Translation of Semantic Shifts in Arabic

Abdelmalek Essaadi University
Faculty of Letters and Humanities

Master of Translation Studies & Linguistics (MTSL)
Tetouan
Translation of Semantic Shifts in Arabic Poetry

Mahmoud Darwish’s poems as a case study
A thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts in Translation Sciences & Linguistics (MTSL)
Prepared by
Houssam Belhadj
15039511
Under the supervision of
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Mehrach
Academic Year: 2021/2022

Candidate’s Certificate
I certify that the thesis entitled “Translation of semantic shifts in Arabic poetry: Mahmoud
Darwish’s poems as a case study” submitted for the degree of Master of Arts is the result of my
own research, conducted during the period 2021-2022, except where otherwise acknowledged.
Signed ................................................................................
Name ................................................................................
Date ................................................................................
Members of the MA thesis Committee:
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Mehrach (Supervisor)
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Khalil Ennasiri (MTSL)
Prof. Dr. Adnan Ajana (MTSL)

ABSTRACT
This research aims to lay down the impediments and obstacles that the translator can be
confronted with when they translate poetry due to its suggestiveness, ambiguity and shifting
qualities. This topic was chosen in order to identify the most important mechanics that
contribute to that difficulty of achieving a fair translation and preserving the original text. My
focus in this research has been on the metaphor and the variation it allows at the meaning level
because when dealing with a poetic discourse, we are in front of a surface and deep structures.
This requires moving from the surface to the deep structure to get hold of the meaning to be
translated. The same applies to metonymy, allegory and hypallage. The study concluded that
the translator's mission is more like that of the interpreter, since both focus on researching the
backgrounds and contexts governing the apparent text in order to reach the overall meaning or
the so-called intended meaning.
Keywords: [translation impediments; Arabic modern poetry; semantic shifts; suggestiveness;
meaning; meaning of the meaning]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, praises and thanks to Allah, the Almighty, for His showers of blessings
throughout my research work to complete the research successfully.
I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my research supervisor, Dr. Mohamed
Mehrach, Ph.D., MTSL Program Chair and Professor of Translation Studies and Text
Linguistics, for giving me the opportunity to do research and providing invaluable guidance
throughout my research work. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under his
guidance. I am extremely grateful for what he has offered me. I am extending my heartfelt
thanks to the defense committee for their fruitful ideas and suggestions and also to all the staff
of the MTSL program for their valuable lectures, assistance and cooperation.
I am extremely grateful to my mother, my family and my fiancée for their love, prayers, caring
and sacrifices for educating and preparing me for my future. Also, special thanks to my friend
Dr. Houssein Loukili, Professor of Arabic Literature, for his keen interest in my research topic.
His dynamism, vision, sincerity and motivation have deeply inspired me. He has taught me
everything related to Ilm al-Bayan and our conversations and discussions were filled with
analysis, interpretation and deep talks about metaphors and metonymies in Arabic poetry. This
helped me tremendously to carry out the research. I would like to thank him for his efforts,
friendship, empathy and guidance.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Research topic ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Statement of research problem ................................................................................... 2
1.3. Research aims ............................................................................................................. 3
1.4. Research design .......................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO........................................................................................................................ 6
2.1. Translation and problems aroused in its process ........................................................ 6
2.1.1. Translation and its importance ............................................................................. 6
2.1.2. The process of translation .................................................................................. 10
2.1.3. Analysis of ST meanings.................................................................................... 13
2.1.4. Problems hindering the process of translation ................................................... 15
2.2. Peculiarity and translatability of poetic discourse.................................................... 17
2.2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 17
2.2.2. Poetry, translatable or not? ................................................................................. 18
2.2.3. Difficulties in translating Arabic poetry ............................................................. 21
2.3. Introducing shifts: semantic & linguistic shifts and their translation....................... 23
iii
2.3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 23
2.3.2. Metaphor translation .......................................................................................... 25
2.3.3. Metonymy translation ........................................................................................ 27
2.3.4. Other shifts in translation ................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................. 34
3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 34
3.2. Metaphor categories in English & Arabic ................................................................ 34
3.2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 34
3.2.2. Metaphors in English ......................................................................................... 35
3.2.2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 35
3.2.2.2. Structural metaphor ..................................................................................... 35
3.2.2.3. Orientational metaphor ............................................................................... 36
3.2.2.4. Ontological metaphor.................................................................................. 37
3.2.2.5. New metaphor ............................................................................................. 37
3.2.3. Metaphor in Arabic (allegory)............................................................................ 38
3.2.3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 38
3.2.3.2. al-Majaz al-lughawiy (linguistic allegory).................................................. 39
3.2.3.2.1. al-Istiaarah (metaphor) .......................................................................... 39
3.2.3.2.2. al-Majaz al-mursal (hypallage) .............................................................. 43
3.2.3.3. al-Majaz al-aqliy (cognitive allegory)......................................................... 49
3.3. Metonymy categories in English & Arabic .............................................................. 52
3.3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 52
3.3.2. Metonymy in English ......................................................................................... 53
3.3.2.1. Referential metonymy ................................................................................. 54
3.3.2.2. Predicational metonymy ............................................................................. 54
3.3.2.3. Illocutionary metonymy .............................................................................. 55
3.3.3. Metonymy in Arabic .......................................................................................... 55
iv
3.3.3.1. Of an attribute (metalepsis) ......................................................................... 56
3.3.3.2. Of a modified .............................................................................................. 56
3.3.3.3. Of an affinity ............................................................................................... 57
3.4. Setting apart metaphor from metonymy................................................................... 58
CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................... 60
4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 60
4.2. Restating the research problem ................................................................................ 61
4.3. Establishing the models ............................................................................................ 61
4.4. Data collection.......................................................................................................... 66
4.5. Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 67
CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................... 68
5.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 68
5.2. Metaphor and translation: what relationship? .......................................................... 69
5.3. Cognitive allegory and the hidden meaning ............................................................. 77
5.4. Metonymy and getting out of the conventional ....................................................... 80
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 87
6.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 87
6.2. Findings .................................................................................................................... 88
6.3. Shortcomings of the study ........................................................................................ 91
6.4. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 92
LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 93
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix 1 (page 9) ............................................................................................................. 96
Appendix 2 (page 10) ........................................................................................................... 96
Appendix 3 (page 12) ........................................................................................................... 97
Appendix 4 (page 16) ........................................................................................................... 97
Appendix 5 (page 18) ........................................................................................................... 98
v
Appendix 6 (page 20) ........................................................................................................... 98
Appendix 7 (page 23) ........................................................................................................... 99
Appendix 8 (page 28) ........................................................................................................... 99
Appendix 9 (page 81) ......................................................................................................... 100
Appendix 10 (page 88) ....................................................................................................... 100
vi
INTRODUCTION
Introducing Research Topic
1.1. Research topic
This MA thesis deals with translation and especially the translation of modern Arabic poetry
into English. Poetry is by no means a regular discourse as it has so many aspects that make it
discernible. Thus, comes the challenge of translating the poetic discourse. Poetry is related to
the emotions and feelings of the poet and one cannot separate this aspect from language.
Additionally, it is characterized by so many elements such as the musicality (rhythm and
rhymes) of poetry and the effect produced by them is hard to reproduce into another language.
Not to forget the figurative tools used in writing poetry that are not present with the same
amount in day-to-day language and that, by itself, creates difficulties in translation as figurative
language is far more complex in interpreting than normal direct language.
Translating regular discourse is solely related to translating the meaning from a source language
into a target language. Though there is no one hundred per cent equivalence among languages,
equivalence in meaning is somehow achievable. What backs this statement up is what Danica
Seleskovitch (1985) said in this regard as she argues that what can be said in one language can
be expressed in another language (as cited in Newmark, 1988, p. 6).
On the other hand, in poetry, meaning is carried through the complexity of the language, rhythm
and meter in the verses and the figurative tools used to enrich the poetic experience. All of
which make it almost impossible to convey all of this poetic load in another language while
preserving all what has been mentioned earlier. Thus, all of those elements contribute to the
untranslatability of poetry.
Ultimately, it is a real challenge for translators as their mission of translation must comprise
different steps and procedures. The most important step in translating poetry is firstly to be able
to understand the SL and interpret the hidden meanings in the piece of poetry as poets do not
hand their intended meaning on a silver platter. This is where this research study intervenes as
it tries to set some guidelines and uncover the procedures that a translator can follow to reach a
faithful translation of poetic discourse while preserving its message, esthetics, style and effect.
1.2. Statement of research problem
As mentioned earlier, poetry presents great difficulties and challenges for the translator because
they can simply misrepresent what is intended in the original text as the poet does not speak the
language of all people. Hence, the translator has to recreate, through the translation process, a
purely subjective element related to the poet's poetic flow which is heavily related to the
feelings and emotions felt at the moment of writing. Translating poetry also has a relationship
with the way the poetic discourse employs metaphor, metonymy and surely other figurative
devices. Since the language of poetry is a suggestive language, the translation process must
therefore target the semantic and pragmatic levels in interpretation.
2
The central issue in this research stems from the idea that modern poetry, which is the kind of
poetry chosen to be under this research’s scope, is based on breaking the stereotypes of language
and developing a new poetic language that rebels upon consumed notions. This violation of the
employment of words requires a kind of intelligence and caution in translation to achieve a
faithful translation.
This research focuses on a set of problems that I will try to address and find answers to within
the chapters of this research, such as:
- Firstly, how far does translation contribute to a cultural cross-fertilization among
individuals and civilizations? Can it be seen as a cultural bridge between the East and
the West? To what extent can translation be regarded as a rendering of translated work
from a local standpoint to a global one by creating new readers in languages other than
the original language in which the work was written?
- Secondly, what is the process of translation and what does it consist of? Is analysis and
interpretation the main phases in the process of translation? How can the translator
approach these phases?
- Finally, is the translation of modern poetry a linguistic mechanical activity or a creative
rendering? If it is similar to interpretation, are its mechanisms similar or far apart from
the mechanisms of interpretation? Is translation a betrayal of the original text or is it a
mere publicization of it instead?
1.3. Research aims
The idea of tracking down the steps adopted in the process of translating poetry especially that
of Mahmoud Darwish’s came to my mind for two reasons. First, an objective reason related to
extracting the mechanisms used in the translation of modern poetry, which implicates the
interpretation of poetic texts as translators must go through an interpretation phase in their
3
translation process. Second, for a personal reason as I would like to look at a subject of
conflicting opinions, especially since the material in question is vague and has special and
unique language.
This what made me eager to go through this experience to unveil the way in which poetic
meanings are translated, and how this translation process can be dismantled in small objectives.
The main aim of the present study is to focus on the analysis and interpretation that go along
and accompany the translation process. For this purpose, this research encompasses a reading
of the richest verses in metaphor and metonymy in Arabic poetry. These verses will be carefully
analyzed and interpreted following the appropriate models that I will discuss in the
methodology chapter.
1.4. Research design
This research is divided into:
- An INTRODUCTION which comprises the research topic, statement of research
problem, research aims and research design.
- CHAPTER TWO (literature review) which comprises three sections, namely:
translation and problems aroused in its process, peculiarity and translatability of poetic
discourse and introducing shifts (semantic and linguistic shifts and their translation).
- CHAPTER THREE (theoretical framework) which deals with semantic shifts and their
kinds, namely: metaphor categories in English & Arabic, Metonymy categories in
English & Arabic and the last section which is setting apart metaphor from metonymy.
- CHAPTER FOUR deals with the research methodology and comprises four sections:
restating the research problem, establishing the model, data collection and data analysis.
4
- CHAPTER FIVE (practical chapter) which includes the analysis and interpretation of
different poetic excerpts of Mahmoud Darwish’s poetry following the models discussed
in the methodology chapter.
- A CONCLUSION which includes the findings of the research study, shortcomings of
the study as well as some recommendations.
5
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
2.1. Translation and problems aroused in its process
2.1.1. Translation and its importance
The first research aim is to establish the need of translation as a cross-fertilization tool as it
connects totally different cultures and helps in the transferring of knowledge across people
around the world. Even though the field of translation studies is recent, translation has always
been present among civilizations for ages. It was the primary tool of their development and
helped the strongest cultures in building their glory. Before setting a solid ground for this
current research, we must know what translation is first.
There have been so many definitions of translation throughout the past couple of decades and
it is mandatory to state the most prominent ones. Catford (1965) believes that translation may
be defined as “the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual
material in another language (TL)” (p. 20). Newmark, in his book Approaches to translation,
believes that “translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and/or
6
statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language” (2001,
p. 7). Nida and Taber (1982) describe translation as a process that “consists in reproducing in
the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in
terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style” (p. 12). Bell (1991) describes translation as
“the process or result of converting information from one language or language variety into
another” (p. 13). Hatim and Munday, in their book Translation: an advanced resource book,
define translation as “the process of transferring a written text from SL to TL, conducted by a
translator, or translators, in a specific socio-cultural context” (2004, p. 6).
As scholars started investigating the field of translation and talking about it from different
angles, definitions of translation have moved from the basic model which basically states that
translation is ‘rendering’ an ST into a TT to definitions touching other linguistic, cognitive and
cultural areas. For instance, Chesterman (1997), following previous scholars’ points of view
such as Toury, defines translation as “any text that is accepted in the target culture as being a
translation” (p. 59). In other words, translation focuses on the target culture as it is designated
to the target audience and must follow the target-culture norms. Similarly, Hatim and Munday
(2004) affirm that and say that translation is “the written product, or TT, which results from
that process and which functions in the socio-cultural context of the TL” (p. 6). They also define
translation as “the cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena” (p. 6).
Other definitions have focused on the pragmatic area of linguistics and give insights to the
process and product binaries of translation in terms of pragmatics. Emery (2004) gives a
pragmatic definition to translation according to those process and product binaries where he
describes the process of translation as “the rendering of an SL text’s pragmatic meaning into a
TL text in line with TL expectancy norms” and defines the product of translation as “the notion
of a TL text purporting to be a rendering of a particular SL text’s pragmatic meaning” (p. 149).
7
As mentioned earlier, there have been a wide range of definitions that define the phenomenon
of translation throughout literature and they, as Emery (2004) says, reflect the developments of
the fields of rhetoric and linguistics in conjunction with the field of translation. This is obvious
because the field of translation studies is a recent field of study and it started deriving its theory
from rhetoric, linguistics and other respectable fields of study (p. 145).
Moving on from defining translation to its importance as an asset to human development,
translation is still to this day an important tool of interchanging ideas and cultures among
civilizations. Newmark, in his book A textbook of translation, affirms that fact and states that
“translation has been instrumental in transmitting culture [...] ever since countries and
languages have been in contact with each other” (1988, p. 7). Similarly, Bassnett (2014)
confirms this and declares that “translation is at the heart of global communication today, and
also [...] has played a central role in the transmission of ideas and literatures over the centuries”
(p. 15).
Translation also played a crucial role in translating religious texts and scriptures. Asadi (2007)
asserts that translation has become a crucial fundament in human life because of Holy texts
translation as they play a substantial part to the whole humanity not just a specific group of
people (as cited in Gholami, Montashery & Khorrami, 2016, p. 56). In the Middle Ages,
“translating [...] was confined primarily to religious essays rendered into [...] Latin” (Nida,
1964, p. 13). Nida adds that Baghdad, at that time, was “an important center for translation of
the Greek classics into Arabic” (p. 13). And later down the line, in the 12th century, Toledo
became an important place where Greek classics were being translated into Latin (Nida, 1964,
p. 14). Also, in the Renaissance era, Western Europe was “inundated with a flood of translation,
largely from Greek, for it was the rediscovery of the ancient world which has produced the
‘rebirth’ in Western Europe” (Nida, 1964, p.14).
8
Newmark (1988) showcases examples of this cross-fertilization like how the Romans derived
knowledge from Greek culture as Arabic and Greek knowledge was transferred to Europe and
Latin and Greek translations were heavily relied on as a main source of learning; and like how
Germans in the 19th century absorbed the Shakespearian literature; and lastly, how the works
of international writers were “translated into most national and many regional languages” (p.
7).
Translation is not only a tool of exchanging information and knowledge across cultures but it
has other benefits. Newmark counts few of them and says that:
...translation is used for multilingual notices, which have at last appeared

