrases, adverbial phrases
or adjuncts as in the following examples:

124
 e.g. He drove two hundred kilometres (Circumstance of extent:
spatial).
e.g. We met them last week (Circumstance of location: temporal).
e.g. The student answered with his peculiar words (Circumstance
of manner: quality).
e.g. I couldn’t come yesterday because I was a bit tired
(Circumstance of cause: reason).
e.g. She travelled to the USA to complete her studies
(Circumstance of cause: purpose).

Closely related to the issue of studying the components of the clauses are
the logical relations that link clauses to one another. Pinpointing the
exact relation that governs two clauses or more does not require
translators to concern themselves with finding out an equivalent to the
ST connector. However, what is of greater importance in this respect is
to keep the relation intact, regardless of the connector used and
regardless of its implicit or explicit nature.

By way of illustration, let us consider the following example quoted

from Lubna Mahmūd Yāsīn’s story ‫' بصمة مواطن‬A Citizen's Fingerprint'
and translated for the purposes of the current study:

‫بينما يتجمد القوم‬...‫تقوم جاهلية القرن الحادي والعشرين بوأد مشاعره وكرامته‬
‫ أبعد هذا الموت موت آخر؟؟‬.‫متفرجين على طقوس صلب بقايا إنسانيته‬

The ignorance of the twenty-first century is burying his feelings

and dignity while people stand frozen, observing the rituals that
crucify the remains of their humanity.
“After this death, is there another?”

Here, although the translator has dealt successfully with the process
types and their participants’ roles in the first clause, he has made two
errors in the second clause when failing to decipher the participants and
their exact roles in the process, thus creating a misleading as well as
inaccurate mental image. From a Hallidayan transitivity point of view,

125
i.e. how to express the mental image that we have of the reality around
us and how to express our own world experiences linguistically, the
source extract can be understood either as one clause with a material
process with a relational process function

- [actor: ‫ القوم‬+ verb of doing (supervention) with a relational

function: ‫ يتج ّمد‬+ circumstantial (manner): ‫متفرجين على طقوس صلب‬
‫]بقايا إنسانيته‬
Or as two clauses:
- [actor: ‫ القوم‬+ verb of doing (supervention): ‫ ;]يتجمد‬and
- [actor: ‫ القوم‬+ verb of doing (intention): ‫ يتف ّرج على‬+ goal: ‫طقوس‬
‫]صلب بقايا إنسانيته‬.

In the TT, however, three clauses can be identified, viz.

- 'people stand frozen';
- '[people] observe the rituals'; and
- '[rituals] crucify the remains of their humanity'.

The number of clauses is not an issue, but what is of greater importance

in studying the transitivity choices is to maintain an accurate mental
image of the world around us through opting for “syntactic
correspondence which maps synonymous or quasi-synonymous meaning
across cultural boundaries” (Al-Rubai'i 1996: 103). The translator here
has made two errors in the third clause of his rendering of the above
extract.
- The first error has occurred when he has shifted the roles of the
participants: the actor in the ST, i.e. an unknown actor, is no
longer the actor of the material process in the translation; the actor
of the process in the TT becomes 'the rituals'. Such a shift in the
roles of the participants has not only affected the mental image, but
has also influenced the coherence of the text.
- The second fundamental error has occurred when he has opted for
'their' (referring to the people) in place of 'his' (referring to the
person whose feelings and dignity are being buried), thereby
shifting the participants’ roles on the one hand, and building up a
completely different mental image.

126
To further demonstrate how not giving full consideration to the field of
discourse and its processes, participants and circumstances may
seriously affect the accuracy of translation, let us discuss the following
translation done by a trainee translator:
Abu Hamza denies US terror charges.
.‫أبو حمزة المصري ينفي تهمة االرهاب الموجه إليه في الواليات المتحدة‬

Here, the trainee translator has failed to decipher the participants and
their exact roles in the process, thus creating a misleading as well as
inaccurate mental image. She, in addition to adding unnecessary word
‫المصري‬, has changed one of the participants into a circumstantial of
place, i.e. ‫في الواليات المتحدة‬, leaving the TL reader to wonder who has
brought the charge of terror against Abu Hamza.

Tenor of discourse

According to House’s (1977, 1981, 1997) model, tenor covers “the

addresser’s temporal, geographical and social provenance as well as his
intellectual, emotional or affective stance (his 'personal viewpoint')”
(1997: 109). Bayar (2007: 140), echoing Halliday’s (1978) views, states
that tenor “regulates the degree of formality between participants in the
text or between the text sender and the text receiver or both”. Such
interactive relationships among the participants can be highlighted via
the semantic options in the interpersonal components (cf. Gregory 1988:
308-309; Al-Rubai’i 1996: 63-4) as well as textual selections (Bayar
2007: 140). Bayar (2007) holds that “at this level […] the reader can
infer the social status and/or relations obtaining between in-text
participants and between the text sender and receiver […]. Textual
selections are thus made consistently with such status and relations”. In a
similar vein, Al-Rubai’i (1996: 64) comments “the actual selections
made in a particular language event constitute the tenor of that particular
discourse”. To put this differently, by analyzing the tenor of the text, one
can know the type of the author and the type of audience as well as the
relationship between the author and his/her audience. So, the tenor of a
given text, according to Bell (1991: 186-188) can be signalled via four
overlapping scales of level. These are:

127
 1- Personalization Vs Impersonalization
Personalisation, here, refers to the presence of the writer, on the one
hand, and reader, on the other, in the text. To create a feeling of
solidarity and/or intimacy, to provoke their intended reader and get them
involved in the situation by letting them feel they are physically present
in that situation, writers opt for personalization. Such personalization can
be achieved via many techniques, including the use of:
a) the first person pronoun 'I', referring to the writer;
b) the second person pronoun 'you', referring to the reader;
c) the pronoun 'we', referring to both the writer and the reader;
d) directives, for instance 'see chapter two';
e) rhetorical questions;
f) other questions put in the mouth of the reader or an imagined
participant.

Impersonalization, however, is very much related to objectivity whereby

writers try to distance themselves from their readers, laying more
emphasis on the message itself, rather than the participants (Bell 1991:
187). Impersonalization can be achieved by opting for
a. the pronoun 'it' as a subject instead of 'I';
b. passive structures in place of active structures;
c. abstract nouns, among others (p. 188).

In a similar vein, House (1981: 73-74) writes that impersonalization can

be detected by tracing certain syntactic means, such as:
d. the complexity of noun phrases;
e. presence of 'overcorrectness';
f. absence of contractions and elliptical clauses.

Or, as House (ibid) argues, it can be achieved by resorting to certain

lexical means, such as:
g. the “absence of qualifying modal adverbials, interjections,
vulgarisms, etc.”;
h. “presence of lexical items and collocations marked [+ formal]”.

In order to create a feeling of solidarity and/or intimacy, on the one

hand, and to provoke her intended readers and get them physically
involved in the situation on the other, the original writer in the following
example (quoted from Lubna Mahmūd Yāsīn’s story ‫' بصمة مواطن‬A

128
Citizen's Fingerprint' and translated for the purposes of the current
study) opts for the deictic ‫' هناك‬there' as well as the informal narrating
style along with the possessive adjective in ‫' صاحبنا‬our friend'.
‫ فتح عينيه ليجد نفسه في‬... ‫و(هناك) قام أحدهم بنزع القيود التي كانت على حواسه‬
‫ و هنالك‬...‫ تتشاجر الشرائط على كتفه لتجد مكانا كافيا لها‬... ‫مكتب فاخر يشغله ضابط‬
... ‫من هو مثله انتزعت قيوده قبل صاحبنا بدقائق فقط‬

And 'there' one of them removed the shackles which were placed
on his senses. He opened his eyes to find himself in a luxurious
office with an officer engaging him—an officer whose stripes were
fighting to find a place for themselves on his shoulder. And 'there'
there was a person like him whose shackles were taken off just
minutes before our friend's.

Taking into account 1) the change in aspect from a past perfect tense,
expressed by ... ‫ التي كانت على حواسه‬and ... ‫ انتزعت قيوده قبل‬in the ST, to a
simple past tense in the TT, expressed by 'were placed' and 'were taken
off' respectively and 2) the error in the use of the pronoun 'him' to refer
to an office, one can render the above extract as follows to reflect this
solidarity created between the original writer and her readers:
And 'there' one of them removed the restraints which had covered
his senses. He opened his eyes to find himself in a luxurious
office occupied by an officer whose stripes were fighting to find a
place for themselves on his shoulder. And 'there' was someone
else like him whose restraints had been removed just minutes
before our friend's.

2- Accessibility Vs Inaccessibility
Here, accessibility, as opposed to inaccessibility, refers to the amount of
information that is assumingly shared by the writer and the intended
reader, so when writers assumes the information in their mind is
universal and supposedly shared by a great number of readers, they feel
that less needs to be expressed explicitly in the text, and thus the text
becomes less accessible (cf. Bell 1991: 188). So, the notion of
accessibility vs. inaccessibility is very much related to explicitness vs.
implicitness respectively.

129
 3- Politeness: Social Distance Vs Standing
Politeness is defined herein as a means utilized by participants to show
their awareness of other’s face, whether negative or positive. Showing
awareness of the public self-image of another person, who is “socially
distant is often described in terms of respect or deference”, whereas
showing awareness of the face of another person, who is “socially close
is often described in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity”
(Yule 1996: 60).
In touching on the tenor of discourse, Bell (1991: 187) holds that
politeness can be studied in two different ways:
- one is horizontal, measuring “the distance between the social
groups” (i.e. social distance); and
- the other is vertical, reflecting “power relationship connected
with status, seniority and authority” (i.e. standing).
Politeness in a given text can be detected by tracing certain markers, viz.
a. addressing terms, such as: ‘Mr.’, ‘Mrs.’, ‘sir’, ‘Dr.’, ‘‫’أستاذ‬, ‘‫’سيد‬,
‘‫’عمو‬, etc.
b. mitigating devices, such as: ‘please’, ‘Could you ...’, ‘Would you
mind ...’, ‘if you don’t mind’, ‘excuse my language’, ‘pardon me’,
‘‫’رجاء‬, ‘‫’إذا أمكن‬, ‘‫’لو سمحت‬, ‘‫’بعد إذنك‬, ‘‫’بارك هللا فيك‬, ‘‫’بال زحمة‬, etc.
c. euphemism, such as: ‘overweight’ for ‘fat’, ‘less able’ for
‘stupid’, ‘‫ ’عامل النظافة‬for ‘‫’زبّال‬, ‘‫’ذو عين كريمة‬, for ‘‫’أعور‬, ‘‫صاحب‬
‫ ’احتياجات خاصة‬for ‘‫’معاق‬, ‘‫ ’بصير‬for ‘‫’أعمى‬, ‘‫ ’طفل غير شرعي‬for
‘‫’لقيط‬, ‘‫ ’انتقل إلى رحمة هللا‬for ‘‫’مات‬, ‘‫ ’لم يحالفه الحظ‬for ‘‫’رسب أو فشل‬,
etc.
d. norms of politeness (see the discussion of the examples below).

