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

net/publication/339314329

Papers in Arabic-English Translation Studies 3

Book · February 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,864

1 author:

Mohammed Farghal
Applied Science Private University
151 PUBLICATIONS 1,043 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Farghal on 17 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Papers in Arabic/English Translation
Studies 3

The Deposit Number at

The National Library
i
2018/4/1662
 820.92
Farghal, Mohammed
Papers in Arabic/English Translation Studies 3 - Mohammed Ali Farghal -
Amman: Dar Fadaat for Publishing and Distribution, 2018
Descriptors: /English Literature//Translated Literature//Modern Age/

* National Library Department prepared indexing and classification data.

* Author bears legal responsibility for the content of his work and this
book does not reflect the opinion of the National Library Department
or any other government agency.

Copyright © Fadaat 2018.

ISBN: 978-9923-716-16-8

First Edition: 2018

Papers in Arabic/English Translation Studies 3 – Mohammed
Farghal - Jordan
All rights reserved
Dar Fadaat for Publishing and Distribution - Main Branch
Jordan - Amman - King Hussien Street
Tele: +962 6 4650885- Mob: +962 777 911 431
P.O Box: 20586 Amman 11118 Jordan
E-mail: Dar_fadaat@yahoo.com
Website: http://www.darfadaat.com
Cover Designed by: Fadaat for Publishing and Distribution
________________________________
The opinions expressed in this book do not necessarily represent the
opinion of the publisher.
________________________________
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photo
print, microfilm, or any other means without
a written permission from the author.

ii
Papers in Arabic/English Translation

Studies 3

Mohammed Farghal

iii
iv
To the Memory of my Late Colleague

Professor Abdullah Shunnaq

v
vi
 Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank my former as well as my present
colleagues and graduate students at Yarmouk University (Jordan) and
Kuwait University (Kuwait). They have been a source of inspiration for
me over the years and have contributed to this volume both directly and
indirectly. Several of them are now university professors of Linguistics
and/or Translation Studies in Jordan and elsewhere. My thanks also go to
Professor Raja'i Khanji of University of Jordan (Jordan), Professor Omar
Atari of Petra University (Jordan) and Dr. Mohammed Didaoui (formerly
a UN International Expert and Researcher in Translation and
Terminology) for kindly agreeing to write blurbs for this volume. Finally,
I am grateful to my MA student Bushra Kalakh for proofreading the
manuscript and writing a blurb.

vii
viii
 Table of Contents

Pages
Dedication v
Acknowledgements vii
Preface xi
List of Abbreviations xiii
List of Phonetic Symbols xv

1. A Schema-Theoretic Model of Literary 1-14

Translation

2. Two Thirds of a Boy are his Uncle’s: Lost 15-27

in Translation

3. Word-for-Word or Sense-for-Sense 28-37

Translation: Ruminating the Age-long
Polemics

4. Extrinsic Managing: Translatorial 38-59

Ideological Moves

5. Lexical Aspects of Schemata in 60-67

Translation

6. Cohesion and Coherence: Textual 68-90

Issues in Arabic/English Translation

7. Arabic Euphemism: A Translational 91-107

Perspective

8. Arab Fatalism and Translation from 108-119

Arabic into English

ix
9. Arabic Cognate Accusatives: A Translational 120-141
Account

10. Non-generic English Negation: A Problematic 142-175

Area for Arabic Translators

11. The Function of qad in English-into-Arabic 176-192

Translation

12. Modality in Arabic Constitutional 193-212

Discourse: A Translational Perspective

References 213-236

x
 Preface
This third volume in the series of Papers in Arabic-English Translation
Studies consists of 12 self-contained articles dealing with a variety of
topics in Arabic/English TS. The aim (as in the first volume and second
volume) is to bring together and update a number of scattered
contributions in one volume, which is again hoped to instigate more
future volumes in a scantily researched area. Such a series can further
help in catering for the needs of students, researchers, and practitioners
who usually experience difficulty in locating research dealing with
Arabic/English TS and is also hoped to make general references in TS
more relevant to their work between Arabic and English. The reader (as in
the first two volumes) can choose to read any article independently of the
others according to his/her own interests. Where employed in this volume,
square brackets indicate literal translation, which is meant to give a rough
idea about the propositional content of some Arabic texts. Boldface
typing is sometimes used to highlight the study items within the textual
data or, alternatively, to highlight entire excerpts in some cases. The
textual data is mostly given in Arabic script and sometimes along with
transliteration. To avoid repetition in the bibliography, a unified list of
references is provided separately at the end of the volume.

The bulk of the textual data in this volume is drawn from published
translation material. The material includes a variety text types/genres
including the literary, the religious, the journalistic, the scientific, the
legal, etc. The main objective is to explore how professional translators
(and student translators in few cases) deal with different aspects of
translation activity in the hope of offering insights relating to the
procedures they employ and how successful these procedures are. As in
the first two volumes, the discussion of the textual data does not seek to
offer final solutions but rather to engage the reader in a kind of critique
that would help establish what we may call ‘translational argumentation’
which aims to link theory with practice in a coherent way.

xi
xii
 List of Abbreviations

TS Translation Studies
SL Source Language
TL Target Language
ST Source Text

TT Target Text

xiii
xiv
 List of Arabic Phonetic Symbols

/b/ voiced bilabial stop

/m/ bilabial nasal
/f/ voiceless labio-dental fricative
/ð/ voiced interdental fricative
/ð/ voiced interdental emphatic fricative
/ө/ voiceless interdental fricative
/d/ voiced alveolar stop
/t/ voiceless alveolar stop
/ḍ/ voiced alveolar emphatic stop
/ṭ/ voiceless alveolar emphatic stop
/z/ voiced alveolar fricative
/s/ voiceless alveolar fricative
/ṣ/ voiceless alveolar emphatic fricative
/n/ alveolar nasal stop
/r/ alveolar rhotic liquid
/l/ alveolar lateral liquid
/š/ voiceless alveo-palatal fricative
/j/ voiced alveo-palatal affricate
/y/ palatal glide
/w/ labio-velar glide
/k/ voiceless velar stop
/ɤ/ voiced uvular/post velar fricative
/x/ voiceless uvula/post velar fricative
/q/ voiceless uvular stop
/‘/ or /c /voiced pharyngeal fricative
/ḥ/ voiceless pharyngeal fricative
/’/ glottal stop
/h/ voiceless laryngeal fricative
/i/ high front short vowel
/u/ high back short vowel
/a/ low half-open front-to-centralized short vowel
/ii/ high front long vowel
/uu/ high back long vowel
/aa/ low open front-to-centralized long vowel
/ee/ mid front long vowel
/oo/ mid back long vowel

xv
xvi
 A Schema-Theoretic Model of Literary Translation

Abstract
This paper attempts to formalize a schema-theoretic model to explain
what happens in literary translation. Based on a schematic comprehension
of a ST and a corresponding schematic ideation of a TT, the study
discusses four types of schemata in literary translation: culture-free,
culture-bound, culture-sensitive, and language-bound schemata. It is the
dynamic interaction and the successful fit between schematic
comprehension in SL and schematic ideation in TL that determines how
cohesive and coherent the TT will be.

1. Text Comprehension
Over the years, reading theorists have been trying to explain how readers
may comprehend smoothly (or by implication fail to comprehend) a
diversity of texts affiliating with variegated social contexts and different
disciplines. In this regard, schema theory emerges as a robust mechanism
that enables us to see how text comprehension is a function of activating the
reader’s existing schemata such that schematic relatedness between texts
and readers becomes a determining factor. A schema, according to
Rumelhart (1980), is “a data structure for representing the generic concepts
stored in memory”. These concepts, which represent the reader’s
experiences as well as past and potential relationships, are evoked by the
printed word in reading (McNell, 1992). Schematic knowledge is made up
of content and formal schemata. The language user’s background
knowledge about the subject matter of various texts represents his/her
content schemata. By contrast, formal schemata comprise the language
user’s knowledge about formal, rhetorical, and organizational structures of
different types of texts. Examples of formal schemata include those for
poems and advertisements (for further information, see Anderson et al.,
1977; Steffensen, et al., 1979; Meyer & Rice, 1982; Carrel, 1983, 1987;
Grabe, 1991; Block, 1992; Wallace, 1992; Day and Bamford, 1998; Nuttal,
2000; Nist and Holschuh, 2000). In addition, there are lower level schemata
which represent sentence structure, grammatical inflections, spelling and
punctuation, vocabulary, and cohesive structures (Cohen, 1994).
In this way, schemata furnish cognitive harbors where text
comprehension evolves. Carrel (1983:200) writes, “Meaning does not just
reside in the text, rather meaning is constructed out of the interaction
between a reader’s activated background knowledge [i.e. existing schemata]
and what’s in the text.” On this theory, schemata are analyzed in light of

1
three parameters: familiar vs. novel schemata, contextualized vs. non-
contextualized schemata, and lexically transparent vs. lexically opaque
schemata (for further details, see Anderson et al., 1977; Reynolds et al.,
1982; Carrel, 1987; Shakir and Farghal, 1991; Farghal, 2003).
Schemata are held to perform three major functions: to activate
socio-cultural knowledge, to fill the gaps in the text, and to establish
meta-cognition (Schank and Abelson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1984; Steffensen
et al., 1985; and Casanave, 1988, among others). The effective and
relevant functionalization of schematic knowledge, therefore, leads
readers to interpret texts appropriately. Their interpretation involves the
ability to work out a discourse topic (Giora, 1985), in which a cognitive
rapport is established with one proposition or a set of propositions. The
cognitive rapport results in text coherence which, according to Brown and
Yule (1983:225), is based on three factors: calculating the communicative
function (how to take the message), utilizing general socio-cultural
knowledge, and determining the inferences to be made.
The decoding of a text’s import is a function of optimal relevance,
which is triggered by the successful interaction between the reader and
the text and, subsequently, results in producing cognitive effects (Gutt,
1996). These cognitive effects constitute a touchstone for the process of
text comprehension and, in the final analysis, will herald a change in the
reader’s encyclopedic knowledge. The reader’s failure to integrate the
text’s import into his/her world knowledge (i.e. failing to make the text
optimally relevant) represents the antithesis of text comprehension or,
simply, a failed comprehension enterprise. In a general theory of human
learning (Ausubel, 1968), successful text comprehension manifests itself
in meaningful learning where cognitive relatability and subsumption are
major processes, whereas minimal or no comprehension at all affiliates
with rote learning in which arbitrary relations predominate.

2. Text Ideation in Translation

Text comprehension, which is an intralingual activity, must be followed
by text ideation in the Target Language (TL) during the translating
process, which is an interlingual activity. This interlingual feat involves
essentially the cognitive and linguistic re-encoding of the Source
Language (SL) text in the TL. At first glance, the cognitive code may be
argued to be a constant in interlingual communication because the
propositions that comprise the meaning/content of a text are held to be
universal. However, on a closer examination, we soon discover that the
alleged constancy is apparent in nature, due to the fact that it is the reader
2
who brings coherence (i.e. assigns meaning) to the text and,
consequently, reconstructs the cognitive code of the SL text in light of
his/her schematic interpretation of any given text. As a result, the same
text may receive different interpretations from different readers. This
potentiality, which is essentially a function of existing schemata and the
multi-layerdness of texts, especially literary texts, accounts for the
presence of differing text ideations in translation.
Despite this dynamic nature of texts, it should be borne in mind
that not all texts are multi-layered or potentially ambiguous. In fact, a
large number of the texts that we encounter on a daily basis receive
single, straightforward interpretations. In such cases, one can speak of the
constancy of the cognitive code in translation. That is, the SL text may
tolerate one interpretation only which duly receives one text ideation in
the TL. Consequently, the cognitive code can be adequately described as
a pseudo-constant in translation activity.
The pseudo-constancy of the cognitive code contrasts sharply with
the clear variability of the linguistic code. The translator’s ability to vary
the linguistic code gives rise to many types of translation equivalence
including cultural (Casagrande 1954), situational (Vinay and Darbelnet,
1958), dynamic (Nida, 1964), formal (Catford, 1965), textual (Dijk,
1972), functional (Waard de and Nida, 1986), and ideational (Farghal,
1994), among others. Text ideation in the TL may be argued to be a
function or correlate of contextual factors such as text-type, author, and
audience, which should constantly inform the translator’s option for one
rather than another type of equivalence. This functional interpretation of
equivalence in terms of contextual factors has given rise to a more
liberated, and probably more realistic, view that considers the output of
translation activity as ‘interpretive resemblance’ rather than ‘translation
equivalence’ (Gutt, 1996).
The tug of war between Form and Content, or what Newmark
(1988) calls ‘semantic’ and ‘communicative’ translation, will always be a
bone of contention in translation studies. To Hatim and Mason (1991), the
translator in this situation is faced with what amounts to a conflict of
interests. In their words (p. 8) “The ideal would of course be to translate
both form and content, without the one in any way impinging on the
other. But many would claim that this is frequently not possible.” Not
only in interlingual communication is the complete rendition of form and
content often impossible, but this is also the case in intralingual
communication, where stylistic variation bears witness to discrepancy in

3
form. But, after all, who would ever dare claim total translation if total
communication were ruled out within the same language.

3. Literary Translation
Despite the recent giant steps made by translation studies in broadening
the scope of translation activity to cover a plethora of text types or genres,
literary translation was and still is a foundation stone in the history of
translation. In fact, the fresh emergence of Translation Studies as a branch
of Applied Linguistics counts only as a robust rival, but by no means a
replacement, for the traditional view that translation practice is part of
Comparative Literature and Literary Criticism. Without taking sides, we
regard literary translation as a key genre in translation and a well-
established emblem of translation scholarship.
The special status of literary translation stems from the fact that
literature represents the optimal use of language, where content and form
become inextricably inseparable, unlike other genres in which form may
be neutralized at varying degrees. Thus, literary texts presuppose a kind
of aesthetically-oriented discourse in which its formal elements (i.e. the
linguistic code), in addition to its thematic elements, are actually
communicated by the author to the reader (for more details, see
Burkhanov, 2003:135-145). This inherent feature of literary texts led
Adams (1973:10) to conclude “… all the choices open to (the translator)
are in various ways and for various reasons impossible. The choice is
simply between different ways of murdering the original”. The state of the
art is not as gloomy as is suggested by Adams. However, it remains true
that the formal density of literary texts along with their ability to
communicate a richness of ideas, feelings and impressions will always be
a rock-hard hurdle in literary translation (see Gutt, 1996 for more on this).
The present paper argues that the establishment of a schematic
rapport between the translator and the literary text, both in terms of
content and formal schemata, is the key to opening up avenues that will
lead to workable translations (for a more general discussion, see Farghal
1999, Farghal and Al-Masri in Farghal et al 2015). In this respect, Pajares
and Romero (1997:291) write, “The literary text activates in the reader a
series of mechanisms which allow him to recreate the world which is
presented before his/her eyes. In this way, the work of art arises from the
convergence between text and reader”. For theoretical as well as practical
reasons, the evolving schematic rapport between text and reader will be
broken down into feeding and interactive components which make up a
schematic model of literary translation, as it is diagrammatically

4
illustrated in (4) below. Then, the paper will proceed to present authentic
literary data to support the constructs in the model.

4. The Model
Below is a diagrammatic representation of a schema-theoretic model of
literary translation:
Translation Activity
(Viewed as interpretive resemblance
rather than translation equivalence)

Text Comprehension in SL Text Ideation

(Decoding Schematic Activity) (Encoding Schematic Realization)

1. Culture-free schemata
2. Culture-bound
schemata
3. Culture-sensitive
schemata
4. Language-bound
schemata

Text Production
(TLT)

Cohesion Coherence

Optimally Partially Seriously Optimally Partially Seriously

Cohesive Cohesive Incohesive Coherent coherent Incoherent

5
 The model above shows that literary translation, which is regarded
as a matter of interpretive resemblance rather than translation equivalence
(Gutt, 1996), consists of text comprehension in SL and text ideation in
TL, which both involve schematic activity. These processes optimally
interact with four species of schemata: culture-free schemata, culture-
bound schemata, culture-sensitive schemata, and language-bound
schemata. This interaction results in the encoding of a Target Language
Text (TLT). The textuality of the TLT (i.e. the output of translation
activity) can be judged in terms of cohesion (which resides within the
text) and coherence (which dwells in the reader’s mind). In this way, a
translation can be optimally cohesive and/or coherent, partially cohesive
and/or coherent, or seriously incohesive and/or incoherent. It should be
noted that text coherence might behave similarly in all types of texts,
though at a richer degree in literature, as a result of the multi-layeredness
of literary discourse, which usually gives rise to multiple interpretations
or what Gutt (1996) calls ‘weak implicatures’ as opposed to ‘strong
implicatures’, which constitute the hallmark of texts produced in non-
literary or ordinary language. However, cohesion in literary texts,
especially in poetry, often departs in significant ways from cohesion in
non-literary texts, with the aesthetic component including language
density, rhyme and meter functioning as significant cohesion types in
discourse (for more on cohesion in general, see Halliday and Hasan,
1976).

5. Discussion
As can be seen from the model above, the main component of activity in
literary translation is represented by the interaction between text
comprehension and text ideation on the one hand and the four species of
potential schemata on the other. The following pages will shed light on
the nature of these schemata while we bear in mind that these species of
schemata may coincide, especially in poetry, thus pushing to the forefront
features such as rhyme, meter, parallelism and wordplay that may
otherwise be of little significance or relevance in other genres.

5.1 Culture-free Schemata

Culture-free schemata are those cognitive structures whose thematic
elements can be worked out on the basis of universal principles stemming
from general human experience (for a more elaborate discussion, see
Farghal, 2004). In other words, the message/import encapsulated in the
culture-free schema will be straightforwardly translatable and
6
subsequently interpretable by the members of any human culture, other
things being equal. To illustrate this point, two self-contained lines of
poetry from two celebrity medieval Arab poets, Al-Mutanabbi and Al-
Rundi respectively, are translated into English couplets below
(Translations of excerpts are mine unless otherwise specified). Such lines
are often cited by educated Arabs as wisdom exemplars:

‫تجري الرياح بما ال تشتهي السفن‬ ‫ما كل ما يتمنى المرء يدركه‬

You cannot obtain all that you crave
For winds often blow a ship to its grave
‫فال يغر بطيب العيش إنسان‬ ‫لكل شيء إذا ما تم نقصان‬
Decline begins once perfection obtains
Pride yourself not on luxury gains

It is assumed that a literate native English speaker with average

intelligence can readily understand the messages communicated in the
English translations above. This ability is an immediate consequence of
falling back on universal principles to apprehend culture-free schemata
that are part of general human experience. Moreover, the target reader is
expected to appreciate the aesthetic dimension of the translation as
represented by rhyme, meter and parallelism, which account for optimal
density of the texts. Based on our model, therefore, the two translations
may be considered as optimally cohesive and coherent in English. On the
one hand, the coherence of the translations is derived from general human
experience (i.e. culture-free schemata). On the other hand, the special
cohesion of the texts (i.e. poetic cohesiveness) is based on language-
bound formal schemata, which are derived from the available poetic
resources in English. These resources function as viable cohesive features
that may be invoked as workable counterparts to formally different Arabic
poetic features.
To observe a deficit in poetic cohesiveness, below are prose
English renditions of the texts above, respectively:

- Not everything that one desires can be achieved

Winds often blow against the want of ships

- Decline of a thing begins once perfection arrives

Never pride yourself on luxury livelihood
7
 The two translations above maintain density and parallelism, but
they destroy the syllable structure and rhyme of the last word in the
hemistich, which are major resources of poetic cohesiveness. It should be
noted that these prose or quasi-poetic renditions, while being more
faithful to the SL texts, succeed, just like the poetic renditions earlier, in
relaying the culture-free schemata in the Arabic texts. The deficit,
therefore, owes to the failure to capture some formal features of poetic
cohesiveness.

5.2 Culture-bound Schemata

Culture-bound schemata represent cognitive structures that are available
in one culture but partially or completely missing in another. This
schematic mismatch often calls for translation strategies including
definition, substitution and lexical creation (for more on this, see Ivir
1991). For example, the SL may contain a schema that runs counter to
certain beliefs in the TL. Confronted with this situation, the translator
usually abandons the SL objectionable schema in favor of an amiable one
in the TL by having recourse to a cultural substitute (Larson, 1982).
Below is an extract from Shakespeare’s King Henry VI (p.76), along with
its excerpted Arabic translation, cited in Aziz (1999:43):

Pucelle: Lo, whilst I waited on my tender lambs,

And to sun’s parching heat displayed my cheeks,
God’s mother deigned to appear to me.
‫ عندما كنت أرعى غنمي‬:‫بوسل‬
‫و حر الشمس يلفح خدي‬
.‫تنازلت العذراء و ظهرت لي‬

As can be seen, the SL schema that represents a thought-world in

which ‘God has a mother’ is replaced with a TL thought-world where
“God’s mother” becomes ’al-‘aðraa’ (the Virgin) in a culture that does
not accept the blasphemous schema of ‘God having a mother’, which is a
worldly attribute that fits human beings, but not Allah. Notably, this
culture-bound schema involves a partial rather than a complete referential
gap (Dagut 1981), since the schema of Virgin Mary is shared by the two
cultures. The translator has done well by employing the congruent schema
of ‘the Virgin’ instead of the alien schema of ‘God’s mother’.

8
 Sometimes, the translator fails to relay a culture-bound schema,
being obsessed by faithfulness to the SL text. Below is an English
translation of a Quranic verse by Arberry, vol. 2 (1980:37):

Prosperous are the believers, who in their prayers are

humble, and from idle talk turn away, and at almsgiving
are active, and guard their private parts save from their
wives and what their right hands own.

The reader can readily observe how transparent and smooth the
culture-free schemata (i.e. believers being humble in their prayers,
avoiding idle talk, being active at almsgiving, and private parts) are. By
contrast, he/she will notice how opaque and awkward the literally
translated culture-bound schema (i.e. ‘what their right hands own’ for
‘slave girls/women’) is. The option for literal translation in relaying
culture-bound schemata often causes irreversible damage to the coherence
of the TLT (for an elaborate discussion of TL reader responses in this
regard, see Farghal and Al-Masri, in Farghal et al. 2015).
Finally, we turn to fiction to see how the translator’s inability to
handle a culture-bound schema can damage the coherence of the TLT. In
his translation of Abdul-Rahman Munif’s mudin-il-malḥ: taqaasiim-il-
layl wan-nhaar, 1992 (Cities of Salt: Variations on Night and Day, 1993),
Peter Thereoux translates the Arabic proverb өilөeen ’il-walad la-xaaluh
as ‘Two thirds of a boy are his uncle’s’. The fictitious encounter involves
the citation of this proverb by one of the characters to claim more
influence for maternal kinship than paternal kinship on children.
Unfortunately, the English translation obliterates this culture-bound
schema by neutralizing the distinction between the Arabic lexemes ‘am
‘paternal uncle’ and xaal ‘maternal uncle’ in a context where the
discrepancy constitutes the relevant message.
The TL reader will definitely fall prey to the incongruence brought
about by a rendition that does not cohere with the surrounding co-text and
context. Following are some target reader responses (American native
speakers’ responses) to the English translation above in its context
(reported in Farghal, 2004):
- Family is everything.
- Apples don’t fall far from the tree.
- A boy learns from his family around him.
- People trust their uncles.
- People follow their masters, etc.
9
 In the best of worlds, the above English native speakers’ responses
befog the intended message by the Arabic proverb and consequently, on a
closer examination, render the TLT seriously incoherent. This
incoherence is an immediate consequence of replacing the culturally
determined, specific role of maternal kinship with a universally
determined, general role of family relatedness in the context of the
formation of children’s future behavior.

5.3 Culture-sensitive Schemata

Culture-sensitive schemata, I believe, differ from their culture-bound
counterparts by the fact that they reflect susceptibility rather than
uniqueness to the SL culture. This distinction is significant in translation
activity because culture-sensitive schemata, unlike culture-bound ones,
call for, and often necessitate, literal translation as a standard translation
procedure. Literal translation is needed in order to capture the message or
import while preserving SL creative figures of speech that involve local
references. Such local references usually enter into fresh semantic
relations that are initiated by the writer and are met by the approval and
appreciation of the SL audience. Consequently, the translator will do well
by transferring these creative paradigms and/or syntagms into the TL, an
act that will most likely contribute to the enrichment of the TL’s
aesthetics and semantics. Below is a couplet from the Iraqi poet Badr
Shakir Al-Sayyab, along with a suggested English translation used as an
illustrative example:

‫عيناك غابتا نخيل ساعة السحر‬

‫أو شرفتان راح ينأى عنهما القمر‬
Your eyes are two palm orchards
as the day breaks,
Or two balconies wherefrom
the moon sneaks.

The couplet involves a culture-sensitive schema, i.e., the metaphor

comparing the addressee’s eyes to orchards of palm trees at daybreak, and
a culture-free schema in which the addressee’s eyes are likened to two
balconies experiencing the moon slipping away from them. Both
schemata are recoverable successfully from the English literal translation,
but arguably at different degrees of processability. That is, the cognitive
load of the culture-free schema will be smoothly processed because it is
unmarked, being part of general human experience, whereas the culture-
10
sensitive schema features a marked component (i.e. palm orchards) that
will call for a higher degree of processing on the part of the TL reader.
The marked component represents a local reference that is not part of
general human experience; rather, it belongs to certain cultures, the Arab
culture in general and the Iraqi culture in particular in our example.
However, other things being equal, the fact that this local reference enters
into sense relations with universally familiar items renders it interpretable
in translation, regardless of how fresh such relations are.
Let us now consider another example excerpted this time from
fiction, namely from Le Gassick’s translation ‘Midaq Alley’ (1975) of
Najeeb Mahfouz’s novel ziqaq al-madaq (1912 ):

“Oh yes, I could find many (potential husbands) but the fact is that you are a
rotten matchmaker who merely wants to hide her failure. What’s wrong with
me? Just as I said, you are a failure and you only go to prove the saying: ‘It’s
always the carpenter’s door that’s falling apart’.” (p. 23)

In this encounter, the daughter is blaming her foster mother, who

is a matchmaker, for helping others find husbands but failing to help her
own daughter in this regard. To emphasize her point, she cites a culture-
sensitive proverb, that is, ‘It’s always the carpenter’s door that’s falling
apart’ (corresponding to the Arabic proverb baab-in-najjaar mxalla‘).
Looking at the translation above, the TL reader, exerting extra cognitive
processing, can bring coherence to the text by relating the culture-
sensitive schema encapsulated in the proverb to the larger culture-free
schema in the surrounding discourse, i.e., matchmaking and kinship
schema.

5.3 Language-bound Schemata

Language-bound schemata represent formal linguistic features that
coincide, per chance, with content schemata, thus interlocking form and
content in aesthetic, subtle ways. Typical examples of language-bound
schemata include wordplay and rhyme, which are features that rarely
correspond between remote languages such as English and Arabic. Below
is an excerpt from Hamlet, along with its Arabic translation by J. I. Jabra,
which is extracted from a strained dialogue between Polonious and
Hamlet:

Polonious. (Aside) Though this be madness, yet there is

method in’t. (To Hamlet) Will you walk out

11
 of the air, my lord?
Hamlet. Into my grave?
Polonious. Indeed, that’s out of the air….

‫ (لهاملت) هل لك في أن تخرج من‬.‫ لكنه جنون بأسلوب‬،‫ ان هذا جنون‬:)‫بولونيوس (جانبا‬

‫ يا موالي؟‬،‫الهواء‬
‫ إلى قبري؟‬: ‫هاملت‬
... ‫ حقا ذلك خارج عن الهواء‬:‫بولونيوس‬

As can be seen, the translator’s option to capture the wordplay

literally results in a breakdown in the TLT coherence. Thus, the Arabic
rendition cannot make sense because the SL formal resources (i.e. the two
instances of the lexeme ‘air’), which are wittingly and meaningfully
employed by Shakespeare, cannot be literally relayed in Arabic with
comparable contextual imports. To do so, the translator should have fallen
back on Arabic formal resources to create similar aesthetics and subtlety.
Below is a suggested rendition along these lines:

‫ (لهاملت) هل لك أن تفسح الطريق يا‬.‫ لكنه جنون بأسلوب‬،‫ ان هذا جنون‬:)‫بولونيوس (جانبا‬
‫موالي؟‬
‫ و أنسل الى قبري؟‬:‫هاملت‬
...‫ تلك فسحة حقا‬:‫بولونيوس‬

The suggested translation both maintains the coherence of the

dialogue and improvises meaningful wordplay in Arabic. The Arabic
wordplay involves the verbal collocation yafsaḥ ’aṭ-ṭariiq (to give way)
and the colloquial sense of the noun derived from the verb fusḥah (a
break). This wordplay coherently approximates but does not replicate the
language-bound schema in the SL.
Another illustrative example of language-bound schemata will be
drawn from classical Arabic verse, namely one of Al-Mutanabbi’s poem
openers:

‫لك يا منازل في القلوب منازل‬

‫أقفرت أنت وهن منك أواهل‬

‘Lit. You, (forsaken) homes, occupy (high) ranks in our hearts.

You have become deserted but still dwell in our hearts.’

12
 Besides rhyme, meter and parallelism, the Arabic verse above
employs polysemy as a resource of poeticness, that is, the Arabic lexeme
manaazilu in the first hemistich means ‘homes’ in the first occurrence but
‘ranks’ in the second occurrence. This polysemy-based schema is doomed
in translation, for English does not possess a corresponding polysemous
lexeme. The loss of this formal schema, however, is not fatal because the
utilization of other English resources creates comparable aesthetics and/or
poeticness, which is capable of making up for the loss, as can be
illustrated in the suggested English couplet below:

You, abandoned home, lie high in our deeps

And our house rises higher as, forsaken, it sleeps.

6. Conclusion
The present paper counts as an attempt to formalize a schema-theoretic
model of literary translation. The model is based on an interactive process
between encoding schematic realization in TL, which is supposed to
mirror decoding schematic activity in SL, and four types of schemata
consisting of culture-free, culture-bound, culture-sensitive and language-
bound schemata. This dynamic interaction culminates in the production of
a TT, the output of translation activity. The TT is subsequently received
by a readership and will, in effect, be gauged in terms of cohesion and
coherence in its new socio-cultural environment. The success or failure of
the translation ultimately depends on how much cohesive and coherent
the TLT will be in its new habitat in the target culture.
Within literary genres, poetic discourse is shown to optimize the
importance of language-bound schemata wherein formal features such as
rhyme and meter may override other types of schemata that emphasize
content features in order to furnish poetic cohesiveness, which grants
poetry its legitimacy in the first place. Existing translation practice,
however, shows a tug of war between verse and prose translation of
poetry. Whereas the aesthetic features representing poetic cohesiveness
are given priority in the former, fidelity and coherence are given
prominence in the latter, apart from some formal features. The model in
this paper shows how taxing the former option can be in the heat of
improvising comparable aesthetic features in the TL. Practically, this calls
for the translation of poetry by poet translators, which is only infrequently
achievable. Though a compromise, translating poetry into prose receives
its legitimate recognition from the existence of formidable problems.

13
 Apart from poetic cohesiveness, literary translation involves a
plethora of features that range between culture-free and culture-bound
schemata. While a literal translation of culture-free schemata is feasible
on the basis of universal principles, culture-bound schemata call for a
more functionally-oriented approach in translation. Halfway between the
two categories, culture-sensitive schemata seem to allow ample room for
the translator’s creativity which will, ultimately, help establish fresh
norms in the TL.

14
 Two Thirds of a Boy are his Uncle’s:
Lost in Translation

Abstract
The present paper is an attempt to show that translation activity is a
matter of translating what is contextually relevant in terms of source text
and audience, and ignoring what is contextually irrelevant. Successful
intralingual communication is essentially dependent on the receiver’s
recognition of the sender’s communicative intention with reference to
optimal relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1986). However, interlingual
communication may create ample room for what may paradoxically be
called ‘camouflaged relevance’, where a deviant rendition may prove
ostensibly relevant to the target reader insofar as providing new
information and establishing an apparent linkage with the ST in question
are concerned (Gutt 1996). This means that reader-oriented translation
relevance should be taken with utmost care to avoid far-fetched
interpretations which may arise from either understating or overstating the
intended message, whether consciously or subconsciously. The empirical
data in this study shows that translation relevance is rooted in universal,
functional, and culture-bound principles.

1. Background
The principle of relevance underpins human communication in a general
sense. When humans engage in communication, they are guided by
relevance in their selection of verbal and non-verbal features in any given
situation. For instance, when a conversant compliments another on her
blue eyes, the presence of the relevant non-verbal feature, i.e. the blue
eyes, is a pre-requisite for such a compliment to occur. Other things being
equal, it would be absurd to compliment someone on her having blue eyes
when her eyes are conspicuously black, for instance. Likewise, the
selection of an utterance that can perform the speech act of
complimenting is verbally constrained, i.e. the speaker has to choose a
phraseology that may conventionally and/or potentially perform the
illocutionary force of complimenting rather than, for example, that of
condoling. Thus relevance, stemming from both verbal and non-verbal
features, constitutes the axis to which the wheel of communication is
hinged.
Similarly, translation activity, being a form of communication, is
guided by the principle of relevance in a general sense. However, the fact
that translation, unlike intralingual communication, is constrained by a

15
Source Language Text (SLT) poses different kinds of problems insofar as
relevance is concerned.
Whereas relevance in intralingual communication is assumed to
reflect directly the intentions of interactants in terms of form and function,
relevance in interlingual communication raises the thorny issue of
equivalence (Nida 1964, Catford 1965, Ward and Nida 1986, Perez 1993,
and Farghal 1994, among others). Perez (1993:158), for example, talks
about three approaches to equivalence : “The first depends on whether the
translator is faithful to the author of the source text or, alternatively, to the
reader of the target rendering; the second approach, which is more
precise, is influenced by linguistics, paying attention to the units of
equivalence; the third, being more culturally and socially rooted, is based
on the polysystems.”
Functional approaches have pointed out the central role of
rendering the SLT author’s intentions in achieving equivalence in
translation. Accordingly, the translator is supposed to capture the
intentions of the writer as reflected in the SLT. Newmark (1988:5) views
translation as “Rendering the meaning of a text into another language, in
the way that the author intended the text.” (Italics mine) Nida and Taber
(1982:1) believe that “Correctness must be determined by the extent to
which the average reader for which a translation is intended will be likely
to understand it correctly.” Correctness here correlates with how a given
feature in the translation reflects the meaning of the original, or more
precisely, the intentions of the author.
The relevance theoretic approach to translation, as put forward by
Gutt (1991), claims that equivalence is a misleading concept. Instead of
equivalence, we can talk about optimal resemblance between SLT and
TLT (Target Language Text). Naturally, bringing out the intentions of the
SLT in the TLT constitutes a determining factor in achieving relevance in
translation and, in effect, adequate comprehensibility of the translation by
the target reader. In this way, the relevance theoretic approach is not at all
so different from functional approaches.
Relevance in human communication is viewed as a correlate of
two conditions: providing some new information and establishing a ‘link-
up’ between new information and already existing information, thus
jointly bringing about ‘contextual effects’ or a change in one’s ‘cognitive
environment’, i.e., one’s awareness (Gutt 1996: see also Sperber and
Wilson 1986). However, one may think of examples in which relevance
can obtain, independently of new information. The contribution of
customer in the following exchange, for instance, may be thought of as

16
relevant in a context where the creation of humor or laughter is the main
objective, despite the fact that it does not provide any contextually new
information.

(Waiter) : Can I get you anything to drink ?

(Customer) : Naturally, everybody drinks.
(adapted from Renkema 1993:18)
Consequently, it can be argued that the two conditions may
logically converge on the provision of useful information, where
‘usefulness’ is not only meant to capture ‘newness’ and ‘connectedness’,
but also to accommodate a metalogical dimension in human interlocution,
where a superimposed human contrivance, such as the generation of
humor in the above example, becomes a relevant feature. It should be
noted that the generation of humor here is anchored to the speaker being
relevant via his/her ability to furnish useful information rather than mere
new information.
The interaction between usefulness and contextual effects
becomes more intricate in translation activity, where the target reader may
judge a segment relevant in a way that diverges drastically from the
meaning intended by the SLT, i.e. s/he receives relevant information –
which is not relevant according to the original author’s intentions.
Whereas this problem can be overcome by repair strategies in intralingual
oral communication, it becomes serious in a world where a target reader
and a translation engage in an encounter in which repair techniques play a
small role. In a study by Farghal and Al-Masri in Farghal et al 2015, the
majority of a group of American English native speakers interpreted in
seriously distorted ways some translations of Quranic verses that involve
referential gaps. For instance, junuban (having semen on oneself) and
faṭṭahharuu (bathe your bodies) in the verse wa-’in kuntum junuban
faṭṭahharuu (If you have semen on yourselves, bathe your bodies) were
interpreted in a biblical, spiritual sense rather than in the intended
physiological sense. The subjects’ interpretations were based on the
English translation by Arberry (If you are defiled, purify yourselves
[1980]) and Pickthall (If ye are unclean, purify yourselves [1980:135]).
Therefore, following the principle of relevance, such interpretations
prove relevant insofar as the subjects’ cognitive environment (i.e., their
religious and cultural background) is concerned, but these same
interpretations are completely irrelevant insofar as the source religion and
culture are concerned.

17
 At this point, let me introduce my concept of relevance in
translation, which views relevance as relating to two levels. The first
involves the relevance of a translation segment to both the target reader
and the meaning of the original. This means that the translated segment
will reflect a correct interpretation that coincides with the understanding
of the target reader. By contrast, the second level involves a translation
segment which lacks relevance to the original but proves relevant to the
target reader. It is this relevance at the second level which I will term
‘camouflaged relevance’ (cf. House’s 1977, 1997 concept of ‘covert
error’ and Hicky’s 2003 concept of ‘imperceptible error’). It should be
noted that camouflaged relevance may hinder rather than facilitate
intercultural communication. Suffice it to mention the row created about
George W. Bush’s employment of the lexeme crusade instead of
campaign in one of his statements on fighting ‘terrorism’ in the wake of
the September 11th attacks. No rhetoric in the world could come to Bush’s
rescue to persuade Muslims that what he had meant was free of historical
implication which, most likely, occurred as camouflaged relevance
insofar as his Muslim audience were concerned.

2. Relevance in the Translation of Proverbs

Achieving relevance in the translation of proverbs may rely on universal,
functional, and culture-bound principles. Let us consider five proverbial
expressions drawn from Peter Theroux’s (1993) English rendering of
Abdul-Rahman Munif’s (1992) Arabic novel mudin-il-malḥ: taqaasiim
al-layl wa-l-nahaar (Cities of Salt: Variations on Night and Day). Table
1 below presents the Arabic proverbs along with their glosses and
Theroux’s English translations.

No Proverb Gloss
Translation

1 kalaam al-layl Night’s talk is Dawn annuls the

yamḥuuh an-nahaar
2 tuguul luh өoor ’iquul
’iḥilbuuh
3 ’id-dam ’abad
erased by daylight. promises of night.
You tell him this is This is a bull and they
a bull and he says say, ‘Milk it’.
‘milk it’.
Blood will never Blood is thicker than
become water. water.

18
 maayṣiir may
4 daggah ‘al-ḥaafir u- A stroke on the Once on a steed,
daggah ‘an-naafir hoof and the other they’d stop a
on the nail. stampede.
5 өilөeen il-walad la- Two thirds of a boy Two thirds of a boy
xaaluh are his maternal are his uncle’s.
uncle’s.

The respondents were 30 American undergraduates (17 males and

13 females aged between 19 and 25) taking a summer course in Arabic at
beginner level at Yarmouk University in the year 2000. This was done as
part of their university education in their relevant specializations in the
United States and reflected their interest in the Arab culture. They were
divided into two groups of 15 respondents each: the members of the first
group were asked to interpret the proverbial expressions (an open task),
while the respondents in the second group were asked to rate the
comprehensibility of the same proverbial expressions (a closed task). The
purpose of this division was to see whether there was correspondence
between comprehension (i.e. interpreting the translations of the proverbs
according to the intentions of the SLT’s author) and comprehensibility
(rating the translations of the proverbs in terms of their making sense, i.e.
achieving some kind of relevance).

Table 2 presents the results of the two groups.

Type of Open task Closed task
task
No. of % of correct % of deviant % of 'sensical' % of
proverbs interpretations interpretations ratings 'non-
sensical'
ratings
1 100 0 93 7
2 93 7 46 54
3 0 100 73 27
4 13 87 63 37
5 27 73 60 40
Average 47 53 67 33

19
 As expected, comprehensibility of the proverbs was better than
comprehension (correct interpretation) - the percentages are 67% and 47%,
respectively. The discrepancy reflects that the relevance achieved by the
translations was not always reflective of true understanding, reflecting the
intended meaning of the Arabic proverb, although they seemed to make
sense in a different way – in terms of camouflaged relevance. The following
pages will shed more light on how the subjects may have utilized universal,
functional and culture-bound principles in interpreting, i.e. establishing the
relevance of the Arabic proverbs presented to them. It should be noted that
universal principles are cognition-oriented, whereas functional principles are
communication-oriented. As for culture-bound principles, they embrace
both cognitive and communicative orientations. The end result in translation
activity, however, is the accomplishment of an act of communication,
regardless of the vehicle’s orientation.
3. Universal Principles
Despite the fact that selection of world features in human communication
may vary from one language to another, there remains a basic principle of
universality which unifies humans along a deeply rooted general line of
reasoning, where language plays a key role. The universality principle is
underpinned by two factors: the first is that the innate faculty of language
is one for all humans; it manifests itself in linguistic universals (Lennberg
1967) or universal grammar (Chomsky 1986), thus grammatical
differences between languages are matters of parametric variation. The
second factor relates to the assumption that since humans live on the same
planet and experience similar world features, they share a tremendous
amount of experiential knowledge which enables them to reason along
compatible lines. What is relevant to the mental conception and oral
diffusion of an idea in one culture may enjoy a kind of relevance brought
about by universal principles in another culture. By way of illustration,
the literal translation ‘Dawn annuls the promises of night’ captures
straightforwardly the nub of the Arabic proverb kalaam al-layl yamḥuuh
’an-nahaar, as is evidenced by the respondents’ relevant interpretations,
viz. :
1. Day cancels whatever said at night.
2. Things said at night are erased by the sun.
3. Dawn will not keep night a secret.
4. Things at night end at dawn.
5. Empty promises are revealed in the light of day.
6. Things are different in the light of day, etc.

20
 Likewise, the majority of the second group (93%) rated this
rendering as ‘straightforwardly understood’. Apparently, universal
principles succeeded in triggering, in the subjects’ cognitive environment,
contextual effects whose relevance was graspable via the contrast
between day and night in the semi-universal visualizability of empty
promises (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980).
Universal principles may even work with proverbs that may look
culture-specific. For example, 93% of the subjects in the first group
interpreted the literal translation “This is a bull and they say, ‘Milk it’”
with reference to the Arabic proverb tuguul luh өoor ’iguul ’iḥilbuuh
appropriately, as can be seen from the following interpretations:

7. You can’t squeeze blood out of a stone.

8. They are impractical people.
9. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
10. Something is impossible.
11. The people don’t make sense.
12. People are narrow-minded and dogmatic, etc.

These interpretations show how the majority of the respondents

worked out a relevant reading of the proverb; one based on the
impossibility of milking the male of a species, a relevant fact which
denotes that the execution of the action in question is impossible.
However, the performance of the second group was not impressive: only
46% of them thought the translation made good sense. Apparently, many
members of this group doubted the reliability of universal principles in
importing relevance to an alien image – an image that fares better in
interpreting than in rating viable comprehensibility.
4. Functional Principles
Functional principles represent an important aspect of human
communication. Phraseological units, including proverbs, created
according to the Idiom Principle (Sinclair 1987; Yorio 1980) in different
languages may converge in form and function, or may correspond only
functionally, i.e., independently of form. Functional correspondence
between languages has its cultural and social roots. The selection of
different world features in various languages to express ideas may give
rise to parallel convergence focus if relevance is thought of in terms of the
Equivalent Effect Principle (Nida 1964) rather than camouflaged
relevance. This principle views translation in light of the effects brought

21
about on the target readers, which are supposed to mirror the effects
originally produced on the SLT audience. For instance, given an
appropriate context, English and Arabic select different world features to
express the idea that ‘perfection is impossible’ in the functionally
corresponding proverbs ‘Even Homer sometimes nods’ and li-kulli
jawaadin kabwah (Every horse will have a fault). However, camouflaged
relevance may involve a rendition that is idiomatic in the TLT but, on a
closer examination, it fails to perform the communicative function of the
proverb as intended by the author of the SLT.
Relevance based on functional principles stems from the existence
of polysystems pertaining to a network of social contexts in human
languages in which similar or different world features are picked out. For
example, the Arab complimentee’s offering the complimented item to the
complimenter when responding to a compliment is a standard feature of
compliment behavior in Arabic, just as an appreciation token is in English
compliment behavior. Therefore, an Arabic compliment response
involving offering the complimented item may be functionally translated
into an appreciation token in English (for more on compliments, see
Farghal and Al-Khatib 2001; Farghal and Haggan 2003).
Being target audience oriented, function-motivated correspondence
lends itself to smooth comprehension because the processing effort
required by the reader of the translation is low. However, interlingual
proverbial expressions which demonstrate comparable functions out of
context may fail to do so in context. By way of illustration, the Arabic
proverbial expression ’id-dam ’abad maa-yṣiir may was functionally
rendered by Theroux as ‘Blood is thicker than water’, but it was wrongly
interpreted by all the respondents in the first group as they had been
insensitive to the contextualized import of the proverb, that is, paternal
kinship is more significant in the formation of children’s characters than
maternal kinship. Below are some sample responses:

13. Family always sticks together.

14. Family ties mean more than friendship.
15. A person’s family comes first.
16. Your family is your life.
17. Not everyone is your relative.
18. Relatives are more important than strangers, etc.

Clearly, such responses are based on a de-contextualized reading

of the English proverb, furnishing evidence for camouflaged relevance.

22
What seems to be relevant at an out-of context level of analysis turns out
to be seriously irrelevant within the given context. It should be noted that
the twisting of the conventional import of the above proverb in the
context constitutes a key for maintaining the coherence of the text. To
appreciate this point further, let us consider the following English
translation of the Arabic proverb in context: “Your mother’s brother [the
Sultan addressing his son, Fanar], my boy, is a suspicious and difficult
man. He thinks it is his lot to have you, that you are his, as if he didn’t
know that Fanar is his father’s son, that blood is thicker than water.” (p.
75). As can be seen, it is not family ties that are being emphasized here
but paternal, as opposed to maternal kinship.
In light of the poor performance of the first group above, the
second group’s results, i.e. 73% of the respondents rating the translation
as making sense, should be interpreted in terms of camouflaged relevance
rather than relevance reflecting the intended meaning of the Arabic
proverb and its corresponding English translation.
Functional correspondence may risk missing the target altogether.
The supposed functional correspondent which is opted for in translation
may turn out to perform a different function from the one performed by
the source language phraseology. Let us consider Theroux’s rendition of
the Arabic proverb daggah ‘al-ḥaafir u-daggah ‘an-naafir as ‘Once on a
steed, they’d stop a stampede’ (i.e. Once someone is gotten to start
something seriously, her/his reluctance will disappear). Whereas the
Arabic proverb calls for a middle-of-the-road orientation in the
disciplining of boys, the English translation emphasizes the importance of
parents’ decisive intervention in the formation of the future behavior of
boys. The different imports of the translation are reflected in many
respondents’ interpretations (87%):

19. Once you get someone going, they can do anything.

20. Once the boys develop, they will naturally mature.
21. Once these people begin, it is difficult to stop them.
22. When one is old enough to take charge, they’ll be in charge.
23. If given the power they can accomplish anything.
24. Ignorance is bliss.
Except for (24), which seems far-fetched, (19)-(23) can be shown
to be relevant to the erroneous English rendition in that context. The
interpretation in (19), for instance, straightforwardly reflects the import of
the English translation. By contrast, (23) reflects the same import in a
subtle way by looking at parents’ intervention in the behavior of their

23
children as power given to the children which will enable them to
accomplish anything. These responses display clearly that the respondents
were misguided by camouflaged relevance in their belief that the
translation was relevant, so they superimposed irrelevant interpretations.
However, two respondents, being more sensitive to the context
than the translation, created optimal relevance out of an irrelevant
rendition; they offered:

25. Tools should be once simple, another complicated.

26. Let kids be kids.

As can be seen, (25) calls for moderation in the disciplining of children by

holding the stick in the middle, i.e. by being neither too tough nor too
lenient in that endeavor. As for (26), it also calls for moderation but in a
subtle way, that is, parents should recognize the fact that children, by the
very fact that they are children, need/do things that may not be approved
by adults. Hence, parents should tolerate their children’s acts, whether they
approve them or not, simply because they are kids.
Likewise, about 37% of the respondents in the second group rated
the translation as making no sense as a result of their being more sensitive
to the context. The rest of them (63%), however, rated it, driven by the
idiomaticity of the translation, as making good sense, a situation that
gives rise to camouflaged relevance.
Such a serious translational mishap is a consequence of the
translator’s inability to grasp the import of the Arabic proverb, rather than
of the absence of functional correspondence in the target language. Had
the translator understood the proverb correctly, he would have relevantly
accessed the English proverb ‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull
boy’, or the proverb ‘All things in moderation, and moderation in all
things’, which furnishes a functional correspondent that fits within the
TLT coherently and relevantly. Misunderstandings of this sort call for a
working familiarity with the source language culture on the part of
translators of literature.

5. Culture-bound Principles
Culture-bound features constitute a challenging situation in translation
activity because such features often enjoy no presence in the world of
reference in the target language, and if they do, the correspondence will
be partial, thus triggering approximations which may fail to produce
24
corresponding contextual effects in target readers (for more details, see
Dagot 1981; Ivir 1991). By way of illustration, Theroux translates the
Arabic proverb өilөen il-walad la-xaaluh as “Two thirds of a boy are his
uncle’s”, thus befogging the intended message, that is, a boy takes after
his maternal uncle by two thirds because, according to this proverb,
maternal uncles are more influential than paternal ones in the formation of
nephews’ characters. What is a relevant feature in the Arabic proverb was
found, mistakenly, irrelevant in the English version. This problem gives
rise to distorted interpretations by the majority of the respondents in the
first group (73%), which is an immediate consequence of many subjects’
falling victim to camouflaged relevance:

27. Family is everything.

28. Apples don’t fall far from the tree.
29. A boy learns from his family around him.
30. He is influenced by his uncles.
31. People trust their uncles.
32. People follow their masters, etc.

The English translation’s failure to furnish optimal relevance and

subsequently create contextual effects caused 20% of the subjects to opt
out of giving any response. Only one respondent managed to superimpose
relevance on the translation:

33. One’s reference [attribution] at last will be to his mother’s

relatives.

Clearly, the respondent in (33) wants to convey the message that

mother’s kinship are more influential than father’s kinship in the
formation of children’s characters, which exactly reflects the import of
the Arabic proverb.
However, 60% of the respondents in the second group rated the
translation as making good sense, as opposed to 40% who thought the
translation made very little sense. Both percentages are significant in their
own ways. The 60% indicates that camouflaged relevance in a TLT may
deceive many readers, while the 40% shows that failure to bring out
optimal relevance in the target language is still a decisive factor, with
almost half of the readers noticing that something is wrong, although the
translation seems to lend itself to a high degree of processability.

25
 The main weakness in the translation above lies in the
identification of the specific Arabic kinship term (maternal uncle) with
the general English kinship term ‘uncle’ in a context where this lexical
distinction is the source of source-text based relevance. Therefore, to
maintain relevance in translation, the intact Arabic term should be
relayed. Alternatively, the translator can fare quite well if he opts for a
cultural approximation where there is room for lexical creation at the
phraseological level:

34. Like maternal uncle like nephew.

In this case, the translator will be remodeling the familiar English proverb
‘Like father like son’ and, simultaneously, getting the intended message
across.

6. Conclusion
Relevance emerges as a pervasive parameter in human communication in
general and in translation activity in particular. Relevance in translation
pertains to successful intercultural communication where universal,
functional, and culture-bound principles play a key role. The three types
of principles can be schematically represented on an up-side-down semi-
triangle where universal principles occupy its base (see figure below), and
subsequently feed into functional and culture-bound principles. The
translator’s ability to bring out relevance in the TLT, based on the
employment of these principles (which should be an eclectic procedure in
which universal universals are the point of departure), constitutes a
cornerstone in translational competence. When reader responses
potentially match the SLT intentionality, then we may speak of relevance
in translation. If these responses diverge from (a) potentially intended
message(s), camouflaged relevance will be at work and the translation
will be doomed, regardless of how relevant it may appear to target
readers. The empirical data in this study show how serious discrepancy in
relevance may end up being when it comes to reader responses.

26
 Functional Culture-bound
Principles Principles

Universal Principles

One finding of this study is that the provision of relevance in the

translation of literature correlates with the translator’s precision in his/her
understanding of the source language culture. That understanding
becomes an important guarantor of relevance in translation. Without it,
the translator may fall victim to a variety of translational misfortunes,
such as providing nonsensical literal translations, unfitting
approximations, and far-fetched functional categories.
Finally, the study indicates that interlingual proverbial
expressions, which manifest comparable imports out of context, may fail
to do so in context. The ability of proverbs to acquire fresh nuances from
their contexts adds to their already intriguing nature. This contextual
orientation of proverbs in translation calls for alertness by both translators
and target readers, in order to cater for sought relevance and contextual
effects and, in effect, minimize camouflaged relevance, which proves to
be a serious danger in translation activity.

27
 Word-for-Word or Sense-for-Sense Translation:
Ruminating the Age-long Polemics

Abstract
Much ado has been going on over the years about the core of translation
activity, that is, translation equivalence. The age-long polemics on this
issue has been mainly dwelling since the Roman times of Cicero and
Horace on whether the translator should opt for ‘word-for-word’ or
‘sense-for-sense’ translation. A close look at this dichotomy indicates that
the two methods of translation derive from different disciplines. On the
one hand, the word-for-word approach has its roots in linguistics and
philosophy, namely in structural and semantic correspondences, where
one-to-one correspondence among the items in the structural and semantic
systems of any pair of languages is assumed to play a key role in
translation activity. On the other hand, the sense-for-sense approach frees
itself from linguistic constraints involving form and denotation in favor of
a more functional perspective that has its roots in sociology and
psychology (mainly viewing language as psycho-social behavior). It is
argued in this paper that recent translation dichotomies including Formal
vs. Dynamic equivalence, Formal vs. Textual equivalence, Overt vs.
Covert translation, Semantic vs. Communicative translation, Adequacy
vs. Acceptability, Documentary vs. Instrumental translation, Direct vs.
Indirect translation, Foreignization vs. Domestication, and s-mode vs. i-
mode translation are mere ramifications of the classical polemics.

1. Background
Translation activity is an age-long activity which is necessitated by the
fact that groups belonging to different language communities have been
coming into contact with one another for social, economic, cultural and
political reasons, among others, since the dawn of human history.
Subsequently, as man managed to establish literate civilizations and as
contact between various cultures became inevitable, learned men started
thinking about the nature of translation activity in an attempt to evaluate
and improve the products resulting from such activity. There is ample
evidence that early scholars of the Romans (Horace, 20 BC and Cicero,
46 BC) and later scholars of the ancient Chinese and Arab cultures
seriously contemplated the work of translators and their products (for
more details, see Munday 2001) and, consequently, realized the ever-
existing tug-of-war between form and content or, alternatively, what St
Jerome early on (395 AD) called ‘word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’.
28
This dichotomy was most eloquently expressed in the words of the
German scholar Friedrich Schleiermacher (1813) when he saw translation
activity as a matter of either bringing the reader close to the writer or,
conversely, bringing the writer close to the reader.
It is interesting to note that the early translation thinkers resolved
the conflict between form and content by siding with one or the other,
thus promoting the ‘sense-for-sense’ method of translation (e.g. St
Jerome, who was an adamant supporter of this method) and,
simultaneously, condemning the other method or, alternatively,
proclaiming the ‘word-for-word’ method (e.g. Schleiermacher) while
dismissing the other method as inadequate. In both cases, the focus was
on the translation of scholarly, authoritative works such as literature and
the Bible. Each orientation was rooted in a rational justification: the
‘word-for-word’ sought to capture the form of the original by introducing
a SL foreign patterns of discoursing and thinking while the ‘sense-for-
sense’ sought to capture the function of the original by devising a TL
domestic patterns of discoursing and thinking.
A close examination of the ‘word-for-word’ and the ‘sense-for-
sense’ indicates that they have different roots. The first is rooted in the
assumption that languages involve structural and semantic
correspondences and are capable of grammaticalizing meaning
interlingually. In this way, a proposition in one language can be expressed
in another language by embracing the phraseology in the original in terms
of structure and denotation. Linguistics and philosophy, therefore,
constitute the foundation stone of this approach. The second, by contrast,
frees itself from linguistic constraints by opting for a more functional
understanding of interlingual communication that has its roots in
sociology and psychology and, consequently, views language as psycho-
social behavior. Thus, a proposition in one language can be expressed in
another language while departing in drastic ways from the formal
properties (e.g. structural and lexical features) of the phraseology in the
original. It is the message (i.e. the sense) rather than the form (i.e. the
word) that matters in translation.
With the rise of Translation Studies as a popular discipline of
enquiry in the Twentieth century and the tremendous expansion of its
scope to cover all types of discourse including the fields of technology,
media, culture, business, etc., the world has been transformed into a small
global village in terms of information flow and communication. The
reasons for translating are no longer restricted to rendering masterpieces
of literature (e.g. the translation of Greek literature into Latin in the

29
Roman times) or translating epistemological works (e.g. the translation of
Greek works into Arabic during the Abbasid period (750-1250)). The
proliferation of translation materials has necessitated a reconsideration of
the ‘word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’ dichotomy, so the relationship
between them becomes a matter of complementation rather than that of
opposition. In this way, Nida (1964) and Newmark (1981) create a
division of labor which would allow us to draw important generalizations
along the lines that information-oriented texts mainly demand ‘sense-for-
sense’ translation (dynamic/communicative translation), whereas
expression-oriented ones in the main require ‘word-for-word’ translation
(formal/semantic translation). Subsequently, text types have emerged as
an important variable in translation activity (Reiss 1977/1989; Nord
1997). Similarly, the purpose/skopos of the translation, whether
commissioned or translator-initiated, has become a determining factor in
choosing between ‘word-for-word’ and ‘sense-for-sense’ translation
(Vermeer 1989/2004). However, in actual translation practice the
existence of pure forms of these two options is practically impossible
because a translator may have recourse to, for example, ‘word-for-word’
while adopting ‘sense-for-sense’ as a global strategy. To put it differently,
the adoption of one translation method in one dichotomy rather than
another is basically a matter of dominance rather than a matter of
exclusion.