increasingly conspicuously in public places; for instructions issued by exporting
companies; for tourist publicity, where it is too often produced from the native into
the ‘foreign’ language by natives as a matter of national pride; for official
documents, such as treaties and contracts; for reports, papers, articles,
correspondence, textbooks to convey information, advice and recommendations for
every branch of knowledge (Newmark, 1988, p. 7).
Additionally, translation helped tremendously in cross-fertilization as it was the main method
of teaching foreign languages back then. Lefevere, in his book Translation/history/culture: a
sourcebook, states that “from republican Rome onward, translation has been used in language
teaching in the European educational system” (p. 6). Indeed, the grammar-translation method
helped students in understanding concepts in other languages and to connect between their
mother language and L2. In their first encounter with L2, students meet new words and terms
that can be quite challenging, so it is natural to understand these concepts with the help of their
mother language.
Asadi (2007) mentions that translation has always played a crucial role in our lives. With the
various languages that exist, communication would not be possible unless translation is present
(as cited in Gholami et al, 2016, p. 56). It is a prerequisite for communication and the only way,
9
as Burrow-Goldhahn (2018) mentions, that contributes in the spread of different works and
knowledge among people such as ancient Greek philosophers’ ideas that was kept alive by Arab
translators and many other pieces of knowledge in that manner. She (2018) adds that translation
is necessary for an effective communication among people and nations and the medium through
which knowledge propagates, thus, “critical for social harmony and peace” (para. 8).
In the end, translation has helped the world tremendously in every way possible. It is a
phenomenon that not only serves everyday tasks that range from translating “a key international
treaty to following multilingual poster that welcomes customers” (Hatim & Munday, 2004, p.
3), but something that cultures cannot live without. Lefevere (1992) portrays translation as not
only “a window opened on another world” but rather as “a channel opened, often not without a
certain reluctance, through which foreign influences can penetrate the native culture, challenge
it, and even contribute to subverting it” (p. 2).
2.1.2. The process of translation
After establishing the importance of translation in the development of cultures, it is substantial
to set the substructure of analysis and interpretation as a crucial step in translation. Translation
is a process and product as Hatim and Munday (2004) and others assert. The process of
translation focuses on the “role of the translator in taking the original or source text (ST) and
turning it into a text in another language (the target text, TT)” (Hatim & Munday, 2004, p. 3).
Thus, translation is the reproduction of meaning, which is formed by the lexis, grammatical
structure, communicational situation and cultural context, from a source language into the
corresponding elements in the target language. Thus, to grasp the meaning, all of the
aforementioned elements should be analyzed and interpreted; then, the second quest of
translators is to reconstruct the same meaning using another language’s lexicon, grammatical
10
structure and appropriate cultural context. Accordingly, the analysis of the ST and the
interpretation of its meanings constitute an underpinning step in the process of translation.
There have been many divisions, steps or stages regarding the process of translation, i.e., how
the translator should approach a work of translation and what are the things he must do and get
away from during this process. I will go over few of them in this section and I will start with
Lefevere (1992) who believes that translators should be armed with five rules or steps that he
must follow when translating.
The first rule is understanding “to perfection the meaning and the subject matter of the author
he translates” (p.27). Indeed, one of the key elements of a successful translation is a successful
understanding of ST in a way that gets rid of any obscurities and vagueness around its meanings
and intentions. The second rule is that translators must be aware of “the language of the author
he translates to perfection” (p. 27) and similarly, they must have a high proficiency level with
the language they are translating into. A requirement in translation is mastering not only SL but
also TL as each language has its own characteristics such as dictions, patterns of speech,
subtleties and powers. The third rule is that translators should liberate themselves from the
slavery of using word for word technique in translation. Translators, in the process of
translation, as Lefevere mentions, should not care about individual words and their order, but
rather they should care about sentences and the author’s intentions. The fourth rule to help
translators in translation is to abstain -not entirely- from using words outside common language.
The fifth rule when approaching translating is observing figures of speech and this is an
important topic to discuss as this research deals with figures of speech in Arabic poetry and
how to approach them in translation. When dealing with figures of speech, Lefevere prefers
that translators “link and arrange words with such sweetness that the soul is satisfied and the
ears are pleased” (p. 28).
11
Newmark talks about his own translation procedure which “begins with choosing a method of
approach” (1988, p. 19) and then working with four stages or levels of analyzing and translating.
He (1988) names these stages as follows: the textual level, the referential level, the cohesive
level and the level of naturalness. He also talks about combining all the four levels, meaning to
use the benefits of each levels depending the translation’s needs (pp. 19-29).
The first level is the textual level or the level of language as he calls. As Newmark describes, it
is “the level of the literal translation of the source language into the target language”. In other
words, the translator’s task, in this level, consists merely on “transporting the SL grammar
(clauses and groups) into their ready TL equivalents” and also translating lexical items into “the
sense that appears immediately appropriate in the context of the sentence”. The second level is
the referential level, which is the level of objects and events, real or imaginary which contributes
to the comprehension and then the reproduction process. The third level is the cohesive level is
more general than the last level and it includes “the train of thought, the feeling tone (positive
or negative) and the various presuppositions of the SL text”. Finally, the last level, which is the
level of naturalness that is only concerned with reproduction. It is the tool that helps the
translator to determine “the deviation if any between the author’s level he is pursuing and the
natural text”.
While translating, the translator comes across two complementary phases. The first phase
encompasses interpretation, inference and the text's coherence. The second phase consists of
the text's pragmatic meaning rendered into the TT as the reader is responsible for negotiating
its meaning. Though the process of translation seems impossible, it is possible just like
monolingual communication (Emery, 2004, p. 150).
Faced by pragmatic difficulties in both text communicative and text-conventional, the translator
becomes the text's negotiator. In this regard, the translator's role is not limited just to uncover
12
the referential and expressive meaning, but also to determine and control implicatures which
are other meanings apart from the face-value interpretation of statements (Emery, 2004, p. 151).
The translator’s first step, in translation, is solely based on deciphering the intended meaning
of the ST to analyze each and every word in the poem and to connect between them and other
factors. Such factors are linguistic context, cultural and historical context, the poetic flow and
the poet’s poetic experience or the authorial context.
2.1.3. Analysis of ST meanings
Mason argues that translators “presuppose, implicate and infer meaning” (as cited in Hickey,
1998, p. 170). The translator’s mission is to decode the ST in terms of locutionary level in order
to infer the intentions of the writer as Shunnaq (1994) states. And to do that, the translator must
play an interpreter role. To analyze and interpret a text correctly, one of the earliest stages is to
comprehend it first. As Newmark (1988) says, the first stage in the process of translation is the
comprehension of the source text.
Thus, reading to comprehend must be the first thing that a translator does when translating any
text. Zhong’s (1998) opinion, in this regard, is that translators are readers among the readers of
the text but they are better interpreters than the ordinary readership as they are trained in
translation and have many skills such as multiple languages knowledge and they have cross-
cultural knowledge (as cited in Emery, 2004, p. 417).
Interpretation has been the main concern of pragmatics as it deals with the intentional aspect of
the speaker or text-producers in general through inferences, presuppositions, implicatures and
many others. Thus, to do that, Baker (1992) states that interpreters should access a “network of
conceptual relations which underlie the surface text” (p. 218) then making sense of it using their
own experiences and conceptualizations about the world.
13
To interpret a source text, translators should analyze its meanings. This analysis involves many
stages according to each type of meaning. There were many subdivisions of meaning
throughout history and many linguists state their different categories of meaning and the most
prominent ones are those of Geoffrey Leech’s (1974) and Eugene Nida’s (1982). Leech (1974)
breaks down meaning into seven types which are: conceptual meaning (or the logical meaning
as he calls), connotative meaning, social meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning,
collocative meaning and thematic meaning (p. 9). Whereas Nida (1982) breaks down meaning
into two distinct types which are: referential meaning and connotative meaning (p. 56).
The analysis of meaning, as Hatim and Munday (2004) state, “involves examination of sentence
structure and of two kinds of linguistic meaning” (p. 34) which are referential and connotative
meanings known as Nida’s two types of meaning. According to Nida (1982), referential
meaning is defined by the relationship between signs and entities in the world and deals with
words as signs or symbols. In Nida’s words, “the words as symbols which refer to objects,
events, abstracts and relations” (p. 56). While connotative meaning deals with the emotional
reaction manifested in readership, or, as Nida states, “the words as prompters of reactions of
the participants in communication” (p. 56).
Many issues arise when dealing with referential and connotative meanings described by Nida
and Taber (1969) such as polysemy (when one word has several meanings and senses),
figurative language and near-synonyms when dealing with referential meaning (as cited in
Hatim & Munday, 2004, p. 35) and lastly pronunciation, style and subject matter (p. 39). They
add that translators, as readers, have to disambiguate, i.e., differentiate between “the various
possible senses of the ST term as a step towards identifying the appropriate TL equivalent. This
is done by contrastive semantic structure analysis” (p. 35) when dealing with referential
meaning and by “componential analysis and the gauging of connotative meaning using clines”
(p. 39).
14
2.1.4. Problems hindering the process of translation
There are so many fences that translators must surpass in order to reach a faithful translation.
These barriers hinder the process of translation and make translators consider so many elements
at once. One of these elements is the analysis of meaning as Nida (1964) argues. He says that
the analysis of meaning is a central problem in practice as ST is sometimes fraught with
intricacies and ambiguities such as various senses, figurative expressions and confusing
synonyms.
Indeed, the major problem in the process of translation is dealing with ambiguous and vague
meanings especially if they are formed using figurative devices such as tropes and other
semantic shifts. It requires a lot of attention and work on analyzing all angles ranging from the
linguistic elements, the context, the psychology of the writer and other factors that I will explain
in details later down the line. Other problems that face translators during the process of
translation apart from ambiguity and decoding intentional meaning are problems related to
sound and sense, emphasis and naturalness, figurative and literal meanings, neatness and
comprehensiveness, and lastly concision and accuracy as Newmark (1988) states.
Another prominent problem is that of equivalence as there is no one-to-one matching
equivalence across languages. According to Hatim and Munday (2004), the signifier changes
across languages as well as speakers of each language perceive the world differently. They add
that each language has its own vision of reality, i.e., “the semantic field occupied by individual
signs often does not match” (p. 17) in a cross-linguistic situations. Hence, some concepts are
peculiar to a specific language/culture and not the other which implicates that translators have
to be very sensitive when dealing with words or concepts, in the analysis phase, and they must
have a multi-cultural knowledge at least of the SL being translated from. Many claimed that
what can be said in one language can be said in another language such as Jacobson, Seleskovitch
15
and many others. It is true to some extent, as concepts in reality or in our perceivable world are
the same but what really changes is how each language deals with those words and concepts.
Furthermore, another problem encountered in the process of analysis of ST in translation is that
of interference or the linguistic interference which is basically the effect caused between
different language systems among multilingual people. In other words, “the world perceptions
that result from the contact between L1, L2 or n languages” (Galvao, 2009, p. 3). Newmark
(2001) confirms that interference is the translator’s worst enemy as different L1’s lexical items,
syntactic structures and other pragmatic elements affect those in L2 and the opposite.
So far, I tackled many problems faced in translation and all of them seem to be linguistic as the
primary task in translation is decoding the SL code and render it in appropriate equivalents in
the TL. More specifically, these problems are pragmatic in nature as the major field that is
concerned with decoding the SL text is pragmatics. Gutt (1998) affirms this statement by saying
that the difficulties encountered in translation are primarily pragmatic in nature (as cited in
Emery, 2004, p. 146).
Ultimately, the question is how pragmatic meanings can be grasped by translators? And how
the intention or purpose of the author can be understood? Emery (20004) states that the answer
to this question is similar to how we negotiate any speaker’s intended meaning. He adds that,
like in any other text analysis, readership (including translators) has to choose between different
interpretations the right interpretation for the text at hands. Thus, the main problems related to
translation are interpretational especially when dealing with different mediums such as Holy
scriptures/texts, poems or other forms of literature.
The reader of this poem in the source-language has to gauge the relative importance
of propositional meaning vis-a-vis poetic effects. If the former is more likely to be
the author’s pragmatic purpose, then the ‘literal’ (corresponding to the propositional
content of the source text) translation is appropriate; if on the other hand the overall
16
intention is deemed to be poetic effects and word play, then the rhymed version
(corresponding to the linguistic form of the original) is preferred. Like all
interpretation, translation is a leap into the unknown (Emery, 2004, p. 162).
Dealing with poetry is dealing with ambiguous language. The pragmatic purpose of the author
is lost between the verses and lines. The language of poetry or poetic language is set apart from
other types of writing by the heavy use of symbols, metaphors and other figurative tools which
all contribute to the elusiveness of poetry.
All of what has been mentioned above leads to a serious question which is whether poetry is
translatable or not. Many argue that translation is untranslatable while others believe that it can
be translated with the least amount of damage caused by inequivalence and other characteristics
of the TL. I will try to look for an answer of this fundamental question in the next section which
will be about the translatability of poetry and the difficulties faced by translators when dealing
with a poem.
2.2. Peculiarity and translatability of poetic discourse
2.2.1. Introduction
The problem of translating literature and especially poetry arises when knowing how writers or
poets use language. Poets use language in their favor and they are never direct about their
intended meaning, thus, leave open doors for interpretation to the readership. If poetic discourse
was as normal as everyday language, what would be special about it? Poetry’s main objective
is to make the reader feel strong emotions regarding a specific topic or experience given
moments in time and place that the they would not be able to do otherwise. As Sapir (2000)
describes, poetry is language when it is used “in an unusual way that arouses our feelings” (as
cited in Tisgam, 2014, p. 512).
17
Lefevere describes writers or poets in this regard as people who “[...] never directly describe an
experience or express an emotion, no matter what Romantic poetics and its successors may
assert to the contrary. What writers describe or express is always filtered through a poetics and
a universe of discourse” (Lefevere, 1992, p. 87) and that is what makes translating poetry no
way an easy task as it creates constant challenges in the face of translators.
With that taken into consideration, translators must be aware of the complexity of poetic
discourse and that poets are never direct in their language; hence they must approach their job
keenly and as Raffel (2010) says, “the translator of poetry must be himself a poet” (as cited in
Tisgam, 2014, p. 513). Translators should be excellent in their own language and in the TL and
their mission, in translating poetry, is to decode the TL and its uniqueness and go deep into the
hidden meanings and the different interpretations while preserving the poetic atmosphere of the
TL.
2.2.2. Poetry, translatable or not?
This topic of translatability and especially that of poetry has been argued upon continuously
and there has been a heated debate about whether the translation of poetry is possible or whether
it is not. Both groups support their stance with many arguments. Many scholars lean towards
the untranslatability of poetry as they claim that even the meaning is kept, which is a hard task,
the form will be lost in the TT. Also, some types of poetry are solely based on form as mentioned
earlier in the INTRODUCTION chapter, and it is hard to replicate the same form in translation.
That is because no language is similar to another and each language has its own system and
rules governing its patterns, word or sentence patterns.
As Levich (1959) says, poetry represents one faulty relationship between ‘form’ and ‘content’
(p. 591). He adds that neither of the twofold of poetry can be disturbed without altering the
other (p. 592). In similar fashion, Frost (1969) mentions that the main characteristic of poetic
18
discourse that distinguishes it from common discourse is that in poetry, form and content cannot
be separated (as cited in Jamshidian & Mohammadi, 2012, p. 158). Frost (1969) adds that
content is highly language-bound and it is the reason why translation of poetry is a little bit
difficult than the rest of translation types (as cited in Jamshidian et al, 2012, p. 159). This idea
is supported by Venuti (2000) as he argues that no definition of translation can avoid the
dichotomy of form and content (p. 131). Furthermore, he (2004) states that “only rarely can one
reproduce both content and form in a translation, and hence in general the form is usually
sacrificed for the sake of the content” (as cited in Tisgam, 2014, p. 514). In the same fashion,
Badawi (1975) states that translating poetry is very difficult since the translator’s main goal is
to cater to highly sensitive elements which are form and content (as cited in Khalifa, 2015, p.
316).
Roman Jakobson (1966) boldly states that poetry is untranslatable and that “only creative
transposition is possible” (as cited in Tisgam, 2014, p. 514). Many other scholars follow the
same route such as Burnshaw (1995) which states that “no one believes that the poetic effect of
a certain arrangement of words in one language can be the same as the poetic effect of words
in another language” (as cited in Tisgam, 2014, p. 514). This untranslatability is caused by
many problems and it is, as Catford (1965) states, due to two distinct reasons: linguistic and
cultural. The linguistic aspect can be explained by the difference in the two language systems
of the SL and the TL while the cultural aspect can be understood through the absence of cultural
norms equivalence between the two languages. Akan, Karim and Chowdhury (2019) add two
more elements to the table which are geographical and religious elements (p. 63).
On the other hand, those who have positive attitude regarding the translation of poetry defend
their stand point by many arguments. They believe that we can successfully translate poetry if
we care about both style and content. Other scholars believe that it is possible for a piece of
poetry to have different translations like Holmes (1970) who argues that a poem may have
19
different interpretations thus translations (as cited in Dastjerdi, Hakimshafaaii & Jannesaari,
2008, p. 11). One fact that must be put out here is that there will never be an equal translation
to the original. In other words, the number of translations of the same poem goes along the
number of translators.
Benjamin (1968) argues that there is nothing lost in translation but instead, we gain a new text
which is not considered as a copy of the original text but will have almost the same effect as it
(as cited in Tisgam, 2014, p. 515). Ludwig Wittgenstein argues that poetry is translatable like
every other text and it is a mathematical task even though poetry translation can appear as a
mathematical problem (as cited in Tisgam, 2014, p. 515).
Taking into consideration what have been said previously, translating poetry involves so many
aspects related to the poet’s feelings and style. Thus, translators should pay attention to both
form and content and they should have fluency of expression to match that of the poets. What
should not be neglected or discarded while translating poetry is meaning over form or the other
way around but there should be a balance in expressing the right meaning using the right
form/style.
In this regard, Dastjerdi, Hakimshafaaii and Jannesaari (2008) say that “the possibility of poetry
translation does not mean that all aspects of a poem are translatable in practice, since each
language has its own lexical and structural patterns which in some cases resist imitation in other
languages” (p. 13). Even though this fact, translation of poetry is achievable to a great extent
as the literature has witnessed striking renderings from/into so many languages as Dastjerdi et
al (2008) mention.
20
2.2.3. Difficulties in translating Arabic poetry
As mentioned earlier, translation requires a deep understanding of the SL and it is where
difficulties lie as Khalida Tisgam (2014) argues. She says that the main difficulty is not how to
re-draft to the target language but how to understand the original text (p. 515). She adds that “if
the difficulties of re-drafting are mainly rhetorical, the problems of understanding lead to
displacements and distortions in the transferred expression in a way that may lead to the total
destruction of the translated meaning” (p. 515).
Similarly, Akan, Rezaul and Chowdhury (2019) discuss the difficulty of translating from and
into Arabic and English and what to take into account and say that most of the problems caused
are due to “syntax (grammar), lexis or vocabulary (word), stylistics (style), phonology (sound)
and usage of the source language (SL)” (p. 59). These problems make translators “check,
recheck, reconsider, rethink or rewrite [...] use the dictionary, or a reference of some kind”
(Akan et al, p. 60) to help them overcome them.
The syntactic problems that raise when translating between English and Arabic are “syntactic
asymmetries” (Akan et al, 2019, p. 60) between the two languages as they come from different
language families. They involve the “mismatches at the sentence level” (p. 60) such as word
order variation and the different use of the same words between the languages. Akan et al (2019)
mention some different aspects regarding the differences in word order such as personal
pronouns and adjectives and they state that Arabic’s sentence structure is more flexible than
that of English. Personal pronouns in Arabic are sometimes omitted in verbal Arabic sentences
unlike in English; also, adjectives come before nouns they modify unlike in Arabic in which
they come after nouns they modify.
Semantic problems arise when words or phrases from ST are hard to understand or not found
in standard dictionaries or when there is not a one-to-one equivalence between the SL and TL.
21
Akan et al (2019) state some of the semantic problems that face translators and they are
equivalence, monosomy, polysemy, synonymy, collocations, idioms, proverbs or sayings,
metaphors, morphology, connotations, paraphrases and naturalization (pp. 61-62). As this paper
deals with semantic shifts, I am going to discuss the major problems, in details, that arise when
translating metaphor and metonymy which are deviations from regular language.
Likewise, I will be investigating the stylistic problems raised in the process of translation
between Arabic and English because most poetry is a matter of language style as figures of
speech are heavily incorporated in poetry. The stylistic problems discussed by Akan et al (2019)
are fronting, cliches, parallelism, short vs long sentences, redundancy, nominalization and
verbalization, irony, anaphora and lastly passive and active styles (p. 62).
All of those problems, as Akan et al (2019) mention, are not that significant compared to the
cultural and religious influences of both languages (p. 64) as both languages are rich in those
areas. Language is culture-bound and vice versa, thus a huge portion of our perception, which
is later reflected in our language, comes from our culture. Poetry, as a main form of culture is
rich with culture-specific words, phrases and expressions thus, translators should pay close
attention to these significances in both SL and TL. In the same fashion, religion is heavily
projected in language thus can create misconceptions in some words’ meanings.
Moving on from regular language to poetic language which is distinguished by a mixture of
form, imagery, rhythm and rhyme (Khalifa, 2015, p. 315). He adds that all of those assets work
together to give poetry its significance and luster. Khalifa (2015, p. 315) concludes that the
hardship in this process is to take into account all of these elements as they are interrelated and
interdependent. Translating poetry and coming up with a final product should have the same
effect as the original text as Nida and Taber (1969) state. They say that the main goal is to cause
the same or at least a similar effect (as cited in Tisgam, 2014, p. 516). Many assets are at hand
22
when doing so, as language is a mixture of phonetic, morphological, syntactic, stylistic and
cultural factors that must be all taken under serious consideration in this process and translators,
who take all of those factors into account, stand a good chance of success as Khalifa (2015, p.
315) states.
Many share this view that Arabic poetry is harder in translation than any other form of literature
and/or poems in other languages and that is due to the peculiarity and particularity of Arabic
poetry. Jayyusi (1987) expresses her opinion about translating Arabic poetry and says that it is
a hard task (as cited in Khalifa, 2015, p. 316). That is because poems are based on rhetorical
expressions and they are part of the poems’ semantic signification. She draws a distinction
between modern Arabic poetry and classical Arabic poetry by saying that modernists Arab
poets have drawn themselves away from classical form of poetry which was characterized by
excessive use of rhetorical devices to a much simpler form of poetry which is easier in
translation but still fraught with problems to say the least (as cited in Khalifa, 2015, p. 316).
Finally, Lefevere (1990) talks about Arabic poetry translation and discusses the absence of
Arabic poetry in Western literatures and it is, according to him, mainly due to the low prestige
of Islamic culture in European and American cultures which causes unwillingness to know
Islamic culture. Lefevere points out to the differences between the Arabic and the Western
discourse which makes translators, or ‘rewriters’ as he calls, lost when translating works
from/into Arabic.
2.3. Introducing shifts: semantic & linguistic shifts and their translation
2.3.1. Introduction
The main concern of this section is how to translate, or at least give a preliminary idea on the
process of translating some figures of style/tropes that are prominent throughout poetic
23
discourse and especially Arabic poetry. I will investigate the problems that face translators
during the analysis and interpretation phases of the semantic shifts used in poetry. This section
revolves around the main and prominent semantic shifts such as allegory, metaphor, hypallage
and metonymy, i.e., linguistic shifts. Undoubtedly, there are many quandaries that translators
may find themselves in when dealing with figurative language. The word ‘figurative’ comes
from the Latin word ‘figurativus’ and it means shape or form. According to Shaw (1972),
figurative refers to ‘not literal’ or ‘metaphorical’, thus, it is “based on or making use of figures
of speech, while literal means ‘true or fact’, ‘actual’, ‘not exaggerated’, and ‘in accordance with
strict meaning’” (as cited in Mohaghegh & Dabaghi, 2013, p. 275).
Figurative language is mainly based on using figures of speech which are essential in carrying
the literal meaning to the metaphorical meaning. They are considered as embellishments that
help deviate the meaning from ordinary to metaphorical or ornate (Mcarthur, 1992, p. 402). As
the latter describes, there was, in a former period of time, “an inherent contrast between
figurative or ornamental usage on the one hand and literal or plain and conventional usage on
the other” (Mcarthur, 1992, p. 402). That is what made figures of speech the border line between
what is literal or true and what is figurative or rhetorical or ornament.
Figurative devices are a matter of extraordinary language. They take the literal or ordinary
language to another level, the level of unusual, symbols, imagination, experiences and
emotions. Abrams (1999) states that figurative language is a journey from what people
understand from the standard meaning of words or the standard order of words, to special
meanings or effects. He adds that “figures are primarily poetic, but they are integral to the
functioning of language and indispensable to all modes of discourse” (pp. 96-97). Lakoff and
Johnson (2003) are the most prominent advocates of this statement by believing that figures of
speech, especially metaphors, are not only a feature of poetry but also pervasive in our everyday
24
life and governs our thoughts and what we perceive in the real world. Thus, much of our day-
to-day talk is characterized by a metaphorical aspect.
My focus, in this thesis, is figures of speech/tropes in the Arabic language, i.e., (ilm al-bayan)
which is the second discipline of Arabic rhetoric. It is mainly concerned with allegory (with its
sub-categories, namely linguistic allegory and cognitive allegory) and metonymy as this thesis
will investigate how to analyze, interpret and translate these semantic shifts and set a guideline
for the process of translation to achieve a faithful final product.
2.3.2. Metaphor translation
Metaphor is the most used figure of speech and its function is to denote a kind of similarity or
common quality between two ideas, actions or concepts even though they are not at first glance.
This similarity or common trait is always based on imaginary substance hence why it is a
figurative device as it connects an ordinary object, idea or concept to another abstract one.
Lakoff and Johnson (2003) describe metaphors as tools for poetic imagination and rhetorical
flourish, and they are a way for a better grasp of abstract and indefinable concepts.
Metaphor is generally based on imagination thus, images as Jaber (2008) states. It reflects our
visions of the real world including abstract and nonabstract aspect of it. It not only reflects our
perception but shape it as well as Lakoff and Johnson (2003) suggest by saying that metaphor
“structure our everyday concepts and that this structure is reflected in our literal language” (p.