To cast some light on how not giving the tenor of discourse full
consideration in translation may change the register of the text and,
accordingly, affect the accuracy of translation, let us examine the
following example quoted from Mahfouz’s ‫( أوالد حارتنا‬1986), along
with its English translation from Philip Stewart’s ‘Children of Geblawi’
(1997):

130
 ‫ هل من جديد عن زوجك؟‬:‫وسأله قدري الناظر‬
.‫ عنيدة كالبغل ربنا يحفظ مقامك‬:‫فأجابه عرفة وهو يتخذ مجلسه إلى جانبه‬
Kadri (the Chief) asked Arafa: “Any news of your wife?”
Arafa answered as he sat down beside him: “Stubborn as a
mule!”
Here, in an attempt to take into account the linguistic and stylistic norms
of the TL, the translator has unjustifiably resorted to omitting the Arabic
euphemizer and mitigating device ‫‘ ربنا يحفظ مقامك‬lit. May God keep your
Status’. He has changed therefore the tenor of discourse dramatically.
Had he given full consideration to such a mitigating device and
euphemizer, he could have suggested something like 'sorry to say', ‘I’m
afraid to say’ or 'excuse my language'.
In the following example (quoted from Lubna Mahmūd Yāsīn’s story
‫' بصمة مواطن‬A Citizen’s Fingerprint' and translated for the purposes of the
current study), although the original writer tries to let one of his
characters use one of the honorifics, i.e. ‫' سيد‬lit. sir' to show his
awareness of the addressee’s negative face, the term is used vertically
(see above), so it is an example of standing, rather than social distance.
Further, the original writer tries to personalize it via the deliberate use of
the possessive adjective ‫ ي‬in ‫' سيدي‬my sir' as well as, later, the object
pronoun ‫ ي‬in ‫' الذي سبقني‬who preceded me'.
‫ ألم تتطابق ذات البصمة مع المواطن‬... ‫ عفوا يا سيدي‬:‫قال للضابط بتأدب مفتعل‬
... ‫الذي سبقني‬
He said politely: “Pardon sir, isn't it the same fingerprint that you
correspond to the previous citizen?”
Here, the trainee translator has succeeded in reflecting the power
relationship connected with status. However, he has failed to maintain
the same degree of personalization when changing the relative clause ‫الذي‬
‫' سبقني‬who preceded me' into a phrasal noun 'the previous citizen' without
any reference to the writer/reader’s presence. To reflect the degree of
formality, as opposed to informality, one can render the above extract
into:
He said with forced politeness: “Pardon me sir. Isn't that the
same fingerprint that matched the citizen who went in front of
me?”

131
 4. Formality Vs Informality
The formality of a text, as opposed to its informality, is “a measure of
the attention the writer (or speaker) gives to the structuring of the
message. Greater attention leads to more care in writing and this marks
the text as possessing a higher degree of formality and signals a more
distant relationship between sender and receiver(s)” (Bell 1991: 186).
Formality can be identified by tracing the lexical items (formal lexis vs.
informal lexis), syntactic structures (complex sentences vs. simple
sentences), punctuation and the like.

A text is judged formal when it requires the receiver to spend longer

time on its lexical items, structuring and punctuation to comprehend the
meaning of the message.

By way of illustration, let us consider the following example quoted

from Graham Green’s novel The Honorary Consul (1975) along with its
translation by Ata Abdulwahhab (1986) cited in Farghal (2008: 10;
emphasis his):

You never intended to be found out. It was cheaper for you, wasn't
it, not having to pay for your fucks.
‫ كان األرخص عليك أن ال تدفع أجراً عن نومك‬،‫ولم تقصد مطلقا ً أن يكتشف أمرك‬
.‫معها‬

Here, in discussing the reflection of the exact degree of formality in the

TT, one may cast doubt on the quality of the above rendition. Analyzing
the ST in terms of its degree of formality gives the translator some useful
hints on the social distance between the two characters even though no
address terms are used. Taking into account the range of semiological
options in the interpersonal components suggested by Gregory (1988:
308-9; also discussed in Al-Rubai'i 2005: 18-22), such as 'speech
function' (e.g. comments, directive, etc.), 'user’s turn' (initiating or non-
initiating, etc.), social distance (e.g. address terms), interlocutor
assessment' (e.g. tag questions, right?, etc.) and 'mediation' (e.g.
probably, fortunately, etc.), one may question the deliberate omission of
the tag question in the ST, namely 'wasn’t it'. Such a particular range of
interpersonal options in a certain register, as Al-Rubai'i (1996: 64)
stresses, “makes up the tenor of discourse available; the actual selections
made in a particular language event constitute the tenor of that particular

132
discourse”. Rendering the tag question in Arabic into ‫ أليس كذلك‬will
definitely, in addition to maintaining tenor, contribute to the text's
authenticity, which in turn helps, to a certain degree, to bring about
realistic illusion.

Mode of discourse

Mode of discourse is the channel used by the writer/speaker to carry the

message. The medium can be written or spoken. The spoken mode can
be subdivided into spontaneous vs. non-spontaneous, while the written
one can be subdivided into written to be spoken, written to be spoken as
if not written and written not necessarily to be spoken (e.g. to be read, to
be read as if heard or as if overheard) (cf. Gregory and Carroll 1978: 37-
47; Bell 1991: 191; Al-Rubai'i 1996: 69). However, writers, in particular
literary writers, sometimes tend to mix written modes of discourse and
spoken modes of discourse in their writing in an attempt to bring about
realistic illusion. In this regard, Leech and Short (1981; also discussed in
Al-Rubai’i 2005: 10-12) stress that there are five notions of realism that
may help in bringing out the realistic illusion. These are verisimilitude,
credibility, authenticity, objectivity and vividness. Al-Rubai'i (1996: 68)
states that writers can relate written modes of discourse to spoken ones
by:
1. utilizing “dialectal features”;
2. utilizing the “features of spoken language, e.g. elisions, fillers
and corrections”;
3. “indicating the character’s way of speaking”, e.g. she said in a
low voice;
4. using “graphological devices”, such as italics, capitalization,
dashes, dots, quotation marks and the like.

As such, when translators analyze the text at hand to pinpoint its mode of
discourse and figure out that the main medium relationship is made
intentionally tangled by the original writer, their progress is slowed
down slightly in an attempt to reflect such a characteristic in the TT.
Consider the following example quoted from Mahfouz’ story ‫أوالد حارتنا‬
'Children of Gebelawi' (1986: 126-127) and translated by Philip Stewart
(1997: 110):
‫كوني محضر خير يا ست هانم‬

133
 :‫فقالت هدى هانم بصوت متهدج من الغضب‬
.‫قطع الطرق ال يكون بالنهار والشمس طالعة‬
:‫فقالت تمر حنة بامتعاض‬
.‫ الحق على جدنا الذي أغلق على نفسه األبواب‬،‫هللا يسامحك ياست هانم‬
Use your good influence, madam.
Hudaa spoke in a voice that trembled with rage:
You aren't going to get away with daylight robbery.
Henna said angrily:
God forgive you, madam! The truth is with our Ancestor who has
locked the gates on himself.

In his written mode of discourse, Mahfouz tries to indicate the

character’s way of speaking as in ‫' بصوت متهدج من الغضب‬in a voice that
trembled with rage' and ‫' بامتعاض‬angrily' as well as utilizing dialectal
features, such as ‫ هانم‬and ‫' يا ست هانم‬madam', thereby placing extra efforts
on the translator.

FURTHER READING:
Baker, M. (1992); Bell, R. (1991); Dickins, J., Hervey, S. and Higgins,
I. (2002); Halliday, M. A. K. (1994); Hatim, B. (1997, 2001); Hatim, B.
and Mason, I. (1990, 1997).

Exercise

Compare the ST with the translations offered by two

trainee translators in terms of the three variables: field,
tenor and mode. Then, try to translate the text by
yourself paying special attention to the register of the
ST.

Smoking is a hard habit to break because tobacco contains nicotine,

which is highly addictive. Like heroin or other addictive drugs, the body
and mind quickly become so used to the nicotine in cigarettes that a
person needs to have it just to feel normal.

134
‫‪TT 1‬‬

‫يعد التدخين عادة صعب االقالع عنها بسبب مادة التبغ الحاوية على النيكوتين المسببة‬
‫لالدمان حيث يصبح الجسم والعقل معتاد على النيكوتين في السجائر فيحصل عليها‬
‫فقط ليشعر انه بخير‪ ,‬تماما كما الهيروين او العقاقير المخدرة االخرى‪.‬‬

‫‪TT 2‬‬

‫يُعد التدخين عادة يصعب االقالع عنها ألن التبغ يحتوي على مركب النيكوتين والذي‬
‫يسبب االدمان بصورة كبيرة كما هو حال الهيروين او العقاقير المخدرة االخرى‬
‫و سرعان ما يعتاد الجسم والعقل على تأثير النيكوتين الموجود في السجائر والتي‬
‫يحتاجها المرء لكي يشعر بأنه طبيعي ‪.‬‬

‫‪Exercise‬‬

‫‪Following Halliday and Hasan (1976), register is defined in this‬‬

‫‪study as the linguistic features that are employed by the‬‬
‫‪writer/speaker to be in line with those of situation, by paying‬‬
‫‪special attention to the three variables: field, tenor and mode. Is‬‬
‫‪there a direct relation between the register of the text and its‬‬
‫‪type? Discuss this question by providing the reader with‬‬
‫‪authentic translation examples.‬‬

‫‪135‬‬
Chapter 8: Discourse Analysis & Translation

Key concepts

Cohesion; Culture; Discourse Analysis, Grammatical

Equivalence; Language Function; Pragmatics; Register;
Role of Language; Thematic Progression; Textuality;
Strategies; Stylistics.

Overview

In the 1990s the focus of translation studies was shifted from text
analysis, which “normally concentrates on describing the way in which
texts are organised” to discourse analysis, which looks at “the way
language communicates meaning and social and power relations”
(Munday 2008: 90).
Discourse analysis is essentially interdisciplinary, combining linguistic,
sociocultural and cognitive elements. There are numerous definitions of
discourse analysis, perhaps the simplest being the one offered by Brown
and Yule (1983: 1) “the analysis of language in use”. Discourse analysis
has moved away from former approaches that consider translation as an
exercise in which translators normally pay attention to grammatical rules
and use bilingual dictionaries.
Discourse analysis deals with the complex relationships among meaning,
culture and language, thereby showing the limitations of bilingual
dictionaries as a good translation tool. When translators analyze the text
at hand in an attempt to understand it and put a finger on the elements
that need special treatment in translation, they have to consider the entire
text as a translation unit, not the single word or sentence, thus fixing
particular attention to the context, co-text, communicative dimension,
pragmatic dimension and semiotic dimension (cf. Hatim and Mason
1990).
Based on the researchers’ own experience and remarks made by other
colleagues who are teaching translation at different universities (for
example Mohammed Farghal and Jamal Al-Qinai of the University of
Kuwait; Said Faiq of the American University of Sharjah, UAE, Mike

136
Hall of the University of Westminster, UK; Raymond Chakhachiro of
the University of Western Sydney, Australia; Hasan Ghazala of the
University of Umm Al-Qura, Saudi Arabia), one of the most difficult
problems in translation training is to teach the trainee students how to
criticize a published and/or unpublished translation academically. In
some cases, students busy themselves with finding translation mistakes
and merely state that they do not like this translation, thereby suggesting
alternatives they believe to be correct. At times, they replace workable
translations with bad translations without being able to justify their own
versions (cf. Farghal 2012: 72). Thus, it is important to encourage the
trainee student “to perform ST discourse analysis as part of their pre-
translation competence before embarking on the process of
reformulation into TL” Al-Qinai (2011: 33).