2. Critical Account of Translation Dichotomies

If we have a scrutinizing look at the work of main contemporary authors
in Translation Studies (Nida 1964; Catford 1965; House 1977; Newmark
1981; Nord 1988/2005; Gutt 1991; Toury 1995; and Venuti 1995, among
others) and the buzz terms standing for the main contributions they are
remembered/cited for, it will not be too difficult to come to the conclusion
that their theoretical dichotomies (e.g. formal vs. dynamic equivalence.
foreignization vs. domestication, adequacy vs. acceptability, etc.) are
terminological reformulations of the classical polemics, ‘word-for-word’
or ‘sense-for-sense’ translation. The present intervention aims to show
that these terminological tricks, albeit intriguing and innovative, are not
supposed to blur the raw facts of any researched state of affairs. I will
examine these recent translation orientations to see whether they offer
anything beyond the qualified legitimization of both ‘word-for-word’ and
‘sense-for-sense’ in today’s translation practice.
To get started, let us quote Newmark (1981:39) in his distinction
between communicative and semantic translation:
30
Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close
as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation
attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the
second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.

Therefore, while communicative translation is reader-oriented, semantic

translation is text- and/or author-oriented. Both, however, adhere to the
linguistic constraints within the target language. The former translates at
the readership’s level, whereas the latter translates at the text’s and/or
author’s level.

If we go back to earlier attempts made by Nida (1964) and Catford

(1965) at establishing the concept of translation equivalence, we’ll find
out that they put forward similar ideas, albeit they employed different
terminologies. Influenced by Chomsky’s theory of transformational
grammar, Nida suggests working first with underlying propositions in
kernel sentences rather than surface structures in order to capture dynamic
equivalence, which aims at producing what he calls equivalent effect
principle, i.e. the translation should produce on its readers the same
effects that the original produced on its readers. This equivalent effect
would be largely missed if formal equivalence is given priority in
translation. For Nida, naturalness of expression and equivalent response
of a translation should go hand in hand with conveying the spirit and
manner of the original as basic requirements for producing a successful
translation. One should note that the first two requirements are reader-
oriented, whereas the third requirement is text-/author-oriented. In this
way, they practically reflect Newmark’s dichotomy (communicative vs.
semantic translation) launched 17 years later (1981).
Roughly, at the same time, Catford (1965) develops a
linguistically-informed approach to translation. Based on the linguistic
aspect of Hallidayan functional linguistics, Catford’s approach draws a
key distinction between formal and textual equivalence. He (p. 20)
defines translation as “the replacement of textual material in one language
by equivalent textual material in another language”. If we examine
closely what he means by textual equivalence, one can easily conclude
that it ranges dynamically between linguistic and contextual features, i.e.
between semantic and communicative translation, in Newmark’s
terminology.
Twelve years later, House (1977), similarly influenced by the
functional aspect of the Hallidayan approach (the concept of register, in

31
particular), draws a distinction between overt and covert translation.
While an overt translation can be readily labeled a translation, a covert
translation may escape this label because it reads as an original.
According to House, this distinction is genre-driven, that is, the
translation of some genres, e.g. tourist brochures, may produce covert
translations, while some, e.g. literature, may yield overt translations.
Clearly, the tug-of-war remains between linguistic and contextual
features, thus pointing to the forthcoming dichotomy by Newmark, who
himself views House’s distinction in terms of his semantic vs.
communicative translation (1981:52).
A decade later than Newmark, Gutt (1991) views translation in
terms of interpretive resemblance. Influenced by the insights of Sperber
and Wilson’s relevance theory (1986), Gutt distinguishes between direct
translation and indirect translation. While direct translation follows the
contextual constraints of the SL text, indirect translation has recourse to
the contextual constraints associated with the emerging TL text. In other
words, and apart from technical jargon, Gutt reechoes the text-/author-
oriented vs. the reader-oriented dichotomy in translation activity. This
resemblance is made more explicit by Almazan Garcia’s (2002)
interpretation of Gutt’s dichotomy in terms of s-mode (stimulus-oriented
mode), focusing on ‘what was said’ and i-mode (interpretation-oriented
mode), focusing on ‘what was meant’. Thus, indirect translation falls
under i-mode (and may, in its extreme cases, e.g. House’s covert
translations, fall outside the domain of translation proper), while direct
translation combines s-mode and i-mode in a unique way. If indirect
translation (covert translation) is not translation proper for lack of
interpretive resemblance, then we are back to the same dichotomy (s-
mode-oriented vs. i-mode-oriented translation) within direct translation
itself, which so strikingly reflects the age-long ‘word-for-word’ vs. the
‘sense-for-sense’ translation. That is, the word can be equated with the
stimulus, while the sense can be equated with the interpretation.
More recently, based on a translation-oriented text analysis
approach, Nord (1988/2005) culminates her analysis by making a
distinction between a documentary translation and an instrumental
translation, which exactly echoes House's distinction between an overt
and a covert translation, where the former must read as a translation
because it exactly mirrors source culture norms, while the latter moves
away from those norms in the direction of target culture norms and can
hardly be perceived as a translation. Similarly, in search of translation
norms in his descriptive translation studies approach, Toury (1995)

32
concludes his investigation by placing translation activity on a scale
ranging between adequacy (ST-oriented translation) and acceptability
(TT-oriented translation), thus bringing us back to the same kind of
dichotomy.
Finally, Venuti’s (1995) distinction between foreignization and
domestication brings in ideology as an important factor when choosing
between foriegnization and domestication. However, apart from power
relations between the translating and the translated parties involving
cultural, economic and political factors which Venuti expounds clearly,
his dichotomy closely mirrors its predecessors in terms of actual
translation activity. To foreignize is to maintain a socio-cultural gap
between reader and translation, while to domesticate is to bridge this gap.
Therefore, we are back to the text-/author-oriented vs. reader-oriented
dichotomy which was contemplated by ancient scholars and reechoed in
almost every academic endeavor in present-day TS. The diagram below
summarizes the highlights of the ongoing rumination of the classical
‘Word-for-word’ or “Sense-for-Sense’ translation discussed above.

‘Word-for-Word’ or ‘Sense-for-Sense’ Translation

(Cicero, 20 BC and Horace 46 BC)

‘Word-for-Word vs. ‘Sense-for-Sense

St Jerome, 395 Ad / Schleiermacher, 1813)

Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalence

(Nida 1964)

Formal vs. Textual Equivalence

(Catford 1965)

Overt vs. Covert Translation

(House 1977)

Semantic vs. Communicative Translation

(Newmark 1981)

Documentary vs. Instrumental Translation

33
 Nord (1988/2005)

Direct vs. Indirect Translation

(Gutt 1991)

Adequacy vs. Acceptability

)Toury 1995)

Foreignization vs. Domestication

(Venuti 1995)

s-mode vs. i-mode Translation

(Almazan Garcia 2002)

3. Illustrative Examples
Now, let us consider the following example taken from an excerpt
translation of a passage from Abdo Khal’s Poker Award (2009) finalist
novel tarmii bi-šarar (Spewing Sparks as Big as Castles) translated by
Anthony Calderbank (Al-Jamal Publications, Baghdad/Beirut, 2009):

It is said that he (the narrator’s grandfather) desired her (the narrator’s

grandmother) constantly but in order to treat each of his wives equally he had to
pay them all a visit in order to end up with my grandmother, Sanniya. So after he
had passed through the first three doors he would go and bathe, put on perfume
and come to my grandmother Sanniya as if not one drop of his water had been
spilled.

Examining the excerpt above, and apart from the purely cultural
clues (e.g. having more than one wife), the reader can readily conclude
that it is taken from a translation which is text/author-oriented. The
translator has maintained or semanticized the metaphorical usage of the
SL, e.g. ‘as if not one drop of his water had been spilled’ in reference to
degree of virility. The competent target reader will have no trouble
understanding the communicative import of such metaphorical
expressions although they are alien to the TL culture. This ability is
contextually rather than culturally triggered.

34
 By contrast, the following translation [my own] of the above
excerpt, and again apart from the purely cultural clues, shows more
reader-oriented concerns by domesticating or communicatizing the SL
alien usages, e.g. ‘as if he had not expended one tiny thing of his sexual
potency’ in reference to degree virility.

It is said that he desired her constantly. Yet, in order to be fair to the other
three wives, he had to stop by each of them before ending up with my
grandmother, Sanniya. Bathed and perfumed, he would approach her as if
he had not expended one tiny thing of his sexual potency.

It can be argued that the excerpt above includes segments which

may lend themselves to either semanticizing or communicatizing meaning
without running the risk of a breakdown in communication. In both cases,
contextual elements are capable of producing cognitive effects that trigger
a relevant interpretation by the reader. In some cases, however,
semanticizing a segment may blur the intended meaning and,
subsequently, bring about a breakdown in communication. Therefore, the
competent translator in such instances needs to opt out of ‘word-for-word’
in favor of ‘sense-for-sense’ translation, as can be illustrated by the
English rendition of an excerpt from Najeeb Mahfouz's Awlaad
Haaritnaa (1959) by Philip Stewart in Children of Gebelawi (1981):

Ali said humbly:

'No one in the alley smokes this brand except for the Chief
and yours truly.

By contrast, following the Arabic wording of the excerpt, Stewart

would have produced the rendition below:

Ali said humbly:

'No one in the alley smokes this brand except for the Chief
and the slave of God, ma'am.

Clearly, Stewart opted for communicatizing the meaning of the italicized

culture-bound expression in order to avoid a situation where the intended
meaning may be too difficult to arrive at by the reader if semanticization
of that segment had been chosen.
In terms of the dichotomies in the diagram, one can argue that the
translations above interactively embrace all of them. They only differ in
the focus each places on one member of a dichotomy rather than the
35
other. This interactive split between form and content practically carries
over to all translation activity. Fortunately, more recent dichotomies,
albeit practically duplicating each other, are tolerant of this inherent split,
which is correlated with contextual factors (see below).

4. Conclusion
The arguments made in this paper have clearly shown that the familiar
translation dichotomies practically reflect the same construct regardless of
the differing terminological formulations. The prototype dichotomy, say
form vs. content, should be viewed in terms of complementation rather
than opposition, that is, form and content present themselves as two
overriding forces in translation activity; tilting toward one more than the
other produces a focus rather than a pure form. The focus is context-
correlated and may be approximated by the diagram below:

TEXT

Translator/Other
Agents

AUTHOR AUDIENCE

The reason for placing the translator/other agents (e.g.

commissioner or editor) in the center of the triangle is to show the
dynamic role they play by having direct access, from equidistance, to the
three contextual factors at the angles. This dynamic role would be blurred
if a square rather than a triangle were chosen to show the interaction
among the contextual factors. In this way, the type of focus opted for
depends on the weight that the translator/other agents assign(s) to each of
the three contextual factors. Informed by the authoritativeness of the SL
36
text, for example, most (perhaps all) translators of the Holy Quran have
tilted toward form at the expense of content. By way of illustration,
witness how the Quranic verse ‫طهروا‬ ّ ‫ وإن كنتم جنبا ً فا‬is rendered into if ye are
unclean, purify yourselves and if you are defiled, purify yourselves by
Pickthall (1980: 135) and Arberry: 128), respectively. Driven by the
word-for-word/ s-mode, the two translators have offered renditions that
may produce cognitive effects that are far removed from the meaning
communicated by the Quranic verse in question (for more details, see
Farghal and Al-Masri in Farghal et al 2015).
The question that poses itself here is: What is the practical
alternative to the continued reformulation of an age-long polemics? The
answer, I believe, is to turn attention to individual language-pairs in an
attempt to unravel translational norms and behaviors. Though this may be
primitively founded on the basics of contrastive linguistics (CL), the true
goal of such endeavor is to establish patterns of interlingual transfer in
actual translation practice in search of translation equivalence/
resemblance rather than linguistic correspondence, which is the main
concern of (CL). It is through this kind of effort that translation
practitioners and theorists alike would become aware of translation
procedures and insights which can indeed further the professionalism in
interlingual communication between any two languages.

37
 Extrinsic Managing: Translatorial Ideological Moves

Abstract
This study discusses the different manifestations of translatorial
ideological moves between English and Arabic. Regardless of how we
view it, the translator’s ideological intervention will be shown to be
necessary in some cases, in order to have the target text cohere with its
natural habitat in the receiving culture. First, the paper will investigate
lexis as a potential target for this kind of intervention, focusing on
variability in expression as an important tool to achieve ideological ends,
e.g. the shift from one framing verb to another or from one referring
expression to another. Second, it will address the employment of
ideologically motivated syntactic maneuvers, e.g. the shift from one
modality to another. Finally, the study will show how the translator’s
ideological intervention may globally permeate the discourse and/or
culture of the target text by offering drastically diverging atmospheres
and/or thought-worlds from those of the source text.

1. Introduction
Ideology, one may argue, is a cumulative value system that exerts both
influence and control over human behavior, and may vary among
communities as well as individuals. Van Dijk (1996: 7) views ideologies
as basic systems of shared social representations with the potential to
control and influence more specific group beliefs (knowledge and
attitudes) through the instantiation in "models of situations and
experiences". Being part of human behavior, translation activity involves
a process of negotiation among different agents: translators, authors,
critics, publishers, editors and readers (Tahir-Gürcğlar 2003) and is
guided by ideological criteria, whether consciously or unconsciously
(Nord 2003). Similarly, Tymoczko (2003) states, "the ideology of
translation resides not simply in the text translated, but in the voicing and
stance of the translator, and in its relevance to the receiving audience"
(see also Mason 1994 and Fandi 2005).
Translatorial ideological moves manifest themselves in extrinsic
managing, which constitutes the converse of intrinsic managing
(naturalizing or domesticating the Target Language (TL) text). These
ideological moves involve the translator’s superimposing certain
directionality on the text in order to approximate it to, or even have it
meet, his own or some other agent’s goals. In this way, it represents the
translator's ideological intervention in the SL text, which clearly shows up

38
in the world views that he intentionally chooses to present in the TL text.
Being a framing process, extrinsic managing provides a mechanism
through which individuals (translators in our case) can ideologically
connect with movement goals and, subsequently, become potential
participants in movement actions (Cunningham and Browning 2004;
Baker 2006). In this way, translation is not only an interpretive frame; it is
also a performance frame (Behl 2002; Muhawi 2007), where the
translator becomes an active participant in interlingual communication.
Like intrinsic managing, extrinsic managing is largely conscious
and intentional. However, unlike intrinsic managing, which, apart from
ideological intervention, is meant to facilitate things for the TL reader by
offering translations that read smoothly and naturally, extrinsic managing
mainly aims to reorient and/or delude the TL reader by presenting
thought-worlds that are different at varying degrees from those
expounded in the Source Language (SL) text. Other things being equal,
therefore, intrinsic managing may be presented as commendable, whereas
extrinsic managing may be argued to be condemnable. Notably, the
relation between the SL and the TL in translation activity was and still is
one of the central concerns among translation theorists.
Some scholars view the Source Text (ST) as a ‘sacred original’,
whether in terms of function, form, or both (Nida 1964; Catford 1965;
Newmark 1988, 1982; and de Waard and Nida 1986, among others). In an
extreme position, Newmark (1982:389) sees the translator's task as an
activity "to render the original as objectively as he can, rigorously
suppressing his own natural feelings; a text with which he passionately
agrees must be treated similarly to a text with which he passionately
disagrees". However, the real picture in translation practice is not as clear
and straightforward as Newmark articulates it in this quotation, for, more
recently, some translation theorists regard the translator’s task as mainly
reflecting the skopos (purpose) of the Target Text (TT) rather than that of
the ST (Schäffner, 2003, 1998a and b; Hönig 1998; and Vermeer 2000,
among others). On this latter view, the translation may be steered by the
skopos of the TT prospectively rather than informed by the skopos of the
ST retrospectively. In this spirit, Schäffner (1998a:238) views the
translator as a TT author who is freed from the “limitations and
restrictions imposed by a narrowly defined concept of loyalty to the
source text alone”.
The present paper seeks to explore the scope and nature of the
translator’s ideological intervention in translating between English and
Arabic, apart from commending or condemning this translatorial action.

39
The fact that translatorial ideological moves are a noticeable translational
practice calls for a close examination of this phenomenon, in order to
disentangle the various intricacies surrounding it. According to Bassnett
(1996:22), the translation, "once considered a subservient, transparent
filter through which a text could pass without adulteration", "can now be
seen as a process in which intervention is crucial".
The scope of extrinsic managing can be as wide-ranging as that of
intrinsic managing. It may manifest itself relatively locally at the levels of
lexis and syntax, or globally at the levels of discourse and/or culture. In
both cases, the translator manipulates ideology in varying degrees.
However, it should be noted that extrinsic managing, unlike intrinsic
managing which can be considerably localized and categorized at
different linguistic levels, can evade strict categorization because it is
ideology- rather than naturalness-oriented, as is the case in its intrinsic
counterpart. Consequently, any act of extrinsic managing, regardless of
how small it is, would involve an ideological move whose weight usually
far exceeds its size. A classic example is the political fuss created over the
Arabic translation of the English original (which was mischievously
subjected to managing prior to translation activity) of the UN resolution
242 in the aftermath of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The English version
called for the Israeli withdrawal from ‘Arab lands occupied in 1967’
(which is syntactically ambiguous between an exhaustive and partitive
reading) rather than 'the Arab lands occupied in 1967’ (which
unambiguously produces the exhaustive interpretation). Later on, when
the resolution had to be translated into Arabic, a serious problem arose
from the rendition of the above phrase, as monitoring the structure (rather
than the pragmatic import) of the said phrase would deviate from what
was genuinely agreed upon, thus generating a row over a premeditated
Israeli interpretation and an uncompromising Arab interpretation.
Consequently, there was a dire need for the Arabic version to extrinsically
manage what was originally managed (by way of creating the ambiguity)
in the English version by rendering the above phrase into al-’araaḍi-l-
‘arabiyyati-llati-ḥtullat 'the Arab lands occupied' rather than ’araaḍin
‘arabiyyatin ’uḥtullat 'Arab lands occupied'.
Reading into ST, therefore, may sometimes create ideological
stumbling blocks. Witness how Khan and Hillali (1999) interpretively
read into verse 7 of the opening sura (fateha) of the Holy Quran. They
render it as "The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace,
not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of
those who went astray (such as the Christians)". The exemplification (i.e.

40
the Jews and the Christians) of the general references (i.e. those who
earned God's anger and those who went astray) respectively points to a
premeditated ideological move on the translators' part. The translators
have not confined themselves to the unspecific/general references in the
Quranic verse. For some reason, possibly in an attempt to account for the
deeply rooted enmity between Muslims and Jews for one thing, and the
recently renewed friction between Muslims and the Christian West for
another thing, they decided to bring out what they deem to be suppressed
information by way of freely reading into the above verse. By contrast,
other translators of the Holy Quran (Ali 1934, Arberry 1980, Pickthall
1980, and Zidan and Zidan 1996) have just monitored the general
references in the verse without entertaining any ideological moves. Zidan
and Zidan, for example, offer the following: "The way of those on whom
you have endowed Your Grace, not the way of those who earn Your
wrath, nor of those who go astray". In the following pages, we shall
examine translatorial ideological moves at different levels by employing a
variety of concocted and authentic examples.

2. Lexis
At the lexical level, extrinsic managing is readily noted in the translator's
choice between competing lexical items that represent different ideologies
or thought-worlds. The choice is inherently motivated by the translator's
socio-political commitments, convictions and background. News reports,
which are supposed to monitor (relay the information as objectively as
possible) rather than manage the content, are full of instances of extrinsic
managing at the lexical level. The following concocted example (whose
Arabic rendition is typical of the Arabic discourse in the pre-Oslo peace
pact period and is still echoed by some anti-peace Arab parties), along
with its extrinsically managed translation and a back-translation, is only
illustrative:

(1) In an interview with Newsweek yesterday, the Israeli

Defense Minister said that the Palestinian suicide operations
constitute the main cause for the Israeli troops' entering
cities in the West Bank.
‫) ادعى وزير الحرب الصهيوني في مقابلة مع مجلة النيوزويك أمس أن‬2(
‫العمليات االستشهادية الفلسطينية هي السبب الرئيس في اجتياح قوات‬
.‫االحتالل اإلسرائيلي للمدن الفلسطينية في الضفة الغربية المحتلة‬

41
 (3) In an interview with the Newsweek yesterday, the Zionist
War Minister claimed that the Palestinian martyrdom
operations are the main cause for the Zionist troops'
storming Palestinian cities in the occupied West Bank.

A simple comparison between the English text in (1) and the

English back-translation (3) of the Arabic translation in (2) can readily
reveal the considerable amount of extrinsic lexical managing the text in
(1) has been subjected to. The thought-world which is presented in (3) is
considerably different from that in (1). Until recently (and still in many
Arab countries' discourse) in the Arab-Israeli context, texts such as (1) are
usually subjected to extensive extrinsic managing by Arab translators
and/or editors. This act produces natural discourse in Arabic and receives
a wide approval from the Arab audience. To a Western audience,
however, a text like (3) sounds unnatural and biased; hence the dire need
to naturalize such texts by subjecting them to extensive intrinsic
managing, in order to produce something like the text in (1). In cases such
as these, considerations relating to the audience’s expectations play a
pivotal role, because they, in addition to the general policy/ideology
advocated by the agency/institution, determine the type of discourse opted
for. For example, it would be unimaginable for Newsweek to employ the
expression the Zionist Entity for Israel in a political commentary or a
news report as this would conflict with the expectations and taste of its
mainstream readers. One could argue that the ideology held by an
institution generally reflects what the target audiences expect of it. In the
final analysis, discourse is presented as a commodity and the reader as a
consumer (for more details, see Fairclough 1996).
One important feature of extrinsic lexical managing is the
translator's swapping framing verbs (such as say, claim, admit, confirm,
concede, etc.) when reporting an event, which is meant to twist the
position toward the state of affairs in question. Following is an illustrative
example (cited in Shunnaq 1994:106, and Farghal and Shunnaq
2011:118), along with an English translation involving different framing
verbs:
‫) قالت وزارة الدفاع الفرنسية إن طائرات الجاغور القاذفة المقاتلة قد قصفت‬4(
.‫مواقع حصينة للمدفعية العراقية في الكويت و عادت إلى قواعدها سالمة‬
(BBC, 23 Jan. 1991)

42
 (5) The French Defense Ministry said/claimed/admitted/
confirmed/conceded that its Jaguar jet fighters had bombed
well-fortified positions of the Iraqi artillery in Kuwait and
they safely returned to their bases.

It should be noted that monitoring could be attested only in the

case of employing the framing verb said in (4); all the other framing verbs
involve extrinsic lexical managing. While the translator's option for the
verb claimed casts doubt on the credibility of the state of affairs in
question, the use of the verb admitted and conceded indicates a previous
denial of that state of affairs. As for the verb confirmed, it shows that the
original source of the news segment was not the French Defense Ministry.
It is clear that the translator's decision to monitor or manage in news
reports is inherently relevant to his choice of framing verbs. Different
framing verbs usually embrace distinct thought-worlds or ideological
moves.
In some cases, extrinsic lexical managing is more subtle than we
find in the examples above, as can be illustrated below:
(6) On breaking news by the French News Agency, tens of Iraqi
civilians were killed and injured in an American air attack on
the city of Fallujah.
(7) On breaking news by the French News Agency, tens of
Palestinian civilians were killed and injured in an Israeli air
attack on Gaza Strip.

‫ قتل وجرح عشرات العراقيين‬،‫ في خبر عاجل لوكالة األنباء الفرنسية‬.8

.‫المدنيين في هجوم جوي أمريكي على مدينة الفلوجة‬

‫ استشهد وجرح عشرات‬،‫ يف خرب عاجل لوكالة األنباء الفرنسية‬.9

.‫الفلسطينيني املدنيني يف هجوم جوي إسرائيلي على قطاع غزة‬

The Arabic rendition of were killed as qutila (were killed) in (8)

and ’istušhida (fell as martyrs) in (9) depends on the ideological
orientation of the Arab medium. While virtually all Arab media refer to
Palestinians killed in clashes with Israeli forces as martyrs, these media
split on the Iraqi issue – only very few refer to Iraqis killed in the
aftermath of the American invasion of Iraq as martyrs. To give an
example, the widely viewed Al-Jazeera Channel in Qatar would

43
categorically use (8) in the Iraqi context but (9) in the Palestinian context.
This intentional choice reflects the ideology held by the said medium. In
this way, the extrinsic managing of one single lexeme can subtly indicate
deeply rooted ideologies.
Below are more examples of extrinsic lexical managing that
involve different ideological moves:
‫ النظام السوري‬: ‫) الحكومة السورية‬10(
The Syrian government vs. The Syrian regime'
‫ الرئيس العراقي المخلوع‬: ‫الرئيس العراقي السابق‬
The former Iraqi President vs. The deposed Iraqi
President'
‫ حرب األيام الستة‬: ‫حرب السبعة و ستون‬
The 1967 War vs. The Six-day War
‫ عملية إرهابية‬:‫عملية فدائية‬
A resistance operation vs. A terrorist attack
‫ الدول املتخلفة‬: ‫الدول النامية‬
Developing countries vs. Under-developed
countries
‫ أعمال شغب‬: ‫مظاهرات‬
demonstrations vs. riots
‫ قوات االحتالل يف العراق‬: ‫قوات التحالف يف العراق‬
The coalition forces in Iraq vs. The occupation
forces in Iraq
‫ العدوان الثالثي على مصر‬: ‫أزمة السويس‬
The Suez Crisis vs. The Tripartite Aggression
on Egypt
‫ اخلليج الفارسي‬: ‫اخلليج العريب‬
The Arab Gulf vs. The Persian Gulf

Let us examine only the first and last examples. The choice
between The Syrian government and The Syrian regime in a translated
text between English and Arabic is a significant one. While the former
involves neutral or objective reference, the latter shows biased or
pejorative reference. Similarly, the choice between ‫( اخللييج العيريب‬The Arab
Gulf) and ‫( اخللييج الفارسيي‬the Persian Gulf) in a translation reflects rival
claims over the Gulf by the Arabs and the Persians. The choice between x

44
and y can be costly for the translator, as any oversight may cost him his
job, if not something dearer to him. It would be so odd, if not fatal, for a
translator working for a newspaper or any other medium in an Arab
country to render The Persian Gulf in an English text as ‫ اخللييج الفارسيي‬in his
Arabic translation. Consequently, there are cases where extrinsic
managing may be necessary for practical considerations, which include
commissioners’ dictates and readers’ expectations. However, in some
cases where such considerations are marginalized, a rendition reflecting
the producer’s ideology becomes necessary. To give an example, when
the Iranian President Ahmadi Najad addressed the Gulf States’ summit
conference as guest observer in Qatar (2007), he used the Persian
expression corresponding to ‘the Persian Gulf” several times, and every
time the interpreter rightly rendered it as ‫‘ اخللييج الفارسيي‬The Gulf Persian’
because it represents a premeditated ideological move that carries
political consequences. Later on, some Arab commentators blamed Arab
Gulf States’ Heads for remaining quiescent about such a sensitive matter.
As can be noted, the examples of managing given in this section
involve more predicates (common nouns, verbs, and adjectives) than
proper nouns (which have unique reference). This does not mean that
proper nouns are less vulnerable to managing than predicates in
translation. The choice between proper nouns denoting the same thing
such as Israel vs. Palestine, Hebron vs. Al-Khalil, Jerusalem vs. Al-Quds,
Solomon vs. Suleiman, David vs. Dawood, etc. may also indicate
ideological moves. To explain, the avoidance of proper nouns that have a
biblical ring to them may be meant to emphasize the Arabo-Islamic
identity of the referents. For example, the employment of Palestine rather
than Israel or Al-Khalil instead of Hebron, when translating between
Arabic and English, may transpire deep historical and political claims and
convictions on the part of the translator and/or the party commissioning
the translation. Witness how the Arab translator in (11) renders the
Temple Mount in (12) as ‫' املسيجد األقصيى‬Al-Aqsa Mosque' rather than ‫جبيل‬
‫ اهليكل‬in the following text:
(11) After Israeli police and Palestinian demonstrators clashed on
the Temple Mount a year ago and 21 Arabs were shot dead,
a number of Palestinians retaliated with knife attacks on Jews
inside Israel proper. (The Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1992)

45
 ‫) بعد أن اصطدمت الشرطة اإلسرائيلية و المتظاهرون الفلسطينيون في‬12(
‫ فقد انتقم عدد‬،ً‫ وقتل واحد وعشرون عربيا‬،‫المسجد األقصى قبل سنة‬
.‫من الفلسطينيين بالهج مات بالسكاكين على اليهود داخل إسرائيل نفسها‬
(Al-Ra'i, Jan. 27, 1992)

Translating a news report, it would be ridiculous for the translator

addressing an Arab audience to render The Temple Mount as ‫ جبيل اهليكيل‬for
two reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, this would give credence to
Jewish claims over the referent and, consequently, shock informed Arab
readers. Secondly, some uninformed Arab readers may not be able to
understand the signification of the reference (i.e. the fact that the two
referring expressions The Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa Mosque represent
the same denotatum), thus creating serious processing problems. To avoid
such mishaps, the translator's ideological intervention proves necessary.
However, one could imagine a context where the translator of an
argumentative text should render The Temple Mount as ‫جبيل اهليكيل‬, in order
to have his audience realize where, for example, the American
government stands on the issue of reference to the denotatum in question.
Another similar example of lexical managing, though some may
argue less justified, is Abdel-Sabour's (1999) translation of Frinklestone's
(1996) book's title Anwar Sadat: Visionary who dared into ‫ وهي‬:‫السيااات‬
‫' التحيدي‬Sadat: The Illusion of Challenge'. One can readily observe the
contrasting orientations created by the original title (which presents Al-
Sadat as a visionary) and its Arabic translation (which presents Al-Sadat
as a deluded leader). This clear translatorial ideological move is borne out
throughout the translation. Given the controversial, but mostly negative,
position toward Anwar Al-Sadat, who sailed away from his Arab brethren
and all alone concluded a peace agreement with Israel in 1979, the
translator opted to twist the original's thought-world by presenting one
that is more congruent with the mainstream sentiment of his target
audience (Arab readers). Of course, one can raise the question of fidelity
in this case, that is, the translator turning a pro-Sadat original into an anti-
Sadat translation. However, considerations of the translator as active
agent and the audience as an influential contextual factor may play down
the relevance of fidelity. In point fact and apart from translation critics,
one can hardly imagine that an ordinary reader would ever juxtapose the
original with the translation to check fidelity. Normally, the reader would

46
go for either the original or the translation but not both, depending on his
linguistic repertoire. It is only in the contrived world of academia that the
translation is often analyzed in light of the original.
In some cases, the translator may tone down obscenities by opting
for euphemism. Following is an excerpt from Graham Greene's novel The
Honorary Consul (1975), along with its translation by Ata Abdulwahab
(al-qunṣulu-l-faxriiyyu, 1986):

(13) You never intended to be found out. It was cheaper for you,
wasn't it, not having to pay for your fucks. (p. 237)

‫ كان األرخص عليك أن ال تدفع‬،‫) ولم تقصد مطلقا ً أن يكتشف أمرك‬14(

(p. 299) ‫أجرا ً عن نومك معها‬
[You never intended your affair to be discovered; it was cheaper
for you not to pay for your sleeping with her]

As can be noted, the translator replaced the taboo word fucks in (13) with
the euphemistic expression ‫( نومكك معهكا‬your sleeping with her) in (14), in
order to conform to the norms of politeness in the conservative Arab
culture. Without this ideological move, the Arabic text would sound too
obscene to Arab readers.

3. Syntax
At the syntactic level, extrinsic managing may manifest itself through the
translator's treatment of agency, modality and evaluativeness, among
other things. Agency refers to whether the agent or doer of an action is
mentioned or suppressed in the translation. The translator may choose to
befog the responsibility of a wrongdoing by hiding the agent, despite the
fact that it is explicit in the original. Following is an illustrative example,
along with its extrinsically managed renditions:

.‫) قتلت القوات اإلسرائيلية ثالثة شبان فلسطينيني يف القدس الشرقية هذا الصباح‬15(
(16) Three Palestinian youths were killed in East Jerusalem this
morning.
(17) Three Palestinian youths were killed in clashes with Israeli
troops in East Jerusalem this morning.

47
 Both (16) and (17) show extrinsic syntactic managing at different
degrees. On the one hand, the translator hides the agent of the killing in
(16), despite the fact that the doer is explicitly stated in the Arabic
version; hence, the uninformed receiver may wonder who did the killing.
On the other hand, the translator in (17) befogs the responsibility of the
killing by ascribing the agency to both Palestinians and Israeli forces, thus
intentionally avoiding putting the blame on the Israeli troops in this
incident.
Extrinsic syntactic managing may also target modality (the way
the text producer views states of affairs in terms of degrees of certainty
(epistemic modality) or obligation (deontic modality)), thus seriously
altering the thought-world presented in the SL text, as can be illustrated in
the following English example, along with its extrinsically managed
Arabic translation:

(18) The Head of the International Investigation Commission

in the assassination of the Lebanese former Prime Minister
Rafiq Al-Hariri said that some Syrian officials may have
been involved in this crime.

‫ ) قال رئيس لجنة التحقيق الدولية في اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني السابق رفيق‬19(
.‫الحريري إن بعض المسئولين السوريين متورطون في هذه الجريمة‬

As can be noted, the alleged Syrian involvement, which is a mere

possibility in (18), becomes an absolute certainty in the Arabic translation
in (19), due to the translator's intervention in the modality of the original.
In some cases, the translator may opt to change epistemic
modality to deontic modality, thus twisting a cautious tone into an
aggressive one. The following excerpt comes from an English translation
of an editorial (in the form of an open letter) addressed to Dr. Bashar Al-
Asad (who was then charged with the Lebanese file / now president of
Syria) by Jubran Tweni of the leading Lebanese daily Al-Nahar on
23/3/2000, along with the Arabic original (for more details, see Badran
2001):
(20) You must understand that there is bad blood between some
Lebanese and the Syrian Army, that our generation inherited
the civil war, but did not initiate it, that we were not
warmongers, and that there are no such things as eternal
wars and eternal enemies.

48
 ‫ وتعرف‬،‫) أنت تعرف أن ثمة دما ً بين بعض اللبنانيين و الجيش السوري في لبنان‬21)
‫ و أنه ليس‬،‫ و أننا لسنا هواة حروب أبدية‬،‫أن جيلنا ورث الحرب ولم يكن سببها‬
.‫هنالك من حروب أبدية أو عداءات أبدية‬

It is clear that what is viewed as epistemically known by the

addressee in the SL text (i.e. ‘You know that …’) is projected as an
obligation to be met by the addressee (i.e. ‘You must understand that …’).
This pervasive feature of the English translation in question turns the
cautious original into an aggressive translation, although the content is
generally preserved.
In other cases, changing the modality, perhaps inadvertently, can
seriously affect the ideology embodied in the discourse. The following
example, taken from Victims of a Map – a group of selected poems by M.
Darwish, S. Al-Qasim, and A. Adonis, and translated by Abdullah Al-
Udhari, demonstrates how altering a remote possibility (epistemic
modality) to general obligation (deontic modality) renders a different
ideological move. (The excerpt comes from Darwish's poem ‫إذا ككان لكي أن‬
‫‘أعيد البداية‬If I Were to Start All over Again'):

‫ إلى وردتي نفسها و إلى خطوتي نفسها‬،‫) أعود إذا كان لي أن أعود‬22(
.‫و لكنني ال أعود إلى قرطبة‬
(23) I will return if I have to return, to my roses, to my steps
But I will never go back to Cordova.

In (23), apart from problems with the poetic symbols (for details,
see Farghal and Haji in Farghal et al 2015), the modality of the discourse
presented by the translator is significantly different from that entertained
by the poet. To explain, the translation views 'the return' in terms of
general obligation (if I have to return), thus calling into question the
cherished desire to return to the occupied land (Palestine), whereas the
poet envisions 'the return' as a remote possibility ‫' إذا ككان لكي أن أعكود‬if I were
to return'), while maintaining this long-cherished desire. As is clear, we
have two different modalities which embrace considerably diverging
ideologies. Taken in good faith, this modality mismatch may be a mere
inaccuracy on the translator’s part. However, regardless of how we view
it, such a mismatch produces consequential ideological outcomes.
The translator may also opt to fiddle with the evaluativeness of a
rebutting SL text by ignoring some syntactic (and lexical) emphatic

49
markers (for details, see Farghal 1991). This will result in weakening the
impact of the message in the TL, as can be shown below:

‫) إن العلماء والمفكرين العرب الذين هاجروا من أوطانهم األصلية واستقروا‬24(

.‫في الغرب قدموا وما زالوا يقدمون إسهامات معرفية هامة للبشرية جمعاء‬

(25) Arab scientists and intellectuals who migrated from their

home countries and settled in the West have made some
epistemological contributions for humanity.
(26) Arab scientists and intellectuals who migrated from their
home countries and settled in the West indeed made and
are still making important epistemological contributions
for humanity at large.

A simple comparison between the renditions in (25) and (26) can

show the discrepancy in the degree of their evaluativeness (While (25) is
hardly evaluative, (24) is highly evaluative), due to the translator's toning
down the message in the Arabic text (24)). Therefore, to strengthen the
impact of the message, the text producer may employ both syntactic and
lexical evaluativeness markers (such as the bold-faced segments in (24)),
which an intolerant translator may just dispense with by exercising
extrinsic managing.
As is clear in this section, extrinsic managing at the level of syntax
can be linguistically discerned and described, but its impact is
ideologically far-reaching, regardless of how small the managed feature
is. It should be noted that, in some cases, the translation loss may result
from the translator's inability to relay, for instance, an evaluativeness
marker properly. In such cases, what we have are mishaps relating to
translational competence rather than a conscious option for extrinsic
managing on the part of the translator. In the next section, we shall
examine global extrinsic managing at the levels of discourse and/or
culture.

4. Discourse and/or Culture

Unlike extrinsic lexical and syntactic managing, extrinsic managing at the
levels of discourse and/or culture is difficult to pinpoint in terms of
managed linguistic features because of its rather global than local nature.
A classic example is Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Al-Khayyam's
Rubaiyat, where the translator intentionally renders the religious, mystical

50
atmosphere in the Persian SL text into a secular, hedonistic one in his
English translation. Hence, divine love and wine in the original Persian
poem become human love and wine in the English translation. His
decision to do so was apparently motivated by the literary and cultural
taste of his target audience rather than a commitment to relaying SL
culture values. Fitzgerald himself wrote in a letter to his friend E. B.
Cowell (1902) "It is an amusement for me to take whatever liberties I like
with these Persians, who (as I think) are not Poets enough to frighten one
from excursions and who really do want a little art to shape them".
Lefevere (1992) remarks, "Fitzgerald would never have taken the same
liberties with classical Greek or Roman authors, not only because they
represented a superior culture but also because there were too many
experts around who could check his translation".
Interestingly, the celebrity translation of Rubaiyat by Ahmed
Rami, which was performed by the renowned Egyptian woman singer Um
Kulthum, was based on the French translation (which apparently used the
English translation as a ST) rather than the Persian original. By way of
illustration, witness the thematic similarity between the English excerpt in
(27) and its Arabic counterpart in (28) below:

(27) Dreaming when Dawn's Left Hand was in the Sky

I heard a Voice within the Tavern cry,
"Awake, my little ones, and fill the Cup
Before Life's Liquor in its Cup be dry."
‫اناى من الغيب غفاة البشر‬ ‫) مسعت صواتً هاتفاً يف السحر‬28(
‫متأل كأس العمر كف القدر‬ ‫هبوا إمألوا كأس املىن قبل أن‬
[I heard a voice crying at dawn
Calling from the unknown sleeping people
Rise and fill up the glass of death before
The glass of age is filled by the wrist of destiny]

In particular, one should note the secular, hedonistic atmosphere

created in the Arabic translation which exactly mirrors that of the English
one. In both cases, we witness extrinsic managing at the levels of
discourse and culture, although this managing is in disguise in the Arabic
text, as it is a relay translation (a translation of a translation into a fourth
language, i.e. Persian into English into French into Arabic) rather than a
translation of the Persian original.

51
 News reports are probably the most vulnerable to extrinsic
managing at the level of discourse. News translators and/or editors often
intervene in the original news item by changing, deleting or adding
segments, in order to make ideological moves that are congruent with
institutionalized policies set by various political bodies. To see the
difference between monitoring and extrinsic managing in news reporting,
let us first look at an English and an Arabic BBC news items where
monitoring is predominant, which is meant to reflect the objectivity and
neutrality of the BBC radio service (These examples and the related ones
below are cited in Al-Shamali (1992); also see Shunnaq (1994) for similar
data):

(29) PLO Chairman Mr. Yaser Arafat opened the Palestine

National Council meetings in Tunis today. The PNC will
discuss the Palestinian participation in the proposed Mideast
peace conference to be held in Madrid next month. Israel
rejects any role for the PLO in the conference and insists
that it will only talk to Palestinian representatives from the
occupied territories.

‫) افتتح السيد ياسر عرفات رئيس منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية اجتماعات المجلس‬30(
‫ وسوف يناقش المجلس المشاركة الفلسطينية‬.‫الوطني الفلسطيني في تونس اليوم‬
‫في مؤتمر السالم المقترح حول الشرق األوسط والمتوقع انعقاده في العاصمة‬
‫ هذا وترفض إسرائيل أي دور لمنظمة التحرير‬.‫اإلسبانية مدريد في الشهر القادم‬
‫الفلسطينية في المؤتمر وتصر على أنها لن تتحدث إال مع ممثلين فلسطينيين من‬
.‫األرض المحتلة‬

One can readily note the strict monitoring process between the
BBC English and Arabic versions of the news item in (29) and (30). This
institutionalized policy has won the BBC an unrivalled popularity all over
the world. Unfortunately, monitoring news reports is the exception rather
than the rule, as can be illustrated by the Arabic versions of the same
news item as relayed by Radio Israel and Radio Jordan in (31) and (32),
respectively:
‫) افتتح ياسر عرفات رئيس المنظمة اجتماعات المجلس الوطني الفلسطيني في‬31(
‫تونس اليوم وسط خالفات حول مشاركة الفلسطينيين في مؤتمر السالم المقترح‬
‫ ولن يكون‬،‫حول الشرق األوسط والمنوي انعقاده في مدريد في الشهر القادم‬
‫للمنظمة أي دور في المؤتمر وسيمثل الجانب الفلسطيني ممثلون من سكان‬
.‫المناطق‬

52
 ‫ ) افتتح السيد ياسر عرفات رئيس دولة فلسطين اجتماعات المجلس الوطني‬32(
‫الفلسطيني في تونس اليوم وسوف يناقش المجلس المشاركة الفلسطينية في مؤتمر‬
‫السالم المقترح حول الشرق األوسط والذي سيعقد في العاصمة اإلسبانية مدريد‬
.‫في الشهر القادم‬

Extrinsic managing of the discourse in the news item broadcast by

Radio Israel in (31) cannot escape even the layman. It starts with the
deletion of the social honorific Mr (which is the given title of address for
a person like Yaser Arafat) and the use of the pejoratively dismissive and
elliptical ‫' املنظمية‬organization' instead of the full name ‫منظمية التحريير الفلسيطينية‬
'Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)'. The former is meant to show
disrespect to the referent and the latter indicates that Israel does not
recognize PLO as a liberation movement. The next manifestation of
extrinsic managing involves giving the impression to receivers that there
are differences among Palestinians about their participation in the
conference, thus blurring the fact that it is Israel which opposes such
participation in the first place. The systematic ideological intervention in
the discourse culminates in the decisive statement (which jumps the gun,
of course) that there will be no place for the PLO at the Madrid
conference, which was then a negotiable issue. Finally, the politically-
oriented label ‫' األراضييي التل ية‬the occupied land' is relegated to the
administratively-oriented term ‫' املنياق‬the territories'. This intricate web of
extrinsic managing effectively creates a discourse that reflects Israel's
policy toward the state of affairs in question at that time.
As for Radio Jordan's version of the news item, it also reflects
Jordanian government positions. To start with, the employment of the
disputed label ‫' اولية فلسيطني‬State of Palestine' reflects an official Jordanian
political stance toward the political status of Mr. Arafat, which was not
then recognized internationally. More subtly, this version omits the
mention of the Israeli objection to allowing the PLO to participate in the
conference. The suppression of this important information may have to do
with the Jordanian government's desire to form a joint delegation with the
Palestinians to the conference. So, apparently, they chose not to take a
stance toward this issue by just eschewing it, in anticipation of unfolding
developments which may come to their favor. Silence, in this way, can
accomplish ideological moves which speech may fall short of.
Sometimes, cultural concepts may come under the translator's fire.
In the Arab-Islamic context, we often hear of the orientalists and some

53
Western writers' distorting Islamic culture. The Danish blasphemous
caricatures of Prophet Mohammed (2006), which had stirred Muslim
people round the globe and, in effect, created an international crisis, may
have evolved in the minds of their author(s) from extensive extrinsic
managing of Islamic culture in original and translated material. To
illustrate extrinsic managing at the level of culture, let us examine the
following concocted Arabic text (33), along with two English translations
exemplifying monitoring (34) and extrinsic managing (35) of culture,
respectively:

‫) في شهر رمضان المبارك ينهض المسلمون من نومهم في ساعة متأخرة من الليل‬33(

‫أو قبيل الفجر لتناول وجبة السحور التي تعينهم على صيام يوم طويل قبل اإلفطار‬
‫ وبعد تناول السحور يتوجه معظم الرجال إلى المسجد لتأدية صالة‬.‫عند المغيب‬
.‫الفجر‬

(34) In the fasting month of Ramadan, Muslims awake late at

night or just before dawn to have a meal called Al-Sahur,
thus preparing themselves for a long day before breakfast is
permitted at sunset. Having had this meal, most men make
for the mosque to perform their dawn prayers.

(35) In the fasting month of Ramadan, Muslims strangely awake

late at night or just before dawn to stuff themselves with
food that could last them for a tediously long day before a
meal is permitted at sunset. Still worse, most men, having
supplied themselves with enough ammunition (food), make
for the mosque to perform their dawn rituals.

A simple comparison between (34) and (35) readily shows how

objective and tolerant the former is and how biased and intolerant the
latter is. While the translator of (34) just monitors the values belonging to
Islamic culture, the translator of (35) seriously disparages these values by
engaging in extrinsic managing of the SL culture in light of different
values of the TL culture. For instance, people do not awake late at night to
eat in Western culture, so an activity of this sort is deemed eccentric by
those lacking tolerance of different cultural values. Therefore, the
translator of (35) intentionally employs pejorative and/or negative
vocabulary such as strangely, stuff themselves with food, tediously, still
worse, ammunition, etc. in order to gear the text toward his own goals.

54
 The extrinsic managing of religious culture can be very
consequential, as can be illustrated by the English translation of the
opening statement of Bin Laden’s speech on October 2001, along with the
Arabic original:

(36) Thanks to God, he who God guides will never lose. And I
believe that there’s only one God. And I believe there’s no
1
prophet but Mohammed.( )
(CNN, ABC, and FOX networks)

‫) إن الحمد هلل نحمده ونستعين به و نستغفره ونستعيذ به من شرور أنفسنا‬37(

‫ وأشهد أن ال إله إال هللا وحده ال شريك له وأشهد‬... ‫وسيئات أعمالنا‬
... ،‫أن محمدا ً عبده ورسوله‬
[Praise be to Allah whom we praise, seek help from, ask for
forgiveness, and seek refuge in for protection from our evils
and sinful deeds ... and I testify that there is no god but
Allah who has no partners and I testify that Mohammed
is his slave and his prophet]

As is clear, the translation offered by CNN, ABC and FOX

networks distorts one of the basic teachings of Islam, that is, Prophet
Mohammed is only one prophet, but the last, among many other prophets
mentioned in the Holy Quran. This ideological move blasphemes Islam
and instigates non-Muslims against it. Uninformed readers who belong to
other divine religions would be dumbfounded by this statement, not
knowing that it is premeditated misinformation. One may argue that it
could have been a slip of the tongue by the interpreter/translator, but the
fact that it had not been post-edited negates such an argument. Another
point that could be raised here concerns the repetition of the matrix verb
believe, which presents the relevant propositions as belonging to the
speaker (Bin Laden) only, i.e. they are contentious.
Sometimes, the extrinsic managing of religious culture comes
close to intrinsic managing (domesticating the text). Consider the
following excerpt (along with its Arabic original) from Le Gassick’s
(1975) translation of Mahfouz’s (1947) novel Zuqaq Al-midaq (Midaq
Alley):

(38) “My intentions are completely pure. Don’t rush off

Hamida, let’s turn into Azhar street. I’m sure you know

55
 what I want to say. Don’t you feel anything?
One’s emotions are the best guide.” (p. 57)

‫ ميلي بنا إلى‬.‫ ال تسرعي هكذا يا حميدة‬. ‫) – طاهر النية و سيدنا الحسين‬39(
‫ أنت‬.‫ ينبغي أن تصغي إلي‬.‫ أريد أقول لك كلمة هامة‬.‫الشارع األزهر‬
‫ أال تعلمين؟ أال تشعرين؟ قلب المؤمن‬.‫تعلمين وال شك بما أريد أن أقوله‬
)46 .‫ (ص‬... ‫دليله‬
[Pure intentions (I swear) by our Master Al-Huasin.
Don't rush off Hamida like this. Let's turn into Ashar
Street. I want to say to you an important word. You
must listen to me. You know for sure what I want
say. Don't you know it? Don't you feel it? A believer's
heart is his guide ....]

As can be observed, the Arabic text includes two religious

references, which are indicated in bold type above. The first expression
(swearing by a religious figure) is a familiar emphatic feature of Arabic
conversation, that is, it is meant to emphasize the truthfulness of the
relevant proposition and drive away doubts on the part of the interlocutor.
The second religious expression makes proverbial reference to the
soundness of a ‘believer’s feelings’, viz. ‘A believer’s heart is his guide’.
Unfortunately, both references are extrinsically managed by replacing
them with general expressions in the TL, thus depleting the translation of
the religious tinge the SL text has. One may argue that the translator has
done that by way of naturalizing the TL text, e.g. it is not customary to
emphasize the truthfulness of a proposition by swearing in English. It
remains true, however, that transferring the taste and spirit of the original
is an essential aspect of translating creative works.
Our next, and last, example of extrinsic managing at the levels of
discourse and culture is excerpted from a translation by Hasan Mish'al
(1984) of a book titled Black Sunday by Thomas Harris (1975). The
extrinsic managing in the translation starts at the title of the book, which
is rendered as ‫ تصييور أمريكييي ص ي يوف للعمييل الفييدائي الفلسييطيي‬:‫' األحييد األسييوا‬Black
Sunday: An American, Zionist Account of Palestinian Guerrilla War'. The
added subtitle clearly shows the translator's decision to intervene in the
content of the SL text. Following is the study excerpt (40), along with its
English original (41), a back-translation of the Arabic version (42), and a
monitored Arabic translation of the English original (43):

56
 ‫) كان حافظ نظير وهو اآلمر الحقيقي لجهاز رصد فتح يؤمن بحق استرجاع‬40(
‫ واالنتقام من كل الذين عذبوا شعبه طوال السنين‬،‫فلسطين خالصة للعرب‬
(p. 9) ...... ،‫الماضية‬

(41) Najeer was the commander of Black September. He

did not believe in the concept of a "Middle East
situation." The restoration of Palestine to the Arabs
would not have elated him. He believed in holocaust,
the fire that purifies. (p. 2)

(42) Hafiz Nazeer, who was the real commander of

Fatah Detection Tool, believed in the right of restoring
entire Palestine to the Arabs and taking revenge upon all
those who tortured his people through the past years.

‫ و هو لم يؤمن بمفهوم يسمى "قضية‬."‫) كان نظير آمر كتيبة "أيلول األسود‬43(
‫ فكل ما كان‬.‫ و لم تكن لتسره عودة فلسطين للعرب‬،"‫الشرق األوسط‬
.‫ الدم الذي يشفي الغليل‬- ‫يعنيه هو إراقة الدم‬

A quick look at the extrinsically managed Arabic translation in

(40) can show us how different this is from the monitored Arabic version
in (43). The two texts present significantly different thought-worlds. In
the managed version, the translator (Mish'al) presents Nazeer (the Black
September's commander) as a freedom fighter striving to restore occupied
Palestine and take revenge for his wronged people. By contrast, the
monitored version (my own), which reflects the English original, presents
him as an extremist who is completely unconcerned with the restoration
of occupied Palestine, as he is totally possessed by nothing but an urge to
kill all those who oppressed Palestinians.
Another important feature of extrinsic managing in (40) is the
translator's avoidance of the true name of the Fatah faction, that is, Black
September ‫أيليول األسيوا‬, which he replaced with a Fatah office position, viz.
Fatah Detection Tool ‫ج ياز رصيد فيت‬. Apparently, the translator, being a
Jordanian national of a Palestinian origin, wanted to eschew this label
because of its sensitive political connotations in the Jordanian context. To
explain, the Fatah faction chose this label in the aftermath of the clashes
between the Jordanian Armed Forces and armed Palestinian guerrillas

57
based in Jordan, which resulted in driving the guerrillas out and
terminally ending the armed Palestinian presence in Jordan. The said
clashes peaked in September (1970), hence the label Black September.
In this way, we have a double-layered scheme of extrinsic
managing in (40). On the one hand, and most importantly, Mish'al (the
translator) intentionally reconstructs the thought-world presented by
Harris (the author) in a way such that it comes closer to what he (Mish'al)
believes. Thus, the translator reshapes what he deems a biased American
and/or Zionist account of Palestinian guerrilla war against Israel and its
allies. On the other hand, the translator is aware of political sensitivities in
the Jordanian-Palestinian context; hence, he extrinsically manages labels
such as Black September.
One may wonder whether the translator has done his target Arab
audience good or not by having the author (Thomas Harris) sound
sympathetic to the Palestinian cause at some junctures (e.g. the excerpt in
(40) above), despite the fact that the title he has given to his translation
reflects an anti-Palestinian stance. Apparently, the translator found it too
difficult to detach himself from what American Zionists think of
Palestinian guerrilla war, hence his serious ideological intervention in the
propositions that condemn Palestinian resistance. In this case, we are in
the presence of a translator who functions as an active agent following his
own skopi (purposes), regardless of whether they are congruent or not
with the readers’ expectations.

5. Conclusion
This paper has shown through a variety of examples that extrinsic
managing is a basic component of translation activity whereby translation
agents can intervene to twist the ideologies in the SL text in many ways.
This ideological intervention may be performed locally at the lexical and
syntactic levels or globally at the levels of discourse and culture.
Regardless of the level at which extrinsic managing is carried out, the
ideological weight of such an act is usually far-reaching.
The question whether extrinsic managing should or should not be
sanctioned in translation activity loses much of its appeal when we
consider the contexts in which such managing is performed. On the one
hand, translation activity may be viewed as a transferring enterprise based
on a sacred original, where the translator functions as a mere mediator.
On the other hand, translation activity may be regarded as an authoring
enterprise based on the skopos of the translation, where the translator
functions as a free agent. In-between, there are a host of cases in which

58
differing judgments can be passed regarding extrinsic managing. All the
same, the proverbial expression ‘circumstances alter cases’ may constitute
a signpost when attempting to pass a judgment on translatorial ideological
moves. Therefore, an ideological move that may be judged as
commendable in one circumstance may turn out to be condemnable in
another.

NOTES
1. This extrinsically managed translation can be contrasted with the
following translation offered by the Associated Press: ‘I bear witness that
there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger’.
Although this translation has deleted some formulaic/ritualistic material,
it has monitored the main religious information with no ideological
intervention.