47). In other words, metaphor makes our thoughts vivid thus shape our perception of reality
and this act is seen in our everyday language. The translation of metaphor, thus, includes a lot
elements related to people’s culture. Based on this, its translatability has been argued upon
throughout history. Some say that metaphorical expressions are hard to translate or render in
languages other than the SL as they are culture-specific and include the experiences of people
25
plus their perceptive, conceptual and cultural stance. Others believe that it is quite possible to
translate metaphorical expressions but with special care and delicacy.
Metaphor has two distinct purposes stated by Newmark (1988) and they are the referential
purpose and the pragmatic purpose. The referential purpose is cognitive as it describes the
mental state or any concept or quality inclusively while the pragmatic purpose leans towards
aesthetics and as Newmark describes, it appeals to “the senses, to interest, to clarify, to please,
to delight, to surprise” (p. 104).
The twofold purpose contributes in the difficulty of translating metaphors and especially in
discovering the right meaning of it. Oftentimes, it leads to misunderstanding and
misinterpretation. It is important to mention that the interpretation stage is far more important
than translation itself as Davidson (1973) and Mason (1982) stress. The latter expresses that the
interpretation of metaphor is the main causing problem in translation and says that “any problem
we may have when encountering metaphor is located at the level of interpretation, and these
have to be overcome before we can begin to consider a translation of the metaphor in question”
(p. 141).
Mason adds that metaphor, in nature, creates cultural-related problems as I mentioned before
and when one surpasses this step, translation becomes easy. Mason supports this claim by
stating that “the metaphor-user's associations with these words may be idiolectal, an idiolect
cannot avoid an amount of influence from the culture hence from some of the cultural
associations with the words used in a metaphor” (p. 141).
Translators must give immense attention and as Larson (1984) states, they must give “careful
consideration when faced by metaphor in the source language” (as cited in Gholami et al, 2016,
p. 57). Hence, we conclude that the aim of translators is primarily rendering meanings rather
than translating and that they are faced with many problems regarding TL (Mason, 1982, p.
26
142). Most of these problems are related to the culture of the TL, as mentioned earlier, and
translators need to have a deep understanding of the experiences of native speakers of the target
language to reach a faithful and adequate translation.
All in all, metaphor is a special tool that must be well thought of when starting the process of
translation. Davidson (1973) argues that the problem of metaphor interpretation is both
domestic and foreign. He adds that “speakers of the same language can go on the assumption
that for them the same expressions are to be interpreted in the same way, but this does not
indicate what justifies the assumption” (as cited in Mason, 1982, p. 140). In general, every step
of understanding a specific discourse must incorporate radical interpretation.
2.3.3. Metonymy translation
Metonymies are much like metaphor in their function. al-Hajjaj (2003) mentions that tropes in
general including simile, metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche are “brought in by language
users in place of less powerful (affective) expressions” (p. 83) and that the choice of using them
by writers of speakers of a language is situational or aesthetic.
al-Hajjaj (2003) defines metonymy as a “rhetorical device whereby lexical items are provided
with affective semantic values (connotations) in addition to their normal informative value” (p.
83). Gaber (1959) says that “the effects of metonymy are achieved by substituting the part for
the whole” (as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 84) but they cannot be used unless there is a
connection of ideas between the metonymy and the expression it replaces. Kövecses (2002)
defines metonymy as “a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides
mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same domain” (as cited in
Zibin, Altakhaineh & Hussein, 2020, p. 46).
27
In fact, metaphor and metonymy are very similar to the extent that we can call metonymy an
extension of metaphor as Chen and Lai (2012) state. They also say that “the interactions of
metonymy and metaphor are so intricate that the boundary forms not a dichotomy but a
continuum” (as cited in Zibin et al, 2020, p. 46). Thus, metonymy and metaphor are closely
similar to each other and are interrelated one to another.
al-Hajjaj (2003) says that there are so many shortcomings to the definitions of metonymy both
in English and Arabic and probably more so in English as Western rhetoricians and linguists
“treat metaphor and metonymy almost interchangeably” (p. 84). In fact, metonymy in Arabic
is more elaborated as Arab poets and scholars have been using metonymy in their poetry more
than any other form of tropes.
al-Hajjaj (2003) states a wide range of definitions by Arab scholars such as al-Farahidi, Ibn
Faris, al-Chafaji, Al-Jurjani and others and they are as follow:
- Metonymy is “a lexical item which is used in place of a vulgar or taboo word referring
to the same overall sense” (al-Farahidi, 1967, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 85).
- Metonymy is “to speak about something indirectly through using words or structures
having similar logical referents” (Ibn Faris, 1949, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 85).
- Metonymy is “to speak about something and what is referred to is something else” (al-
Jawhari, 1956, Ibn Manzur, 1956, & al-Fayruzabady, n.d., as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p.
85).
- Metonymy is “all what is understood from an expression and its context without
mentioning the actual referent” (Abu Qubaydah, 1955, vol. 1, p. 73, as cited in al-Hajjaj,
2003, p. 86).
- It is a means “to express an idea or to refer to an object by means of another idea or
expression” (al-Saskari, 1971, pp. 353-356, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 86).
28
- It is “to use a substitute expression where explicitness is not preferred” (al-Chafaji,
1953, p. 192, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 86)1.
- It is “when the speaker wishes to bring about a particular meaning but does not use the
actual expression put forward in the language for this meaning, but instead he uses
another expression of similar semantic informative value or synonymous to the first”
(al-Jurjani, 1961, p. 45, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 86).
- It is “a way of leaving explicit mentioning of an object to what is associated with the
object itself. Transference will take place from the ‘given’ to the ‘left’” (Pas-Sakkaki,
1937, p. 189, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 86).
- Metonymy is “any expression denoting a figurative or non-figurative meaning by means
of features suitable for both” (Ibn al-Athir, 1939, p. 197, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p.
86).
- It is “a means whereby the native speaker conveys an ugly meaning by using a nicely
formulated expression” (al-Misri, 1961, pp.143-146, as cited in al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 86).
On the comprehension of metonymy as a first step in translation, translators should be aware of
the typology of metonymy in the analysis phase as there are many types of semantic relation in
metonymical expressions. The most used ones are part-whole and object-human relations which
are, as Zibin et al (2020) mention, “more conventionalized than others as this makes them more
accessible and easier to process” (p. 58).
Regarding the translation of metonymy, Velasco (2000) states that many challenges that are
created, are related to cross-linguistic analysis which are mainly represented in three patterns:
(1) if both languages have the same conceptual mappings and metonymical realizations; (2) if
1
See also al-Jahiz, 1938, vol. 1, pp. 332-334.
29
conceptual mappings exist only in one language, i.e., they do not share any metonymical
realizations; finally (3) when both languages share the same conceptual mappings but one
language does not manifest some metonymical realizations (as cited in Zibin et al, 2020, p. 45).
An important point to mention here is the relation between metonymy and culture as it
contributes in the difficulty of finding equivalents to metonymies across languages (al-Hajjaj,
2003, p. 98). al-Hajjaj adds that this problem becomes more and more serious when the two
languages at hand are totally different from each other. He backs up his argument by the ‘owl’
example as it denotes ‘wisdom’ in the western culture but denotes ‘stupidity’ and ‘bad omen’
in the eastern culture.
Western culture is full of metonymical expressions as well and their translation require a deep
understanding and knowledge of western culture (see Newmark, 1982, p. 125). Thus, being
knowledgeable about both the SL and the TL and acquainted to both their cultures is a must
when it comes to productively render the exact meanings in the TL. A procedure stated by al-
Hajjaj (2003) is to “replace the SL image with another established image in the TL, if one exists
that is equally frequent within the same register” (p. 98). Another strategy is to reduce the
metonymical expression to sense or literal language with bearing in mind that this could
decrease the aesthetic power of the source language (al-Hajjaj, 2003, p. 99).
Following Mark and Lakoff’s opinion, Zibin et al (2020) add that metonymy is ubiquitous even
in day-to-day language, which makes its analysis reliant on universal cognitive processing (p.
58). Likewise, Hussein (2006) state that “the use of metonymy should not lead to semantic
ambiguity for the text receiver” (p. 234). That is, regardless of the cultural aspect of
metonymies, they do not require big efforts in text processing. Although this fact, it is required
to shed some light on the main tenets of metonymy and find a mutual line between those in
Arabic and English for easy access to their meanings when encountered in translation. In the
30
next chapter, I will go in depth and try to uncover all the categories of metonymy in English
and in Arabic specifically and provide a substantial guideline on their analysis.
2.3.4. Other shifts in translation
Although the focus of this thesis is not primarily on other forms of shifts apart from semantic
shifts represented by allegory, metaphor, hypallage and metonymy but there is no harm to
mention them in this section. Nabati (2017) sheds some light on the semantic/linguistic relations
that cannot be literally rendered in the target language and divides them into two distinct types:
(1) collocations; and (2) substitution semantic relations which includes synonymy,
hypernymy/hyponymy and metaphor/metonymy (para. 10).
Dubois (2002) defines linguistic shifts as an implicit derivation process and it consists of
moving the meaning of a word into another category without changing its form (as cited in
Nabati, 2017, para. 7). Some examples given by Jean Dubois are using adjectives or verbs in
the noun form. This definition, as Nabati (2017) argues, is from a purely linguistic scope; as for
semantic shifts in translation, they are quite different and they are related to the meaning to be
conveyed through the translation process (para. 9). She adds that the main task of translators is
to preserve meaning, which is not direct and easy to be grasped. Thus, translators are required
to do some semantic adaptations to present the meaning in the best form possible.
The first type of linguistic shifts is collocations and they are, as Mcarthur (1992) defines, “a
habitual association between particular words” (p. 231). He adds that they are basic to language
and when you fail to get the collocation, it is a sign of foreignness (p. 232). Nabati (2017) says
that it is not possible to replace one word with another so as not to spoil the meaning. She adds
that collocations include idiomatic expressions and proverbs as well (para. 12).
31
Newmark (1988) believes that collocations are an important asset in translation as they are the
most important contextual factor. He adds that collocations consist of lexical items that “enter
mainly into high-frequency grammatical structures” (p. 212). Newmark (1988) sorts these
grammatical structures as follow and states that they are the most common types: (1) adjective
plus noun; (2) noun plus noun (i.e., double-noun compound); and (3) verb plus object, which is
normally a noun that denotes an action (p. 212).
The first type is translated in the same form between English and Arabic as well as for the
second type. Thus, here, the translator should not worry about changing the form of the
collocations in the target language. On the contrary, the third type does not always allow the
same form but there are few exceptions. Hence, they require a little attention from translators
(Nabati, 2017, para. 15).
Nabati (2017) argues that the previously shown collocations are prevalent and somehow easy
to deal with, but the other types of collocations which are idioms and proverbs pose problems
and a special difficulty in translating into Arabic which makes semantic shifting an important
task in translation (para. 16). Thus, for these types of collocations, translators cannot find the
literal equivalents at the word level but it is possible to find equivalent at the meaning level.
The remaining linguistic shifts are synonymy and hypernymy/hyponymy. Synonymy is an
important concept in translation as Baldinger (1980) says: “translation is nothing than a problem
of synonymy” (as cited in Nabati, 2017, para. 24). The translator’s task is to analyze the
meaning of lexical items or units of the source language before finding equivalents in the target
language (Nabati, 2017, para. 24). Yet, they are faced with difficulties related to picking the
right equivalent as there is a cultural overlap between the two languages in question. Nabati
(2017) adds that we can find so many synonyms of the same word, but when put in context with
other words, we have to pick the right synonym to be faithful to the original meaning. An
32
example of this is the equivalent of the verb ‘to commit’ in Arabic which is ‘yartakib’ as in ‘to
commit a mistake’, but this synonym is not properly used because we must use ‘yaktarif’ instead
of ‘yartakib’ with mistakes and on the contrary, we use ‘yartakib’ with ‘jarima’ as in ‘to commit
a crime’ (para. 25).
Hypernymy and hyponymy are semantic relations and Nabati (2017) gives examples to
demonstrate these kinds of relations. She says that ‘living beings’ includes: ‘humans’, ‘animals’
and ‘plants’; thus, the word ‘human beings’ are the hypernym while ‘humans’, ‘animals’ and
‘plants’ are hyponyms and every hyponym can be a hypernym itself and other hyponyms can
be branched out of it (para. 28). Nabati adds that in translation we can get across hypernyms in
one language that have hyponyms equivalents in the other language; like the word ‘nuzha’ in
Arabic which can be translated to ‘walk’, ‘cycle-ride’ or ‘drive’ in English.
Ultimately, translators need to be aware of all of these subtleties and need to have a good
proficiency level in both languages in question. Also, they need to be acquainted with a cultural
knowledge of both languages as cultural specificity is an area which poses challenges in
translation. Translation is not merely based on choosing synonyms for words and put them in a
well-organized sentence structure, but it is a dive into the target culture and a linguistic
knowledge of both the source language to better grasp the intended meaning and form it and
shape it into the target language.
33
CHAPTER THREE
Theoretical Framework
3.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with the most important semantic shifts that I based my thesis upon:
metaphor and metonymy. I will be investigating, after I talked about their definitions and their
translation in the previous chapter, their categories in both English and Arabic. Being familiar
with the categorization of metaphor and metonymy will tremendously help translators in
rendering Arabic poetry as it is loaded with metaphors and poetry as way of eluding reality and
passing on hidden meaning in a beautifully-structured manner.
3.2. Metaphor categories in English & Arabic
3.2.1. Introduction
The difference between the concept of metaphor in English and Arabic in terms of defining the
notion of metaphor is not that significant. The only noticeable difference is that the deletion of
the particle ‘like’ or ‘as’ does not yield a metaphor as it would in the Western tradition. The
noteworthy difference, however, is clearly in terms of categorizing the kinds of metaphor. Both
34
languages have diverse categorizing approaches which make each one unique in its sense. There
have been some changes in the way old traditions deal with tropes and especially metaphor and
at each point, new categorization or approaches emerge to shape the definition of the notion of
metaphor and its kinds.
3.2.2. Metaphors in English
3.2.2.1. Introduction
The historical account of metaphor and its kinds has a notable range which includes the classical
view of metaphor and the romantic view. The first noteworthy account of metaphor was that of
Aristotle where he affirmed that the notion of metaphor is a sort of special effect that could be
achieved in language employed in a special way and has classified metaphor in his account into
four kinds: from the genus to the species, from the species to the genus, from one species to
another, and a matter of analogy (Hawkes, 2018, p. 6).
Unlike the traditional understanding of metaphor established by Aristotle and shaped later by
many other linguists and scholars, Lakoff and Johnson’s view made a break of theories
concerning this matter. As stated in Chapter one, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) believe that
metaphors are a necessity of the human mind because metaphorical expressions can facilitate
the structuring and understanding of complex or abstract concepts in term of simple or concrete
entities (p. 8). They have then given a new categorization of metaphorical concepts and divide
them into three major groups: Structural Metaphors, Orientational Metaphors, and Ontological
Metaphors which are considered as conventional metaphors.
3.2.2.2. Structural metaphor
According to Lakoff and Johnson (2003), a large number of metaphors are structural and they
are simply cases where one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another (p. 15).
35
They give a lot of examples illustrating this category of metaphors, one of which is the
expression ‘time is money’, where the abstract concept time is considered as valuable as the
literal concept money. This explains the emergence of utterances or expressions such as ‘you’re
wasting my time’, ‘this gadget will save you hours’, ‘spending time’ and ‘saving time’ in
Western culture (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 8).
Furthermore, Haase (2002), in his article Understanding metaphors in everyday language,
notes that an important feature in this group is that of ‘highlighting/hiding’ phenomenon, which
means that certain aspects get special attention whereas others are out of sight (p. 6). Lakoff
and Johnson conclude that the understanding of such concepts is highly dependent on cultural
and societal aspects. And while the concept time is considered a valuable commodity in
Western culture, it may not be the case in other cultures.
3.2.2.3. Orientational metaphor
Another kind of metaphorical concepts, according to Lakoff and Johnson (2003), is “one that
does not structure one concept in terms of another but instead organizes a whole system of
concepts with respect to one another” (p. 15). Orientational metaphors generally express a
concept in terms of spatial or physical environment, for instance, ‘happy’ is ‘up’ and ‘sad’ is
‘down’. ‘Happiness’ and ‘sadness’ are given a concept of spatial orientation, namely ‘up’ and
‘down’ from which, a lot of expressions used in Contemporary English such as ‘I’m feeling
up’, ‘that boosted my spirits’, ‘my spirits rose’ and ‘you’re in high spirit’ are used to express
‘happiness’. On the contrary, expressions like ‘I’m feeling down’, ‘he’s really low these days’,
‘I fell into a depression’ and ‘my spirits sank’, etc. are used to express ‘sadness’ (Lakoff and
Johnson, 2003, p. 16). They add that this orientation is not arbitrary and is based on our physical
and cultural experiences.
36
3.2.2.4. Ontological metaphor
Ontological metaphors, in Lakoff and Johnson’s point of view, provide an extraordinary and
rich basis for understanding concepts in terms of physical entities. And “understanding our
experiences in terms of objects and substances allows us to pick out parts of our experience and
treat them as discrete entities or substances of a uniform kind” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p.
26). Haase (2002) outlines the different kinds of ontological metaphors, and notes that they
have different purposes and one of them being the concept ‘abstracts are things’, for instance:
‘A series of questions’, ‘hold on to the same wish’, ‘the world is full of art’ etc. (p. 9).
Another concept is ‘transforming’ non-physical objects (e.g., events, actions, and activities)
into physical objects with definite boundaries (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, pp. 39-41), for
instance: ‘you can see his feelings in his writings’, ‘she could not get out of laughing’...
Furthermore, states and emotions are containers too, for instance: ‘he fell in love’, ‘he will be
out of the trouble soon’... etc. And finally, another important kind of ontological metaphors is
whereby something can be described as a person, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) have given
numerous examples three of which are as follow: ‘this theory explains everything’, ‘the facts
are against it’ and ‘life betrayed me’ (p. 44).
3.2.2.5. New metaphor
New metaphors, on the other hand, unlike structural, orientational, and ontological metaphors
which are considered as conventional metaphors, are outside the conventional conceptual
system (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 140). Such metaphors have the capability to give us a
new understanding of concepts and are characterized by their imaginative and creative nature
and hence their power to change reality. One example of new metaphors provided by Lakoff
and Johnson is the expression Love is a collaborative work of art.
37
3.2.3. Metaphor in Arabic (allegory)
3.2.3.1. Introduction
In their article A comparative study of figurative language and metaphor in English, Arabic,
and Persian, Mohaghegh and Dabaghi (2013, pp. 276-278) gave a glimpse of the historical
development of figurative language and especially metaphor in Arabic studies. They note that
there are many scholars and linguists that have dealt with the figurative side of language and
tropes since Abu Ubayda, Ibn Qutayba, al-Radi and others who emphasized on the force that
meanings can have. All of which have contributed in the development of Arabic rhetorical
studies to some extent which later become agreed upon the main constituent disciplines of
Arabic rhetoric, namely word order, figure of speech, and embellishments.
According to Abdul-Raof Hussein (2006), Arabic rhetoric is a linguistic discipline distinct from
Arabic Grammar, which provides language users with the efficacious stylistic mechanisms for
an eloquent and powerful discourse (p. 1). Hussein adds that it “aims to sharpen up the linguistic
skills of speaking and writing” (p. 1). Also, according to Hussein, “rhetoric in Arabic
illuminates the bridge between syntax and semantics and shows how linguistics, pragmatics,
and aesthetics overlap” (p. 2). Arabic rhetoric, as Hussein (2006) states, “takes into
consideration the communicative context of a given discourse activity and accounts for the
pragmatic functions of word order change in the Arabic sentence” (p. xiii) and is divided into
three clear-cut major disciplines: “ilm al-maani, ilm al-bayan and ilm al-badie” (Hussein, 2006,
p. 29).
Ilm al-bayan involves three main figures of speech, namely simile, allegory, and metonymy and
as mentioned before, this thesis focuses only on allegory and metonymy. Our only concern, in
this section, is allegory in which a semantic link is introduced that holds between the denotative
meaning and the allegorical meaning together with a clue that can be either lexical or cognitive.
38
Allegory in Arabic is divided into linguistic allegory which is also divided into metaphor and
hypallage, and cognitive allegory.
3.2.3.2. al-Majaz al-lughawiy (linguistic allegory)
Linguistic allegory in Arabic rhetoric is where the terms are transferred from their intrinsic
meaning to another non-intrinsic meaning with a lexical clue that obstructs the achievement of
the intrinsic meaning. The relationship between the two meanings may be a semantic
relationship based on similarity or other through a lexical clue which can be literal or cognitive.
Another definition given by Hussein (2006) is as follows: linguistic allegory applies to “lexical
items which are transferred from their intrinsic meaning to another non-intrinsic meaning where
we have a semantic connection as well as a similarity between the two meanings through a
lexical clue2” (p. 217). Linguistic allegory is sub-divided into two major figures of speech,
namely al-istiaarah (metaphor) and al-majaz al-mursal (hypallage).
3.2.3.2.1. al-Istiaarah (metaphor)
al-Istiaarah is a form of linguistic allegory and is regarded as the master figure of speech through
which the speaker can turn a cognitive or abstract concept into a concrete concept that can be
felt, seen, or smelt. Mohaghegh et al (2013) note that “the word that comes closest to the notion
of ‘metaphor’ in English is istiaara in Arabic which literally means ‘borrowing’” (p. 277). They
add that “al-Radi contends that istiaara is of the heart of rhetorical eloquence (balaghah) and
the inner core of elegant speech (fasahah)”.
2
In metaphors, we have two kinds of clues: lexical clue which is represented by an explicit lexical item in the
speech act. The cognitive clue is represented by our mental faculties, i.e., common sense, that enables the language
user and the receiver to discern the implicit underlying subject (Hussein, 2006, p. 211).
39
Linguistically, metaphor is derived from the verb ‘to borrow’ (‫)أعار‬, which means to borrow a
feature from someone or something and apply it to someone or something else (Hussein, 2006,
p. 218). Rhetorically however, metaphor is generally defined by a simile whose one of its two
ends is discarded (i.e., al-mushabbah or al-mushabbah bih)3. Shipley (1962, pp. 159-325)
affirms that and says that although metaphor is often loosely defined as ‘an implied
comparison’, ‘a simile without like or as’, it is distinct, logically and probably psychologically
the prior figure (as cited in Gholami et al, 2016, p. 58). Hence, the semantic relationship is
always based on similarity.
Hussein (2006) also confirms that in metaphor, “the relationship between the intrinsic and non-
intrinsic signification is established on the similarity between the two significations” (p. 218),
meaning, there is a semantic link (alaqah) between the two meanings. However, the
metaphorical meaning is perceptible via the lexical cue (al-qarinah).
An example given by Hussein is the following:
‫صواع َق جرير‬
ِ
ُ
‫الناس‬ ‫ ى‬- People are frightened of Jarir’s lightning.
‫يخش‬
In this metaphor, the linguistic clue ‘Jarir’ enables the reader to discern that the metaphorical
expression ‘lightning’ is not coming from the sky but rather from a satire poet who is a human
being known to us as Jarir. The metaphorical expression ‘lightning’ is understood as ‘satire
poetry’, ‘nasty words’ or ‘pungent criticism’. Thus, there is a similarity between the
metaphorical expression ‘lightning’ which comes from heavens causing destruction and the
3
The metaphor components are: the likened-to (al-mushabbah), or the borrowed-to in simile. The likened (al-
mushabbah bihi), or the borrowed-from in simile. Third, the borrowed which is the borrowed lexical item taken
from the borrowed-from and given to the borrowed-to (Hussein, 2006, p. 219).
40
metaphorical signification expressed as ‘satire poetry’ which also causes destruction (Hussein,
2006, p. 218).
According to Hussein (2006), metaphor is divided into the following major kinds: explicit
metaphor, implicit metaphor, proverbial metaphor, enhanced metaphor, naked metaphor, and
absolute metaphor (see Hussein, 2006, pp. 219-225).
Explicit metaphor
Explicit metaphor is a kind of metaphor whose likened element is maintained but its likened-to
element is ellipted (Hussein, 2006, p. 219), as in:
ً
‫سيفا ن‬
‫بي فكيك‬ ‫ – إحذر‬Beware of the sword between your two jaws.
In the above example, the lexical clue is ‘between your two jaws’ and the likened element is
‘sayf’ or ‘sword’. As for the likened-to element is ellipted and it is ‘the tongue’. Thus, there is
a comparison between ‘the tongue’ and ‘sword’ which share the same characteristic of
‘sharpness’.
Implicit metaphor
Hussein (2006) states that implicit metaphor “is achieved through the ellipsis of the likened
element from a given proposition” (p. 220), as in:
ْ
‫ – احذر اللسان العضب‬Beware of the acid tongue.
The lexical clue, in the above example, is ‘acid’ and the likened element is ‘sayf’ or ‘sword’
which is implicit, while the likened-to element ‘tongue’ is kept.
41
Proverbial metaphor
Proverbial metaphor, unlike the previous types of metaphor, does not contain the simile feature
and the other metaphor components are maintained. Hussein (2006) adds that “proverbial
metaphor occurs as a whole proposition rather than being represented by an individual lexical
item” (p. 221). There is no lexical clue in this kind of metaphor as it is cognitive and the meaning
can be discerned through common sense, as in:
‫بارد‬
ٍ ‫حديد‬
ٍ ‫تضب ن يف‬
‫ – أنت ن‬You are flogging a dead horse.
The example above represents a person who talks to a person who does not understand or listen
to advice.
Enhanced metaphor
Hussein (2006) states that in this kind of metaphor, the speaker mentions some lexical items
that are semantically relevant to the likened or the borrowed-from (p. 222), as in:
ً
‫ – رأيت أسدا يخطب وله مخالب‬I saw a lion giving a speech and has got claws.
In the example above, the lexical item ‘claws’ is semantically relevant to the likened ‘lion’.
Naked metaphor
Hussein (2006) says that in this kind of metaphor, the speech act contains lexical items that are
semantically relevant to the likened-to (p. 223), as in:
ً ُ ً
ِ ‫ – رأيت أسدا يخطب مرتديا نظارة‬I saw a lion giving a speech wearing glasses and a
‫وعمامة‬
turban.
42
In the speech act above, the lexical items ‘glasses and a turban’ are semantically relevant to the
likened-to ‘al-khatib’ which is ‘the speaker’ who is pragmatically described as ‘lion’. The latter
rhetorically acts as the likened element.
Absolute metaphor
In this kind of metaphor, there are two sub-uses:
i. The speaker does not introduce any lexical elements that are semantically relevant to
the likened-to and the likened, as in:
ً
‫ – رأيت أسدا ن يف القاعة‬I saw a lion in the hall.
In this example, there is no semantically relevant lexical items mentioned after the likened noun
‘lion’.
ii. The speaker introduces lexical elements that are relevant to both the likened-to and the
likened, as in:
ً ُ ً
ِ ‫ – رأيت أسدا يخطب مرتديا نظارة‬I saw a lion giving a speech wearing glasses
‫وعمامة وله مخالب‬
and a turban and has got claws.
The example above involves the lexical item ‘wearing and a turban’ which is semantically
relevant to the likened ‘al-khatib’ or ‘the speaker’ as well as the lexical item ‘claws’ which is
semantically relevant to the likened noun ‘lion’.
3.2.3.2.2. al-Majaz al-mursal (hypallage)
Hypallage or al-majaz al-mursal in Arabic refers to a word when not used in its intrinsic
meaning. The semantic relationship between the hypallage word and the non-intrinsic meaning
is not based upon similarity like in metaphor. There should be, however, a lexical clue that
43
obstructs the achievement of the intrinsic meaning. The semantic relationship between the
lexical item and the non-intrinsic meaning has thirteen forms and they are as follow: causality
relationship, result relationship, whole-to-part relationship, part-to-whole relationship,
generalization relationship, specific relationship, necessary requirement relationship, past
relationship, future relationship, substituted relationship, instrument relationship, place
relationship, and state relationship (see Hussein, 2006, pp. 225-232).
Causality relationship
In this type of relationship, the speaker uses a lexical item or the hypallage word which is the
cause of bringing about something else. The intended meaning is the result or effect of the
cause, as in:
َ
‫المطر‬ ‫ – رعت الماشية‬The cattle has grazed the rain.
In the example above, Hussein (2006) states that the lexical cue is ‘al-matar’ or ‘rain’ and it is
mentioned but pragmatically, the speaker means the ‘effect’ or the ‘result’ of the rain which is
the ‘grass’. The lexical item ‘rain’ represents the hypallage whose relationship is causality (p.
226).
Result relationship
In this kind of relationship, the speaker mentions the result but pragmatically, they refer to the
‘result’ of something, as in:
‫ – ى‬Zaid made his friend drink the sin.