The framework of the linguistic analysis applied here is adopted

partially, but not entirely, from Hall (2008). It is based on the analysis of
the source and target language texts, operating within two dimensions:
the macrocontext, “which has a situational focus”, and the microcontext,
“which focuses on syntactical and lexical factors” (Hall 2008: 26-27).
The approach makes use of comprehensive text analysis, of source and
target language texts, genre, text type, register and language function and
some other issues. The six areas of concentration provide the essential
linguistic components to enable effective comment on overall strategy
and the translation process and challenges as well as the identification
and annotation of the treatment of particular translation issues that
require special attention and application. These areas are:
a) Role of language: register, language function, choice of lexical
items and idioms, and grammatical equivalence in translation
(such as verb aspect);
b) Aspects of pragmatics: implicature, speech acts, honorifics,
politeness strategies;
c) Aspects of textuality: cohesion and thematic progression;
d) Cultural aspects: culture-specific terms, modes of address, names
and key references, etc;
e) Stylistic aspects: tropes (i.e. metaphor, simile, metonymy, pun,
irony, personification, rhetorical questions, onomatopoeia,
oxymoron, etc.) vs. schemes (i.e. parallelism, ellipsis, asyndeton,
polysyndeton, anadiplosis, climax, chiasmus, etc.);

137
 f) Strategic aspects: local strategies (i.e. reasoned decisions taken
by the translator when facing a particular problem, such as
addition, omission, deviation, etc.) vs. global strategies (i.e. the
overall strategy taken by the translator before embarking on
translating the text) (for more details on these aspects, see
Chapter Four).

Role of language

To demonstrate how meaning is directly affected by the sort of language

used, let us consider the following example quoted from Choukri’s
(2000: 175-176; 6th edition) and translated by Bowles (1993: 130-131):
‫ هل تعرفه؟‬،‫ أنه رجل طيب وأمين‬،‫ صاحب قهوة الرقاصة‬،‫سأتركها لك عند سيدي مصطفى‬
.‫نعم لقد ترددت على قهوته مرات‬
“I’m going to leave the money with Sidi Mustafa at the Café
Ragassa. He’s reliable. Do you know him?”
“Yes, I go there often.”

Comments:
In the above example, there is a shift in verb aspect from perfective,
expressed in the ST by ‫ لقد ترددت‬to progressive, expressed by the present
simple tense in the TT. Such a shift in verb aspect does influence both
continuity and time frame. The emphasis in the source text is on the
repeated occurrence of the action up to the present, i.e. I’ve been there
several times, while the emphasis in the TT is laid on the regularity and
frequency of the action as a matter of routine.

To further demonstrate the impact of failing to take into account the role
of language, let us consider the following example quoted from Karīm
‘Abid’s (2010: 63) story )‫ غرام السيدة (ع‬The Passion of Lady A and
translated by Eric Winkel (2010: 63):
‫ ف ّكر لو أن هذه األمسية الخضراء ال‬،‫نزل الرجل من دون أن يعرف عواقب هذه النزوة‬
‫ شعر‬،‫ اللحظة التي ال مثيل لها‬،‫ لو أنه ظل هكذا مغموراً بهذه المفاجأة المالئكية‬،‫تنتهي‬
.. ‫بأنه أصبح شفافا ً وخفيفا ً كأنه موجود وغير موجود‬
The man got down, not knowing what the consequences of his
sudden impulse would be. He thought, if this green evening would
not end! If he could stay like this undetected by these unexpected

138
 angels! in this moment unlike any other. He was sure he would
awake feathery and light, as if he was here, or not here.

Comments:
1- Here, in the above extract there is a combination of both misuse
and inconsistency in the use of punctuation marks ‫ ـــ‬the
exclamation mark is followed by a capital letter ‘If’ in the first
occurrence, but, later, it is followed by a small letter ‘in’. Further,
there is no need for a comma after the introductory verb
‘thought’ as long as the translator has resorted to indirect speech.
2- There is also a minor grammatical mistake in the use of the
adverb of place ‘here’ in the reported speech whose introductory
verb is in the past tense ‘was’. In such a case, the adverb of place
‘here’ should be changed into ‘there’ as in ‘ ... there, or not
there’.
3- An example of deviation in ‫لو أنه ظل هكذا مغمورا بهذه المفاجئة المالئكية‬
‘if he had remained caught up in such an angelic (or great)
surprise’ can be identified here. The translator has mistakenly
translated it into ‘If he could stay like this undetected by these
unexpected angels’, thus producing a completely different image
in the mind of the target reader.
4- As far as the original language function is concerned, it is poetic
in so far as it focuses on the message and the selection of
language and stylistic elements (cf. Burton, 1980: 175).
However, the language in the TT loses most of its stylistic
elements, thus affecting its poetic function.

To cast more light on the translator’s (in)ability to cope with the role of
language, let us consider the following example quoted from Ghazala
(2012: 39) and translated by a student translator:

No one is sure whether, from Israel’s current perceived position

of strength, he genuinely wants a lasting peace that would give
the Palestinians a proper state. He leaves room for maneuver. He
is flexible to a point of opportunism.

‫ فال أحد يعرف بشكل قاطع ما‬،‫وفي ظل سطوة الموقف اإلسرائيلي في الوقت الراهن‬
‫ إذ إنه عادة‬.‫إذا كان حقا ً يريد سالما ً دائما ً يمنح بموجبه الفلسطينيين دولةً حقيقيةً أم ال‬
.‫ما يترك باب المناورة مفتوحا ً فهو مرن إلى ح ّد االنتهازية‬

139
Comments :
Here, the student translator has succeeded in intrinsically managing the
text by adding the phrase ‫‘ عادة ما‬usually’ in the TT to make it read
cogently and smoothly on the one hand, and lay emphasis on regularity
and frequency of the action as a matter of routine on the other. It is
worth noting that unlike English that has to express the regularity and
frequency of an action grammatically, Arabic can express it lexically
when it is relevant (cf. Baker 1992: 98). Languages differ widely in the
way they map various aspects of world experiences. In this regard, Baker
(1992: 84) rightly comments:
Languages which have morphological resources for expressing a
certain category such as number, tense, or gender, have to express
these categories regularly; those which do not have morphological
resources for expressing the same categories do not have to express
them except when they are felt to be relevant.

Aspects of pragmatics

Pragmatics is often defined as the study of language use, i.e. “the study
of purposes for which [such linguistic forms] are used” Stalinker (1973:
38). In its narrower sense, it deals with how linguistic elements and
contextual factors work side by side in the interpretation of an utterance,
enabling the hearer/reader to grasp the right meaning intended by the
speaker/writer rather than just adhering to the referential meaning of an
utterance. Emery (2004: 150), adapted Blum-Kulka’s (1986/2004)
views, writes that “we have to negotiate a text’s coherence in a dynamic,
interactive operation in which the covert potential meaning relationship
among parts of a text is made overt by the reader/listener through
processes of interpretation”.
Several studies on pragmatic problems (Levinson 1983; Leech 1983;
Farghal and Shakir 1994; Farghal and Borini 1996, 1997; Emery 2004;
Hall 2008; Farghal 2012) have shown that speech acts, addressing terms,
conversational implicature and politeness strategies are the main areas
that put extra efforts on the translators, requiring them to make every

140
effort “to encode and decode contextually based implicit information”
(Farghal: 2012: 132).

In order to put a finger on the translator’s sufferings when dealing with a

text charged with pragmatic issues, let us consider the following
example quoted from Fu'ad al-Takarlī’s ‫' خزين الالمرئيات‬A Hidden
Treasure' and translated by Husni and Newman (2008: 226-227;
emphasis added):

‫ مع والدتي فانتهينا إلى نتيجة مرحة‬،‫ بهدوء‬،‫ ناقشت الفكرة‬.‫لم أفكر آنذاك بالزواج‬
.‫ومشرقة هي أن القطار لم يفت بعد علي‬

Although at that time I did not think about marriage, I did

discuss the idea quietly, with my mother reaching the happy
and optimistic conclusion that it was not too late for me.

Comments:
In this example, the sentence ‫ أن القطار لم يفت بعد عل ّي‬occurs in a context in which
a girl is talking to her mother about a marriage issue. According to Arab
culture, one can express such a world experience by referring to the referent
'train' as in 'the train has not passed me by yet', which would be quite natural
for the SL reader. To put this differently, the speaker, in such a context, uses a
locutionary act ‫ أن القطار لم يفت بعد عل ّي‬which has a different illocutionary force
(i.e. I still have the opportunity to get married), thereby flouting Grice’s (1975)
Cooperative Principle and its maxims, in particular, the quality maxim, i.e. to
speak the truth. The translators, due to the cultural-pragmatic constraints
imposed on them by the use of such a sentence, have given priority to the
illocutionary force, i.e. the pragmatic meaning of the utterance as well as its
perlocutionary effect, i.e. the impact of the message on the receptor.

To further demonstrate how (not) taking the pragmatic aspects into

account may seriously affect the quality of the TT, let us consider the
following example quoted from Mahfouz’s novel ‫' زقاق المدق‬Midaq Alley'
(1947: 105) and translated by Le Gassick (1975/1981: 108):
:‫فقالت ضاحكة وكأنها وثقت من امتالكه لألبد‬
!‫أحطك في عيني وأكحل عليك‬
She assured him, as if she was certain of possessing him forever,
with me you are very safe.

141
Comments:
Here, the speaker in the original extract flouts the maxim of quality, i.e.
to speak the truth, by opting for a metaphorical expression ‫أحطك في عيني‬
‫‘ وأكحل عليك‬lit. I’ll put you in my eyes and paint you with kohl’ in order to
communicate and emphasize his message, thus giving rise to a
conversational implicature, that is, you are so dear and will be mine
forever. The translation offered by Le Gassick; however, does not reflect
the same implicature ‫ ــــ‬it is inadvertently changed into one of 'safety'.
Had the translator done his best to find an English metaphorical
expression that embodies a similar implicature by re-writing the ST
carefully to have it meet the linguistic and stylistic norms of the TL as in
‫ أحطك في قلبي وأغلقه عليك إلى األبد‬, he could have opted for ‘I’ll put you in
my heart and lock you up there forever’.

Aspects of textuality

Drawing on the preference hypothesis claimed by Blum-Kulka

(1986/2004: 19), Baker (1992: 183) holds that every language has its
own stylistic conventions and preferences in using certain textual
patterns, i.e. cohesive devices, thematic patterns and parallel structures.

In the analysis of text organization, in particular with relation to

translation, the concept of cohesion comes to the fore. “The topic of
cohesion […] has always appeared to me the most useful constituent of
discourse analysis or text linguistics applicable to translation” comments
Newmark (1991: 69). There is a great number of linguists who have
dealt with the issue of cohesion, for example Halliday and Hasan (1976),
Brown and Yule (1983), Newmark (1988, 1991), Hatim and Mason
(1990), Bell (1991), Hoey (1991), Baker (1992), Eggins (1994),
Thompson (1996), Fawcett (1997), Stillar (1998), Titscher et al (2000)
and Dickins et al (2002). Investigating the definitions that are given by
the authors above, one can infer that cohesion involves “semantic
relations” (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 4), or “semantic ties” (Eggins
1994: 88), i.e. the meanings of some elements of a text cannot be
decoded without resorting to other elements within the text. In addition
to involving semantic relations, cohesion is a “textual phenomenon”
Thompson (1996: 147), or “surface relations” Baker (1992: 218); in

142
other words, these relations link some elements, which appear on the
“surface of the text”, to others in the same text (ibid).

