Cumulative difference and catastrophic

change: the translation of Arabic a*. / ba'^da into

English^

James Dickins
Arabic Section, University of Salford

1. Dictionary definition of (jl) JU. / ba^da ('an)

The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modem Written Arabic (1974) provides the follow-
ing definitions (translation equivalents) for the Arabic forms AJU_ I ba'^da and jl j ^ I
bii'da an:

j ^ [bfl'tifl] (prep.) after; in addition to, besides; aside from ...

J\jju [ba'^da an] (conj.) after ...

The word jl / an is a complementizer; it occurs before a clause, and the entire jt /

flH-clause (i.e. ji / an plus subsequent clause) functions as a nominal. Thus, al-
though Wehr classifies jl J*. / ba'^da an as a conjunction, it is in fact further analys-
able into the preposition AJU I ba'da~ and the initial element of a foUowing (nomi-
nal) ji / (in-ciause.

2. Typology of connectors

In their book Cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan (1976) propose a general ty-
pology of connectors, involving four main categories: additive, adversative, caus-
al, and temporal. By connectors. Halliday and Hasan mean words and phrases, re-
gardless of their grammatical status, whose function is to provide linkage between
the information contained in one sentence and that contained in another. Typical-
ly connectors occur at the beginning of a sentence in English, and signal a connec-
tion with information provided in the previous sentence or, more generally, the
previous section of text.

1:3 (2005), 262-283. ISSN 0521-9744/B-issN 1569-9668

© F^d^ration des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of J*, into English 263

The following list (from Baker 1992:191) illustrates the application of Halliday and
Hasans categories to English.

a. additive: and, or, also, in addition, furthermore, hesides, similarly, like-

wise, by contrast, for instance
b. adversative: but, yet, however, instead, on the other hand, nevertheless, at
any rate, as a matter of fact^
c. causal: so, consequently, it follows, for, because, under the circum-
stances, for this reason
d. temporal: then, next, after that, on another occasion, in conclusion, an
hour later, finally, at last

Additive connectors are thus those connectors which add further information
without any contrast. Adversative connectors express contrast of some kind. Caus-
al connectors express causality (and associated notions). Temporal connectors ex-
press a time relationship.

For current purposes, we can extend Halliday and Hasan's framework to include
as connectors those forms, such as j.>y I ha'^da and jl x^ / ba'^da 'an, which provide
linkage within a sentence as well as forms which provide linkage between sentenc-
es.

In terms of Halliday and Hasan's typology, and given its dictionary definition, o-j /
ba'^da should be a temporal preposition, and jl OA. / ba^da 'an should be a temporal
conjunction. One would expect little problem in most contexts in translating j^_ /
ba'^da and jl -Ou / ha'^da 'an as "after", or "following", or a near-synonym.

In some cases, this prediction seems to be validated. Consider the following pas-
sage from sjjLJl «^x. ^ J ^ J L _ J I jly->i / al-ixwaan al-muslimuun '^ala madbah al-
munaawara ("The Muslim Brothers on the Altar of Manoeuvre"), a polemical
work directed against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and written by an Egyp-
tian communist called ^^J-L^I J^L*.-! JJU» / taariq ismaa^iil al-mahdawi (1986:23;
a number of linguistic aspects of this are discussed in Calderbank 1990). It concems
the supposedly highly autocratic leadership style of the LJl ^j~^ I hasan al-bannaa,
whose name is normally rendered in English as Hasan El Banna. El Banna found-
ed the Muslim Brotherhood in Ismailiyya in 1928, and was the organisation's first
leader. The passage focuses in particular on the demand of UJI / aUbannaa that his
followers should display absolute obedience. Key elements in terms of the current
paper are picked out in braces (i.e. {}, and also known as curly brackets), and these
and associated specifically relevant sections of text are also picked out by an over-
264 lames Dickins

bar in Arabic STs and underlining in English TTs.*" Readers not familiar with Ara-
bic text should bear in mind that it reads from right to left. This is the direction in
which overbars should be read when they extend from one line to a new one.
STl

