Running head: Source VS Target Language 1

Source VS Target
Language: Contrastive Semantic Insights in Search for Common Grounds

Name:
Year:
Affiliation:
Source VS Target Language 2
Source VS Target Language 3

Table of Contents
Chapter 1.....................................................................................................................................................3
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3
1.1 The history of lexicography of English and Arabic.............................................................................3
1.2 history of Dictionaries and Thesauruses............................................................................................4
Chapter 2: Pragmatic and translation of English and Arabic........................................................................5
2.1 Semantics and Pragmatics.................................................................................................................5
2.2 Translation of English pragmatic and semantics to Arabic.................................................................5
2.3 Classification of Words......................................................................................................................7
Chapter 3: Contrast between Arabic and English languages regarding meaning and translation...............9
3.1 Translation.........................................................................................................................................9
3.2 The semantic translation.................................................................................................................10
3.3 Polysemy..........................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Semantics of translation..................................................................................................................12
Chapter 4: Semantic fields in Arabic and English.......................................................................................13
4.1 Translation hypothesis.....................................................................................................................13
Chapter Five: Problems in translation.......................................................................................................17
5.1 Meaning and Origin.........................................................................................................................17
5.2 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................22
References.................................................................................................................................................24
Source VS Target Language 4

Chapter 1
1.0 Introduction
There are languages which are spoken or used in different varieties. There

are several approaches which have been discovered regarding the distinction of

the different ways of making the dictionary. These approaches are either

alphabetical or the thesauruses (Kirkness, 2006).

1.1 The history of lexicography of English and Arabic

Arabic and English have been regarded to use all these approaches while in

the essence of preparing their dictionaries in the process of lexicography and each

of them has different aims that are attributed to them. In the boundaries of each

language that is to say English and Arabic, the approaches used or applied may

happen to undergo various and distinct trends, for instance, the arrangements

that are followed while making or implementing the art of lexicography.

There is a need for distinguishing between the trends of preparing the

dictionaries which are written in both languages that are Arabic and English.

While implementing these various trends, the basis of explanation of the

differences between the two languages is followed and adopted. In order to

archive and make successful implementation, there is a need for making a critical
Source VS Target Language 5

account for these approaches while compiling the dictionaries so that the art of

lexicography can happen to be successful (Kirkness, 2006).

1.2 history of Dictionaries and Thesauruses

While formulating their languages, whenever they used to fail to

understand the word in their languages, they could ensure that they acquire the

meaning from a foreign language.

It is mainly reflected on the basis of pronunciation, orthography,

etymology, syntactic class, inflection and meaning of the information being

conveyed. There is an approach of onomasiological whereby the classification and

of some words into other useful and meaningful concepts have been

implemented and used based on the cultures. These two influential approaches

have been used in all the languages and in their lexicography artworks and

dictionaries. There will be scrutiny that will be made towards these approaches in

accordance to the way of focus and implementation in schools of languages or

trends that identify the two independent languages regarding the forces and

efforts of lexicography (Kirkness, 2006).

Source VS Target Language 6

Chapter 2: Pragmatic and translation of English and Arabic

2.1 Semantics and Pragmatics
Translation combines both pragmatic and culture problems most especially

when the languages that are targeted are attributed to various different cultures

and languages. A translator needs to be well versed with the pragmatics and

semantics of both English and Arabic.

It is very difficult to distinguish semantics from pragmatics. Semantics refers

to the study that is attributed to the analysis of meaning. When we talk about

meaning, it is paramount to acknowledge the use of context due to the aspect of

studying pragmatics. Scholars also happen to describe pragmatics as the analysis

of meaning in regard to the speech situations.

2.2 Translation of English pragmatic and semantics to Arabic

Most of the translators and students in linguistic schools happen to

translate English utterance and semantics into Arabic as ‫لغتي في "دالالت‬

‫ طفولة صنعت اسما جديدا في الترجمة‬/ ‫"طفولتي‬. While translating the utterance

of semantics and pragmatics of English and Arabic, the linguistic students will

happen to translate mother tongue word by word. Sixty percent of the linguistic

students happen to apply the words such as ‫ لغتي األم ولغتي‬while applying in

their translation of semantics and pragmatics of Arabic and English. The above

utterance will be made as follows

Source VS Target Language 7

‫لغتي األم يمكن أن تربط كلمتين معا فتكتهم‬

‫ا بيبتكل لساني وأنا صغيرة جعلني اسماء الفظ م‬

‫عا في شكل لسان ثنائي اللغة في ثقافتي لقد جعلتهم اسما جديدا هو بيب‬

The application of literal linguistic translations happens to describe the

linguistic student’s inability towards linking of the linguistic factors and the texts.