Cohesion, as Halliday and Hasan (1976: 9) indicate, can be intra-

sentential or inter-sentential. They elaborate that cohesive relations
between sentences are “the ONLY source of texture, whereas within the
sentence there are the structural relations as well” (capitals theirs). That
is why these cohesive devices are very clear between sentences. They
(ibid) identify five types of cohesion, namely reference, substitution,
ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. However, there is a number
of cohesive devices that do not fall under of any of these headings, such
as thematic progression, parallel structures, continuity of tense,
aspect and mood and the like (cf. Hall 2008: 171). Studies on cohesion
shifts between Arabic and English (cf. Al-Jabr 1987; Hoey 1991; Baker
1992; Abdulla 2001 among others) demonstrate that Arabic and English
have different stylistic conventions and preferences in the use of certain
patterns of cohesion, in particular lexical repetition, reference and
conjunction.

To demonstrate how translators need to take utmost care of any textual

asymmetry between the interfacing languages, let us consider the
following example quoted from Hemingway’s novella ‘The Old Man
and the Sea’ (1952: 10) and translated by Munīr al-Ba‘albakī (1985: 10;
emphasis added):
They picked up the gear from the boat. The old man carried the
mast on his shoulder and the boy carried the wooden box with the
coiled, hard-braided brown lines, the gaff and the harpoon with its
shaft.
‫ وحمل الولد الصندوق‬،‫ إذ حمل الشيخ السارية على كتفه‬،‫جمعا السارية من القارب‬
.‫الخشبي بما فيه من خيوط بنية ـــ ملفوفة ومضفورة بإحكام ـــ والمحجن والحربون‬

Comments:
Here, in an attempt to make the TT hang together as a cohesive text, and
read cogently and smoothly, the translator has intrinsically managed the
text by adding the connector ‫‘ إذ‬i.e. ‘then’ and ‫‘ بما فيه‬i.e. ‘including’ to
have it meet the linguistic and stylistic norms of the TL. Unlike English
discourse, which “is considerably asyndetic and hypotactic”, Arabic
discourse “is well-known for its explicit paratactic nature, with a heavy
use of conjunction” (Farghal 2012: 141).

143
To cast more light on the translator’s inability to cope with the textual
mismatch between the interfacing languages, let us consider the
following example quoted from Karīm ‘Abid’s story )‫' غرام السيدة (ع‬The
Passion of Lady A' and translated for the purposes of the current study
by two translators:

‫ شعرت بأن الشرفة‬،‫ عندما كانت السيدة (ع) تتوقع مروره‬،‫في شقتها الفخمة الهادئة‬
ْ
‫تماسكت على‬ ‫ لكنها‬،‫على وشك أن تَنه َّد بها وتنهمر على أشجار الرصيف المجاور‬
. ‫الكرسي‬

TT 1
Mrs. (A) was sitting at the terrace of her luxurious flat. She was
expecting him to pass, she shivered strongly to extend that she
felt the terrace would collapse, but she managed to control
herself.

TT 2
In her grand, stately apartment, while Lady A was waiting for her
passer-by, it seemed to her that the balcony was going to
collapse and rain down on the trees lining the neighborhood
sidewalk. But she pulled herself together in the chair.

Comments:
1- The first translator has offered a radical change in the structure of
the original extract. The emphasis on the main verb in ‫' شعرت‬she
felt' is completely lost when the translator has opted to delete the
connector ‫' عندما‬when' in ‫ شعرت بأن‬،‫عندما كانت السيدة (ع) تتوقع مروره‬
... ‫الشرفة‬, thus altering the choice and ordering of themes and
rhemes done by the original writer. In the translation, the two
acts, after having been marked from each other, are presented as
independent sentences, generating a sort of feeling that there is
probably a time span between the events. In this regard, Shen
(1987: 185) comments that the way “in which the syntactic units
are connected (say, whether subordinated (one to another) or
coordinated (with or without punctuation in between))” plays a
vital role in determining the pace of the processes involved.
2- The second translator has mistakenly changed the content of the
message when opting for the deletion of the adjective ‫' هادئة‬quiet',

144
 and instead resorted to two adjectives which are synonyms, or
near synonyms, viz. 'grand' and 'stately', but have different
meanings from the original adjective ‫هادئة‬. As for ‫' تتوقع مروره‬lit.
she’s expecting his passing by', it is presented in the original text
vaguely in an attempt to invoke the readers and leave them to
wonder about 'him'. However, in the translation, the translator
has failed to reflect such a characteristic. It would be better to
say: 'expecting him to pass by', instead of the version offered by
him: 'Lady A was waiting for her passer-by'.

To witness how (not) giving full consideration to textual mismatch

between the SL and TL may affect the quality of the TT, let us consider
the following example quoted from Khudayyir’s story ‘Joseph’s Tales’
and translated by Pragnell and Sadkhan (2011: 30-31):

‫ مساحتها‬،‫ اخترنا رقعة واسعة على ضفة النهر‬،‫ بعد الحرب‬،‫عندما اعدنا بناء المدينة‬
‫ ورفعنا طبقاتها االثنتي عشرة الحجرية الملساء‬،‫ واقمنا عليها داراً للطباعة‬،‫كيلومتران‬
‫كي يراها القادم من بعيد ساطعة بالشمس قبل ان تستدير اشعتها الوهاجة الى الجدران‬
.‫الرخامية الشاهقة ألبراج المدينة‬

When we reconstructed the city after the war we chose a wide

patch of land on the river shore, two kilometers in area, on which
we established a printing house, and we raised its twelve, stone,
smooth storeys so that it could be seen by the comer shining in
the sun before its flashing rays turn to the lofty marble walls of
the city towers.

Comments:
As can been seen, the translators have not paid extra attention to the
length of the sentences and the way in which they are presented in the
ST. Here, the original writer opts to subordinate the first two clauses by
using the connector ‫' عندما‬when', thereby emphasizing the action of
'choosing' over the other action, i.e. 'reconstructing'. However, in the
next two sentences, viz. ‫ مساحتها كيلومتران‬and ‫أقمنا عليها داراً للطباعة‬, he opts
for simplicity of language structuring. From a stylistic point of view, the
complexity and simplicity of the structures of language used in the text
reflect the degree of formality that, in turn, determines among other
parameters the tenor of discourse; hence the importance of reflecting
such a characteristic in the TT, provided that this does not distort the TL

145
linguistic and stylistic norms (cf. Shen 1987: 184; Ghazala 2011: 164;
Almanna 2013a: 250). In light of this, the above text can be translated
more effectively by presenting the passage in two complementary
complex sentences focusing on the two main issues as in:
When we reconstructed the city after the war, we chose a wide
plot of land on the river bank, two kilometres in area, where we
built a printing house. We erected twelve smooth, stone storeys
so high that anyone approaching could see it glinting in the
sunlight before the dazzling rays reached the lofty marble walls
of the city towers.

Cultural aspects

As stated in Chapter Three, translation can no longer be seen as being

merely between two linguistic systems, and consequently, the translator
needs to be ‘bicultural’, not only ‘bilingual’ (cf. Bassnett 1980/1991;
Snell-Hornby 1988/1995; Vermeer 1989/2004; Farghal 2012).
Approached from such a perspective, the two fundamental components
of translation are culture and language. Unlike language, which
conceptualizes people’s world experiences, culture involves the totality
of attitudes towards the world, other cultures and peoples, and the
manner in which the attitudes are mediated (cf. Fairclough 1995; Hatim,
2001; Faiq 2004). In other words, culture refers to people’s beliefs,
accumulated value systems, customs, traditions, habits, morals and the
like which are “tacitly assumed to be collectively shared by particular
social groups and to the positions taken by producers and receivers of
texts, including translations, during the mediation process facilitated by
language, the system that offers its users the tools to realize their
culture” (Faiq 2004: 36). In a direct link to translation, Bassnett (1998:
93) holds: “Just as the norms and constraints of the source culture play
their part in the creation of the source text, so the norms and conventions
of the target culture play their inevitable role in the creation of the
translation”.

As such, translators need to take utmost care of such cultural

asymmetries between the interfacing languages. To cast some light on
such cultural differences between Arabic and English, let us examine the

146
following extract quoted from Mahfouz’s novel ‫‘ أوالد حارتنا‬Children of
Gebelawi’ (1986: 214; 6th edition) along with its translation offered by
Philip Stewart (1981: 190):
:ً‫فبصق الرجل متأففا ً وقال محنقا‬
‫ وجاء زنفل‬،‫ ذهب جبل وعهده الحلو‬،‫ أسياد الحارة! ما نحن إال عبيد أذالء يا عبده‬-
.‫ يلتهم أرزاقنا ويفتك بمن يشكو‬،‫ فتوتنا وهو علينا ال لنا‬،‫أجحمه هللا‬

The man spat angrily:

- Lords of the Alley indeed! We are just miserable slaves,
Abda; Gebel and his happy times have gone, and 'Snarler'
has come, damn him, our strongman who is against us and
not for us, who gobbles up our earnings and destroys
anybody who complains.

Comments:
To reflect the communicative effect of the ST, the translator has offered
a range of effective choices of idioms and expressions, such as ‘Lords of
the Alley indeed!’, ‘happy times’ and ‘damn him’. As far as the religious
expression ‫ أجحمه هللا‬is concerned, it is clear that the translator has
succeeded in being an insider in the source culture, i.e. understanding the
cultural experience in the SL, and being an insider in the target culture,
i.e. encoding the cultural experience in the TL. In other words, the
translator has succeeded in intrinsically managing it by opting for the
neutral imprecation ‘damn him’.

To shed more light on these cultural asymmetries between Arabic and

English, let us consider the following example quoted from Choukri’s
(2000: 168; 6th edition) and translated by Bowles (1993: 126):

.‫ خير إن شاء هللا‬.‫ها أنا جئت‬ -

- “Here, I am”.

Comments:
In the original text, the religious expression ‫ إن شاء هللا‬is not meant to
express hope or communicate commitment conditioned on God’s
permission. Rather, it is used here by the speaker to encourage the
addressee to tell him/her what is happening. Being aware of this, the
translator has intrinsically managed the text by opting for deleting the
whole formulaic expression to have it meet the TL reader’s expectations,
thus guaranteeing the acceptability and accessibility. However, had the

147
translator taken into account the fact that such a formulaic expression
contributes to the essential illocutionary force and implicature of the
original utterances, he could have suggested expressions like ‘What’s
up?’, ‘What’s the matter?’ or, at least, ‘Yes, please’.

To further shed more light on the translator’s inability to cope with

cultural asymmetries between Arabic and English, let us consider the
following example quoted from Mahfouz’s novel ‫‘ أوالد حارتنا‬Children of
Gebelawi’ (1986: 213; 6th edition) along with its translation offered by
Philip Stewart (1981: 189):

:‫فتوقف الرجل عن المسير وهو يقول في غيظ‬

.‫ ربنا يتعب المتعب‬،‫ استريحي‬-

The man stopped and said gruffly:

- Take a rest then, and damn those who caused your tiredness!

Comments:
Here, taking into account that the use of literal translation, i.e. ‘May
Allah tire those who tired you’, would fail to capture the cultural
implications meant by the original writer and instead would linger within
the bounds of literalness, the translator has opted for the simple,
agentless ‘damn’ to lead and carry the imprecation, thus reflecting the
ST expression functionally (for more details on types of equivalence, see
Chapter Two). To put this differently, the translator has succeeded in
being an insider in the source culture, i.e. understanding the cultural
experience in the SL, and being an insider in the target culture, i.e.
encoding the cultural experience in the TL. Further, the translator has
succeeded in reproducing in the TT the poetic form and effect of the
Arabic idiom that occurs quite naturally ‫ربنا يتعب المتعب‬.