The following is a fairly literal translation of this passage. I have added with this
translation a transcription ofthe key Arabic phrases in terms of this paper.
TT la: Fairly literal TT
And since the strong by their nature did not accept blind ohedience to the General
Guide, the Sheikh Hasan El Banna, indeed and undertook to monitor him in what
he thought of matters, he stuck on them the description of wickedness, indeed and
made to expel them from the Society {so that bi'-Ziayf} there remained around him
only the Brothers who because ofthe extremity of their weakness were not able
to disagree with the Imam, {the matter which al-'amr atladi} made him describe
them as trustworthy!! And among these trustworthy, we find Salih Ashmawi, the
Deputy of the Society, who took over the leadership of the Society {after ba'^da}
the demise ofthe Imam El Banna for a period of three years, addressing Hasan EI
Banna saying, 'Among your rights against us are obedience, and complete trust,
and total confidence, and to this we have pledged our allegiance and committed
ourselves'. And among them also, we find Umar El Talmasani, a member of the
Guidance Council, who took over the leadership ofthe Society in the seventies {af-
ter ha'da) the death ofthe second Guide Hasan El Hudaibi, we find him describ-
ing the relationship ofthe Imam El Banna, through his words, "I used to see, and
hear, and think with the eyes and ears and the mind of his Excellency, the Teacher
Hasan El Banna {because of li-\ my total trust in the rightness of what he thought.
I was, with him, like the corpse in the hands of the corpse-washer, and I was en-
tirely happy with this. And among those wicked people we find Ahmad El Suk-
kari, the Deputy ofthe Society, who was expelled hy EI Banna in April 1947 {after
ba'da 'an] he said of him. And the brother, the Sheikh, has his special methods.
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of a* into English 265

and he looks on me as a brother and a colleague, and he only listens to me a little,

thus reliance on him is a risk*.

The following is a more idiomatic translation {cf. also the translation of Calder-
bank 1990: 53), again with key Arabic terms added in transliteration:

TT Ib: Idiomatic TT
Since the strong by their very nature did not accept blind obedience to the Su-
preme Guide, the venerable Hasan El Banna, and indeed, actively attempted to
question some of his judgements, he termed them 'malicious', and went so far as to
expel them from the Brotherhood. |As a result bi-hayt\ the only remaining mem-
bers of Et Banna's inner circle were those whose extreme weakness meant that they
were unable to oppose him. {These people al- amr alladi] he called "the trustwor-
thy". The trustworthy included Salih Ashmawi, the Deputy leader of the organisa-
tion, who assumed control for a period of three years (following ba'da] the death
of El Banna, and who said of El Banna, 'You have the right to our unquestioning
obedience, complete trust and total confidence. This is the oath which we have
taken and the pledge which we have made'. The trustworthy also included Umar
El Talmasani who was a member of the Guidance Council, and assumed the lead-
ership of the organisation in the 1970s {following ba'^da] the death of the second
Guide Hasan El Hudaibi, who said of his relationship with the El Banna, 'I used to
see and hear and think with the eyes and ears and mind of His Excellency Hasan
El Banna; {for li-} 1 had total confidence in the rightness of his opinions. My rela-
tionship to him was like that of a corpse in the hands on an undertaker, and I was
totally content with this state of affairs'. The malicious, on the other hand, includ-
ed Ahmad El Sukkari, the Deputy leader of the organisation, who was expelled by
El Banna in April 1947, {after ba'^da 'an} remarking, 'Our Brother, the Sheikh has
his own particular methods; although he regards me as a brother and a colleague,
he pays only scant attention to my opinions. It is therefore very risky to place any
trust in him'.

The Arabic original contains three occurrences of JJO / ba'^da, twice simply as JUJ /
ba'^da and once in the phrase ol JJO / ba^da 'an. These are translated, predictably
enough, as "following the death" (twice), and "after remarking".

There is, however, one other feature of ST 1, and the idiomatic English TT Ib which
is of relevance to subsequent discussion of-IAJ / ba'^da. This is illustrated by the fol-
lowing:

A. The Arabic section ( ^ j j j - i i V *4i*-' ^^ j * y.^^ '^'>*-^' L5>- *J>»- Sn (^ i'^'^r^.

^uy\ »> .J'iU>-Nl, (the first element with overbar in the Arabic ST), which can
be transliterated as {bi-hayt} lam yabqa hawla-hu siwa l-'ixwaan alladUna min
farti du^fi-him laayaqdaruun "^ala l-ixtilaafma'^a al-'imaam. This is translated
266 James Dickins

as the first underlined element in the English TTs. The fairly literal TT reads,
"{so that bi'hayt} there remained around him only the Brothers who because
of the extremity of their weakness were not able to disagree with the Imam".
Tlie idiomatic TT reads, "(As a result bi-hayt] tbe only remaining members of
El Banna's inner circle were those whose extreme weakness meant that they
were unable to oppose him".