‫سق زيد صديقه اإلث َم‬
In the example above, Hussein (2006) states that the ‘result’ lexical clue is ‘the sin’ or immoral
acts, which implicitly alludes to ‘alcohol’ as the result of drinking alcohol is committing some
immoral or violent acts. Hussein adds that the hypallage is represented by the word ‘the sin’,
44
thus, the expression does not mean that Zaid has made his friend drink the actual ‘sin’ but it has
“an underlying signification that is based on the result relationship which means that ‘Zaid has
made his friend drink alcohol that will make him commit immoral acts’” (p. 226).
Whole-to-part relationship
Hussein (2006) defines part-to-whole relationship as the relationship where the employment of
a lexical item that refers to the whole is applied but the speaker only means a limited part of it,
as in:
َ ‫بت‬ُ ‫ى‬
‫ماء دجلة‬ ‫ – ش‬I drank the water of Tigris.
In the expression above, the speaker employs a lexical item that refer to the whole ‘Dajla’ or
Tigris River but actually means a small part of it, i.e., ‘water’. Hussein (2006) adds that “This
is achieved through the rhetorical means of hypallage and the clue to our understanding, as text
receivers, remains through our cognitive faculties and common sense” (p. 227).
Part-to-whole relationship
This semantic relationship is the opposite of that in whole-to-part relationship. It applies to the
use of a word that refers to a specific part, but instead, the speaker refers to the whole entity, as
in:
ُ
‫ – إن العدو عيونه ن يف كل شارع‬The enemy has his eyes in every street.
In the example above, the speaker used the part ‘the eyes’ to refer to the whole entity which is
‘humans’, i.e., the spies (Hussein, 2006, p. 227)
45
Generalization relationship
As Hussein (2006) states, the generalization relationship is established when the speaker uses
a lexical item that refers to something in general while he refers to a specific meaning (p. 227),
as in:
ً
‫ – يظن الناس أن زيدا فقي‬People think that Zaid is poor.
In the above example, the hypallage ‘people’ refers to all people in general, but instead, the
speaker intends to refer to one specific person who is unknown or not named.
Specific relationship
Hussein (2006) states that in this kind of relation, the speaker uses a lexical item in a non-
restricted allegorical meaning while the non-allegorical meaning is specific (p. 228), as in:
‫ – نقض ر‬The British have abrogated the treaty of the repatriation