Stylistic aspects

Within any language system (phonetics, graphology, semantics,

grammar (morphology and syntax) and pragmatics), the same
proposition can be encoded in various linguistic forms, i.e. styles.

148
Style is defined by Leech and Short (1981: 10-11) as “the linguistic
habits of a particular writer [...], genre, period, school”. Style is seen by
other stylisticians as “the dress of thought” (Hough 1969: 3). Formalists,
however, define style as “a deviation from language norms. It is also
claimed to be an expression and reflection of the personality of the
author, hence the adage 'style is man', by particularly generative
stylisticians and the intentionalists” (Ghazala 2011: 40). Laying more
emphasis on the linguistic approach of style, Abrams (1993: 203;
emphasis his) defines style as “the manner of linguistic expression in
prose or verse – it is how speakers or writers say whatever it is that they
say”. In a direct link to translation, Nida and Taber (1969) in their
definition of style touch on the patterning of choices as well as the
generic constraints that play crucial roles in determining the author’s
style.
Building on these different schools of thought in defining style, we
define style in this study as any deviation that occurs within any
language system (phonetics, graphology, semantics, grammar
(morphology and syntax) and pragmatics), thus creating marked and
unexpected combination of sounds, graphics of writing, meanings,
patterns of structures and so on. Such deviation does not happen
randomly, but rather is driven by a deliberate and conscious selection
made by the original writer. As such, the focus of attention in this study
is shifted towards the two views of style: style as deviation and style as
choice and less attention is paid to the other two views: style as
recurrence and style as comparison (for more details, see Ghazala 2011;
Almanna 2013c).
To demonstrate the impact of failing to reflect certain stylistic features in
authentic translation practice, let us consider the following example
quoted from Greene’s (1980: 9) ‘The Bomb Party’ and translated into
Arabic by ‘Ali Sālih (1989: 7):
I think that I used to detest Doctor Fischer more than any other man
I have known just as I loved his daughter more than any other
woman.
‫ مثلما أحببت‬،‫أظن أنني اعتدت كره الدكتور فشر أكثر من إي إنسان آخر عرفته في حياتي‬
.‫ابنته أكثر من كل النساء األخريات‬

149
Comments:
1- Here, it is apparent that the original writer uses parallelism: (I
used to detest Doctor Fischer more than any other man / I loved
his daughter more than any other woman). Such parallel
structures need to be reflected in the TT, provided that such a
reflection would not distort the TL linguistic and stylistic norms
(see below).
2- Further, Greene introduces two antonyms, i.e. ‘detest’ vs. ‘love’
and ‘man’ vs. ‘woman’ in a very short extract. As these antonyms
fall in parallel structures, they acquire stylistic features that need
to be maintained in the TT. Had these stylistic features given full
consideration, the translator could have produced a rendering as
in:
‫ تماما ً مثلما‬،‫أظن أنني كنت أكره الدكتور فشر أكثر من أي رجل آخر عرفته بحياتي‬
.‫كنت أحبّ ابنته أكثر من أي امرأة في العالم‬
Here, an attempt is also made to deliberately use antonyms in our
suggested rendering: ‫ أكره‬vs. ّ‫ أحب‬and ‫ رجل‬vs. ‫امرأه‬. It is also worth
noting that the main reason for opting for the lexical item ‫‘ كره‬i.e.
hate’, rather than ‫‘ بغض‬i.e. hate + hostility’ or ‫‘ مقت‬i.e. hate +
censure’ is to make up for the alliteration utilized by the original
writer, i.e. detest Doctor.

To witness translators’ dilemma while prioritizing the competing

elements prior to finalizing their drafts, let us re-consider the following
example quoted from Hemingway’s novella ‘The Old Man and the Sea’
(1952: 10) and translated by Munīr Ba‘albakī (1985: 31).
They picked up the gear from the boat. The old man carried the
mast on his shoulder and the boy carried the wooden box with
the coiled, hard-braided brown lines, the gaff and the harpoon
with its shaft.
‫ وحمل الغالم الصندوق‬،‫ وحمل الشيخ السارية على كتفه‬.‫وجمعا العدة من القارب‬
،‫ والمحجن‬،ً‫الخشبي المنطوي على الخيوط السمراء الملتفة المضفورة ضفراً محكما‬
.‫والحربون‬

150
Comments:
1- Here, there is a lexical repetition that needs special attention. The
lexical item ‘to carry’ is used in juxtaposed parallel structures and
joined by the connector ‘and’: ‘The man carried the … and the boy
carried the …’, thereby acquiring a stylistic feature that needs to be
reflected in the TT, provided that this does not distort the TL
linguistic and stylistic norms. Paying attention to these stylistic
features at the lexical and syntactic level, the translator has succeeded
in reflecting them in the TT.
2- However, he has failed to deal with the lexical item ‘boy’. It is worth
noting that the English word ‘boy’ can be translated into Arabic by a
number of items, such as ‫ولد‬, ‫صبي‬, ‫غالم‬, etc. This requires translators
to do their best to analyze and comprehend their both denotative and
connotative meanings prior to rendering it. To start with, the English
lexical item ‘boy’ and the Arabic word ‫ غالم‬proposed by the translator
are different in their both denotative meanings (i.e. one of the sense
components of the lexical item ‫ غالم‬is [+ adult] while the lexical item
‘boy’ is [– adult]) and connotative meanings (i.e. the Arabic word ‫غالم‬
invokes in the mind of the TL reader the idea of ‘servitude’). From a
stylistic point of view, translating the English lexical item ‘boy’ into
‫ صبي‬will create a sort of alliteration ( …‫ )… الصبي الصندوق‬in the TT,
which is not presented in the ST.

To further demonstrate how not taking into account the deliberate and
conscious selections made by the original writer may create a misleading
mental image in the minds of the TL readers, let us consider the
following example quoted from Choukri’s novel ‫( الخبز الحافي‬2000: 191;
6th edition) and translated by Bowles into ‘For Bread Alone’ (1993: 143):

.‫ هذا هو معنى ما يقوله‬،‫إرادة الحياة‬ -

‫وما معنى إرادة الحياة؟‬ -
‫إرادة الحياة معناها هو أنه إذا كان هناك شعب مستعبد أو إنسان ما وأراد أن‬ -
.‫ والفجر يستجيب والقيد يستجيب يتهرس بقوة إرادة الحياة‬،‫يتحرر فإن هللا له‬

“He’s talking about the desire to live”.

“And what does the desire to live mean?”
“It means that if a man or a country is enslaved and decides to try
and get free, Allah will help. He says: the dawn will respond and
the chains will break because men will make it happen”.
151
Comments:
In this example, there is a phrasal repetition ‫ إرادة الحياة‬which is used by
the original writer four times. It is fronted at the first and third utterances
and repeated at the second and fourth utterances. Such a repetition is
quite natural and acceptable in Arabic ‫ ـــ‬it is one of the devices for
emphasis in Arabic. Taking into account such a stylistic feature on the
one hand, and TL linguistic and stylistic norms on the other, the
translator has opted for reflecting it in the first and second utterances
only. In the third utterance, he has resorted to anaphoric-it and in the
final clause it is not referred to explicitly, but its sense is incorporated
into the clause. Further, there is an example of climax, i.e. arranging
words ‫ يستجيب يتهرس‬according to their increasing importance, which is
accompanied by the deliberate omission of connectors and/or
punctuation marks. Paying no attention to such stylistic features, the
translator has opted for deleting the second word ‫‘ يتهرس‬lit. to smash’
completely. Had the translator adopted a style-based approach to
analyzing and appreciating the stylistic peculiarities utilized by the
original writer and relating them to their artistic functions, he could have
resorted to a wh-cleft in the first clause, an anaphoric-it in the second
clause, a phrasal repetition in the third clause and the prepositional
phrase ‘by virtue of’ that can accommodate the repetition of the phase
‘the desire to live’ smoothly, as in:
- What he’s trying to emphasize is ‘the desire to live’.
- What does it mean?
- ‘The desire to live’ means if a man or a country is enslaved and
decides to get free, Allah will help, and the dawn will respond
and the chains will break .. will smash by virtue of ‘the desire to
live’.

FURTHER READING:
Austin, J. L. (1962); Baker, M. (1992); Bell, R. (1991); Boase-Beier, J.
(2006); Brown, T. and Yule, G. (1983); Dickins, J., Hervey, S. and Higgins,
I. (2002); Eggins, S. (1994); Emery, P. G. (2004); Faiq, S. (2004, 2008);
Farghal, M. and Shunnaq, A. (1999/2011); Farghal, M. (2012); Ghazala, H.
(2011); Grice, H. P. (1975); Halliday, M. A. K. (1994); Halliday, M. A. K.
and Hasan, R. (1976); Hatim, B. (1997, 2001); Hatim, B. and Mason, I.
(1990, 1997); Leech, G. (1983); Levinson, S. (1983); Snell-Hornby, M.
(1995/1988); Vermeer, H. J. (2000).

152
 Exercise

In the following extract quoted from Mahfouz’s novel ‫أوالد حارتنا‬

‘Children of Gebelawi’ (1986: 251; 6th edition), the translator has opted
for a formula that is in common usage in English, i.e. ‘For God’s sake’,
but does not relate directly to the ST. Comment on his translation and
then provide your own translation.

:ً‫فهتف عبدة جزعا‬

.‫ والمسامح كريم‬،‫ وحدوا هللا‬-
Abda shouted wretchedly:
- For God’s sake, tolerance is virtue (Stewart 1981: 224).

Exercise

In the following extract quoted from Mahfouz’s novel ‫' زقاق المدق‬Midaq
Alley' (1947: 19) and translated by Le Gassick (1981: 14), in attempt to
reflect the simple people’s conversations prevailing in one of Cairo’s
poor quarters, the original writer employs a dialectal expression ً‫أهالً أهال‬
‫ زارنا النبي يا ست سنية‬in which the prophet’s name is uttered by Umm
Hamida. Le Gassick (1981: 14; 2nd edition) has opted for a formal title
‘Mrs Afify’, i.e. the family name of Saniyya’s husband. Discuss his
translation from a pragmatic and cultural perspective.
.‫ أهالً أهالً زارنا النبي يا ست سنية‬-
- “Welcome, welcome. Why, it’s as though the prophet himself had
come to visit us, Mrs. Afify”.