B. The Arabic section !!^L.NL j^^i-a. ^ix*- iv^-Ul^Vl} {the second element
with overbar in the Arabic ST), which can be transliterated as {al-'amr allad
1} ja'^ala-hu yasifu-hum bi-l-amaana. This is translated as the second under-
lined element in the English TTs. The fairly literal TT reads, "(the matter which
al-amr alladi] made him describe them as trustworthy!!". The idiomatic TT
reads, "{These people al-amr alladi] he called 'the trustworthy'."
Note that i^-Ulj^Sl / al-amr alladi (literally "the matter which") introduces a
sentential relative clause in Arabic. Sentential relative clauses are relative claus-
es which refer back to the predicate or predication of a clause, a whole clause
or sentence, or even a series of sentences (Quirk et al. 1984; 1118). Anexamplein
English, in which the sentential relative clause refers back to a previous (main)
clause is "which surprises me" in "Things then improved, which surprises me"
(ibid.).

C. The Arabic section ^^_ u JS ^ l ^ ^ ^ ;iikJl ^ ^ { J } (the third element

with overbar in Arabic), which can be transliterated as fU-ftiqat-i l-mutlaqafi
sawaab kull maa yaraa. This is translated as the third underlined element in
the English TTs. The fairly literal TT la reads "(because of//-} my total trust in
the rightness of what he thought." The idiomatic TT Ib reads, "(for //-} I had
total confidence in the rightness of his opinions."

In cases A. and B. the English begins a new sentence where the Arabic has a sub-
ordinating conjunction, and in case C. the English begins a new clause (of a "semi-
sentential" nature) with a coordinating conjunction "for", where the Arabic has
the preposition ..J / //-. Part of the reason for this is that Arabic prefers a "period-
ic" style in argumentative writing in particular; thus, polemical material in Arabic
will tend to consist of longer sentences than similar writing in English. According-
ly, English translations of such material will tend to break up long Arabic sentenc-
es into shorter English ones.

There does, however, seem to be another more specific reason in at least in some
cases of this sort for English using a new sentence. This is what might be called in-
formational incongruity. I shall consider this in detail in Section 4. In order to un-
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of a*, into English 267

derstand the notion of informational incongruity, however, it is necessary to con-

sider first two sets of informational notions: theme and rheme, and foregrounding
and backgrounding.

3. Information structure: theme and rheme, foregrounding and

backgrounding

There are two rather different general ways in which the terms theme and rheme
have been interpreted in linguistics: that of Halliday, and that of what is known
as the Prague school {cf Baker 1992:119-179, especially 121). 1 adopt here what is
roughly the Prague-school view (cf. Firbas 1992), This states most basically that the
theme is that part of the sentence which conveys old (i.e. already known) informa-
tion, while the rheme is that part of the sentence which conveys new (i.e. not pre-
viously known) information. For current purposes theme can be more precisely
defined as that element in a sentence which presents information which is orient-
ed towards what is already known. Thus the theme may itself express information
which is not already known, or which is only partially known.
The rheme is associated with main sentence stress, which normally falls to-
wards the end of the sentence. The rheme thus also normally occurs towards the
end of the sentence, and the theme accordingly occurs towards the beginning of
the sentence. The normal order in the sentence is thus theme-rheme (theme fol-
lowed by rheme).
Although the rheme expresses new or unpredictable information, this does
not necessarily mean that it expresses information which is positively oriented to-
wards what will come next in the text. That is to say, it is possible for information
to be rhematic (new, unpredictable), but not to contribute further to the narrative
or argument as this is developed in subsequent parts of the text. This consideration
is important in considering the role of main and subordinate clauses, as shall be
seen.

Thematic and rhematic information contrast with what are sometimes known as
foreground and background information. In Tomlin's definition: "Foreground in-
formation is information which is more important, or significant, or central to the
narrative. Background information serves to elaborate or enrich foreground in-
formation" (Tomlin 1985:87). Foreground information is important for the subse-
quent development of the text, or, we may add, for providing closure to a text or a
section of text. Background information, by contrast, has only local significance.
Main clauses are typically said to present foreground intbrmation, while subordi-
nated elements (including subordinate clauses) are said to present background in-
formation.
268 James Dickins

In fact, as Sekine (1996) has shown, the situation is somewhat more complex than
this. For English at least, a distinction needs to be made in respect of foreground-
ing and backgrounding between two types of subordinate elements: adjuncts and
disjuncts. The difference between these is as follows. Adjuncts are closely bound
together with the main clause to which they are attached. Disjuncts, by contrast,
are more peripheral to the main clause. The distinction can be simply illustrated
by considering the subordinating conjunctions "because" and "since". "Because" is
an adjunct, while "since" is a disjunct. Quirk et al provide a number of tests which
demonstrate the close binding of adjuncts but not disjuncts to the main clause (cf.
Quirk et al. 1984:1070). Two of these tests will suffice here, based around the fol-
lowing examples:

1. He likes them because they are always helpful.

2. He likes them, since they are always helpful.

Test i: Only adjunct clauses can become the focus of a cleft sentence. Thus:

3. Its because they're always helpful that he likes them.

4. ""^It 5 since they're always helpful that he likes them.
Test ii\ Only adjunct clauses can be the response to a wh-question formed from
the main clause:

5. Why does he like them? Because they are always helpful.

6. "Why does he like them? Since they are always helpful.