‫الييطانيون اتفاقية تبادل األشى‬
of prisoners of war.
In the example above, the hypallage ‘the British’ is used to refer to a non-restricted meaning
involving all the British people, but instead, the speaker refers to one British person who has
performed the action denoted by the verb ‘to violate’ which is the British Prime Minister.
Necessary requirement relationship
Hussein (2006) states that this semantic relationship applies when something does not take
place unless something else has already taken place (p. 228), as in:
ُ
‫ضوء النهار‬ َ – The day’s light has come out.
‫طلع‬
In the example above, the hypallage expression ‘the day’s light’ refers to the non-allegorical
meaning represented in the word ‘the sun’. That is because the day’s light cannot take place
46
without the sun having been out. Thus, the word ‘the sun’ is a necessary requirement for ‘the
day’s light’.
Past relationship
In this kind of hypallage, according to Hussein (2006), reference is made to the past of someone
or something (p. 229), as in:
‫ – نلبس الصوف ن يف الشتاء والقطن ن يف الصيف‬We wear wool in winter and cotton in summer.
In the example above, the hypallage is represented in the lexical item ‘wool’ and ‘cotton’. The
pragmatic meaning, as Hussein (2006) states, is as follows:
We wear (what was unprocessed) wool in winter and (what was unprocessed) cotton in
summer
Thus, the speaker refers to the past raw materials from which the clothes are made.
Future relationship
In this type of hypallage, according to Hussein (2006), the speaker alludes to the future state of
someone (p. 230), as in:
ً ً ُ
‫ – ولدت زوجة إبراهيم غالما حليما‬Abraham’s wife gave birth to a forbearing boy.
In the example above, as Hussein (2006) states, the speaker does not know the future of the
newly born child but alludes to a good future for him using the lexical item ‘forbearing’. Thus,
the hypallage is based on future relationship (p. 230).
47
Substituted relationship
In this kind of hypallage, according to Hussein (2006) states, the signification of a lexical item
works as a substitute for the signification of another one (p. 230), as in:
َ ‫أكل زيد‬
‫دم القتيل‬ َ – Zaid ate the blood of the murdered.
In the example above, hypallage is represented by the word ‘blood’ and it is used allegorically.
The lexical item ‘blood’ is substituted for the non-allegorical item ‘diyyah’ or ‘blood money’.
Instrument relationship
In this kind relationship, as Hussein (2006) states, the hypallage word refers to an instrument,
but instead, the speaker intends to refer to the pragmatic non-allegorical meaning of the
instrument word (p. 231), as in:
ُ َ َ ‫ن‬
‫ – ي‬A tongue from you came to me which I do not like.
‫أتان لسان منك ال أستسيغه‬
The hypallage word ‘lisan’ or ‘tongue’ has the pragmatic non-allegorical meaning of gossip,
unpleasant statements and backbiting. Thus, the speaker does not refer to the actual tongue but
what it can do.
Place relationship
In this kind of hypallage, as Hussein (2006) states, the speaker alludes to the places or
institutions which are occupied by people. In other words, the speaker uses the place
allegorically but pragmatically, he or she refers to the people working in that place (p. 231), as
in:
‫ن‬
‫المتفوقي‬ ‫ – قررت المدرسة توزي ع الجوائز عىل‬The school has decided to give the prizes to the
distinguished students.
48
In the example above, according to Hussein (2006), the hypallage word ‘school’ represents a
place relationship whose non-allegorical meaning is ‘the headteacher’ (p. 231). To put it in
another way, the speaker uses the place lexical item to refer to the people working or living in
that place.
State relationship
In this semantic relationship, as Hussein (2006) states, the hypallage word refers to the state of
a person or thing, but the non-allegorical signification refers to a place (p. 232), as in:
‫ – مات سالم وهو اآلن ن يف رحمة هللا‬Salim died and he is now in the mercy of Allah.
In the example above, the pragmatic signification of the hypallage word ‘rahmat Allah’ or ‘the
mercy of Allah’ refers to a place, thus, its non-allegorical meaning is paradise.
3.2.3.3. al-Majaz al-aqliy (cognitive allegory)
Cognitive allegory in Arabic rhetoric is attributing the meaning of a verb to someone or
something other than what is referred to by the verb itself. In this context, we can refer to the
semantic selection in which the verb chooses or imposes some restrictions on the subject,
meaning that the verb comes with a package, namely the experiencer or agent and the theme or
the patient. The experiencer or the agent of the verb is dependent on the action of the verb. For
instance, when we say John came, we have attributed the action of coming denoted by al-
musnad came to the agent John (i.e., al-musnad ilayh).
Hence, the relationship between the verb and its allegorical subject, in cognitive allegory, takes
the following forms in which there is always a cognitive clue that enables the recipient to
discern the implicit underlying subject: cause relationship, time relationship, place relationship,
morphological relationship, subject and object relationship (see Hussein, 2006, pp. 212-216).
49
Cause relationship
An example of cause relationship given by Hussein (2006) is as follows:
ْ َ
‫مستشفيات ن يف البالد‬
ٍ ‫ – بنت الحكومة ِعدة‬The government built many hospitals in the country.
In the above example, the speaker attributes the action of building to the allegorical subject ‘the
government’ and the government constitutes of many people such as the Head of State and
other Cabinet Ministers who are in charge of running the country. These people did not do the
action of building themselves, as their team of workers who actually built the hospitals, but they
are in charge of giving orders to do so. Thus, the speaker links the action of building between
the allegorical subject ‘the government’ and the non-allegorical subject ‘the workers’ and the
semantic link is based on a cause relationship (Hussein, 2006, p. 213).
Time relationship
Hussein (2006) gives an example of this semantic relationship and it is as follows:
ُ ُ َ
‫ساءته أزمان‬ ‫ – َم ْن َش ُه زمن‬Whoever time has pleased him or her once, he or she must have
been displeased by other times.
In the example above, the speaker attributes the action denoted by the verb ‘to please’ and ‘to
displease’ to the allegorical subject ‘time’. However, the non-allegorical meaning is the
misfortunes and calamities, thus, the attribution of the action to the allegorical subject is that of
time relationship (Hussein, 2006, p. 214).
Place relationship
Hussein (2006) gives an example of this kind of semantic relationship:
50
َ
‫ – ازد َح َمت الشوارع بالناس ن يف وقت العيد‬The streets have become crowded by people during
the Eid time.
In the example above, the action denoted by the verb ‘to be busy’ is attributed to the allegorical
subject ‘the streets’, however, the non-allegorical subject is ‘the people’. Thus, as people are
those who get crowded in the streets, the attribution is due to the place relationship (Hussein,
2006, p. 214).
Morphological relationship
An example of morphological relationship is the following example:
ْ ُ ُ ُ ُ َ
ِ ‫ – جن جنون الرجل عندما‬The man got mad when his car was stolen
‫شقت سيارته‬
Hussein (2006) provides the literal translation to well understand this kind of relationship and
it is: (the man’s madness became mad when his car was stolen) (p. 215). In morphological
relationship, the speaker attributes the verb ‘to be mad’ to the allegorical subject ‘madness’.
The verb should have been attributed to the non-allegorical subject ‘the man’ but instead it was
attributed to the nominalized noun ‘madness’ which is morphologically related to the verb.
Subject relationship
An example of subject relationship is the following example:
ً ُ
‫وعده مأتيا‬ ‫ – إن‬His pledge will definitely take place
Hussein (2006) provides the literal translation of the speech act to appreciate this kind of
relationship and it is: (his pledge will definitely be made) (p. 215). Here, the speaker employs
the passive participle ‘to be made’ but the non-allegorical active participle ‘to take place’ or ‘to
come’ should have been employed.
51
Object relationship
An example of this kind of relationship is the following speech act:
‫ – يعيش زيد عيشة راضية‬Zaid lives a pleasant life
In the example above, the active participle ‘pleasant’ is allegorically employed instead of the
expected passive participle ‘something to be pleased with’. In the example, the active participle
has been allegorically attributed to the object which is the passive participle ‘‫’مرضية‬. The non-
allegorical passive participle is the one who should have been used and the sentence should
read as: Zaid lives a life he is pleased with (Hussein, 2006, p. 216).
3.3. Metonymy categories in English & Arabic
3.3.1. Introduction
Rundblad and Annaz (2010) say that, in literature, there has been a focus on metaphor more
than that on metonymy which led to a deficient picture of figurative language (as cited in Zibin
et al, 2020, p. 46). Studies on metonymy are still limited when comparing them to those of
metaphor. However, as Denroche (2014) says, scholars have paid metonymy some attention in
the last decades mainly because of its close relation to metaphor (as cited in Zibin et al, 2020,
p. 46).
On the other side, metonymy has received a great attention by Arab rhetoricians unlike the
attention given to it in the West. Arab scholars have elaborated in metonymy as metonymy was
the main tool of communication in their poetry since the pre-Islamic era. Arab poets were using
so many rhetorical tropes such as metaphor, metonymy, simile, puns and others in order to
flourish their poetry with meanings and to please the ears. Hence why there was a big attention
to study metonymy in the Arab/Islamic world.
52
3.3.2. Metonymy in English
Jialing Guan states that the classification of metonymy has been the focus of attention of
rhetoricians and cognitive linguists in order to understand the exact nature of metonymy (2009,
p. 180). He adds that the traditional approach to classifying metonymy offers many lists of types
such as: part for whole, whole for part, place for institution and producer for products; or other
classifications such as: synecdoche, metalepsis and polysemy.4
Part for the whole can be exemplified by the expression ‘many hands make light work’; whole
for part can be represented by the expression ‘Australia beat Canada at cricket’; place for
institution can be represented by the expression ‘the White House is not saying anything’ and
lastly, producer for products can be exemplified by the expression ‘I like Shakespeare most’
(Guan, 2009, p. 180).
The classification presented by Holly Landis (2022) offers three types of metonymies, namely,
synecdoche which means “using a phrase that contains either the part for the whole or the whole
for one of its parts” (para. 7). An example of synecdoche is the speech act ‘I cannot drive stick’
in which the part ‘stick’ refers to the whole ‘car’. As for metalepsis or also known as
‘transumption’, it “takes a familiar word or phrase and uses it in a new context” (Landis, 2022,
para. 9). An example of metalepsis is the speech act ‘I have got to catch the worm tomorrow’.
It refers to the phrase ‘the early bird catches the worm’ and by saying that you need to catch the
worm, you’re referring to the act of getting up early (Landis, 2022, para. 10). The last type is
polysemy although it is not strictly a type of metonymy but it is closely linked. For instance,
4
Classification of metonymies retrieved from the website: https://www.skillshare.com/blog/metonymy-three-
types-and-how-to-use-them/
53
the body part ‘hands’ can be used to refer to workers as they use their physical hands but the
receiver can discern the association made in such type of speech acts (Landis, 2022, para. 12).
Cognitive linguists, on the other hand, take a different route in the classification of metonymy.
Guan (2009) states that an interesting view at the classification of metonymy has been offered
by Panther and Thornburg (1999, pp. 334-336). The latter linguists have classified metonymies
pragmatically into three types: referential metonymy, predicational metonymy and
illocutionary metonymy (or speech act metonymy) (as cited in Guan, 2009, p. 180).
3.3.2.1. Referential metonymy
The first type of metonymy is “the often-heard claim that metonymies are typically used for
indirect referring” (Guan, 2009, p. 180), like in place for institution type of metonymy as it
helps to identify the intended referent of the organization. An example of place for institution
metonymy was already given earlier which is the speech act: ‘the White House is not saying
anything’.
3.3.2.2. Predicational metonymy
In this type of metonymy, a statement is used to refer to a different one, as in:
(1) She was able to finish her dissertation.
(2) She finished her dissertation.
Guan (2009) states that these the sentences (1) and (2) are not semantically synonymous and
that (1) denies (2) without contradiction. However, speakers, sometimes, can use (1) to convey
the same propositional content as that in (2) (p. 180). He adds:
In this sense, the statement a can be used to stand for the statement b, the only
difference being that in the first case the speaker predicts the ability to finish the
dissertation of the subject she, whereas in the second case the speaker predicts the
54
actuality of finishing it. In pragmatic terms, b is a generalized conversational
implicature induced by a. This predicational metonymy exemplifies the
POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALITY metonymy, which is very common in English
language: A potential event (e.g., the ability, possibility, permission, obligation to
undertake an action) is metonymically linked to its actual occurrence (Guan, 2009,
p. 180).
3.3.2.3. Illocutionary metonymy
Panther and Thornberg (1999) talk about illocutionary metonymy, and it is where one
illocutionary act stands for another illocutionary act (as cited in Guan, 2009, p. 180), as in:
(1) I do not know where the bath soap is.
(2) Where is the bath soap?
Guan (2009) states that sentence (1) has the direct force of an assertion about what the speaker
does not know, however, it is often used with the indirect illocutionary force of a question.
Meaning, sentence (1) can metonymically stand for the question in sentence (2). Guan (2009)
adds that “the significance of Panther and Thornburg’s classification lies in the fact that for
them metonymy is not restricted to its referring function but is much more pervasive in ordinary
language use” (p. 180).
3.3.3. Metonymy in Arabic
Metonymy is called al-kinayah in Arabic rhetoric. As Hussein (2006) states, “it is a rhetorical
mode of discourse which is more effective because of its succinctness and allusion, i.e., implicit
reference, and is a form of hyperbole” (p. 233). He adds that the word ‘al-kinayah’ comes from
‫ ن‬which means to allude to. Thus, the meaning of metonymy is “the allusion
the verb ‘kana’ (‫)كن‬
to someone or something without specifically referring to his or her or its identity” (p. 233).
55
Metonymy is divided into three major categories (Hussein, 2006, p. 235) and they are:
metonymy of an attribute, of a modified and of an affinity.
3.3.3.1. Of an attribute (metalepsis)
Hussein (2006) says that the word ‘attribute’ means a characteristic trait such as generosity,
courage, beauty, etc. (p. 236), as in:
ُ ُ
‫ – زيد بساطه تراب‬Zaid’s carpet is dust.
Hussein defines the metonymy ‘his carpet is dust’ as a metonymy for the attribute ‘poverty’.
Another well-known example is:
‫الرماد‬
ِ ‫ – ليىل كثية‬Layla has got a lot of ashes.
Arabs attribute ‘generosity’ to someone when they use the expression ‘someone has a lot of
ashes’. Thus, the example ‘Layla has got a lot of ashes’ rather means ‘Layla’s generosity’
because many guests visit her daily and fed generously. That is why she is required to do a
considerable amount of cooking which needs wood to be burned day and night, and burning
wood leaves ashes behind (Hussein, 2006, p. 233).
3.3.3.2. Of a modified
In the second type of metonymy, the modifier and the affinity are mentioned but the modified
is ellipted (Hussein, 2006, 236), as in:
َ ُ
‫ – قتلت ملك الوحوش‬I killed the king of beasts.
In the example above, the modified noun is the ‘lion’ and it is omitted and referred to by the
expression ‘king of the beasts’.
56
Hussein (2006) adds that both the first and second type of metonymy, i.e., metonymy of an
attribute and of a modified, are “subsumed under the rhetorical feature of periphrasis which is
a mode of discourse in which the communicator employs more expressions to express a given
idea instead of using a single lexical item” (p. 236).
Periphrasis is used in modifications and euphemistic expressions. The expression ‘the king of
beasts’ is considered a modification and likewise, ‘the ship of the desert’ is also a modification
as it is a metonymy of a modified noun referring to ‘the camel’. Euphemistic expressions on
the other hand, are used to “replace reference to unpleasant occasions such as death, defeat,
etc.” (Hussein, 2006, p. 237). An example of a euphemistic expression is the phrase ‘ ‫انتقل إىل‬
‫ ’الرفيق األعىل‬which is a metonymy of an attribute that refers to ‘his death’.
3.3.3.3. Of an affinity
The last kind of metonymy is metonymy of an affinity and it is where, as Hussein (2006) states,
the modifier and modified are mentioned but the affinity word is ellipted although it is a
required element (p. 237).
An example of a metonymy of an affinity is the expression:
‫ُ ن‬
‫ – المجد بي ر ي‬Glory is between Abdul-Rahman’s clothes
‫ثون عبد الرحمان‬
In the example, the speaker does not explicitly refer to the modified noun Abdul-Rahman as
‘glorious’ but rather, mentions the nominalized attribute ‘glory’ which refers allegorically to
‘Abdul-Rahman’ and alludes to it by using the expression ‘between his clothes’. Thus, the
receiver understands that the attribute of ‘glory’ belongs to the modified noun ‘Abdul-Rahman’
as he is the one who wears those clothes (Hussein, 2006, p. 237).
57
3.4. Setting apart metaphor from metonymy
For Lakoff and Turner (1989, p. 103), both phenomena of metaphor and metonymy are
explained as conceptual mappings as there is always a link between two things or concepts and
both can be conventionalized (as cited in Mendoza, 2002, p. 24). On the other hand, there are
significant differences between the two:
(a) there are two conceptual domains in metaphor, while there is only one involved in
metonymy (Mendoza, 2002, p. 25).
(b) In metaphor, a whole schematic structure, also called the source domain, is mapped onto
another whole schematic structure, also called the target domain. The mapping allows
us to understand and reason about the target in terms of the source. An example of this
is the conceptual metaphor ‘argument is war’ where arguments are viewed in terms of
war. That is because most expressions reflected by that metaphor contain or indicate
some sort of actions, conducts, or terms used within the theme of war, and examples of
those are the expressions ‘your claims are indefensible’ and ‘he attacked every weak
point in my argument’ (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003, p. 5). Metonymy, on the other hand,
is primarily used for reference: we refer to an entity in a schema (or cognitive model)
by referring to another entity in the same schema (Mendoza, 2002, p. 25).
(c) Metonymies, unlike metaphors, involves a stand for relationship between the source and
target domains, as in the producer for product metonymy in the speech act ‘I have
bought a Ford’ (Mendoza, 2002, p. 25).
Moving on to the difference between metaphors and metonymies in Arabic rhetoric we find
that the only noticeable difference, according to Hussein (2006), is that in classical Arabic,
metonymy signifies the intrinsic/non-allegorical meaning i.e., “the intrinsic signification of the
lexical item employed by the communicator” (p. 233); while metaphor does not refer to the
58
intrinsic meaning but signifies the allegorical/non-intrinsic meaning. Thus, in modern Arabic,
metonymy “does not mirror the intrinsic signification but rather it designates an allegorical
meaning” (p. 233).
59
CHAPTER FOUR
Methodology
4.1. Introduction
After a preliminary investigation in the literature dealing with translation, figurative language
and semantic shifts to set a solid ground upon which this study stands, I will explain, in this
chapter, the different steps that will be taken in order to carry out the analysis of the chosen
excerpts of Arabic poetry. The information covered in the previous chapters deals with my topic
of study from its theoretical angle as I tackled in details the figurative aspect of the language
employed in literary writing and especially in poetry.
The figurative language is used heavily by poets and it is represented by semantics shifts and
they present a great challenge at the level of meaning, hence why this study interferes to
establish a guideline regarding the understanding and the translation of semantic shifts in
poetry. This chapter is going to address the practical angle and the structure that I will be
following during my analysis. It comprises four sections: restating the research problem,
establishing the model of analysis, data collection and finally data analysis.
60
4.2. Restating the research problem
The problem dealt with in this thesis is mainly related to the peculiarity of the language used in
poetry as poets are never direct in their writings and they heavily employ figurative language
to lure the readers into different possible interpretations of the piece of poetry. Thus, the
interpretation becomes harder when there is a shift in language using the semantic shifts
mentioned in the previous chapters. The main concern of this research study is to show that
there is a dialectical relationship between translation and semantic shifts as these shifts
constitute ambiguity and difficulty at the level of conveying the meaning, which makes the
translator perform two tasks, namely interpretation and translation to reach the intended
meaning of a piece of poetry.
4.3. Establishing the models
As this study is descriptive in nature for the reason that it will only look at different excerpts of
modern Arabic poetry and analyze them following two models, a semantic model and a
pragmatic one. The analysis of the chosen excerpts of poetry will be qualitative as it will be
focused on understanding and interpreting only.
Poetry is a broad world filled with meanings, significations and symbolism, and to take hold of
them, a deep analysis must be conducted as a first step in translation. This step in the process
of translation was already discussed in the previous chapters as the most important step in
translation. Christiane Nord (1991) confirms that by stating that “before embarking upon any
translation, the translator should analyze the text comprehensively, since this appears to be the
only way of ensuring that the source text has been wholly and correctly understood” (p. 1).
In the interpretation phase, especially when dealing with literary texts such as poetry, translators
should employ a twofold process which relies upon a semantic and pragmatic analysis. Hence,
61
in this research study, I will be leaning on two models of interpretation, namely: the interaction
theory and the relevance theory. The first model is in fact purely semantic and has so many
shortcomings. As Abrams (1999) states, the question of metaphor, and similarly other tropes,
is pragmatic in nature (p. 156). The interaction theory, and the semantic approach in analyzing
figurative language in general, was heavily critiqued by many linguists such as Levinson (1983)
and Searle (1979).
Levinson (1983) defines the interaction theory as a framework of semantic features where the
meanings of each lexical item are specified by a set of features that jointly define all of its
complex senses (p. 148). This model will help in the initial step of interpretation as it uses
reason and logic to draw the meanings of each word present in the sentence under investigation.
Each word has a set of features and all the words that form the verse interact with each other,
thus, their features.
The semantic approach to literary devices such as metaphor and metonymy is insufficient in
terms of understanding all of their meanings as these semantic shifts are clearly distinct from
ordinary processes of language understanding. Levinson (1983) states that the best
understanding of metaphor, and identically metonymy, falls beyond the scope of semantics (p.
150). For the reason that the readings of metaphors and metonymy proposed by any semantic
theory are not good paraphrases. That is due to the limitation of the feature-mapping process
offered by the interaction theory which is unable to capture the force of the metaphorical
expressions. In other words, some associations between lexical items in a speech act may not
be conveyed through the sets of features only but they may be dependent on “factual (real-
word) attributes of the referents” (p. 150). Finally, Searle (1979) states that the interaction
approach explains metaphor only in a part or in a misleading way (pp. 76-116). Thus, the
shortcomings of the interaction theory and such semantic models of interpretation are because
they cannot accommodate the analysis of metaphor as not all metaphors are based on similarity,
62
yet, they offer a decent characterization of the literal meanings of the expressions involved and
it can be employed for an initial step in interpretation.
The discussed limitations of the semantic approaches to metaphor and metonymy interpretation
lead us to bring another scope into table, that is the pragmatic approach. Levinson (1983) argues
that following the pragmatic model in the process of interpretation does not cancel the semantic
contribution completely but rather complements it as “the full meaning of most of the sentences
we utter is best captured by a technical division of labor between a semantic component and a
pragmatic one” (p. 156). In other words, metaphor and other semantic shifts are pragmatic in
nature and working with both the semantic and pragmatic models should direct the interpreter
to a full understanding of such figures of style. Thus, Levinson (1983) supports the use of “a
hybrid theory of meaning in which both semantics and pragmatics play a part” (p. 145) in
interpreting the meaning of such figurative language.
Gutt (1998) confirms the previous finding and states that the semantic approach is not sufficient
to fully comprehend the exact meaning of a particular utterance (as cited in Alwanza, 2017, p.
39). He adds that the meaning of an utterance is usually related to its context. Coming from the
idea that a text -with all of its forms- is a form of communication, relying on contextual detail
is important to understand the intended meaning by the speaker or by the writer of the text.
Failing in that process would lead to misunderstanding thus miscommunication as Gutt argues.
Gutt (1998) believes that translation is a communicative act as it involves interpretation as a
process made by the translator in which he/she takes the context of the target language. Thus,
translators should rely on a pragmatic approach in their interpretation and should look into the
relevant contextual information to draw the appropriate inferences from the speech act or the
utterance concerned, and thus, make the right interpretation (Gutt, 1998, as cited in Alwanza,
2017, p. 39).
63
In the same fashion, Yuvarlak (2016) confirms that translation is a form of communication and
suggests that for a successful translation and as the translator is faced with multiple choices and
to make a critical choice, he/she must rely on other factors other than the lexical level of the
text. He later suggests that this finding enables us to use the same pragmatic principles used in
encoding, transferring and decoding verbal communication to translation. Gutt (2000) is known
for setting the ground of contextual assumptions in the study of translation as in any other
pragmatic analysis used in other forms of communication (as cited in Yuvarlak, 2016).
After setting the need for the pragmatic approach in the translation process, the model of
pragmatic analysis I chose to embark my pragmatic analysis with in the practical chapter of this
thesis is Gutt’s relevance-theoretic approach. Relevance theory is an updated and improved
version of the firstly-proposed inferential model of Grice. This development is for the purpose
of studying all kinds of verbal communication, hence why it is also applicable to translation
(Sequeiros, 2005, as cited in Yuvarlak, 2016). Generally, communication according to Gutt’s
(2000) relevance theory, is “the ability to draw inferences from people’s behavior” (as cited in
Yuvarlak, 2016). In other words, the speaker transfers meaning through “informative intention”
(Sperber & Wilson, 1995, as cited in Yuvarlak, 2016).
Gutt (1998) states that meaning, in communication, is dependent on “contextual information”
(as cited in Yuvarlak, 2016) and similarly in relation to translation. Relevance theory presumes
that the contextualization of speech acts, sentences or expressions is a psychological concept
related to the receptor’s consciousness of the real world. In the reproduction stage, the receptor,
which is the translator, is considered, as Sequeiros (2005) believes, “a communicator of the
target text” (as cited in Yuvarlak, 2016). He later asserts that different pragmatic effects arise
from translation which is made up of the translator’s perception of the ST.
64
In practice, relevance theory is crucial in the reproduction stage of translation. It deals with
content and tries to yield adequate contextual effects as in the source text. That is achieved
when the receiver recovers the meaning easily, therefore, will produce a TT with the same
poetic effect and metaphorical force as the ST. Gutt (1998) confirms that by saying that the
receiver is set to accept the interpretation intended by the speaker by using the right contextual
information and by considering the target audience that the text is meant to be addressed to (as
cited in Yuvarlak, 2016). Also, the translator, apart from taking the context and cultural
elements of a text into account, must observe implicatures and explicatures which are,
according to Carston (2007), “assumptions [or propositions] communicated by a speaker” (as
cited in Yuvarlak, 2016).
With regard to the principle of relevance, the way the translator reports the original
utterance depends on what he believes is optimally relevant to the audience. He
decides about the relevant aspects, that is, he considers the audience’s expectations
of consistent information. In doing so, he must consider the dependency of an
utterance interpretation on the context. For instance, if the audience has a different
cultural background than the audience the original text was meant to be addressed
to, the translator renders his interpretation into the target text “out of context”
(Yuvarlak, 2016).
All in all, to distinguish between what the words in a speech act say literally and their
metaphorical meaning and to recognize and interpret a literal sentence used metaphorically, a
combination of both semantic and pragmatic models of analysis should be used to experience
the whole metaphorical effect and appreciate all of its force. An initial step of feature-mapping
analysis and after that, a pragmatic analysis based on taking the context and cultural
circumstances into account as well as observing implicatures is important during the process of
interpretation.
The practical chapter of my research is going to center around descriptive methods as the
analysis will include a description of linguistic items and lexical choices at the semantic level,
65
and with a focus on the context and cultural elements at the pragmatic level. Following the
levels mentioned, the chosen excerpts of Darwish’s poetry will be interpreted comprehensively
to unveil the hidden meanings and intentions of the poet. The analysis is going to be based on
employing both models to reach a full understanding of metaphorical meanings employed by
Mahmoud Darwish in his poetry.
4.4. Data collection
The current research is based upon the dialectical and controversial relationship between
translation and semantic shifts. Through the excerpts that I will work on in the next chapter, I
will show that semantics shifts constitute ambiguities and difficulties at the level of conveying
the meaning, which makes the translator perform the task of interpretation and translation to
reach the meaning of the poems.
The reasons that made me choose Mahmoud Darwish’s poetry started from the perception that
his poetry represents a uniqueness at the level of semantic shifts due to its reliance on simile,
allegory, metaphor, metonymy and other forms of shifts; and this strong presence is what we
notice in his style of writing. Another reason that motivated my choice is the aspect of deviation
from the traditional school of poetry and the departure from the linguistic positioning that the
traditional poets have set and were known by.
While choosing the data for analysis, two main criteria were present in mind, the first one being
finding Mahmoud Darwish’s most aesthetic and stylistic divan or collections of poems in which
he mostly employed metaphor and metonymy. The second point is finding his most influential
poems which he pumped them with powerful feelings and considerable significances.
66
4.5. Data analysis
In approaching the poetic achievement of Mahmoud Darwish, I am going to rely on the
procedures provided by the linguistic and rhetorical analysis that help in questioning the
significance wrapped by the metaphor. For that, my goal is to put a bridge between the
translator’s work as a transmitter of meaning from one language into another and as an
interpreter as well, and the understanding as a structural mechanism. The practical part is going
to rely on the descriptive analytical method and the possibilities that allow it to dissect the
meaning and simplify its connotations, given that Mahmoud Darwish's poetry rises to the level
of symbolizing the world by discussing the myths that wrote the human story. It is necessary to
use the analytical method in order for us to perceive the difficulties and obstacles encountered
in the work of the translator/interpreter.
For the analysis of the selected poetic passages, I will rely on the comparative descriptive
analytical method. I will look at the poetic achievement of Mahmoud Darwish in its original
language, namely Arabic, and I will list the obstacles of this poetic discourse, these obstacles
are mainly structural, linguistic, and rhetorical. After that, I will move on to the work of the
translator and the most important question here is how to preserve the meaning and meaning of
the meaning. Because when it comes to a metaphorical poetic text that contains semantic shifts
and connotations, we cannot depend on the first meaning entirely because the poet employs a
set of rhetorical elements. These elements make you search for the meaning of meaning. So,
the adopted approach is a deductive and inductive approach, as well as analytical, descriptive
and comparative.
67
CHAPTER FIVE
Practical Chapter
5.1. Introduction
In its practical angle, my research will start from a wide range of poetic models and excerpts
related to the semantic shifts in Darwish’s divan in the name of State of siege (‫)حالة حصار‬. The
excerpts will be translated5 and then analyzed semantically as a first overlay of interpretation.
The semantic approach chosen to be applied throughout the analysis will depend on the model
mentioned previously which is the interaction theory. The second overlay of interpretation will
focus on the pragmatic aspect and I will follow the model of analysis discussed in the previous
chapter which takes the context and cultural elements into account. The present chapter will be
focusing on the following types:
5
The translation provided is mine. I opted for the literal translation to show its shortcomings as it only focuses on
finding word analogs between the two languages.
68
5.2. Metaphor and translation: what relationship?
The metaphor in Mahmoud Darwish’s poetic work is specially brewed which makes the
translator obliged to translate the metaphor so that the intended meaning is in line with the right
context. The most common type of metaphor used in Mahmoud Darwish’s poetry is explicit
metaphor in where the likened element is maintained and the likened-to element is ellipted.
Let us consider the first example of explicit metaphor which is present in the following verses6:
‫ى‬
.‫لشء هنا‬ ً َ
‫ل صدى هوميي ي‬
(There is no Homeric echo of something here)
ُ
‫نحتاجها‬ ‫تطر ُق أبوابنا ن‬
‫حي‬ ُ ‫فاألساطي‬
ُ
(Myths knock on our doors when we need them to)
‫ى‬
...‫لش ٍء‬ ً َ
(There is no Homeric echo of anything)
ْ َ ُ ‫جيال ُي َن ِّق‬
‫ب عن د ْولة نائمة‬ ‫هنا ن‬
(Here is a general searching for a sleeping country)
ْ ً
‫نقاض طروادة القادمة‬
ِ ‫تحت أ‬
(Under the rubbles of the upcoming Trojan war)
6
Verses retrieved from Darwish, 2002, p. 16.
69
The explicit metaphor used here is the speech act ‘myths knock on our doors’ where the poet
established a similarity relationship between ‘myths’ and ‘humans’. In other words, the poet
ellipted the likened-to element which is ‘humans’ and attributed their semantic features to the
likened element ‘myths’. According to the interaction theory, the word ‘myth’ comes with a set
of semantic properties which are the following:
Abstract thing
Not subject to place
Cannot perform the action of knocking
While the verb ‘knock’ has a set of semantic features present in the following definition:
Someone who repeatedly hits something producing a noise
Therefore, the apparent reading of the verse ‘myths knock on our doors’ cannot be correctly
interpreted at a first glance, but needs to be pragmatically interpreted as the poet borrowed the
features of humans who are the ones who can perform the action of ‘knocking’ and attributed
them to the word ‘myth’.
Looking back at the context that surrounds the first verse which will help us grasp the hidden
meanings portrayed by Darwish in the metaphor ‘myths knock on our doors’, we find that
Homer’s the Iliad and the Odyssey epic is employed by Darwish where he wanted to make the
myth, through the metaphor, a means towards an end. All contemporary poets, including
Mahmoud Darwish, are not assured about the present. According to them, the present contains
an anxious quality, a fleeting moment that must transcend to something to come. And what is
coming here is undoubtedly going to be a breakthrough. This is shown in the following verses
where the general is searching for a sleeping country under the rubbles of the upcoming Trojan
70
War. The Trojan war here is, as Ibn Qassmiya (2012) states, a symbol of colonialism and deceit
and this reflected in the Palestinian land which gives it an epic dimension (p. 9). Also, Ibn
Qassmiya (2012, p. 13) adds that this verse shows the enthusiastic glare coming from the poet
while using this comparison between a myth eternized by history and the epic battles happening
on this land.
Additionally, all myths contain this duality of demolition and construction, negativity and
positivity, stability and movement. For this reason, the poet always thinks of the future as in the
expression ‘the coming Trojan’, where the aspect of anticipating the future is very apparent and
important. Darwish tried, as much as possible, to bypass the current reality, the reality of
tyranny and oppression to reach a future of peace and prosperity.
َ َ
Lastly, the attribution of the verb ‘knock’ (‫)طرق‬ to the subject ‘myths’ denotes a kind of
vigilance and caution. A common expression in the Arabian culture that shows this meaning is
when Arabs say:
ً ُ ْ
‫ – طرقت عقله فكرة‬An idea knocked on his head
Also, the apparent reading of the speech act here is false as ideas do not have hands and knock
on somebody’s head but we can read the sentence as:
An idea crossed his head
Therefore, that person is described as cautious and vigilant. That is why the poet used this verb
with myths as they awaken the past or ‘yesterday’ or make it vigilant and cautious.
71
Similarly, in the following verses7, Mahmoud Darwish employed many explicit metaphors and
they are the following:
ُ ُْ
:‫ت ل ُه‬ ‫ن‬ ُ
‫ قل‬،‫جاءن األمس‬
‫ي‬ ‫كلما‬
(Every time yesterday comes to me, I say:)
ْ
‫ فلتبتعد‬،‫ليس موعدنا اليوم‬
(Our meeting is not today, go away)
َ
!‫وتعال غدا‬
(And come tomorrow!)
The explicit metaphor used here is the speech act ‘yesterday comes’ where the likened element
‘yesterday’ is maintained while the likened-to element ‘human’ is ellipted. In the same fashion
and relying on the semantic set of properties, the word ‘yesterday’ does not have the features
of moving into space. Thus, it cannot perform the action of ‘coming’. Therefore, the poet made
a comparison between yesterday and human and the linguistic clue ‘comes’ which enables us,
the readers, to identify the metaphorical expression used in the verse and to discern that
yesterday does not actually come.
Pragmatically, the poet established a relation between yesterday and the present. Through this
metaphorical expression, he showed that the present is a tragic present tainted and stained with
many setbacks. Conversely, he showed that yesterday is a reference to the glorious past, the
Palestinian past, the past of al-Quds and the past of power and pride.
7
72
So, whenever yesterday came to him, Darwish would say: “Our meeting is not today”. Because
according to the view of Darwish and many other contemporary poets, today means a period of
unrest. Hence why they do not want to live the present, but rather they always look forward the
future while remembering the triumphs of the past. Thus, today is not a day of rest but a day to
think of finding a solution to the problems and predicaments happening in Palestine, as if the
poet wanted to anticipate the future with this metaphor. And with this anticipation, the poet
built a bridge between the past and the future.
Let us consider another example. If we contemplate the poem State of siege, we find Mahmoud
Darwish saying in the following verses8:
ُ ُ ُ ‫ن‬
،‫تطي الحمامات‬ ‫تختق الطائرات‬
‫ي‬ ‫عندما‬
(When planes disappear pigeons fly,)
ُ
‫تغسل خد السماء‬ َ
.‫بيضاء‬ َ
‫بيضاء‬
(White so bright washing the cheek of the sky)
َ َ
‫البهاء وملكية‬ ‫ تستعيد‬،‫بأجنح ٍة ُح ٍرة‬
(With freeform wings, regaining splendor and ownership)
ُ ‫ أعىل وأعىل‬.‫الجو واللهو‬