59
 Lexical Aspects of Schemata in Translation

Abstract
This article provides empirical evidence for a schematic model of
translation in which markedness plays a central role. An ambiguous text
was given two different titles that called for schematically different
translations. Regardless of their lexical competence, most translation
students and teachers who participated opted for the unmarked schema in
the text although this conflicted with the schema marked in the title. It
therefore seems that schematic markedness is less robust than lexical
competence in translational activity.

1. Lexical aspect of schemata

Schemata are cumulative cognitive structures which comprise our
knowledge of the universe (Rumelhart and Ortony 1977; Rumelhart 1981;
Carrel 1983). They manifest themselves in the form of content, formal,
and strategy schemata (Casanave 1988). Meaningful discourse, whether
spoken or written, depends entirely upon the interlocutors’ possession of
corresponding schemata. The processing of information of a text
correlates with its informativity (Beaugrande and Dressler 1981). This
means that the more predictable the schematic structure is, the easier the
processing.
Since it is communication, translational activity is also subject to
appropriate schematic interpretation. Correct text comprehension is based
on a successful matching and integration between the text’s schematic
structure and the schemata available in the translator’s encyclopedic
repertoire and is therefore essential for the production of an adequate
translation. Lexical competence may mediate between schemata and their
activation.
A Jordanian study by Shakir and Farghal (1991) used an untitled
textual passage which was open to two interpretations, namely a prison
and wrestling schema. It was assumed that the wrestling schema was
culturally understandable to both native and non-native speakers of
English, for although wrestling is a sport not practiced in Jordan, it is
often shown on Jordanian television, so that most literate Jordanians can
be expected to know the sport. Nevertheless, only native speakers of
English could activate the wrestling schema in the passage whereas the
prison schema proved transparent to all subjects independently of their
levels of lexical competence. This indicates that lexical markedness is
important for schematic interpretation by non-native speakers of English,

60
but it is relevant to point out that, even so, most speakers of English opted
for the prison schema.
One way to ascertain psychological reality for what I call ‘lexical
markedness’ in relation to schematic interpretation is to check dictionaries
since lexical items reflect lexicographers’ (subconscious) awareness of
lexical markedness: if one sense is presented before another, then the
second one is considered more marked than the first sense. This implies
that an interpretation of a text will be based on linearly precedent senses
of lexically ambiguous words and that, consequently, there will be more
interpretations based on unmarked schema than on subsequent senses
which involve more marked schemata. If this is so, dictionaries’ linear
presentation of ambiguous words will correlate with the markedness of
schemata based on such words in passages without any context.
The study described here attempts to find empirical evidence for a
schematic model of translation where lexical competence is central. It
assumes that linear precedence in dictionary entries of words correlates
with schematic interpretation of texts, in reading as well as in translation.

2. Material
The text used in the study was from Yule (1985) and ran as follows:

Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment
and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being
held, especially since the charge against him had been weak. He considered his
present situation. The lock that held him was strong, but he thought he could
break it.

The text permits two headings, namely ‘Rocky in Prison’ and ‘Rocky in
the Wrestling Arena’.

3. Lexicographical Material
I checked two dictionaries, namely Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary (2002) and Collins Concise Dictionary (1995) for linear
precedence in their entries on four key ambiguous lexical items in the
above text. The words are escape (get away from prison vs. get away
from or avoid dangerous or unpleasant situation), being held (in prison vs.
in wrestling), charge (accusation vs. attack), and lock (of door vs.
wrestling hold). The first sense is linearly precedent to the second sense
for escape, being held, and charge in both dictionaries. As far as lock is
concerned, the first sense is also listed before the second one in Collins,

61
whereas the second sense (that is ‘wrestling hold’) is not included in
Oxford leraner’s dictionary.

4. The experiment
The text from Yule was given one of the two titles cited above. The two
titles differ in markedness of the cognitive load: the first refers to an
obvious, unmarked schema, while the other has a relatively marked
schema. The texts were given to two groups for translation into Arabic:
The first group comprised twenty-three Yarmouk University (Jordan) MA
translation students. They did the translations in class without
dictionaries. The other group consisted of nine Yarmouk University
professors of English and Linguistics who were asked to do the
translations on their own but “intuitively”, which means that dictionary
use was not encouraged. The wrestling schema was deemed less
transparent, or more problematic, whereas the prison schema was
considered so transparent that it would be interpreted and subsequently
translated correctly by all participants. Therefore, the transparent text was
given to only four MA students. The version featuring the wrestling
schema was given to the other nineteen MA students and all the nine
professors.
I expected student translators to impose the unmarked schema on
the version with the marked schema because of insufficient lexical
competence. On the other hand, I assumed that the professors would
successfully assign the appropriate schema to the marked version, thanks
to their lexical knowledge.
To ascertain the validity of the marked schema, it was given to
two native speakers of American English. They were asked to give an oral
and general interpretation of the text. Both identified the text
unequivocally as a description of a wrestling match, a response which
grants psychological reality to our schematic interpretation. Both
informants would therefore have given Arabic translations corresponding
to the wrestling schema if they had known Arabic.

5. Results and discussion

5.1 The student groups
As expected, the four MA students translated the first version as
involving a prison schema. Their translations disambiguated the key
lexical items by rendering them into harab (running away), mu’taqal or
muḥtajaz (arrested), tuhmah (accusation), and qifl (lock of prison). This is
shown in the following English back-translation of one of these

62
renditions:
Rocky in Prison
Rocky slowly got up from the carpet, planning to run away. He hesitated a
moment and thought. The thing that bothered him was his being under arrest,
especially that the accusations against him were weak. He thought about his
present situation. The lock that held him was strong, but he thought he could
break it. (All back-translations are mine)

Unambiguously indicating a prison schema, it seems that the

student translators’ successfully employed a top-down mode of
processing. The macro-context (the prison context) persevered throughout
the text, thus creating congruence between macro-analysis and micro-
analysis (Van Dijk 1978; 1980; and Renkema 1993) which results in a
sound schematic translation.
In the other group of MA student translators, four subjects did not
translate the title at all, while fifteen translated it correctly. However, in
spite of this awareness of the macro-context, only two participants
rendered the wrestling schema in their translations. Below is an English
back-translation of one of them:

Rocky in the Wrestling Arena

Rocky slowly got up from the floor of the arena, planning his escape [najaatih
‘his escape from a difficult situation’ as opposed to huruubih ‘his escape from
prison’]. He hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What
bothered him most was being held in wrestling, especially that the attack against
him was weak. He thought about his situation. Although the fist that held him
was strong, he thought he could get out of it.

The other seventeen translations can be divided into three

categories. The first comprises seven translations featuring a prison
schema. We may assume that these student translators used bottom-up
processing since the macro-context was not borne out in the translation of
the body of the text. Apparently the relevant marked schema was
overridden by the irrelevant unmarked schema once they proceeded
beyond the translation of the title to the rest the passage. It could be that
the lexical opacity congruent with the wrestling schema gave way to the
lexical transparency associated with a prison schema. In other words, the
student translators opted for the irrelevant prison schema which conflicted
with the relevant wrestling schema, simply because it was cognitively
more accessible. A back-translation serves to illustrate the result:

63
 Rocky in the Wrestling Arena
Rocky got up from the floor, planning to run away. He hesitated a moment and
thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being under
arrest, especially when the accusation against him was weak. He thought about
his present situation. The lock that held (lit. arrested) him was strong, but he
thought he could break it.

The interpretation of ambiguous lexical items conflicts with the

rendition of the title. The adequate rendition of the title should cognitively
lead the translator to a wrestling match schema, but the translation of the
rest of the passage activates the irrelevant prison schema. The translation
uses phrases indicating ‘planning to run away’, ‘being under arrest’, and
‘considering the strength of an accusation’, all of which refer to prison
rather than wrestling.
The second category comprises five translations that vacillate
between the wrestling schema and the prison schema. It can be assumed
that the subjects in this category were cognitively confused, which led
them to operate top-down and bottom-up modes of processing
simultaneously. In this way, they were talking about ‘running away’ and
‘accusations’ in the context of ‘wrestling holds’ and ‘strong fists’. The
cognitive indeterminacy results in the realization of a translation where
potential schemata compete for interpretability. One of these renditions
goes as follows in back-translation:

Rocky in the Wrestling Arena

Rocky got up from the arena [literally: yard or field], planning to run away. He
hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered
him most was being held (in wrestling), especially that the accusation against
him was weak. He reflected on his present situation. The fist that held him was
strong, but he thought he could get out of it.

The five remaining translations belong to the third category which

deviates from both the wrestling and the prison schema. It may be that
these student translators failed to activate the prison schema because it
conflicted with the title, or it may be that their lexical competence was not
sufficiently great to access the wrestling schema. If the latter is the case,
their interpretations fail to create optimal relevance and subsequent
contextual effects (Gutt 1996; Sperber and Wilson 1987). An illustrative
rendition can be back-translated as follows:

64
 Rocky in the Wrestling Arena
Rocky got up from his shock slowly, planning to run away. He hesitated a
moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was
being carried (borne), especially that the wage he received for that was minimal.
He took the present situation into consideration. The kidnapper who lifted him
was strong, but he thought he could demolish him.

This incoherent rendition reveals two things. Firstly, it is probably

because of unfamiliarity with wrestling-related terminology that this
student translator failed to work out the meaning from the context, and
thus preferred, for example, ‘shock’ for ‘mat’ and ‘kidnapper’ for ‘lock’.
However, not only the context but also the co-text works against such
renditions: the co-text nahaḍa ruki min sadmatihi bi-butu’ [(Rocky) got
up from his shock slowly] is not correct in Arabic, because the verb
nahaḍa [get up] does not collocate with ‘shock’. This collocational
mismatch results in a flawed translation. Secondly, the student translator
called up contextually irrelevant senses of the word ‘wage’ for ‘charge’,
‘minimal’ for ‘weak’, and ‘carry/lift’ for ‘hold’. The lack of lexical
sensitivity and specificity also prove fatal to the adequacy of the
translation.
The three categories deviate from the relevant wrestling schema in
different ways. Schematic markedness explains why student translators in
the first category rendered a prison rather than a wrestling schema in their
translations, whereas the translations of the second category are
characterized by schematic confusion. The solutions in the third category
could be ascribed to opting out of the irrelevant, unmarked prison schema
and a lexical weakness.

5.2 The Professor Group

The nine professors of English and Linguistics received the wrestling
version of the text. It was assumed that, being graduates of American and
British universities, these professors would neutralize schematic
markedness and translate the text into the wrestling schema. Surprisingly
enough, the wrestling schema was borne out in only one of these
translations. Conversely, just like the majority of the MA translation
students, six professors rendered the main text as the prison schema. It
seems as if schematic markedness played a decisive role for the
translation, regardless of the macro-context stated in the title. This
outcome sheds doubt on lexical competence for triggering relevant
schemata. It seems that schematic markedness is stronger than lexical
competence in translation.
65
 The two last translations vacillated between the wrestling and the
prison schema. Both interpreted Rocky as planning to run away, a
scenario relevant to the prison rather than wrestling schema. One of them
maintained the prison schema until the end of the text, but hastened to
give an alternative wrestling schema-based rendition of the last sentence,
explaining that the title of the text called for such a translation. This
translator switched to top-down processing only at the end which led to
an inadequate translation of the passage since the last sentence’s ‘the
wrestling hold’ does not cohere with ‘the weak accusation’, ‘being under
arrest’, and ‘planning to run away’ in previous sentences.
The other translator also adhered to the prison schema
interpretation throughout. However, he went over the translation again
and revised it schematically, replacing the ambiguous words with ones
congruent with wrestling in order to furnish a text coherent with the
macro-context. In the corrected version, ‘arrested’ became ‘held in
wrestling [literally ‘fixed’]’, ‘the accusation directed to him’ became ‘the
blow he received’, ‘lock [of prison]’ became ‘arm [of wrestler]’, and
‘break it’ became ‘get out of it’. The only phrase that escaped this
revision was the incongruent ‘planning to run away’ which makes the
translation deviate slightly from the wrestling schema.
It should be noted that there were no nonsensical translation in this
group. It may be that the translators’ lexical competence was good enough
for them to reject renditions lacking a sound schematic orientation.
However, their competence was not always sufficiently great to establish
a link-up between the macro-analysis (the title) and micro-analysis (the
specific phrases in the passage). Their competence allowed them to make
lexical choices leading to potentially feasible schematic orientations,
regardless of contextual fitness. For example, several may have used a
word with the sense of ‘accusation’ for the polysemous ‘charge’ simply
because of its relevance to the prison schema which would have been
adequate, were it not for the macro-context.

6. Conclusion
The study described in this article seems to furnish empirical evidence
that schematic competence may override lexical competence in
translational activity. While inadequate lexical competence was the
reason for the MA translation students’ failure to maintain the schematic
congruence with the source text, the professors’ inability to adhere to
schematic relevance in their translations cannot be attributed to lexical
incompetence. It seems more plausible to explain their tendency to opt for

66
the schematically irrelevant prison schema as the outcome of schematic
markedness rather than lexical competence. In this way, the shift from
top-down to bottom-up processing which occurred after the translation of
the title could be attributed to a principle of lexically based schematic
markedness. When I asked some of the MA students why they did not
retain the schema of the title, they told me it had not occurred to them that
this was a wrestling schema because the text clearly dealt with someone
in prison.
This conclusion is in line with the observation that some
translations make sense in spite of the fact that they are not congruent
with the message intended by the author of the original. Such
‘camouflaged relevance’ in translational activity (paper 2, this volume)
may be considered a result of schematic markedness. Translators’
inadvertent disregard of a macro-contextual feature may thus result in an
inadequate interpretation and a translation which succeeds in creating
optional relevance with target language readers who do not understand the
source text (Sperber and Wilson, 1993; Gutt 1996). Much translation
criticism is undertaken with this view in mind.
Equally important, we have also seen another phenomenon: an
unfocussed schematic orientation in translation may lead to well-written
but nonsensical translation. It is the translator’s inability to interpret
cognitive structures of the schema of a text that results in confused
comprehension and therefore also to schematically inadequate translation.
For such translations, lexical competence is crucial. Lexical competence
is thus a pre-requisite for general schematic competence, regardless of
markedness, which, as this study illustrates it, can be viewed as a
correlate of lexical markedness.

67
 Cohesion and Coherence: Textual Issues in
Arabic/English Translation

Abstract
Drawing on the preference hypothesis claimed by Blum-Kulka
(1986/2004), Baker (1992) holds that every language has its own stylistic
conventions and preferences in using certain textual patterns, mainly
involving aspects of cohesion and coherence. Closely and critically
examining authentic extracts belonging to different text types in
English/Arabic translation, this study has questioned several general
textual assumptions about Arabic. In particular, English discourse has
been shown to be as lexically repetitive as Arabic discourse and Arabic
discourse has been argued to be as hypotactic as English discourse, thus
questioning the oft-cited claims that Arabic tends for formal lexical
repetition rather than lexical variation and that English discourse is much
more hypotactic than Arabic discourse. In addition, both languages prove
to be pronouns-dense, but they display different profiles in the use of
subject vs. other pronominal elements. Arabic discourse, however, proves
to be more conjunctions-dense due to the frequent employment of wa and
fa as default markers which carry little semantic content and are mainly
meant to smooth and naturalize the flow of discourse. Finally, some key
textual decisions, e.g. the use of one conjunction rather another, may
result in presenting a different mental image of the state of affairs in
question and, subsequently, it seriously affects text coherence in
translation.

1. Background
Textuality represents the essential features that qualify a stretch of
language to be called a text/discourse. Beaugrande de and Dressler (1981)
mention seven standards of textuality, viz. cohesion, coherence,
informativeness, acceptability, situationality, intentionality, and
intertextuality. However, cohesion and coherence stand out as
encompassing attributes of texts that may subsume the other standards
and can effectively be employed to describe naturally-occurring discourse
(Halliday and Hasan 1976; Halliday 1978; Renkema 2004; Farghal 2012,
2015, among others).
While cohesion is a linguistic manifestation in a text including
reference, conjunctions, repetition, ellipsis, etc., coherence is a
psychological concept that connects the language user's encyclopedic
knowledge with the content of the text and, subsequently, it determines

68
the global comprehensibility of the text (Bell 1991). In this way, the
processing of text/discourse may differ from one language user to another
depending on his/her socio-cultural experiences, value systems, cognitive
structures, among others. In terms of cohesion, Arabic discourse is often
cited for its explicit paratactic structure, with a heavy use of conjunctions
whose main function is to make the text hang together and cater for its
naturalness (Kaplan 1966; Johnstone 1991; Hatim 1997). Such claims are
usually taken for granted; hence, they will be revisited in this paper.
Drawing on the preference hypothesis claimed by Blum-Kulka
(1986/2004), Baker (1992) holds that every language has its own stylistic
conventions and preferences in using certain textual patterns, mainly
involving aspects of cohesion and coherence. In particular, she argues that
Arabic has only few semantically loaded conjunctions, e.g. ‫ بل‬،‫ لكن‬and
‫بالرغم من‬, compared with the large array of such conjunctions in English.
Thus, Baker deems the most frequently occurring Arabic conjunctions,
viz. ‫ و‬wa and ‫ ف‬fa, as mainly default and cosmetic ones. One should note
that while these two conjunctions render Arabic discourse highly syndetic
(i.e. conjunction-dense), they do not usually replace semantically-loaded
conjunctions but rather consolidate them by pre-attaching to the semantic
conjunction if it is employed, e.g. ‫ ولكن‬and ‫فبالرغم من‬, regardless of
whether it marks a paratactic or hypotactic structure. By contrast, English
discourse is largely asyndetic (i.e. punctuation alone is sufficient for
separating sentences) and claimed to be more hypotactic, which may give
rise to textual asymmetries and may, therefore, cause textual mishaps in
translation.
Erroneous textualizations may also bring about breakdowns in
coherence where a target text (TT) may fail to make sense to the target
reader or may make sense to him/her but not in the way intended in the
source text (ST) due to a misguided rendition of schematic knowledge
(Farghal and Naji in Farghal et al 2015; Farghal and Al-Masri in Farghal
et al 2015; Farghal and Al-Blushi in Farghal et al 2015; Farghal and
Almana 2015). Whereas cohesion mishaps usually affect the naturalness
and smoothness of the TT and generally maintain the propositional
content of the ST, coherence problems normally impair the process of
interlingual communication.
A large number of linguists have dealt with the issue of cohesion
and coherence (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Brown and Yule 1983;
Newmark 1988; Hatim and Mason 1990; Bell 1991; Hoey 1991; Baker
1992; Eggins 1994; Thompson 1996; Stillar 1998; Titscher et al 2000;
Dickins et al 2002; Hall 2008, among others). However, there are only

69
few studies that have drawn on authentic textual data between English
and Arabic from a translational perspective. Alkhafaji (2011/chapter 7)
addresses English shifts in rendering Arabic lexical repetition which
mainly include the employment of synonymy, deletion, paraphrase,
formal repetition, expansion, substitution, pronominalization,
nominalization, with synonymy accounting for 50% of the cases. This
points to the general belief that Arabic prefers formal repetition while
English tends to employ semantic repetition, i.e. lexical variation (see also
Johnstone 1991, who claims that Arabic argumentation is based on
presentation, while its English counterpart is based on syllogism). Al-
Batal (1985) and Al-Jubouri (1987) both point to Arabic’s heavy reliance
on conjunctions to organize discourse, maintain cohesion and preserve the
continuity of discourse; hence they outnumber their English counterparts
by 157% according to Al-Jubouri’s results.
Al-Jabr (1987) points to generic differences in English and Arabic
cohesion. In particular, he states that Arabic fictional narratives rely
heavily on pronominal co-reference, whereas argumentative and scientific
discourse mainly invests lexical repetition. Surprisingly, Fareh’s (1988)
study of Arabic and English expository discourse concludes that English
employs more lexical repetition than Arabic, the percentages being 73%
vs. 64.8%, respectively. Alkhafaji’s results (2011/chapter 6) reiterates Al-
Jabr’s conclusion, claiming pronominal density for narratives and lexical
repetition density for legal and argumentative texts.

2. Research Questions
The present paper aims to address the following research questions in
Arabic/English translation across different text types:
1. Is there one-to-one correspondence in the area of pronominal
reference?
2. How is lexical repetition dealt with in translation?
3. Is there one-to-one correspondence in the rendering of
conjunctions?
4. How do paratactic and hypotactic preferences affect translation
activity?
5. How do textual features affect text coherence?

3. Methodology
This is mainly a critical, qualitative study. The purpose is to detect
general interlingual tendencies across different text types based on
individual extracts rather than present quantitative generalizations that can

70
only be based on large-scale corpus-based studies across various text
types, which would hopefully be machine-treated in the future. The
methodology in this paper belongs to textual research (Chesterman 2005);
it only involves the examination of authentic extracts from different text
types of existing translations between English and Arabic, including
literary, media, scientific, legal, political, etc. Each excerpt will be
subjected to a close critical analysis in order to offer insights relating to
the research questions above.

4. Analysis and Discussion

The analysis and discussion section elaborately deals with individual
paragraphs from existing translations (mainly the opening or second
paragraph to objectify choice) as an object of study. In total, there will be
8 extracts: 5 from English into Arabic and 3 from Arabic into English,
which belong to different text types. Each extract is closely analyzed and
critically discussed in light of the research questions.

4.1 Extract 1
The narrative Arabic paragraph below is taken from a short story titled
‫( البحث عن قلب حي‬al-Ramli 1997) and translated into Search for a Live
Heart in English (Al-Manna’ and Al-Rubai’i 2009):

‫ يخرج (هو) من‬،‫ وعلى جانبي الممر أبواب مرقمة‬،‫ داخل أحد المستشفيات‬،‫في ممر ضيق‬
ٌ ... ‫ يثقل حركته األلم والحزن الحاد فيستند أحيانا ً على جانبي الممر‬،‫أحدها ماسحا ً عينيه‬
‫قلق أمام‬
... ‫الباب الذي خرج منه والذي يفتحه ليطل برأسه إلى داخله بين الفينة واألخرى وليعود بألم شديد‬
."... ‫وحيد في الممر الطويل‬

In a narrow hospital corridor there is a succession of numbered doors on both

sides. The man comes out of one these doors rubbing his eyes, his movement
weighed down by deep pain and grief; from time to time he leans for support
against both sides of the corridor. Anxiously, he stands in front of the door from
which he has just come out; he opens the door from time to time to look inside,
then turns in great pain … he is alone in the long corridor.

In terms of a pronouns’ count, the Arabic text features only one

(redundant) subject pronoun, which is a natural consequence of Arabic
being a subject pro-drop language, where explicit subject pronouns occur
only in emphatic contexts. By contrast, English phonetically recovers five
cases of these implicit subject pronouns. As for resumptive clitic
pronouns, the case is quite different, for Arabic usually exceeds English
in their use. Hence, the seven Arabic clitics correspond to only two
71
possessive pronouns in English. When it comes to lexicalizing pronouns,
we find three cases where a ST pronoun becomes a TT lexical item, viz.
the subject pronoun ‫ هو‬in the Arabic text becomes the man in the English
text and two instances of a clitic pronoun have been lexicalized into door
in English, viz. ‫ أحدها‬becomes one of these doors and ‫ يفتحه‬becomes he
opens the door.
If we examine formal lexical repetition, the count will be as
follows. There are 10 instances of formal lexical repetition in the Arabic
text involving ‫ ألم‬،‫باب‬/‫ أبواب‬،‫الممر‬/‫ ممر‬and ‫جانبي‬, whereas there are 15 cases
of such repetition in the English translation involving corridor, door,
pain, from time to time, and both sides. Contrary to the general belief that
Arabic, in contrast with English, favors formal lexical repetition to lexical
variation, the translated extract above presents a completely different
picture where English invests more formal lexical repetition than Arabic
in terms of number of instances as well as word count. In a book review
of Johnstone’s book Repetition in Arabic Discourse (1981), Farghal
(1990) argues that Johnstone's own discourse in the book is as lexically
repetitive as the Arabic texts she is analyzing (and criticizing).
As for conjunctions, the Arabic text features 5 instances of the
conjunction ‫و‬, only three of which are of discursive significance, marking
circumstantiality, addition, and a combination of cause-result and
contrast, viz. ‫ والذي‬،‫ وعلى‬and ‫وليعود‬, respectively. The remaining two are
one which conjoins two common nouns, viz. ‫ األلم والحزن‬and another which
is phraseological, viz. ‫بين الفينة واألخرى‬. It also features an instance of a
resultative ‫ف‬. The English translation, by contrast, merely uses
punctuation, namely the semicolon, to mark the logical relation of cause-
result and addition, respectively (see the English text above) and an
erroneously explicit temporal marker (then) for the combined Arabic
conjunction involving ‫( و‬which marks cause-result) and ‫( ل‬which
introduces a nuance of contrast). Thus, the density of conjunctions in the
Arabic text far exceeds that of the English text, which conforms to the
widely-held belief that Arabic discourse, unlike English discourse, is
conjunction-dense, a fact which renders Arabic texture explicative and
easier to process than its English counterpart, which is largely implicative
(see Hatim 1997 for more details).
Notably, the textualization of propositions in terms of parataxis
and hypotaxis in the Arabic text is maintained in the English translation
with the exception of dispensing with a relativized structure by investing
a semicolon, viz. Anxiously, he stands in front of the door from which he
has just come out; he opens the door from time to time to look inside

72
replaces Anxiously, he stands in front of the door from which he has just
come out and which he opens from time to time to look inside, thus
turning the TT less hypotactic than the ST. This translational finding
shows that English punctuation may be employed to replace some Arabic
hypotactic structures, a fact which works in favor of Arabic regarding the
hypotactic-paratactic parameter.
As concerns finite vs. non-finite clauses, the English translation
maintains the non-finiteness of two Arabic clauses, viz. rubbing his eyes
for ‫ ماسحا ً عينيه‬and to look inside for ‫ليطل برأسه إلى داخله‬. However, it has
changed one of the finite clauses, viz. ‫ يثقل حركته األلم والحزن الحاد‬into an
English non-finite clause, viz. his movement weighed down by deep pain
and grief. Whereas rendering the English TT less hypotactic than the
Arabic ST goes against the general claim that English is more hypotactic
than Arabic, increasing the number of nonfinite clauses in the TT
conforms to alleged preferences between the two languages. One should
note that finite-nonfinite axis functions independently of the hypotactic-
paratactic one, i.e. both finite and non-finite structures may be used
hypotactically and paratactically.
Finally, in terms of coherence the English translation generally
preserves the propositional content of the ST. However, the translators
have mistakenly interpreted the combined conjunction in ‫وليعود‬, which
doubly marks a cause-result and contrast relation, as a temporal one, thus
weakening the thread of discourse intended in the ST. To capture the
subtle function of the combined Arabic conjunction, one could offer:
Anxious, he stands in front of the door from which he has just come out;
he opens the door from time to time to look inside, but only to experience
greater pain … he is alone in the long corridor.

4.2 Extract 2
Following is the second paragraph, which is mostly argumentative, from
the novel titled The Fault in our Stars (2012) by John Green, alongside
its Arabic translation (The novel is translated into ‫ ما تخبئه لنا النجوم‬by
Intwan Baseel (2015/2nd edition):

Whenever you read a cancer booklet or website or whatever, they always list
depression among the side effects of cancer. But, in fact, depression is not a side
effect of cancer. Depression is a side effect of dying. (Cancer is also a side effect
of dying. Almost everything is, really.) But my mom believed I required
treatment, so she took me to see my Regular Doctor Jim, who agreed that I was
veritably swimming in a paralyzing and totally clinical depression, and that

73
therefore my meds should be adjusted and also I should attend a weekly Support
Group.

‫ أنهم يصنفون‬،‫ كلما قرأ كتيبا ً عن السرطان أو قرأ في موقع على اإلنترنت أو ما شابه‬،‫يجد المرء‬
ً‫ تأثيرا‬،‫ في الوقع‬،‫ لكن االكتئاب ليس‬.‫االكتئاب على الدوام واحدا ً من التأثيرات الجانبية للسرطان‬
‫ كما‬،‫ (السرطان أيضا ً تأثير جانبي لالحتضار‬.‫ بل هو تأثير جانبي لالحتضار‬،‫جانبيا ً للسرطان‬
‫ فأخدتني لرؤية طبيبي‬،‫ لكن أمي اعتقدت أنني في حاجة إلى عالج‬.)ً‫ كل شيء تقريبا‬،ً‫ حقا‬،‫هو‬
،‫ الذي اتفق معها على أنني أعوم فعالً في حالة تامة من االكتئاب السريري المحبط‬،‫ جيم‬،‫المعتاد‬
.‫دعم‬
ٍ ‫ي حضور اجتماع أسبوعي مع مجموعة‬ ّ ‫ ويوجب عل‬،‫وهو ما يتطلب تعديالً في أدويتي‬

The pronouns' count picture in extract 2 is similar to that of extract

1, but in the reverse order. On the one hand, the English ST includes 6
subject pronouns, while the Arabic TT contains only three. Interestingly,
none of the 3 Arabic pronouns corresponds to subject pronouns in the ST.
That is, one is an emphatic pronoun used to support a contrast
conjunction, viz. ‫ بل هو‬and the other two are complements of addition
conjunctions, viz. ‫ كما هو‬and ‫وهو‬. On the other hand, the English ST
features only 4 other pronominals (3 possessive (my) and 1 objective
(me)), while the Arabic TT includes 9 resumptive pronoun clitics. So,
again, the number of Arabic clitics far exceeds non-subject pronominals
in the English ST. In terms of lexicalizing pronouns, there is only one
instance where the impersonal subject pronoun (you) in the first sentence
is lexicalized into ‫ المرء‬in the TT. In fact, there is another impersonal
subject pronoun (they) in the first sentence which should have been
lexicalized into ‫الناس‬, but the translator has decided to use a pronoun clitic
that functions exophorically the way the English subject pronoun does.
Examining lexical repetition, one notes that the ST and the TT
almost exhibit the same degree of formal lexical repetition (16 vs. 17
cases respectively). For example, the word cancer ‫ السرطان‬and the phrase
side effect(s) ‫ تأثير جانبي‬are formally repeated 4 times in both texts. Again,
contrary to the common belief that Arabic is more lexically repetitive than
English, the English ST proves to be as lexically repetitive as its Arabic
translation.
Concerning the use of conjunctions, there is almost one-to-one
correspondence in terms of addition conjunctions featuring also and and
in the English ST which correspond to ‫كما هو‬, ً ‫ أيضا‬and ‫ وهو‬in the Arabic
TT. The English contrast conjunction but is semantically rendered into its
Arabic correspondent ‫لكن‬. Notably, the translator has chosen not to
consolidate this contrast marker with the default ‫و‬, viz. ‫ولكن‬, which may
sound more natural in Arabic. As for the cause-result conjunctions so and

74
therefore, the former is semantically rendered into the Arabic resultative
marker ‫ف‬, while the latter is done away with because its addition would
sound redundant in the Arabic text, viz. ‫ ما يتطلب تعديالً في أدويتي‬،‫ لذلك‬،‫وهو‬.
Finally, there is a contrast relation between the second and third sentences
which obtains by using punctuation (separating the two sentences by a
period), while the Arabic TT makes this contrast relation explicit by the
use of the Arabic conjunction ‫بل‬, which is something already observed in
the discussion of Extract 1.
In terms of paratactic vs. hypotactic textualization of propositions,
the translator has practically maintained one-to-one correspondence
between the ST and TT. For example, it would be inconceivable for the
translator to render the hypotactic structure in the first English sentence
paratactically as ‫فيجد‬/‫يقرأ المرء كتيبا ً عن السرطان أو موقعا ً في اإلنترنت أو ما شابه ويجد‬
... ً ‫أن الناس يصنفون االكتئاب واحدا‬, because this would affect the meaning of the
textualization in the ST. However, one may find cases where an English
hypotactic structure may be replaced with an Arabic paratactic structure.
For example, the hypotactic structure and that therefore my meds should
be adjusted may be rendered paratactically in Arabic, viz. ‫ يتطلب‬،‫ لذلك‬،‫وهو‬
‫[ تعديالً في أدويتي‬Lit. and it, therefore, requires adjusting my meds]. It
should be noted that this is also possible when working from Arabic into
English (see section 4.1 above). One should note also that the ST does not
feature any nonfinite clauses, hence the preference for changing some
English nonfinite clauses into finite ones in Arabic is not relevant here.
Finally, the translator has managed to offer a coherent Arabic
translation of the English ST. It generally reads smoothly and coherently.
The only small problem that could be pointed out in relation to coherence
has to do with the translator's failure to lexicalize the English impersonal
pronoun they, which would stop the Arab reader in an attempt to figure
out to whom it refers. One should note that while English tolerates the
exophoric use of the pronoun they, the Arab reader finds this quite odd,
hence its lexicalization is called for in the Arabic translation.

4.3 Extract 3
The following analytic extract is taken from Al Gore's (2013) book The
Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, along with its Arabic translation
(Adnan Gergeos 2015):

ENDANGERED GROUNDWATER AND TOPSOIL

For example, where topsoil and groundwater are concerned, there is a disconnect
between the frenzied rate of exploitation of both these resources on the one

75
hand, and the extremely slow rate with which either resource can be regenerated
on the other. Renewable groundwater aquifers fill back up, on average, at the
rate of less than one half of one percent per year. Similarly, topsoil regenerates
naturally – but at the agonizingly slow rate of approximately 2.5 centimeters
every 500 years. (p. 183)

‫المياه الجوفية والتربة السطحية المهددة بالزوال‬

‫ هناك انفصال بين المعدل‬،‫ وفي ما يتعلق بالتربة السطحية والمياه الجوفية‬،‫على سبيل المثال‬
‫ والمعدل البطيء جدا إلعادة توليد (تجديد) أي مورد‬،‫الجنوني الستغالل هذين الموردين من جهة‬
‫ بمعدل‬،‫ في المتوسط‬،‫ مستودعات المياه الجوفية المتجددة تمتلئ من جديد‬.‫منهما من جهة أخرى‬
‫ لكن‬- ‫ فإن التربة السطحية تتجدد بشكل طبيعي‬،‫ وبالمثل‬.‫أقل من نصف واحد في المائة سنويا‬
.‫ سنة‬55 ‫ سنتيمتر كل‬2.5 ‫بمعدل بطيء على نحو بائس يصل إلى ما يقرب من‬

Being a sample of analytic and/or semi-academic writing, both the

ST and TT are empty of subject pronouns, that is, only lexical subjects are
employed in both texts. The same almost holds for other pronominals,
viz. there is none in the ST and there is only one clitic in the TT, namely
in ‫منهما‬. Note that the English text has opted out of using pronominals
albeit there are two possible sites, viz. there is a disconnect between the
frenzied rate of exploiting both of them, on the one hand, and the
extremely slow rate with which either one of them can be regenerated on
the other. The Arabic text has opted for pronominalizing the latter
instance, which, again, reflects the fact that pronoun clitics are more
common in Arabic discourse. In general, the text type here contrasts
clearly with fictional narration (even when it is argumentative), where
there is usually a heavy use of pronouns (4.1 and 4.2 above).
Moving to lexical repetition, and apart from the one instance of
pronominalizing in Arabic, the two texts basically reflect a similar degree
of repetition, viz. groundwater ‫( المياه الجوفية‬2 times), topsoil ‫( التربة السطحية‬2
times), rate ‫( معدل‬3 times), etc. This again proves that formal lexical
repetition is an inherent feature of both Arabic and English discourse
across different text types. Therefore, any variance between the two
languages may be attributed to the user’s literacy level and amount of
apprenticeship in the varied modes of expression in both languages for
varied communicative purposes.
In terms of conjunctions, the English text features two main
logical relations: the first is an explicit adversative contrast through the
use of the discontinuous on the one hand ... on the other and the second is
an implicit explanatory relation through the use of punctuation, namely
the period at the end of the first sentence which, here, performs the

76
function of an otherwise explicit discourse marker such as that is or a
lexical marker such as to explain. While the Arabic text has succeeded in
capturing the first logical relation by using the discontinuous contrast
marker ‫ من جهة أخرى‬... ‫من جهة‬, it has failed to render the second implicit
relation explicitly in Arabic by invoking the explanatory discourse marker
‫ف‬, which is supposed to attach to the first word in the second sentence,
viz. ... ‫فمستودعات المياه الجوفية‬, to coherently mark this logical relation. The
way it is, the competent Arab reader would immediately feel a logical gap
after the first sentence. Thus, what may be accomplished by punctuation
in English may necessitate the use of an explicit conjunction in Arabic.
Apart from this mishap, the translator has competently employed the
Arabic conjunction ‫ و‬in several cases to naturalize the flow of discourse,
viz. ‫ وفي ما يتعلق‬and ‫وبالمثل‬, and probably one more is needed before ‫لكن‬
after the dash. Also, there is an instance of the discourse marker ‫ ف‬in ‫فإن‬,
which merely naturalizes the use of the emphatic ‫ إن‬in Arabic. One should
note that this is uncalled for because the proposition in the English text is
unmarked; hence it translates straightforwardly into ‫ تتجدد التربة‬،‫وبالمثل‬
... ‫السطحية بشكل طبيعي‬.
Examining the structuring of the two texts, one can readily note
that they are overwhelmingly paratactic. The only hypotactic clause is
found right after the exemplification marker at the beginning of the text
and is hypoctactically maintained in the Arabic text. One could imagine
dispensing with the hypotactic structure by manipulating lexical cohesion
in English, viz. ‫ هناك انفصال بين المعدل الجنوني الستغالل التربة‬،‫على سبيل المثال‬
... ‫السطحية والمياه الجوفية من جهة‬. However, translators usually exert every
effort to reflect the ST's network of relations in the TT in order to
preserve not only the content but also the texture of discourse.
Finally, and most importantly, the Arabic translation fails to make
sense at one key juncture in text coherence. To explain, the translator has
mistranslated the key word disconnect by rendering it into ‫انفصال‬, which
can hardly make sense in this context. Apparently, the translator has
based his rendition on the primary sense of the word in a context where a
secondary sense of that word discursively comes into play, namely, huge
gap, which should be translated into the Arabic word ‫هوة‬. Gore's intended
meaning is to point out a total lack of communication between two states
of affairs. For such a text to be coherent, it should read: ‫ وفي‬،‫على سبيل المثال‬
‫ هناك هوة بين المعدل الجنوني الستغالل هذين‬،‫ما يتعلق بالتربة السطحية والمياه الجوفية‬
‫ والمعدل البطيء جدا إلعادة توليد (تجديد) أي مورد منهما من جهة أخرى‬،‫الموردين من جهة‬.
Only then will the text redeem its text coherence.

77
4.4 Extract 4
The following argumentative Arabic ST, along with its English
translation (Calderbank 1990), is taken from Dickins, et al. (2002: 123):

‫ولما كان األقوياء بطبيعتهم ال يقبلون الطاعة العمياء للمرشد العام اإلمام الشيخ حسن البنا بل‬
‫ويقومون بمراجعته فيما يراه من أمور فإنه قد ألصق بهم صفة الخبث بل وعمد إلى إقصائهم عن‬
‫الجماعة بحيث لم يبق حوله سوى اإلخوان الذين من فرط ضعفهم ال يقدرون على االختالف مع‬
!!‫اإلمام األمر الذي جعله يصفهم باألمانة‬

Since the strong by their very nature did not accept blind obedience to the
Supreme Guide the venerable Hasan El Banna, and indeed, actively attempted to
question some of his judgments, he termed them 'malicious', and went so far as
to expel them from the Brotherhood. As a result the only remaining members of
El Banna's inner circle were those whose extreme weakness meant that they
were unable to oppose him. These people he called 'the trustworthy'.

The pronouns' count reaffirms the observations made in the

fictional extracts (1 and 2 above): three subject pronouns (he/twice and
they/once) are recovered in the TT, which only correspond to implicit
pronouns in the ST, whereas the 10 pronoun clitics in the ST are reduced
by half, viz. only 5 possessive and objective pronominals show in the TT.
Looking into logical relations in the ST, one can detect mainly
four relations: cause/result ‫ ف‬... ‫ولما‬, contrastive ‫( بل‬twice), and resultative
‫بحيث‬. Similarly, the TT features four corresponding logical relations,
albeit with some twisted logics, viz. causative (since), additive (and
indeed), additive (and), and resultative (as a result). This simply means
that the translator is aware of these semantically-loaded conjunctions and
has attempted to relay them in the TT, though at varying degrees of
success (see paragraph on text coherence below).
The paratactic/hypotactic axis is a little different in the two texts.
While the Arabic text is predominantly hypotactic; it expresses a network
of complex logical relations in technically one unpunctuated sentence. By
contrast, the translator has split the Arabic text into three sentences, thus
rendering two subordinate clauses as main clauses. This being the case,
the English text is more paratactic than its Arabic counterpart, which,
again, contradicts the general claim that Arabic writing is more paratactic
than English writing. One should note that many Arab writers tend to
write very long sentences involving complex logical relations, a fact
which usually calls for unpacking a long Arabic sentence by splitting it
into several English sentences, thus practically rendering the English text
more paratactic than its Arabic counterpart in most cases. This asymmetry
78
between Arabic and English argumentative discourse renders the English
TT more paratactic than the Arabic ST.
Finally coming to text coherence, the English text reads smoothly
and coherently. However, the question is: Does this coherence mirror the
intact logic expounded by the Arabic text? Unfortunately, the answer is
not completely in the affirmative. To explain, the two contrastive relations
expressed by ‫ بل‬are relayed as additive relations, thus missing an emphatic
contrastive nuance. To appreciate the discrepancy between the translation
above and a translation that captures the two contrastive relations,
consider the suggested rendition below:

Since the strong by their very nature did not accept blind obedience to the
Supreme Guide the venerable Hasan El Banna, but rather actively attempted to
question some of his judgments, he termed them 'malicious'. He even went so
far as to expel them from the Brotherhood with the result that the only remaining
members of El Banna's inner circle were those whose extreme weakness meant
that they were unable to oppose him - 'the trustworthy', he called them.

In addition to capturing the contrast nuances, the suggested translation

splits the Arabic text into two rather than three sentences, which brings it
closer to its Arabic structuring in terms of the paratactic/hypotactic axis.

4.5 Extract 5
The following is the first paragraph extracted from a Scientific American
(2012/307) article titled 'Quiet Little Traitors' along with its Arabic
translation in Majallat AlOloom (2013/29/Kuwait):

Quiet Little Traitors

Cells that permanently stop dividing have long been recognized as one of
the body's defenses against cancer. Now they are also seen as a sometime
culprit in cancer and a cause of aging.
In 1999 Jan M. Van Deursen and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester,
Minn., wanted to see whether mangled chromosomes cause cancer. So they
engineered mice deficient in a protein that helps to maintain chromosomal
integrity. The rodents' coils of DNA were duly deranged. Surprisingly, though,
the animals were not particularly tumor-prone. Instead they developed a strange
grab bag of ills, including cataracts, dwindling muscles, rapid thinning of fat
under the skin and progressive spinal curvature, that made them look like one-
humped camels. They also tended to die young.

79
 ‫خونة نوعا ً ما‬
‫ظلت الخاليا التي تتوقف عن االنقسام بصفة مستدامة بمثابة إحدى الطرق الدفاعية للجسم ضد‬
.‫ فينظر إلى تلك الخاليا أيضا كمتهمة بإحداث السرطان وكسبب للتشيخ‬،‫ أما اآلن‬.‫الس رطان‬
‫ أراد فان دويرسن وزمالؤه (في مستشفى مايو كلينيك في روشستر مينيسوتا) أن‬، 1999 ‫في عام‬
‫ ولذلك قاموا بهندسة‬.‫يعرفوا ما إذا كانت الصبغيات (الكروموسومات) المشوهة تسبب السرطان‬
‫ لدى‬DNA ‫ وكانت لفائف الدنا‬.‫فأر يفتقر إلى بروتين يساعد على الحفاظ على سالمة الصبغيات‬
‫ ومع أن الحيوانات لم يكن لديها استعداد خاص لإلصابة‬.‫تلك القوارض مشوهة على نحو كاف‬
‫ مثل الساد‬،‫ كانت المفاجأة إصابتها بمجموعة غريبة من األمراض المزعجة‬،‫بالسرطان‬
‫ وازدياد مترق في انحناء‬،‫ وترقق النسيج الشحمي تحت الجلد‬، ‫ والضمور العضلي‬cataract
‫ كما أصبحت تنزع إلى الوفاة‬،‫ مما جعل الفئران تبدو وكأنها جما ٌل وحيدة السنام‬،‫العمود الفقري‬
.‫المبكرة‬

To start with pronouns, there are four subject pronouns (they) in

the English text, which refer back to lexical subjects, viz. cells, Deursen
and his colleagues, and the animals (two times). The first is lexicalized as
‫تلك الخاليا‬, while the second and the fourth are suppressed as Arabic subject
pronouns. As for the third , which refers to the animals, it is realized as an
object pronoun clitic in ‫إصابتها‬, due to the semantics of the English verb
develop, i.e. being active in form but passive in meaning. The other
pronominals in the ST (two pronouns: one possessive and one objective)
correspond to four pronoun clitics in the TT, which maintains the same
observation made so far.
The deployment of lexical repetition is largely similar in the two
texts although (see preceding paragraph) the Arabic TT is a little more
lexically dense, for example, there is one instance of pronoun
lexicalization and the word cancer, which is formally repeated three times
in the ST, is repeated one more time in the TT, which corresponds to
lexical variation in the ST, i.e. the use of the word tumor instead of
cancer. However, the lexical chain mice - rodents - animals is kept intact
in the Arabic text as ‫ الحيوانات‬- ‫ القوارض‬- ‫فأر‬. One should note that the extra
cases of lexical repetition in the ST can readily be done way with by
employing a pronoun clitic in the first case, viz. ‫ فيُنظر إلى تلك الخاليا‬can be
naturally relayed as ‫ فينظر إليها‬and the fourth instance of ‫ لإلصابة بالسرطان‬can
be replaced with ‫لإلصابة باألورام‬. Hence, this extra density of lexical
repetition in Arabic is translator- rather than language-motivated.
In terms of conjunctions, the English text features four explicit
conjunctions: cause-result (so), contrast (though and instead), and
addition (also). In addition, it uses punctuation to suppress the contrast
marker but between the first and second sentences. As expected, the
Arabic text renders the implicit contrast relation accomplished by

80
punctuation in English explicit by the employment of the discontinuous
marker ‫ ف‬.... ‫أما‬. As for the conjunctions so and also, Arabic uses ‫ ولذلك‬to
render the cause-result relation and ‫ كما‬to mark the addition relation. The
remaining two contrast markers (though and instead) are combined into
one concessive marker ‫ ومع أن‬by joining the propositions in the two
consecutive sentences (Surprisingly, though, the animals were not
particularly tumor-prone. Instead they developed a strange grab bag of
ills, ...). One should note that although the translator has offered a
coherent rendition, he does not maintain the same logic, viz. the
surprising element has to do with the animals not being tumor-prone
rather than their developing some ills as the translation shows. To capture
the intended logical relation, Arabic would employ two contrast markers
‫ إال أن‬and ‫بل‬, viz. ‫ بل‬،‫إال أن من المدهش أنه لم يكن لدى الحيوانات استعداد لإلصابة باألورام‬
‫إنها أُصيبت بمجموعة غريبة من األمراض المزعجة‬. This translation, as can be seen,
captures the logics of both English contrast markers, something which is
missing in the Arabic text.
Examining the paratactic-hypotactic axis, one can readily observe
that the translator has generally followed the same paratactic-hypotactic
structuring of the English text. There are no traces of hypotactic structures
that have been rendered as paratactic. Surprisingly, however, we have two
paratactic structures that have been rewritten using a hypotactic structure,
viz. ‫ كانت المفاجأة إصابتها‬،‫ومع أن الحيوانات لم يكن لديها استعداد خاص لإلصابة بالسرطان‬
‫ بمجموعة غريبة من األمراض المزعجة‬relays Surprisingly, though, the animals
were not particularly tumor-prone. Instead they developed a strange grab
bag of ills, ... Thus, the Arabic translation proves to be more hypotactic
than the English text. Also, there are instances of nonfinite clauses that
have been rendered as finite. In fact, there is only one nonfinite clause
which is headed by the verbal including. However, instead of opting for a
finite clause in Arabic, the translator has employed an exemplification
marker ‫ مثل‬rather than a containership finite Arabic verb such as ‫تتضمن‬,
which is more appropriate here. One should note that the use of a
nonfinite clause headed by a verbal such as ‫ متضمنة‬sounds unnatural in
this context.
Finally, let us come to text coherence. Apart from the title, the
Arabic translation reads quite smoothly and coherently despite the
technical nature of the discourse. What about the title, which is supposed
to tune with the content of the article, whether literally or metaphorically?
Let us first admit that the metaphorical wording of the title renders it so
challenging to translate into Arabic. Therefore, the translator has to
unpack the allusions in the title in order to attempt a translation that

81
sounds coherent, something which is far from being met by the existing
title. So, what are the little traitors? They are the cells; they are little in
size and they are treacherous by causing damage in the body. But why are
they quiet? Because they do not divide any more.
How can this metaphorical portrait be encapsulated in an Arabic
title? It is very taxing but it is worth trying. The translator has reduced the
metaphor to the head word traitors ‫خونة‬, but, unfortunately, has missed
the gender of the referent (the cells). To explain, the gender of the plural
noun ‫( خونة‬singular ‫ )خائن‬is masculine, while the gender of ‫ خاليا‬in Arabic
is feminine, hence the correct form is ‫( خائنات‬singular ‫)خائنة‬. This
mismatch in the referent's gender is a serious coherence problem. Now, if
we back-translate the Arabic title, we get Traitors to some extent. One
wonders how the title coheres with the first adjective quiet in the English
title? Did the translator read it as quite, so he came up with this
approximating phrasing? Regardless of what actually happened, a title
needs to cohere in one way or another with the text? The following
translation is a mere attempt at a metaphorical rendering: ‫خائنات صغيرة تعمل‬
‫[ بهدوء‬Little Traitors working quietly].

4.6 Extract 6
Following is an extract from a legal text (the Security Council's resolution
242 following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War), along with its Arabic
translation:

Resolution 242 (1967)

of 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the

need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live
in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of
the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with
Article 2 of the charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a

just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of

82
both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict;

(ii) ...

1967 ‫ يونيو‬7 ‫ التاريخ‬242 ‫قرار‬

:‫إن مجلس األمن‬

‫ وإذ يؤكد عدم جواز االستيالء على األراضي‬،‫إذ يعرب عن قلقه بشأن الوضع في الشرق األوسط‬
‫ والحاجة إلى العمل من أجل سالم دائم وعادل تستطيع كل دولة في المنطقة أن تعيش فيه‬،‫بالحرب‬
‫ قد التزمت بالعمل‬،‫ وإذ يؤكد أيضا أن جميع الدول األعضاء بقبولها ميثاق األمم المتحدة‬،‫بأمان‬
،‫ من الميثاق‬2 ‫وفقا ً للمادة‬

‫ يؤكد أن تطبيق مبادئ الميثاق يتطلب إقامة سالم عادل ودائم في الشرق األوسط ويستوجب‬-1
:‫تطبيق كال المبدأين التاليين‬

.‫ انسحاب القوات المسلحة اإلسرائيلية من أراضي احتلتها في النزاع األخير‬-‫أ‬

... -‫ب‬

The English extract above, being a part of an incomplete sentence,

features only one lexical subject with no subject pronouns. In fact, the
whole resolution is technically one multiply-compound/complex
sentence, which is a characteristic feature of legal discourse in English
(Crystal and Davy 1969; Bhatia 1983; Danet 1985; Goodrich 1990).
Apart from punctuation and layout (see Farghal and Shunnaq in Farghal
et al 2015), the Arabic translation similarly does not contain any explicit
subject pronouns. This kind of similarity in subject pronouns' utilization is
due to a generic constraint relating to legal discourse in English. We have
already seen that English subject pronouns far outnumber Arabic ones
(which are only emphatic or phraseological in nature, Arabic being a pro-
drop language) in several types of texts (e.g. fiction in sections 4.1 and
4.2 above). As for other pronominals, the English text contains two
possessive pronouns (its and their), while the Arabic translation features 4
resumptive pronoun clitics, thus maintaining a similar kind of ratio as in
fictional discourse. Notably, the issue of lexicalizing subject pronouns
does not occur in the TT simply because there are no subject pronouns to

83
lexicalize and the lexical subject governs both the nonfinite clauses in the
preamble as well as the finite ones in the main text.
If we exclude the repetition of the circumstantial Arabic
conjunction ‫إذ‬, lexical repetition in the English text is exactly mirrored in
the Arabic TT, viz. there are 13 instances of word and phrase repetition in
both texts, a fact which is necessitated by the authoritative nature of legal
discourse, where lexical variation is strictly avoided in order to ensure
utmost clarity and explicitness.
Regarding conjunctions, while the English text mainly relies on
punctuation for its textual cohesiveness, namely the comma for separating
nonfinite clauses and the semicolon for setting apart finite ones, the
Arabic TT employs punctuation (the colon, the comma and the period) as
well as conjunctions (namely the addition conjunction ‫ و‬and the
circumstantial conjunction ‫)إذ‬. The addition conjunction is used to both
support the comma, which separates the clauses in the preamble, and
naturalizes the flow of discourse, which is a general function of this
conjunction. As for the circumstantial conjunction, it is a common
discourse marker of preamble clauses in Arabic UN resolutions whose
main function is to avoid the use of Arabic nonfinite clauses in favor of
finite clauses, which is a general tendency in Arabic discourse. Thus, the
finite clause ‫ إذ يعرب عن قلقه بشأن الوضع في الشرق األوسط‬duly replaces the less-
preferred nonfinite clause ‫معربا ً عن قلقه بشأن الوضع في الشرق األوسط‬, which
literally renders its English counterpart. In legal preambles, therefore, the
translator needs to be aware of this important cohesion mismatch where
English solely employs punctuation, while Arabic may utilize both
punctuation and conjunctions.
Apart from the paratactic conjunction ‫و‬, which introduces the
hypotactic clauses in the preamble and naturalizes the flow of discourse,
the Arabic translation corresponds to the structuring of the English text in
terms of parataxis and hypotaxis. In fact, the option for Arabic finite
paratactic structures in the preamble would seriously damage the
packaging of information in the text, that is, what is meant to be a
subordinate proposition in a hypotactic structure would hold the status of
a main proposition in a paratactic structure. Notably, inexperienced or
student translators may not be aware of this feature of legal discourse
(Farghal and Shunnaq in Farghal et al 2015). To Explain, the first
hypotactic clause ‫ إذ يعرب عن قلقه بشأن الوضع في الشرق األوسط‬:‫إن مجلس األمن‬
would be the first in a series of paratactic clauses, viz. ‫إن مجلس األمن يعرب‬
‫عن قلقه بشأن الوضع في الشرق األوسط‬. In this way, it would hold the same
informational status as a main clause, viz. ‫إن مجلس األمن يؤكد أن تطبيق مبادئ‬

84
... ‫الميثاق يتطلب‬. Therefore, this generic property of legal preambles needs to
be highlighted in English/Arabic translator training.
The English text's layout also plays a key role in its cohesion and
coherence, viz. the presentation of nonfinite clauses in the preamble as if
they were separate paragraphs along with highlighting the verbal nouns
by capitalization and italicization. The Arabic translation, by contrast, has
dispensed with these layout features by presenting the series of the
corresponding finite clauses in the preamble in paragraph form. However,
apart from capitalization (which does not exist in Arabic) and italicization
(which is not used), the Arabic translation maintains the highlighting of
the main clauses and their subsections by numeration.
Moving to text coherence, there has emerged a formidable
problem which was and is still debated until today between the Arabs and
Israel regarding the absence of the definite article before the word
territories in Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied
in the recent conflict. While the English text tolerates both an exhaustive
and a partitive reading, Arab countries have been insisting on an
exhaustive reading, while Israel has been promoting a partitive
interpretation. Whether this coherence mishap is a premeditated trick or a
mere oversight does not really make a difference insofar as the reality of
the matter is concerned, that is, it is something which has turned into a de
facto situation.

4.7 Extract 7
Following is Article 2 from a legal Saudi employment contract:

‫ يسري هذا العقد لمدة عام وتبدأ هذه المدة من التاريخ الذي يغادر فيه المتعاقد موطنه‬- 2 ‫مادة‬
‫متوجها ً إلى المملكة على أال تزيد المدة بين مغادرة الوطن أو التقدم لمباشرة العمل وفقا ً لتعليمات‬
‫الوزارة على ثالثة أيام أو من اليوم الذي يتقدم فيه المتعاقد لمباشرة العمل وفقا ً لتعليمات الوزارة‬
.‫إذا كان مقيما ً في البلد الذي توجد فيه الوظيفة ووقع فيه العقد‬

Article Two
The Contract shall be valid for a period of one year, commencing as of the date
on which the Contracted Party leaves his home country for the Kingdom,
provided that the period between departure from his country and his reporting
for duty in accordance with the regulations of the Ministry does not exceed three
days, or from the day the Contracted Party reports for duty in accordance with
the regulations of the Ministry if he is residing in the country in which his post is
and in which the contract is signed.