Sekine (1996:78-93) considers adjunct and disjunct subordinate clauses in various

positions in the sentence. Here, we may summarise the relevant aspects of her find-
ings by saying that adjunct subordinate clauses in final-position in the sentence are
almost always backgrounded, while final disjunct subordinate clauses are normal-
ly foregrounded. Final position in the sentence correlates with rhematic status, i.e.
the bearing of new information. And it seems to be the combination of the disjunct
status with the bearing of new information which allows final disjuncts to be fore-
grounded; disjuncts in non-final position in the sentence are always background-
ed (cf. Sekine 1996:73).
"After", both as a preposition and a conjunction in English, is an adjunct.
Thus:

7. He talked to me after Johns departure.

8. It was after John's departure that he talked to me.

9. He talked to me after John left.

10. It was after John left that he talked to me.
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of a* into English 169

Accordingly, final after-clauses/phrases typically express new information (as

rhemes), and typically at least express background information.^
It is also important here to consider parenthetical clauses. These are clauses
which fall outside the main structure of the sentence, constituting additional in-
formation to that supplied in the main sentence. Non-restrictive relative clauses
are typically regarded as parenthetical (cf Burton-Roberts 1998).'' Sentential rela-
tive clauses (Section 2) are to be regarded as non-restrictive (Quirk et al. 1984:1120)
and therefore parenthetical. Semantically, all parenthetical clauses, including sen-
tential relative clauses, in Enghsh would appear to be backgrounded.

4. Informational incongruity in subordinate clause translation

Let us assume a basic division in semantics between (i) denotative meaning (Her-
vey and Higgins: 2002:132; Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002:52), also known as
literal, or cognitive, or propositional meaning (Baker 1992:13), and (ii) connotative
meaning (Hervey and Higgins 2002:147; Dickins, Hervey and Higgins 2002:66,
73-74), also known as expressive meaning (Baker 1992:13). In the case of denota-
tive meaning, a semantic "clash" produces a contradiction (e.g. "married bachelor",
"male spinster"). In the case of connotative meaning, a semantic "clash" produc-
es incongruity (e.g. "exquisite bog", to describe an elegantly designed toilet; here
there is a clash of tonal register; cf. Hervey and Higgins 2002:162). Informational
notions such as theme and rheme and backgrounding and foregrounding fall un-
der connotative meaning. Where theme/rheme or foregrounding/backgrounding
are employed in textually inappropriate ways we may refer to informational incon-
gruity.

in this light, consider again the first Arabic sentence of ST 1 again, followed by a
possible single-sentence English TT.
T 1 (first sentence only)

TT lc: Single-sentence TT
Since the strong by their very nature did not accept blind obedience to the Su-
preme Guide, the venerable Hasan El Banna, and indeed, actively attempted to
question some of his judgements, he termed them 'malicious', and went so far as
to expel them from the Brotherhood, (so that} the only remaining members of El
27O James Dickins

Banna's inner circle were those whose extreme weakness meant that they were un-
able to oppose him, {which} led him to call them the 'trustworthy'.

TT Ic seems odd, partly at least because it adopts a periodic style of a type which
is rather atypical of contemporary English; complex ideas are expressed in a sin-
gle sentence involving multiple subordination. In this respect, the issue is stylistic
rather than informational in nature.
TT Ic also seems, however, to suffer from a degree of informational incongru-
ity. This is partly a function of the final sentential relative clause "which led him to
call them the trustworthy". "So that the only remaining members [...] oppose him"
sounds less unacceptable in this context if the final "which led him to call them
the trustworthy'" is omitted. However, the informational incongruity seems also
to be partly a function of the clause "so that the only remaining members [...] op-
pose him" ; even if the final sentential relative clause ("which led him to call them
the trustworthy") is omitted, this clause still sounds rather odd.
In terms of the general principles outlined in Section 3, the element "so that
the only remaining members [...1 oppose him" looks as though it ought to be ac-
ceptable. "So that" introduces a result clause, and, as such, is a disjunct (Quirk et
al. 1984:1109); it occurs in final position (apart from the following sentential rela-
tive clause); andfinally,this element also introduces foreground information; the
text goes on to discuss these people under the category of "the trustworthy".