‫تطي‬
(Of the atmosphere and fun. Higher and higher they fly)
8
73
The poet borrowed ‘the cheek’ and attributed it to ‘the sky’, and he made ‘the pigeons’ perform
the action of ‘washing’ through their wings, which is not from their characteristics. In order to
preserve the meaning of the poetic text, the translator needs to realize these hidden pragmatic
elements that form meaning in the poetic text. In the verses, the pigeons symbolize peace. When
the poet says that the pigeons are washing the cheek of the sky, ‘washing’ here is a sign of
washing the cheek of the sky from tears and sorrow.
According to the interaction theory which uses the semantic features framework, having a cheek
is not present in the list of characteristics of the noun ‘sky’. Similarly, the verb ‘to wash’
requires its subject to be +animate +human in order to perform the act of washing. Thus, as
long as the sky does not have a cheek nor do the pigeons have a washing capacity, it requires
us to move to a second meaning that exists in the deep structure of the poetic discourse. This
meaning is represented in the dream of putting an end to war and establishing peace and
safeness. So, instead of the warplanes that were polluting the sky and its clarity, the pigeons
became the ones that decorate the skies of Palestine. This perception indicates a time that has
not yet come, a time that the poet dreams of and seeks to achieve poetically to say the least.
Let us consider this verse9:
ُّ ُ َ
‫نحب الحياة‬ ‫عندما يصل الغد سوف‬
(When tomorrow comes we will love life)
The noun ‘tomorrow’ comes with the following set of features which define its sense:
Abstract thing
9
Verse retrieved from Darwish, 2002, p. 28.
74
Not subject to place
Cannot move
While the verb ‘come’ is represented by a set of features related as indicated:
Some living x moves or travels toward or into a place thought of as near or familiar to
the speaker
It is noticeable in the apparent reading of the sentence ‘when tomorrow comes’, that it is not
straightforwardly interpretable because the noun ‘tomorrow’ is abstract and cannot be subject
to place, while the verb ‘come’ requires its subject to be a living being to move within space.
So, in order to interpret the sentence correctly, we must find a substitute meaning that can be
similar to the literal false meaning of the expression because ‘tomorrow’ does not come by
cause of its abstract nature (i.e., cannot move within space). Thus, the sentence ‘when
tomorrow10 comes’ might be interpreted as such:
When we reach that day or that period of time
In other words, the poet borrowed the features of the ‘human’ (which is the likened-to element
of the metaphor) that is a living entity and can move in space, thus can perform the action of
coming, and attributed them to the likened element which is ‘tomorrow’.
Pragmatically speaking, the word ‘when’ (‫ )عندما‬in the verse contains a kind of deferment in
which the arrival of peace is deferred i.e., it has not come yet. The poet gave the arrival of
tomorrow a human quality, which can denote a traveler on a long road, who has not yet arrived.
10
Tomorrow obviously does not mean its literal meaning which is the day after today but rather a period of time
in the near future.
75
The metaphor here is clear because the arrival has nothing to do with the abstract nature of the
word ‘tomorrow’. But when tomorrow arrives, when there will be change, and Palestine will
be free again, then there will be relief and Palestinians will love and enjoy life with all of its
assets. Assigning the coming quality to tomorrow here is so that the reader feels that he is in
front of something realistic and tangible, and not abstract.
Another example of explicit metaphor is the speech act in the following verses11:
َ ُ َ َ
ُ َ‫األ ن‬ ُ ُ‫ن‬
‫خض‬ ‫ والشجر‬.‫والعصافي‬ .‫فناجي قهوتنا‬
(Our cups of coffee. The birds. And the green trees)
ُ ‫والشمس‬
ُ ِّ ُ َ
‫تقفز من‬ .‫الظل‬ ‫األزرق‬
(Of the blue shadows. And the sun jumps from)
َ
َ ‫آخ َر‬
...‫مثل الغزالة‬ ‫حائط نحو‬
(Wall to wall like a deer)
The speech act ‘the sun jumps’ is an explicit metaphor in which the poet made an analogy
between the nouns ‘sun’ and ‘animal’ where he omitted the likened-to element ‘animal’ and
maintained the likened element ‘sun’ and the metaphor is achieved through the lexical cue
‘jumps’. When literally looked at and according to the interaction theory, the noun ‘sun’ cannot
perform the action of jumping as the verb jump needs its subject to have the following set of
features:
11
76
Animate
Human or animal
Able to move in space
Therefore, the apparent literal reading is false and the reader here has to recognize the metaphor.
Pragmatically, the poet wanted, through the above verses and through the explicit metaphor, to
show the Palestinian identity as he is describing the Palestinian coffee, the Palestinian birds,
the Palestinian green trees and the Palestinian sun which jumps from wall to wall like a deer.
Here, all the assets described by the poet, including the sun, are reminiscent of the Palestinian
identity. The poet cleverly describes the nature of his lands as these lands are filled with fertility
and everything that makes the other long for this land and longs to live and settle there. The
poet made an analogy between the sun and a deer. Deer usually find comfort and joy when they
are in a free space. So, when they jump, it means that they feel safe and free. This imagery is
an indication that the poet wants this freedom to his lands and it may also be an indication that
these lands deserve only this freedom as pictured by the poet.
5.3. Cognitive allegory and the hidden meaning
Mahmoud Darwish does a smart job employing allegory with which he defies the usual meaning
and gives to his language a special poetic flow. This makes Mahmoud Darwish's poetry known
by its suggestiveness, intensity, focus and inclusion. Mahmoud Darwish says12:
َ ُّ ‫َُ َ ن‬
‫ التأكد ِم ْن‬:‫يعن‬
‫أن تق ِاوم ي‬
12
77
(To resist means: to make sure)
ُ
‫والخ ْص َي َت ْ ن‬ َّ
،‫ي‬ِ ‫القلب‬
ِ ‫صحة‬
(Of the health of the heart and the two testicles,)
ِّ َ
:‫المتأص ِل‬ ‫ومن دا ِئك‬
(And of your deeply-rooted disease:)
َ
ْ ‫األ‬
‫مل‬ ‫داء‬
ِ
(The disease of hope)
The poet wanted to express a meaning related to the resistance, but he linked the resistance to
making sure of the health of the heart, the two testicles and the disease of hope. This linkage
does not make harmony nor interdependence between parts of speech present in the verses at
first glance, but in this dissonance and incompatibility of meanings lies coherence and cohesion.
The resistance of the Palestinian people to the Zionist settler colonialism requires more patience
which means that the heart must bear many tragedies and sorrows in order to achieve freedom.
For this reason, Mahmoud Darwish suggested that the heart should be healthy, safe and sound.
On the other hand, in order for the resistance to continue, a good breeding quality will be
necessary so that the Palestinians continue to exist and war does not stop and interrupt their
offspring because of the many martyrs who die in the battle of resistance and freedom. As for
the disease of hope, it is a proof of that dream that must always be in the eyes of the Palestinians,
and continuing this dream is pictured like a chronic disease that never leaves its owner.
The type of allegory here is cognitive and takes the cause relationship form. If you take the
expression ‘to make sure of the health of the heart and the two testicles’, you cannot reach its
78
intended meaning unless you use your mind and cognitive abilities. You can then discern that
making sure of the health of the heart is intended to withstand the setbacks of war and resistance
more, and making sure of the health of the testicles means that the Palestinians must preserve
their offspring because the threat of death following every Palestinian who resists the Zionist
settler colonialism.
The cognitive allegory heavily relies on the attribution relationship of the verb and its subject
or object. In our case, in the verses ‘to make sure that of the health of the heart and the two
testicles’, we cannot find a logical relationship between the verb ‘making sure’ and its predicate
unless we discern the attribution made between the grammatical object and the allegorical
object. Also, the attribution is based on cause relationship because if you make sure of the health
of the heart and testicles, it will cause a better resistance and offspring to help fight the enemy.
On the other hand, when we analyze the expression ‘the disease of hope’ in the last verse, we
come across a false literal meaning as hope cannot be a disease due to the semantic properties
that come with the word ‘disease’ which are: disorder, gives symptoms, affects specific
locations of the body... etc. This suggests that if hope becomes a disease, it will become a
chronic disease. In other words, it will become aggravated in the soul of the Palestinian and
will not leave it. So, it is called an incurable disease, as if this hope can never be cut off. But in
reality, due to the severity of the disappointments that this person has experienced and the
intensity of the setbacks that he has accumulated, hope cannot find a way to him/her. That is
why the poet said ‘to make sure ... of your deeply-rooted disease: the disease of hope’, meaning
that Palestinians must be diagnosed with the disease of hope, and the disease here is a reference
to the concomitant, accompany and continuity.
From here, we conclude that the translator cannot convey the meaning of the phrase ‘the health
of the heart’ as it is. The goal behind this metaphorical expression is not the physical health of
79
the heart, but the basis here is its endurance. Thus, the intended meaning is to make the heart a
patient heart that bears setbacks and calamities and that does not soften, weaken nor break
down. Similarly, the goal behind the health of the testicles is not for them to have strong
muscles, but the basis here is the continuity of the offspring. Thus, the intended meaning is for
the man to be the reason for the continuity of the Palestinian race due to the unfortunate
aftermath caused by the resistance as it takes the lives of many martyrs every day. The literal
translation cannot encompass all of these hidden meanings and surround them, but the translator
must focus on the intended meaning and showcase it in his/her translation.
5.4. Metonymy and getting out of the conventional
It is well known that metonymy has more hiding and concealing features than metaphor because
it is related to the customs of a specific society and the way they speak. That is, if a speaker
wants to prove a meaning, he/she does not mention it directly, but chooses to use expressions
that have a near meaning so that he/she can infer and allude to the intended meaning. This
creates a kind of ambiguity and vagueness for the translator when translating a discourse
containing metonymy, especially if it is poetry.
If we consider the first few verses13 in the poem State of siege, we find Mahmoud Darwish
saying:
‫الغروب‬ َ ‫ أ‬،‫ عند ُم ْن َحدرات التالل‬،‫هنا‬