85
 To avoid repetition regarding legal discourse, let us just comment
in this section on lexical repetition and the structuring of the two texts in
terms of parataxis and hypotaxis. With reference to the former, one can
readily observe that lexical repetition is practically identical in the two
texts, viz. ‫ المتعاقد‬contracted party (repeated 2 times), country ‫موطن‬/‫الوطن‬
(3 times), Ministry ‫( الوزارة‬2 times), in accordance with ً ‫( وفقا‬2 times), etc.
One case where there is a discrepancy is when the relativizer which ‫ الذي‬is
repeated in the English translation (the country in which his post is and in
which the contract is signed), which renders the text more explicit in
English. One should note that ellipsis can apply in English here, viz. the
country in which his post is and the contract signed, but the translator has
opted for explicitation. Also, one should note that the repetition of the
word ‫ المدة‬at the beginning of the Arabic ST is uncalled for and is,
subsequently, avoided in the English TT (see paragraph below).
Regarding the latter, one can note that the paratactic and
hypotactic structure is generally preserved, for example, coordinating
clauses by and and or, which correspond to ‫ و‬and ‫ أو‬in the Arabic text, as
well as subordinating clauses by which and provided that, which
correspond to ‫ الذي‬and ‫ على أن‬in the Arabic text, are maintained in both
texts. The only instance where a paratactic Arabic structure is replaced by
a hypotactic structure is at the beginning of the English text where a
nonfinite clause (commencing as of the date ...) replaces the Arabic
paratactic clause ... ‫وتبدأ هذه المدة من التاريخ‬. One should note that the option
for a paratactic structure in Arabic is somewhat repetitive; it is more
appropriate to employ a hypotactic clause, viz. ‫يسري هذا العقد لمدة عام تبدأ من‬
... ‫التاريخ‬, hence the English rendition is an improvement on the original.
Once again, the Arabic writer’s level of literacy and expertise may play a
key role in the choice between hypotaxis and parataxis.

4.8 Extract 8
The following extract is taken from Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek’s
book On Western Terrorism (2013) and presented along with its Arabic
translation (Fatima Mirza 2016):

Concealing the Crimes of the West

I have statisticians working with me, trying to establish the number of people
who vanished after World War II as a result of colonialism and neo-colonialism.
As I said at the start of our discussion, it looks to be between 50 and 55 million.
However, the exact number is probably irrelevant, whether it is 40 million or 60
million. The magnitude is so tremendous, although somehow Western culture
manages to get away with these crimes, and still keeps the world convinced that
86
it has a sort of moral mandate; that it has the right to dictate its own values to the
world through its organizations and its media. How are they achieving this?

‫إخفاء جرائم الغرب‬

‫أندريه فلتشك‬
‫يعمل إحصائيون معي في محاولة لتحديد عدد األشخاص الذين هلكوا بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية‬
‫ مليون إنسان لقوا حتفهم‬55 ‫ و‬50 ‫ وعلى ما يبدو أن ما بين‬.‫نتيجة االستعمار واالستعمار الجديد‬
‫ سواء كان‬،‫ غير أن العدد الدقيق ربما يكون غير مهم‬.‫في تلك الحرب كما أسلفت في بداية نقاشنا‬
‫ لكن الثقافة الغربية أفلتت بطريقة ما من العقاب الرتكابها هذه‬،ً‫ فالعدد هائل جدا‬.ً‫ مليونا‬60 ‫ أو‬40
‫ وال تزال تقنع العالم بأن لديها نوعا ً من التفويض األخالقي في أن تملي على العالم قيمها‬،‫الجرائم‬
‫ فكيف لها تحقيق ذلك؟‬.‫الخاصة من خالل منظمات ووسائل إعالم تابعة لها‬

The pronouns profile in the two text does not change, viz. the 7
seven explicit subject pronouns in the English text have all been
suppressed in the Arabic text, whereas the number of other English
pronominal elements (5) corresponds to 8 pronoun clitics in Arabic, thus
maintaining the presence of more pronoun clitics in Arabic discourse.
Likewise, the picture of lexical repetition is similar, viz. the words crimes
and colonialism are repeated twice in both texts. The only case where
there is a mismatch works in favor of Arabic, viz. the word million is
repeated 3 times in English, while it occurs only 2 times in Arabic. To
explain, whereas the English text ellipts the word million in the two
coordinate structures only once, the Arabic text ellipts it in both cases.
In terms of conjunctions, the English concessive makers however
and although are both maintained in the Arabic text by employing ‫غير أن‬
and ‫لكن‬, respectively. However, the translator has chosen to relay the
hypotactic marker although paratactically by using the paratactic maker
‫لكن‬, which preserves the concessive but not the hypotactic structure. The
question here is: Is the hypotactic option available? The answer is
definitely in the affirmative because the paratactic marker ‫ لكن‬can be
readily replaced with the hypotactic marker ‫ بالرغم من‬or ‫على الرغم من‬, which
both preserve the meaning and the structure. Actually, the hypotactic
rendition sounds more emphatic than its paratactic one in Arabic despite
the fact that they are both semantically coherent within the text. Besides,
the Arabic text’s argumentative thrust is enhanced by the use of the
conjunction ‫ ف‬twice, whose absence would create discourse gaps that
seriously weaken the line of argumentation due to the syndetic nature of
Arabic discourse. Finally, the appropriate deployment of conjunctions in
the Arabic text has contributed significantly to producing a coherent

87
Arabic text. The reader can easily follow the argument presented in terms
of logic and cohesion.

5. Conclusions
Many important conclusions can be drawn from the close analysis and
critical discussion of the 8 extracts in this study. First, if we exclude legal
discourse, the deployment of pronominal reference in English and Arabic
discourse shows contrastive profiles at varying degrees. While Arabic
subject pronouns are categorically suppressed in unmarked structures,
their English counterparts are phonetically realized in such structures,
which is an immediate consequence of Arabic being a subject pro-drop
language. Arabic subject pronouns occur only for emphatic or discursive
purposes. By contrast, Arabic resumptive pronoun clitics, which, among
other things, may correspond to object and possessive English pronouns,
are much more densely deployed in Arabic discourse across different text
types. In both languages, narrative discourse is generally the densest in
the investment of pronouns, while legal discourse is the least dense in this
regard. Considering these discrepancies, one can argue that both
languages are pronoun-dense.
Second, the textual data shows that the two languages exhibit a
consistent behavior when it comes to employing semantically-loaded
conjunctions to relay the unfolding logic of discourse. However, Arabic
also heavily invests the conjunctions ‫ و‬wa and ‫ ف‬fa to smooth and
naturalize its discourse, while English usually relies on punctuation to
fulfill that purpose. This mismatch is of key significance when translating
between the languages. The syndetic nature of Arabic discourse entails
the use of more conjunctions when rendering English discourse, which is
noticeably asyndetic in nature. Conversely, several Arabic conjunctions
should go for punctuation when rendering Arabic discourse into English.
One should note that this discursive aspect largely operates independently
of semantically-loaded conjunctions and may, sometimes, be employed to
consolidate them, e.g. ‫‘ ولكن‬and but’ and ‫‘ فبالرغم من‬although’. This
observation contradicts Baker’s claim (1992) that English is more varied
in the distribution of semantically-loaded conjunctions than Arabic. In
fact, the textual data has shown that Arabic is as varied as English in
semantic conjunctions, and it proves to be much more conjunctions-dense
due to its syndetic discourse.
Third, the textual data in this paper clearly disproves the widely-
held claim that Arabic is more lexically repetitive than English. Across all
the text types examined, English emerges as much lexically repetitive as

88
Arabic. The individual mismatches in the data are insignificant and
mostly work against this claim. Therefore, the often-echoed claim (see
Section 1 above) that Arabic is more repetitive than English and that
augmentation in Arabic is based on presentation (i.e. lexical repetition)
rather than syllogism (i.e. progressive coherence) needs to be seriously
questioned. It may be the case that the feature of progressive coherence,
which is thought to be typical of English, is not an inherent characteristic
as such, but rather a matter of tendency among language users who have
been apprenticed to use language that way. Therefore, in the hands of
competent writers Arabic discourse is expected to be as syllogistic as its
English counterpart. The future examination of large interlingual corpora
as well as intralingual corpora in the two languages may unfold more
solid evidence in this regard.
Fourth, the examination of the paratactic-hypotactic parameter in
the structuring of discourse indicates that both languages equally feature
parataxis and hypotaxis. This finding refutes the general assumption that
Arabic discourse is more paratactic than English discourse, and, inversely,
that English discourse is more hypotactic than Arabic discourse. The
interlingual textual data in this study generally shows that what is
paratactic or hypotactic in either language remains so interlingually. The
few individual mismatches in the data are merely a matter of translator
preference and may, in fact, be more appropriately rendered using the
same structure. This new insight clearly points to the often-neglected rich
aspect of hypotaxis in Arabic, which is mainly based on anecdotal
evidence and is consolidated by the lack of systematizing the linguistic
data the way it is done in English. Any haphazard look at an Arabic or an
English text in translation would readily show that both languages invest
the two structuring axes at a comparable degree.
Fifth, the interlingual data in this study shows a noticeable
tendency for Arabic discourse to change several English nonfinite clauses
to finite ones in translation and, inversely, for English discourse to change
some Arabic finite clauses to non-finite ones across all text types. This
tendency is most implemented when translating English legal texts into
Arabic, e.g. UN documents, where highlighted English non-finite clauses
in the preamble are usually rendered into Arabic finite clauses without
changing their hypotactic structuring. This does not negate the possibility
of sometimes opting for Arabic verbal nouns to head non-finite clauses
but the general tendency is to prefer finite to non-finite clauses in Arabic.
One should note that English employs non-finite clauses much more

89
frequently than Arabic, a fact which requires the translator to pay utmost
attention to this discursive mismatch.
Finally, textual cohesion proves to be a significant contributor to
the production of coherence. Any coherence mishaps, whether accidental
or premeditated, will most often have serious repercussions in the
processing of discourse. Coherence problems, e.g. the choice of one
article rather than another or the employment of an erroneous
semantically-loaded conjunction, usually have far-reaching consequences
at the reception level and may create irreparable damage. The incidentally
chosen interlingual data in this study has fortunately instantiated some
subtle textual problems which have been shown to affect the coherence of
the translation at varying degrees. It is important that the translator fully
understand the ST in terms of content and textualization before
considering TT candidate counterparts.

90
 Arabic Euphemism:
A Translational Perspective

Abstract
This paper aims to address the translatability of Arabic euphemisms into
English by investigating Arabic euphemizing strategies and their potential
English counterparts. It establishes the construct that euphemism is a
pragmatic feature with translational relevance that concerns the degree of
politeness between SL and TL. Arabic and English are shown to largely
operate comparable strategies including metaphorical expressions,
circumlocutions, remodeling, ellipsis, and under-/over-statements, despite
the fact that there are some register complications that must be taken into
consideration when translating between the two languages. The paper also
shows that some euphemistic Arabic expressions are doomed in English
translation for lack of correspondence, leaving the translator with only the
option to utilize some compensatory strategies.

1. Definition and Scope of Euphemism

Euphemism is a linguistic politeness strategy whereby an offensive or
hurtful word/phrase is replaced with one that represents a less direct
expression or carries a positive attitude. Lexically, euphemism is one way
of creating cognitive synonyms in language, that is, the original
expression and its euphemistic counterpart come to share conceptual or
descriptive meaning but differ in their attitudinal dimension. The two
terms zabaal ‫' زبككال‬garbage man' and ‘avail naðaafah ‫' عامككل نظافككة‬a
cleanliness worker,' for example, denote the same occupation in Arabic
but the second one reflects a positive social attitude toward this kind of
job, which is lacking in the first term. The second alternative is said to
euphemize the first. Similarly, the military phrase ’i‘aadatu ’intišaar ‫إعكادة‬
‫' انتشكار‬redeployment' is more acceptable to listeners/viewers than ’insiћaab
‫' انسكحاب‬withdrawal' because it is less direct than the latter, despite the fact
that both terms denote the same concept/act in military affairs.
The term 'euphemism' comes from Greek euphēmism(os), which
means the use of words of good omen. The Random House College
Dictionary (1980:455) defines euphemism as “the substitution of a mild,
indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or
blunt.” More recently, Allan and Burridge (1991:14) offer this definition:
“Euphemisms are alternatives to dispreferred expression, and are used in
order to avoid possible loss of face.” Clearly, both definitions refer to the
employment of euphemism by language users to achieve the expression of

91
politeness and demureness, or even deception, in human communication.
A speaker’s use of the common Arabic euphemism al-marḥuum ‫المرحكوم‬
'the person given mercy by Allah, i.e., the person who died,' for example,
instead of the neutral al-mayyit ‫' الميكت‬the deceased' is usually informed by
the addressee’s relation to the person who died. The speaker/writer will
opt for the euphemism in an attempt to prevent his/her loss of face if
he/she believes that the addressee cares for the referent. In some cases,
however, the speaker’s use of a euphemism may be motivated by general
social mores rather than the addressee’s face wants. For example, the
speaker may opt to utilize the euphemism ðawuu-l-’iḥtiyaajaati-l-xaaṣah
‫' ذوو االحتياجكات الخاصكة‬those with special needs' instead of the direct al-
mu‘aaqiin ‫' المعكاقين‬the handicapped' to express solidarity with the referent
rather than maintain his/her face wants. Thus, euphemism may express
both negative politeness (i.e. attending to the producer's own face wants
in order to avoid his/her loss of face), as illustrated in the former case, and
positive politeness (i.e. seeing to the receiver's face wants for the purpose
of expressing solidarity with them), as exemplified by the latter case (For
more information on politeness, see Brown and Levinson 1987).

2. Euphemism in Arabic Linguistics

The linguistics of euphemism in Arabic is extremely sparse. There are
only few brief mentions of at-talaṭṭuf ‫ التلطكف‬or at-talṭiif ‫( التلطيكف‬al-Askari
[verified 1989]; Matlub 1996; Al-Jatlawi 1998). Historically, al-Askari’s
term at-talaṭṭuf, which fits the term 'euphemism' very well, hardly relates
to this phenomenon as we understand it in contemporary linguistics. He
defines it as ‫[ التلطف للمعنى الحسن حتكى تهجنكه وللمعنكى الهجكين حتكى تحسكنه‬at-talaṭṭufi
li-l-ma‘na-l-ḥasani ḥataa tuhajjinuhu wa-l-ma‘na-l-hajiini ḥataa
tuḥassinuhu] (p. 482) 'to manage the pleasant meaning kindly to make it
objectionable and manage the objectionable meaning kindly to make it
pleasant'. His examples show clearly that what he means is the
employment of a non-preferred expression in a context where it acquires
pleasant connotations, or vice versa. This differs from what we know as
euphemism, a resource that necessarily involves the utilization of an
alternative expression to replace the original non-preferred one in an
attempt “to manage meaning kindly” via euphemizing.
The lack of a clear treatment of euphemism in medieval rhetoric
comes as a great surprise, especially for those who are aware of the
striking breadth and depth of this discipline in medieval Arabic
linguistics. However, this absence cannot be attributed to a shortage of
euphemisms in Classical Arabic. The Holy Quran alone constitutes a rich

92
source for euphemistic expressions intended to avoid blunt or taboo
expressions in areas such as sex and bodily effluvia, among others.
Consider the two verses below:
.‫) إذا جاء أحدكم من الغائط أو المستم النساء‬1(
(Al-nisaa’, Verse 43)
/’iðaa jaa’a ’aḥadukum min-al-γaa’iṭi ’aw
if came one (of you) from-the-defecation or

laamastum- an-nisaa’a .../

touch (you) the-women

'If one of you has come back from defecation or you

have touched women …'
.‫) فلما قضى منها وطرا ً زوجناكها‬2(
(Al-’aħzaab, Verse 37)
/fa-lammaa qaḍaa min-haa waṭaran zawwajnaa-ka-haa/
so-when got from-her need marry(we)-you-her

'After he had got his need from her, we married you to her.'

In the verses above, ‘sexual intercourse’ is euphemistically

referred to as ‘touching’ in the first verse and ‘getting his need from her’
in the second verse. Similarly, the first verse euphemizes a bodily
function by the employment of the technical term al-γaa’iṭi 'defecation',
in order to hide the socially tabooed attitude toward it.
More recently, Farghal (1995) interprets the process of
euphemizing in Arabic in terms of conversational implicature (Grice
1975). In particular, he emphasizes the interaction between the politeness
principle (Leech 1983) and Grice’s maxims of conversation in
euphemistic expressions. Euphemisms are viewed as a pragmatic
mechanism that reflects the organic interlock between the politeness
principle and conversational maxims. By way of illustration, the Arabic
euphemism waḍa‘a ḥaddan li-ḥayaatih ‫' وضع حكدا ً لحياتكه‬He put an end to his
life' as a replacement for’intaḥara ‫' انتحكر‬He committed suicide' both flouts
the maxim of quality (by being metaphorical) and the maxim of manner
(specifically, the sub-maxim ‘Be brief'). The producer’s purpose is to
conversationally implicate that the denotatum’s life had been full of
suffering; hence, from his point of view, it was good that he killed
himself. This conversational implicature is missing in the neutral (but
inherently negative) counterpart ’intaḥara. Similarly, the vernacular death

93
euphemism ’a‘ṭaak ‘umruh ‫' أعطكاك عمكره‬He gave you his age' instead of
the neutral maata ‫' مكات‬He died' flouts the maxim of quality (Don't say
what you believe to be false) and, as a result, conversationally implicates
the speaker’s wish that the addressee live long.

3. A Translational Perspective
There is a consensus among translation practitioners as well as translation
theorists that translation is essentially an act of communication that
departs from the frontiers of a SL and enters into the frontiers of a TL.
This journey from SL to TL is supposed to involve transferring meaning
in its different linguistic and social manifestations. In reality, however,
there is usually a tug-of-war between form and content in the process of
translation because meaning may be grammaticalized and/or idiomatized
differently across languages. On the one hand, some theorists emphasize
textual equivalence, for example, Catford (1965:20) defines translation as
"the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual
material in another language". Some of them, on the other hand, highlight
functional equivalence by emphasizing the reproduction of the SL
message by the closest natural equivalent in the TL or by substituting
messages in one language for messages in another language (Jakobson,
1959; De Ward and Nida, 1986). However, translation equivalence,
whether it be textual or functional, is a correlate of contextual factors
and is essentially informed by the principle of relevance (Gutt 1996;
paper 2 in this volume).
Being functional in language, euphemism should be relayed in
translation because the failure to do so will result in a deficit in the degree
of politeness in the TL text, compared with that of the SL text. In the
following pages, we will see whether it is possible to render different
types of Arabic euphemism into English. The discussion will center on
figurative expressions, antonyms, circumlocutions, remodelings, ellipsis,
understatements, overstatements, borrowings, and euphemizers as
important euphemizing strategies.

3.1 Figurative Expressions

Figurative expressions are the most common device for euphemizing
meaning in Arabic in areas such as death, bodily functions, marriage and
sex, and so forth. These areas of human experience are, in fact, a common
target for euphemism in natural language in general. Therefore, it is

94
expected that euphemistic expressions between languages will be
available in translation in varying degrees of correspondence.
First, let us consider the standard Arabic euphemism that views
death in terms of a transference to another life and/or joining the supreme
Agent, viz. )‫ جكوار ربكه‬،‫ الرفيكق األعلكى‬،‫ دار البقاء‬،‫انتقل إلى رحمة هللا تعالى ( الدار اآلخرة‬
[’intaqala ’ilaa raḥmati-llaah (dl-daari-l-’aaxirah, daari-l-baqaa’, ar-
raiiqi-l-’a‘laa, jiwaarii rabbih)] 'Lit. He transferred to the mercy of God
(the afterlife, the home of eternity, the supreme comrade, the
neighborhood of his Lord).' The common divider in these death
euphemisms is their inherent fatalistic viewpoint, which may be regarded
as a hallmark of Arab culture in general (paper 8, this volume). As can be
seen, the literal English translations may not work as equivalents for the
Arabic euphemistic death terms above, which have effectively found their
way into the general unmarked Arabic register and succeed in
conversationally implicating that 'the deceased will go to Heaven'.
Although the general unmarked English register does not tolerate this
fatalistic Arabic viewpoint, it euphemizes death by likening it to a journey
in the expression 'He passed away', which can functionally correspond to
the Arabic death terms above. More restrictively (i.e. in the religious
register only such as sermons and obituaries), English euphemizes death
in expressions like 'He went to his last home', 'He passed over to the great
beyond', 'He answered the last call', 'He awoke to immortal life', 'He met
his Maker', etc. Therefore, the translator may employ these marked
English death euphemisms as functional equivalents to fatalistic Arabic
death terms when translating religious texts only.
In the area of bodily functions and related facilities, both Arabic
and English possess several euphemistic expressions that may perform
similar functions. Witness the Quranic euphemisms and their English
counterparts in (1) and (2) above, viz. al-γaa’iṭ and laamastum which can
be euphemistically translated into 'defecation' and 'touching' in (1)
respectively, and waṭaran which can be euphemistically rendered as
'need' in (2). Also, observe the availability of the Arabic euphemistic
expressions dawratu miyaah ‫' دورة ميككاه‬water cycle', ḥammaam ‫حمككام‬
'bathroom', baytu-l-’adab ‫' بيكت األدب‬home of politeness', baytu-l-raaḥah
‫' بيكت الراحكة‬home of rest', twaaleet ‫' تواليكت‬toilet', etc. for mirḥaaḍ ‫مرحكاض‬,
and the availability of the English euphemistic expressions 'toilet',
'lavatory', 'bathroom', 'restroom', 'powder room', etc. for the originally
euphemistic expression 'water closet (WC)'. The translator, therefore, will
find no difficulty in rendering Arabic euphemisms in this case.

95
 However, there are some cases in which Arabic euphemism in
this area may pose serious problems even to the most professional
translator. Witness how Arberry (1980: 135) renders the boldfaced
figurative expression in the Quranic verse (3) in (4) below:

... ‫) والذين يظاهرون من نسائهم ثم يعودون لما قالوا فتحرير رقبة‬3(

(Al-mujaadilah: 3)
/wa- llaðiina yuðaahiruuna min nisaa’i-him өumma
and who give backs to from women-their then

ya‘uuduuna li-maa qaaluu fa-taḥriiru raqabah/

retract(they) for-what said(they) so-set free slave

(4) And those who say, regarding their wives, ‘Be as my

mother’s back’, and then retract what they have said,
they shall set free a slave.

Given to a group of 20 American native speakers to provide their

interpretation of the boldfaced segment in the English translation (which
is meant to reflect the meaning of the Arabic euphemistic expression
yuðaahiruuna) more than 80% of the responses did not make sense at all.
Arberry’s interpretative literal translation simply could not convey the
message that the Arabic euphemism involved a husband's verbal
declaration of sexual desertion to his wife. The only way to render the
Arabic euphemism in a comprehensible manner is to relay the content
independently of the form because the Arabic euphemistic expression is
alien to target readers.

3.2 Antonyms
The use of antonyms in Arabic euphemisms is an interesting
phenomenon. Examples include ‫ معكافى‬mu‘aafaa 'healthy' for ‫ مكريض‬mariiḍ
'sick', ‫ بصككير‬baṣiir 'sighted' for ‫’ أعمككى‬a‘maa 'blind', ‫‘ عائككدون‬aa’iduun
'returnees' for ‫ الجئكون‬laaji’uun 'refugees', ‫ مجبكور‬majbuur 'with a healing
limb' for ‫ مكسكور‬maksuur 'with a broken limb.' These positive expressions
reflect the desired rather than the existing state of affairs and are
reminiscent of another deeply-rooted tradition in Arab culture. Ugly
personal names such as ‫ جحكش‬jaḥš 'Donkey' and ‫ كليكب‬kulayb 'Doggie' were
given upon birth to keep envy away, viz. ‫ زينب بنكت جحكش‬zaynabu bintu jaḥš
'Zaynab, daughter of Donkey' was one of Prophet Mohammad’s wives.
96
Such proper names are still used in some parts of the Arab world. In
Egypt, for example, family names such as ‫ الحيكوان‬al-ḥayawaan ‘animal'
and ‫ الحمكار‬al-ḥimaar 'donkey' still designate big families. Apparently, the
use of antonyms in euphemizing has taken an opposite direction from
using negative terms, which are meant to drive envy or evil away.
In terms of translation, the euphemistic use of Arabic antonyms
cannot be maintained in English translation. Words designating physical
conditions/disabilities, for example, are not euphemized in English;
hence, 'healthy' and 'sighted' may not be employed respectively to mean
'sick' and 'blind', the way it is in Arabic, other things being equal.
Apparently, English does not utilize antonyms in euphemizing although
auto-antonyms are quite familiar in it, e.g. 'to dust' can mean 'to remove
fine particles from' or 'to sprinkle fine particles onto' and 'to rent' can
mean 'to rent property from someone' or 'to rent property to someone'.
Therefore, euphemistic Arabic auto-antonyms are doomed in English
translation. The options available to translators range between
overlooking the euphemistic use, for example, by rendering the
euphemistic mu‘aafaa into the non-euphemistic 'sick/ill' and,
alternatively, reducing the supposedly negative effect on the receiver by
resorting to paraphrase, for example, rendering the above Arabic
euphemism as 'not feeling very well', which may correspond to the
vernacular euphemistic expression ‫ تعبكان شكويه‬ta‘baan šwayya [tired bit] ‘a
bit tired’.

3.3 Circumlocutions, Remodelings, and Ellipsis

Circumlocutions, another type of euphemism, paraphrase taboos or
socially objectionable vocabulary. Examples of circumlocutions include ‫لكم‬
‫ يحالفكه الحكظ‬lam yuḥaalifahu-l-ḥað 'Luck did not ally with him' instead of
‫ فشكل‬fašila 'He failed', ‫’ اعتكداء جنسكي‬i‘tidaa’ jinsii 'sexual assault' for ‫اغتصكاب‬
’iγtiṣaab 'rape', ‫ خيانكة زوجيكة‬xiyaanah zawjiyyah 'marriage betrayal' for ً ‫زنكا‬
zinaa 'adultery', and ‫ طفكل غيكر شكرعي‬ṭifl γayr šar‘ii 'illegitimate child' for ‫لقكيط‬
laqiiṭ 'bastard'. These Arabic euphemisms, as can be seen, spell out the
meaning of their negative counterparts in a more acceptable way. In terms
of translation, the above Arabic circumlocutions translate readily into 'He
was not lucky', 'sexual assault', 'an affair outside marriage' and
'illegitimate child', respectively. Thus, euphemistic Arabic
circumlocutions do not usually involve problems in English translation.
This may be attributed to the fact that breaking down lexical meaning by
way of circumlocution is a universal phenomenon in natural language,
covering all aspects of vocabulary, including the euphemistic use.
97
 For their part, remodelings essentially belong to vernacular Arabic
and involve the twisting of the phonological structure of existing taboo
expressions for a euphemistic purpose. Popular examples in the Levant
may include euphemistic imprecatives such as ‫ديخككك‬/‫ يلعككن ديكك‬yil‘an
diikak/diixak 'Damn your rooster/?' for the blasphemous ‫ يلعكن دينكك‬yil‘an
diinak 'Damn your religion' and ‫ يلعكن حريشكك‬yil‘an ḥariišak 'Damn your
…?' instead of ‫حرمككك‬/‫ يلعككن حريمك‬yil‘an ḥariimak/ḥaramak 'Damn your
kinswomen'. As can be noted, such euphemistic imprecatives employ
vague and/or nonsense words for remodeling their taboo counterparts, in
order to lessen the impact of negative effects. In English, the translator
may employ the general, dummy imprecative 'Damn it' as a counterpart
for such expressions or, alternatively, 'Sugar!' as a euphemistic
remodeling of the familiar four-letter English imprecatives. However, if
the original imprecative is found, the translator may render it literally,
such as 'Damn your religion' and 'Damn your kinswomen'.
In some cases, remodelings utilize open-ended words such as the
popular euphemistic Egyptian imprecative ‫ يكا ابكن األيكه‬yabni-l-eeh 'son of
what' and the Levantine counterpart ‫ يا ابكن الكذين‬yabni-l-laðiina 'son of those
who'. These euphemistic imprecatives are used instead of their potentially
obscene counterparts, e.g. ‫ يا ابن الكلب‬yabni-l-kalb 'son of a dog', ‫يا ابن الحيوان‬
yabni-l-ḥaywaan 'son of an animal'. In terms of translation, the
euphemistic English imprecative 'Son of a gun', which remodels the
obscene imprecative 'Son of a bitch', can be effectively used as a
functional equivalent in such cases. It should be noted, however, that the
obscene imprecatives and their euphemistic counterparts in Arabic are
gender-marked, viz. ‫ يا بنت الكلب‬yabinti-l-kalb 'Daughter of a dog' and ‫يا بنت‬
‫ األيكه‬yabinti-l-eeh ‘Daughter of what’, whereas the corresponding English
imprecative is gender unmarkrd, i.e. 'Son of a bitch' can be addressed to
both males and females; hence 'Daughter of a bitch' is not acceptable in
English. The same thing applies to the euphemistic version, that is, it is
gender-marked in Arabic but its English counterpart in gender-unmarked.
A related euphemizing Arabic process is ellipsis. Here the speaker
falls short of uttering the complete taboo expression. Examples of
expressions such as ... ‫’ أخكو إل‬axu-l …'Brother of …', ... ‫ يكا ابكن ال‬yabn-il …
'Son of …' and ... ‫ بنكت إل‬bint-il …'Daughter of …' function as elliptical
imprecatives. Ellipsis can also be observed in English as a means of
euphemizing when the speaker falls short of the lexeme 'bitch' by saying
'Son of …'. In some cases and for the purpose of euphemizing, the
imprecative formula is completed with a general and/or irrelevant word
instead of an obscene one. Examples include the flippant Egyptian

98
euphemistic imprecative yabn-il-eeh 'Son of what!' and the Levantine
flippant imprecatives ‫ يلعكن شكغلك‬yil‘an šuγlak 'Damn your work' and ‫بلعكن‬
‫ رومكا‬yil‘an rooma 'Damn Rome', among others. Similarly, English may
utilize the tag 'you know what' to avoid obscene expressions, for example,
'Son of, you know what' instead of 'Son of a bitch'.
To further observe how such euphemistic strategies can be
employed in Arabic, let us consider the following excerpt (both the
Arabic text and the English translation) from Najeeb Mahfuz's Awlaad
Haratinaa (1959), which Stewart translated into English as Children of
Geblawi (1981):

‫ ولو مر أمامكم اآلن خنفس‬،‫ ما أنتم إال حشاشون ال خير فيكم‬:‫) قالت حنورة‬5(
‫ فليس على‬،‫ ال تؤاخذنا يا بني‬:‫ ثم وهو يلتفت إلى رفاعة‬.‫لسجدتم بين يديه‬
.‫الحشاش حرج‬
/qaalat ḥannuuratu maa ’antum ’illaa ḥaššaašuuna laa xayr
said Hanoura not you but hash addicts no good

fii-kum wa law marra ’amaama-kum al’aana xunfus la-

in-you and if pass in front of-you now Khunfus would

sajad-tum bayna yaday-h өumma wa-hwa yaltafitu ’ilaa

kneel-you between hands-his then and-he look to

rifaa‘ah laa tu’aaxið-naa yaa bunay fa-laysa ‘ala-l-ḥaššaaši

rifa’a not blame-me o son so-not on the-addict

ḥaraj/
embarrassment

(6) Hanoura said:

“You are nothing but worthless hashish addicts. If Khonfus
came now, you’d fall at his feet”. Then to Rifa’a: “Don’t
blame us, my boy. A hashish smoker has no inhibitions”.

In the above excerpt, Hanoura employed the boldfaced

euphemistic expression in an attempt to tone down the harsh criticism he
mounted at hashish addicts when he turned to address Rifa’a. Stewart,
inadvertently, rendered the euphemistic phraseology literally, thus over-
translating it. It would have been more appropriate to relay it by a

99
euphemizing English expression such as “Excuse us, son! A hashish
smoker has no inhibitions” or “We’re sorry, son! A hashish smoker has
no inhibitions”.

3.4 Understatements and Overstatements

Euphemistic expressions may manifest themselves in understatements.
The Arabic word ‫ نكسكة‬naksah 'setback' constitutes a classic example that
came into frequent official use after the Arab-Israeli 1967 Six-day War as
a euphemism for ‫ هزيمكة‬hazīmah 'defeat.' This euphemism was not just a
word. It provided the Arab world with a psychological frame of reference
through which President Nasser of Egypt, King Hussein of Jordan, and
President Al-Atasi of Syria were to emerge as heroes from that
humiliating war. In terms of translation, 'A spade should be called a
spade' in this case; therefore, naksah (in reference to that war) is
translated into 'defeat' in natural English discourse and only a pretentious
Arab-created English text would refer to it as 'setback'. Similarly, the
familiar Arabic euphemism ‫‘ عمليكة استشكهادية‬amaliyyah ’istišhaadiyyah ‘a
martyrdom operation’ instead of ‫‘ عمليكة انتحاريكة‬amaliyyah ’inti ḥaariyyah is
non-euphemistically translated into ‫عمليكككككة انتحاريكككككة‬/‫هجوم‬ 'suicide
attack/operation' or, sometimes, dysphemistically into ‫ هجكوم إرهكابي‬hujuum
’irhaabii 'terrorist attack' (for more details, see Farghal 1995a and 1995b).
Other examples include ً ‫ يصككفي جسككديا‬yuṣaffii jasadiyyan 'Lit. to purify
physically' instead of ‫ يغتككال‬yaγtaalu 'to assassinate', which can be
euphemistically translated into 'to liquidate', and al-’islaamiyyuun-l-
mutaṭarrifuun, which is often euphemistically translated into ‫الناشككطون‬
‫اإلسكالميون األصكوليون أو اإلسكالميون‬/‫ اإلسالميون‬al-naašituun-l-’islaamiyyuun /al-
’islaamiyyuun-l-’uṣuuliyyuun, or al-’islaamiyyuun 'Muslim activists/
Muslim fundamentalists' or 'Islamists', instead of the non-euphemistic
‫' المتطرفون اإلسالميون‬Muslim extremists/fanatics'.
Conversely, some euphemisms may be realized as overstatements
or hyperboles. An interesting example is the expression ‫’ أم المعكارك‬ummu-l-
ma‘aarik as used by the ex-Iraqi regime instead of the neutral ‫حكرب الخلكيج‬
‫ الثانيكة‬ḥarbu-l-xaliiji-ө-өaaniyah 'Second Gulf War of 1991', which was
readily translated into 'Mother of all battles'. However, the Arabic
euphemism and its seemingly English counterpart functioned differently.
Whereas the Arabic expression originally showed pride in and solidarity
with Iraq in its confrontation with the United States and her allies, the
English expression was employed humorously and dysphemistically.
Therefore, the apparently euphemistic English translation constitutes an
antithesis of euphemizing. All the same, the Arabic expression came to

100
develop the humorous and dysphemistic use after the humiliating defeat
of Iraq in that war. Interestingly enough, the English translation was
intralingually remodeled in 'Mother of all bombs' in reference to an
American mammoth bomb that had been used in Afghanistan and Iraq by
the Americans. However, the remodeling came to lose its humorous and
dysphemistic interpretation in favor of a euphemistic use intended to
avoid the mention of the massive destruction that the bomb may cause
when used. The new English expression was readily translated into ‫أم‬
‫’ القنابكل‬ummu-l-qanaabil in Arabic, though with a rather negative than
positive attitude.
Another example is the euphemistic expression ‫غككزوة واشككنطون‬
‫ ونيويكورك‬γazwat waašinṭun wa niyuurk 'Campaign of Washington and New
York' for ‫ هجكوم الحكادي عشكر مكن سكبتمبر‬hujuum-il-ḥaadii ‘ašar min sibtambar
'September 11th attack' in the words of Bin Laden and his followers.
Given the massive volume of the tragedy, the Arabic expression never
found its way into English discourse, the way 'Mother of all battles' did.
This example delves deep into Arab-Muslim history in search of a
phraseology that would revive religious sentiment and include fresh
positive attitudes. In terms of normative Islamic practice, the use of the
term γazwah is associated only with the campaigns led by Prophet
Mohammad. The infringement of this tacit agreement among Muslims
stems from Bin Laden’s awareness of the positive associations of the said
term; hence, he purposely used it to euphemize an otherwise
objectionable act of terror.
A recent dramatic example is the establishment of ‫دولة الخالفة‬
‫' اإلسالمية في العراق والشام‬The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria' in 2013 whose
founders euphemistically dubbed it ‫دولة الخالفة اإلسالمية على منهاج النبوة‬
dawlat-il-xilaafati-il-'islaamiyyati ʻalaa minhaaj-il-nubuwwati 'State of
Islamic Caliphate according to Prophethood Method'. The western media
readily abbreviated the name of the new state neutrally as ISIS and
dyphemistically as Daesh. While the dysphemistic Daesh has become a
hallmark label for reference to that state internationally, the use of such
label within the territories held then by that state would bring a person a
harsh punishment. Citizens of that state had to euphemistically refer to it
as ‫دولة الخالفة اإلسالمية‬. Violating this rule could cost one his/her life.
To close this section, let us examine the placard held by one of the
demonstrators below to see how what is viewed as understatements from
the receiver's perspective can mask seriously offensive or evil acts. The
statements on the placard equate between 'premeditated killing' and
'collateral damage', 'putting people in jail arbitrarily' and 'security

101
measure', 'exiling people en masse' and the buzz phraseology 'New
Middle East', and even the often abused term 'democracy' with evil acts
such as 'robbing resources', 'invasion', and 'altering leadership', which are
usually carried out under the pretext of introducing democracy into victim
countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
The competent translator into Arabic should not face difficulty in
capturing the tone inherent in such political euphemisms. Following is a
suggested translation:

‫تقتلون املسلمني وتقولون إهنا‬

"‫"آاثر جانبية‬
‫تزجون بنا يف السجون وتقولون إهنا‬
"‫"إجراءآت أمنية‬
‫هتجرون أهلنا ابملاليني وتقولون إنه‬
ّ
"‫"شرق أوسط جديد‬
‫وتغّيون أنظمتنا‬
ّ ‫تسلبون ثرواتنا وتغزون بالاان‬
"‫وتقولون إهنا "الدميوقراطية‬

102
3.5 Borrowings
Euphemisms in Arabic may also arise as a result of borrowing foreign
words. One of the most common euphemisms of this type is the use of the
loan-word ‫ مكدام‬madaam 'madam' for the standard ‫ زوجكة‬zawjah or the
vernacular ‫ مككره‬marah 'wife' in many urban areas of the Arab world
because it carries a more positive attitude. Other examples include ‫تواليكت‬
twaaleet 'toilet' for ‫ مرحككاض‬mirḥaaḍ 'toilet', ‫ كككوافير‬kwaafeer 'coiffeur'
instead of ‫ حكالق‬ḥalaaq 'barber' and ‫ سكوبرماركت‬suubarmaakit 'supermarket'
for ‫ دككان‬dukkaan 'shop'. Sociolinguistically, the use of such foreign loans
instead of their native counterparts is usually taken to be indicative of the
speaker's high level of education and social class. In terms of translation,
euphemizing by borrowing represents zero translation whereby the
foreign loan preserves its form (though phonologically naturalized), as
well as its meaning (which may sometimes undergo semantic
modification).

103
3.6 Euphemizers
Arabic is rich in formulaic expressions that are intended to soften the
impact of mentioning a taboo or a socially non-preferred expression
involving reference to topics such as death, betrayal, failure, and
objectionable animals/items. Consequently, I will call such expressions
'euphemizers'. Examples include ‫ ال سكمح هللا وال قكدر‬laa samaḥa-llaahu wa
laa qaddar 'Lit. May not God permit nor predestine this', ‫هللا يحفكظ مقامكك‬
’allaah yiḥfað maqaamak 'Lit. May God preserve your status', ‫بعيكد عنكك‬
ba‘iid ‘annak 'Lit. May this be far from you', etc. These popular Arabic
euphemizers are reminiscent of some archaic English euphemizers such
as 'Perish the thought', which are rarely encountered in modern English
discourse. It should be noted that Arabic vernaculars as remote from each
other as Jordanian Arabic and Moroccan Arabic utilize varying versions
of such euphemizers. For example, Moroccan Arabic and Jordanian
Arabic respectively employ the euphemizer ‫ حاشكاك‬ḥaašaak and ‫حيشكاك‬
ḥiišaak 'May this not apply to you' right after the mention of what is
deemed to be socially objectionable, for example, reference to shoes,
animals such as donkeys and pigs, and negative attributes such as reckless
and stupid. Other euphemizers from Jordanian Arabic include ‫ بكال قافيكه‬bala
gaafyih 'without double meaning, i.e., take what I said at face value' and
‫ بكال زغكره‬bala zuγrah 'Lit. without belittlement/when asking someone about
his tribal affiliation' (for more details, see Farghal, 2002).
In terms of translation, these Arabic euphemizers can be
problematic because present-day English largely lacks the existence of
formulaic expressions in this aspect of human interaction. However,
English manages to soften the mention of socially non-preferred or
objectionable phrases by general expressions such as 'I'm sorry to say' and
'Excuse my language'. Therefore, when the taboo expression obtains in
both languages, Arabic euphemizers are translatable into English. By
contrast, if the taboo Arabic expression is not considered taboo in
English, such euphemizers are doomed in translation. The examples in
(8)-(11) below illustrate this point:

.‫ بعيد عنك‬- ‫) محمد محتال‬7(

/muḥammadun muḥtaalun ba‘iid ‘ann-ak/
Mohammed cheat far from-you
'Lit. Mohammed is a cheat, may this be far from you.'

(8) Mohammed is a swindler, I'm sorry to say.

104
 ‫ أجلك هللا؟‬- ‫) أين الحمام‬9(
/’ayna-l-ḥammaamu ’ajalla-ka ’allah/
where the-bathroom elevate-you God
'Lit. Where's the bathroom, may God elevate you?'

(10) Excuse me! Where's the bathroom?

.‫ أجلك هللا‬،‫) ذهبت للتسوق واشتريت حذا ًء‬11(

/ðahabtu l-il-tasawuqi wa-š-taraytu ḥiðaa'an
went-I to-the-shopping and-bought shoes

’ajalla-ka ’allah
elevate-you God

(12) I went shopping and bought a pair of shoes.

As can be seen, the boldfaced Arabic euphemizers in (7) and (9)

can be rendered as the boldfaced English general expression in (8) and
(10). The socially tabooed expressions in (7) and (8), i.e. muḥtaalun and
swindler, coincide between the two languages; hence a general English
euphemizer (I am sorry to say) can be appropriately employed. Similarly,
and although the taboo expressions do not coincide between the two
languages, it is customary in English to soften the question 'Where's the
bathroom' by prefacing it with the politeness marker 'Excuse me', which
may functionally correspond to softening the Arabic question by the
euphemizer ‫أجلكك هللا‬. By contrast, the same Arabic euphemizer is doomed
in the translation of (11) above because the utterance is a statement rather
than a polite request. It would be socially unacceptable to use a general
English euphemizer such as 'I am sorry to say' or 'Excuse me' when
referring to buying a pair of shoes.
To shed more light on this subtle aspect of Arabic discourse, let us
examine an authentic translation example from Mahfouz's Awlaad
Haratinaa (1959), along with its English translation from Stewart's
Children of Geblawi (1981):

‫ هل من جديد عن زوجك؟‬:‫) وسأله قدري الناظر‬13(

.‫ عنيدة كالبغل ربنا يحفظ مقامك‬:‫فأجابه عرفة وهو يتخذ مجلسه إلى جانبه‬
/wa sa’ala-hu qadrii al-naaðir hal min jadiidin
and asked-him Qadri the-Principal Q from new

105
 ‘an zawji-ka?
about wife-your

fa-’ajaaba ‘arafatu wa hwa yattaxiðu majlisa-hu ’ilaa

then-answered Arafa and he taking seat-his to

jaanibi-hi ‘aniidatun ka-l-baγli rabbu-naa yiḥfað

side-his stubborn(she) as-the-mule God-ours preserve

maqaam-ak/
status-your

(14) Kadri (the Chief) asked Arafa: "Any news of your wife"?
Arafa answered as he sat down beside him: "Stubborn as a
mule!"

As can be observed, the translator, P. Stewart, unjustifiably opted

for omitting the Arabic euphemizer ‫ ربنكا يحفكظ مقامكك‬in (14). Had Stewart
given it a deeper thought, he would have captured the Arabic euphemizer
by rendering it into a general euphemistic English expression such as 'I'm
afraid to say', 'I am sorry to say', or 'excuse my language'. In this way,
omission, which may be adopted when there is no correspondence in
social taboos between the two languages, is inadvertently applied in (14)
above.
Moreover, Arabic is rich in another category of euphemizers that
are meant to pay homage to the religious referents mentioned in discourse
such Allah, Prophet Mohammed, any of the prophets recognized in Islam,
any of the Prophet’s companions, etc. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate for a Muslim to mention Allah without qualifying his name
with the euphemizer ‫‘ عكز وجكل‬azza wa jal ‘dear and sublime, i.e. ‘the
greatest’ or ‫ سكبحانه وتعكالى‬subḥaanah wa ta‘aalaa ‘How great He is’. Other
euphemizers include ‫ صكلى هللا عليكه وسككلم‬ṣalaa ’allahu ‘alayyhi wa salam
‘May Allah pray for him, i.e. May peace be upon him’ specifically for
Prophet Mohammed, ‫‘ عليكه السكالم‬alayyhi-s-salaam ‘Peace be upon him’ for
any other prophet, and ‫ رضكي هللا عنكه‬raḍiya ’allahu ‘anhu ‘May Allah bless
him’ for any of Prophet Mohammed’s companions. In this way, these
euphemizers seek to glorify religious figures whenever they occur in
discourse. In terms of translation, Arabic religious material translated into
English abounds in Arabic-based euphemizers such May peace be upon

106
Him, May Allah/God bless him, Almighty Allah/God, Allah/God the
Greatest, etc.

5.3 Conclusion
This paper shows that Arabic euphemism is a rich lexical resource that
utilizes a variety of euphemizing strategies, which aim to avoid offence
and improvise politeness in communication. The translator, whose task is
to produce a TL text that bears a close semantic and semiotic resemblance
to the SL text, needs to consider euphemism when translating between
Arabic and English. The failure to do so will affect the level of politeness
between the two languages.
In terms of strategy, Arabic and English, in the main, seem to
operate similar euphemizing procedures including metaphorical
expressions, remodelings, ellipsis, circumlocutions, and under- and over-
statements. However, the translator should guard against a register
differential when considering euphemistic correspondences. In particular,
he/she needs to be aware of the fact that the Arab culture, in contrast with
the Anglo-American culture, is overwhelmingly fatalistic. This fact, for
example, may create a situation where an Arabic euphemistic expression,
which belongs to the general, unmarked register, will be inappropriately
rendered by a corresponding English euphemistic expression, which
belongs to the religious, marked register. This kind of apparent
correspondence, in particular, abounds in the area of death terms between
the two languages.
In some cases, the Arabic euphemistic nuance is doomed in
English translation. Arabic euphemistic antonyms are a clear case for
which no lexical correspondence can be found in English. Another
familiar example involves Arabic euphemizers, which hardly find
corresponding formulaic expressions in English. However, the translator
may compensate such euphemizers by employing general English
softening expressions if there is a correspondence in the socially tabooed
item between the two languages. In the absence of such taboo
correspondence, the Arabic euphemizer is subject to omission in English
translation.
Finally, in a few cases, the psychology of the audience in the two
languages may create a mismatch at the attitudinal rather than the
phraseological level. The overall mood of the SL and TL audience derives
mainly from social or subjective reality rather than objective reality. Thus,
what embraces a euphemistic use in the SL may happen to embrace a
dysphemistic use in the TL.

107
 Arab Fatalism and Translation
from Arabic into English

Abstract
This paper shows that while the concept of fatalism is an all-pervasive
phenomenon in Arabic, it is kept to a minimum in English. Consequently,
the translator into English is unlikely to be able to conserve the fatalistic
nuances of Arabic expressions. Four areas are used to draw evidence for
this cultural barrier: death terms, discourse conditionals, tautologies, and
proverbs. In most cases, the translator is forced to opt for functional
equivalents, despite the fact that fatalism is missed in the functionally
employed expressions.

Introduction
Philosophically, fatalism is looked at as a superimposed constraint that
determines the course of events for us independently of what we desire.
Lacey (1986: 79) writes, “Fatalism holds that the future is fixed
irrespective of our attempts to affect it”. In the Western tradition and due
to the increasingly rationalized mode of thinking, most Westerners would
not accept fatalism at face value these days. Rather, they would think of
themselves as free agents responsible for their actions. Strawson (1986: 7)
asserts that people are free agents in that they are capable of being truly
responsible for their actions, thus deserving of praise and blame for their
actions. He (p. 95) defines fatalism as “The mistake of thinking that
nothing one can do can change what will happen”. Viewed thus, it should
be noted that fatalism is commonly linked with some sort of theism
functioning as its ultimate agency.
Related to the doctrine of fatalism is the concept of Determinism,
which practically replaces fatalism in the Western philosophical tradition
nowadays. Strawson (1986: 4) defines determinism as “the thesis that
every event has a cause — that every event or state of the world is
brought about by something else, which is its cause”. By and large,
Western philosophers assert that determinism functions independently of
any alleged supernatural power, thus constituting a default natural law
governing the course of events. Berofsky (1971: 11-12) argues that
determinism should be established independently of theism, that is, the
assumption that there is a God is completely irrelevant. Determinists are
of two kinds: Hard determinists and Soft determinists. While hard
determinants believe that our actions are caused in a way that makes us
not as free as we might think, soft determinists believe that actions are

108
indeed caused, but that this does not make us any less free than we might
be, because the causation is not a constraint or compulsion on us (Lacey
1986).
The influence of fatalism on the lives of people differs from one
culture to another, depending on the people’s beliefs and subsequently
their day-to-day practices, including their linguistic behavior. In this
respect, Westerners keep fatalistic language to a minimum in the general
register, whereas Arabs utilize it to the fullest in their daily undertakings.
For the purposes of this preliminary study, some aspects of Arabic and
English fatalistic language will be investigated from a translational
viewpoint. It should be mentioned that while English fatalistic language is
fundamentally deterministic in nature in that theism is an irrelevancy, in
Arabic fatalistic language is both fatalistic and deterministic. Actually,
most Arabic fatalistic expressions allude to theism as the ultimate agency
exercising a complete control over what we do.

The Present Study

Fatalistic shades of meaning are so frequent in Arabic discourse; in fact,
one can hardly interact appropriately in Arabic without making use of
some fatalistic expressions. Consequently, the translator from Arabic into
English encounters a serious problem when translating fatalistic
expressions from the overwhelmingly fatalistic culture of the Arabs into
the overwhelmingly rationalized culture of the Britons and/or the
Americans. There are three kinds (or levels) of equivalence a translator
may think of when coming across such expressions: Formal Equivalence
where formal properties such as syntax, semantics and texture of the text
are given priority (Catford 1965), Functional Equivalence in which the
functional value of the text, i.e., cultural and/or situational substitutes in
the TL, is sought in an attempt to achieve effects on the TL audience
similar to those achieved by the original on the SL audience (Kachru
1982; De Waard and Nida 1986), or Ideational Equivalence (Farghal
1993), which exclusively stresses the communicative sense of the SL text
independently of its formal and/or functional correspondence in the TL
(see also Farghal 2012). The question that arises here is: What kind of
equivalence or resemblance (Gutt 1995) would the translator opt for in
this area? In the following pages, we will examine Arabic fatalistic
language that derives from four areas: death terms, discourse conditionals,
tautologies, and proverbs.

109
Death Terms
In terms of definition, death can be viewed as the termination of life,
which manifests itself in the total and permanent cessation of all the vital
functions of an organism. Viewed in this way, death is a de facto situation
to which an organism is subject at some point in time when the biological
conditions of death are met. This position, however, runs counter to the
Muslim religious beliefs, which state that Allah ‘God’ keeps complete
records for every individual prior to his birth in which all details of
his/her life are registered including his/her death. Thus, Muslims consider
themselves slaves of God in that they act the way He has predestined
them rather than as free agents who can be held responsible for their
actions. However, mainstream Muslim theologists argue that there is no
contradiction between fatalism and free will, because, according to them,
the complete records kept by Allah comprise, by virtue of Allah’s
foreknowledge, the choices made through exercising free will in the
prospective life by the individual in question.
Linguistically, the foregoing fatalistic viewpoint figures heavily in
Arabic death terms. Given that appropriateness conditions are observed,
native speakers of Arabic commonly use the fatalism-laden death term
‫ توفي‬tuwuffiya (*He was passed away) when making reference to
Muslims’ ordinary deaths. Appropriateness conditions here necessitate the
use of a euphemistic death term in Arabic. However, these conditions can
either be neutralized or even violated, thus giving rise to neutral death
terms, e.g. ‫ مات‬maata ‘He died’ or dysphemistic death terms, e.g. ‫فيّز‬
fayyaz (He got a visa) or ‫ فطس‬faṭas (an animal death term), i.e. He kicked
the bucket, He kicked off, or He croaked.
By contrast, native speakers of English commonly utilize fatalism-
free death terms in comparative contexts, namely, ‘die/pass away’ when
referring to ordinary deaths. One should note that the Arabic death term
tuwuffiya is a transitive verb in the passive voice, whereas the English
counterparts are exclusively intransitive verbs. However, agency
represented by Allah ‘God’ is relevant to the Arabic death term, while
such agency is completely irrelevant to the English ones above. By way
of illustration, observe the examples in (1) and (2) below:

(1) a. tuwuffiya -r-raǰul-u 'amsi

died+passive -def-man-nom yesterday
.‫تُوفي الرجل أمس‬

110
 b tawaffa -l-laah-u -r-raǰul-a 'amsi
died+active -def-God-nom -def-man-acc yesterday
.‫ت َوفى هللا الرجلَ أمس‬

c. * tawaffa -r-raǰul-u 'amsi

died+active-def-man-nom yesterday
.‫* ت َوفى الرجل أمس‬
(2) a. * The man was died/passed away yesterday.
b. * God died/passed away the man yesterday.
c. The man died/passed away yesterday.

Obviously, the Arabic statements of (1a) and (1b) are fatalistic in

nature: (1a) implicitly refers to Allah as the agent of the man’s death,
while (2a) explicitly does this by mentioning Allah as the agent. As for
(1c), it is anomalous precisely as a result of doing away with the fatalistic
component of the Arabic death term. On the other hand, the English
fatalistic, formally equivalent counterparts of (1a) and (1b) in (2a) and
(2b) are completely anomalous, thus ruling out the possibility of
embodying fatalism in the English death terms. Consequently, the
translator is left over with only (2c) as an approximate functional
equivalent to (1a) and (1b). The obvious cost is losing the fatalistic shade
in the Arabic death term.
Another frequent fatalism-laden death term in Arabic is 'istušhida
‫استشهد‬, which is categorically used by Muslims to refer to a Muslim’s
death in battle or battle-like circumstances. This term, which is commonly
passive, denotes that Allah was responsible for the death in question and
that the deceased will go to heaven, hence such a death should be viewed
positively because it is meant for the good of the deceased. That is why,
for example, you find many Palestinian families celebrating the death of
their family members killed by Israeli soldiers in occupied Palestine. By
contrast, the fatalism-free Arabic death term qutila ‫ قُتل‬is used to refer to
the death of a non-Muslim in battle, among other things. Whereas agency
is directly linked with God in the case of ‘istušhida, no such linkage can
be established in the case of qutila. By way of illustration, observe the
examples in (3) and (4) below:

(3 a. 'istušhida saalim-un fi-l- maʻrakati

martyrized Salim-nom in-def-battle
+ passive
.‫استًشهد سال ٌم في المعركة‬

111
 b. 'istašhada -l-laah-u saalim-an fi-lmaʻrakati
martyrized -def-God-nom Salim-acc in-def-battle
+ active
.‫است َشهد هللا سالما ً في المعركة‬

(4) a. qutila saalim-un fi-l-maʻrakati

killed Salim-nom in-def-battle
.‫قُتل سال ٌم في المعركة‬

b. * qatala -l-laah-u saalim-an fi-l- maʻrakati

killed -def-God-nom Salim-acc in-def-battle
+ active
.‫* قَتل هللا سالما ً في المعركة‬

As can be observed, the examples in (3) are fatalistic, whereas the

examples in (4) are not, hence the anomaly of (4b).
From a translational perspective, the death term 'istušhida is
opaque, whereas qutila is transparent, for ordinarily both terms would be
rendered as ‘killed+passive’ in English. However, there exists in English
the concept of ‘martyrdom/‘to martyrize’, which may be taken to
conceptually correspond to the fatalistic death term in Arabic. But a closer
examination reveals that the two death terms belong to different registers,
viz., the Arabic death term belongs to the general, unmarked register,
while the English one affiliates with the religious register. Thus, in a news
report, for instance, it would be odd to render the Arabic sentences in (5)
as (6) in English; rather, the appropriate rendering would be (7) below:

(5) a. 'istušhida -l-qaa'idu fi-l-marakati

martyrized -def-leader in-def-battle
+ passive
.‫استُشهد القائد ُ في المعركة‬

b. 'istašhada-l-laahu-l-qaa'ida fi-l- maʻrakati

martyrized-def-God-def-leader in-def-battle
.‫است َشهد هللا القائدَ في المعركة‬

(6) a. The leader fell as a martyr in the battle.

b. God martyrized the leader in the battle.