I believe that what gives the sense of informational incongruity in TT Ic is the

fact that thefinaldisjunct clause "so that the only remaining members (...] oppose
him", co-occurs with a long initial disjunct clause "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 judgements".
This initial disjunct clause is thematic with respect to the conjoined main clause
elements, and the information contained in the initial clause is accordingly back-
grounded. At the same time, the initial disjunct clause strongly foregrounds the
information presented in the conjoined main clause, "he termed them 'malicious',
and went so far as to expel them from the Brotherhood". This seems to render fur-
ther foregrounding in the final "so that the only remaining members [...] oppose
him" in the English TT Ic somewhat uncomfortable, although the corresponding
combination of structures in the Arabic ST seems perfectly acceptable.

In the case of the sentential relative clause "which led him to call them the 'trust-
worthy'" somewhat different, and more straightforward, considerations apply. As
a sentential relative, this clause should be backgrounded in English, and therefore
unimportant for the subsequent development of the argument. The text, howev-
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of J-- into English 271

er, continues i^\^\ J ^ j t^jUJU- ^ U j ^ *L.Nl ^N^* ^ j ^ j , (fairly literal TT, "And
among these trustworthy, we find Salih Ashmawi, the Deputy of the Society"),
which translates in the idiomatic TT as "The trustworthy included Salih Ashmawi,
the Deputy leader of the organisation". The information contained in the ST 1 sen-
tential relative clause, therefore, cannot reasonably be regarded as backgrounded,
i.e. as presenting information which is unimportant to the subsequent develop-
ment of the text. This is evident since the text immediately goes on to talk about Sa-
lih Ashmawi, specifically categorising him as among the weak and therefore trust-
worthy, i.e. defining him in terms of information which is derived from the two
previous subordinate clauses "{so that} the only remaining members of El Banna's
inner circle were those whose extreme weakness meant that they were unable to
oppose him" and "{which} led him to call them 'the trustworthy"'.

This same phenomenon is also illustrated earlier in the same book. As above, key
elements in terms of the current paper are picked out in curly brackets, and these
and associated specifically relevant sections of text are also picked out by an over-
bar. The Arabic reads as follows:
ST2

This can be translated fairly literally as follows:

TT 2a: Fairly literal TT

And if the Society of Mushm Brothers is considered an expression of specific class

interests, the organisational links which rule this society are the channel through
which is achieved the translation of class interests into political practices {the mat-
ter which al-'amr alladi} necessitates us studying the internal organisation of the
Society of the Muslim Brothers.

An attempted more idiomatic TT (cf also the translation in Calderbank 1990:52)

reads as follows:
TT 2b: Idiomatic TT
Since the Muslim Brotherhood is an expression of particular class interests, the or-
ganisational relations through which the Society is controlled constitute the chan-
nel through which these class interests are translated into political practice. {This
makes it} imperative to study the internal organisation of the Muslim Brother-
hood.
272 James Dickins

Here the phrase ^^^i\ _^Vl / al-amr alladi is translated as the new sentence begin-
ning "This makes it". A translation using a sentential relative clause, "which makes
it" would have sounded odd, at least partly because it would present the impor-
tant (foregrounded) statement that it is "imperative to study the internal organisa-
tion of the Muslim Brotherhood" as if it were relatively unimportant (and there-
fore background) information. In fact, the statement in Arabic ui* ^ ^ {^iJl _^Sl}
j-*L-JI j l ^ ) / l ;*U>J ^^l-AJl (vJi^l i-ij^- (fairly literal TT "(the matter which al-'amr
alla{i} necessitates us studying the internal organisation of the Society of the Mus-
lim Brothers" and its idiomatic TT equivalent "(This makes it} imperative to study
the internal organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood" only make sense if they are
foregrounded. The whole point of this and the subsequent part of the text is that it
is necessary to study the internal organisation of the Mushm Brotherhood.

These examples suggest that in some cases at least, Arabic allows foregrounded in-
formation to be presented in subordinate clauses, where English does not. Thus,
while it is acceptable to present the information given by i-.lji lU* _y>y^_ {^JJl ^Vl}
j - J u ^ l Oly-^l JPUJJ ^^IAJI (»Jiu]l (fairly literal TT "(the matter which al-amr al-
ladi) necessitates us studying the internal organisation of the Society of the Mushm
Brothers'; idiomatic TT "(This makes it} imperative to study the internal organisa-
tion of the Muslim Brotherhood") as a subordinate clause in Arabic, in English it
is necessary to accord this information a separate sentence.