153
References
Abdel-Hafiz, A. (2003). „Pragmatic and Linguistic Problems in the
Translation of Naguib Mahfouz‟s: the thief and the dogs:
a case study‟, Babel, Vol. 49, (3), pp. 229-252.
Abdulla, A. (2001). „Rhetorical Repetition in Literary Translation‟,
Babel, Vol. 47 (4), pp. 289-303.
Abdul-Raof, H (2001). Qur'an Translation: Discourse, Texture and
Exegesis. Surrey: Curzon.
Adab, B. J. (1997). Translation Strategies and Cross-Cultural
Constraints: A Case Study of the Translation of
Advertising Texts. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. UK: the
University of Aston.
Aixlela, J. F. (1996). „Culture-specific Items in Translation‟. In R.
Alvarez and C. A. Vidal (eds.) Translation, Power,
Subversion. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters
pp. 52-79.
Al-Bainy, R. H. (2002). Additions and Omissions in Translation with
Reference to Literary and Legal Translated Texts.
Unpublished Ph.D thesis. England: University of
Portsmouth.
Albir, A. H. and Alves, F. (2009). „Translation as a cognitive activity‟.
In J. Munday (ed.) The Routledge Companion to
Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Al-Jabr, A. M. (1987). Cohesion in Text Differentiation: A Study of
English and Arabic. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. England:
University of Aston.
Al-Khafaji, R. (2006). „In search of translational norms: the case of
shifts in lexical repetition in Arabic-English translation‟,
Babel, Vol. 52 (1), pp. 39-65.
Almanna, A. (2005). Aspects of Cohesion in Translating Legislative
Texts from Arabic into English. Unpublished MA thesis.
England: Westminster University.
_________ and Almanna F. (2008). Translation: History, theory &
Practice. London: Sayyab Books Ltd.
_________ (2010). „A Decoding-encoding Approach to Translating
Simile between English and Arabic‟. In S. Faiq and A.
Clark (eds.) Beyond Denotation in Arabic-English
Translation. London: Sayyab Books Ltd, pp. 108-125.

154
_________ (2013a). Quality in the Translation of Narrative Fictional
Texts from Arabic into English for the Purposes of
Publication: Towards a Systematic Approach to (Self-)
assessing the Translation Process. Unpublished Ph.D
thesis: University of Durham.
_________ (2013b). „‫‟انترجًح تٍٍ تراءج انفعم وانقصذ انًتعًذ‬. In M. Farghal
and A. Almanna (eds.) ‫انترجًح تٍٍ تجهٍاخ انهغح وفاعهٍح انثقافح‬
‘Translation between Creativity of Language and
Dynamism of Culture’. Algeria: ‫يُشىراخ االختالف‬
Manshūrāt al-Ikhtilāf and Lebanon: ‫يُشىراخ ضفاف‬
Manshūrāt Dhifāf , pp. 31-63.
_________ (2013c). „A Style-based Approach to Translating Literary
Texts from Arabic into English‟, Cross-cutural Studies
(Kyung Hee Univeristy), Vol. 32, pp. 5-28.
_________ (2013d). „Extra-linguistic Constraints & Parameters in the
Translation Process: A Descriptive Study‟, WJEL: World
Journal of English Language (Canada: Sciedu Press),
Vol. 3 (3), pp. 27-36.
_________ and Alrubai'i, A. (2009). Modern Iraqi Short Stories: a
Bilingual Reader. London: Sayyab Books Ltd.
Al-Qiniai, J. (2011). „Training Tools for Translators and Interpreters‟,
JJMLL, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 19-38.
Al-Rubai‟i, A. (1996). Translation Criticism: A Model for Assessing the
Translation of Narrative Fictional Texts. Unpublished
Ph.D. Iraq: Al-Mustansiriya University.
_________ (2005). Translation Criticism. Durham: Durham Modern
Languages Series.
Al-Taher, M. (2008). The Translation of Intertextual Expressions in
Political Articles. Unpublished Ph.D. UK: Salford
University.
Amireh, A. (2000). „Framing Nawal El-Saadawi: Arab Feminism in the
Translational World‟, Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, Vol. 26 (1), pp. 215-249.
Anderson, M. (2003). „Ethnography as Translation‟. In S. Petrilli (ed.)
Translation Translation: Approaches to Translation
Studies, 21. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 389-396.

155
Andersson, L. and Trudgill, P. (1990). Bad Language. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
As-Safi, A. and Ash-Sharifi, I (1997). „Naturalness in Literary
Translation‟, Babel, Vol. 43 (1) pp. 60-75.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Aziz, Y. and Lataiwish, M. (2000). Principles of Translation. Tripoli:
Dār An-Nahdha al-„Arabiya.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation.
London/New York: Routledge.
_________ (1995). „Corpora in Translation Studies: an Overview and
Suggestions for Future Research‟, Target, Vol. 7 (2), pp.
223-234.
_________ and Malmkjær, K. (eds.) (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies (1st edition). London/New York:
Routledge.
_________ and Saldanha, G. (eds.) (2009). Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies (2nd edition) . London/New Yourk:
Routeldge.
Bassnett, S. (1980/2002). Translation Studies. London/New York:
Routledge.
_________ and Lefevere, A. (eds.) (1990). Translation, History and
Culture. London/New York: Routledge.
_________ and A. Lefevere (1998). Constructing Cultures: Essays on
Literary Translation, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
_________ and Trivedi, H. (eds.) (1999). Post-Colonial Translation:
Theory and Practice. London/New York: Printer.
Bayar, M. (2007). To Mean or Not to Mean. Damascus: Kadmous
Cultural Foundation.
Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text
Linguistics. London: Longman.
Belhaaj, A. E. (1998). The Process of Translation: Factors, Tasks and
Challenges, Saudi Arabia: Umm Al-Qura University
Press.

156
Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice.
London/New York: Longman.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986/2004). „Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in
Translation‟. In L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies
Reader. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 298-329.
Boase-Beier, J. (2006). Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Manchester:
St Jerome.
Bostrom, N. (1995). „Understanding Quine‟s Thesis of Indeterminacy‟.
Retrieved on October 11, 2013:
www.nickbostrom.com/old/quine.html
Bourdieu, P. (1986). „The forms of capital‟. In J. G. Richardson (ed.)
Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258.
__________ (1990). The Logic of Practice (trans. Richard Nice).
Cambridge: Polity Press.
__________ (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action
(translated by Randal Johnson). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Burton, D. (1980). Dialogue and Discourse: a Sociolinguistic Approach
to Modern Drama Dialogue and Naturally Occurring
Conversation. London/Boston/Henley: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Cambridge Learner‟s Dictionary (2001). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford
University Press.
Chakhachiro, R. (2005). „Revision for Quality‟, Perspectives Studies in
Translation, Vol. 13 (3), pp. 225-238.
Chesterman A. (ed.) (1989). Reading in Translation Theory. Helsinki:
Finn Lectura.
________ (1997/2000). Memes of Translation: The spread of ideas in
translation theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
________ (2006). „Questions in the Sociology of Translation‟. In J. F.
Duarte, A. A. Rosa and T. Seruya (eds.) Translation

157
 Studies at the Interface of Disciplines. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, pp.9-27.
__________ (2009). „The Name and Nature of Translator Studies‟,
Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication
Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 13-22.
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English Style. London:
Longman.
Delisle, J. (1980/1988). L’analyse du discours comme méthode de
traduction, Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, Part
I trans. by P. Logan and M. Creery (1988) as Translation:
an Interpretive Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa
Press.
Dickins, J., Hervey, S. and Higgins, I. (2002). Thinking Arabic
Translation, London/New York: Routledge.
Dilthey, W. (1996) „Hermeneutics and its history‟. In R. A. Makkreel
and F. Rodi (eds.) Wilhelm Dilthey – SelectedWorks, Vol.
4: Hermeneutics and the study of history, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, pp. 233–258.
Dryden, J. (1680/1992). „On Translation‟. In R. Schulte and J. Biguent
(eds.) Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays
from Dryden to Derrida. University of Chicago Press:
Chicago and London, pp. 17-31.
Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systematic Functional Linguistics.
London/New York: Continuum.
Emery, P. G (2004). „Translation, Equivalence and Fidelity: A
Pragmatic Approach‟, Babel Vol. 50 (2), pp. 143-167.
Even-Zohar, I. (1978a). „Papers in Historical Poetics‟. In B. Hrushovski
and I. Even-Zohar (eds.) Papers on Poetics and Semiotics,
Vol. 8. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.
________ (1978b/2004). „The Position of Translated Literature within
the Literary Polysystem‟. In L. Venuti (ed.), The
Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition). London/New
York: Reoutledge, pp. 192-197.
________ (1990/2004). Poetics Today, Special Issue Polysystem Studies,
11(1), reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.) (2004) The Translation
Studies Reader (2nd edition). London/New York:
Routledge, pp. 199–204.
________ (1997/2005). „Polysystem Theory Revised‟. In I. Even-Zohar
Papers in Culture Research, pp. 38–49.

158
Faiq, S. (2004). „The Discourse of Intercultural Translation‟,
Intercultural Communication Studies XIII: 3, pp. 35-46.
________ (2007). Trans-Lated: Translation and cultural Manipulation.
New York: Roman & Littlefield Publishing Group.
________ (2008). „The Master Discourse of Translation from Arabic‟.
Sayyab Translation Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 27-36.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London & New
York: Longman.
Farghal, M. (2004). „Literary Translation: A Schema-theoretic Model‟,
Al-Arabiyya, Vol. 37, pp. 21-35.
__________ (2008). „Extrinsic Managing: An Epitaph to Translational
Ideological Move‟, Sayyab Translation Journal, Vol. 1, pp.
1-26.
_________ (2009). „Basic Issues in Translator Training with Special
Reference to Arab Universities‟, IJAES, Vol. 10, pp. 5-24.
_________ (2010). „Word-for-word or Sense-for-sense Translation:
Ruminating the Age-long Polemics‟, Sayyab Translation
Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 91-100.
__________ (2012). Issues in Arabic and English Translation. Kuwait:
Kuwait University Press.
__________ and Borini, A. (1996). „Pragmalinguistic Failure and the
Translatability of Arabic Politeness Formulas into
English: A Case Study of Mahfouz's 'awlaadu
haaratinaa‟, INTERFACE: Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 3-23.
__________and Borini, A. (1997). „Pragmareligious Failure in
Translating Arabic Politeness Formulas into English,
Evidence from Mahfouz's 'awlaadu haaratinaa‟,
Multilingua, Vol. 16 (1), pp. 77-99.
_________ and Almanna, A. (eds.). (2013). ‫انترجًح تٍٍ تجهٍاخ انهغح وفاعهٍح‬
‫‘ انثقافح‬Translation between Creativity of Language and
Dynamism of Culture’. Algeria: ‫يُشىراخ االختالف‬
Manshūrāt al-Ikhtilāf and Lebanon: ‫يُشىراخ ضفاف‬
Manshūrāt Dhifāf.
Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and Linguistics: Linguistic Theories
Explained. Manchester: St Jerome publishing.
Firdaus, S. (2008). „Evolution of Translation Theories & Practices‟, The
Dialogue, Vol. VII (3), pp. 277-294.

159
Fraser, J. (1996). „The Translator Investigated‟, The Translator, Vol. 2
(1), pp. 65-79.
Friedrich, H. (1965/1992). „On the art of translation‟. In R. Schulte and
J. Biguent (eds.) Theories of Translation: An Anthology
of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. University of
Chicago Press: Chicago and London, pp. 11-16.
Gardiner, M. (1992). The Dialogics of Critique: M M Bakhtin and the
Theory of Ideology. London: Routledge.
Gentzler, E. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories (1st edition).
Clevedon/ Buffalo/ Toronto/ Sydney: Multilingual
Matters.
__________ (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories (2nd edition).
Clevedon/ Buffalo/ Toronto/ Sydney: Multilingual
Matters.
Ghazala. (1995/2006). Translation as Problems and Solutions (7th
edition). Beirut: Dār wa Maktabat al-Hilāl.
__________ (2011). Cognitive Stylistics & the Translator. London:
Sayyab Books Ltd.
__________ (2012). „Translating Media Style and Counter Styles: a
Cognitive Approach‟, STJ: Sayyab Translation Journal,
Vol. 4, pp. 19-45.
Goodenough, W. H. (1964). Explorations in Cultural Anthropology.
McGram-Hill.
Gouanvic, J. (2005). „A Bourdieusian Theory of Translation, or the
Coincidence of Practical Instances: Field, 'Habitus',
Capital and 'Illusio'‟, The Translator, Vol. 11 (2), pp.
147-166.
Gregory, M. (1988). “Generic Situation and Register: a functional view
of communication”. In J. D. Benson, M. J. Cummings
and W. S. Graves (eds.) Linguistics in a Systemic
Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
pp. 301-329.