(7) The leader was killed in the battle.

112
 Moreover, agency in the Arabic death term is restricted to Allah,
whereas it is not restricted to God in English. This mitigates the force of
fatalism in English by allowing ‘non-God’ agents to perform the act.
Observe the English examples in (8):

(8) a. The leader was martyrized in the battle.

b. The king martyrized the leader in the battle.
c. The leader fell as a martyr in the battle.
d. The leader martyrized himself in the battle.
e. God martyrized the leader in the battle.

The examples in (8) clearly show that the religious verb ‘to
martyrize’ allows different sources of agency. By contrast, the Arabic
verb 'istušhida allows only Allah as an agent. The examples in (9) below,
which respectively correspond to (8b), (8d) and (8e) above, bear witness
to this.
(9) a. * 'istašhada-l-maliku-l-qaa'ida fi-l-maʻrakati
martyrized-def-king-def-leader in-def-battle
.‫* است َشهد الملكُ القائدَ في المعركة‬

b. * 'istašhada-l-qaa'id-u nafsa-hu fi-l-maʻrakati

martyrized-def-leader self-his in-def-battle
.‫* است َشهد القائد نفسه في المعركة‬

c. 'istašhada-l-laahu-l-qaa'ida fi-l-ma’rakati
martyrized-def-God-def-leader in-def-battle
.‫* است َشهد هللا ُ القائدَ في المعركة‬

Apparently, the Arabic death term in question is exclusively fatalistic,

while the corresponding English one is accidentally fatalistic, in addition
to its being register-bound, i.e. its use is appropriate only in a religious or
appellative register, e.g. by a priest at the church or a propagandist
political speech, but not in the general register, e.g. in a news report or a
news bulletin.
Lastly, several other Arabic death terms are loaded with implicit
fatalism via the utilization of metaphor. Many of these death terms allude
to Allah as a thematic agent. Observe the metaphorical uses of these terms
in (10) and (11) below.
(10) a. 'intaqala 'ilaa ǰiwaari rabbi-h
transferred(he) to neighborhood Lord-his

113
 * He transferred to the neighborhood of his Lord.

b. 'intaqala 'ilaa raḥmati-l-laah

transferred(he) to mercy-def-God
* He transferred to the mercy of God.

c. 'intaqala 'ilaa-r-rafīqi-l-'aʻlaa
transferred(he) to-def-comrade-def-supreme
* He transferred to the supreme comrade (God).

(11) a. 'intaqala 'ila-d-daari-l-aaxirah

transferred(he) to-def-house-def-last
* He transferred to the last home.

b. danaa 'aǰalu-h
came appointed time-his
* His appointed time came.

c. xubzaatu-h xilṣin
bread-his finished
* His bread ran out.

As can be observed, the death terms in (10) make direct reference to

Allah, as the agent by metaphor, while those in (11) do not directly allude
to Allah, but this is manifest in their semantic and pragmatic imports, e.g.
in (11b) Allah is understood to have set the appointed time (his death).
In terms of translation, the fatalistic Arabic death terms in (10) and
(11) may be considered opaque to rendering into the English general
register, because of the absence of comparable metaphorical expressions
in such register (the anomaly of the formal equivalents of the Arabic
death terms in (10) and (11) bear witness to this). Consequently, the
translator may do away with the fatalistic component by rendering these
death terms ideationally into English, that is, choosing either ‘die’ or
‘pass away’, which are both fatalism-free and appropriate in materials
written for general purposes. Apart from likening death to a journey in the
familiar expression pass away, English, more restrictively (i.e. in the
religious register such as sermons and obituaries), euphemizes death in
expressions like He went to his last home, He passed over to the great
beyond, He answered the last call, He awoke to immortal life, He met his
Maker, etc. Therefore, the translator may employ these marked English

114
death expressions as functional equivalents to fatalistic Arabic death
terms when translating predominantly religious discourse.

Discourse Conditionals
By Discourse Conditionals, we refer to those conditional clauses that are
frequently pegged to segments of Arabic discourse in order to mortgage
the realization of the relevant speech act, e.g. a promise, to the will of
Allah. This phenomenon permeates Arabic discourse in general and
conversational Arabic in particular; one has only to listen, for example, to
an Arab delivering a speech or Arabs engaging in conversation, to
observe how pervasive it is. There are many discourse conditionals in
Arabic; the examples in (12) below are but a few from a multitude.

(12) a. 'in šaa'a-l-laah ‫إن شاء هللا‬

if permitted-def-God
'If God permitted'.

b. bi-ḥawli-l-laah ‫بحول هللا‬

with-will-def-God
'By the will of God'.

c. bi-mašii'ati-l-laah ‫بمشيئة هللا‬

with-will-def-God
'By the will of God'.

d. bi-'iðni-l-laah ‫بإذن هللا‬

with-permission-def-God
'By the permission of God'.

As can be observed, the semantic imports of the discourse

conditionals in (12) are unmistakably charged with fatalism, to the effect
that every action of a Muslim Arab is conditioned by the permission/will
of Allah. Barouki (1985: 110) argues "Not only in public but also in his
privacy the Arab unceasingly invokes the name of God to reign over his
actions. God, in Islam, is everything; He is not a dogma but an ideal and a
regulative force of life. He is in matter and everyday life as much as He is
in the spirit". One should note that such discourse conditionals belong to
the general, unmarked register in Arabic, whereas their English formal
equivalents are confined to the religious register. This fatalistic attitude of
the Arabs is strange to Westerners in general and native speakers of

115
English in particular, who live in a rational world where there is little
room for such a forbidding fatalism. As a result, the translator is forced to
look for fatalism-free functional equivalents in English, e.g. expressing
hopes that the relevant speech act will be realized.
Further, these ostensibly fatalism-laden expressions in Arabic may
sometimes be stripped of their semantic imports in favor of pragmatic
imports in certain contexts, thus casting doubt on the intentions of the
speaker to carry out the action in question. Farghal (1995b) shows that the
frequent vernacular Arabic discourse conditional 'inšaallah [If God
permitted] has drifted extensively from its semantic import by acquiring a
wide spectrum of illocutions, including expressing hopes, congratulating,
threatening, etc., thus becoming a pragmatically multipurpose expression.
Notice that the pragmatic readings of these Arabic expressions nullify the
fatalistic readings, which are semantics-bound. This extensive drift in the
import of ‘inšaallah has given rise to some humorous remarks. For one,
some foreigners working in the Muslim Middle East have been reported
to have said that when an Arab uses the expression 'inšaallah in reference
to fulfilling a promise or carrying out a state of affairs, then he is not
going to fulfill it or carry it out. For another, an Arab sheikh (religious
man) was reported to have said ‫[ ذهبنا في نزهة شواء أمس إن شاء هللا‬We went on
a barbecue picnic yesterday if God permitted], not realizing that the said
formula can refer only to future acts, allegedly because it is a
subconscious formula existing at the tip of the tongue of religious people
in particular and the general public at large.
Faced with this fatalism mismatch, the translator needs to opt for a
functionally equivalent English expression which takes care of the
illocutionary rather than the locutionary force (Austin 1962) of the
discourse conditional. The example in (13) shows that the translator
Philip Stewart does well by rendering Gebel's response (the discourse
marker 'in šaa'a 'allaah) pragmatically as I hope so rather than
semantically as If God permitted:
13. Balkiti: “You are very cagy, but you’ll soon get used to me
and tell me all your secrets.”
Gebel: “I hope so.”
(Awalaad Haaratinaa, Najeeb Mahfouz (1959))

.‫ي سريعا ً وتفضي لي بكل أسرارك‬

ّ ‫ ولكنك ستأنس إل‬،‫ إنك لشديد الحذر‬:‫بلقيطي‬
.‫ إن شاء هللا‬:‫جبل‬

116
 However, some translators, student translators in particular, may
sometimes adhere to the semantic import of such discourse conditionals.
For example, 35% of Yarmouk University MA translation respondents
rendered the discourse conditional in (13) maintaining its conventional
semantic import as God willing in a study conducted by Farghal and
Borini in Farghal et al (2017). Pragmatically, this tends to go against the
producer’s intentionality and the English native speakers' acceptability.
The speaker (Gebel) merely intends to perform a polite act of expressing
possibility of and hope for complying with Balkiti’s wishes.

Tautological Expressions
Vernacular Arabic uses an elaborate network of tautologies to express
fatalistic viewpoints, among other language functions like admiring,
condemning, showing indifference, etc. (for more details, see Farghal
1992a). Fatalistic Arabic tautological expressions are of two types:
deterministic expressions relating to the past and fatalistic expressions
relating to the future. Observe the examples in (14) below:

(14) a. ‘illi rasab rasab

that who failed failed
'If someone failed, they failed'.
.‫إللي رسب رسب‬

b. ‘illi badduh yursub bi-rsub

that who want fail will-fail
'If someone is predestined to fail, they will fail'.
.‫إللي بدّه يرسب برسب‬

While (14a) is a deterministic tautological expression relating to

the past (the instance of failing) and calling for the acceptance of it as a
fact of life and thus not worth dwelling on, (14b) is a fatalistic
tautological expression referring to a future event (failing) and calling for
the acceptance of its being predestined, thus not worth dwelling on
because we have no control over it, i.e., Allah exercises a complete
control over future acts/events.
From a translational perspective, deterministic Arabic tautologies
are readily translatable into functionally comparable deterministic English
tautologies, whereas fatalistic Arabic tautologies are opaque to rendering
functionally due to the absence of a fatalistic nuance in English
tautologies. The translator is therefore forced to render the concept of

117
fatalism ideationally. By way of illustration, observe the suggested
English renderings of (14a) and (14b) in (15a) and (15b), respectively:

(15) a. If someone failed, they failed.

b. If someone is predestined to fail, they will fail.

Belonging to a productive tautological formula in English, the concept of

determinism in (15a) is readily processable by native speakers of English.
By contrast, being fatalism-laden, (15b) is hard for native speakers of
English to both process and accept.

Proverbial Expressions
Proverbs are often regarded as the mirror of a culture; they efficiently
express its convictions, ideals, and values (Farghal 1995c; paper 2, this
volume; Farghal and Al-Hamly in Farghal et al, 2017). As a pervasive
phenomenon in Arabic, fatalism has also largely found its way into
proverbial expressions. In fact, a large number of Arabic proverbs (both
in Standard Arabic and vernacular Arabic) embrace fatalistic points of
view. The examples in (16) below are only few from a multitude:

(16) a. al-ʻabdu fi-t-takiir wa-r-rabbu fi-t-tadbiir

the-slave-in-def-thinking and-def-Lord in-def-managing
'The person thinks and the Lord manages'.
.‫العبد يف التفكّي والرب يف التدبّي‬

b. 'anta tafʻal wa-llaahu yafʻalu maa yuriid

you act and-God does what want(he)
'You act around but it is God who determines the course
things'.
.‫أنت تفعل وهللا يفعل ما يريد‬

c. 'il-maktuub ‘a-ǰ-ǰabiin laazim tšuufu-l-‘een

def-written on-def-forehead must see it-def-eye
'What is written on the forehead the eye must see'.
.‫المكتوب على الجبين الزم تشوفه العين‬

d. 'illi maa lu-h ḥað maa yitʻab wa laa yišgaa

that not have-him luck not tire and not toil

118
 'That, who has no luck, should neither tire nor should he
toil'.
.‫إللي ما له حظ ال يتعب وال يشقى‬

The fatalistic messages are very obvious in the proverbs in (16).

The Standard Arabic proverbs in (16a) and (16b) convey the message that
'a person has no control over the outcomes of what he/she does; it is Allah
who determines how things turn out'. The vernacular proverb in (16c)
communicates the fatalistic message that a person is born with complete
records which are kept by Allah and will be realized regardless of
circumstances and the individual's efforts. Similarly, (16d) tells us that if
one is not predestined by Allah for good things in life, he/she need not tire
nor toil.
In terms of translation, the fatalism in the Standard Arabic
proverbs in (16a) and (16b) may be rendered into one of the very few
fatalistic proverbs in English, viz. Man proposes and God disposes.
However, the translator is forced to adopt ideational equivalents for the
vernacular (16c) and (16d), due to the fact that they are conceptually alien
to the TL culture, as in (17) below, respectively:

(17) a. If someone is predestined for something, it cannot be

avoided.
b. If someone is not granted luck by God, they should
neither tire nor toil.

The difficulty of conceptualizing and processing renderings such as the

ones in (17) by native speakers of English in particular and westerners in
general stems from the fact that they are loaded with fatalism, which
represents a cultural barrier that transcends the linguistic resources in the
TL.

Conclusion
This paper has shown that the concept of fatalism figures heavily in the
linguistic behavior of the Arabs. The religion-based phenomenon enjoys
an effective presence in Arabic lexis and discourse to the point that
language competence in Arabic is highly constrained by this
superimposed concept. Therefore, an awareness of Arabic fatalism and
the way it operates is a key factor to a successful acquisition of Arabic by
foreign language learners. This aspect of Arabic is culture-loaded and

119
thus requires a special orientation in the intersections between language,
culture, and religion.
The paper has also demonstrated that while Arabs favor a fatalistic
viewpoint vis-à-vis life and the universe, Westerners prefer a
deterministic point of view in which people are viewed as free agents
operating within a deterministic chain rather than slaves or ‘robots’
remote-controlled by God. It has been shown that these contrasting views
have conspicuous linguistic bearings on Arabic and English. In particular,
the translator finds him-/herself intrigued by the permeating fatalistic
expressions in Arabic in that he/she is bound to fail in naturally rendering
into English the concept of fatalism which overshadows such expressions.
Further, fatalistic Arabic expressions belong to the general, unmarked
register of the language, and subsequently are at the disposal of every
native speaker of Arabic, whereas comparable English expressions, if
they existed, would belong to a specialized religious register, which
would be considered inappropriate, if not deplorable, in day-to-day
undertakings.
Finally, one should mention that fatalism in the Arab culture has
given rise to a counter-phenomenon, calling for hard work and diligence on
the part of Arabs/Muslims. This line of thinking is meant to pre-empt the
consequence that fatalism would nullify our attempts to pursue various
endeavors in life, thus striking a balance between fatalism and free will.
This balance is manifest in many statements made by Prophet Mohammed
and his companions, which have achieved a proverbial status in Standard
Arabic. By way of illustration, consider the examples in (18) below:
(18) a. 'iʻqil wa tawakkal
tie and trust
‘Work hard and put trust in God!’
.‫اعقل وتو ّكل‬

b. ‘inna -s-samaa’a laa tumṭiru ðahab-an wa laa fiḍḍah

indeed -def-sky not rain gold-acc and not silver
‘Indeed the sky neither rains gold nor does it rain silver’.
.‫إن السماء ال تمطر ذهبا ً وال فضة‬
ّ

Both (18a) and (18b), said respectively to Muslims by Prophet

Mohammad and the second Muslim Caliph Omar, are meant to encourage
Muslims to work hard in their lives rather than passively accept the
superimposed fatalistic view.

120
 Arabic Cognate Accusatives:
A Translational Account

Abstract
This study deals with Arabic cognate accusatives from a translational
perspective. It first spells out the nature of the Arabic cognate accusative
by addressing its four types: the evaluative, the type, the number and the
bare cognate accusative, and how it should be rendered into English.
Then, it empirically investigates how MA translation students tackle the
different types of the cognate accusative in a sentence-level translation
task. The findings show that the evaluative cognate accusative is more
challenging than the others despite the fact that formal equivalence is not
workable for all of them. To properly handle cognate accusatives in
English translation, the translator needs to consider grammatical markers,
adverbial post-modification, and effected objects as optional vehicles to
capture their functions in discourse. In this way, translation equivalence in
this area should be viewed as one-to-many rather than the missing one-to-
one correspondence.

Introduction
Translation is an age-long phenomenon which was and is still associated
with the existence of mankind and subsequently the contact between
various languages, but the theoretical, academic interest in this discipline
mainly starts with Nida's book Toward a Science of Translating (1964)
and Catford's book A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965). Influenced
by Chomsky's theory of transformational grammar in the late fifties, Nida
distinguishes between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence, and
argues for the adoption of the latter in order to achieve naturalness and
comparable effects on the target audience. Similarly, drawing on
Halliday's systemic functional linguistics, Catford distinguishes between
formal equivalence and textual equivalence, and argues for adopting the
latter whereby textually rather than formally equivalent material is
accessed in the TL, thus necessitating the execution of different
translation shifts to achieve this purpose.
Parallel to the emerging interest in translation, Contrastive
Linguistics (CL) in general and Contrastive Analysis (CA) in particular
has enjoyed considerable popularity in linguistics which, sometimes,
intersects with an interest in translation (for example Vinay and Darbelnet
1959/1995). Historically, CA derives from two major schools: a data-
driven school depending on surface structure relations (Lado 1975; Di

121
Pietro 1971; James 1980, among others) and a concept-driven school
interested in deep structure relations (Chomsky 1965; Fillmore 1968,
among others). Both schools seek to bring forth universal grammars and
unravel issues relative to native and/or second language acquisition.
Despite the fact that there are only few congruent structures between
languages (Krzeszowki 1971), all human languages are capable of
expressing different thoughts equally well (Kachru 1982), thus pointing to
the universality of propositions in contrast with the language specificity
of sentences/utterances. Consequently, translation equivalence (TE)
between languages should be viewed as one-to-many or many-to-one
rather than one-to-one correspondence and/or congruence in any language
pair.
Jakobson (1959:235) argues that translation seeks the substitution
of messages in one language for messages in another language. Therefore,
what needs to be preserved in translation is the message rather than the
form, because it is the message that the interactants keep consulting at
every phase in the process of translating. The conveying of a message
involves four strata. Kachru (1982:84) points out three of them: (1) SL
and TL lexicalize semantic material differently, (2) SL and TL use
different syntactic devices to express the same meaning, and (3) these
lexical and syntactic devices are determined by different pragmatic
conditions in different contexts. Farghal (1991: 129) proposes a fourth
stratum - the use of grammatical devices which operate locally, i.e. they
do not involve the rule of Move α (Chomsky 1977 and subsequent
literature), e.g. the cognate accusative in Arabic and the emphatic use of
do in English. While Movement rules include both obligatory rules (e.g.
Wh-movement in English and Arabic) and optional/stylistic rules (e.g.
bringing an adverbial phrase to focus in English and Arabic), which
produce thematization and focusing respectively, local operators, which
also carry evaluativeness value, operate in place independently of Move α
rules. Therefore, TE can be optimized only when all these strata have
been taken into consideration.
Along these lines, Lotfipour-Saedi (1990) develops a discourse-
based model to achieve TE. The model proposes seven discursive factors:
vocabulary, structure, texture, sentence meaning versus utterance
meaning, language varieties, aesthetic effect and cognitive effect. He
argues that TE should be dependent on a negotiable interaction between
all these factors, for they interact with each other to realize the
communicative value of a text and the surface text acts as the embodiment
of this interactive process. Some of these factors may become far more

122
important than others in light of text type, e.g. evaluative structures (the
Arabic cognate accusative is an obvious case) and emotive vocabulary in
appellative discourse and the aesthetic effect in expressive discourse
(poetry is an obvious genre).
Despite the ambivalence towards TE in recent functionalist
theories of translation (Reiss 1981/2004; Vermeer 1989/2004, etc.), the
term equivalence remains a convenient term in the absence of a more
telling one (for a thorough review of translation theories, see Munday
2012). To approach TE, the SL text needs to undergo a process of
intrinsic managing (paper 3, this volume), which ranges between
individual lexical entities/structures and entire textualizations. In many
cases, the translator is obliged to reduce an SL metaphor, for instance, to
its communicative sense or what Farghal (1994) calls 'ideational
equivalence', due to the absence of a formally comparable figure of
speech in the TL (formal equivalence), or he may opt for a cultural
substitute or dynamic/functional equivalence (Nida 1964; De Waard &
Nida 1986). At a higher level in discourse, the translator is sometimes
compelled to render an implicit textualization in the SL an explicit one,
due to textual constraints in the TL. Therefore, the translator's awareness
of intrinsic managing is a cornerstone in the process of translating; it
paves the way for offering natural and/or idiomatic translations.

A Translational Perspective
This paper aims to examine Arabic Cognate Accusatives from a
translational perspective in an attempt to offer acceptable equivalents in
English. The reason for choosing cognate accusatives derives from the
fact that formal congruence between Arabic and English in this area is
minimal. However, English has its own resources to utilize when
expressing meanings comparable to those expressed by cognate
accusatives. The spelling out of the variables involved in the translation of
cognate accusatives is meant to benefit the translation student,
practitioner, and theorist alike.
Arabic cognate accusatives are used to achieve four major
purposes: evaluative cognate accusatives to evaluate/emphasize the action
of a preceding verb, type cognate accusatives to show the type of the
action of a preceding verb, number cognate accusatives to show the
number of actions of a preceding verb, and finally bare cognate
accusatives to substitute a preceding verb. The following examples
illustrate these purposes, respectively (cognate accusatives are henceforth
printed in italics):

123
 1. wabbaxa-l-mudiiru ḥaarisa-l-'amni tawbiixan.
rebuked-the-manager guard-the-security rebuking
*'The manager rebuked the security guard rebuking'.

.ً‫وبّخ المدير حارس األمن توبيخا‬

2. wabbaxa-l-mudiiru ḥaarisa-l-'amni tawbiixan muðilan

rebuked-the-manager guard-the-security rebuking humiliating
*'The manager rebuked the security guard a humiliating
rebuking'.
.ً‫وبّخ المدير حارس األمن توبيخا ً مذال‬

3. wabbaxa-l-mudiiru ḥaarisa-l-'amni marratayni

rebuked-the-manager guard-the-security twice
'The manager rebuked the security guard twice'.

.‫وبّخ المدير حارس األمن مرتين‬

4. ṣabran ʻala-š-šadaa'di 'ayyuha-l-junuudu

patience on-the-hardships o-the-soldiers
'Patience/Be patient with hardships, o soldiers'.

.‫صبرا ً على الشدائد أيها الجنود‬

The cognate accusative in example (1) above renders the sentence

evaluative in Arabic by ending it with a cognate accusative (maṣadr)
derived from the main verb. Hence, the formal English translation is not
acceptable. Sentences of this sort are never discourse openers; rather, they
are employed to rebut a preceding proposition which is built into the
Discourse Topic by evaluating the action in question. By way of
illustration, (1) above can be used as a rebutting utterance to (5) below:

5. lam yuwabbix al-mudiiru ḥaarisa-l-'amni

not rebuked the-manager guard-the-security.
'The manager didn't rebuke the security guard'.

.‫لم يوبّخ المدير حارس األمن‬

124
In the course of interaction, however, the rebutting response will be
elliptical (6 below), along with the discursive laqad (see paper 11 on qad,
this volume) rather than the full sentence in (1):

6. laqad wabbaxa-hu twabiixan

? rebuked (he)-him rebuking
'He did rebuke him'.
.ً‫لقد وبّخه توبيخا‬

To render the evaluative cognate accusative in (1) properly, the

translator needs to employ an English evaluativeness marker that
emphasizes the proposition/state of affairs in the sentence. In this respect,
English uses either auxiliary verbs or adverbs for this purpose, as can be
observed in (7) below:

(7) a. The manager did rebuke the security guard.

b. The manager rebuked the security guard indeed.

Neither of the two renderings in (7) may be employed as a discourse

opener as they are rebutting utterances just like the Arabic utterance in
(1).

The example in (2) features a type cognate accusative which

evaluates the proposition by indicating the type of action by an
emotionally-charged adjective, i.e. ً‫' مذال‬humiliating' rather than the
cognate accusative; hence it can function as a discourse opener. Choosing
an unevaluative adjective would strip (2) of its evaluativeness as in (8)
below:

8. wabbaxa-l-mudiiru ḥaarisa-l-'amni tawbiixan xafiifan

rebuked-the-manager guard-the-security rebuking light
*'The manager rebuked the security guard a light rebuking'.

.ً‫وبّخ المدير حارس األمن توبيخا ً خفيفا‬

Note that the English formal rendering of (2) is not acceptable. To

render it properly, the cognate accusative needs to be changed into an
effected object (Quirk et al. 1972 replaces it with eventive object 1985) of
a non-cognate verb or, alternatively, it may be rendered in the form of
post-modification as in (9) below, respectively:

125
 (9) a. The manager gave the security guard a humiliating rebuke.
b. The manager rebuked the security guard in a humiliating
way.

The third type of cognate accusative which indicates number (3

above) can function as a discourse opener regardless of whether it is free
of evaluativeness or not, for its evaluativeness derives from how effective
the number indicated is (e.g. ten times vs. the twice in (3)) rather than the
nature of the cognate accusative. As can be seen, the English translation
of (3) properly renders the number cognate accusative. One should note,
however, that the number cognate accusative may be derived from the
matrix verb; hence an effected object of a non-cognate verb may be
employed, as can be illustrated in (10) below:

(10) wabbaxa-l-mudiiru ḥaarisa-l-'amni twabiixayni

rebuked-the-manager guard-the-security two rebukes
'The manager gave the security guard two rebukes'.

.‫وبّخ المدير حارس األمن توبيخين‬

Finally, the example in (4) represents a bare cognate accusative

whose verb 'iṣbiruu 'be patient' has been ellipted. Just like type and
number cognate accusatives, the bare cognate accusative may occur in a
discourse opener utterance. When rendered evaluative, however, the
ellipted verb comes to the surface as in (11) below and the resulting
utterance may only function as a rebutting device:

(11) 'iṣbiruu ṣabran ʻala-š-šadaa'di 'ayyuha-l-junuudu

be patient patience on-the-hardships o-the-soldiers
'You/Indeed be patient with hardships, o soldiers!'

.‫اصبروا صبرا ً على الشدائد ايها الجنود‬

Note that the surfacing of the ellipted evaluative Arabic verb may be
captured by the surfacing of the evaluative English second person
pronoun in copulative imperative constructions or the use of an evaluative
adverb, e.g. indeed (the English rendering of (11) above). In non-
copulative imperative constructions, the evaluative verb do may also be
employed, as can be illustrated in the rendering of (12b) below:

126
 (12) a. qatlan al-xawanata 'ayyuha-l-junuudu
killing the-traitors o-the-soldiers
'Kill the traitors, o soldiers!"
.‫قتالً الخونة أيها الجنود‬

b. 'uqtuluu qatlan al-xawanata 'ayyuha-l-junuudu

kill killing the-traitors o-the-soldiers
'Do kill the traitors, o soldiers!'

.‫اقتلوا الخونة قتالً أيها الجنود‬

An Empirical Perspective
To examine the intuitions about the translation into English of Arabic
cognate accusatives discussed above, a translation task consisting of 15
Arabic sentences distributed as follows: 5 involving evaluative cognate
accusatives, 4 involving number cognate accusatives, 4 involving type
cognate accusatives, and 2 involving bare cognate accusatives (see
appendix 1 (examples in Arabic script) or appendix 2 (examples in broad
phonetic transcription with gloss and English renderings)). The subjects
consisted of 19 Jordanian MA translation students who had already
completed at least two years of translation training, both practical and
theoretical, in the MA translation program at Yarmouk University. At the
time of giving the translation task, most of the subjects were engaged
either in preparing for the Comprehensive Examination in translation or
writing their MA theses. When they graduate, the subjects are expected to
become translation practitioners and/or academicians. The subjects were
asked to offer on-sight translation of the task without receiving help or
engaging in consultation with others.

Evaluative Cognate Accusatives

Evaluative cognate accusatives emerge as the most problematic to the
subjects. The majority of the subjects fail to capture the evaluativeness
parameter by either ignoring it, mistaking it for post-modification, or
rendering it formally. To have a complete picture, observe Table (1)
below which represents the distribution of the subjects' renderings.

Table 1. Distribution of subjects' renderings of Evaluative Cognate

Accusatives.

127
 No. %
C 15 15.79
PM 29 30.53
El 42 44.21
FE 4 4.21
01 5 5.26

Total 95 100%

Key:
C = Correct
PM = Post-modification
El = Evaluativeness ignored
FE = Formal equivalence
O1 = Other incorrect

Firstly, Table (1) above readily shows that the rendering of the
evaluativeness parameter in this type of cognate accusative constitutes a
serious problem to the subjects: only 15.79% managed to relay this
parameter properly. Most noticeably, the highest percentage of the
subjects (44.21%) ignore the evaluativeness parameter altogether, thus
rendering evaluative Arabic sentences non-evaluative in English. Observe
the target renderings vs. the elicited renderings in (5) below.

(13) Target renderings Elicited renderings

a. The policeman did hit the thief The policeman hit the thief
The policeman hit the thief Indeed.
b. Ali did write on politics. Ali wrote on politics.
Ali wrote on politics indeed.
c. Ali did sing at the party. Ali sang at the party.
Ali sang at the party indeed.
d. Indeed be patient with exams, Be patient with exams,
students! students!
Be very patient with exams,
students!
e. Do kill traitors, soldiers! Kill traitors, soldiers.
Kill traitors indeed, soldiers!

128
 It is obvious that the force of the message in the elicited renderings
has been seriously reduced by failing to capture the evaluativeness
parameter, let alone the fact that the target renderings can be used only as
rebuttal devices, whereas the elicited renderings can function as discourse
openers.
To show how the evaluative cognate accusative can be
challenging even to professional translators, witness the translation loss
due to its inadvertent omission by the translators William Hutchins, Lorne
Kenney and Olive Kenny (1991) in their English translation of Najeeb
Mahfouz’s (1970) Qasr Al-Shawq 'Palace of Desire'.

(14) li-šiddati maa ’aḥbab-tu- l-’injliiza fii ṣiγar-ii …

for-strength what love-I-the-English in childhood-my …

’unður kayfa ’amqutu-hum al-’aana maqtan

see how hate(I)-them the-now hating (p. 17)

.‫ انظر كيف أمقتهم اآلن مقتا‬... ‫لشدة ما أحببت اإلنجليز في صغري‬

(15) I really loved the English when I was young. But see how I
hate them now. (p. 14)

The rendition in (15) falls short of relaying the intensity of the

hate borne by the speaker toward English people now, which is
discursively conveyed by employing the evaluative cognate accusative.
The English version sounds as if the speaker were asking the addressee to
observe the way the speaker hates English people, which is far from
reflecting the intended meaning in the Arabic text. Had the translators
been sensitive to the function of the cognate accusative, they would have
captured the emphasis in many possible ways, as can be noted in (16)
below:

(16) a. … But see how much I hate them now.

b. … But see how I now hate them indeed.
c. … But see how I really hate them now.
d. … But see how I do hate them now.

To further demonstrate how failing to capture the evaluative

cognate accusative can seriously affect the tone of discourse in English
translation, compare the following excerpt taken from Elyas' (1987:105)

129
translation of N. Mahfouz's (1973) novel al-liṣṣu wa al-kilaabu (The
Thief and the Dogs), along with a suggested translation that maintains the
role of the cognate accusative, among other things:

(17) My father was able to understand you. You have avoided me

until I thought you were trying to get rid of me. With my own
free will I came back to the atmosphere of incense and to
anxiety. That's what the homeless and the deserted do.

(18) My father was able to understand you. So many times did you
avoid me that I thought you were dumping me indeed! With
my own free will I came back to the atmosphere of incense
and to anxiety. That's what the homeless and the deserted do.

One should note here that the translator's disregard of the

exclamation (a taxing construction in this case) and the evaluative cognate
accusative in the original has compromised the emotiveness of the text.
The second sentence in (17) is unduly under-emotive and relatively
detached when compared with its duly highly emotive and involved
counterpart in (18). Unfortunately, this kind of loss can go unnoticed for
long, as the inadequate translation may read smoothly and relevantly,
hence the urgent need for sensitizing translators to the fact that grammar
is meaning-bearing and discursive, just like lexis.
Secondly, Table (1) indicates that a sizeable percentage of the
subjects (30.53 %) have opted for post-modification in an attempt to relay
the evaluativeness parameter. This option also results in rendering
evaluative Arabic sentences non-evaluative in English insofar as the
evaluative cognate accusative is concerned. In fact, the English renderings
in this case correspond functionally to type cognate accusatives whose
evaluativeness may derive from post-modification, i.e. it is lexical rather
than grammatical evaluativeness and, therefore, can be initiated as
discourse openers. Consider the elicited renderings in (19) below:

(19) a. The policeman hit the thief (strongly/severely/harshly).

b. Kill traitors (cruelly/mercilessly), soldiers!

In this way, the evaluativeness in (19) is caused by the emphatic

post-modification, e.g. severely and mercilessly rather than the type
cognate accusative in Arabic, which would give us (20) below:

130
 (20) a. The policeman did hit the thief.
b. Do kill traitors, soldiers!

In fact, selecting a non-emphatic post-modification adverb would remove

the lexical evaluativeness of the utterances in (20), as can be observed in
(21):
(21) a. The policeman hit the thief kiddingly.
b. Kill traitors quietly, soldiers.

Finally, Table (1) shows that the majority of the subjects were
well aware of the fact that formal equivalence between Arabic and
English is lacking in the area of evaluative Arabic cognate accusatives:
only 4.21% opted for this kind of equivalence. To exemplify this
erroneous option, consider the renderings in (22) below:

(22) a.* The policeman hit the thief hitting/a hitting.

b. * Ali wrote writing/a writing in politics.

Nonetheless, considering the cognate accusative a relevant feature,

many Quran translators relay this feature formally into English. M.
Pickthall offers Therefore we grasped them with the grasp of the mighty,
the powerful and M. Khan and T. Hillali give We seized them with a
seizure of the all mighty, all capable to carry out what He will as
renditions of the Quranic verse in (23) below:

(23) fa-'axaðnaa-hum 'axða ʻaziizin muqtadir

then-took(we)-them taking mighty powerful

)42:54 ‫فأخذناهم أخذ عزيز مقتدر (القمر‬

Apparently, the authoritativeness and sanctity of the text in

question has motivated these translators to consider the Arabic cognate
accusative as formally relevant, despite its failing to achieve an
acceptable degree of naturalness in English. One could argue, however,
that opting for emphatic post-modification would render the cognate
accusative more naturally acceptable in English, as in (24) below:

(24) We seized/grasped them all mightily/powerfully.

131
Number Cognate Accusatives
Number cognate accusatives are of two kinds: Non-elliptical and Elliptical. Non-
elliptical cognate accusatives ideally translate into English effected objects,
whereas elliptical ones translate into similar structures in English. The data
indicates that the overwhelming majority of the subjects have treated non-
elliptical and elliptical cognate accusatives identically in translation by
rendering both as elliptical structures in English, that is, effected objects as
ideal equivalents for non-elliptical Arabic cognate accusatives have been
inaccessible to most subjects. Consider Table (2) below which represents the
distribution of the subjects' renderings of non-elliptical cognate accusatives.

Table 2. Distribution of subjects' renderings of Non-elliptical Arabic

cognate accusatives.

No. %
EO 2 5.26
ES 30 78.95
FE 3 7.89
Eval. 3 7. 89

Total 38 100%

Key:
EO: Effected objects
ES: Elliptical structures
FE: formal equivalence
Eval: Evaluative

On the one hand, Table (2) clearly points to the fact that English
effected objects as equivalents to non-elliptical Arabic cognate
accusatives prove inaccessible to most subjects: only 5.26 % of the
subjects' renderings include them. On the other hand, the subjects have
excelled in exercising an avoidance strategy by which they render non-
elliptical Arabic cognate accusatives as elliptical English structures:
78.95% of the subjects' renderings have exhibited this. To illustrate,
observe the target renderings vs. the elicited (and correct) renderings in
(25) below.

132
 Target renderings
(25) a. The teacher dealt the student
three smacks.
b. The farmer made four stops
on his way to the field.
Elicited renderings
The teacher smacked the student
(thrice/three times).
The farmer stopped four times on
his way to the field.

Table (2) also shows that only few renderings (3 out of 38) offer formal English
equivalents for non-elliptical Arabic cognate accusatives. Consider the elicited
renderings in (26) below.

(26) a. *The teacher smacked the student three smacks.

b. *The farmer stopped four stops on his way to the
field.

Finally, few subjects mistakenly interpreted non-elliptical Arabic

cognate accusatives as evaluative, thus adding the evaluativeness parameter to
their renderings. Observe the elicited renderings in (27) below:

(27) a. The teacher did smack/slap the student three times.

b. The farmer did stop four times on his way to the field.

By contrast, the subjects scored 100% accuracy in translating

elliptical cognate accusatives into English. Observe the following
examples along with their renderings by the subjects in (28) below:

(28) a. ṣafaa-l-muʻallimu-ṭ-ṭaaliba θalaaθan

smacked-the-teacher-the-student acc three times
'The teacher smacked the student (thrice/three times).

.ً‫الطالب ثالثا‬
َ ‫صفع المعل ُم‬

b. waqafa-l-fallaaḥu 'arbaʻan fii ṭarrqi-hi 'ila-l-ḥaqli

stopped-the-farmer four times in way-his to-the-field
'The farmer stopped four times on his way to the field'.

.‫وقف الفالح أربعا ً في طريقه إلى الحقل‬

133
Type Cognate Accusatives
The majority of the subjects had no trouble in translating Arabic type cognate
accusatives: 93.42% of the renderings are appropriate. However, they differ in the
procedures they adopt for finding translation equivalents: 60.53% of the
renderings feature post-modification, while 32.89% include effected objects.
Table (3) below represents the distribution of the subjects' renderings of type
cognate accusatives.

Table 3. Distribution of subjects' renderings of Type Cognate Accusatives.

No. %
PV 46 60.53
E0 25 32. 89
FE 1 1.32
01 4 5.26
Total 76 100 %

Key:
PM = Post-modification
EO = Effected objects
FE = Formal equivalence
OI = Other incorrect

As can be observed from Table (3), post-modification is the most

accessible to subjects when translating type cognate accusatives. It should be noted
that this type of post-modification is not manifest in the Arabic data; instead, it is
achieved by employing the type cognate accusative. Nonetheless, English post-
modification can provide functional equivalents for this kind of cognate accusative.
As for effected objects, which also could provide functional equivalents for the
type cognate accusative, they are conspicuously present in the subjects' renderings:
32.89% of the renderings include such objects. One should note that the
availability of two workable English equivalents to the type cognate accusative
contributes effectively to the subjects' achieving excellent performance in this
area. By way of illustration, observe the Arabic example in (29), along with two
candidate renderings in (30):

134
 (29) ḍaraba-š-šurṭiyyu-l-liṣṣa ḍarban mubarriḥan
beat-the-policeman-the-thief beating severely

.ً‫مبرحا‬
ّ ً ‫ضرب الشرطي اللص ضربا‬

(30) a. The policeman beat up the thief severely.

b. The policeman gave the thief a severe beating.

Further, Table (3) indicates that the subjects are well aware of the fact
that English formal equivalence is not a workable option for the type
cognate accusative: only 1 out of 76 renderings exhibits this unworkable
option. It should be noted that the closest formal equivalence in English is the
effected object where the object may not derive from its governing verb. By
contrast, the Arabic cognate accusative which, more or less, corresponds
formally to the effected object, may derive from its governing verb. The
examples in (31) bear witness to this.

(31) a. 'ajaaba-ṭ-ṭaalibu 'ijaabatan ṣaḥiiḥatan ʻan-il-su'aali

answered-the-student answer correct about-the-question
'* The student answered a correct answer to the question'.

.‫أجاب الطالب إجابة صحيحة عن السؤال‬

b.'aʻṭaa-ṭ-ṭaalibu 'ijaabatan ṣaḥiiḥatan ʻan-il-

gave-the-student answer correct about-the-

su'aali
question
'The student gave a correct answer to the question'.

.‫أعطى الطالب إجابة صحيحة عن السؤال‬

As can be seen, (31a) and (31b) respectively feature a cognate

accusative and a non-cognate object in Arabic. On the one hand, the ill-
formedness of the English rendering in (31a) is an immediate consequence
of adopting formal equivalence by employing a cognate object. On the
other hand, (31b) properly employs an effected object instead of the
unworkable cognate object. One should note that there are very few
cognate objects in present-day English, which favors effected objects

135
unlike Arabic where cognate objects are abundant. Consider the following
examples in (32):
(32) a. ɤannaa 'uɤniyatan raa'iʻatan
sang(he) song wonderful
'He sang a wonderful song'.
.‫غنى أغنية رائعة‬

b. saahama musaahamtan mutwaaḍiʻatan

contributed(he) contribution humble
'* He contributed a humble contribution'.

.‫ساهم مساهمة متواضعة‬

c. He made a humble contribution'.

While the Arabic cognate object in (32a) naturally translates into a

cognate object in English (which is a unique exception here), almost most
Arabic cognate objects translate into effected English objects (compare
the ill-formed English rendering in (32b) with the well-formed (32c) in
which an effected object is employed).

Bare Cognate Accusatives

The data indicates that most of the subjects manage to translate bare
cognate accusatives properly: 76.32% of the renderings are appropriate.
Table (4) shows the distribution of the subjects' renderings of bare cognate
accusatives.

Table 4. Distribution of subjects' renderings of Bare Cognate Accusatives.

No. %
C 29 76.32
PM 2 5.26
Eval 1 2.63
NA 1 2.63
OI 5 13.16

Total 38 100%

136
 Key:
C = Correct
PM = Post-modification
Eval = Evaluative
NA = No answer
O1= Other incorrect
A closer look at the data shows that the subjects have achieved
100% accuracy in translating Non-dynamic (stative) bare cognate
accusatives, whereas they have achieved only 52.63% accuracy in
translating Dynamic (action) bare cognate accusatives. Thus, the errors
the subjects have made are completely confined to dynamic bare cognate
accusatives. By way of illustration, observe the two examples in (33),
along with their renderings.
(33) a. ṣabran ʻala-l-'imtihaanaati yaa ṭullaabu
patience on-the-exams o students
'Be patient with the exams, students!'
.‫صبرا ً على االمتحانات يا طالب‬

b. qatlan al-xawanata yaa junuudu

killing the-traitors o soldiers
'Kill the traitors, soldiers!'
.‫قتالً الخونة يا جنود‬

The Arabic examples of (33a) and (33b) represent non-dynamic and

dynamic bare cognate accusatives, respectively. To exemplify the errors in
translating (33b) by few subjects, observe (34) below.

(34) a. Kill the traitors cruelly, soldiers!

b. Do kill the traitors, soldiers!

While (34a) erroneously features post-modification, i.e., cruelly, (34b) erroneously

includes evaluativeness, i.e., the emphatic Do. One should note that (34a) can be
used only as a rebuttal, e.g. as a rejoinder to someone proposing to torture traitors
rather than kill them. By contrast, (34b) may constitute an initiation and, therefore,
function as a discourse opener. The Arabic rendering of (34b) is given in (35)
below.

(35) 'uqtulu-l-xawanata qatlan yaa junuudu

kill (you)-the-traitors killing o soldiers
137
 '* Kill the traitors killing, soldiers!'
.‫اقتلوا الخونة قتالً يا جنود‬

As can be seen, the Arabic imperative verb is employed along with its cognate
accusative in (35) above in order to furnish it with evaluativeness and make it
function as a rebuttal device.
Finally, it should be mentioned that English formal equivalence, on top
of functional equivalence, is quite workable for non-dynamic bare cognate
accusatives, e.g. (33a), but not for non-dynamic ones, which call for functional
equivalence only. The examples in (36) bear witness to this.

(36) a. Be patient with exams, students!

b. Patience with exams, students!
c. Kill traitors, soldiers!
d.*Killing traitors, soldiers!

The participants, however, have not explored (36b) as a viable formal

equivalent to (33a), which indicates the unfamiliarity of (36b) as an
existing option for them.

Conclusion
The present paper has reported systematic intuitions about Arabic cognate
accusatives and their translation equivalents in English. The analysis has
shown that Arabic and English exhibit both symmetries and asymmetries
in this regard. In the case of symmetries, translators may actualize a high
degree of both formal and functional equivalence in translation.
Asymmetries, by contrast, call for functional equivalence in the absence
of one-to-one correspondence. Consequently, translation equivalence
should be viewed as one-to-many or many-to-one rather than one-to-one
correspondence, thus offering room for different workable procedures.
The translator's awareness of this is a key factor to properly translating
Arabic cognate accusatives into English.
It shows that MA student translators may face various problems
when translating Arabic cognate accusatives into English. These problems
mainly arize from the lack of formal correspondence between Arabic and
English in this area. Although the majority of the participants are well aware
of this fact, a considerable number of them stumble and err when choosing
an equivalent for a cognate accusative. In particular, the evaluativeness
parameter proves most challenging to them in translation. The noticeable
inability to properly handle the evaluativeness parameter as signaled by the

138
Arabic cognate accusative may constitute a serious problem because
Arabic utterances that contain evaluative cognate accusatives can function
only as rebuttal devices, that is, the possibility of using them as initiating
devices is completely ruled out in natural discourse. Consequently,
translator trainers need to pay special attention to the importance of the
evaluativeness parameter, as the rendering of a rebutting utterance as an
initiating one amounts to presenting a different discourse.
In addition, some workable equivalents prove more accessible to
MA translators than others when translating Arabic cognate accusatives.
Of special interest here is the fact that functional equivalents are more
accessible than formal equivalents. In particular, English effected objects
are not frequently explored despite the fact that they constitute an important
resource for rendering number and type cognate accusatives. This
phenomenon may be attributed to the argument that positive transfer, i.e.,
opting for a formal equivalent, can sometimes be inhibited due to the
student translator's fear of negative transfer (cf. Kellerman, 1979). While
this alleged fear may, in many cases, lead to desirable results, e.g.
avoiding English formal equivalents for evaluative Arabic cognate
accusatives, it may blur the existence of workable formal equivalents
alongside functional ones, e.g. English effected objects as workable
equivalents for some number and type Arabic cognate accusatives.

Appendix 1
Evaluative Cognate Accusatives:
.ً ‫اللص ضربا‬َ ‫الشرطي‬
ُ ‫ ضرب‬.1
ً
.‫ي كتابة في السياسة‬ ٌ ‫ كتب عل‬.2
.‫علي غنا ًء في الحفل‬ ٌ ‫ غنى‬.3
.‫طالب‬
ُ ً
‫ اصبروا على االمتحانات صبرا يا‬.4
.ُ ‫ اقتلوا الخونةَ قتالً يا جنود‬.5
Number Cognate Accusatives:
.‫ صفع المعل ُم الطالب ثالثَ صفعات‬.1
.ً‫الطالب ثالثا‬
َ ‫ صفع المعل ُم‬.2
.‫ح أربع وقفات في طريقه إلى الحقل‬ ُ ‫ وقف الفال‬.3
.‫ح أربعا ً في طريقه إلى الحقل‬ ُ ‫ وقف الفال‬.4
Type Cognate Accusatives:
.ً‫مبرحا‬
ّ ً ‫اللص ضربا‬ َ ‫الشرطي‬
ُ ‫ ضرب‬.1
ً ً
.‫الطالب إجابة صحيحة عن السؤال‬ ُ ‫ أجاب‬.2
.ً‫المدير موقفا ً شجاعا‬
ُ ‫ وقف‬.3
ً.‫ ضحى القائد ُ تضحية كبيرة‬.4

139
Bare Cognate Accusatives:
.‫طالب‬
ُ ‫ صبرا ً على االمتحانات يا‬.1
.ُ ‫ قتالً الخونةَ يا جنود‬.2

Appendix 2

Evaluative Cognate Accusatives:

1. ḍaraba-š-š ṭiyyu-l-liṣṣa ḍarban
beat-the-policeman-the-thief beating
'The policeman did beat up the thief' or 'The policeman beat up the
thief indeed'.

2. kataba ʻaliyyun kitaabatan fi-s-siyaasati

wrote Ali writing in-the-politics
'Ali did write on politics' or 'Ali wrote on politics indeed'.

3. ɤannaa ʻaliyyun ɤinaa'an fi-l-ḥafli

sang Ali singing in-the-party
'Ali did sing at the party' or 'Ali sang at the party indeed'.

4. 'i ṣbiruu ṣabran ʻala-l-'imtiḥaanaati yaa ṭullabu

be patient patience on-the-exams o students
'Be patient with exams indeed, students!' or 'Be so patient with exams,
students!'

5. 'uqtulu-l-xawanata qatlan yaa junuudu

kill-the-traitors killing o soldiers
'Do kill the traitors, soldiers!' or 'Kill the traitors indeed, soldiers!'

Number Cognate Accusatives:

1. ṣafaʻa-l-muʻallimu-ṭ-ṭaaliba θalaaθa ṣafʻaatin
smacked-the-teacher-the-student three smacks
'The teacher dealt the student three smaks'.

2. ṣafaʻa-l-muʻallimu-ṭ-ṭaaliba θalaaθan
smacked-the-teacher-the-student three
'The teacher smacked the student three times'.
3. waqafa-l-fallaḥu 'arbaʻa waqfaatin fii ṭariiqi-hi li-l-ḥaqli
stopped-the-farmer four stops in way-his to-the-field
140
 'The farmer made four stops on his way to the field'.

4. waqafa-l-fallaḥu 'arbaʻan fii ṭariiqi-hi li-l-ḥaqli

stopped-the-farmer four in way-his to-the-field
'The farmer stopped four times on his way to the field'.

Type Cognate Accusatives:

1. ḍaraba-š-š ṭiyyu-l-liṣṣa ḍarban mubarriḥan
beat-the-policeman-the-thief beating severe
'The policeman beat up the thief severely' or 'The policeman gave the
thief a severe beating'.

2. 'ajaaba-ṭ-ṭaalibu 'ijaabatan ṣaḥiiḥatan ʻan-s-su'aali

answered-the-student answering correct on-the-question
'The student answered the question correctly' or
'The student gave a correct answer to the question'.

3. waqafa-l-mudiiru mawqifan šujaaʻan

stood-the-manager standing brave
'The manager took a brave stand'.

4. ḍaḥḥa-l-qaa'idu taḍḥiyatan kabiiratan

sacrificed-the-leader sacrificing big
'The leader made a big sacrifice'.

Bare Cognate Accusatives:

1. ṣabran ʻala-l-'imtiḥaanaati yaa ṭullabu
patience on-the-exams o students
'Be patient/Patience with exams, students!'

2. qatlan al- xawanata yaa junuudu

killing the-traitors o soldiers
'Kill the traitors, soldiers!'

141
 Non-generic English Negation:
A Problematic Area for Arabic Translators

Abstract
Negation hardly comes up as an issue in English/Arabic translation
studies. The general assumption is that the translation of English negation
into Arabic poses no serious problems to the translator. While this is
generally true when it comes to rendering negation marked by generic
negative particles/affixes (John is not happy and John is unhappy,
respectively) and even lexical and rhetorical implicit negation (John
denied having cheated on the test and Can a person like John do such a
mistake?), the present paper aims to show that the appropriate
textualization into Arabic of English non-generic Adverbial/Determiner
negation (e.g. by the adverbials too and hardly, and the determiners little
and few) can be a problematic area for Arabic translators. The textual data
is extracted from several published translations in an attempt to show
what procedures translators follow when encountering such negation and
how successful they are. While the findings provide solid evidence for the
serious mishaps (about 42% of the renderings involve one kind of
problem or another) that Arabic translators experience in this area, the
critical discussion unravels several textual procedures that can capture the
subtleties inherent in adverbial/determiner negation. It is hoped that the
investigation of this subtle, neglected area in English/Arabic translation
studies offers significant insights for both student and professional
translators.

1. Introduction
Negation, whose universality is unanimously confirmed in the existing
literature on human language (Dahl 1979; Payne 1985; Kahrel 1996; Horn
and Kato 2000; Horn 2001, among others), is "an operator that reverses
the truth value of a proposition" (Meistamo, 2007: 552). It is a unique
property of human language: "Negative utterances are a core feature of
every system of human communication and of no system of animal
communication" (Horn and Kato 2000: 1). Linguists (Klima 1964; Clark
1976; Horn 2001, among others) usually divide negation into two types:
explicit negation and implicit negation. On the one hand, explicit negation
employs explicit negative particles such not (as in John did not go
shopping), negative affixes such as -il in This act is illegal, or other
negative adverbs, e.g. hardly (as in John hardly knows anything about
mathematics) or determiners, e.g. few (as in John has only few friends).

142
On the other hand, implicit negation is implied semantically (as in John
prevented his daughter from joining the club, which semantically entails
John did not allow his daughter to join the club) or implicated
pragmatically (as in the rhetorical question Should we keep silent after all
these heinous crimes, which conversationally implicates We should not
keep silent after all these heinous crimes).
Similarly, there have been several studies which deal, among other
things, with the linguistics of negation in Arabic, where negation is also
divided into explicit and implicit negation (Anees 1975; Nahr 2004; Al-
Makhzumi 2005; Alsalem 2012; Muslah 2015). Al-Makhzumi (p. 265),
for example, defines negation as "a linguistic category which is opposed
to affirmation and intended to disprove or deny the truth value of a
proposition". While explicit Arabic negation employs negative particles
such as lam ‫لم‬, laa ‫ ال‬and lan ‫لن‬, implicit Arabic negation uses grammatical
devices such as interrogatives and conditionals.
Whereas English verbal negation is uniform in nature, as it only
employs the negative particle not in such negation, viz. John does not go
to school, John did not go to school, and John will not go to school), its
Arabic counterpart is highly diversified, viz. ‫ال يذهب جون إلى المدرسة‬, ‫لم يذهب‬
‫جون إلى المدرسة‬, and ‫لن يذهب جون إلى المدرسة‬. Nevertheless, this fact does not
cause any serious problems to the translator into Arabic because the one-
to-many correspondence between the negative particles is quite obvious,
being tense oriented in Arabic. Dendane and Dendane (2012), however,
indicate that this can be problematic for machine translation.
Notably, while Arabic translation correspondents are usually
accessible for generic negation, e.g. John does not adhere to punctuality
‫ال يلتزم جون بالمواعيد‬, affixal negation, e.g. John is unhappy ‫ جون غير سعيد‬,
and implicit negation (Arabic being as highly lexicalized as English), e.g.
John declined the offer ‫رفض جون العرض‬, which semantically entails John
did not accept the offer and ‫لم يقبل جون العرض‬, respectively. However, the
translator is required to modulate (Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995) or
look for translation equivalents (Koller 1979) in the case of
adverbial/determiner negation by usually retrieving negation (whether
explicit or implicit) in Arabic. For example, the adverbial negation by too
in John was too ambitious needs to be modulated by recovering generic
negation in Arabic as in ‫ لم يكن جون واقعيا ً في طموحاته‬or implicit negation as
in ‫تجاوز جون الحدود في طموحاته‬. Similarly, the determiner negation in John
had little interest in politics needs to be modulated into generic negation
as in ‫ ليس لدى جون إال القليل من االهتمام في السياسة‬or ‫ال يهتم جون إال قليالً في السياسة‬, or
implicit negation as in ‫ينأى جون عادة بنفسه عن االهتمام في السياسة‬.

143
 In terms of translation, there are only very few studies on the
translation of negation. Apostolatu and Apostolatu (2012) deal with
literary translation of English negation into Romanian. They show that
some negative markers are sometimes unjustifiably omitted, which is
usually caused by the differences between the two languages involving
negative polarity, scope of negation, and double negation. Dendane and
Dendane (2012) refer to the one-to-many correspondence between the
English particle not and the many counterparts in both standard and
vernacular Arabic, which causes serious problems only to machine rather
than human translation. Li (2017) points out the difficulty Chinese EFL
learners face when expressing adverbial negation by too due to its
Chinese counterpart, which functions as an intensifier. Hence, Chinese
learners often erroneously employ the negative adverb too instead of the
intensifier 'very' or 'so', e.g. 'The party was too good' may be used to mean
'The party was very/so good'.
A similar mishap may occur in English-into-Arabic translation.
Farghal and Almanna (2015: 27) briefly examine negation while
discussing syntactic features in translation. Whereas they state that
English generic negation by not is not problematic when rendering it into
Arabic despite the existing one-to-many correspondences, it is argued that
the negation embedded in too can pose a challenge because it requires a
translation procedure that recovers negation in Arabic, whether explicitly
or implicitly. To demonstrate this point, they give the following two
examples from published translations in which the negation is missed by
replacing the negative adverb too with the Arabic intensifiers ‫ جدا‬and ‫بقوة‬,
respectively:

1. I think you've been too busy to notice where I have been.

.‫أظن أنك كنت مشغوال جدا لتالحظ أين أنا‬
2. ... but his hands were shaking too hard to pin it on.
.‫ لكن يديه كانتا ترتجفان بقوة لتدبيس الباقة على الفستان‬...

Al-Ghazalli (2013) discusses the translation of Arabic implicit

negation in a badly-written paper. Apart from the poor quality of this
study, Al-Ghazali unjustifiably argues for unpacking Quranic implicit
negation in rhetorical questions. According to him, the Quranic verse ‫هل‬
)50 ‫ يستوي األعمى والبصير (األنعام‬is erroneously rendered as a generic rather
than a rhetorical question by Quran translators as in Yousef Ali's Can the
blind be held equal to the seeing (p. 135) and M. Pickthal's Are the blind
and the seer equal (p. 133). Therefore, he claims, implicit negation should

144
be made explicit as in Are the blind and the one who sees equal?
Definitely, this is not true (p. 139). Needless to say here that mainstream
translation theorists (Nida 1964; Catford 1965; Newmark 1988; Baker
1992; Hatim 1997; Dickins, et al. 2002; Munday 2012, among others)
emphasize the translator's ability to call up textual/functional material in
the target language (TL) that effectively relays its counterpart in the
source language (SL). One should note that textually as well as
functionally Arabic rhetorical questions readily translate into English
rhetorical questions, thus remaining within the scope of implicit rather
than explicit negation.