‫مام‬
ِ ِ
(Here, on the slopes of the hills, in front of the sunset)
َ ُ
،‫وف َّوه ِة الوقت‬
13
80
(And the time nozzle,)
ُ
ِّ
،‫الظل‬ ‫مقطوعة‬
ِ
َ‫ن‬
‫بساتي‬ ‫ق ْر َب‬
(Near gardens with cut shadows)
،‫ناء‬ ُّ ‫نفع ُل ما ْيف َع ُل‬

ُ ‫الس َج‬ َ
(We do what prisoners do)
َ ‫يفعل العاطلون َعن‬

:‫الع َمل‬ ُ ‫وما‬
(And what the unemployed do:)
َ ُ
.‫ن َر ر ِّ ين األ َم ْل‬
(We raise hope.)
The metonymy used by Mahmoud Darwish in these verses is the speech act ‘gardens with cut
ِّ
shadows’ (‫الظل‬ ‫مقطوعة‬ َ‫ن‬
‫)بساتي‬.
ِ It is a metonymy of an attribute as the characteristic of the
modified is absent in the speech act and referred to by something else. This metonymy denotes,
according to Ibn Youssef (2017), that the place has become bleak and arid (p. 51). Thus, this
gloomy and sorrowful imagery has so many hidden meanings related to the absence of peace,
prosperity, flourishment and well-being.
This is a metonymy for the attribute ‘drought’ because the normal state of the trees of a garden
is for them to be flourishing and growing a lot of leaves. So, if the shade is cut off from the
garden, it means that it has become without trees and leaves. Thus, it is sunny and barren. That
is due to the colonialism that caused the Palestinian lands to became, as the poet wanted to
show, with no water, nor shade nor trees as it was in the past.
81
The metonymy ‘gardens with cut shadows’ can also be an indication to the bulldozers of the
Zionist which uproot every palm tree and olive tree they could find in their way. The bulldozers’
only mission is to cause harm and destruction to the nature of Palestine. Thus, translation would
not be faithful unless the translator took under consideration the historical and cultural context
of the source text which is also referred to by ‘the memory of the text’.
Another metonymical expression used in the verses is the speech act ‘we raise hope’. It is a
metonymy of an attribute in which the poet stated the modified ‘hope’ and the characteristic
attribute ‘patience’ is ellipted but discerned through the metonymy. Hope, in the poet’s view,
can denote a child with whom you need patience for their upbringing and good care because it
is an aborted hope. It is a hope broken upon the rock of harsh reality; the reality of wars and
colonialism. All of those meanings pour into the idea of raising hope.
Hope can also be indicative of a plant, as we must take care of it and nurture it and be patient
until it flourishes and blossoms. The same applies to this hope because the conditions of life are
not suitable for this hope to get stronger and bigger on its own. In the shadow of cruelty and of
destruction, the poet refuses to be broken. The poet wants to open a window through which he
foresees a bright tomorrow; a future when Palestine will be free and hovering in the sky of
freedom.
The second example of metonymy of an attribute in the poem State of siege is when the poet
says in the verse14:
َ ْ َُ
‫المتأل ِىلء بالمدف ِعي ِة‬ ‫ال ل ْي َل ن يف ليلنا‬
14
Verse retrieved from Darwish, 2002, p. 10.
82
(There is no night in our night shinning with artillery)
The metonymy in this verse is the speech act ‘our night shinning’. The poet attributed the
characteristic ‘shinning’ to the sky of Palestine. This shine and shimmer of Palestine’s night is
due to the rockets and bombs falling on the night of Gaza and on the lands of Palestine. The
poet used this luster, through the metonymy, as an indication of the large number of missiles.
Ibn Yusuf (2017) states that by using this metonymy, the poet strengthened the intangible
meaning and made it tangible (p. 53). All of which is to make the reader close to state of war
Palestinians live every day as bullets and bombs are scattered in their skies. This image of a
busy sky or a sky sparked and glittered with bombs is usually present in Mahmoud Darwish’s
poems. In the verse I am tackling next, the image focuses on the color of the sky rather than its
glitter.
Another significant use of metonymy is existing in the following verses15:
ُّ
‫رصاصية ن يف الضح‬
َّ ُ
‫السماء‬
(The sky is leaden in the morning)
ُ
‫القلوب‬ ‫ وأما‬.‫اللياىل‬
‫ي‬ ‫برتقا َّلية ن يف‬
(And orange at nights. As for the hearts)
ً َّ
‫حيادية مثل ورد السياج‬ ‫فظلت‬
(They remained neutral like the roses of the wire fence)
15
83
The metonymical expressions here are respectively the speech acts ‘leaden in the morning’ and
‘orange at nights’. These metonymies are considered metonymies of an attribute as the poets
ellipted some characteristics of the modified noun ‘the sky’. Ibn Yusuf (2017) states that these
metonymies denote and picture the state of suffering and sorrow that Palestinians live
throughout the day (p. 51). The poet here described the color of the Palestinian sky during the
bombing. Instead of the sky being blue and clear at the beginning of the day, in the poet’s
country, it is gray by cause of the color of bullets emitted by the enemies’ guns. And instead of
the sky being dark, clear and decorated with stars, in the poet’s country, it is of an orange color.
Another metonymy of an attribute is present in the verses I discussed in the second section of
this chapter which are the following:
When planes disappear pigeons fly,
White so bright washing the cheek of the sky
The metonymy here is for the attribute ‘purity’ that describes the modified noun ‘pigeons’
which is ellipted and can be discerned through the verses. The attribute ‘purity’ contains so
many meanings and characteristic such as lucidity, clarity and serenity as mentioned by Ibn
Yusuf (2017, p. 51). All of which refers to a bright future pictured in the mind of the poet. This
is picture is when the Palestinian sky will be free of planes that throw death at weak people with
stones and at the pigeons of Palestine.
These pigeons, as Shaheen (2009) states, is a symbol of fear from the Zionists as they are
ordered to kill them (para. 18). Thus, the poet is dreaming of a day where the Palestinian sky is
purified from the planes and is revived with the beautiful pigeons that fly spreading life, beauty
and splendor. Shaheen (2009) adds that the Palestinian sky is the homeland of the quiet and
peaceful white pigeons and was never a home for planes. This is not only a dream of the poet’s
84
but also a dream that lives in the minds of all Palestinians who wish for this dream to become
a reality and for it to last (para. 18).
Let us consider another metonymy present in the following verses16:
ََ
،‫العتبات ادخلوا‬ ‫أ ُّيها الواقفون عىل‬
(O you standing on the thresholds, come in)
َ َّ َ ْ‫ى‬
‫العربية‬ ‫واشبوا َم َعنا القهوة‬
(And drink Arabic coffee with us)
َ ُ َّ َ ْ َ َْ
[‫]قد تش ُعرون بأنك ْم َب ىش مثلنا‬
([You may feel like you are humans like us])
ََ ُّ
‫البيوت‬
ِ ‫بات‬
ِ ‫أيها الواقفون عىل عت‬
(O you standing on the thresholds of houses)
‫اخرجوا من صباحتانا‬
(Get out of our mornings)
The metonymical expression in the verses is the speech act ‘standing on the thresholds’. It is a
metonymy of a modified where the poet omitted the modified noun ‘the colonizer’ or ‘the
Zionist oppressor’ and referred to it by its affinity present in the expression ‘standing on the
16
85
thresholds’. This metonymy is related to someone who is standing on a threshold of a house,
neither he is inside the house nor is he outside.
Ibn Qassmiya (2012) resembles this person as someone who is suspended and separated from
time and space (p. 12). Here, the poet, by using the metonymical expression ‘standing on the
thresholds’, means the Zionists who are standing on the thresholds of history, nor they are fully
colonizing Palestine nor are they leaving it in peace. Ibn Qassmiya (2012) adds that these
Zionists are the bad omen who imposed themselves on a nice good-hearted community and
turned their peace into distress and their harmony into discord.
On a different note, evoking the cultural context is important while analyzing metaphor and
metonymy as I established in the theoretical part of this research. Standing on a threshold of a
house, in the Arabian culture, is considered a bad omen as the one who does that stands in the
way of good and blessings (Ibn Qassmiya, 2012, p. 12). This ideological and traditional view
of Arabs is reflected in the verse through the metonymy employed as if Zionists are repelling
the good and blessings and standing in the way of Palestinian people to reach that.
Furthermore, the poets intended to repeat this metonymical expression twice in the verses to
give it more importance. As Ibn Qassmiya (2012) asserts, repetition in poetry gives a special
musicality and rhythm to the poem and it also adds other dimensions that gives value and depth
to its meanings (p. 9). The repetition of the metonymical expression ‘standing on the thresholds’
shows the poet’s call to the Zionists to leave the place which is pictured by the word ‘mornings’.
Ibn Qassmiya (2012) says that the morning here depicts the light of peace and tranquility that
were covered by those who are standing on the thresholds of the country (p. 13).
86
CONCLUSION
Concluding Chapter
6.1. Introduction
After a long run filled with investigating literature and analyzing different excerpts of
Mahmoud Darwish’s poetry following the semantic and pragmatic models of interpretation, it
is time to set back and see the outcome from a larger scope. I will start from the fact that
translation is a field that should lean on creativity as a main asset. The fact that the translator is
creative in nature means that their job is similar to the work of the interpreter. Meaning that
their work is considered as a piece of art that requires skill and craftsmanship.
As Newmark (1988) states, the skill element in translation is “to follow or deviate from the
appropriate natural usage: pragmatic and persuasive in vocative texts, neat in informative texts,
hugging the style of the original in expressive and authoritative texts” (p. 190). It is also
represented in the ability of distinguishing between right and odd usage and gauging degrees of
acceptability within a context (p. 190).
87
On the other hand, the art aspect of translation is the “contextual re-creation” as Newmark
(1988) states. He explains it by the path that the translator has to follow in order to go beyond
the text to the sub-text. It means that the translator’s main focus is to track what the writer
means rather than what he says (p. 190). In other words, going under the surface structure of
the text to look for and bring out the intended meaning that is usually scattered around many
inferences and implications.
Undoubtedly, meaning cannot be grasped without having a solid cognitive background that
enables the translator to surround the intended meanings and all of the texts significances
whether they are implicit or explicit. Especially when it comes to the poetic discourse that
always tends to have a suggestive and figurative form, as well as a deviating aspect to it
characterized by the prevalent metaphors and metonymies and other figurative devices.
Fundamentally, writing poetry is based on violating the rules and norms of the typical and
conventional linguistic usage. It is based on a peculiarity at the symbolizing level. Therefore,
the translator cannot translate any text or discourse depending on their linguistic competences
and abilities only. The linguistic competence cannot encompass all the different levels of
meaning that come with the poetic discourse and its figurative dimension. Consequently, the
translator must have an intelligence and ability to accurately analyze and interpret the semantic
shifts present in the poetic achievement in order to reach its essence and the true intent of the
poet.
6.2. Findings
The findings that I could draw out from my analysis are the following:
- The translator must rely on their linguistic competence as long as their cultural
knowledge. Culture is bound to language and vice versa, thus translating into a target
88
language requires the translator to have a deep understanding of the different ways
people of that language think and communicate. Culture is manifested in language in
many forms especially is portrayed by the use of metaphorical expressions and
specifically metonymy. Thus, while translating a piece of poetry which is loaded with
metaphors and metonymies, the translator must be familiar with those metaphorical
phenomena, thus the culture of ST.
- The translator must also rely on their experience and their cognitive, artistic and
aesthetic taste to achieve the desired effect. That is because translating a piece of poetry,
which is mainly characterized aesthetic and stylistic assets, requires the translator to be
a poet or a writer at the very least.
- The translator can never achieve a full understanding of the poem’s meaning as a whole
unless they grasp what should be grasped from the piece of poetry when it comes to
semantic shifts like allegory, hypallage, metaphor and metonymy. Whether these
metaphorical forms manifest a meaning tied to culture, a referential meaning, a
historical background or a situational context, the translator should be aware of all of
the angles that contribute to the meaning of the poem as a whole.
- The translator’s job is of twofold aspects. The first is to render the text from one
language into another. The second is to analyze and interpret the symbolic images
contained in the textlinguistic level of the poetic expressions. Thus, the translator has
two roles, the role of translation and the role of interpretation.
- Due to the general nature of the poetic imagery or the poetic imagination which can
only be suggestive, the method of translation cannot be the literal translation. Therefore,
literal translation should be avoided and the translation should rely on the pragmatic
method of translation instead. This method of translation requires two aspects, the
linguistic effort and the cognitive effort which comprises analysis and interpretation.
89
Ultimately, the question left to ask now is whether this research study has answered the
questions asked in the beginning and whether it has found solutions to the research problems
laid down in the introduction chapter. The research problems can be restated again in three main
questions: (1) Is translation an important asset in cross-fertilization and how does culture
interact with translation? (2) What is the nature of the process of translating poetry? Is
interpretation an important phase in translation? (3) Is translating poetry a purely linguistic
activity or is it a creative activity that can create a product different than the original text?
This research study attempted to answer those questions through its chapters. I can safely say
that the present study effectively surrounded the possible angles constructing those questions.
I shall start by the first question which is: Is translation an important asset in cross-fertilization
and how does culture interact with translation? This question revolves around the important
aspect of translation as a tool that brings different cultures together. I have stated different
examples of the act of bridging cultures. The most prominent ones are: Firstly, the way
translation helped in human development and interchanging ideas and cultures. Secondly, its
role in spreading religion among different cultures by translating Holy texts and scriptures.
Thirdly, its role in the typical human interactions such as translating documents, tourist
publicity and different forms of books. Lastly, its role in teaching foreign languages as
translation was the main method used in teaching and learning processes.
The second question is the following: What is the nature of the process of translating poetry?
Is translating poetry a purely linguistic activity or is it a creative activity that rely on specific
mechanisms? This question has been reformulated to fulfill the second research problem which
is intended to deal with the process of poetry translation and all of the steps that go along the
rendering of the ST. Rendering meaning is the foremost step in translation. In order for this
process to be well executed, the reliance on factors ranging from the lexicon, the grammatical
structure, the pragmatic aspect and the cultural context is mandatory. Thus, the process of
90
translation incorporates two main assets which are analysis and interpretation, both of which
require the translator to start from the textual level of the ST and transcend to the level of
pragmatic meaning.
The third and last question is as follows: is translating poetry a purely linguistic activity or is it
a creative activity that can create a product different than the original text? Diving into the
dialectic aspect of translation which consist of translating the form or meaning, is of a minor
importance. That is simply because what would make the translator choose the first path or the
second one boils down in the type of the discourse dealt with in translation. The type of
discourse chosen to be under inspection in the present research study is poetry.
Poetry, as proven earlier, is not an ordinary form of discourse. What makes is special is the
mystery and vagueness that surrounds its meanings, also the poetic imagery and imaginative
force which are all done through special tools of language. As discussed in the previous
chapters, the translator of poetry has to be a poet himself/herself. This is mainly caused by the
evasiveness used by poets as a stylistic and aesthetic choices with the help of semantic shifts
such as allegory, metaphor, hypallage and metonymy. Thus, the translator, alongside mastering
the ST and TT languages, needs to form the intended meanings in a creative and stylistic way
to help create the same poetic effect to the readers.
6.3. Shortcomings of the study
This research study was a modest contribution to the field of Arabic-English translation of
Arabic modern poetry by providing insights and details regarding the mechanisms that should
be employed in the process of translation. However, I do not claim, at any point of the research,
that it is comprehensive and surrounds every angle of the matter. It remains insufficient to be
inclusive and unable to overcome all the obstacles and problems that may encounter the process
of translating the poetic discourse in general. This opens the way for other studies to begin the
91
process of carrying out this task. Last but not least, this research study can never be the final
study in this field and can never fulfill all the requirements that every passionate about
translating poetry could be looking for.
6.4. Recommendations
Ultimately, the recommendations that can be made is that when we want to translate poetry, we
must take into account an important aspect which is the artistic and aesthetic aspect. Poetry is
based on an artistic and aesthetic characteristic, thus translation should be also be artistic and
aesthetic. When we talk about the artistic and aesthetic side of poetry, we are talking about
relativity. Therefore, poetry can only be translated by those who have been able to master the
mechanisms of interpretation, whether linguistic or logical and argumentative.
So, translating poetry does not require, by any means, a linguistic competence only. Rather, in
addition to the linguistic competence, it requires artistic, aesthetic and stylistic competences.
Thus, when embarking in a translation of a poetic text, it is as creating a new text. It is as if the
translator pours the poet’s soul into another mold through the language into which he translates.
92
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abrams, M. H. (1999). A glossary of literary terms. Earl McPeek.
Akan, F. M., Rezaul, K. M., & Chowdhury, A. K. (2018). An analysis of Arabic-English