That is the linguistic utterance and also the intentions of the speaker. Forty

percent of the linguistic students happen to translate the Arabic utterance

focusing or basing on how they happen to pronounce their names. For instance,

the student happened to pronounce the word tongue as ‫ نطق‬instead of

translating it like ‫لساني‬,

This can easily be explained in the flowing statement

‫ منذ طفولتي‬.‫ كان نطق االسم صعبًا جدًا باستثناء بيبي‬، ‫في طفولتي‬

، ‫ لم يكن اسمي اسمي ولم أتمكن من إدارة اسم أقل من‬Bebkan.

‫من المعقول بالنسبة لي في طفولتي أن ينطق كال االسمين معًا‬.

There are two different systems that are thought of while arranged the

entries that are applied in the English dictionaries. These systems include the
Source VS Target Language 8

alphabetical systems and also the thesaurus system. They are sometimes referred

to as semasiological and onomasiological systems. The alphabetical system has

got the ability to bring together the glossaries and also the vocabularies that have

been extended and made towards the intended lists that happen to enlarge and

broaden the knowledge of the context of the words and vocabularies used. So all

these issues have been brought and combined together to be applied while

arranging the dictionaries alphabetically. This could manage to ease the allocation

of the words and also other than when the alphabet has not been used in the

works of lexicography for the linguistic dictionaries. The main reason for arranging

these linguistic lexicography dictionaries alphabetically has been seen to be more

of creating an easy reference to the used acronyms in the dictionaries (Kirkness,

2006).

2.3 Classification of Words

When these classified words were collected and recorded on a piece of

paper, there was a formulation of vocabularies. This ended up making the initial

form or category of a thesaurus. While addressing the same issue from a different

perspective, there was a trial of creating a universal language which will be used

and applied by the major philosophers. English was regarded as a philosophical

language by john Wilkins which is one of the pioneer founders of the royal society
Source VS Target Language 9

for improving natural knowledge. This was made basically basing on the essence

of application of English words. John Wilkins based on mainly the scheme of

classification while making the developing English as the philosophical language

whereby all the words were which were used in the English language were

catered for in the lexicography dictionary and can easily be found by the

philosophers. Take an example of the section of “on measure”, all the related

numbers and measurements in terms of words and numeric were included. The

related quantities and whereby individuals have applied them while judging the

capacities and also the measurement multitudes have been all styled up in

relation to the name of measure. John Wilkins managed to categorize the related

quantities by just mere mentioning of the unit and the universal word of measure.

The language of Arabic managed to get the chance to start dominating right

from its commencement of the compilation of various dictionaries. Many of these

compiled dictionaries of Arabic languages had protective purposes. They also had

the academic purposes which were attributed to them. The outstanding number

of dictionaries were compiled for the particular single language and this ensured

that the dictionary possesses various procedures as well as principles while being

compiled. This condition would affect the criteria or the process of how the

dictionary was compiled and classified. There are various schools of Arabic
Source VS Target Language 10

lexicography which have a historic account which devoted the review of these

typologies (Kirkness, 2006).

Chapter 3: Contrast between Arabic and English languages

regarding meaning and translation.

3.1 Translation
Translation is concerned with the exchange of the linguistic properties and

units than the mere words from English to Arabic and vice versa. I order to

transfer these linguistic properties and units, there will be need for translating the

whole sentence units in order to form meanings. However there two types of

meanings such as conative meaning and donative meaning. There are some

examples of cognitive meanings such as

1. He was amazed with the view of disposing off his car

‫كان مهووسا بفكرة بيع سيارته‬

2. Everyone was amazed by his idea of disposing off his Peugeot

‫عليمهووسا بفكرة بيعسيارته بيجوكان‬

3. No comment

‫نتعلى حق تمام‬
Source VS Target Language 11

These above examples happen to describe the translated meaning of each

sentence and hence becoming the easy to adopt and understand the meaning of

these two contrastive languages that is to say Arabic and English.