2. Objective of Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the procedures that translators
employ when rendering English adverbial and Determiner negation into
Arabic and examine how successful these procedures are. In particular,
we want to check whether Arabic translators retrieve explicit negation (or
alternatively use implicit negation) when modulating adverbial and
determiner negation in an attempt to capture the pragmatics of this kind of
negation.

3. Methodology
This is an empirical research paper based on the extraction of ample
textual examples involving English adverbial/determiner negation along
with their target Arabic counterparts from existing works and their
translations. The textual data (270 examples) features two types of
markers of adverbial negation (too and hardly/scarcely/barely) and two
markers of determiner negation (little and few). The study provides both a
quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the data. It should be noted that
the qualitative discussion almost exclusively focuses on the rendering of
the items under study which belong to adverbial and determiner negation
apart from the general quality of the translation, which is not within the
scope of this study.
The sources of the textual data include five series of Harry Potter
(HP, henceforth) by J. K. Rowling, namely Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer's Stone (1), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban (2), Harry
Potter and the Goblet of Fire (3), Harry Potter and the Order Phoenix
(4), and Harry and the Deathly Hallows (5). The first two are translated
by Sahar Mahmoud, the third and fourth by Rajaa Abdullah, and the fifth
by Ahmed Mohammed (see references for complete information). The
textual data sources also include the blue Flower (BF) by P. Fitzgerald,

145
1996 (translated by Ali Suleiman, 2015), The Fault in our Stars (FS) by J.
Green, 2012 (translated by Baseel Intwan 2015), The Help (TH) by
Kathryn Stockett, 2009 (translated by Hassan Al-Bustani 2010)), The
Future: Six Drives of Global Change (GC) by Al Gore, 2013 (translated
by Adnan Gergeos 2015), and the Making of Economic Society (ES) by R.
Heilbroner 1962 (translated by Rashid Al-Barrawi, 1976).
The choice of the textual data is motivated by the different genres
it belongs to, viz. literary, popular science/journalistic, and economic, as
well as the different translators involved in translating it. The aim is to
investigate a representative sample of textual material in terms of genre
and translators in order to come up with generalizations about the
translation of adverbial and determiner negation across several genres and
translators.

4. Analysis and Discussion

In terms of the type of negative marker, the English corpus is distributed
as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Distribution of English negative markers in the corpus

Marker Frequency Percentage
1 Too 100 37%
2 Hardly 34 12.60%
3 Scarcely 19 7%
4 Barely 11 4%
5 Little 86 31.85%
6 Few 20 7.40%
Total 270 100%

Table 1 shows that adverbial negation by too is the most frequent

in the corpus (37%) followed by determiner negation by little (31.85%).
Third comes adverbial –ly negation including hardly, scarcely and barely
which together account for (23%). Within –ly negation, hardly emerges as
the most frequent (12.60%) followed by scarcely (7%), then barely (4%).
The least frequent in the data is determiner negation by few which only

146
accounts for (7.40%). These percentages may only give us a preliminary
picture about the frequency of adverbial/determiner negation in English
discourse. To affirm such frequencies, a large-scale quantitative and
qualitative corpus linguistics investigation needs to be carried out, which
is far beyond the scope of the present study.

4.1. Adverbial Negation

Apart from the more generic negation by negative markers such as not, no
and never, adverbial negation is mainly performed by the negative
adverbs too, hardly, scarcely, and barely. These negative adverbs equip
the utterance with an inherent negative orientation that needs to be
accounted for when translating into other languages, Arabic in our case.
The following discussion sheds light on the procedures Arabic translators
resort to when dealing with this subtle area of negation which does not
formally exist in Arabic.

4.1.1 Negation by too

The negative adverbial too, which is the most frequent in the data (100
occurrences), calls for a variety of translation procedures which may or
may not involve the use of generic negation in Arabic. The data shows
that Arabic negation by a generic negative particle is recovered in 47 out
of 100 cases, while implicit negation procedures are employed in the
remaining 53 cases. As can be noted, the discrepancy in choosing
between the procedure of generic negation and that of implicit negation
when rendering too negation is insignificant.

4.1.1.1 Recovering Generic Negation

Examining the recovery of generic negation, it is noted that there are three
main procedures adopted by Arabic translators: negation by
nominalizatiom in simple or complex structures (18 cases/38.29%),
unpacking negation by coordination (17 cases/36.17%), and negation by
indicating degree of attribute (12 cases/25.53%).
To start with negation by employing nominalization in simple or
complex structures (which is the most frequent in this category/38.29%),
it is noted that translators may succeed in capturing too negation using
this procedure, as can be noted in the examples below:

3. I was too late to save the girl. (HP/2)

.‫لم أستطع إنقاذ الفتاة في الوقت المناسب‬

147
4. It was too early to buy either schnaps or opium. (BF)
.‫ال يمكن الحصول على شراب الشنابس أو المخدر في وقت مبكر كهذا‬

5. ... but his Patronus was too feeble to drive the dementor away. (HP/3)
.‫ولكن تعويذته لم تكن بالقوة الكافية إلبعاد الحارس‬

6. That is, the revenue they receive from voluminous files of information
about each user is simply too valuable for them to give up. (GC)
‫وهذا يعني أن اإليرادات التي تتلقاها من الملفات الضخمة بشأن كل مستخدم تعتبر بكل بساطة‬
.‫كنزا ً ثمينا ً ال يمكن االستغناء عنه‬

As can be observed, in (3) and (4) above, the translator has

managed to properly recover Arabic generic negation by nominalizing the
verb in the English infinitive clause, viz. ‫ إنقاذ‬for save and ‫ الحصول‬for buy,
respectively in Arabic simple sentences. Alternatively in (3) and (4), the
translator may maintain the English complex structure by employing the
Arabic subjunctive mood headed by ‫أن‬, as in (7) and (8) below:

.‫ لم أستطع أن أنقذ الفتاة في الوقت المناسب‬. 7

.‫ ال يمكن أن أحصل على شراب الشنابس أو المخدر في وقت مبكر كهذا‬. 8
As for (5) and (6), the translator has maintained the complex English
structure by properly employing the particle ‫ ل‬in ‫ إلبعاد الحارس‬and the
indefinite relative clause ‫ كنزا ً ثمينا ً ال يمكن االستغناء عنه‬in Arabic.
There are few cases (3 out of 18 instances), however, when the
translator's recovery of Arabic generic negation does not convey the
nuance of meaning properly, as can be witnessed below:

9. ... but Harry was too used to this to care. (HP/3)

.‫ولكن هاري لم يهتم بهذا‬

10. "He's only silent because he's too thick to string two words together",
... (HP/3)
.‫ ألنه ال يستطيع نطق كلمتين معا‬،‫إنه هادئ‬

11. Throat too tight to speak, he nodded. (HP/3).

.‫وبدون أن ينطق أومأ نحوه‬

As can be seen, while the translator manages to convey the general

meaning in (9-10) above by recovering Arabic generic negation, he has
failed to do justice to the subtlety of the negation expressed by too. In (9),

148
the negation in the Arabic utterance corresponds to English generic
negation by not, viz. ... but Harry didn't care about this. Hence, the subtle
focus of English negation is lost. The same can be said about (10) where
the focus of negation (the referent being too thick) is completely lost by
reducing it to negating mere ability. Hence, the Arabic utterance back-
translates into He's quiet because he can't say two words together.
Similarly, the Arabic translation of (11) obliterates the subtle focus of
negation in English by not incorporating the fact that 'the referent's throat
being tight caused him not to be able to speak'.
To capture the inherent full force of English negation by too here,
the Arabic renderings may respectively be rephrased as follows:

.‫ ولكن هاري لم يهتم لتعوده على هذا‬. 12

.ً‫ إنه صامت هكذا ألن غباءه ال يسعفه بنطق كلمتين معا‬.13
.‫ منعه ضيق حنجرته من أن ينطق‬/‫ ضاقت حنجرته فأومأ بدل أن ينطق‬. 14

Note that (12) and (13) employ generic negation while accounting for the
subtle focus of too negation in English. As for (14), it opts for implicit
negation as inhered in ‫' بدل أن‬instead of' or in the negative verb ‫منع‬
'forbade'. Alternatively, the translator may use explicit negation to
textualize (11) properly, viz. by employing the negative preposition ‫بدون‬
in ‫ وبدون أن ينطق أومأ بسبب ضيق حنجرته‬or generic negation by ‫ لم‬in ‫لم يستطع أن‬
‫ينطق فأومأ بسبب ضيق حنجرته‬.
Unpacking too negation by a coordinate Arabic structure featuring
explicit negation comes second in frequency at 36.17% (all from HP
series). It proves to be a workable procedure, as can be observed in the
following examples:

15. "He says he is feeling too ill to teach today", .... (HP/3)
... "‫ ولن يستطيع التدريس اليوم‬،‫لقد قال إنه مريض‬

16. I hear that she is still too ill to talk to anyone. (HP/4)
.‫سمعت أنها مازالت مصابة وال تقدر على الكالم مع أحد‬

17. Harry was too deeply asleep to hear her. (HP/4)

.‫هاري كان غارقا ً في نومه فلم يسمعها‬

The translator in (15-17) has managed to successfully capture the

focus of too negation despite the fact that he/she resorts to an Arabic
coordinate structure. In fact, the use of an Arabic coordinate structure for

149
unpacking the meaning of too negation has proved successful in all the
cases in which this procedure is employed. It is possible, however, to
relay too negation in such cases by maintaining the English complex
structure, as is shown in the rephrasing of (15-17) in (18-20),
respectively:
.‫ بسبب المرض‬/‫ قال إنه لن يستطيع التدريس اليوم ألنه مريض‬.18
.‫ سمعت أنها ال تستطيع التحدث مع أحد ألنها مازالت مريضة‬. 19
.‫بسبب غرقه في النوم‬/‫ لم يسمعها هاري ألنه كان غارقا ً في النوم‬.20

The third procedure (which indicates the degree of the attribute in

question) accounts for 25.53% of the examples in this category.
Semantically, it corresponds to awkwardly rephrasing too negation by
using the phrase to the extent that with negation by not in English, viz.
John was too short to touch the ceiling may awkwardly be rephrased as
John was short to the extent that he couldn't touch the ceiling. In Arabic,
this procedure proves very useful for rendering too negation. The
following examples are illustrative:

21. But the larger point is that many systemic technology driven changes
are simply too powerful for any set of policies to hold back. (GC)
‫لكن النقطة األهم هي أن العديد من التغييرات النظامية القائمة على التكنولوجيا هي ببساطة قوية‬
.‫إلى درجة ال يمكن معها ألي مجموعة من السياسات أن تكبح جماحها‬

22. Our citizens have had too full taste of the comforts furnished by the
arts and manufacturers to be debarred the use of them. (GC)
‫فالمواطنون لدينا تمتعوا بالمذاق الغني لوسائل الراحة التي تقدمها الفنون والمصنوعات لدرجة ال‬
.‫يمكن معها حرمانهم من االستفادة منها‬

23. Professor Trelawney seemed too tipsy to have recognized Harry.

(HP/5)
.‫بدت األستاذة تريالوني مخمورة لدرجة أنها لم تعرف هاري‬

24. Harry was too busy digesting the horrible idea of Inferi to have much
attention left for anything else.
ً ‫كان هاري مشغوال جدا بمحاولة استيعاب فكرة (اإلنفيري) الفظيعة حتى إنه لم يبد اهتماما‬
.‫بأي شيء آخر‬

As can be noted, the focus of too negation is properly relayed in

(21-24) by employing the two markers )‫ لدرجة (أن‬and ‫ حتى إن‬to bring out
the degree of the attribute in question. Among the 12 cases of this

150
procedure, there is only one instance where the translator fails to account
for the subtle focus of too negation (25 below).

25. Harry was too used to their bickering to bother trying to reconcile
them. (HP/4)
.‫كان هاري قد اعتاد شجارهما حتى إنه لم يتدخل‬

The translator here has failed to incorporate 'the result of Harry's being
used to the referent's bickering'. To capture this nuance, the Arabic
translation in (25) may be rephrased as (26) below:

.‫ كان هاري قد اعتاد شجارهما حتى إنه لم يزعج نفسه بمحاولة التدخل‬.26

4.1.1.2 Employing Implicit Negation

Apart from a mixed bag of erroneous translations/under-translations (16
instances/30.19%), there are three main procedures here for capturing the
meaning of too negation: employing the comparative form (16
instances/28.30%), employing negative verbs (11/20.75%), and indicating
degree of attribute (10/18.87%).
The procedure using the Arabic comparative form emerges as very
useful for handling too negation. The Arabic forms ‫ أفعل من‬and ‫ مصدر‬+ ‫أكثر‬
‫ من‬+ here capture the nuance that the force of X's attribute goes beyond
the capability of Act Y, e.g. ‫ي أذكى من أن يخدع‬
ٌ ‫ عل‬and ‫ي أكثر ذكا ًء من أن يخدع‬
ٌ ‫عل‬
which both idiomatically translate into Ali is too smart to deceive.
Following are some illustrative examples from the corpus:

26. ... because it was too long to memorize. ((FS)

.ً ‫ ألنها أطول من أن تحفظ غيبا‬...

27. My way of life here is pitched too high for his young head. (BF)
.‫إن حياتي هنا أكثر صخبا ً من أن يحتملها رأسه اليافع‬

28. By the time the experiment was declared unconstitutional by the

Supreme Court in 1935, it had become already apparent that the
problem was not too much competition, but too little. (GC)
‫ كان قد‬،‫ عدم دستورية التجربة‬1935 ‫وفي الوقت الذي أعلنت فيه المحكمة العليا في عام‬
‫أصبح ظاهرا ً أن المشكلة لم تكن وجود منافسة أكثر مما ينبغي ولكنها وجود منافسة أقل مما‬
.‫يجب‬

29. "You are still too young to understand how unusual you are, Harry."

151
 (HP/5)
.)‫إنك ال تزال أصغر من أن تدرك مدى تميزك يا (هاري‬
As can be noted, the Arabic comparative forms are an important
resource for relaying the subtlety of too negation. The renderings in (26-
29) are economical as well as read smoothly and naturally. Besides, their
syntax is easily accessible. Failure to use them may result in
mistranslating/under-translating too negation, as can be illustrated below
by two examples from the mixed bag:

30. He is too great, too good, to lose. (HP/2)

.‫إن هاري بوتر يجب أن يعيش في سالم‬

31. ... but it'll take too long to explain now. (HP/2)
... ‫ولكنها قصة طويلة‬

In both examples, the translator could have used the comparative

form to properly account for too negation. The Arabic renderings are
under-translations at best, mistranslations at worst. They can be rephrased
using the comparative form as follows:
.‫ إن هاري أعظم وأطيب من أن نخسره‬. 31
.‫ ولكنها قصة أطول من أن نشرحها اآلن‬... . 32

The second procedure utilizes negative verbs/verbals to relay the

meaning of too negation. This is a familiar procedure in English as well as
in Arabic to express negation implicitly rather than explicitly. For
example, 'the act of denying doing something' implies 'the act of not
admitting doing it'. Consequently, this procedure constitutes an important
option when translating negation in general and too negation in particular.
The following examples are illustrative:

32. Anna dies or becomes too ill to continue writing it. (FS)
.‫آنا ماتت أو أنها بلغت من المرض حدا ً حال بينها وبين االستمرار في الكتابة‬

33. You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be
mistaken in Black. (HP/3)
‫ ولكن عجرفتك تمنعك من تصديق أن (بالك) يشكل‬،‫فلوالي لكان مصيرك الموت مثل أبيك‬
.‫خطرا ً عليك‬
34. Anna died or got too sick to write. (FS)
.‫آنا ماتت أو زادت اعتالالً لدرجة أنها عجزت عن الكتابة‬
35. It just seemed too good to be true that he was going to be rescued

152
 from the Dursleys. (HP/3)
.‫فقد بدا أن إنقاذه من آل درسلي أمر يفوق أحالمه‬

The implicit negation in (32-34) is achieved by the use of the

negative verbs ‫حال‬, ‫ منع‬and ‫عجز‬, which imply the negated verbs ‫لم يسعف‬, ‫لم‬
‫ يسمح‬and ‫ لم تقوى‬respectively. In fact, all of them can be rephrased using
explicit negation in Arabic, as can be shown in (36-38) below:

.‫ آنا ماتت أو أنها بلغت من المرض حدا ً لم يسعفها على االستمرار في الكتابة‬.36
)‫ ولكن عجرفتك ال تسمح لك بتصديق أن (بالك‬،‫ فلوالي لكان مصيرك الموت مثل أبيك‬. 37
.‫يشكل خطرا ً عليك‬
.‫ آنا ماتت أو زادت اعتالالً لدرجة أنها لم تعد تقوى على الكتابة‬.38

As for (35), implicit negation is achieved by the negative phraseology ‫يفوق‬

‫' أحالمه‬surpasses his dreams', which communicates the message that his
dreams are 'too good to be true'. Consequently, this message may be
rephrased using explicit negation as in (39) below:
.‫ فقد بدا أن إنقاذه من آل درسلي أمر ال يمكن تصديقه‬. 39

There are some examples in the mixed bag which may be properly
relayed using negative verbs as a marker of implicit negation. Consider
the following examples:

39. It is still far too cold to undress at night. (BF)

.‫ال يزال الطقس باردا ً جدا ً لخلع الثياب في الليل‬

40. She was too stupid to take exams and wanted to leave school now.
(HP/4)
.‫إن االمتحانات تقترب وأنها تريد هجر المدرسة‬

41. I was too scared to ask if I had reason to be scared. (FS)

.‫وفزعت كثيرا ً من السؤال إن كان هناك سبب يدفعني إلى الفزع‬

The Arabic renderings in (39-41) amount to mistranslations by the

translator's being unable to handle too negation. In (39) and (41), too
negation is mistakenly replaced with intensification, that is, ً‫ باردا ً جدا‬and
ً‫فزعت كثيرا‬, which obliterates the negative orientation inhered in too. One
may capture this negative orientation by having recourse to implicit
negation employing negative verbs as in (42) and (43) respectively:

153
 .‫ ما زالت برودة الطقس تمنعنا من خلع مالبسنا في الليل‬. 42
.‫ حال فزعي بيني وبين سؤالي عما إذا كان هناك سبب له‬. 43

For its turn, the Arabic rendering in (40) does not account for too
negation in any discernible way. It back-translates into The exams are
approaching and she wants to desert school. There is no mention of the
fact that 'she cannot take exams because she is stupid', which is expressed
by too negation. To capture the negative orientation, one may use a
negative verb as in (44) below:

.‫ حال غباؤها بينها وبين التقدم لالمتحانات وأرادت أن تترك المدرسة‬. 44

The third procedure involves indicating the degree of the relevant

attribute as a marker of implicit negation. Observe the following
examples:
44. They were aggressively orange, almost too orange to be pretty. (FS)
.‫ وهي من الحدة بحيث تكاد تفقد جمالها‬،‫فهي برتقالية بشكل حاد‬
45. Fines for violations were too small to be effective, ... (ES)
.‫فالغرامات عن المخالفات كانت من الصغر بحيث فقدت فعاليتها‬

46. "... You're too young to Apparate." (HP)

.‫أنت صغير على االختفاء السحري‬

47. 'No, now I am too old to learn anything.' (BF)

."‫ وأنا اآلن كبرت على تعلم أي شيء‬،‫"ال‬

The examples in (44) and (45) mark the degree of the attribute by
the standard degree-indicating combination of the preposition ‫ من‬plus
masdar, viz. ‫ من الحدّة‬and ‫من الصغر‬. This procedure proves successful as a
workable option for handling too negation. In (46) and (47), the translator
has fallen back on vernacular Arabic by employing the colloquial
phraseologies ‫كبير على‬/‫ صغير‬to account for too negation. While one may
accept vernacular Arabic in Harry Potter because it is mainly aimed at
children, many would object to using it in more serious works aimed at
adults. Anyway, the two vernacular renderings may be rephrased using
the standard formula in (44) and (45), as can be seen respectively below:

.‫ أنت من الصغر بحيث تعجز عن االختفاء السحري‬. 48

."‫ أنا من الكبر بحيث أعجز عن تعلم أي شيء‬،‫ "ال‬. 49

154
 Finally, we have the mixed bag, which includes mistranslations/
under-translations and accounts for a full 30.19% in the cases of implicit
negation. In addition to the erroneous renderings that have been already
cited in this section, let us consider more examples from the mixed bag:

50. The ceiling was too high to make out. (HP/1)

.‫والسقف كان شديد االرتفاع لدرجة تصعب رؤيته‬

51. Too eager to fly again to wait for Wood, Harry mounted his
broomstick and kicked off the ground. (HP/1)
.‫كان هاري في شوق للطيران فامتطى عصاه وطرق األرض بقدمه‬

52. We've decided as a society that it's too expensive to modify the kid's
environment. (GC)
.‫لقد قررنا كمجتمع أن تعديل بيئة الطفل هو أمر باهظ الثمن‬

53. Proposals to do more have been supported by a majority for many

years, although the intensity of the majority's feeling has been too
low to overcome the efforts of the carbon polluters to paralyze
political action. (GC)
،‫وتلقى المقترحات لبذل مزيد من الجهود في هذا الصدد تأييد األغلبية منذ سنوات عدة‬
‫على الرغم من ضعف حدة شعور األغلبية للتغلب على الجهود التي تبذلها شركات التلويث‬
.‫بالكربون لشل حركة العمل السياسي‬

To start with the rendering in (50), the problem lies in the

translator's replacing too negation with intensification, thus viewing the
state of affairs in question (spotting the ceiling) in terms of difficulty
rather than in terms of impossibility. To capture the meaning of too
negation, the rendering may be rephrased by employing either explicit
negation (54) or implicit negation (55) below:

.‫ كان السقف شديد االرتفاع لدرجة ال يمكن رؤيته‬. 54

.‫ كان السقف شديد االرتفاع مما منع رؤيته‬. 55

Examining (51) above, one can immediately observe that the too
negation is completely missed in the Arabic rendering. The point in the
subordinate clause in the English sentence is to show that 'Harry can't
wait for Wood because he was so eager to fly again', which is missing in
the Arabic rendering. To capture the import of too negation, one may use
either explicit negation (56) or implicit negation (57) as follows:

155
 ‫ فامتطى عصاه‬،‫ لم ينتظر هاري صديقه وود بسبب اشتياقه الشديد للطيران من جديد‬. 56
.‫وطرق األرض بقدمه‬
‫ فامتطى عصاه‬،‫ حال اشتياق هاري الشديد للطيران من جديد بينه وبين انتظار وود‬. 57
.‫وطرق األرض بقدمه‬

For its turn, the Arabic rendering in (52) fails to communicate the
negative meaning introduced by too by using intensification (‫)باهظ الثمن‬
instead of negation. Again, this is accessible by using either explicit
negation (58) or implicit negation (59) below:
.ً‫ لقد قررنا كمجتمع أن تعديل بيئة الطفل هو أمر ال يمكن مجاراته ماليا‬. 58
.‫ لقد قررنا كمجتمع أن تعديل بيئة الطفل هو أمر يفوق قدراتنا المالية‬. 59

Finally, the translator in (53) makes a humble attempt at using the

degree-indicating procedure as a marker of implicit negation. However,
his textualizing of this procedure gives us an awkward structure which is
lacking in cohesion (naturalness) and coherence (making sense). One
wonders how the Arabic subordinate clause ‫على الرغم من ضعف حدة شعور‬
... ‫ األغلبية للتغلب على‬would fit and cohere within the Arabic text. To employ
this procedure properly in implicit negation, one may offer (60) below:

،‫ تلقى المقترحات لبذل مزيد من الجهود في هذا الصدد تأييد األغلبية منذ سنوات عدة‬. 60
‫على الرغم من أن شعور األغلبية على درجة من الضعف تجعله عاجزا ً عن التغلب‬
.‫على الجهود التي تبذلها شركات التلويث بالكربون لشل حركة العمل السياسي‬

Or, alternatively, one may opt for explicit negation as in (61) below:

،‫ تلقى المقترحات لبذل مزيد من الجهود في هذا الصدد تأييد األغلبية منذ سنوات عدة‬.61
‫على الرغم من أن شعور األغلبية لم يكن كافيا ً للتغلب على الجهود التي تبذلها شركات‬
.‫التلويث بالكربون لشل حركة العمل السياسي‬

To close this section on translating too negation, Table 2 below

presents the results reported in the discussion.

Table 2. Frequency and percentage of procedures for explicit and

implicit negation in rendering too negation
No. Translation Procedure Frequency Percentage
1 Explicit negation 47 100%
a. nominalization in simple/
18 38.29%
complex structures
b. unpacking by coordination 17 36.17%

156
 c. indicating degree of attribute 12 25.53%
2 Implicit negation 53 100%
a. using comparative form 16 28.80%
b. using negative verbs 11 20.75%
c. indicating degree of attribute 10 18.87%
d. mixed bag
16 30.19%
(mistranslations/under-translations)

4.1.2 Negation by hardly/scarcely/barely

The sample of these negative adverbs (which is extracted from BF, FS,
GC, and ES, to the exclusion of HP) includes 34 instances of hardly, 19
of scarcely and 11 of barely, coming to 65 instances. These adverbs share
the fact that they communicate a negative orientation when used in
English sentences. That is why they are often interchangeable albeit they
may be sensitive to normality conditions, i.e. one may sound natural in
one context, while another may not. For example, John was barely 17
when he joined college is natural, whereas John was scarcely 17 when he
joined college is not. In terms of translation, the focus is on relaying the
negative orientation which is shared by all of them.
The data shows three main procedures the translators have
employed in rendering the negation by these adverbs: explicit negation
(28 instances/43.75%), vernacular ‫( بالكاد‬20 instances/31.25%), and
implicit negation (12 instances/18.75%). The remaining cases go for
mistranslation (3 instances) and omission (1 instance) - together 6.25%.
Arabic negation by explicit negative particles emerges as the most
common translation procedure for rendering the -ly negative adverbs,
which clearly indicates the translators' awareness of their negative
orientation. However, the coding of this orientation in Arabic seems to be
a challenging task. In fact, more than half (16 out of the 28 cases/57.14%)
involve under-translating this adverbial negation by rendering it into what
corresponds to negation by not in English. Consequently, the subtle
nuance of this type of negation is lost in translation.
Let us start with cases where the adverbial negation is accounted
for properly in Arabic (12/28 instances/42.85%). The following examples
are illustrative:

62. There is hardly one which, on first being brought to the notice of an
observer from any nation which has not previously heard of their
existence, would not appear to him as indecent and unnatural. (GC)

157
 ‫ال يكاد يكون هناك اختراع واحد عند مالحظته للمرة األولى من قبل أي مراقب من أي‬
.‫دولة لم تسمع بوجوده قط إال وظهر بالنسبة إلى هذا المراقب كأمر غير الئق وغير طبيعي‬

63. ... this little kid who could barely walk ... (FS)
... ،‫ الذي ال يكاد يمشي‬،‫ هذا الطفل الصغير‬...

64. Rockenthiens himself scarcely seemed to know, but, as a great joke -

like everything else he had said today - began counting on his fingers.
(BF)
‫ لكن بطرافة بدت منسجمة مع كل ما قاله‬،‫روكنثاين نفسه بدا أنه ال يعلم على وجه الدقة‬
.‫هذا اليوم بدأ يعد ّ على أصابعه‬

65. The economics of society - that is, the mode by which society
organized itself to meet the basic tasks of economic survival -
was hardly such as to provoke the curiosity of a thoughtful man.
(ES)
‫ أعني األسلوب الذي نظم المجتمع نفسه كي يلبي مهام البقاء‬- ‫كانت اقتصاديات المجتمع‬
.‫ تكاد ال تثير فضول رجل مفكر‬- ‫االقتصادي األساسية‬

The translators of (62), (63) and (65) have successfully employed

a negated ‫يكاد‬, viz. ‫ ال يكاد‬and ‫تكاد ال‬, which exactly capture the meaning of
the -ly negation in them. As for (64), the meaning of scarcely is accounted
for by Arabic negation qualified by the concessive phrase ‫على وجه الدقة‬,
which captures the differential between not negation ( ‫(روكنثاين نفسه بدا أنه ال‬
... ،‫ يعلم‬and scarcely negation. One should note that (64) may be rephrased
using a negated ‫يكاد‬, as in (66) below:

.‫ لكن بطرافة بدت منسجمة مع كل ما قاله هذا اليوم بدأ‬،‫ روكنثاين نفسه بدا أنه ال يكاد يعلم‬. 66
‫يعد ّ على أصابعه‬

However, -ly adverbial negation does not seem as straightforward

as (62-65) may suggest. While capturing the notion of negation in
general, almost 58% of the Arabic renderings (16/28 instances) fail to
account for the nuance inherent in -ly negation. Instead, this kind of
negation is erroneously relayed as Arabic negation that corresponds to
English negation by not, thus amounting to serious under-translations.
Following are some illustrative examples:

67. The children of large families hardly ever learn to talk to themselves
aloud, that is one of the arts of solitude, but they often keep diaries.

158
 (BF)
‫ هذا أحد فنون‬،‫لم يتعلم أوالد العائالت الكبيرة أن يتحدثوا إلى أنفسهم بصوت مسموع‬
.‫ لذلك فهم يحتفظون بيوميات مدونة‬،‫العزلة الذي يتقنون‬

68. By way of background, the genetic modification of plants and

animals is, as enthusiastic advocates often emphasize, hardly new.
(GC)
‫ ليس باألمر‬،‫ فإن التعديل الجيني للنباتات والحيوانات‬،‫وإلعطاء خلفية عن الموضوع‬
.‫ حسبما يؤكد أنصاره المتحمسون‬،‫الجديد على اإلطالق‬
69. Anyone who believes in otherwise is motivated by a barely concealed
love for socialism and an abiding determination to thwart business.
(GC)
‫وأي شخص يعتقد ذلك يكون مدفوعا بحب لالشتراكية ال يمكن إخفاؤه وبتصميم‬
.‫مستمر على عرقلة مسار األعمال‬
70. The Freifrau scarcely heeded her. (BF)
.‫لم تبال البارونة بها‬

To start with (67), the translator obliterates the subtle nuance of

the negation in hardly by opting for Arabic explicit negation by ‫لم‬
followed by the main lexical verb ‫يتعلم‬, which back-translates into English
negation by not, viz. 'The children of large families did not learn to talk to
themselves ...'. To capture the negation inherent in hardly, one may need
to call up a negated ‫يكاد‬, viz. ‫ال يكاد أوالد العائالت الكبيرة يتعلمون التحدث إلى أنفسهم‬
... ،‫بصوت مسموع‬. Or, alternatively, one may call up a paucity adverb like
‫ نادرا ً ما‬or ‫قلما‬, which both inhere the nuance that 'the circumstances those
children live hardly allow them to talk to themselves', viz. ‫قلما يتعلم‬/‫نادرا ً ما‬
...،‫أوالد العائالت الكبيرة التحدث إلى أنفسهم بصوت مسموع‬.
Similarly, (68) misses the focus of negation introduced by hardly.
Instead, the translator opts for emphatic Arabic negation, viz. ‫ليس باألمر‬
‫الجديد على اإلطالق‬, which back-translates into '... is not new at all', thus
failing to account for the mitigated negation of hardly. One may achieve
this nuance by replacing the emphatic ‫ على اإلطالق‬with the concessive ً ‫تماما‬,
or, alternatively, employ a negated ‫ يكاد‬as below:

‫ فإن التعديل الجيني لل نباتات والحيوانات ال يكاد أن يكون‬،‫ وإلعطاء خلفية عن الموضوع‬. 71
.‫ حسبما يؤكد أنصاره المتحمسون‬،ً‫جديدا‬

The translators of both (69) and (70) also neutralize the difference
between hardly negation and not negation in translation. To account for

159
this difference in Arabic translation, one may rephrase them respectively
as below:

‫يتوارى وبتصميم‬/‫ وأي شخص يعتقد ذلك يكون مدفوعا بحب لالشتراكية ال يكاد يختفي‬. 72
.‫مستمر على عرقلة مسار األعمال‬
.‫قلما اهتمت البارونة بها‬/‫ نادرا ً ما‬.73

The second procedure for rendering -ly negation is the

employment of the vernacular negative adverb ‫بالكاد‬, which is derived
from the verb ‫يكاد‬. The question is whether it is appropriate to use a
vernacular form when it is possible to utilize the standard negated ‫يكاد‬.
What is surprising here is the frequency of using this vernacular adverb -
it accounts for 31.25% of the -ly data (20/64 instances).
Let us see how the examples using ‫ بالكاد‬can be readily rephrased
by employing the negated ‫ يكاد‬in Standard Arabic. Consider the sample
below:

74. 'This is from Wilhelm,' shouted the Freiherr, 'who scarcely knows
one note from another.' (BF)

."‫ "هذه من ويلهلم الذي بالكاد يعرف نغمة موسيقية من أخرى‬:‫صاح البارون‬
75. I hardly know you, Augustus Waters. (FS)
.‫أنا بالكاد أعرفك يا أغسطس ووترز‬

76. Our civilization has barely begun the necessary process of adapting
schools to the tectonic shift in our relationship to the world of
knowledge. (GC)
‫حضارتنا بالكاد بدأت العملية الضرورية لمواءمة المدارس مع التحول الجذري في‬
.‫عالقتنا مع عالم المعرفة‬

As can be observed below, the Arabic renderings in (74-76) can be

readily rewritten using the standard negated ‫ يكاد‬in (77-79) respectively:

."‫ "هذه من ويلهلم الذي ال يكاد يعرف نغمة موسيقية من أخرى‬:‫ صاح البارون‬. 77
.‫ أنا ال أكاد أعرفك يا أغسطس ووترز‬.78
‫ لم تكد حضارتنا تبدأ العملية الضرورية لمواءمة المدارس مع التحول الجذري في‬. 79
.‫عالقتنا مع عالم المعرفة‬

Not only do (77-79) belong to Standard Arabic, but they also read more
smoothly and naturally. It is the translator's job to be aware of what is

160
standard and what is vernacular, especially in translations that are made in
Standard Arabic. Other things being equal, there might occur some cases
where some vernacular forms may be utilized where register features
matter, but this is far-fetched insofar as this vernacular form is concerned
in the works under investigation.
Next we have the procedure of implicit negation which accounts
for 18.75% in the –ly negation data (12/64 instances). Consider the
following examples:

80. It is asked incessantly, most of the time however hardly noticeably,

even faintly like a church bell heard across meadows and enclosures.
(BF)

‫سؤال يُسأل باستمرار رغم أنه يُلحظ بصعوبة ويتناهى كتلميح مثل جرس الكنيسة الذي‬
.‫يسمع عبر المروج واألسوار‬

81. Auguste nowadays scarcely ever went out at all, never alone, never
at night, and certainly never without the Freiherr’s considered
permission. (BF)
‫ ال تخرج‬،‫في مثل هذه األيام كان من النادر بالنسبة ألوغست أن تذهب خارج المنزل‬
.‫ وبالتأكيد ال تخرج من دون موافقة موقرة من البارون‬،‫ ال تخرج مطلقا في الليل‬،‫وحيدة أبدا‬

82. Raymond’s statement recalls the warning by Thomas Jefferson in

1809, barely a month after leaving the White House, when he wrote
to John Jay about “the selfish spirit of commerce, which knows no
country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.” (GC)
‫يعيد تصريح ريموند هذا إلى األذهان التحذير الذي أطلقه توماس جيفرسون في العام‬
‫ عندما كتب إلى جون جاي عن‬،‫ بعد أقل من شهر من مغادرته البيت األبيض‬،1809
‫ وال تشعر بالعاطفة وليس مبدأ سوى‬،‫ التي ال تنتمي إلى أي بلد‬،‫"الروح األنانية للتجارة‬
."‫الكسب‬
83. Although some cultivators freely sold a portion of their own crop in
the city marketplaces, the great majority of agricultural producers
scarcely entered the market at all. (ES)
،‫وبرغم أن بعض الزراع كانوا أحرارا في بيع جزء من محصولهم في أسواق المدينة‬
.‫فإن أغلبية المنتجين الزراعيين نادرا ما دخلوا السود على اإلطالق‬

As can be seen in (80-83), the translators have managed to capture

the –ly negation without having recourse to Arabic generic negation. In
(80), the translator successfully employs the phrase ‫( بصعوبة‬also ‫من الصعب‬
in other examples) to account for hardly negation. The explicit negative

161
counterpart ‫ ليس من السهل‬may also be used here to perform the same task.
One can even invest the negated ‫ يكاد‬here, as below:

‫ سؤال يُسأل باستمرار رغم أنه ال يكاد يُلحظ ويتناهى كتلميح مثل جرس الكنيسة الذي‬.84
.‫يسمع عبر المروج واألسوار‬

Both (81) and (83) properly employ the phrases ‫ من النادر‬and ‫نادرا ما‬
which lexically semanticize paucity in Arabic and may be utilized to
account for –ly negation. Both may lend themselves to a negated ‫ يكاد‬as
below respectively:

،‫ ال تخرج وحيدة أبدا‬،‫ في مثل هذه األيام لم تكد أوغست تذهب خارج المنزل البتة‬. 85
.‫ وبالتأكيد ال تخرج من دون موافقة موقرة من البارون‬،‫ال تخرج مطلقا في الليل‬
،‫ وبرغم أن بعض الزراع كانوا أحرارا في بيع جزء من محصولهم في أسواق المدينة‬. 86
.‫فلم يكد أغلب المنتجين الزراعيين أن يدخلوا إلى السوق على اإلطالق‬

For its part, the rendering in (82) successfully invests the

comparative form ‫ أقل من‬for relaying barely negation. Like the others here,
it may lend itself to a negated ‫ يكاد‬as below:

‫ يعيد تصريح ريموند هذا إلى األذهان التحذير الذي أطلقه توماس جيفرسون في‬. 87
‫ عندما كتب إلى‬،‫ والذي لم يكد يكمل شهرا ً من مغادرته البيت األبيض‬،1809 ‫العام‬
‫ وال تشعر بالعاطفة‬،‫ التي ال تنتمي إلى أي بلد‬،‫جون جاي عن "الروح األنانية للتجارة‬
."‫وليس مبدأ سوى الكسب‬

To close this section, let us examine the three mistranslations

which are found in the –ly negation data (They all come from ES) in (88-
90) below:

88. This hardly seems like a particularly exciting subject for historical
scrutiny.
.‫ للبحث التاريخي‬،‫يكاد هذا أشبه بموضوع مثير بوجه خاص‬

89. This is particularly true when we begin at the stage of scarcely-better-

than - subsistence that characterized so much of Europe before the
Industrial Revolution.
‫وهذا صحيح بوجه خاص عندما نبدأ مرحلة ما يكاد يزيد على مجرد العيش؛ وهي‬
.‫المرحلة التي كانت تميز الكثير من أوروبا قبل الثورة الصناعية‬

90. Cartelization was undoubtedly good for the profit statements of the

162
 cartelized firms, but it was hardly conducive to growth – either for
those firms or for the new ones.
‫ما من شك أن تكوين الكارتالت كان خيرا بالنسبة إلى أرقام األرباح التي تحققها‬
‫ ولكنه كان بالجهد مؤديا إلى النمو – إما‬،‫الشركات المنضمة إلى نقابات المنتجين هذه‬
.‫بالنسبة إلى تلك الشركات أو الشركات الجديدة‬

To explain, the translator in (88) wrongly uses the affirmed rather

than the negated ‫يكاد‬, which is an approximating rather a negating marker,
i.e. here it communicates the message that 'X is almost Y'. In (89), the
translator also fails to employ a negated ‫يكاد‬, perhaps misguided by the
presence of the particle maa, which is not a negative particle in this
sentence. As for (90), the translator mistranslates the negative adverb
hardly into what corresponds to the adverb hard ‫بالجهد‬, which furnishes a
positive rather than a negative orientation. To properly capture -ly
negation in (88-90), the Arabic renderings can utilize the negated ‫ يكاد‬as
below respectively:

.‫ ال يكاد هذا يبدو شبيها لموضوع مثير بوجه خاص للبحث التاريخي‬. 91
‫ وهذا صحيح بوجه خاص عندما نبدأ مرحلة ما ال يكاد يزيد على مجرد العيش؛‬. 92
.‫وهي المرحلة التي كانت تميز الكثير من أوروبا قبل الثورة الصناعية‬
‫ ما من شك أن تكوين الكارتالت كان خيرا بالنسبة إلى أرقام األرباح التي تحققها‬. 93
‫ ولكنها لم تكد تؤدي إلى النمو – إما‬،‫الشركات المنضمة إلى نقابات المنتجين هذه‬
.‫بالنسبة إلى تلك الشركات أو الشركات الجديدة‬

To conclude, Table 3 below presents the results reported in this

section on the translation of -ly negation:

Table 3. Frequency and Percentages of Procedures for Rendering –ly

Negation
Procedure Frequency Percentage
Explicit Negation 28
1 correct 12 (42.85%) 43.75%
under-translation 16 (57.14%)
2 Using ‫بالكاد‬ 20 31.25%
3 Implicit negation 12 18.75%
4 Mistranslation/omission 4 6.25%
Total 64 100%

163
4.2 Determiner Negation
English determiner negation by little and few furnishes an utterance with a
negative orientation just like too and -ly adverbial negation. The two
determiners may also be used as adjectives to denote their lexical
meaning by indicating smallness in size and number respectively, which
corresponds to ‫ صغير‬and ‫ قليل‬in Arabic. For example, there is not much
beyond their semantics in There are little children playing in the garden
‫ ثمة أطفال صغار يلعبون في الحديقة‬and The next few years will be prosperous
‫ستكون السنوات القليلة القادمة مزدهرة‬. However, little and few are often employed
as negative determiners that contrast with their positive counterparts a
little and a few. Compare There is little time for discussion ‫ال يوجد إال وقت‬
‫ ضيق للنقاش‬with There is a little time for discussion ‫ ثمة بعض الوقت للنقاش‬and
There are few mistakes in the report ‫ ليس هناك إال أخطاء قليلة في التقرير‬with
There are a few mistakes in the report‫هناك بعض األخطاء في التقرير‬. While
little and few color the utterances with a negative orientation, a little and a
few color them with a positive orientation, hence the different Arabic
renderings. The discussion in this section aims to show how much Arabic
translators are aware of this subtle type of negation.

4.2.1 Negation by little

Out of the 99 extracted examples featuring little, 86 (86.87%) are found to
involve a negative orientation that goes beyond its denotative (dictionary)
meaning. Let us first cite some examples where no negative nuance of
little is detected beyond its denotative meaning; hence, it corresponds to
‫قليل‬/‫ صغير‬in Arabic:

94. When Snape said nothing, Narcissa seemed to lose what little
self-restraint she still possessed. (HP/5)
.‫ بدت كما لو أنها فقدت كل ما لديها من تحكم في أعصابها‬،‫عندما لم يقل سناب شيئا‬

95. It was his practice to give as little notice as possible, an hour

at most, of an operation. (BF)
‫ ساعة على األكثر من‬،‫إنها خبرته العملية في أن يعطي إشعارا ً في أقل وقت ممكن‬
.‫وقت العملية‬

96. "The widespread acceptance of abortion as a eugenic practice

suggests that there might be little resistance to more sophisticated
methods of eugenic selection and, in general, this has been the case."
(GC)
‫"يشير القبول الواسع لإلجهاض كممارسة لتحسين النسل إلى إمكان وجود مقاومة‬

164
 ‫ هكذا كانت‬،‫ وبصفة عامة‬،‫ضئيلة للطرق األكثر تطورا ً الختبارات تحسين النسل‬
."‫طبيعة الحال‬

The determiner little in (94-96) does not imply a negative

orientation but rather preserves its dictionary meaning which corresponds
to ‫ضئيل‬/‫قليل‬. This meaning is captured in (95) and (96) but under-
translated in (94), viz. the translator offers ‫ فقدت كل ما لديها‬instead of ‫ما تبقى‬
‫لديها‬. This exclusively-semantic use of little can be contrasted with the
more pragmatically-oriented use which furnishes the utterance with a
negative orientation and, consequently, may call for employing explicit
negation in Arabic translation, as can be observed in (97) and (98) below:
97. But Ethiopia, where 85 percent of the Nile's headquarters originate
but where very little of that water is now consumed, will double
its population in the next thirty-seven years ... (GC)
‫ وإن لم يكن يستهلك‬،‫ في المائة من منابع مياه النيل‬85 ‫ حيث يوجد‬،‫غير أن أثيوبيا‬
‫ سوف تضاعف من عدد سكانها في السنوات السبع‬،‫سوى القليل جدا من هذه المياه‬
... ‫والثالثين المقبلة‬

98. It had little to do with Dumbedore as Harry knew him. (HP/5)

.‫لم تكن تقول إال قليال عن دمبلدور كما عرفه هاري‬

In both (97) and (98), the translator has successfully accessed negation in
Arabic to account for the negative orientation furnished by little.
The examination of little negation data shows that the translators'
attempt to handle this kind of negation produces four categories: proper
explicit negation (33 instances/38.37%), under-translated explicit
negation (18 instances/20.93%), proper implicit negation (7
instances/8.14%), erroneous implicit negation (25 instances/29%), and
mistranslation (1 instance (1.16%).
To start with the first category where determiner negation is
rendered properly by explicit negation, which is the most frequent (33
instances/38.37%), one can notice two main procedures. The first (23
instances/69.70%) usually employs explicit negation with the exception
particle ‫ إال‬or ‫ سوى‬followed by a paucity-derived word, e.g. ‫ إال قليال‬or ‫سوى‬
‫القليل‬. Consider the two examples below (also 97 and 98 above):

99. We all know that there's very little time. (TH)

.‫كلنا نعلم أنه ليس لدينا سوى قليل من الوقت‬

100. The causes of his surge in obesity are both simple - in that people

165
 are eating too much and exercising too little. (GC)
‫ ألن الناس يفرطون في تناول الطعام‬- ‫أسباب هذه الزيادة في البدانة بسيطة؛ أوال‬
.‫وال يمارسون التمارين الرياضية إال قليال‬

Both (99) and (100) utilize ‫ سوى قليل‬and ‫ إال قليال‬as exception expressions
with explicit negation to account for little negation.
The second procedure, which claims (10 instances/30.30%),
employs a negated antonym, e.g. ً ‫ كثيرا‬... ‫ال‬/‫لم‬. This procedure also proves
relatively successful for capturing little negation, as is shown below:

101. And all with very little effort on your part, I assure you. (HP/5)
.‫ولن يكون عليك أن تبذل الكثير من الوقت‬

102. I have chosen a maiden. She has little wealth, and although she is
equal to the nobility, she is not of ancient lineage. (BF)
‫لقد اخترت عذراء ال تملك الكثير من الثروة وليست من نسب عريق رغم أنها في‬
.‫غاية النبل‬

103. ... told me that when he was prime minister under Putin he was
given clear instructions that debate on the Internet mattered little
so long as the government exercised tight control over what
appeared on Russian television. (GC)
‫أخبرني أنه عندما كان رئيسا ً للوزراء في ظل حكم بوتين أُعطي تعليمات واضحة‬
‫بأن الجدل على اإلنترنت ال يهم كثيرا ً ما دامت الحكومة تفرض رقابة مشددة على ما‬
.‫يبث على شاشات التلفزيون الروسي‬

All the examples in (101-103) employ a negated ً‫كثيرا‬/‫ الكثير‬to

account for determiner negation. One may argue, however, that using a
negated exception expression or a negated belittling expression like ‫ال‬
‫ال يستحق الذكر‬/‫ يذكر‬would be more emphatic and reflective of the pragmatics
of little negation. By way of illustration, (101) and (103) are rephrased in
(104) and (105) below using a negated belittling expression:

.‫ أطمئنك‬،‫ ولن يكون عليك بذل جهد يستحق الذكر‬. 104

‫ أخبرني أنه عندما كان رئيسا ً للوزراء في ظل حكم بوتين أ ُعطي تعليمات واضحة‬.105
‫بأن الجدل على اإلنترنت لن يكون له تأثير يذكر ما دامت الحكومة تفرض رقابة‬
.‫مشددة على ما يبث على شاشات التلفزيون الروسي‬

The second category (18 instances/20.93%) includes cases where

the translator succeeds in recovering Arabic explicit negation but,

166
unfortunately, misses the focus of determiner negation, i.e. he/she under-
translates this subtle type of negation. By way of illustration, witness the
following examples:

106. Little did I know what she would say to me on her front steps the
next week. (TH)
‫ولم أكن أعرف ما الذ ي ستقوله لي عند الدرج األمامي لمنزلها في األسبوع التالي‬
.
107. The truth was, I had very little idea how dangerous things were.
(TH)
.‫ لم أكن أعرف مدى خطورة األمر‬،‫في الحقيقة‬
108. "There will be little point in our meeting after tonight unless we have
that memory." (HP/4)
.‫لن يكون للقائنا بعد الليلة هدف ما لم نحصل على تلك الذاكرة‬

109. It is little wonder that the English laborer, still more used to rural
than urban ways, feared and hated the advent of the machine. (ES)
‫ال عجب أن العامل اإلنجليزي الذي كان األكثر تعودا على الطرق الريفية منه على‬
.‫الحضرية قد خاف وكره مقدم اآللة‬

All the renderings in (106-109) above miss the focus of little

negation by relaying it as corresponding to not negation in English. For
instance, the rendering in (106) back-translates into I didn't know what
she would say to me on her front steps the next week, thus missing the
nuance introduced by little negation. To account for determiner negation
in these examples, they may be rephrased in (110-113) respectively
below:

.‫ ولم أكن أعرف إال القليل عما ستقوله لي عند الدرج األمامي لمنزلها في األسبوع التالي‬. 110
.‫ في الحقيقة لم أكن أعرف إال أقل القليل عن مدى خطورة األمر‬. 111
.‫ لن يكون للقائنا بعد الليلة هدف يذكر ما لم نحصل على تلك الذاكرة‬. 112
... ‫ ال عجب يستحق الذكر أن العامل اإلنجليزي‬.113

The next two categories involve the translator's attempt to render

little negation by implicit negation. The outcome is far from being
impressive: only 7 cases (8.14%) may be considered successful in
implementing this procedure, while 25 cases (29%) falter in this respect.
To start with the workable renderings, let us consider the following
examples:

167
114. 'You know that Father punishes you very little', said Sidonie
coaxingly. (BF)
.‫أنت تعرف يا برنارد أن أبي نادرا ً ما يعاقبك" قالت سيدوني بلهجة مالطفة‬

115. But otherwise there was little to see. (ES)

.‫ولكن بخالف هذا كان ما يستحق الرؤية قليال‬

116. I must warn you at the outset that if you do not have the Sight,
there is very little I will be able to teach you.
. ‫ويجب أن أحذركم أنكم إذا لم تجتهدوا فستكون مهمتي في تعليمكم شديدة الصعوبة‬

The rendering in (114) succeeds in using implicit negation by

employing the paucity expression ‫نادرا ً ما‬, which corresponds to the
lexically transparent negative adverb rarely in English. However, in
contrast with the English adverb, the Arabic ً‫ نادرا‬may co-occur with
explicit negation, viz. ً‫أنت تعرف يا برنارد أن أبي ال يعاقبك إال نادرا‬. For its turn,
the rendering in (115) is relatively workable though it can be qualitatively
improved by recovering explicit negation, viz. ‫ولكن بخالف هذا لم يكن ما يستحق‬
ً‫ الرؤية كثيرا‬or ‫ولكن بخالف هذا لم يكن ما ينبغي رؤيته يستحق الذكر‬. Lastly, the
rendering in (116) succeeds by using a degree expression ‫ شديدة الصعوبة‬to
render what otherwise can employ explicit negation, viz. ‫ويجب أن أحذركم‬
‫أنكم إذا لم تجتهدوا فلن تكون مهمتي في تعليمكم ذات جدوى يذكر‬.
The other category of implicit negation (23 instances/a full 29%)
includes cases where the translator fails to capture the focus of little
negation. This finding points to the fact that if the translator wants to
employ implicit negation, it should be used with utmost care lest he/she
falls victim to obliterating the focus of this kind of negation. Following
are some illustrative examples:

117. But on the whole, very little money changed hands. (ES)
.‫ولكن عموما ً كان القليل من النقود تتناوله األيدي‬

118. "There is little time, one way or another," said Dumbledore. (HP/5)
."‫قال دمبلدور "بقي قليل من الوقت على أية حال‬

119. Very little has changed with her health. (TH)

.‫لقد طرأ تحسن بسيط على صحتها‬

120. "We know very little about the health and environmental impacts
(nano materials) and virtually nothing about their synergistic

168
 impacts." (GC)
‫"نحن نعلم القليل جدا عن اآلثار الصحية والبيئية (للمواد النانوية) وال نعلم فعليا أي‬
".)‫شيء على اإلطالق حول تأثيراتها التآزرية (التعاونية‬

121. 'The Electoral Courts of Thuriggia and Saxony little know what's
coming to them. (BF)
."‫إن المحاكم االنتخابية لكل من ثورينغيا وسكسوني قليلة المعرفة بما هو قادم إليهم‬

One should note that the determiner little in (117-121) furnishes

the English utterances with a negative orientation which is, unfortunately,
missing in the Arabic renderings. Expressing paucity in the renderings as
a matter of stating facts distorts the pragmatics of little negation. The
translator's first option, therefore, should be the recovery of explicit
negation in Arabic in order to account for this kind of subtle negation in
English. To appreciate the use of explicit negation here, the renderings in
(117-121) are rephrased respectively in (122-126) below:

.‫ ولكن عموما ً لم تتناول األيدي إال ما ق ّل من النقود‬.122

."‫ قال دمبلدور "لم يتبقى إال القليل من الوقت على أية حال‬. 123
.‫ لم يطرأ تحسن يذكر على صحتها‬.124
‫ "نحن ال نعلم إال القليل عن اآلثار الصحية والبيئية (للمواد النانوية) وال نعلم فعليا‬. 125
".)‫أي شيء على اإلطالق حول تأثيراتها التآزرية (التعاونية‬
‫ إن المحاكم االنتخابية لكل من ثورينغيا وسكسوني ال تعرف ما يستحق الذكر ع ّما‬.126
."‫هو قادم إليهم‬

As can be noted in (122-126), the competent translator may choose

between a variety of exception phrases that inherently supplement explicit
negation. Only then can the pragmatics of little negation be relayed
properly in Arabic translation.
Finally, the little negation data includes one instance of
mistranslation in which the translator confuses the affirmed ‫( يكاد‬which
means 'about to happen') with the negated ‫( يكاد‬which means
hardly/scarcely). Following is the mistranslation:

127. They walked back through Ottery St. Catchpole and up the
damp lane toward the Burrow in the dawn light, talking very
little because they were exhausted, and thinking longingly of
their breakfast. (HP/6)
‫ثم تابعوا سيرهم نحو منزلهم الذي يسمونه بالجحر عند شروق الشمس وهم يكادون‬
.‫يتحدثون من فرط إرهاقهم وتفكيرهم في وجبة اإلفطار‬

169
Apart from the incompleteness of the rendering, the translator has
mistranslated little negation here by mistakenly using ‫ وهم يكادون‬instead of
the proper ‫وهم ال يكادون‬. To be fair here, one should not dismiss the
possibility that this may be a typographical error for which the translator
is not to blame.
To recapitulate, Table 4 below presents the results reported in this
section on little negation:

Table 3. Frequency and percentages of translation categories of little

negation.