5. Causal and adversative aspects of OA. / ba'^da

Turning now to j^f ba'^da, consider the following from a passage on music in Is-
lamic Spain in \^j^\ j ^ i iU« / majallat aS-sarq al-awsat ("The Middle East Mag-
azine"), Eeb. 3-9,1993, p. 18 (reproduced in Dickins and Watson 1999:320):
ST3

A fairly literal English translation of this is as follows:

TT 3a: Fairly literal TT

Then came Abd al-Rahman the Second, and/so he raised the value of musical en-
tertainment and music (after ba'^da 'an] he invited as a guest the most famous mu-
sician in the history of Arabic music. Ziryab, who was the first who dared to de-
velop Arabic music, amongst whose most important instruments was considered
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of-u, into English 273

the instrument ofthe Oud, and/so he undertook to add the fifth string to it in or-
der to develop the possibilities of its performance {after ba'^da an] this instrument
was confined to only four strings for long ages.
The following is an attempt at a more idiomatic English translation:
TT 3b: idiomaUc TT
He [Ahd al-Rahman the First! was followed by Abd al-Rahman the Second, who
further raised the status of music {by} hringing to his court the most famous mu-
sician in Arah history, Ziryab. Ziryab pioneered the development of Arabic music
by adding afifthstring to its most important instrument, the Oud, thereby greatly
increasing its potential musical range. For many generations {previously} the Oud
had heen limited to four strings only.

This example illustrates an interesting semantic property of o^y / ba'^da. At the start
of this paper, I suggested that AJU I ba'^da, like English "after" is a temporal prepo-
sition, and that jf xy / ba'^da 'an like English "after" is a temporal conjunction. In
this passage, however, the Arabic A*.} ^y^_yJ\j ^ ^ i <^ j ^ ^ji ^liJi j ^ ^ ^ i JUP »l>- »J
' vWji" *rij«Jl .jV-j*!! ^jlJ e** ^.^.y A^^ ^Ufli-l {ot (fairly literal TT "Then came Abd
al-Rahman the Second, and/so he raised the value of musical entertainment and
music {after ba'^da 'an] he invited as a guest the most famous musician in the his-
tory of Arabic music, Ziryab") translates fairly naturally into the English idiomatic
TT sentence "He (Abd al-Rahman the First] was followed by Abd al-Rahman the
Second, who further raised the status of music {by| bringing to his court the most
famous musician in Arab history, Ziryab." Compare this with the following pos-
sible translation:
TT3c
He [Abd al-Rahman the First] was followed by Abd al-Rahman the Second, who
further raised the status of music {after} bringing to his court the most famous
musician in Arab history, Ziryab.
This translation sounds distinctly odd. The reason seems to be that jl JJU / ba'^da 'an
here does not function as a simple temporal conjunction. Rather, it also has a caus-
al aspect. The English "after", by contrast, may not specifically rule out the possi-
bility of a causal relationship between the two events described, but unlike jl A-J /
ba'^da 'an, it does not normally specifically rule this possibility in. In order to ren-
der explicit the notion of causality (combined with temporality), it is necessary in
English to use another form, in this case "by ...ing".

The second example of j t ji*j / ba'^da 'an in this extract, O] ,_;-^UJl ^j^l iiU*^ ^Ui
i L ^ jj^ii jUjt <iuj\ ^ ^aja j-^j:i; ySl el* oJl^ {ot JJ^JI AJbt O..U151*] _j_jkJ (fairly literal T T
"and/so he undertook to add the fifth string to it in order to develop the possibili-
274 James Dickins

ties of its performance (after ba'^da 'an] this instrument was confined to only four
strings for long ages") involves a meaning for the phrase jl JJ^ / ba'^da 'an, which
is effectively the converse of its meaning in the first example. In this latter case JJ^
jl / ba'^da 'an is not temporal+causal in meaning. Rather, it is temporal+adversative.
The idiomatic TT reads: "Ziryab pioneered the development of Arabic music by
adding a fifth string to its most important instrument, the Oud, thereby greatly in-
creasing its potential musical range. For many generations [previously] the Oud
had been limited to four strings only."
This can be contrasted with a more literal—and less acceptable—English ren-
dering:
TT3d
Ziryab pioneered the development of Arabic music by adding a fifth string to its
most important instrument, the Oud, thereby greatly increasing its potential mu-
sical range, {after} the Oud had for many generations been limited to four strings
only.