3.2 The semantic translation

The semantic translation problems stemming from ambiguity and

semantic restrictions (homonymy, polysemy and oligosemy)

Translation of English to Arabic is affected or made complicated by the

sematic restrictions and ambiguity caused by the lexical relations such as the

Polysemy, Oligosemy and homonymy. For example:

Homonymy allows for the interpretation of a single word in many forms

which can confuse the understanding of the word into the target language.

Therefore, the translator has to put more effort in order to perceive how the

ambiguity of the sentences or words occurs to clearly understand the meaning of

the ambiguous sentences or words. For example, the word ‘ear’ can be used to

refer to the organ used in hearing, and also can mean the cereal’s seed-bearing

part. These words are of the same sound, form and spelling but differs in the

meaning. So to bring out the intended meaning of the word, the translators

requires to listen and perceive the all sentences before giving out the meaning.
Source VS Target Language 12

3.3 Polysemy
Some words in linguistic have patterns of distinctions however they appear

to be of the related sense of lexeme. For example, a word mouth has various

connotations such as mouth of the river, mouth of the bag, mouth of a human

being, and also mouth of the cave. These kind of words makes the work of

translation to bring about the intended meaning difficult especially when they

have no sentences accompanying them.

Oligosemy. This is restricted to few meanings other than having many

meanings or one/single meaning. Oligosemy presents the ambiguity in the

process of translation in that; some verbs are less in some languages as compared

to the target language (from English to Arabic or from Arabic to English).

There are various typologies which have been proposed since the beginning

of the second century. There was the identification of how wealth Arabic

language was in regard to this respect. There was a brief chronological order that

was attributed to the typologies of the schools of these dictionaries that will be

implemented to be met. The main purpose of implying to the Arabic typology

includes the basic characteristic which engaged the arrangement of the Arabic

dictionaries. Basing on these characteristics, there were five language schools

which were recognized. The very first school was alphabetically oriented, and the
Source VS Target Language 13

remaining four schools were belonging to the rubric that was associated with the

semasiological or the thesaurus orientation. In this context, there will be a need

for focusing on each school as an individual that has been named by in the leading

dictionary. There are two influential matters that need to be taken care of. The

first matter was the naming of each school in the leading dictionary excluding the

very first school that was alphabetically oriented. This was because of the various

reasons were attributed to a due place. The second school was given due

consideration due to the real chronological order.

3.4 Semantics of translation

Translation has a congruent effect and in highly inflected language such as

Arabic, the matching input phrases which have reasonable precision would be

hard to capture and presumably achieve. It requires optimal parallel corpus.

However, in this context, the principle consideration against these phrases also

reminds us of the prospect regarding synonyms and single-word phrases. The

experimental consideration indicates that verbs by and nql are considered on the

basis of the semantic equivalents. It also provides the ideal construction that

presents vital point of reference that regards sentences with varying ranges of

actions and therefore, based on the overall meaning, the ideal situation only

provides particular range of broadcast that is within a critical level of focus. The
Source VS Target Language 14

principle coverage therefore represents an intensive principle about sentence

formation but within the experimental support framework. The comparable

documents considered texts have varyingly changing sources in the Arabic

context, but also presents a new framework that aid the process cycle itself which

exhibits proportionate change. The example-based machine translation (EBMT)

system provides a model that exploits bilingual corpus but also exhibits additional

range of matched fragments. It has also based on the input-source language text

also known as the Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) whose functionality relies on

additional extraction obtained from a collection of sentence-aligned, parallel

unvocalized Arabic-English. The actual system is non-structural while notable

explanations about the linguistic features are such that its foundation is based on

example-based paradigms.

Chapter 4: Semantic fields in Arabic and English

4.1 Translation hypothesis
This is an active hypothesis in translation and linguistic that every in every

language, there is a unique semantic structure just as it is when it comes to

grammatical and phonological structures (Lyons, 1997). This can reach an extent

to which the language meanings may not be brought to a one on one

communication with the ones in another language, and therefore, we will say that
Source VS Target Language 15

both the two languages are no isomorphic in terms of semantics, that is to say,

the semantic structures of the two languages are different. Usually, the measure

of semantic isomorphism among languages can be considered to be relying on the

existing overlap amount in the cultures of the societies that use such languages.