Category Frequency Percentage

Proper Explicit Negation 33

1 with exception phrases 23 (69.70%) 38.37%

with antonym 10 (30.30%)

2 Under-translated explicit negation 18 20.93%

3 Proper implicit negation 7 8.14%

4 Erroneous implicit negation 25 29%

5 Mistranslation 1 1.16%
Total 84 100%

4.2.2 Negation by few

Negation by few is the least frequent in the corpus. Out of 93 extracted
examples involving the employment of few, only 20 are found to furnish
the English utterance with a negative orientation. In the rest of the
examples, the determiner few reflects its dictionary meaning which
corresponds to ‫ قليل‬in Arabic without any coloration of negation. In such

170
cases, the rendering of few into Arabic is straightforward as no negation
is to be accounted for. The following examples are illustrative:

128. The overall population of Bangladesh is expected to increase

from 150 million today to 242 million over the next few years.
(GC)
‫ مليونا اليوم إلى‬150 ‫ومن المتوقع أن يرتفع عدد السكان اإلجمالي في بنغالديش من‬
.‫ مليونا على مدار العقود القليلة القادمة‬242

129. "He wasn't on it much the last few weeks," I said. (TH)
."‫ "لم يستخدمه كثيرا في األسابيع القليلة األخيرة‬:‫قلت‬

130. The next few weeks is real important for Mae Mobley. (TH)
.‫كانت األسابيع القليلة التالية هامة جدا بالنسبة إلى ماو موبلي‬

As can be seen, the determiner few in (128-130) communicates paucity as

reflected in its dictionary meaning with no negative orientation, hence its
straightforward rendering into ‫ القليلة‬with no need to recover explicit
negation in Arabic.
However, when few is employed as a negative determiner which is
meant to express the producer's unfavorable attitude towards the state of
affairs in question, explicit Arabic negation may be needed. The data
shows that explicit negation has been properly employed in 7 instances
(35%), while implicit negation is erroneously employed in 12 instances (a
full 60%) and only once properly (5%). This finding clearly points to the
challenging subtlety of few negation which needs to be brought to the
consciousness of Arabic translators who are supposed to be aware of the
difference between few as a negative operator and few as a mere
determiner.
Let us start with the cases where explicit negation is properly
utilized to reflect the pragmatics of few negation. Consider the following
examples:

131. Thus, the economy of a Bedouin tribe or a Burmese village is in

few essential respects changed today from what it was a hundred
or even a thousand years ago. (ES)
‫وهكذا فاقتصاد قبيلة من البدو أو قرية في بورما لم يتغير اليوم عما كان عليه منذ‬
.‫ إال في نواح جوهرية قالئل‬،‫مائة أو ألف سنة خلت‬

132. They stopped at no inns, and exchanged very few words. (BF)

171
 ... ‫لم يتوقفا عند أي حانة ولم يتبادال إال القليل من الكلمات‬

133. ... there have been very few significant policy changes designed
to confront this existential threat. (GC)
‫لم تكن هناك سوى تغييرات طفيفة تكاد ال تذكر على صعيد السياسات الموضوعة‬
.‫للتصدي لهذا الخطر الذي يهدد الوجود‬

As is clear in (131-133) above, the translators have duly accessed explicit

negation in Arabic to properly account for few negation in English.
By contrast, the translators have failed to invest explicit negation
and, consequently, have erroneously opted for affirmative utterances
(erroneous implicit negation) in a full 60% of the cases of few negation.
Below are some illustrative examples:

134. And there are as yet few business models for journalism
originating on the Internet. (GC)
.‫وهناك حتى اآلن عدد قليل من نماذج األعمال للصحافة الناشئة على شبكة اإلنترنت‬

135. Though few achieved their supreme degree of pecuniary

success, the number who climbed into the "millionaire class"
was impressive. (ES)
‫وبرغم أن قلة هم الذين حققوا أكبر قدر من النجاح المالي فإن عدد الذين صعدوا‬
.‫إلى "طبقة أصحاب الماليين" يلفت النظر‬

136. The Freifrau, however, had had very few opportunities to learn
this. (BF)
.‫لكن رغم ذلك فإن البارونة كان عندها القليل القليل من الفرص لتعلم هذا‬

137. "Few days. Then he goes to this rehab or something for a while,
but he gets to sleep at home, I think." (FS)
‫ لكن عله أن يبيت‬.‫ ثم تيوجه فترة من الوقت إلى مركز إعادة التأهيل‬.‫"بضعة أيام‬
."‫ على ما أعتقد‬،‫في بيته‬

The competent reader can readily feel the missing negative

orientation in the renderings in (134-137) due to the translators' failure to
account for the pragmatics of few negation. To remedy this situation,
explicit Arabic negation may be accessed to capture this kind of subtle
negation in English, as can be observed respectively in (138-142) below:

‫القلة القليلة من نماذج األعمال الصحفية الناشئة‬/‫ وال يوجد حتى اآلن إال أقل القيل‬. 138

172
 .‫على اإلنترنت‬
‫القلة‬/‫ وبالرغم من أن الذين حققوا أكبر قدر من النجاح المالي ليسوا إال أقل القليل‬. 139
... ‫القليلة فإن‬
.‫القلة القليلة من الفرص لتعلم هذا‬/‫ لكن رغم ذلك لم يكن لدى البارونة إال أقل القليل‬. 140
... ‫ ثم يتوجه‬،‫ ليس هناك إال أيام قالئل‬. 141

To be fair, there is only one instance in the data where implicit

negation succeeds in capturing the negative orientation introduced by few
(142 below).

142. ... merely accelerating and making more efficient a long-

established practice that has proven benefits and few if
any detrimental side effects. (GC)

‫نسرع بالفعل ونرفع من كفاءة هذه الممارسة الراسخة منذ عصور والتي أثبتت فوائدها‬
ّ ...
.‫وندرة آثارها الجانبية الضارة إن وجدت‬

As can be seen, implicit negation by the noun ‫' ندرة‬rarity' has captured the
meaning of few negation. Alternatively, one may use explicit negation as
in (143) below:

‫نسرع بالفعل ونرفع من كفاءة هذه الممارسة الراسخة منذ عصور والتي أثبتت‬
ّ ... .143
.‫فوائدها وال تنطوي على أية آثار جانبية ضارة تستحق الذكر‬

To conclude, Table 5 below presents the findings of few negation

which have been reported in this section:

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage of Translation Procedures for few

Negation
Translation strategy Frequency Percentage
Correct explicit negation 7 35%
Incorrect implicit negation 12 60%
Correct implicit negation 1 5%%
Total 18 100%

5. Conclusions
Overall, the findings reported in Tables 2-5 support the predictive title of
this study that adverbial/determiner negation is a problematic area for
Arabic translators. Together, the Tables indicate that 118 (43.70%)
examples out of a total of 270 examples comprising the textual data
173
involve translational problems including erroneous renderings, under-
translations, mistranslations, and inappropriate use of vernacular forms.
This constitutes solid evidence that the pragmatics of this type of English
negation is a challenging task in translation activity. Arabic translators,
both professionals and more so student translators, need to be alerted to
the fact that this type of negation, which formally does not exist in
Arabic, calls, in the first place, for recovering Arabic generic negation
and, in the second place, for appropriately investing implicit negation.
Only then can the negative orientation with which adverbial/determiner
negation furnish English utterances be properly captured in Arabic
translation.
Most importantly, the study uncovers a wide spectrum of
procedures that Arabic translators employ when encountering
adverbial/determiner negation. Firstly, the rendering of utterances using
the negative adverb too (the most frequent in the corpus) follows a variety
of procedures involving the recovery of both explicit and implicit Arabic
negation. When opting for explicit Arabic negation, the translator may
employ nominalization in simple/complex structures, unpack by
coordination, or indicate the degree of the attribute in question. The
second option (implicit negation) also invests three main procedures:
employing the comparative form, using negative adverbs, and indicating
degree of attribute. All these procedures manage to account for the
pragmatics of too negation when textualized properly.
Secondly, the translation of -ly adverbial negation mainly follows
three procedures: using explicit negation, employing vernacular ‫بالكاد‬, and
implicit negation. In particular, Arabic translators here need to exert
utmost care lest they fall victim to under-translation when employing
explicit negation. In many cases here, Arabic explicit negation would
correspond to not rather than -ly English negation, thus obliterating the
pragmatics of this subtle type of negation. Also, the handling of -ly
negation in Arabic translation points to a lexical deficiency in translators
which results in their having recourse to the vernacular ‫ بالكاد‬when
rendering this type of negation. One should note here that the competent
translator needs to access the negated ‫ يكاد‬in Standard Arabic, which
properly accounts for the bulk of cases in -ly negation, rather than the
awkward vernacular form ‫بالكاد‬.
Thirdly, little negation (the second most frequent in the corpus)
emerges as a highly problematic area for Arabic translators. While
explicit Arabic negation can properly be supplemented with exception
phrases and antonyms to capture the pragmatics of this type of

174
determiner negation, the mishap of under-translation seems to remain
lingering in the background. In several cases, the translator's failure to
employ an exception phrase such as ‫ إال القليل‬or ‫ سوى القليل‬as a supplement to
explicit negation leads to missing the subtle nuance involved by turning
little negation into generic negation that corresponds to negation by not in
English.
Finally, few negation (which is the least frequent in the data) also
proves to be a challenging area for Arabic translators. The translator's
inability to recover explicit Arabic negation with a belittling phrase such
as ‫ إال القليل‬or ‫ ما يستحق الذكر‬would cause the translator to stumble into a
blind area where a proper rendering can hardly be accessed.

175
 The Function of qad in English-into-Arabic Translation

Abstract
The present study aims to examine the claim that the preverbal particle
qad in the perfective is an aspectual marker of near past in Arabic, hence
it corresponds to the present perfect in English. The authentic
translational corpus drawn from two works (journalistic/scientific and
literary discourse) clearly indicates that the preverbal qad is employed as
a cohesive marker whose main function is to smooth and naturalize
Arabic discourse. The study demonstrates that the translator’s choice
between an Arabic simple past with or without qad is governed by the
requirements of the flow of discourse rather than by aspectual marking.
Failure to account for this discursive function of qad when translating
from English into Arabic would produce cohesion gaps in Arabic
translations which are usually taken care of by punctuation in English.

1. Introduction
Tense (an indicator of time reference/"the gammaticalization of location
in time" (Comrie 1985:6)) and Aspect (an indicator of the type of
temporal duration within a certain tense/"different ways of viewing the
internal temporal constituency of a situation" Comrie (1976:3)) play an
important role in English and Arabic grammars. In terms of tense, both
grammars can be said to have two types of distinction: a three-way
distinction involving present, past and future or, more economically, a
two-way distinction involving past and non-past acts (Comrie 1985; Dahl
1985). As for Aspect in the two grammars, the issue becomes more
complicated because we may not find one-to-one correspondence between
English and Arabic (for more on Tense and Aspect, see Wright 1967;
Radwan 1975; Shamma 1978; Eisele 1990; Gadalla 2006a, 2006b;
Mansour 2011; Obeidat 2014 for Arabic; Comrie 1976, 1985;
Fleischman 1990; Jarvie 1993; Kerstens, Ruys & Zwarts 1996/2001;
Declerck 2006; Michaelis 2006 for general purposes).
In some cases, English marks an Aspect grammatically, while
Arabic marks it contextually. In such cases, a level shift (Catford 1965) or
an instance of transposition (Newmark 1988) is required. For instance, the
English present progressive (e.g. John is playing the guitar) is marked
formally for this aspect, whereas the corresponding Standard Arabic
sentence ‫ يعزف جون على الغيتار‬is contextually marked to indicate this aspect,
that is, one has to look into the context of the utterance in order to decide
whether the reference is to the present habitual aspect or the present

176
progressive aspect. This would require a formal shift from the present
progressive aspect in English to the present habitual aspect in Arabic, a
shift that leaves it to the immediate context of discourse to distinguish
between the two aspects in Arabic. Interestingly, vernacular Arabic as
spoken in the Levant and some other areas has managed to
grammaticalize the present progressive aspect by employing either the
pleonastic verb ‫ قاعد‬in ‫' جون قاعد بعزف على القيتار‬John is playing the guitar' or
employing the particle ‫ عم‬before the verb in ‫' جون عم بعزف على القيتار‬John is
playing the guitar'.
In other cases, an aspect that exists in one language may
completely be missing in another language. For example, English
distinguishes between the simple past and the present perfect which both
designate past activities mainly in terms of whether the activity occurs at
a specific time in the past (e.g. Mary visited Paris in 2015) or is left
unspecified (Mary has visited Paris many times). Arabic, on the other
hand, merges these two aspects by referring to the past activity using the
simple past, viz. 2015 ‫ زارت ماري باريس عام‬and ‫زارت ماري باريس مرات عدة‬,
respectively.
Arabic, however, may preface the simple past verb with the
particle qad whose function is unanimously referred to as being ‫حرف‬
‫توكيد‬/‫ 'تحقيق‬confirmatory/emphatic particle' in Arabic sources. At the text
level, the particle qad often hosts the coordinating particles la-, wa- and
fa-, which are prefixed to it in the flow of discourse. Apart from the Holy
Quran where a bare qad may head a verbal sentence, viz. ‫قد أفلح من ز ّكاها‬
(9: The Sun), the bare qad would not naturally head the verbal sentence,
viz. the sentences 2015 ‫ قد زارت ماري باريس عام‬and ‫قد زارت ماري باريس مرات‬
‫ عدة‬do not sound natural as individual sentences. To employ the bare
qad, a nominal sentence must be chosen, viz. ‫إن ماري قد زارت باريس عام‬
2015 and ‫إن ماري قد زارت باريس مرات عدة‬. Note that qad in nominal
sentences may not host any particles, viz. the options ‫وقد‬/‫فقد‬/‫إن ماري لقد‬
2015 ‫ زارت باريس عام‬are all categorically ungrammatical.
For the Arabic verbal sentences above to sound natural, they
should be rewritten as 2015 ‫ لقد زارت ماري باريس عام‬and ‫لقد زارت ماري باريس‬
‫مرات عدة‬. Notably, la- is the only particle that can be naturally attached to
qad at the individual sentence level, for it carries no semantic content in
terms of the logic of discourse the way wa- and fa- function by
connecting the proposition in question to the preceding text typically in
terms of addition and cause-effect, respectively. Hence, it would not make
sense, say, for a teacher to put isolated sentences like ‫وقد زارت ماري باريس‬
2015 ‫ عام‬and ‫ فقد زارت ماري باريس مرات عدة‬on the backboard for discussion

177
in an Arabic grammar class. Such sentences could only be discussed at
the text level.
In addition, the particle qad may not occur in interrogative and
negative sentences. By way of illustration, the Arabic sentences ‫هل قد‬
‫' زارت ماري باريس بعد‬Has Mary visited Paris yet?' and ‫لم قد تزر ماري باريس بعد‬
'Mary didn't visit Paris yet' are ungrammatical, while their counterparts
without qad ‫' هل زارت ماري باريس بعد‬Has Mary visited Paris yet?' and ‫لم تزر‬
‫' ماري باريس بعد‬Mary hasn't visited Paris yet' are well-formed. Note that the
temporal/aspectual marker, i.e. the present perfect is maintained in
English interrogative and negative sentences, whereas the particle qad is
blocked in such sentences, a fact which may negate the claim that qad is
aspectual (see discussion below).
The subtlety surrounding the use of qad in the perfective in
contrast with its straightforward employment as a modal marker in the
imperfective (e.g. 2015 ‫' قد تزور ماري باريس عام‬May may visit Paris) has
given rise to various linguistic accounts of this particle, including the
syntactic filler approach (Ghazali 2005, 2007), the temporal/aspectual
approach (Wright 1967; Noureddine 1980;; Fayyadh 1997; Al-Mansouri
2002), and the reiterated traditional emphatic particle approach (Hassan
1990; Ryding 2005, among others).
In a more recent corpus-based study, Bahloul (2016) rightly
rejects the syntactic filler approach and argues for conflating the other
approaches into assertive modality as a unitary function of the particle
qad. Based on the corpus, he tries to explain that the employment of qad
is discursively conditioned. Thus, one has to examine the entire
text/paragraph in order to figure out why qad is utilized. While it is true
that the discursive conditions for the use of qad need to be met, it remains
questionable whether the employment of qad involves assertive modality.
If this were so, the assertive modality carried by qad should always show
in translation. Consider how awkwardly Bahloul translates the excerpt ‫وقد‬
‫' بات واضحا أن اإلرهابي أبو مصعب الزرقاوي قد دخل في حرب مفتوحة مع األردن‬It is, in
deed [sic.], quite obvious that Abu Musab Azzarqawi did enter in an open
conflict with Jordan ...' in order to push through his argument for assertive
modality. A natural rendering of the Arabic excerpt above would be 'It is
quite obvious that Abu Musab Azzarqawi has entered an open war with
Jordan ...'. One may argue that the first instance of qad is discursively
required to smooth and naturalize the flow of discourse, while the second
instance is optional, i.e. it has to do with the speaker's/writer's preference.
More relevantly to translation, Fayyad (1997, cited in Gadalla
2006a) talks about 14 tenses (In fact they are aspects rather than tenses) in

178
Arabic. In particular, Fayyad claims that the particle qad designates near
past and, therefore, corresponds to the English present perfect. Gadalla
endorses Fayyad's classification in his descriptive paper titled
"Translating English Perfect Tenses into Arabic: A comparative study of
two translations of Pear Buck's novel The Good Earth". However, his
brief discussion hardly scratches the surface. Based on the citation of two
examples, Gadalla (p. 247) writes "One must notice here that the near past
and the simple past are interchangeable for the translation of the English
present perfect when it expresses a connection between past and present
and when it shows repeated actions". Below are the two examples he
cites:
1. a. Here we have eaten the beasts. (Buck)
b. ‫( نحن هنا أكلنا البهائم‬Baalbaki 72)
c. ‫( نحن هنا قد أكلنا الدواب‬Iskandar 76)

2. a. We have seen such boxes and boxes. (Buck 130)

b. ‫( لقد رأينا آالفا ً وآالفا ً من الصناديق‬Baalbaki 116)
c. ‫( رأينا صناديق كثيرة‬Iskandar 120)

One wonders why the claimed aspects (the perfect verb with qad
and that without qad are interchangeable when translating the present
perfect if there is a connection between past and present and if it indicates
repeated actions. If temporal/aspectual claims that the use of qad
corresponds to the present perfect in English were valid, only the use of
qad would be sanctioned in such situations. And, by implication, when
these constraints don not apply, i.e. when there is no connection between
past and present and no indication of repeated actions, only the simple
past without qad can be employed. As can be observed, Gadalla's
adoption of qad as marking near past in English-into-Arabic translation
seriously lacks sound analysis and motivation.

2. Objective of Study
This study aims to textually examine from a translational perspective
temporal/aspectual claims that qad in the perfective is a grammatical
marker of near past (as opposed to simple past without qad) and,
consequently, it corresponds to the present perfect in English. In this way,
the study employs translational textual material from English into Arabic
in order to either prove or disprove temporal/aspectual claims about qad,
which is a niche that has not been addressed in depth in English/Arabic
translation studies.

179
3. Corpus
The textual corpus consists of two sets of data: 360 English present
perfect examples along with their Arabic counterparts and 92 simple past
examples along with their Arabic counterparts. The first set has two
categories: the first is extracted from the Arabic version of Al Gore's
(2013) The Future (305 examples: 222 without the preverbal qad and 83
with that particle), which is translated into ‫ المستقبل‬by Adnan Georges
(2015). The second category is extracted from the Arabic version of John
Green's (2012) The Fault in Our Stars (65 examples: 41 without the
preverbal particle and 24 with the particle), which is translated into ‫ما‬
‫ تخبئه لنا النجوم‬by Intwan Baseel (2015). The second set (extracted from the
Future and The Fault in our Stars) consists of 93 English simple past
examples that are translated using the preverbal particle qad. It should be
mentioned that all the extracted data are English affirmative sentences
because negative and interrogative sentences block the use of the
preverbal particle when translated into Arabic. Also, the data features all
the forms of the preverbal particle, i.e. qad, waqad, laqad, and faqad.
Both Arabic translations are published by the Kuwait National
Council of Culture, Arts, and Literature: the first in the well-known
Arabic series ‫ عالم المعرفة‬Alam Al Mi'rifah, which translates into Arabic
important books in different fields, and the second series is ‫إبداعات عالمية‬
Ebdaat Alamia, which translates into Arabic world literary masterpieces.
The commissioned texts are translated and then reviewed by professional
translators who are mostly university faculty in order to ensure good
quality. Thus, the intuitions reported in this paper regarding the
employment of qad when translating the English present perfect and the
simple past are assumed to reflect generally competent and natural use as
represented by highly educated native speakers of Arabic. The choice of
the source texts is motivated by the fact that they represent two different
genres: journalistic/scientific vs. literary discourse respectively. In
addition, based on the present researcher's expertise and experience in
teaching English/Arabic translation studies for about 30 years, the
treatment of the English simple past and present perfect in Arabic
translation cohesively alternates between the Arabic simple past with and
without qad with practically no heed to whether the source English
sentence is simple past or present perfect, the way it turns out to be in the
present corpus. Therefore, the textual data under study is assumed to
represent a common practice in translation activity between English and
Arabic.

180
4. Data analysis and discussion
4.1 Scientific/Journalistic discourse
Out of the 305 sentences involving the English present perfect extracted
from Al Gore’s The Future, a total of 222 (72.8%) sentences are
translated into the Arabic simple past without employing the particle qad.
Only 83 (27.2%) examples are translated into the simple past using qad in
their Arabic counterparts. The following are illustrative examples:

3. Our citizens have had too full taste of the comforts furnished
by the arts and manufactures to be debarred the use of them. (144)
‫فالمواطنون لدينا تمتعوا بالمذاق الغني لوسائل الراحة التي تقدمها الفنون والمصنوعات‬
.)11( ‫لدرجة ال يمكن معها حرمانهم من االستفادة منها‬

4. In part because new technologies have so frequently enabled us

to become far more efficient in producing more with less (145).
‫ويمثل أحد األسباب ذلك في أن التكنولوجيا الجديدة مكنتنا في كثير من األحيان من أن‬
.)12( ‫نصبح أكثر كفاءة في إنتاج الكثير بمواد أقل‬

5. In just the last thirty years, per capita consumption of meat

in developing countries has doubled, while egg consumption
has quintupled (153).
‫ تضاعف استهالك الفرد الواحد من اللحوم‬،‫في السنوات الثالثين الماضية فقط‬
.)23( ‫ فيما ارتفع استهالك البيض خمسة أضعاف‬،‫في البلدان النامية‬

6. The invention of more sophisticated techniques has reinvigorated

the use of subconscious analysis in the field of neuromarketing (160).
‫أعاد ابتكار أساليب أكثر تطورا تنشيط استخدام التحليل الالواعي في مجال التسويق‬
.)32-31( ‫العصبي‬

The examples in (3)-(6) above all call for the use of the present
perfect in English; they all express situations relevant to the present time,
thus necessitating the employment of the present perfect. The translator,
however, has opted for the Arabic simple past without using the preverbal
particle qad, thus neutralizing the English distinction between the simple
past and the present perfect. If Arabic were sensitive to this distinction as
temporal/aspectual accounts claim, we would expect the employment of
the preverbal qad to mark this aspect. In fact, the translator has opted out
of employing the Arabic preverbal particle qad in 72.8% of the present
perfect textual data in scientific/journalistic discourse, which simply

181
means that there exists no psychological reality of such a distinction in
Arabic.
Besides, all the Arabic renditions in (3)-(6) may be appropriately
rewritten using the preverbal qad, which clearly indicates that the English
present perfect can be rendered by both the Arabic simple past with or
without qad, and that the choice of one option rather than the other may
only be motivated by the translator's preference. Below are the Arabic
renditions in (3-6) rewritten respectively as (7-10) using the preverbal
particle:

‫ فالمواطنون لدينا قد تمتعوا بالمذاق الغني لوسائل الراحة التي تقدمها الفنون‬.7
.‫والمصنوعات لدرجة ال يمكن معها حرمانهم من االستفادة منها‬
‫ ويمثل أحد األسباب ذلك في أن التكنولوجيا الجديدة قد مكنتنا في كثير من‬.8
.‫األحيان من أن نصبح أكثر كفاءة في إنتاج الكثير بمواد أقل‬
‫ لقد تضاعف استهالك الفرد الواحد من‬،‫ في السنوات الثالثين الماضية فقط‬.9
. ‫ فيما قد ارتفع استهالك البيض خمسة أضعاف‬،‫اللحوم في البلدان النامية‬
‫ لقد أعاد ابتكار أساليب أكثر تطورا تنشيط استخدام التحليل الالواعي‬.10
.‫في مجال التسويق العصبي‬

Examining the placement of the Arabic verb in the sentence, it has

been found that the translator has positioned the verb at the beginning of
sentences in 106 cases (47.7%) and elsewhere in 116 cases (52.3%),
which practically shows no significance between the two choices.
However, when the translator has opted for the use of the preverbal qad,
he has placed it at the beginning of sentences in 67 out of 83 cases
(80.7%), which indicates a very strong tendency when opting for the
employment of this particle. This tendency shows that qad plays an
important discursive role in linking sentences together and making the
text run more smoothly and naturally. This contrasts with English
discourse where punctuation alone may perform this role. The immediate
consequence is that Arabic discourse is much more syndetic than English
discourse, which is asyndetic in nature. Following are three illustrative
examples:

11. The prices of almost all commodities in the world economy have
surged simultaneously in the last eleven years (145).
‫وقد ارتفعت أسعار جميع السلع تقريبا في االقتصاد العالمي في وقت واحد في‬
.)13( ‫السنوات اإلحدى عشرة األخيرة‬
12. We have of course seen the most remarkable growth in the radical
right since 2008 (178).

182
 .)54( 2008 ‫لقد شهدنا بالطبع نموا ملحوظا في اليمين المتطرف منذ العام‬

13. Scientists have established that people who think about playing
tennis demonstrate activity in a particular part of the motor cortex
portion of the brain (238).
‫وقد اكتشف العلماء أن الناس الذين يفكرون في لعب التنس يظهرون نشاطا في جزء‬
.)125-124( ‫معين من القشرة الحركية للدماغ‬

Looking more closely at the cases where the preverbal particle is

not placed at the beginning of the sentence reveals that this happens when
it occurs in a main clause preceded by an adjunct, in a compound clause,
in a subordinate clause, or in an 'inna/'anna headed clause, as can be
illustrated below:

14. Indeed, in the northern hemisphere, the downdraft has already

moved northward by as much as 3 degrees latitude (306).
‫ فقد تحرك التيار المنخفض في نصف الكرة الشمالي فعليا في اتجاه‬،‫وفي الواقع‬
.)211( ‫ درجات على خطوط العرض‬3 ‫الشمال بمعدل‬

15. Growth in the population of both humans and livestock is also

driving competition for land in other dying areas of Africa and
has led to deadly conflicts between herders and farmers who have
fought one another in Sudan, Mali and elsewhere (193).
‫يقود النمو في تعداد السكان من البشر والماشية أيضا إلى التنافس على األراضي‬
‫ وقد أدى هذا األمر إلى‬،‫في المناطق األخرى من أفريقيا التي تعاني من الجفاف‬
،‫ ومالي‬،‫صراعات دموية بين الرعاة والمزارعين الذين تقاتلوا فيما بينهم في السودان‬
.)73( ‫وفي أماكن أخرى‬

16. ... which shows that over the last half century the United States has
tripled its economic output with absolutely no gain in the general
public’s happiness or sense of well-being (144).
‫ مما يدل على أن الواليات المتحدة قد ضاعفت الناتج االقتصادي ثالث مرات على‬...
‫مدار نصف القرن الماضي من دون تحقيق أي مكاسب تذكر في سعادة عامة الناس أو‬
.)11( ‫في شعورهم بالرفاه‬

17. ... and the scientists have somehow made a big mistake (314).
.)221( ‫ وأن العلماء قد ارتكبوا خطأ جسيما بشكل من األشكال‬...

To explain, (14) above starts with the preverbal faqad right after
the adjunct, which is at the beginning of the clause. In (15), we have a

183
compound sentence in which the second clause starts with the preverbal
waqad. Thus, in (14) and (15) the preverbal qad in fact occurs at the
beginning of clauses to smooth and naturalize the discourse as in (11)-
(13). As for (16) and (17), the case is different because the preverbal qad
comes after the subject due to certain syntactic constraints. In (16), it
occurs in a subordinate where the subject must precede the verb in an
'anna subordinate clause. Similarly in (17), the preverbal qad occurs in a
coordinated 'anna clause in which the subject must also precede the verb.
One should note that 'anna clauses sanction the use of the form
qad and block the forms laqad, waqad and faqad, which can only occur
preverbally at the beginning of clauses. By way of illustration, the Arabic
renditions in (16) and (17) are rewritten as the ungrammatical (18) and
(19) below:

‫ مما يدل على أن الواليات المتحدة فقد ضاعفت الناتج االقتصادي ثالث مرات‬... *.18
‫على مدار نصف القرن الماضي من دون تحقيق أي مكاسب تذكر في سعادة عامة‬
.‫الناس أو في شعورهم بالرفاه‬
.‫ وأن العلماء وقد ارتكبوا خطأ جسيما بشكل من األشكال‬... * .19

Consequently, other things being equal, the particle qad is

positioned preverbally before the subject of the sentence; its main
discursive function is to make the Arabic text flow smoothly and
naturally. Actually, the data shows only one instance in which the
preverbal particle comes after the subject for no obvious reason (20
below).

20. Refugees from coastal areas of Bangladesh have already crowded

into the capital city of Dakha, and many have moved farther north
across the border into northeastern India, where their arrival has
contributed to the worsening of pre-existing tensions based on
religious and complex tribal conflicts (298).

‫الالجئون من المناطق الساحلية في بنغالديش قد تجمعوا بالفعل في العاصمة دكا التي‬

‫ وانتقل العديد منهم نحو أقصى الشمال عبر الحدود إلى داخل شمال شرق‬،‫ضاقت بهم‬
‫ حيث أسهم وصولهم في تفاقم التوترات الموجودة أصال والمبنية على خالفات دينية‬،‫الهند‬
.)201( ‫وصراعات قبلية معقدة‬

One can hardly find a good justification for the translator's option to
maintain the English word order. It would be smoother and more natural

184
in Arabic to place the preverbal particle before rather than after the
subject (21 below).

‫ لقد تجمع بالفعل الالجئون من المناطق الساحلية في بنغالديش في العاصمة دكا‬.21

‫ وانتقل العديد منهم نحو أقصى الشمال عبر الحدود إلى داخل‬،‫التي ضاقت بهم‬
‫ حيث أسهم وصولهم في تفاقم التوترات الموجودة أصال‬،‫شمال شرق الهند‬
.)201( ‫والمبنية على خالفات دينية وصراعات قبلية معقدة‬

4.2 Literary discourse

The literary data of the English present perfect sentences consists of 53
examples. Interestingly enough, the percentage of those translated into
Arabic simple past without the preverbal particle qad is generally similar
to that of scientific/journalistic discourse, viz. 77.3% (41/53) vs. 72.8%
(222/305). This finding cannot be taken as accidental; rather, it represents
a strong tendency in translational behavior where a present perfect
sentence in English discourse is rendered as a simple past without the
preverbal qad in Arabic discourse. Again, this clearly negates any valid
correlation between the present perfect aspect and the employment of the
preverbal qad in Arabic. Below are three illustrative examples:

22. I've written him a bunch of letters asking what happens to

everyone (62).
.)72( ‫بعثت إليه بمجموعة من الرسائل أسأله فيها ع ّما حلّ بكل واحد‬

23. I have received word via the genies that you will be visiting us with
Augustus Waters and your mother beginning on 4th of May (126).
‫وردني عبر الجنيات أنك ستزورنا برفقة أغسطس واترز ووالدتك في الرابع من‬
.)139( ‫ مايو‬/‫أيار‬
24. You've just had the worst luck, darling (301).
)321( ‫كان حظك سيئا للغاية‬

In the remaining 12 examples of the present perfect sentences in

literary discourse, the preverbal qad is used 6 times at the beginning of
clauses and 5 times in ‘anna subordinate clauses. The following two
examples are illustrative:
25. ... I've gone back and forth like a thousand times about it all (171).
.)185( ‫ فقد قلّبت األمر كله في كل االتجاهات نحو ألف مره‬...
26. I would conservatively estimate they have texted each other the
word always four million times in the last year (18).
ّ ‫ أن‬،‫وأقدّر بتحفظ‬
‫كال منهما قد بعث إلى اآلخر في العام الفائت برسائل نصية تحتوي‬

185
 .)27( ‫على أربعة ماليين كلمة دوما‬

While the preverbal particle occurs at the beginning of the clause

in (25), it is obligatorily positioned after the subject in the 'anna
subordinate clause in (26). In the last remaining example in this category
(27 below), the translator has awkwardly decided to use the preverbal
waqad circumstantially where, instead, he could have smoothly used it in
an 'anna subordinate clause (28 below).

27. ... when it seems like the inexorable decline has suddenly
plateaued (253).
)271( ‫ التي يبدو فيها االنحطاط الذي ال يرحم وقد استقر فجأة‬...

. ‫ حيث يبدو أن االنحطاط الذي ال يرحم قد استقر فجأة‬... .28

4.3 Simple past data from both genres

To further support the argument that there is no correlation between the
English present perfect aspect and the use of the preverbal qad, a corpus
of 93 English simple past sentences which are translated into Arabic
simple past with the preverbal qad have been extracted from both genres.
Apart from relying on the context in the choice between the simple past
and the present perfect in the source texts, many examples clearly refer to
events at specific points in the past. However, they are translated into the
simple past with the preverbal qad, which is claimed to correspond to the
present perfect. Following are some illustrative examples:

29. The Nazis presented Laughlin with an honorary degree in

1936 (Gore/233).
)119( 1936 ‫وقد منح النازيون الفلين درجة فخرية في العام‬

30. Voters in California defeated a referendum in 2012 to require

such labelling, after corporate interests spent 46$ million on
negative commercials (Gore/262).
‫ استفتاء يطالب بوضع مثل هذه‬2012 ‫وقد أفشل الناخبون في والية كاليفورنيا في العام‬
‫ مليون دوالر على اإلعالنات التجارية‬46 ‫ بعدما أنفقت مصالح الشركات‬،‫الملصقات‬
)156( ‫المناهضة‬

31. I explained this to mom, and then said, "I have to go" (79)
)90( "‫وقد شرحت هذا ألمي وقلت من بعدها "يجب أن أذهب‬

186
32. I hated cancer team meetings in general, but I hated this one in
particular (Green/116).
‫ إال أنني كرهت هذا االجتماع بشكل‬،‫وقد كرهت اجتماعات السرطان بشكل عام‬
)128( ‫خاص‬

In (29) and (30) above, the reference in English is to events that

happened at specific points in the distant rather than near past. Therefore,
if the preverbal qad had anything to do with marking near past, it would
be avoided when rendering them. However, the translator has opted for
employing the preverbal particle because it is mainly a marker of textual
cohesion rather than a marker of grammatical aspect that indicates near
past. In fact, the absence of this particle when referring to past events in
many cases creates cohesive gaps in Arabic discourse. Similarly, (31) and
(32) above contextually indicate things that happened at specific points in
the past and would not call for the use of the preverbal qad if it reflected
the aspect expressed by the English present perfect.
To show a clearer picture of the cohesive rather than
temporal/aspectual function of the preverbal qad, let us examine the
following English sentence (33 below) where there are three simple past
forms, only the first of which calls for the employment of waqad in order
to smoothly and naturally link it with the preceding discourse.

33. He competed in the 400-meter sprint, where he reached the

semifinals, and the 4x400 relay, in which the South African
team reached the finals (Gore/246).
‫ حيث وصل إلى الدور نصف‬،‫ متر‬400 ‫وقد نافس في سباق العدو السريع لمسافة‬
.)135( ‫ الذي وصل فيه فريق جنوب أفريقيا إلى النهائيات‬4x400 ‫ وسباق التتابع‬،‫النهائي‬

On the one hand, the reader would feel a textual gap if the
preverbal waqad is deleted in the Arabic translation (34 below). On the
other hand, the use of the preverbal waqad with the other simple past
verbs in the sentence would render it redundant and awkward (35 below)
because the cohesive function of qad has already been fulfilled.

،‫ حيث وصل إلى الدور نصف النهائي‬،‫ متر‬400 ‫ نافس في سباق العدو السريع لمسافة‬.34
‫ الذي وصل فيه فريق جنوب أفريقيا إلى النهائيات‬4x400 ‫وسباق التتابع‬

‫ حيث قد وصل إلى الدور‬،‫ متر‬400 ‫ وقد نافس في سباق العدو السريع لمسافة‬.35
‫ الذي قد وصل فيه فريق جنوب أفريقيا‬4x400 ‫ وسباق التتابع‬،‫نصف النهائي‬
.‫إلى النهائيات‬

187
4.4 Function of qad intersententially
To further observe the discursive function of qad intersententially, let us
quote two full paragraphs from Gore's book along with their Arabic
translations. The first paragraph shows that the translator has done well by
employing qad intersententially in order to render the text cohesive in
Arabic, as is shown below (Both English and Arabic texts are given):

36.
There are two powerful truths that must inform this global discussion about
adaptation and mitigation: first, the consequences that are already occurring, let
alone those that are already built into the climate system, are particularly
devastating to low-income developing countries. Infrastructure repair budgets
have already skyrocketed in countries where roads, bridges, and utility systems
have been severely damaged by extreme downpours and resulting floods and
mud slides. Others have been devastated by the climate-related droughts.
(p. 303)

37.
‫ الحقيقة‬:‫هناك حقيقتان دامغتان يجب إدراكهما في هذا النقاش العالمي حول التكيف والتخفيف‬
،‫ فضالً عن تلك التي ترسخت بالفعل في نظام المناخ‬،ً‫ هي أن العواقب التي تتمخض حاليا‬،‫األولى‬
‫ فقد ارتفعت فعليا ُ وبشكل حاد‬.‫هي عواقب مدمرة بصفة خاصة للبلدان النامية ذات الدخل المتدني‬
،‫ والجسور‬،‫الميزانيات المخصصة إلصالح البنية التحتية في البلدان التي تضررت فيها الطرقات‬
‫وأنظمة المرافق الخدمية بشكل كبير من جراء األمطار الشديدة والفيضانات واالنهيارات‬
.‫ أما البلدان األخرى فقد هدت كاهلها موجات الجفاف المتعلقة بالمناخ‬.‫األرضية الناجمة عنها‬
(p. 207)

One should note that the propositions expressed in the second and
third sentences in the English paragraph come as a result of the truth
mentioned in the first sentence. Being asyndetic, however, English
discourse tolerates the suppression of the cause-effect marker such as so
and therefore, for it can merely employ punctuation for that purpose, i.e.
by consecutively deploying sentences separated by periods as a possible
option that economically dispenses with the use of conjunctions as a
cohesion type. To take the conjunctions option, one can equally
effectively rewrite the paragraph in (36) as below:

38.
There are two powerful truths that must inform this global discussion about
adaptation and mitigation: first, the consequences that are already occurring, let
alone those that are already built into the climate system, are particularly
devastating to low-income developing countries. So/Therefore infrastructure

188
‫‪repair budgets have already skyrocketed in countries where roads, bridges, and‬‬
‫‪utility systems have been severely damaged by extreme downpours and resulting‬‬
‫‪floods and mud slides. Others have been devastated by the climate-related‬‬
‫‪droughts.‬‬
‫‪The Arabic text, by contrast, would sound incohesive and‬‬
‫‪unnatural without the employment of a cause-effect marker such as fa-‬‬
‫‪(so) or liðaalika (therefore). Consequently, the reader of the Arabic text‬‬
‫‪would immediately feel some gaps in the flow of discourse, as can be‬‬
‫‪observed in the rewriting of the Arabic paragraph in (37) in (39) below:‬‬

‫‪39.‬‬
‫هناك حقيقتان دامغتان يجب إدراكهما في هذا النقاش العالمي حول التكيف والتخفيف‪ :‬الحقيقة‬
‫األولى‪ ،‬هي أن العواقب التي تتمخض حالياً‪ ،‬فضالً عن تلك التي ترسخت بالفعل في نظام المناخ‪،‬‬
‫هي عواقب مدمرة بصفة خاصة للبلدان النامية ذات الدخل المتدني‪ ϕ .‬ارتفعت فعليا ُ وبشكل حاد‬
‫الميزانيات المخصصة إلصالح البنية التحتية في البلدان التي تضررت فيها الطرقات‪ ،‬والجسور‪،‬‬
‫وأنظمة المرافق الخدمية بشكل كبير من جراء األمطار الشديدة والفيضانات واالنهيارات‬
‫األرضية الناجمة عنها‪ .‬أما البلدان األخرى ‪ ϕ‬هدت كاهلها موجات الجفاف المتعلقة بالمناخ‪.‬‬

‫‪These gaps can be effectively filled with cause-effect markers, say‬‬

‫‪the prefixal particle fa- (in 40) or liðaalika in (41), independently of the‬‬
‫‪employment of qad, as can be observed in (40 and (41)) below:‬‬

‫‪40.‬‬
‫هناك حقيقتان دامغتان يجب إدراكهما في هذا النقاش العالمي حول التكيف والتخفيف‪ :‬الحقيقة‬
‫األولى‪ ،‬هي أن العواقب التي تتمخض حالياً‪ ،‬فضالً عن تلك التي ترسخت بالفعل في نظام المناخ‪،‬‬
‫هي عواقب مدمرة بصفة خاصة للبلدان النامية ذات الدخل المتدني‪ .‬فارتفعت فعليا ُ وبشكل حاد‬
‫الميزانيات المخصصة إلصالح البنية التحتية في البلدان التي تضررت فيها الطرقات‪ ،‬والجسور‪،‬‬
‫وأنظمة المرافق الخدمية بشكل كبير من جراء األمطار الشديدة والفيضانات واالنهيارات‬
‫األرضية الناجمة عنها‪ .‬أما البلدان األخرى فهدت كاهلها موجات الجفاف المتعلقة بالمناخ‪.‬‬
‫‪41.‬‬
‫هناك حقيقتان دامغتان يجب إدراكهما في هذا النقاش العالمي حول التكيف والتخفيف‪ :‬الحقيقة‬
‫األولى‪ ،‬هي أن العواقب التي تتمخض حالياً‪ ،‬فضالً عن تلك التي ترسخت بالفعل في نظام المناخ‪،‬‬
‫هي عواقب مدمرة بصفة خاصة للبلدان النامية ذات الدخل المتدني‪ .‬لذلك ارتفعت فعليا ُ وبشكل‬
‫حاد الميزانيات المخصصة إلصالح ال بنية التحتية في البلدان التي تضررت فيها الطرقات‪،‬‬
‫والجسور‪ ،‬وأنظمة المرافق الخدمية بشكل كبير من جراء األمطار الشديدة والفيضانات‬
‫واالنهيارات األرضية الناجمة عنها‪ .‬أما البلدان األخرى فهدت كاهلها موجات الجفاف المتعلقة‬
‫بالمناخ‪.‬‬

‫‪Apparently, the preverbal qad mainly functions an available host‬‬

‫‪for the particle fa- and a discursive alternate for improvising cohesion in‬‬

‫‪189‬‬
Arabic discourse. Hence, it can be replaced with other cohesive markers,
viz. fa- alone in (40) and fa- and liðaalika in (41). One should note that
the second instance of fa- in (40) and (41) is necessitated by the
discontinuous Arabic structure ‘ammaa … fa … ‘As for …, (so) …’.
Otherwise, the proposition in the third sentence would be prefaced with
an addition marker such as wa (and) or kaðaalika (also), which would
require some restructuring of the sentence, viz. ‫كذلك هدّت كاهلها في البلدان‬/‫و‬
‫األخرى موجات الجفاف المتعلقة بالمناخ‬.
Let us now move on to the second full paragraph where the
translator has left the qad slot unfilled in (42) below:

42.
Another epic land-use catastrophe occurred in Central Asia in the 1960s, when
the USSR embarked on a shortsighted plan to grow thirsty cotton crops in
dryland areas of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. So much water was diverted
from two rivers – the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya – that the world’s fourth
largest inland sea, the Aral Sea, almost completely disappeared. I visited the
Aral Sea two decades ago and saw firsthand the tragedy that resulted for the
people who used to depend on it. (p. 192)

43.
،‫وقعت كارثة ملحمية أخرى الستخدام األراضي في آسيا الوسطى في ستينيات القرن المنصرم‬
‫عندما شرع اتحاد الجمهوريات االشتراكية السوفييتية في تنفيذ خطة قصيرة النظر لزراعة‬
‫ جرى تحويل الكثير‬ф .‫محاصيل القطن العطشى في المناطق الجافة من أوزبكستان وتركمانستان‬
‫ وهو‬،‫من المياه من نهري – أمو داريا وسير داريا – بحيث كاد رابع أكبر بحر داخلي في العالم‬
‫ وشهدت عن كثب‬،‫ زرت بحر آرال قبل عقدين من الزمان‬ф .ً‫ أن يضمحل تماما‬،‫بحر آرال‬
(p. 71) .‫المأساة التي حلت بالناس الذين كانوا يعتمدون عليه‬

While the English paragraph in (42) is perfectly cohesive by the

mere use of punctuation between sentences, the Arabic corresponding
paragraph in (43) suffers two cohesion gaps, which seriously affect the
flow of discourse. The reader feels betrayed by the empty logical gap
between the first sentence and the second sentence, that is, what happens
in the second sentence is an immediate effect of what happens in the first
sentence. While this logical relation can be cohesively suppressed in
English, cohesion in Arabic, being explicative rather than implicative
(Hatim 1997), dictates that it be explicit in Arabic. The third sentence in
both texts constitutes an instance of addition (an added detail); hence it
requires an explicit cohesive marker in Arabic but not in English. The
Arabic paragraph can be cohesively rewritten in (44) with the gaps filled
by the preverbal qad:
190
44.
،‫وقعت كارثة ملحمية أخرى الستخدام األراضي في آسيا الوسطى في ستينيات القرن المنصرم‬
‫عندما شرع اتحاد الجمهوريات االشتراكية السوفييتية في تنفيذ خطة قصيرة النظر لزراعة‬
‫ فقد جرى تحويل‬.‫محاصيل القطن العطشى في المناطق الجافة من أوزبكستان وتركمانستان‬
،‫الكثير من المياه من نهري – أمو داريا وسير داريا – بحيث كاد رابع أكبر بحر داخلي في العالم‬
‫ وشهدت عن‬،‫ وقد زرت بحر آرال قبل عقدين من الزمان‬.ً‫ أن يضمحل تماما‬،‫وهو بحر آرال‬
.‫كثب المأساة التي حلت بالناس الذين كانوا يعتمدون عليه‬

5. Conclusion
The most important conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that
textual translational data can be employed to test the validity of
grammatical claims about the source language which are usually based on
contrastive analysis. It has been shown that temporal/aspectual claims
about the preverbal particle qad as a marker of near past in Arabic and,
consequently, as corresponding to present perfect in English is invalid.
The textual data clearly shows that professional translators do not
distinguish between the English simple past aspect and the present perfect
aspect in terms of past vs. near past when rendering them into Arabic.
They both qualify for the Arabic simple past with or without the preverbal
qad with an eye to a smooth flow of discourse rather than an aspectual
difference.
Another important conclusion is that a grammatical claim which
may be made at sentence level may not pass the test at textual level. This
study has shown that the general claim that the preverbal qad merely
functions as a confirmatory/emphatic particle needs to be reconsidered
when examined discursively. The translation-based textual data indicates
that qad and its combinations (laqad, waqad, faqad) are discourse
markers whose main function is to smooth and naturalize the flow of
discourse more than to confirm/emphasize the proposition in question. It
is true that while qad and its combinations may sound
confirmatory/emphatic in Arabic, examining them discursively shows that
they are mainly employed to make Arabic discourse more cohesive. To
capture this main cohesive function of qad, one could suggest a peripheral
function of qad that may be labeled acoustic modality instead of Bahloul's
(2016) more strong assertive modality. In this way, the acoustic modality
of qad consolidates its main cohesive function both typographically and,
in particular, phonetically when the text is read aloud.
Lastly, translators between English and Arabic need not lose sight
of the fact that Arabic texture is explicative/syndetic while its English
counterpart is implicative/asyndetic. The immediate consequence of this

191
textual mismatch is that several Arabic discourse markers may correspond
to zero markers in English in which punctuation often assumes a cohesive
function in the networking of logic in discourse. Therefore, the translator
needs to guard against producing some logical gaps in Arabic when
closely following English textualizations. Such gaps would often make
the Arabic text sound unnatural and incohesive, a pitfall which offends
the competent Arabic reader. By contrast, the translator of Arabic
discourse into English may fall victim to offering a translation that is
overly explicative due to an excessive use of discourse markers.

192
 Modality in Arabic Constitutional Discourse:
A Translational Perspective

Abstract
The present study aims to investigate Arabic modal markers as employed
in the Oman Constitution (issued in 1996 and amended in 2011), along
with their counterparts in the official English translation. The data
consists of 200 instances of modality (all deontic) which will be closely
examined in an attempt to explore how the Arabic resources are employed
in this type of legal discourse and detect what translation procedures are
used to capture the nuances of modality they encapsulate. The data
features four areas of deontic modality: imposition of obligation (64%),
assigning and/or undertaking responsibility (22%), prohibition (20.5%),
and conferring rights and permission (11.5%). In terms of legal jargon,
the Arabic simple present and the English legal shall emerge as the most
frequent deontic modality markers in both languages. However, while
both languages may lexicalize deontic modality (e.g. the use of ‫ يحق‬and
'has the right'), Arabic alone can invest particles deontically (e.g. ‫ على‬and
‫)الالم‬. The study also shows that there are significant differences between
British English and American English legal jargon, which may affect the
procedures employed when rendering Arabic legal discourse.

1. Introduction
The general existing literature on modality (Halliday 1970; Lyons 1977;
Perkins 1983; Coates 1983; and Palmer 2001, among others) divides it
into two basic categories: epistemic and deontic. While epistemic
modality involves the producer expressing his/her judgment of a state of
affairs in terms of the likelihood of its occurrence apart from factuality,
deontic modality views any state of affairs in terms of necessity, which
ranges between placing a strong obligation on the referent and a weak one
(permission). In this way, epistemic modality views language as
"information", while deontic modality views it as "action" (Palmer 1986).
Besides, several semanticists (e.g. Palmer 2001; Huddleston and Pullum
2002; Nuyts 2001; Nuyts et al. 2005) list dynamic modality as a third type
of modality, which is traditionally listed under deontic modality. Dynamic
modality basically involves the use of the modal verbs can/could and will
or shall/would in utterances where they assert propositions about the
subject of the sentence without any traces of the producer’s modalizing
the proposition, whether epistemically or deontically, e.g. John will/shall
travel to Paris next month. Because of the absence of any modality

193
nuance, Gisborne (2007) suggests removing this type from the domain of
modality altogether, arguing for a grammaticalization process of the
modals can and will/shall in such cases.
In general, the verb may be considered the most prominent
element in a sentence due to the fact that it relates the participants in a
proposition together to produce a meaningful unit of discourse. Whereas
lexical verbs perform this function straightforwardly based on their
semantics, auxiliary verbs, including modal verbs, are employed within
verb groups in order to add nuances of meaning such as aspect and
modality to the proposition (Farghal and Beqri in Farghal et al 2015). A
modal verb, as defined by Longman dictionary (2008:643), is “a verb that
is used with other verbs to change their meaning by expressing ideas such
as possibility, permission, orientation”. Modality, which seems to be a
linguistic universal, may vary from one language to another based on the
nature of its grammatical as well as its lexical system (Abdel-Fattah,
2005; Farghal and Shunnaq, 2011). Such variation may result in
discrepancies and gaps that create serious difficulty in translation activity.
Examining modality from a translational perspective, Baker
(1992) divides modals into action and belief modals. While the former
express nuances such as permitting, recommending or prohibiting, the
latter express the producer’s beliefs about the likelihood of a certain
situation. She argues that modality between English and Arabic
translation can be problematic because English modals are predominantly
grammatical while their Arabic counterparts are a mix of grammatical and
lexical resources. Several recent studies on Arabic modality (Zayed 1984;
El-Hassan 1990; Farghal and Shunnaq 2011; Abdel-Fattah 2005; Al-
Qinai 2008; Al-Ashoor 2009; Wided 2010) mostly reach the general
conclusion that Arabic lacks a highly grammaticalized system of modals
although it possesses a rich lexico-grammatical means to express various
modality shades of meaning in discourse. These authors mainly present
interlingual data in the two languages in lists of items or in
decontextualized sentences (e.g. See Abdel-Fattah 2005 and Al-Qinai
2008) based on the dichotomy of epistemic vs. deontic modality. Few
studies (e.g. Badran 2001; Farghal and Beqri in Farghal et al 2015;
Mashael and Farghal in Farghal et al 2017), however, examine textual
data extracted from authentic discourse. Badran shows that Arabic modal
expressions in political discourse may be subject to manipulation when
translated into Arabic, while Farghal & Beqri and Mashael & Farghal
indicate that modality shades of meaning can be problematic in literary
translation (drama and fiction, respectively).

194
 Moving on to legal discourse, the English legal jargon has been
widely researched (e.g. Crystal and Davy 1969; Bhatia 1983; Danet
1984, 1985; Goodrich 1990, among others). This jargon exhibits
certain patterns that are not found in other technical materials or other
general varieties. The draftsmen's incessant effort to externalize
intentions in their documents so as to avoid ambiguity inevitably
brings about inherent peculiarities of legislative texts. These peculiarities
are mainly established forms or norms that are taken from the
standardized legal register, such as the phrase 'In Witness Whereof' or
the legal use of ‘shall’ to express deontic modality. Crystal and Davy
(1969: 194) write "Therefore, much legal writing is by no means
spontaneous but is copied directly from 'form books', as they are
called, in which established formulae are collected". Hence, legal
English exhibits a high degree of linguistic conservatism.
The features of legal English, as expounded by Crystal and
Davy (1969: 213), are many. First, the features of layout, by which
attention is drawn to the parts of the documents which are crucial to
meaning. Second, the grammatical characteristics such as the chain-
like nature of some of the constructions, syntactic discontinuity (Bhatia
1983), and the minimal use of anaphora. Third, the careful interplay
between precise and flexible terminology in vocabulary. Finally, the
legal register's preservation at all levels of forms which have long
been abandoned, such as `hereons' and `hereunders'.
On the other hand, Arabic legal discourse, which manifests
similar peculiar technical features, has only been investigated from
a translational perspective between English and Arabic, focusing on
certain genres/aspects, e.g. UN resolutions (Farghal and Shunnaq in
Farghal et al 2015), general legal documents (Hatim, et al. 1995),
Arabic religious documents (Farghal and Shunnaq in Farghal et al
2017), contracts (Mohammed, et al. 2010; Emery 1989), general
linguistic features (Shiflett 20120; El-Farahaty 2015), etc. Shiflett
(2012: 29) writes “Legal translators are obligated to not only speak the
target and the source languages fluently, they must be closely familiar
with the law and the legal system in the country where the translated text
originated, and the country for which the translation is being prepared” as
it belongs to institutional translation, which is culture dependent
(Newmark 1988). It combines, according to Harvey (2002: 177), “the
inventiveness of literary translation with the terminological precision of
technical translation”.

195
2. The Present Study
The present study aims to investigate Arabic modality markers as
employed in Oman Basic Statute of the State (issued in 1996 and
amended in 2011) and their counterparts in the official English
translation. The data consists of 200 instances of modality (all deontic)
which have been closely examined in an attempt to explore how the
Arabic resources are employed in this type of legal discourse and detect
what translation procedures are used to capture the nuances of modality
they encapsulate. Following is a Table displaying their distribution of
functions within deontic modality:

Table 1: Distribution of Functions of Deontic Modality in Arabic ST.

Category No. %
Imposition of Obligations 92 46.0
Assigning Responsibilities 44 22.0
Prohibition 41 20.5
Conferring Rights and Permissions 23 11.5
Total 200 100%

In addition, a brief examination of the British Constitution and the

American Constitution will be conducted in order to first detect any
differences between them in the employment of deontic modality
markers, and second to compare the English translation markers of
deontic modality in Oman Constitution with the modality markers in both
the British and American Constitutions.

3. Data Analysis and Discussion

3.1 Imposition of Obligations
Constitutional texts tend to impose obligations and set forth duties, a
tendency accounting for a full 46% of the examples in the textual data.
Arabic constitutional discourse employs several types of obligation-
oriented modality markers which can be classified into: (1) action
obligations (72 instances/78.26%), (2) duty obligations (13
cases/15.13%), and (3) conditional obligations (6 instances/ 6.52%).

3.1.1 Action Obligations

The Arabic examples involving action legal obligations categorically
employ the Arabic Simple Present ‫ المضارع البسيط‬to communicate the

196
message that an act will thereof instate an obligation upon its declaration.
In 70 out of 72 instances, the legal shall is employed in English to instate
a corresponding obligation. The examples below are illustrative:

‫ يتولى نواب رئيس الوزراء والوزراء اإلشراف على شؤون وحداتهم‬.1

‫ كما يرسمون اتجاهات‬،‫ويقومون بتنفيذ السياسة العامة للحكومة فيها‬
.‫الوحدة ويتابعون تـنفيذها‬
The Deputies to the Prime Minister and the Ministers shall supervise
the affairs of their units, implement the general policy of the
Government therein, draw up the guidelines of the unit and follow up
the implementation thereof.

.‫ تجرى التعديالت المرفقة على النظام األساسي للدولة‬.2

The attached amendments shall be made to the Basic Statute of
the State.

.‫ تكون اجتماعات مجلس الوزراء صحيحة بحضور أغلبية أعضائه‬.3

The meetings of the Council of Ministers shall be made valid by
the presence of the majority.

.‫ وتحدد القوانين واالتـفاقيات الدولية أحكام تسليم المجرمين‬.4

Laws and international treaties shall determine the rules for the
extradition of criminals.

As can be observed, the legally-employed Arabic simple present

in the examples above technically corresponds to the legal shall in
English. They both instate action obligations that become effective upon
declaration . Notice that the use of the English simple present instead of
the legal shall may strip them of their technicality and turn them into
factual statements that are devoid of the deontic nuance, as can be seen in
(5) and (6) below, which rephrase (2) and (3) above:

5. The attached amendments are made to the Basic Statute of the State.
6. The meetings of the Council of Ministers is (made) valid by the
presence of the majority.