Here, the use of "after" is unacceptable partly because it fails to relay the adversa-
tive element present in the Arabic jl J * / ba'^da 'an. However, it also seems that the
English structure suffers from informational incongruity. The element "the Oud
had for many generations been hmited to four strings only" is not in one sense im-
portant for the subsequent development of the text (the text does not go on to dis-
cuss in detail the nature of the Oud prior to Ziryab's innovations). However, this
element does seem to be important in giving closure to this small section of text.
The information here needs to be fairly foregrounded in order for it to provide an
acceptable "counterweight" in English to the previous discussion of Ziryab's inno-
vations. Such foregrounding cannot be achieved by the use of "after" in English; as
an adjunct, English "after" necessarily introduces background information.
This analysis is supported by the following—and still relatively unacceptable
—TT:
TT3e
Ziryab pioneered the development of Arabic music by adding a fifth string to its
most important instrument, the Oud, thereby greatly increasing its potential mu-
sical range, {whereas previously} the Oud had for many generations been limited
to four strings only.

Here the meaning of the Arabic jt -L*J / ba'^da 'an is in one sense adequately relayed;
the English form "whereas previously" is explicitly both adversative and temporal.
Unlike "after", "whereas" is also a disjunct, and accordingly should be able to relay
foreground information. However, the English TT still seems to suffer from infor-
mational incongruity. I believe there are a number of reasons for this.
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of jjy into English 275

Firstly, the English TT involves successive subordinate clauses; "by adding a fifth
string to its most important instrument", "thereby greatly increasing its potential
musical range", "whereas previously the Oud had for many generations been lim-
ited to four strings only". Such piling up of subordinate clauses in English seems
stylistically rather unacceptable, and also, I suspect, leads to the clauses towards
the end (such as "whereas previously [...] four strings only") being interpreted as
backgrounded, regardless of whether they are adjuncts or disjuncts.

Secondly, "whereas" is used rather anomalously in this context. "Whereas" in Eng-

hsh is normally used in contexts of double-contrast, most obviously where the sub-
ject of the whereas-dause parallels that of the main clause, and where the object,
or other verb-dependent element, of the w/iereas-clause parallels that of the main
clause. Quirk et al. describe "whereas" as requiring "antithesis between two situ-
ations" (Quirk et al. 1984:1099). The following is a good example (from Quirk et
rt/. 1984:1088):

11. Whereas the US has immense mineral wealth, Japan has comparatively little.

Contrastive "while" is often similarly used. Thus (from Quirk et al. 1984:1102):

12. Mr. Larson teaches physics, while Mr. Corby teaches chemistry.

Consider again the translation, "Ziryab pioneered the development of Arabic mu-
sic by adding a fifth string to its most important instrument, the Oud, thereby
greatly increasing its potential musical range, whereas previously the Oud had for
many generations been limited to four strings only." Here the contrast between the
clause beginning "whereas previously" and the previous main-clause based ele-
ments "Ziryab pioneered I...] musical range" is very different from that in examples
II and 12 above for at least two reasons. Firstly, the translation "Ziryab pioneered
[...] four strings only." involves only a single contrast, rather than a double-con-
trast; "the Oud" as the subject of the clause beginning "whereas previously", does
not contrast with the subject of the main clause "Ziryab". In fact, it does not even
contrast with a previous mention of a musical instrument anywhere in this sen-
tence, since the musical instrument in question is throughout the Oud. Second-
ly, and relatedly, the relationship between the main-clause based element "Ziryab
pioneered [...] musical range" and the "whereas previously [...] four strings only
clause" does not display any of the formal parallelism and rough equality of length
which is also a hallmark of whereas-dauses (and also contrastive w/»7e-clauses) in
relation to main clauses. This formal parallelism and rough equality of length of
clauses is clearly evident, e.g. in example 11 above (and similarly with respect to
contrastive "while" in example 12).
276 James Dickins

The idiomatic TT 3b presented above provides a solution to the problem of trans-

lating jl jju / ba'^da 'an here. The section beginning with ji ^ / ba'da 'an in the Ara-
bic ST is translated as a separate sentence in the English TT: "For many generations
previously the Oud had been limited to four strings only." This provides sufficient
foregrounding of the information to allow for proper closure to the discussion of
Ziryabs musical innovations; "previously" is included, in order to provide a strong
sense of temporal contrast; and the adversative element is adequately relayed in
English simply by juxtaposing this sentence with the previous one.