160
________ and Carroll. S. (1978). Language and Situation: Language
Varieties and Their Social Contexts. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.

Grice, H. P. (1975). „Logic and Conversation‟. In P. Cole and J. L.

Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. New
York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
Gutt, E-A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context.
Oxford: Blackwell.
__________ (1992). Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful
Communication in Translation. Dallas: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
__________ (1996). „Implicit Information in Literary Translation: A
Relevance-Theoretic Perspective‟, Target, Vol. 8 (2), pp.
239-256.
Haddad, S. (2004). Text Typology and the Translator: Legal Instruction
under Scrutiny. Syria: Dār Tlāss for Studies, Translation
and Publication.
Hall. M. F. (2008). Discourse Analysis of Fictional Dialogue in Arabic
to English Translation. Unpublished Ph.D thesis.
England: University of London.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). „Notes on transitivity and Theme in English.
Part 2‟. Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 199-244.
__________ (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward
Arnold.
__________, McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic
Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
__________ and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman Group Ltd.
Hanna, S. F. (2005). „Hamlet Lives Happily Ever After in Arabic:the
Genesis of the Field of Drama Translation in Egypt‟, The
Translator, Vol. 11 (2), pp.167-192.
__________ (2006). Towards a Sociology of Drama Translation: A
Bourdieusian Perspective on Translations of
Shakespeare's Great Tragedies in Egypt. Unpublished
Ph.D thesis. England: University of Manchester.

161
Hatim, B. (1997a). Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory
and Contrastive Text Linguistics. England: University of
Exeter Press.
__________ (1997b). English-Arabic/Arabic-English Translation: A
Practical Guide. London: Saqi Books.
__________ (2001). Teaching & Researching Translation. Edinburgh:
Person Education Limited.
__________ and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator.
London: Longman.
__________ and Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator,
London/New York: Routledge.
___________and Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advanced
Resource Book. London/New York: Routledge.
____________, Shunnaq, A. and Buckley, R. (1995). The Legal
Translator at Work: A Practical Guide. Jordan, Irbid:
Dār Al-Hilāl for Translation and Publishing.
Hermans, T. (1997). „The Task of the Translator in the European
Renaissance‟. In S. Bassnett (ed.) Translating Literature.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 14-40.
__________ (1998). „Models of Translation‟. In M. Baker and K.
Malmkjær (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 197-200.
Hervey, S. and Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation. A Course in
Translation Method: French to English. London/New
York: Routledge.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Holmes, J. H. (1972/2004). „The Name and Nature of Translation
Studies‟. In L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies
Reader. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 172-185.
Hough, G. (1969). Style and Stylistics. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
House, J. (1977/1981/1997). A Model for Translation Quality
Assessment. Tübingen, Gunter Narr.

162
Husni, R. and Newman, D. (2008). Modern Arabic Short Stories.
London: Saqi Books.
Inghilleri, M. (ed.) (2005). „The Sociology of Bourdieu and the
Construction of the „Object‟ in Translation and
Interpreting Studies‟, The Translator, Vol. 11 (2),
pp.125-145.
__________ (2009). „Sociological Approaches‟. In M. Baker and G.
Saldanha (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies (2nd edition) . London/New Yourk: Routeldge,
pp. 279-282.
Jääskeläinen, R. (1993). „Investigating Translation Studies‟. In S.
Tirkkonen-Condit and J. Laffling (eds.) Recent Trends in
Empirical Translation Research, Joensuu: University of
Joensuu, Faculty of Arts, pp. 99-116.
Katan, D. (1999). Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators,
Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kelly, L.G., (1979). The True Interpreter: a History of Translation
Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in Sociocultural Practice. Victoria:
Deakin University Press.
Kwieci´nski, P. (2001). Disturbing Strangeness. Torun´, Poland:
Wydawnictwo EDYTOR.
Lambert, J. (1991). „Shifts, oppositions and goals in translation studies:
towards a genealogy of concepts‟. In K. Van Leuven-
Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds.) Translation Studies: The
State of the Art. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 25–37.
Lederer, M. (1994/2003). La traduction aujourd’hui: Le modèle
interprétatif, Paris: Hachette, trans. N. Larché as
Translation: The interpretive model (2003). Manchester:
St Jerome.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
__________ and Short, M. (1981). Style in Fiction: a linguistic
introduction to English fictional prose. London:
Longman.

163
Lefevere, A. (ed.) (1992). Translation/History/Culture: a Sourcebook.
London/New York: Routledge.
__________ (1998). „Translation Practice(s) and the Circulation of
Cultural Capital: Some Aeneids in English‟. In S.
Bassnette and A. Lefevere, Constructing Cultures.
Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 40-56.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Löescher, W. (1991). Translation Performance, Translation Process and
Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation
Tubingen: Guten Narr.
Malone, J. L. (1988). The Science of Linguistics in the Art of
Translation. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Mazid, B. M. (2007). Politics of Translation: Power and Ideology,
Culture and X-phemism in Translation between Arabic
and English. Germany: Lincom Europa.
Mialet, E. B. (2010). „The Sociology of Translation: Outline an
Emerging Field‟, MonTI, Vol. 2, pp. 153-172.
Munday, J. (2001/2008). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and
Applications. London/New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (ed.) (2009). Routledge Companion to Translation Studies.
London/New York: Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pegamon.
__________ (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice
Hall.
Nida, E. (1964). Towards a science of translation, with special reference
to principles and procedures involved in Bible
translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
__________ (1991). „Theories of Translation‟, TTR : traduction,
terminologie, rédaction, Vol. 4 (1), pp. 19-32.
__________ and Taber, C. R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of
Translation. Leiden: Brill.

164
__________ (1976). „A Framework for Analysis and Evaluation of
Theories of Translation‟. In R. W. Brislin (ed.)
Translation, Application and Research. New York, pp.
47-91.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist
Approaches Explained. Manchester: St Jerome
Publishing.
O‟sullivan Jr, M. (1980). „Running Division on the Groundwork:
Dryden‟s Theory of Translation‟, Neophilologus, Vol.
58, pp. 144- 159.
Pike, K. L. (1990). „On the emics and etics of Pike and Harris‟. In T. N.
Headland, K. L. Pike and M. Harris (eds.) Emics and
etics: The insider/outsider debate. Frontiers of
Anthropology 7. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 28-47.
Pragnell, F. And Sadkhan, R. (2011). Ten Stories from Iraq. London:
Sayyab Books Ltd.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation and Text Transfer: An essay on the
principles of intercultural communication. Frankfurt am
Main, Berlin and Bern: Peter Lang.
Quine, W. V. (1960). Words and Objects. Cambridge: MIT Press.
__________ (1976). Ways of Paradox and Other Essays (Revised in
enlarger edition). Harvard University Press.
__________ (1992). Pursuit of Truth (2nd edition). Harvard University
Press.
Reiss, K. (2000). Translation Criticism – The Potentials & Limitations,
Manchester and New York: St. Jerome Publishing &
American Bible Society. Translated into English by
Erroll F. Rhodes.
__________ (1981/2004). „Type, Kind and Individuality of Text:
Decision Making in Translation‟, translated by S. Kitron,
in L. Venuti, (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader.
London/New York: Routledge, pp. 160-171.
__________ (1977/1989). „Text types, translation types and translation
assessment‟ (translated by Chesterman, A.). In A.

165
 Chesterman (ed.) Reading in Translation Theory.
Helsinki: Finn Lectura, pp. 105-109.

Robinson, D. (1997). Western Translation Theory: from Herodotus to

Nietzsche. Manchester and Northampton: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Robyns, C. (1994). „Translation and Discursive Identity‟, Poetics Today,
Vol. 15 (3), pp. 405-428.
Ross, S. (ed.) (1980). „Translation and Similarity‟. In M. Rose (ed.)
Translation Spectrum. Albany: State University of New
York Press, pp. 8-23.
Sager, J. C. (1989). „Quality and Standards – The Evaluation of
Translations‟. In C. Picker (ed.) The Translator’s
Handbook (2nd edition). London: Aslib, pp. 91-102.
Salama-Carr, M. (1998). „An Interpretive Approach‟. In M. Baker and
K. Malmkjær (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, pp.
112-114.
Sanchez-Ortiz, M. (2000). „Equivalence and Adequacy in Translation‟.
In M. Salama-Carr (ed.) On Translating French Literature
and Film II. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 89-97.
Schleiermacher, F. (1813/1992). „On the Different Methods of
Translating‟. In R. Schulte and J. Biguenet (eds.) Theories
of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to
Derrida. University of Chicago Press: Chicago and
London, pp. 36-54.
Schulte, R. and Biguenet, J. (eds.) (1992). Theories of Translation: An
Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. University
of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.
Searle, J. (1975). „Indirect Speech Acts‟. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.)
Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York:
Academic Press, pp. 59–82.
Sela-Sheffy, R. (2005). „How to be a (recognized) translator‟, Target,
Vol. 17 (1), pp. 1-26.
Seleskovitch, D. (1975/2002). „Language and memory: a study of note-
taking in consecutive interpreting‟. In F. Pöchhacker and
M. Shlesinger (eds.) (2002) The Interpreting Studies
Reader. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 121–129.
Shamaa, N. (1978). A Linguistic Analysis of Some Problems of Arabic

166
 into English Translation. Unpublished Ph.D thesis,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sharkas, H. (2005). Genre and Translation Quality: Perspectives in
Quality Assessment of English-Arabic Translations of
Popular Science Genres. Unpublished Ph.D thesis:
University of Portsmouth.
__________ (2009). „Translation Quality Assessment of Popular
Science Articles: Corpus Study of the Scientific American
and Its Arabic Version‟, Trans-com, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 42-62.
Shen, D. (1987). Literary Translation and Translation: with Particular
Reference to English Translations of Chinese Prose
Fiction. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. UK: University of
Edinburgh.
Shveitser, A. (1993). „Equivalence and Adequacy‟. In Z. Palma (ed.)
Translation as a Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian
Perspective. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 47-56.
Shuttleworth, M. (1998). „Polysystem theory‟. In M. Baker and K.
Malmkjær (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies (1st edition). London/New York: Routledge, pp.
176-179.
__________ and Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London:
Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation Studies: an Integrated
Approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Mass.: John
Benjamins.
__________ (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stalinker, R. C. (1973). „Pragmatics‟. In D. Davidson and G. Harman
(eds.) Semantics of Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Foris
Publications.
Steiner, G. (1975/1998). After Babel: Aspects of Language and
Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
__________ (1975/2004). „The hermeneutic motion‟. In L. Venuti (ed.)
The Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition).
London/New York: Routledge, pp. 193–198.