By the same token, the use of the Simple Future in Arabic would
deprive the utterances of their technicality and turn them into statements
expressing future acts that are devoid of deontic modality, as can be noted
in (7) and (8) below:

197
 .‫ ستجرى التعديالت المرفقة على النظام األساسي للدولة‬.7
.‫ ستكون اجتماعات مجلس الوزراء صحيحة بحضور أغلبية أعضائه‬.8

In this way, the Arabic simple present and the English legal shall
prove to be technically equivalent in expressing action legal obligations.
The two cases in which the translator has employed the English simple
present as a legal correspondent to the Arabic simple present may reduce
their technicality. Both are given in (9) and (10) below:

.‫ يحـدد القانـون عـلم الدولة وشعارها وأوسمتها ونشيده‬.9

The Law determines the Flag, Emblem, Insignia and National Anthem
of the State.

‫ يشترط لصحة انعقاد كل من مجلس الدولة ومجلس الشورى حضور أغلبية‬.10

.‫أعضائه‬
The validity of a meeting of Majlis Al Dawla and Majlis Al Shura
requires the presence of the majority.

One should note that the use of the legal shall in the English
renderings of (9) and (10) will enhance their technicality and make them
more congruent with the English legal register (11 and 12 below).

11. The Law shall determine the Flag, Emblem, Insignia and National
Anthem of the State.
12. The validity of a meeting of Majlis Al Dawla and Majlis Al Shura
shall require the presence of the majority.

3.1.2 Duty Obligations

Assigning duties, which account for 12 cases, mainly take the form of
verbless Arabic nominal sentences (what is syntactically known as
equational sentences (for more on them, see Obeidat and Farghal 1994)).
They assign duties by featuring lexical modality markers which are nouns
derived from modal verbs, e.g. the nominal ‫‘ واجب‬duty’ is derived from
the modal verb ‫‘ يجب‬must’ or grammatical modality markers, e.g. the
preposition ‫على‬, which is commonly used to assign duties. In terms of
translation, English may employ the modal noun ‘duty’ as the head of the
predicate in copulative sentences when rendering ‫واجب‬-featuring
sentences and the legal shall when rendering ‫على‬-featuring sentences. The
following sentences are illustrative:

198
 .‫ الحفاظ على الوحـدة الوطنية وصـيانة أسرار الدولـة واجب على كل مواطن‬.13
Preserving the national unity and safeguarding the secrets of the State
is a duty incumbent upon every Citizen.

.‫ أداء الضرائب والتـكاليف العامة واجب وفقا للقانون‬.14

Paying taxes and public dues is a duty according to the Law.

.‫ وعليه (كل أجنبي) مـراعاة قيم المجتمع واحترام تـقاليده ومشاعره‬.15

He (every foreigner) shall observe the values of the Society and
respect the traditions.

‫ وعليهم (أعضاء مجلس الوزراء) في كل األحـوال أن يستهـدفـوا بسلوكهم مصالح‬.16

.‫الوطن وإعالء كلمة الصالح العام‬
They (Members of the Council of Ministers) shall always, by their
conduct, pursue the interests of the Country and work in furtherance
of the public benefit.

On the one hand, the duty obligations in (13) and (14), which
express stative situations, are lexicalized by the modality noun ‫ واجب‬and
the modality noun duty in equational Arabic sentences and their
counterpart copulative English sentences, respectively. One should note
that changing a stative situation into a dynamic one would require the
employment of the strong Arabic modal verb ‫يجب‬, viz. ‫يجب أداء الضرائب‬
‫( والتكاليف العامة وفقا للقانون‬Taxes and public dues must be paid according to
the Law), which is avoided in Arabic legal discourse in favor of the
nominal ‫( واجب‬e.g. (14) above or the simple present, viz. ‫ت ُدفع الضرائب‬
‫( والتكاليف العامة وفقا للقانون‬Taxes and public dues shall be paid according to
the Law).
On the other hand, Arabic duty obligations expressed in
utterances with the preposition ‫ على‬in (15) and (16) involve dynamic
situations; hence, they translate into English utterances employing the
legal shall. Notably, the lexicalization of Arabic deontic modality, e.g.
the use of the nominal ‫‘ واجب‬duty’ may require lexicalizing it when
rendering it into English, e.g. by the use of the noun duty. By contrast,
obligations including the Arabic deontic preposition ‫ على‬are
grammaticalized into the legal shall when rendered into English.

3.1.3 Conditional Obligations

Arabic conditional legal obligations commonly employ the conditional
marker ‫إذا‬, which requires the use of the past tense in both the conditional

199
clause and the result clause. Such conditional sentences involve real
conditions on future acts that may take place and, consequently, instate
obligations when such conditions are realized. In terms of translation,
they correspond to English Type 1 conditionals in which the legal shall
rather than the non-legal will is employed, as can be observed in (17) and
(18) below:

‫ فإذا تم انتخاب أحد الموظفين العموميين لعضوية المجلس اعتبرت خدمته منتهية‬.17
،‫من تاريخ إعالن النتائج‬
In case a public employee is elected to the membership of the
Majlis, his service shall be considered terminated from the date
of the announcement of the results,

... ‫ إذا ُحل مجلس الشورى توقفت جلسات مجلس الدولة‬.18

If Majlis Al Shura is dissolved, Majlis Al Dawla sessions shall be
suspended …

... ‫ فإذا اختلف المجلسان بشأن المشروع اجتمعا فـي جلسة مشتركة‬.19
If the two Majlis disagree upon the draft law, they shall hold
a joint meeting …

The examples above clearly show that there are some register
constraints governing the coding of conditional obligations. On the one
hand, Arabic chooses a conditional marker, commonly ‫إذا‬, which requires
the use of the simple past in the conditional clause and, as a distancing
procedure, calls for the employment of the simple past in the result clause
(17-19 above). On the other hand, English employs the legal shall in the
result clause of a Type 1 conditional instead of the non-legal will. Failing
to do so in both languages would result in non-legal discourse, as is
illustrated in the rephrasing of (19) above in (20) below non-legally:

... ‫) فإذا اختلف المجلسان بشأن المشروع يجتمعا في جلسة مشتركة‬20(

If the two Majlis disagree upon the draft, they will hold a joint meeting …

Notably, both the Arabic and the English result clauses in (20) are
interpreted as possible consequences of real conditions without inducing
the legal nuance of obligation, hence their register deficit.

3.2 Assigning Responsibilities

200
The examination of the data shows that assigning responsibilities in
Arabic constitutional discourse can be semantically classified into action
responsibilities (34 instances) and stative responsibilities (10 instances).

3.2.1 Action Responsibilities

Action responsibilities, just like action obligations, are performed by the
employment of the Arabic simple present as well as the Arabic deontic
preposition ‫على‬. In terms of translation, they both require the use of the
legal shall. The following are illustrative examples:

‫ تـقوم على حفظها وحسـن‬،‫ الثروات الطبيعية جميعها ومواردهـا كافة ملك للـدولة‬.21
... ‫استغـاللهــا‬
All natural wealth and resources thereof are the property of the
State, which shall preserve and utilize them in the best manner …

... ‫ وتمنع الـدولة كل ما يـؤدي للفرقة أو الفتـنة‬.22

The State shall prevent anything that might lead to division, discord …

... ‫ وعلى الـدولة حمايتها‬... .23

… the State shall protect it …
‫ وعلى رئيس مجلس الدولة رفعه إلى جاللة السلطان‬.24
The Chairman of Majlis Al Dawla shall submit the same to His Majesty

While (21) and (22) above assign action responsibilities by the

employment of the simple present, viz. ‫ تقوم‬and ‫تمنع‬, (23) and (24) perform
the same function by using the deontic preposition ‫على‬. In both cases,
English utilizes the legal shall to assign action responsibilities.
However, in 8 out of the 34 instances of assigning action
responsibilities the translator has opted for the simple present instead of
the legal shall, which is an alternate option in British constitutional
discourse. Below are two illustrative examples:

‫ ويحـدد القانـون عقــاب من يفعــل ذلك‬.25

The Law stipulates punishment of whomever commits such acts.

‫ كما تعمل على المحافظة على البيئة وحمايتها‬.26

The State also works for the conservation of the environment,

201
The English renderings of (25) and (26) need to be rewritten using the
legal shall in American constitutional discourse (see section 4), as in (27)
and (28) below:

27. The Law shall stipulate punishment of whomever commits such acts.
28. The State shall also work for the conservation of the environment,

3.2.2 Stative Responsibilities

Stative responsibilities, which usually involve states implying the
responsibility of an understood party (usually an agent), are mainly
assigned by the employment of Arabic passive participle forms in
equational sentences (for more on the translation of passive forms
between English and Arabic, see Farghal and Al-Shorafat in Farghal et al
2015; Al-Khafaji 1996). In few cases, however, an active participle with
an expressed subject whose function is theme rather than agent is utilized
(for more on semantic roles, see Kreidler 2014). In terms of translation,
the translator opts for rendering passive participle forms into English
passive forms whose agents are implied, while the active participle form
(one instance only/example 30 below) is relayed as a simple present
copulative sentence whose predicate is semantically headed by an
adjective. Following are some illustrative examples:

‫ الملكية الخاصة مصونة‬.28

Private ownership is safeguarded

‫ حرية القيـام بالشعائر الدينية طـبقا للعـادات المرعيـة مصونة‬.29

The freedom to practice religious rites according to recognized
customs is protected,
‫ أعضـاء مجلـس الـوزراء مسؤولون سـياسيا مسؤولية تضامنية أمام السلطان عن‬.30
‫تنفيذ السياسة العامة للدولة‬
Members of the Council of Ministers are politically collectively
responsible before His Majesty the Sultan

As can be seen, the Arabic passive participle form ‫( مصونة‬is

safeguarded/protected) functions as the predicator of the Arabic sentences
in (28) and (29) and is translated into English passive predicators, viz. be
safeguarded and be protected. As for (30), the Arabic active participle
‫ مسئولون‬functions as the predicator of the sentence and has a subject that is
interpreted as a theme. That is to say, the subject ‫ أعضاء مجلس الوزراء‬is
charged with a responsibility. The English rendering simply employs the

202
adjective responsible whose subject Members of the Council of Ministers
is interpreted as a theme charged with a responsibility. The examples in
(28)-(30) would use the legal shall in American English.

3.3 Prohibition
Prohibition, which is an important function of modality in language, is
performed using both explicit and implicit negation in both Arabic and
English. In Arabic legal discourse, one can distinguish between action and
stative prohibitions which may employ both types negation.

3.3.1 Action Prohibitions

Arabic action prohibitions mainly employ explicit negation by the
negative particle ‫ال‬, which is usually followed by the Arabic deontic verb
‫يجوز‬, viz. 23 out 30 action prohibitions employ this legally-oriented
deontic verb. This deontic verb can be contrasted with other Arabic
deontic verbs that share the same semantics such as ‫ يُسمح‬and ‫ يُمكن‬but may
not be used in the legal register. In terms of translation, the translator has
opted for negation by two devices: negation of the legal shall (17 cases)
and literal translation into It is not permissible to (13) cases. Following
are some illustrative examples:

‫ وال يجوز مد فترة المجلس إال للضرورة‬.31

The term of the Majlis shall not be extended unless there is a necessity

‫يعرض أي إنسان للتعذيب المادي أو المعنوي‬

ّ ‫ ال‬.32
No person shall be subjected to physical or psychological torture

‫ وال يجوز ألية هيئة أو جماعة إنشاء تشكيالت عسكرية أو شبه عسكرية‬.33
It is not permissible for any authority or group to establish military
or paramilitary formations

‫ ال يجوز الحجز أو الحبس في غير األماكن المخصصة لذلك‬.34

It is not permissible to detain or imprison in places other than those
designated for …

While the negated legal shall appropriately renders the Arabic

prohibitions in (31) and (32), one should notice that the translator’s option
for literal translation of the Arabic negated deontic verb ‫ يجوز‬in (33) and
(34) may not be the best option in the legal register. In fact, I have not
found even one case of using it is not permissible to for expressing

203
prohibition in the American or British Constitution. Therefore, the
English renderings in (33) and (34) may respectively be rephrased using
either the negated legal shall or may in (35) and (36) below:

35. No authority or group shall/may establish military or paramilitary

formations.
36. No person shall/may be detained or imprisoned in places other than
those designated for …

In this way, prohibitions which are deontically lexicalized in legal Arabic

lend themselves appropriately to grammatical rather than lexical deontic
modality in English.
Arabic action prohibitions may also use implicit negation (3 cases)
by the employment of verbs whose semantics involves the prohibition of
some states of affairs, usually the deontic verb ‫‘ يُحظر‬It is prohibited’
which must be followed a masdar ‘a present participle form’. In terms of
translation, the translator has used explicit negation in one case and
implicit negation in two cases. Consider the two examples below:

‫ ويحـظر إيـذاء المتهـم جسمانيـا أو معنويا‬.37

It is not permissible to harm an accused either bodily or mentally.

‫ ويحظـر إنشـاء جمعيات يكــون نشاطهـا معاديــا لنظـام المجتمـع‬.38

It is prohibited to form societies the activity of which is adverse to
the order of society,

One should note that the implicit negation in (38) is more appropriate in
the legal register than the paraphrased explicit negation in (37). To
recover explicit negation in the English rendering of (37), it is more
appropriate to employ the legal shall/may (see examples 35 and 36
above).

3.3.2 Stative Prohibitions

Though infrequently employed because prohibitions commonly enforce
actions through negation, Arabic may legally express prohibitions (5
instances out of 41) statively by employing equational sentences which
may involve both explicit and implicit negation. In such cases, explicit
negation uses the negative particle ‫ ال‬followed by a masdar or a count
common noun derived from the masdar, while implicit negation may
employ a deontic noun derived from a deontic masdar. In terms of

204
translation, English negative copulative sentences featuring the legal shall
is the most appropriate way to render explicit negation, while a deontic
noun may lend itself to English affixal negation. The following examples
are illustrative:

‫ وال عقاب إال على األفعـال الـالحقة للعمل‬،‫ ال جريمـة وال عقوبـة إال بناء على قانون‬.39
.‫بالقـانـون الذي ينص عليهـا‬
There shall be no crime except by virtue of a Law. There shall be no
punishment, except for acts subsequent to the entry into force of the
Law wherein such acts are stated.

‫ لألموال العـامة حرمتها‬.40

Public property is inviolable

In (39), the prohibitions featuring the negated common nouns

‫ جريمة‬and ‫ عقوبة‬and the negated masdar ‫ عقاب‬lend themselves
appropriately to translating into English copulative sentences featuring the
negative particle no (which is necessitated by the fact that a noun rather
than an act is being negated) and the legal shall. Notice that the
rephrasing of a stative prohibition as an action prohibition in Arabic
would require different textualizations in English. The first part of (39) is
rephrased as an illustrative example in (41):

‫يجرم أو يعاقب شخص إال بناء على قانون‬

ّ ‫ ال‬.41

The Arabic action prohibition in (41) appropriately lends itself to an

English corresponding action prohibition rather than a stative one, as in
(42) below:

42. No person shall/may be incriminated or punished except by virtue

of a Law.

As for the Arabic prohibition in (40), it is expressed statively by

employing a deontic noun ‫‘ حرمة‬being sacred/inviolable’ derived from a
major Islamic religious concept ‫‘ حرام‬what is religiously forbidden’,
which is the opposite of the concept ‫‘ حالل‬what is religiously sanctioned’.
The translator has appropriately employed affixal negation, i.e. inviolable
to render the Arabic prohibition statively in English. One should note that
the use of other morphologically related forms such as the passive
participle ‫محرمة‬, the masdar ‫ حرام‬and the passive verb ‫ يُحرم‬may twist the

205
semantics of the deontic noun ‫ حرمة‬and, consequently, may not fit the
legal register. For example, using the verb ‫ يُحرم‬to rephrase (40) would
produce the prohibition ‫تحرم األموال العامة‬, which translates into public
property is forbidden, thus producing a prohibition with a completely
different meaning. To produce the intended prohibition, a morphological
unrelated Arabic masdar must be added after the verb such as ‫المساس‬
‘touching’, as in (43) below:
.‫ يُحرم المساس باألموال العامة‬.43
Public property shall/may not be violated.

3.4 Conferring Rights and Permissions

3.4.1 Conferring Rights
The examination of the data indicates that conferring rights in Arabic
legal discourse is overwhelmingly performed by prefixing the deontic ‫الم‬
to the conferee followed by a masdar representing the semantics of the
relevant right. Linguistically, this produces Arabic equational sentences
designating states (15 out 19 instances). In terms of translation, it has
been noticed that the translator has used two different deontic procedures
depending on the status of the conferee, e.g. His Majesty the Sultan vs.
Omani citizens. On the one hand, he/she alternates between the legal shall
in shall have the right to and the simple present in have the right to when
the conferee is an ordinary person. On the other hand, the translator opts
for wholly grammaticalizing the right by employing may when the
conferee is the Sultan or an authoritative person/body, thus legally
capturing the power discrepancy between the two parties. Witness the
following examples:

. ‫ للمواطنين حق االجتماع ضمن حدود القانون‬.44

The Citizens have the right to assemble within the limits of the Law.

‫ له (المتهم) ولمن ينوب عنه التظلم أمام القضاء‬.45

He or his representative shall have the right to petition …

‫ لجاللة السلطان دعوة مجلس عُمان لالجتماع فـي الحاالت التي يقدرها‬.46
His Majesty the Sultan may summon Majlis Oman, outside the
regular session …
‫ لمجلس عمان اقتراح مشروعات قوانين‬.47
Majlis Oman may propose draft laws …

206
 As can be seen, (44) and (45) confer rights by prefixing the
deontic ‫ الم‬to [- power] conferees; they lend themselves to translating into
either the simple present (44) or the legal shall (45). One should note that
both of the Arabic utterances may be rephrased by recovering the present
form of the verb ‫‘ يحق‬have the right’, which is derived from the explicit or
implicit masdar ‫حق‬ ّ ‘right’, as below:
.‫ يحق للمواطنين االجتماع ضمن حدود القانون‬.48
.‫ يحق للمتهم ولمن ينوب عنه التظلم أمام القضاء‬.49

Although the corpus does not include any examples in which the
ّ
masdar ‫حق‬ ّ
is verbalized into ‫يحق‬ to confer rights, there is one case
employing a similar stative verb, as is shown below:

... ‫ يتمتع كل أجنبي موجود في السلطنـة بصفة قانونية بحماية شخصـه‬.50

Every foreigner who is legally present in the Sultanate shall enjoy
protection for himself …

The Arabic example in (50) may be rephrased using the deontic ‫ الم‬to
confer rights, as is shown below:

‫ لكل أجنبي موجود في السلطنة بصفة قانونية حق بحماية شخصية‬. 52

Every foreigner who is legally present in Sultanate shall have/has the
right to protect himself.

Finally, the conferral of Arabic conditional rights (5 cases), just

like conditional obligations, should employ a distancing procedure by
using the simple past rather than the simple present in the result clause.
However, such a distancing device may escape the translator in some
cases (53 below). Conferring such conditional rights is rendered into
English using the legal shall in type 1 conditionals, as can be illustrated
below:
... ‫ عاد إلى وظيفته‬،‫ فإذا صدر الحكم ببطالن عضويته وإلغاء قرار فوزه‬. 52
If the decision is made to invalidate his membership and annul the
decision of his win, he shall return to his employment …

... ‫ وفـي حال الطعن فـي صحة عضويته يظل محتفظا بوظيفته‬.53
and in case of a challenge to his membership he shall retain his
employment …

207
Examining (52) and (53), one can argue that the use of the simple past in
the result clause of (52) is more appropriate than the use of the simple
present in the result clause of (53). Thus, (53) will sound more congruent
with the Arabic legal register if rephrased as (54) below:

... ‫ وفي حال الطعن في صحة عضويته ظل محتفظا بوظيفته‬.54

3.4.2 Conferring Permissions

The data includes 4 cases of conferring permissions which all feature the
Arabic deontic verb ‫يجوز‬, which seems to be the hallmark of this modality
function. Similarly, one would expect the modal auxiliary may to hold a
comparable status when conferring permissions in English. The following
examples are illustrative:
... ‫ ويجوز عقد جلسات غير علنية فـي الحاالت التي‬.55
Closed sessions may be convened in circumstances …

‫ ويجوز لمن انتهت فترة عضويته الترشح ثانية لعضوية مجلس الشورى‬.56
It is permissible for whoever completes his membership term to
run again as a candidate to Majlis Al Shura

‫ والحدود التي يجوز فيهـا التـنـازل عن شيء من هـذه األمالك‬.57

the limits within which part of these properties can be assigned …

Looking at the renderings of the conferred permissions in (55)-

(56), one may argue that the translation in (55) is the most congruent with
the English legal register. It has already been noted (section 3.3.1) that the
phrase it is not permissible to is non-existent in the American and the
British constitution, which also applies to it is permissible to when
conferring permissions. Also, may is more legally appropriate than can
when conferring permissions because legal discourse is characterized by
clarity and precision, a condition that is not met by can which usually
fluctuates between ability and permission readings. In this way, the
English translations in (56) and (57) may be more appropriately rephrased
as (58) and (59) below:

58. Whoever completes his membership term may run again as a

candidate to Majlis Al Shura
59. the limits within which part of these properties may be assigned …

208
4. Variation in English Constitutional Discourse
Examining the legal discourse in British and American constitutions
shows that there is a key difference between them in the use of the legal
shall for performing different modality functions. On the one hand, the
British constitution generally moves freely between the simple present
and the legal shall in expressing various affairs. The American
constitution, on the other hand, consistently employs the legal shall in its
articles. The following two extracts attest to this kind of difference.

60. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first
Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three
Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated
at the Expiration of the second Year …

61. The Cabinet —

1. has the general direction and control of the government of the
United Kingdom; and
2. is collectively responsible to Parliament for the performance by
the Government of its functions.

62. The Ministers shall include —

1. a Chancellor of the Exchequer (having responsibility for finance);
2. a Minister of Justice (having responsibility for courts and legal
services);
3. a Minister having responsibility for international relations, who
shall be appointed from among members of the House of
Commons.

As can be noted, the extract from the American Constitution in

(60) uses the legal shall throughout (there are 5 occurrences of it). By
contrast, the extracts from the British Constitution (61 and 62 above)
show a kind of free choice between the simple present and the legal shall,
viz. (61) and (62) involve a similar affair but the former employs the
simple present while the latter uses the legal shall. One may speculate that
the choice is dependent on whether the state of affairs in question is a
stative or an action affair. For this speculation to be borne out, the extract
in (62), by virtue of its referring to a stative affair, should start with (The
Ministers include ----) rather than (The Ministers shall include ----),

209
which is not the case. This free movement between the simple present and
the legal shall in the British Constitution is even attested within the same
article, as can be seen below:

64. A local authority -

1. shall perform such functions as Act of the parent Assembly shall
determine; and
2. has general competence to undertake whatever measures it sees
fit for the benefit of all those within its area, including the making
of bye-laws …

However, they generally agree on the use of the legal shall not for
expressing prohibitions, with the negative particle usually brought to
focus at the beginning of the sentence (No …… shall). In a few cases, one
may find prohibitions performed by may not and lexicalization by be
prohibited. In neither of the two constitutions are there any traces of
lexicalizing prohibitions by the phrase It is not permissible to, which is
frequently used for coding prohibitions in the English translation of Oman
Constitution. This being the case, and in order to be more congruent with
English constitutional discourse, most of these cases can be rephrased
using more standard legal discourse in English. For example, (65) and
(66) below may be rewritten as (67) and (68) to conform to the norms of
English constitutional discourse:

65. It is not permissible for any authority or group to establish military

or paramilitary formations.
66. It is not permissible to detain or imprison in places other than those
designated for …
67. No authority or group shall/may establish military or paramilitary
formations.
68. No person shall/may be detained or imprisoned in places other than
those designated for …

One more key difference between American constitutional

discourse and British constitutional discourse relates to how rights are
conferred. While the former confers rights by empowering a party to act
in a certain way using the phrase shall have the power to consistently, the
latter usually entitles a party to act in a certain way by employing the
phrase have the right to. In terms of translation, the translator of Oman
Constitution adopts the British way while subtly distinguishing between

210
conferring rights to ordinary people and conferring rights to authority
people/bodies. In the former case, the phrase have the right to, e.g. in
citizens have the right to do something is used, while in the latter case
may is employed, e.g. His Majesty the Sultan may do something.
Apparently, translating the Oman Constitution was guided by British
rather American constitutional discourse as Oman was colonized by the
British and still has close ties with the UK.

5. Concluding Remarks
The main objective of this paper has been to detect key modality features
of Arabic constitutional discourse by examining Oman Constitution as a
case study from a translational perspective. Several conclusions can be
drawn from this study:

1. Arabic constitutional discourse employs deontic modality to perform a

variety of functions, including imposing obligations, assigning
responsibility, prohibition, and conferring rights and permissions. It
utilizes a variety of modality markers to communicate these functions,
including both grammatical, e.g. the ‫ الم‬prefixed to a noun to confer rights
and lexical, e.g. the employment of the verb ‫ يجوز‬for expressing
prohibitions and permissions. Compared with English constitutional
discourse, which is largely grammaticalized through the use of the modal
auxiliaries shall and may for a variety of functions, Arabic deontic
modality is highly lexicalized.

2. Insofar as verb tense is concerned, the Arabic simple present emerges

to be the hallmark of deontic modality, marking both deontic-free verbs,
e.g. ‫‘ ينشر‬be published’ and ‫‘ تستمر‬continue’ and deontic-related verbs, e.g.
‫‘ يجوز‬be permissible’ and ‫‘ يُحظر‬be prohibited’. In terms of translation,
however, deontic modality expressed by deontic-free verbs lends itself to
translating into the legal shall, while some cases of deontic modality
expressed by deontic-related verbs may be lexicalized in British
constitutional discourse, e.g. have the right to and be prohibited. In
general, the commonality of using the simple present verb form for
expressing deontic modality is comparable to the use of the legal shall in
English.

3. The Arabic ‫ال‬-negated deontic verb ‫‘ يجوز‬be not permissible’ and its
positive counterpart ‫ يجوز‬emerge as the hallmark of expressing
prohibitions and conferring permissions, while the deontic ‫ الم‬prefixed to

211
the first noun in the utterance in question holds a similar status for
conferring rights. In terms of translation, the negated shall, particularly
the phrase No… shall in both American and British English seems to be
the most appropriate for expressing prohibitions despite the fact that the
translator in this case study mostly opts for the phrase it is not permissible
to which does not occur in American and British constitution. For
conferring rights, the modal auxiliary may, the verb to have, or the phrase
have the right to are the most used in British constitutional discourse,
while the phrase shall have the power to is consistently used in its
American counterpart.

4. Equational Arabic sentences, i.e. verbless sentences, prove to be an

important tool for expressing various deontic modality functions in
Arabic constitutional discourse. They usually feature deontic-derived
nouns such as ‫‘ واجب‬duty’ or a passive participle deontic form such as
‫‘ محظور‬prohibited. In addition to rendering them by the legal shall,
passive participles may lend themselves to lexicalization into passive
forms, ‘is protected’ and ‘is prohibited’ in British English.

5. Arabic constitutional discourse employs the simple past instead of the

simple present in the result clauses of conditional sentences as a
distancing procedure. Such conditional sentences represent real conditions
and correspond to type 1 English conditionals. In terms of translation, the
English legal shall is employed instead of the non-legal will in the result
clause of the conditional sentence.

6. For future research, it is suggested that more Arabic constitutions

should be examined in order to establish a more reliable standard profile
of the features used in this genre of Arabic legal discourse. This may also
lead to the establishment of a more standard profile of the translation
procedures adopted when dealing with this type of legal discourse. In
particular, consistency in terms of British vs. American constitutional
discourse may emerge as an important matter to consider in translating
Arabic constitutions into English.

212
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abdel-Fattah, M. (2005). On the Translation of Modals from
English into Arabic and Vice Versa: The Case of Deontic
Modality. Babel 51 (1): 31-48.
Abdel-Sabour, A. (1999). al-sadat: wahm al-tahaddi (trans. of
Frinklestone’s Anwar Sadat: Visionary Who Dared). Al-Dar Al-
‘alamiyyal Lilkutub wa Al-Nashr.
Abdullah, Raja. (2008). ‫هاري بوتر وحجرة األسرار‬. Cairo: Sharikat Nahdat Masr
li-Tibaa'ah wa-Nashr.
Adams, R. M. (1973). Proteus, His Lies, His Truth: Discussions of
Literary Translation. New York: Norton.
Al-Ashoor, A. 2009. "The Translation of Modality from English into
Arabic. Tikrit University Journal for Humanities 16 (5): 50-70.
Al-Bustani, H. (2010). )2009 ‫عاملكة المنكزل (ترجمكة روايكة ككاترين سكتوكيت‬. Beirut:
Al-Daar al-Arabiyya lil-'iluum.
Al-Askari, A. (verified by Qamiha Mufeed, 1989). kitaab as-sinaa‘atayn
[The book of the two crafts]. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-cilmiyya.
Al-Batal, M. (1985). The Cohesive Role of Connectives in a Modern
Expository Arabic Text. Unpblished PhD Dissertation, University
of Michigan.
Al-Ghazali, M. (2013). Translation Assessment of Arabic Implicit
Negation into English. International Journal of English
Linguistics 3(2): 129-144.
Ali, A. Y. (1934). The Meaning of the Glorious Quran. Vol. 1, Beirut ans
Cairo: Dar Al-Kitab al-Lubnani wa Dar Al-Kitab Al-Masri.

213
Al-Khafaji, R. (1996). Arabic translation Alternatives for the Passive
in English. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics (31): 19-
37.
Al-Jabr, A. (1987). Cohesion in Text Differentiation: A Study of English
and Arabic. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Aston,
Birmingham.
Al-Jatlawi, A. (1998). qadaaya-l-luγah fii kutub-il-tafsiir [Language
issues in books of interpretation]. Tunisia: Faculty of arts (Sousah)
and Mohammad Al-Hami’s Publishing House.
Al-Jubouri, A. (1983). The Role of Repetition in Arabic Argumentative
Discourse. In J. Swales and H. Mustafa (eds.), English for Specific
Purposesin the Arab World, pp. 99-117. Birmingham: University
of Aston Language Studies Unit.
AlKhafaJi, R. (2011). Essays in Arabic Text Linguistics and Translation
Studies. Amman: Amwaj for Publication and Distribution.
Allan, K. & Burridge, K. (1991). Language used as a shield and weapon.
New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Al-Makhzumi, M. (2005). Arabic Grammar: A Critical Account.
Baghdad: Cultural Affairs House for publication.
Al-Manna’, A. & Al-Rubai’i, A. (2009). Translating Arabic Literature: A
Bilingual Reader. London: Sayyab Books.
Al-Mansouri, A. (2002). ad-dalaalah az-zamaniyyah fi-l-jummlati al-
ʻarabiyyah (The Semantics of Tense in the Arabic Sentence).
Amman: ad-daar al-ʻilmiyyah ad-dwaliyyah & daar aθ-
θaqaafah li-n-našri wa-t-tawziiʻ.

214
Almazan Garcia, Eva M. (2002). Intertextuality and Translation: A
Relevance-theoretic Approach. Unpublished M. Phil. Thesis,
University of Salford.
Al-Qinai, Jamal. (2008). On Translating Modals. Translation and
Interpreting Studies 3 (1&2): 30-67.

Al-Ramili, M. (1997). ‫( البحث عن قلب حي‬Search for a Live Heart):

Collection of Short Stories. Madrid.
AlSalem, E. (2012). Negation in Standard Arabic and Kuwaiti Arabic.
Unpublished MA thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, USA.
Al-Shamali, M. (1992). Managing in Translating Journalistic Texts into
Arabic. Unpublished MA Thesis, Yarmouk University, Jordan.
Al-Udhari, A. (translation). (1984). Victims of a Map. London: The
Thedford Press.
Aluub, A. (2009). ‫هاري بوتر واألمّي اهلجني‬. Cairo: Sharikat Nahdat Masr li-
Tibaa'ah wa-Nashr.

Anderson, R., Reynolds, R. Schallert, D. and Goets E. (1977).

Frameworks for Comprehending Discourse.American
Research Journal 14(4):367-381.
Anees, I. (1975). From the secrets of the language. Cairo: Anglo
Egyptian Library.
Apostolatu, R. and Apostolatu, I. (2012). Linguistic and Cultural Issues in
Translating Negation in Literary Texts: A Case Study, Mourning
Becomes Electra, by Eugene O'Neill. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 63: 63-68.
Arberry, A. J. (1980). The Koran Interpreted. London: George Allen &
Unwin.

215
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & winston.
Aziz, Y. (1999). Cross-Cultural Translation and Ideological Shifts.
International Journal of Translation 2(1-2):29-84.
Babloul, M. (2016). The Particle Qad in Arabic: Is it a Syntactic Filler?
Brill's Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 8:
261-285.
Badran, D. (2001). Modality and Ideology in Translated political Texts.
Nottingham Linguistic Circular 16:47-61.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation.
London/New York: Routledge.
Baker, M. (2006). Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account.
London and New York: Routledge.
Baseel, I. (2015). Ma tukhabbi’uhu lana annujuum (trans. of The Fault in
our Stars). Beirut: Publications Company for Distribution and
Publishing.
Bassnett, S. (1996). The Meek or the Mighty: Reappraising the Role of
the Translator. In R. Alvarez and M. Vidal (eds.), Translation,
Power, Subversion. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 10-24.
Beaugrande, R. de & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text
Linguistics. London: Longman.
Behl, A. (2002). Premodern Negotiations: Translating between Persian
and Hindavi. In Rukmini Bhaya Nair (ed.), Translation, Text and
Theory: The Paradigm of India. New Delhi: Sage Publications,
89-100.
Bell, R. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice.
London/New York: Longman.

216
Berofsky, B. (1971). Determinism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bhatia, V. (1983). An Applied Discourse Analysis of English Legislative
Writing. University of Aston, Birmingham.
Block, E. (1992). See How They Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1
and L2 Readers. TESOL Quarterly 26(2):319-343.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986/2004). Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in
Translation. In L. Venuti, (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader,
pp. 290–305. London/New York: Routledge.
Bolinger, D. (1966). Transformulation: Structural Translation. Ada Li.'
guistica Ilafniensia IX: 130-144.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burkhanov, I. (2003). Translation: Theoretical Prerequisites.
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego Rzeszow.
Calderbank, T. (1990). Translation Strategies from an Arabic Political
Argumentative Text. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of
Salford.
Carrel, P. (1983). Three Components of Background Knowledge in
Reading Comprehension. Language Learning 33(2): 183-207.
Carrel, P. (1987). Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading. TESOL
Quarterly 21(3): 461- 482.
Casagrande, J. (1954). The Ends of Translation. International Journal of
American Linguistics 20:335-340.
Casanave, C. (1988). Comprehension Monitoring in ESL Reading: A
Neglected Essential. TESOL Quarterly 22:283-302.

217
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in
Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. (2005). Consilience in Translation Studies. Revista
Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 51: 19-32.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
Chmosky, N; (1977). On Wh-movement. In Culicover, PM., et al (eds.)
Formal Syntax. Academic Press. pp. 71 - 132.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and
Use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. and Vltchek, A. (2013). On Western Terrorism: From
Hiroshima to Drone Warfare. London: Pluto Press.
Clark, H. (1976). Semantics and Comprehension. The Hague: Mouton.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London:
Croom Helm.
Cohen, D. (1994). Assessing Language Ability in the Clasroom (2nd ed.).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Collins Concise Dictionary. (1995). London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English Style. London:
Longman.
Cumingham, D. & Browning, B. (2004). The Emergence of Worthy
Targets: Official Claims and Deviance Narratives within the FBI.
Sociological Forum 19(3):347-369.
Dagut, M. (1981). Semantic ‘Voids’ as a Problem in the Translation
Process. Poetics Today 2(4):61-71.
Dahl, O. (1979). Typology of Sentence Negation. Linguistics 17: 79-106.

218
Dahl, O. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Danet, Brenda (ed.). (1984). Studies of Legal Discourse. Text 4 (1-3).
[special issue]
Danet, B. (1985). Legal Discourse. In T. A. Van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. Londn: Academic Press, pp. 273-291.
Day, R. R. & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second
Language Classroom. Camridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Waard, J. & Nida, E. (1986). From one Language to Another:
functional equivalence in Bible Translating Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Declreck, R. (2008). A Grammar of the English Verb System. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dendane, Z. & Dendane, A. (2012). The Negation in Arabic: An Issue for
Translation. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235985429
Di Pietro, R. (1971). Language Structures in Contrast. Newbury House,
Rowley, Mass.
Dickins, J., Hervey, S. & Higgins, I. (2002). Thinking Arabic Translation.
London/New York: Routledge.
Dijk, T. Van (1972). Some Aspects of Text Grammars: A Study of
Theoretical Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague: Mouton.
Dijk, T. Van. (1978). The Structures and Functions of Discourse:
Interdisciplinary Introduction into Textlinguistics and Discourse
Studies. Puerto Rico Lectures [1,6,2].
Dijk, T. Van. (1980). Macrostructures: an Interdisciplinary Study of
Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. NJ:
Erlbaum.

219
Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systematic Functional Linguistics.
London/New York: Continuum.
Eisele, J. (1990) . Time Reerence, Tense and Formal Aspect in Cairene
Arabic. In Mushira Eid (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics I,
pp. 173-212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
El-Hassan, Shahir. (1990). Expressing Modality in English and Standard
Arabic. Journal King of Saud University 2 (2): 149-166.
El-Farahaty, Hanem. (2015). Arabic-English-Arabic Legal Translation.
Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Emery, Peter. (1989). Legal Arabic Texts: Implications for Translation.
Babel 35(1): 1-11.
Fairclough, N. (1996). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fandi, W. (2005). Translation as Ideology: A Case Study of
Arabic-English Texts. Unpublished MA Thesis, Yarmouk
Universit, Jordan.
Fareh, S. (1988). Paragraph Structure in Arabic and English Expository
Discourse. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Kansas.
Farghal, M. (1986). The Syntax of Wh-questions and Related Matters in
Arabic. Ph. D. Dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana.
Farghal, M. (1991). Evaluativeness Parameter and the Translator from
English into Arabic and Vice-versa. Babel 37 (3): 138-151.
Farghal, M. (1992). Colloquial Jordanian Arabic Tautologies. Journal of
Pragmatics 17(3): 223-240.
Farghal, M. (1994). Ideational Equivalence in Translation. In Beaugrande,
Robert de, Shunnaq, A. and Heliel, M. (eds.) Language,
Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55-63.

220
Farghal, M. (1995a). Euphemism in Arabic: A Gricean Interpretation.
Anthropological linguistics 37(3):366-378.
Farghal, M. (1995b). Dysphemism in Jordanian Arabic". (1995).
Zeitschrift fur Arabische Linguistik 30: 50-61.
Farghal, M. (1995c). Jordanian Proverbs: An Ethnographic and
Translational Perspective. SENDEBAR 6: 197-208.
Farghal, M. (1999). Failing the Discourse in Translation: A Schematic
Perspective. International Journal of Translation 1 and 2: 85-102.
Farghal, M. (2002). Situational and Discoursal Social Honorifics in
Jordan. International journal of the sociology of language 158:
163-181.
Farghal, M. (2012). Advanced Issues in Arabic-English Translation
Studies. Academic Publication Council, Kuwait University,
Kuwait.
Farghal, M. & Al-Khatib, M. (2001). Jordanian College Students’
responses to Compliments: A Pilot Study. Journal of Pragmatics
33:1485-1502.
Farghal, M. & Haggan, M. (2006). Compliment Behaviour in Bilingual
Kuwaiti College Students. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 9 (1), 94-118.
Farghal, M. & Al-Manna, A. (2015). Contextualizing Translation
Theories: Aspects of Arabic-English Interlingual Communication.
London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Farghal, M. et al. (2015). Papers in Arabic-English Translation Studies 1.
Jordanian Translators Association's Publications.
Farghal, M. et al. (2017). Papers in Arabic-English Translation Studies 2.
Amman: Fadaat for Publishing and Distribution.

221
Farghal, M. & Shunnaq, A. (2011). Translation with Reference to Arabic
and English: A Practical Guide. Irbid: Dar Al-Hilal Publications.
Fayyad, S. (1997). Azminat Al-Fi’l Al-Arabi Al-Nahwiyyah: Arba’ata
Ashara Zamanan (Grammatical Tenses of the Arabic Verb:
Fourteen Tenses). Beirut: Dar Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arabi.
Fillmore, C. (1968). The Case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.)
Universals in Linguistics Theory. New York: Holt, Rine hart
& Winston. pp. 188.
Fitzgerald, E. (1902). Letter to E. B. Crowell. In The Variorum and
Definitive Edition of the Poetical and Prose Writings, Vol. 6. New
York: Doubleday.
Fleischman, S. (1990). Tense and Narrativity: Teacher’s book.
Cambridge: Longman for the British Council.
Frinklestone, J. (1996). Anwar Sadat: Visionary Who Dared. London and
Portland OR: Frank Cass.
Gadalla, H. (2006a). Arabic Imperfect Verbs in Translation: A Corpus
Study of English Renderings. Meta 51:1. 51-71.
Gadalla, H. (2006b). Translating English Perfect Tenses into Arabic: A
Comparative Study of Two Translations of Pearl Buck’s Novel
The Good Earth. Babel 52: 3. 243-261.
Georges, A. (2015). al-Mustaqbal (trans. of The Future). Kuwait: Kuwait
Council for Culture, Arts and Literature.
Ghazali, S. (2007). Corpus-based Linguistic Analysis: Testing Intuitions
about Function and Use. In A. Benmamoun (ed.), Perspectives
on Arabic Linguistics, vol. XIX, pp. 37-61. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

222
Giora, R. (1985). A Text-based Analysis of Non-narrative Texts.
Theoretical Linguistics 12(2/3):115-135.
Goodrich, P. (1990). Legal Discourse: Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric
and Legal Analysis. London: MacMilan.
Gore, Al. (2013). The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change. New York:
Random House.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current Developments in Second Language Reading
Research. TESOL Quarterly 25(3):375-406.
Green, G. (1973). The Honorary Consul (Translated into Arabic Al-
Qunsul Al-Fakhri by Ata Abdel-Wahhab, 1986). New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Green, J. (2012). The Fault in our Stars. New York: Dutton Books.
Grice, H. Paul. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry
L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic
Press.
Gisborne, Nikolas. (2007). "Dynamic Modality". SKASE Journal of
Theoretical Linguistics 4: 44-61 Available at
http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL09/pdf_doc/4.pdf
Goodrich, Peter. (1990). Legal Discourse: Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric
and Legal Analysis. London: MacMillan.
Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gutt, E. A. (1996). Implicit Information in Literary Translation: A
Relevance-Theoretic Perspective. Target 8(2):239-256.
Hall. M. F. (2008). Discourse Analysis of Fictional Dialogue in Arabic to
English Translation. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of
London.

223
Halliday, M. (1970). Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from
a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English. Foundation
of Language 6 (3): 322-361.

Halliday, M. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward

Arnold.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Harris, T. (1975). Black Sunday. New York: Bantam Books.
Harvey, M. (2002). What's so Special about Legal Translation? Meta 47
(2): 177-185.
Hassan, M. (1990). A Contrastive Study of Tense and Aspect in English
and Arabic with Special Reference to Translation. PhD
dissertation, The University of Bath, UK.
Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory
and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter
Press.
Hatim, B, Abdulla Shunnaq and Ron Buckley. (1995). The Legal
Translator at Work: A Practical Guide to Arabic-English Legal
Translation. Irbid: Dar Al-Hilal for Translation.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator.
London/New York: Longman.
Hickey, L. (2003). The Reader as Translation Assesser. Studies in
Translation 1(1):59-92.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hönig, H. G. (1998). Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist
Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment. In C. Schäffner

224
 (ed.), Translation and Quality. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters,
6-34.
Horn, L. (2001). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Horn, L. and Kato, Y. (2000). Introduction: Negation and Polarity at the
Millennium. In Horn and Kato (eds.), Studies in Negation and
Polarity, pp. 1-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality assessment. Tubigen
Gunter Narr, Verlag.
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited.
Tubingen: Narr.
Huddeleston, Rodney D. and Geoffery R. Pullum, G. 2002. The
Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Idaarat al-Nashr wal-Taramah. (2008). ‫هاري بوتر ومجاعة العنقاء‬. Cairo: Sharikat
Nahdat Masr li-Tibaa'ah wa-Nashr.

Ivir, V. (1991). Procedures and Strategies for the Translation of Culture.

International Journal of Translation 3:48-60.
Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In Brower, R.
(ed.) On Translation. Harvard University Press. pp. 232-239.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Longman: London.
Jarvie, G. (1993). Grammar guide: The way the English language works.
Edinb: Bloomburg Publishing LU.
Johnstone, B. (1991). Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

225
Kachru, Y. (1982). Toward Defining the Notion 'Equivalence' in Contrastive
Analysis. TESL 5, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. pp.
82-98.

Kalhrel, P. (1996). Aspects of Negation. Amsterdam: University of

Amsterdam dissertation.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education.
Language Learning, Vol. 16 (1+2), pp. 1-20.
Kellerman, E. (1979). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a
source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers in
Billingualism 15: 37-57.
Kerstens, J. Ruys, E. & Zwarts J. (eds.). (1996/2001). Lexicon of
Linguistics. Utrecht institute of Linguistics, OTS, Utrecht
University, Netherlands.
Khan, M. & Hillali, T. (1999). The Noble Qur’an: Interpretation of the
Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language. Saudi
Arabia: Darussalan publishers and Distributors.
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In The Structure of Language, J.
Katz and J. Fodor, pp. 246-323. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Koller, W. (1979/1989). Equivalence in Translation Theor", translated
from German by A. Chesterman. In Readings in Translation
Theory, A. Chesterman (ed.), pp. 99-104. Helsinki:Finn
Lectura.
Kreidler, Charles W. 2014. Introducing English Semantics. Abingdon:
Routledge.

226
Krzeszowski, T. (1971). Equivalence, Congruence and Deep Structure. In
Nickel, 0.(ed.) Papers is Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge
University Press. pp. 37-48.
Longman Dictionary of American English. 2008. Essex: Longman.

Lacey, A. R. (1986). A Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). London:

Routledge.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-
Language Equivalence. Larham: University Press of America.
Le Gassick, T. (1975). Midaq Alley (An English translation of Najib
Mahfouz’s novel ziqaq al-madaq, 1912). London: Educational
International.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: longman.
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of
Literary Frame. London and New York: Routledge.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley.
Li, D. (2017). Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, Literacies and
Identities. Switzerland: Springer.
Lotfipour Saedi, K. (1990). Discourse Analysis and the problem of
Translation Equivalence. META XXXV (2): 289-297.

Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mahfuz, N. (1959). Awlad Haritna. Beirut: Dar Al-Adab.

Mahmoud, Sahar. (2008). ‫هاري بوتر وحجر الفيلسوف‬. Cairo: Sharikat Nahdat
Masr li-Tibaa'ah wa-Nashr.

227
Mansour, A. (2011). Difficulties in Translation of the English Present
Perfect Simple and the Past Perfect Simple into Arabic and Some
Suggested Solutions. Iraq, University of Anbar.
Mason, I. (1994). Discourse, Ideology and Translation. In R, Beaugrande
de, et al. (eds.), Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle
East. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matlub, A. (1996). Mu‘jam al-must haat al-balaaγiyyah wa
tatawurahaa [A dictionary of rhetorical terms and their
development]. Beirut: Lebanon Library Publishers.
McNell, J. D. (1992). Reading Comprehension New Directions for
Classroom Practice (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: University of
California.
Meyer, B. & Rice, G. (1982). The Interaction of Reader Strategies and the
Organization of Text. Text 2(1-2):155-192.
Michaelis, L. (2006). Time and Tense. In B. Aarts and A. McMahon
(eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics, pp. 1-23. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Mirza, F. (2016). An Arabic Translation of “On Western Terrorism:
From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare” by Noam Chomsky and
Andre Vltchek with an English Introduction. Unpublished MA
Thesis, Kuwait University.
Mishal, H. (1984). al-’aћad al-’aswad : tasawwur ’amriikii sahyuunii li-l-
‘amal al-fidaa’ii al-filistiinii. Amman: Al-Jaleel Publishing
House. (Translation of Black Sunday).
Mohammad, A. (2008). ‫هاري بوتر وسجني أزكاابن‬. Cairo: Sharikat Nahdat Masr
li-Tibaa'ah wa-Nashr.

228
Muhawi, I. (2007). Toward a Folkloristic Theory of Translation. In Theo
Hermans (ed.), Translating Others. Manchester: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Munday, J. (2012). Introduction to Translation Studies. London and New
York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and
Applications. Londan and New York: Routledge.
Munif, A. (1992). Mudin-il-malh: taqaasiim-il-layl wan-n-nahaar (Cities
of Salt; Variations on Day and Night). Beirut: Arab Corporation
for Studies and Publishing.
Muslah, A. (2015). Implicit Negation in Selected Romantic Poems in
English and Arabic: A Contrastive Study. Al-Bahith Journal
14(7): 366-382.
Nahr, H. (2004). Linguistic Structures. Amman: Alyazori Academic
House for Publication and Distribution.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York:
Pergamon.
Newmark, P. (1982). The Translation of Authoritative Statements. META
27(4).
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. (1977). The Nature of Dynamic Equivalence in Translating . Babel
XXIII: 99-103.
Nida, E. (1964a). Science of Translation. Language 45: 483-498.
Nida, E. (1964b). Toward a Science of Translating: With Special
Reference to Principles and Procedures in Bible Translating.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.

229
Nida, E. & Taber, C. (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nist, S. L. & Holsschuh, J. (2000). Active Learning Strategies for College
Success. Boston: Alyn & Bacon.
Nord, C. (1988/2005). Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodolgy
and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-oriented
Text Analysis. Translated from German by C. Nord and P.
Sparrow. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Nord, C. (2003). Function and Loyalty in Bible Translation. In M.
Calzada-Perez (ed.), Apropos of Ideology. Manchester: St. Jerome
Publishing, 89-112.
Nourddine, L. (1980). al-fiʻlu wa-z-zamanu (The Verb and Tense). Beirut:
al-mu'assah al-jaamiʻiyati li-d-diraasaati wa-n-na šri wa-t-tawziiʻ.
Nuttal, C. (2000). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language.
Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Nuyts, Jan. (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language and
Conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J., Pieter Byloo and Janneke Diepeveen. (2005). On Deontic
Modality, Directivity, and Mood: A Case Study of Dutch mogen
and moeten. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 110: 1-56.
Obeidat, H. and Farghal, M. (1994). On the Status of the Equational
Sentence in the Grammar of Arabic. ABHATH AL-YARMOUK 12
(2): 9-35.
Obeidat, M. (2014). A Linguistic Approach to Translating the English
Past Aspect into Arabic. English Language and Literature Studies
4(1): 62-68.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2002). Oxford: Oxford

230
 University Press.
Pajares, E. & Romero, F. (1997). Translating and the Reading Process.
Babel 43(4):289-302.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Payne, J. (1985). Negation: Language Typology and Syntactic
Description. In Clause Structure (vol. 1), T. Shopen (ed.), pp.
197-242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perez, M. C. (1993). Trusting the Translator. Babel 39:158-174.
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London:
Frances Pinter.

Pickthall, M. (1980). The Glorious Koran. London: George Allen &

Unwin.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammer of
Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985), A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:
Longman.
Radwan, R. (1975). A Semantico-Syntactic Study of the Verbal Piece in
Colloquial Egyptian Arabic. PhD Dissertation, University of
London.
Reiss, K. (1977/1989). Text Types, Translation Types and Translation
Assessment. Translated from German by A. Chesterman (ed.),
Readings in Translation Theory, 105-115. Helsinki: Finn
Lectura.
Renkema, J. (1993/2004). Discourse Studies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
231
Reynolds, R., Taylor, M. Steffensen, Shirey, M. L. & Anderson R.
(1982). Cultural Schemata and Reading Comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly 17(3):353-365.
Rowling, J.K. (n.d.). Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Retrieved
from:
http://www2.sdfi.edu.cn/netclass/jiaoan/englit/download/Harry%2
0Potter%20and%20the %20Sorcerer's%20Stone.pdf
Rowling. J.K. (1999). Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. New
York: Scholastic Press. Retrieved from:
http://harrypotter.scholastic.com/excerpts/HP_Book2_Chapter_Ex
cerpt.pdf
Rowling. J.K. (1999). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. New
York: Scholastic Press. Retrieved from:
http://harrypotter.scholastic.com/excerpts/HP_Book3_Chapter_Ex
cerpt.pdf
Rowling, J.K. (2003). Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix. New York:
Scholastic Press. Retrieved from
http://english4success.ru/Upload/books/1418.pdf
Rowling, J.K. (2005). Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. New
York: Scholastic Press. Retrieved from:
http://d2.d.yun.hjfile.cn/files/201405/%E6%B2%AA%E6%B1%9
F%E8%82%B2%E5%84%BF%E7%BD%91_J.K._Rowling_-
_HP_6__Harry_Potter_and_the_HalfBlood_Prince_20140530113
504270_802.pdf?_upd=true
Rumelhart, D. & Ortony, A. (1977). The Representation of Knowledge in
Memory. In: Anderson, et al. (eds.). Schooling and the
Acquisition of Knowledge. NJ: Erlbaum. 99- 135.

232
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition. In:
R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer (eds.), Theoretical Issues in
Reading Comprehension, 33-58. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. (1984). Understanding Understanding. In: J. Flood (ed.),
Understanding Reading Comprehension, 1-20. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Ryding, C. (2005). A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Schäffner, C. (1998). Skopos Theory. In M. Baker (ed.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 235-
238.
Schäffner, C. (2003). Third Ways and New Centres: Ideological Unity or
Difference? In M. Calzada-Pérez (ed.), Apropos of Ideology.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 23-42.
Schank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and
Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Ealbaum.
Shakir, A. & Farghal, M. (1991). The Activation of Schemata in Relation
to Background Knowledge and Markedness. Text 11(2):201-221.
Shamma, N. (1978). A Linguistic Analysis of some Problems of Arabic to
English Translation. PhD Dissertation, Linacre College, Oxford.
Shunnaq, A. (1994). ‘Monitoring’ and ‘Managing’ in Radio News
Reports. In R. Beaugrande de, et al. (9eds.), Language, Discourse
and Translation in the West and Middle East. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 103-114.
Shiflett, Marcela M. (2012). Functional Equivalence and its Role in
Legal Translation. Retrieved from

233
 https://www.google.com.kw/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Up7_WOO_CePu8A
foo7_oBw&gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=marcella+shiflett+functional
+equivalence
Sinclair, J. (1987). ‘Collocation: A Progress Report’. In: R. Steele and T.
Threadgold (eds.), Language Topics: Essays in Honour of
Michael Halliday, vol. 3, pp. 319-331. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1993). Relevance: Communication
andCognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steffensen, M., Joag-dev, C. and Anderson, R. (1979). A Cross-cultural
Perspective on Reading Comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly 15(1):10-29.
Steffensen, M. and Joag-dev, C. (1985). In: J. Alderson and A. Urquhart
(eds.), Cultural Knowledge and Reading, 48-61. London:
Longman.
Stewart, P. (1981). Children of Gebelawi (translation of Mahfuz's Awlad
Haritna). London: Heinemann.
Stillar, G. R. (1998). Analysing Everyday Texts: Discourse, Rhetoric and
Social Perspectives. Thousand Oaks/London/New York/New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
Stipp, D. (2012). Quiet Little Traitors. Scientific American 307: 68-73
(translated into Arabic as ‫خونة نوعا ما‬. Majallat Al-Oloom
(2013/29), Kuwait.
Stockett, K. (2009). The Help. London: The Penguin.
Strawson, G. (1986). Freedom and Belief. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

234
Tahir-Gűrçağlar, S. (2003). The Translation Bureau Revisited:
Translation as Symbol. In M. Calzada-Pérez, Apropos of Ideology.
Manchester: St. Jerome, 113-130.
Theroux, P. (1993). Cities of Salt: Variations on Night and Day (trans.) .
Beirut: Cape Cod Seriveners.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edition).
London: Arnold.
Titscher, S. Meyer, M. Wodak, R. & Velter, E. (2000). Methods of Text
and Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks/London/New York/New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies - and Beyond.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M. (2003). Ideology and the Position of the Translator: In
What sense is a Translator ‘in between’? In M. Calzada-Pérez,
Apropos of Ideology. Manchester: St. Jerome, 181- 202.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, Opinions and Ideologies. In C.
Schäffner and H. Kelly-Holmes (eds.), Discourse and Ideologies,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 7-37.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation.
London and New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. J. (1989/2004). Skopos and Commission in Translational
Action (A. Chesterman, Trans.). In L. Venuti (ed.), The
Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 227-238.
Vinay, J. & Darbelnet, J. (1958/1995). Comparative Stylistics of French
and English: A Methodology for Translation, translated and edited
by J. Sager and M. Hamel, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

235
 Benjamins. Original French (1958), Stylistique comparee du
francais et de l’anglais: Methode de traduction. Paris: Didier.
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wided, Boudemagh. (2010). Modality in English, French & Arabic
Biomedical Discourse: A Contrastive Study of Drug Information
Leaflets. MA Thesis: Mentouri University, Constantine, Algeria.
Wright, W. (1967). A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. (1985). The Study of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Zidan, A. & Zidan D. (1996). The Glorious Qur'an – Text and
Translation. Islamic Inc. Publishing and Distribution.
Zayed, S. H. (1984). A Pragmatic Approach to Modality and the Modals:
with Application to Literary Arabic. PhD diss., University of
Edinburgh, UK.

236
237
 238

View publication stats