translation: Problems and prospects. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(1),
58-65.
Al-Hajjaj, H. H. (2003). Arabic metonymy and its translation into English. Al-Balqa Journal
for Research and Studies, 10(2), 81-107.
Alwanza, R. Y. (2017). Pragmatic aspect of translation: The Interpretation-based Inference and

its implications. AWEJ for Translation & Literary Studies, 1(4), 39-51.
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. Routledge.
Bassnett, S. (2014). Translation. Routledge.
Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. New York and London:
Longman.
Burrow-Goldhahn, A. (2018, June 19). The Importance of translation studies. Retrieved from
University of Exeter: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/translation/blog/2018/06/19/the-
importance-of-translation-studies/
Catford, J. C. (1974). A linguistic theory of translation. New York, Toronto: Oxford University
Press.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Darwish, M. (2002). State of siege. Beirut: Riad El-Rayyes Books.
Dastjerdi, H. V., Hakimshafaaii, H., & Jannesaari, Z. (2008). Translation of poetry: Towards a
practical model for translation analysis and assessment of poetic discourse. Journal of
Language & Translation, 9(1), 7-40.
Emery, P. G. (2004). Translation, equivalence and fidelity: A pragmatic approach. Babel, 50(2),
143-167.
93
Galvao, G. C. (2009). Linguistic interference in translated academic texts: A case study of
Portuguese interference in abstracts translated into English.
Gholami, S., Montashery, I., & Khorrami, M. (2016). Metaphors in Arabic and English texts.
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 56-66.
Guan, J. (2009). The cognitive nature of metonymy and its implications for English vocabulary
teaching. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 179-183.
Haase, C. (2002, March 30). Understanding metaphors in everyday language. Hauptseminar

"introduction to cognitive grammar".
Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Hawkes, T. (2018). Metaphor: The critical idiom reissued. Routledge.
Hickey, L. (1988). The pragmatics of translation: Topics in translation. Multilingual Matters.
Hussein, A.-R. (2006). Arabic rhetoric: A pragmatic analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jaber, N. (2008). Translating metaphoric expressions: translating culture. J. Of College Of

Education for Women, 19(2).
Jamshidian, E., & Mohammadi, R. (2012). Translation analysis and assessment of poetic
discourse: Extratextual meaning in Persian and English. The Journal of International
Social Research, 5(21), 158-167.
Khalifa, A. A. (2015). Translation studies: Some problematic aspects of Arabic poetry

translation. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 19(1), 314-
324.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. The university of Chicago press.
Landis, H. (2022, 02 20). Metonymy: Three types and how to use them. Retrieved from
Skillshare Blog: https://www.skillshare.com/blog/metonymy-three-types-and-how-to-
use-them/
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics: The study of meaning (2 ed.). Penguin Books.
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation/history/culture. Routledge.
Levich, M. (1959, June 18). Form and content in poetry. The Journal of Philosophy, 56(13),
586-595.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Mason, K. (1982). Metaphor and translation. Babel, 28(3), 140-149.
Mcarthur, T. (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford University Press.
Mohaghegh, A., & Dabaghi, A. (2013). A comparative study of figurative language and
metaphor in English, Arabic, and Persian with a focus on the role of context in
94
translation of Qur’anic metaphors. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research,
3(4), 275-282.
Nabati, F. (2021, April 15). Semantic shifts in translation: Deviating from the original language
or reflecting the norms of the target language. Retrieved from Aleph:
https://aleph.edinum.org/3848?lang=en#
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. (2001). Approaches to translation. Pergamon Press.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1982). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge
University Press.
Tisgam, K. H. (2014). Translating poetry: Possibility or impossibility? J. Of College Of

Education For Women, 25(2), 511-524.
Venuti, L. (2000). The translation studies reader. Routledge.
Zibin, A., Altakhaineh, A. M., & Hussein, E. T. (2020). On the comprehension of metonymical
expressions by Arabic-speaking EFL learners: A cognitive linguistic approach. Topics
in Linguistics, 21(1), 45-61.
.‫ جماليات الصورة الشعرية عند محمود درويش قصيدة "حالة حصار" نموذجا‬.)2017( .‫أسماء بن يوسف‬
.)‫ الحقول الداللية في قصيدة "حالة حصار" لمحمود درويش (دراسة داللية‬.)2015( .‫حسينة عشي‬
:‫ تم االسترداد من صحيفة ال ُمثقف‬.‫ قراءة في معلقة "حالة حصار" للشاعر محمود درويش‬.)2009 ,07 11( .‫ذياب شاهين‬
-https://www.almothaqaf.com/qadayaama/qadayama-09/2917--q-q
.04 ،‫ مجلة قراءات‬.‫ محمود درويش‬:‫ قراءة سيميوأسلوبية في ديوان "حالة حصار" ل‬.)2012( .‫رشيد بن قسمية‬
95
‫‪APPENDICES‬‬
‫‪.‬قصيدة حالة حصار ‪Passages retrieved from:‬‬
‫)‪Appendix 1 (page 9‬‬
‫الغروب‬ ‫هنا‪ ،‬عند ُم ْن َحدرات التالل‪ ،‬أ َ‬

‫مام‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ُ َ‬
‫وف َّوه ِة الوقت‪،‬‬
‫ُ‬
‫ِّ‬
‫الظل‪،‬‬ ‫مقطوعة‬
‫ِ‬
‫نَ‬
‫بساتي‬ ‫ق ْر َب‬
‫ناء‪،‬‬ ‫نفع ُل ما ْيف َع ُل ُّ‬

‫الس َج ُ‬ ‫َ‬
‫يفعل العاطلون َعن َ‬

‫الع َمل‪:‬‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫وما‬
‫َ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫ن َر ر ِّ ين األ َم ْل‪.‬‬
‫ُْ‬
‫بالد عىل أه َبة الفجر‪،‬‬
‫رصنا أ َق َّل ً‬
‫ذكاء‪،‬‬
‫َ َّ ُ‬
‫حملق ن يف ساعة النض‪:‬‬
‫ُ‬ ‫ألنا ن‬
‫‪96‬‬
‫َ‬ ‫َُ ْ‬
‫المتأل ِىلء بالمدف ِعي ِة‬ ‫ال ل ْي َل ن يف ليلنا‬
‫َ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫أعداؤنا يسهرون‪،‬‬
‫ُ‬
‫عداؤنا ُي ْشعلون لنا َ‬
‫النور‬ ‫وأ‬
‫َ ْ‬
‫ن يف حلكة األقبية‪.‬‬
‫ُّ‬
‫رصاصية ن يف الضح‬
‫َّ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫السماء‬
‫ُ‬
‫القلوب‬ ‫اللياىل‪ .‬وأما‬
‫ي‬ ‫برتقالية ن يف‬
‫َّ‬
‫َّ ً‬
‫حيادية مثل ورد السياج‬ ‫فظلت‬
‫**‬
‫ُ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ن‬

‫ه الوقت‬
‫يف الحصار‪ ،‬تكون الحياة ي‬
‫ن ُّ‬
‫بي تذكر أ َّولها‬
‫ونسيان آخرها‪...‬‬
‫ى‬
‫لشء هنا‪.‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫َ‬
‫ُ‬
‫نحتاجها‬ ‫تطر ُق أبوابنا ن‬
‫حي‬ ‫فاألساطي ُ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ى‬
‫لش ٍء‪...‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫َ‬
‫ْ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫جيال ُي َن ِّق ُ‬

‫ب عن د ْولة نائمة‬ ‫هنا ن‬
‫‪97‬‬
‫ْ‬ ‫ً‬
‫نقاض طروادة القادمة‬
‫ِ‬ ‫تحت أ‬
‫ََ‬
‫العتبات ادخلوا‪،‬‬ ‫أ ُّيها الواقفون عىل‬
‫َّ َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ىْ‬

‫العربية‬ ‫واشبوا َم َعنا القهوة‬
‫َ َّ ُ َ‬ ‫َْ َ ْ‬
‫]قد تش ُعرون بأنك ْم َب ىش مثلنا[‬
‫ََ‬ ‫ُّ‬
‫البيوت‬
‫ِ‬ ‫بات‬
‫أيها الواقفون عىل عت ِ‬
‫اخرجوا من صباحتانا‪،‬‬
‫َّ‬ ‫نَّ‬
‫نطمي إىل أننا‬
‫ُ‬ ‫َ‬
‫َب ىش مثلك ْم!‬
‫ُْ ُ‬
‫ت ل ُه‪:‬‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ُ‬
‫جاءن األمس‪ ،‬قل‬
‫ي‬ ‫كلما‬
‫ْ‬
‫ليس موعدنا اليوم‪ ،‬فلتبتعد‬
‫َ‬
‫وتعال غدا!‬
‫**‬
‫قال يىل كاتب ساخر‪:‬‬
‫َ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫لو عرفت النهاية‪ ،‬منذ البداية‪،‬‬
‫ُّ َ ْ‬
‫لم َي ْب َق يىل َع َمل ن يف اللغة‬
‫‪98‬‬
‫ُ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ن‬

‫تطي الحمامات‪،‬‬ ‫تختق الطائرات‬
‫ي‬ ‫عندما‬
‫ُ‬
‫تغسل خد السماء‬ ‫َ‬
‫بيضاء‪.‬‬ ‫َ‬
‫بيضاء‬
‫َ‬ ‫َ‬
‫البهاء وملكية‬ ‫بأجنح ٍة ُح ٍرة‪ ،‬تستعيد‬
‫الجو واللهو‪ .‬أعىل وأعىل ُ‬

‫تطي‬
‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ُ‬

‫السماء‬ ‫بيضاء‪ .‬ل ْيت‬ ‫بيضاء‬ ‫الحمامات‪،‬‬
‫ْ ن‬
‫قنبلتي[‪.‬‬ ‫َّ‬
‫حقيقية ]قال ىل رجل عابر ن‬
‫بي‬ ‫ي‬
‫َ ً‬ ‫ُنح ُّ‬
‫ب الحياة غدا‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ُّ‬ ‫َ ُ‬
‫نحب الحياة‬ ‫عندما يصل الغد سوف‬
‫ْ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫كما ِ َ‬

‫ه‪ ،‬عادة ماكرة‬‫ي‬
‫ًَ‬ ‫َّ ًّ‬

‫رمادية أو ُمل َّونة‪،‬‬
‫ْ‬ ‫َ‬
‫آخ َرة‪.‬‬
‫ال قيامة فيها وال ِ‬
‫َ‬
‫وإن كان ال ُبد من ف َرح‬
‫ُ‬
‫فليك ْن‬
‫َْ‬ ‫ً‬
‫والخارصة!‬
‫ِ‬ ‫خفيفا عىل القلب‬
‫ِّ ُ‬ ‫ُْ َ ُ ُ ْ‬
‫المتمرن‬ ‫المؤ ِم ُن‬ ‫فال يلدغ‬
‫‪99‬‬
‫من َف َرح‪َ ...‬م َّرَت ْ ن‬
‫ي!‬
‫ْ َ ُّ‬
‫ُ‬
‫الحصار‬ ‫َس َيشتد هذا‬
‫ْ‬
‫ُليق ِن َعنا‬
‫ودي ٍة ال َت نُ ُّ‬
‫ض‪،‬‬ ‫باختيار َع ُب َّ‬
‫ِ‬
‫ْ‬ ‫ْ‬
‫ولكن بحري ٍة كاملة‬
‫**‬
‫ُّ َ‬ ‫َُ َ ن‬
‫يعن‪ :‬التأكد ِم ْن‬
‫أن تق ِاوم ي‬
‫ُ‬
‫والخ ْص َي َت ْ ن‬ ‫َّ‬
‫ي‪،‬‬‫ِ‬ ‫القلب‬
‫ِ‬ ‫صحة‬
‫ِّ‬ ‫َ‬
‫المتأص ِل‪:‬‬ ‫ومن دا ِئك‬
‫َ‬
‫األ ْ‬
‫مل‬ ‫داء‬
‫ِ‬
‫َ َ ُ َ‬
‫األ نَ ُ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫نُ‬
‫خض‬ ‫والعصافي‪ .‬والشجر‬ ‫فناجي قهوتنا‪.‬‬
‫والشمس ُ‬
‫ُ‬ ‫ِّ‬ ‫َ ُ‬
‫تقفز من‬ ‫الظل‪.‬‬ ‫األزرق‬
‫َ‬
‫آخ َر َ‬
‫مثل الغزالة‪...‬‬ ‫حائط نحو‬
‫الشكل‬ ‫والماء نف ُّ‬

‫الس ُح ِب الالنهائية‬ ‫ُ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ي‬
‫ىَّ‬
‫تبق لنا من سماء‪،‬‬ ‫ن يف ما‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫َ ُ‬ ‫ُ ُ‬
‫وأشياء أخرى ُمؤ َّجلة الذكريات‬
‫تدل عىل أن هذا الصباح ٌّ‬

‫قوي ٌّ‬
‫به‪،‬‬ ‫ٌّ‬
‫ي‬
‫َ ْ‬ ‫َّ‬
‫وأنا ضيوف عىل األبدية‪.‬‬
‫‪101‬‬

Translation of Semantic Shifts in Arabic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Translation of Semantic Shifts in Arabic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translation of Semantic Shifts in Arabic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abdelmalek Essaadi University

Faculty of Letters and Humanities

Translation of Semantic Shifts in Arabic Poetry

A thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Under the supervision of

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Mehrach

Academic Year: 2021/2022

Members of the MA thesis Committee:

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Mehrach (Supervisor)

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Khalil Ennasiri (MTSL)

Prof. Dr. Adnan Ajana (MTSL)

the so-called intended meaning.

Keywords: [translation impediments; Arabic modern poetry; semantic shifts; suggestiveness;

meaning; meaning of the meaning]

throughout my research work to complete the research successfully.

friendship, empathy and guidance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... iii

1.1. Research topic ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Statement of research problem ................................................................................... 2

1.3. Research aims ............................................................................................................. 3

1.4. Research design .......................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Translation and problems aroused in its process ........................................................ 6

2.1.1. Translation and its importance ............................................................................. 6

2.1.2. The process of translation .................................................................................. 10

2.1.3. Analysis of ST meanings.................................................................................... 13

2.1.4. Problems hindering the process of translation ................................................... 15

2.2. Peculiarity and translatability of poetic discourse.................................................... 17

2.2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 17

2.2.2. Poetry, translatable or not? ................................................................................. 18

2.2.3. Difficulties in translating Arabic poetry ............................................................. 21

2.3.2. Metaphor translation .......................................................................................... 25

2.3.3. Metonymy translation ........................................................................................ 27

2.3.4. Other shifts in translation ................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................. 34

3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 34

3.2. Metaphor categories in English & Arabic ................................................................ 34

3.2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 34

3.2.2. Metaphors in English ......................................................................................... 35

3.2.2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 35

3.2.2.2. Structural metaphor ..................................................................................... 35

3.2.2.3. Orientational metaphor ............................................................................... 36

3.2.2.4. Ontological metaphor.................................................................................. 37

3.2.2.5. New metaphor ............................................................................................. 37

3.2.3. Metaphor in Arabic (allegory)............................................................................ 38

3.2.3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 38

3.2.3.2. al-Majaz al-lughawiy (linguistic allegory).................................................. 39

3.2.3.2.1. al-Istiaarah (metaphor) .......................................................................... 39

3.2.3.2.2. al-Majaz al-mursal (hypallage) .............................................................. 43

3.2.3.3. al-Majaz al-aqliy (cognitive allegory)......................................................... 49

3.3. Metonymy categories in English & Arabic .............................................................. 52

3.3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 52

3.3.2. Metonymy in English ......................................................................................... 53

3.3.2.1. Referential metonymy ................................................................................. 54

3.3.2.2. Predicational metonymy ............................................................................. 54

3.3.2.3. Illocutionary metonymy .............................................................................. 55

3.3.3. Metonymy in Arabic .......................................................................................... 55

3.3.3.2. Of a modified .............................................................................................. 56

3.3.3.3. Of an affinity ............................................................................................... 57