167
Stillar, G. R. (1998). Analysing Everyday Texts: Discourse, Rhetoric and
Social Perspectives. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New
York/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Taylor, C. (1998). Language to Language: a practical and theoretical
guide for Italian/English translators. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edition).
London: Arnold.
Titscher, S. Meyer, M. Wodak, R. And Velter, E. (2000). Methods of
Text and Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks/ London/
New York/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Toury, G. (1978/2004). „The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation‟.
In L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader (2nd
edition). London/New York: Routledge, pp. 198-211.
__________ (1980). In Search of a Theory Translation. Jerusalem:
Academic Press.
__________ (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Trotter, W. (2000). Translation Salience: a model of equivalence in
translation (Arabic/English). Unpublished Ph.D thesis.
Australia: University of Sydney.
Tyulenev. S. (2012). Applying Luhmann to Translation Studies:
Translation in Society. London/New York: Routledge.
Van Leuven-Zwart K. and Naaijkens T. (eds.) (1991). Translation
Studies: The state of the art. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: a History of Translation.
London/New York: Routledge.
__________ (1998). The Scandals of Translation. London: Routledge.
__________ (ed.) (2004). The Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition)
London/New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. J. (1989/2004). „Skopos and commission in translational
action‟, trans. A. Chesterman, in A. Chesterman (ed.)
Readings in Translation Theory, Helsinki: OyFinnLectura
Ab, pp. 173–87, reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.) The
Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition). London/New
York: Routledge, pp. 227–238.
Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. (1958/1995). Stylistique comparée du
français et de l’anglais.Méthode de traduction, Paris:
Didier (trans. and ed.) J. C. Sager and M. J. Hamel (1995)

168
 Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A
Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Xiao-jiang, Y. (2007). „On the Role of Ideology in Translation Practice‟.
US-China Foreign Languages, Vol. 5 (4), serial No. 43,
pp. 63-65.
Yannakopoulou, V. (2008). „Norms and Translatorial Habitus in
Angelos Vlahos‟ Greek Translation of Hamlet‟. In P.
Boulogne (ed.) Translation and Its Others. Selected
Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation
Studies. Retrieved on April 10th, 2013. Available online
at: http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolf, M. and Alexandra, F. (eds.) (2007). Constructing a Sociology of
Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

‫ انطثعح‬،‫ انًجهذ األول‬،ً‫ تقذٌى أحًذ فؤاد تاشا وعثذانحكٍى راض‬.‫ الحيوان‬.)2004( ‫انجاحع‬
.‫ انقاهرج‬:‫ يكتثح األسرج‬.‫انثاٍَح‬
. )‫ موسوعة العراق الحديث (غٍر يعروف سُح انُشر ودار انُشر‬،ًَ‫خانذ انعا‬
،‫ دار انرشٍذ نهُشر‬،‫ في ضوء الدراسات المقاروة‬،‫ فه الترجمة‬.)1982( ً‫صفاء خهىص‬
.‫ انجًهىرٌح انعراقٍح‬،‫يُشىراخ وزارج انثقافح واالعالو‬

Arabic Source Texts and Translations

‫ دار انعىدج‬.‫) يىسى انهجرج إنى انشًال – األعًال انكايهح‬1968( ‫انطٍة صانح‬
Translated by Denys Johnston-Davies (1969) as Season af Migration to
the North published (1991). London: Heinemann.
.ٌ‫) نٍانً انسٍذ سهًا‬2010( ‫كرٌى عثذ‬
Translated by Eric Winkel (2010; bilingual edition) as Nights of Mr
Salman. London: Sayyab Books Ltd.

.)‫ (انطثعح انسادسح‬1956-1935 :‫ سٍرج راتٍح روائٍح‬:ً‫) انخثس انحاف‬2000( ‫يحًذ شكري‬
.ً‫ دار انساق‬:ٌ‫نُذ‬
Translated by Paul Bowles (1993) as For Bread Alone. London: Saqi
Books.
.‫) حكاٌح ٌىسف‬2011( ‫يحًذ خضٍر‬
Translated by Fred Pragnell and Ramadhan Sadkhan (2011; bilingual
edition) as Joseph’s Tale. London: Sayyab Books Ltd.

.‫ دار اَداب‬:‫ تٍروخ‬.)‫) أوالد حارتُا (انطثعح انسادسح‬1986( ‫َجٍة يحفىظ‬

169
Translated (1) by Philip Stewart (1981) as Children of Gebelawi (1997).
Pueblo/California: Passeggiate Press and (2) Peter Theroux (1996) as
Children of the Alley (New York: Anchor Books).

.‫ يكتثح يصر‬:‫ انقاهرج‬.‫) انهص وانكالب‬1961( ‫َجٍة يحفىظ‬

Translated by Trevor Le Gassick and M. M. Badawi (1984) as The Thief
and the Dogs. Cairo: The American University in Cairo.

.‫ يكتثح يصر‬:‫ انقاهرج‬.‫) زقاق انًذق‬1947( ‫َجٍة يحفىظ‬

Translated by Trevor Le Gassick (1975) as Midaq Alley. London:
Heinemann.

English Source Texts and Translations:

Greene, G. (1980). The Bomb Party. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Translated by Ali Sālih (1989) as ‫ حفهح انقُثهح‬Haflat al-
Qunbulah. Baghdad: Dār al-Shū‟ūn al-Thaqāfīa al-„amah.
Hemingway, E. (1952). The Old Man and the Sea. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books. Translated by Munīr Ba„albaki (1985) as ‫انشٍخ‬
‫ وانثحر‬al-Shaykh wa al-Bahar. Beirut: Dār al-„Ailm lil
Malāyīn.

170
Index

Cultural approach 42, 55, 59,

Accessibility 122, 129
97
Adaptation 74, 76, 77, 78
Cultural clash 95, 97, 113
Adequacy 27, 28, 65, 67
Culture see ‘cultural appraoch’
al-Jāhiz 10, 11, 20
and ‘cultural clash’
al-Safadī 10, 11
Dante 12
Amplification 74, 78, 80, 85, 90
Denham, J. 15
Approximation 74, 78, 83
Diffusion 74, 80, 90
Assimilative 47, 79
Dilthey, W. 46, 47
Austin, J. L. 22, 152
Direct translation 37, 38, 39,
Baker, M. 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 26,
74, 76, 93
40, 45, 51, 54, 63, 74,
Discourse analysis 136, 142
81, 83, 85, 86, 93, 99,
Dolet, E. 13, 14
107, 108, 109, 112,
Domestication 18, 23, 38, 39,
140, 142, 143, 152
40
Bassnett, S. 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15,
Dryden, J. 15, 16, 17
16, 17, 18, 19, 45, 48,
Equality 27, 48, 79, 113
55, 59, 63
Equivalence 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
Bell, R. 50, 52, 53, 54, 108,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36,
109, 110, 112
37, 39, 40, 50, 54, 76,
Borrowing 74, 76, 78
77, 78, 79, 94, 136,
Bourdieu, P. 70, 71, 72, 102
137, 148
Cannonized forms 115, 116
Etic-emic (approach) 56, 59
Catford, J.C. 25, 31, 34, 37, 43,
Even-Zohar, I. 115, 116, 117
44, 45
Extrinsic managing 61, 63, 64
Chesterman, A. 66, 67, 69, 71,
Farghal, M. 25, 26, 27, 37, 40,
72, 102, 107, 112, 120 60, 61, 63, 64, 99, 100,
Cicero, M. T. 7, 8, 9, 19, 31 102, 106
Circumstances 122, 124, 127, Fiaq, S. 97, 99, 103
Cognitive approach 42, 52, 54 Field of discourse 22, 122,
Cohesion 136, 137, 142, 143 127, 134
Claque 74, 76, 82 Foreignization 23, 38, 39, 40
Condensation 74, 80, 90, 91 Formal Equivalent 25, 26, 33,
Convergence 74, 80, 84, 85 37, 39
Cowley, A. 15, 16 Formality 122, 127, 131, 132

171
Fraser, J. 96
Functional equivalent 25, 26,
27, 58, 79
Gardiner, M. 100, 102
Genre 95, 96, 105, 106, 110
Grammatical equivalence 136,
137
Gutt, E-A. 22, 27, 31, 38
Halliday, M. A. K. 22, 122,
123, 125, 127, 134,
135, 142, 143, 152
Habitus 95, 101, 102
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 95,
100, 105, 111
Hermans, T. 65, 69, 117, 118,
120
Hermeneutic approach 42, 46,
47, 48, 51
Holmes, J. 21
Holmes’s Map 21
Holz-Manttari, J. 106
Horace 7, 8, 9, 19
House, J. 36, 37, 39
Ideological (approach) 42, 60,
100, 102
Ideology see ‘ideological’
Ideational equivalent 25, 26,
27
Imitation 15, 16
Impersonalization 122, 128
Inaccessibility 122, 129
Indeterminacy 25, 29
Informality 122, 131, 132
Interpretive approach 42, 49,
50, 51
Intrinsic managing 61, 64
Jakobson, R. 31, 32
Kress, G. 105
Kwieci´nski, P. 78
172
Language function 136, 137,
139
Lederer, M. 49, 51
Lefevere, A. 42, 59, 60, 63,
100, 102, 103
Linguistic approach 42, 43, 45,
51, 54
Literary system 115, 116
Luther, M. 12, 13, 14, 15
Malone, J. L. 74, 78, 80
Manipulation theory 115, 117,
118, 121
Master discourse 95, 103, 113
Metaphrase 16
Mode of discourse 22, 122,
133, 134, 135
Muhammad Ali 18, 20
Newmark, P. 37, 38, 39, 42
Nida, E. 32, 33, 39, 43, 44, 45,
48
Non- cannonized forms 115,
116
Norm (theory) 42, 47, 49, 55,
58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,
72, 97, 102, 103, 107
Normative approach 42, 65
Paraphrase 16, 17
Participants 122, 123, 124,
125, 126, 127, 128, 130
Patronage 95, 104
Personalization 122, 128, 131
Pike, K. 56, 59
Poetics of translation 95, 103
Politeness 122, 130, 131, 137,
140
Polysystem theory 115, 116,
121
Pragmatic (theories) 15, 22,
136, 137, 138, 140,
141, 148, 149
Pragmatics see ‘pragmatic’
Purpose of translation 95, 96,
106
Quality 25, 28, 58, 66, 70, 71,
72, 73, 100, 103, 125,
132, 141, 142, 145
Readership 95, 96, 107, 108
Register 22, 122, 130, 132, 134,
135, 137
Reiss, K. 107, 110, 112
Relevance theory 23, 37
Resemblance 25, 27, 110
Robyns, C. 97, 99
Role of language 136, 137, 138,
139
Sameness 25, 27
Schleiermacher, F. 18, 19, 46,
47, 48
Selekovitch, D. 49, 51
Sense-for-sense 8, 9, 17, 19, 31,
39
Sense (theory) 42, 49, 50, 52,
110
Skopos 95, 106, 107, 113
Sociological (approaches) 24,
70, 71
Steiner, G. 7, 42, 47, 48
173
St. Jerome 8, 9
Stylistic 136, 137, 139, 142,
143, 145, 146, 148,
149, 150, 151, 152
Stylistics see ‘stylistic’
Tenor of discourse 22, 122,
127, 130, 131, 132,
133, 134, 135
Text Type 95, 110, 111, 112,
114
Textuality 136, 137, 142
Thematic progression 136,
137, 143
Toury, G. 65, 67, 69, 115, 118,
119, 120
Translation brief 95, 96, 113
Translation principles 7, 17
Translation process 17, 19, 24,
25, 34, 43, 44, 48, 50,
52, 53, 54, 70, 71
Tyndale, W. 13, 14, 15
Tytler, A. F. 17, 18
Venuti, L. 23, 31, 38, 39
Vermeer, H. J. 55, 59, 95, 107,
110, 112
Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J.
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82,
84, 93
Word-for-word 7, 8, 9, 13, 17,
19, 31, 39, 82