Therefore, we will draw a table with less or more of the same semantic

features like those used in the English and we will plot them into no lexicalized

expressions and Arabic lexemes, due to the fact that the semantic features

between the English and Arabic languages don’t differ that much. The results that

will come out of such an exercise will not be that significant.

Instead, what we shall, have to do, is to try and contrast the semantic field

in Arabic and English in terms of the lexical gaps or the lexemes contained.

Therefore, our hope is that semantic mapping will help establish how the

semantic space is divided into each of the two languages. The verb that we will

start with for the lexeme “execute” and “kill”, the ones in Arabic are equal i.e.

“assassinate” and “murder”, however, in Arabic, only one equivalent is used. This

cancel and obscures the meaning of the semantic features that can differentiate

between the two lexemes in English:

We shall start with the verbs.

Source VS Target Language 16
Source VS Target Language 17

Arabic English

‫يقتل‬ kill

‫يعدم‬ execute

( murder )

‫يغتال‬ (assassinate)

For the lexemes of English “ human beings “butcher (v.), (human beings)

“slaughter”, including, “massacre”. in Arabic, there are some lexical gaps i.e. the

Arabic lexemes to refer to what is referred to in English by single lexemes don’t

exist. Instead, in Arabic, the meanings of these lexemes are conveyed by non-

lexical expressions. Therefore, what we have are:

Arabic English

(‫يرتكب مجزرة ومذبحة‬ (slaughter)

(butcher)

( massacre)

In the “killing” (nouns) field, some lexical gaps can also be found in the

Arabic language. In the English language, the semantic areas that are conveyed by
Source VS Target Language 18

lexemes “slaughter, butchery, and massacre” represented by two Arabic lexemes,

which are synonymous. Therefore, what we have are:

Arabic English

(‫)مذبحة مجزرة‬ slaughter

massacre

butchery

The analytical semantic feature that can be used to differentiate between

the sense of these lexemes in Arabic can be very difficult, especially when these

lexemes serve as nouns in the English language. Obviously, the problems that can

be created by such cases are formidable for the translator, which is going to see in

the subsequent section.

Chapter Five: Problems in translation

5.1 Meaning and Origin
As it generally accepted, the fundamental translation principles stipulate

that the original meaning of the original text has to be reflected by the translated

text. There is nothing that can be removed and added arbitrarily, although, in

some situations, there may be some transpositions in the meaning, that is to say,

translation with another order (Duff, 2003).

Source VS Target Language 19

Usually, the option that many translators will look up to is the translation

counterparts found in bilingual dictionaries, especially, when they are attempting

to translate texts across various languages. In the case of Arabic and English, this

can be quite unsatisfying, given the fact that bilingual dictionaries can be

rendered useless when it comes to handling semantic fields in a multitude of

cases: the accuracy is compromised. Let’s take a closer look at the semantic fields

in Arabic and English, the degree of confusion with which Arabic – English

dictionaries handle the differences and similarities between the Arabic and

English field members is quite surprising. For example, in the “looking field”, the

problems of translation in this field are so easy to notice. In these filed members,

the translational definitions provided by various bilingual dictionaries are

inconsistent, in addition to being confusing. This case is presented in the table

below:

Source Arabic English

( p. 539 ) - Al-Mawrid ‫ينظر؛ يحدق بدهش‬ look

Dictionary
( p. 446 ) Oxford Word ‫ينظر‬

Power
( p. 181 ) - Aljazeera ‫ينظر؛ يبصر‬
Source VS Target Language 20

Dictionary
( p. 382 ) - Al-Mawrid ‫يحدق؛ يتفرس في‬ gaze

Dictionary
( p. 315 ) - Oxford Word ‫يحدق‬

Power
( p. 120 ) - Aljazeera ‫يحدق؛ يحملق‬

Dictionary
(p. 901) - Al-Mawrid ‫يحدق؛ يتفرس في‬ stare

Dictionary
( p. 732) - Oxford Word ‫يحملق؛ يتفرس‬

Power
( p. 328 ) - Aljazeera ‫يحملق؛‬ ‫يحدج‬

Dictionary
( p. 389 ) - Al- Mawrid ‫يلقي نظرة عجلى على يلمح؛‬ glance

Dictionary
( p. 323 ) - Oxford ‫يلمح‬

WordPower
( p. 121 ) - Aljazeera ‫يلمح‬

Dictionary
( p. 390 ) - Al-Mawrid ‫؛ يلمح يلقي نظرة خاطفة على‬ glimpse

Dictionary
( p. 324 ) - Oxford Word ‫يلمح‬
Source VS Target Language 21

Power
( p. 122 ) - Aljazeera ‫نظرة خاطفة يلمح؛ يلقي‬

Dictionary
( p. 668 ) - Al-Mawrid ‫يحدق؛ ينعم النظر الى‬ peer

Dictionary
( p. 547 ) - Oxford Word ‫يحدق؛ ينظر مليا‬

Power
( p. 233 ) - Aljazeera ‫يحدق؛ ينظر مليا‬

Dictionary
( p. 389 ) - A-Mawrid )‫يحدق (مغضبا‬ glare

Dictionary
( p. 323 ) - Oxford Word ‫ينظر شزرا‬

Power
( p. 121 ) - Al-Jazeera ‫ينظر شزرا؛ يبهر؛ يحملق‬ gape

Dictionary
( p. 379 ) - Al-Mawrid ‫يحدق فاغرا فاه‬

Dictionary
( p. 314 ) - Oxford ‫يفغر (فمه‬

WordPower
( p. 119 ) - Aljazeera )‫يتثاءب يفغر(فمه‬

dictionary
Source VS Target Language 22

According to the analysis above, it is very clear that the lexemes’ full

meanings have not been captured by al the dictionaries when it comes to the

“looking” semantic field. In addition, the translations given by these dictionaries

are very confusing. The accuracy is lost due to the fact that a significant number

of differentiating semantic features of the field have been neglected. The same

translation is provided for the two lexemes “stare and “gaze” all the dictionaries

listed above. This will, therefore, mislead the reader and then translated into

thinking that such lexemes are English synonyms ‘‫يحدق ؛ يحمل‬. This case is also

similar to the lexeme’s “stare” and “gaze”, which are also provided the same

translations according to the dictionaries listed above. Both of the English

lexemes are translated to Arabic as “)‫’يلمح ؛ يلقي نظرة عجلى (خاطفة‬. For translators

who are less tolerant of errors, this can be very confusing, especially when

translating the semantic fields of English to Arabic. Both Aljazeera and Oxford

Word power provide “ ‫ ’يفغر فمه‬as the paraphrase for the “gape” lexeme in English,

missing out on the most significant semantic feature that can be found in the

“gape” meaning. Things are even worsened by Aljazeera dictionary when it gives ‘

‫ ’يتثاءب‬for the English lexeme “gape”, this comprises accuracy due to the fact that ‘

‫ يتثاءب‬has no relationship with the English lexeme “gape”

Source VS Target Language 23

5.2 Conclusion
According to many translators, linguists, and others, it is impossible to bring

the linguistic field semantics in Arabic and English into a one – on one association.

Therefore, an alternative approach to the translations of the meanings of the

lexemes in semantic fields across Arabic and English languages is necessary. The

basis for this approach would be contrasting the semantic fields Arabic and

English languages, instead of differentiating the “atomistic units”, which have to

association with one another. According to this paper, the lexicon of a natural

language is considered to be a network of relations between semantics instead of

combination of secluded items that can be translated as micro-units of semantics.

Source VS Target Language 24

References
Hanks, P. (2007). Onomasiological and Semasiological Lexicography: Past, Present,

and Future, via www.patrickhanks.com

Kirkness, A. (2006). 'Lexicography', in A. Davis and C. Elder

The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Kirkness, A. (2006). 'Lexicography', in A. Davis and C. Elder (eds.) (2006)

The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Murray, J. A. H. (1900). The Evolution of English Lexicography. Oxford the

Clarendon Press

Saeed, J. (1997). Introduction to semantics. Oxford Blackwell.

George, Y. (1996). Pragmatics. Widdowson linguistics

Catford, J. (1996). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Linguistic translators