6. The translation of JUU / ha'^da in a catastrophic context

A final example brings together a number of problems involved in -u^ / ba'da 'an,
and demonstrates the need in certain cases to adopt fairly radical solutions. The
original Arabic text is a pubhsher s blurb for a book by ^ ^ l J.>LaJi / as-saadiq an-
nayhuum entitled'ojy^'^[Zi:j^ ... ^^ti\^j^ I 'sawt an-naas... mihnat taqaafa mu-
zawwara ("The voice of the people: the ordeal of a distorted culture"). The first two
paragraphs of the original are as follows:
ST4

This section of text can be translated fairly literally as follows:

TT 4a: Fairly literal TT

A book which calls for a return to the first roots of Islam as the Muslims un-
derstood them in the time of the Arabian prophet, and the Rightly Guided Caliphs
applied them after him, {after / ba'^da 'an} Western ideologies emptied Arabic cul-
ture of its basic content and denuded the Arabic language of its original purport.
The author asks in this book how we lost the overall environment, and how
Islam did not achieve its global mission at the hands of its jurisprudents, indeed
how it lost its battle, and capitalism appeared as an alternative global religion. And
the author discusses the difference between 'consultation' and democracy, that is
between the Western term/concept and the Islamic term/concept.

In this case, the meaning of jt JJU / ba'^da 'an is both temporal and causal: the rea-
son tliat there is a need to return to the roots of Islam is that western ideologies
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of A* into English 277

have emptied Arabic culture of its true contents. This suggests a translation of the
first paragraph along the following lines;
TT4b
This book calls for a return to the fundamental roots of Islam, as these were un-
derstood by Muslims in the age of the Arabian apostle, and applied by the Rightly
Guided Caliphs who followed him, {since} western ideologies have emptied Ar-
abic culture of its true contents and have destroyed the authenticity of the Ara-
bic language.

This translation is, however, distinctly odd. This seems partly to do with informa-
tional incongruity. The Arabic ST has a main clause "This book calls for a return
to the fundamental roots of Islam", which is followed by two (complex) disjunct
clauses: "as these were understood [...1 followed him", and "western ideologies [...]
the Arabic language". As a disjunct clause, the 5/Mce-clause ought to be foreground-
ed. However, its position after a previous disjunct clause would suggest an inter-
pretation as backgrounded. There is thus a degree of informational incongruity.

There is also a second problem, however. This has to do with the denotative inter-
pretation of "since" in English. "Since" arguably expresses the grounds for com-
ing to a conclusion expressed in the main clause (and in this respect contrasts
with "because", which seems to express cause or reason, in more purely logical
terms). Here the s/rtcT-clause in English seems to have as its scope the entire pre-
vious main-clause based element "This book calls [...1 who followed him". That
is to say, the 5mcv-clause seems to provide the grounds on the basis of which one
may come to the conclusion that this book calls for a return to the fundamental
roots of Islam. This interpretation reflects the fact that "since" is a disjunct, rather
than an adjunct. The fact that disjuncts are more syntactically peripheral than ad-
juncts means they tend to be interpreted as having within their scope larger syn-
tactic units than adjuncts.
In the Arabic ST, by contrast, the clause beginning with jt juo / ba'^da 'an has a
more restricted scope. We may perhaps assume that Arabic has a similar distinc-
tion to that in English between adjuncts and disjuncts (although I have avoided
such technical syntactic issues in this paper). Accordingly, -IJ>J / ba'^da (also jl A*J /
ba^da 'an), like English "after", should be an adjunct, rather than a disjunct. This
would help to explain why it has a more restricted scope than the English disjunct
"since".
The scope of jl ^ / ba^da 'an in the Arabic ST here excludes J\ ^PJL. wliS (liter-
al translation "A book which calls for") element and relates only to the remaining
elements JJAJ.\J\ ^UUJl U x ^ l j ^ ^ 1 J>-_^i M^ ^ j^-l Ji 1+*^ U5 Jj>i\ ^ ^ N i jji>-
(literal translation "a return to the first roots of Islam as the Mushms under-
278 James Dickins

stood them in the time of the Arabian prophet, and the Rightly Guided CaHphs ap-
plied them after him").

A possible solution to the problems thrown up by an Englsh translation involving

"since" in this case would be to make two English sentences, and introduce an ap-
propriate temporal phrase into the second English sentence, giving something like
the following:
TT4c
This book calls for a return to the fundamental roots of Islam, as these were un-
derstood by Muslims in the age of the Arabian apostle, and applied by the Right-
ly Guided Caliphs who followed him. {In recent times} western ideologies have
emptied Arabic culture of its true contents and have destroyed the authenticity of
the Arabic language.

This translation, however, also seems odd, partly because it introduces a new sen-
tence—i.e. a major element of meaning—into the Arabic which fails to contribute
properly to the argument as it is developed in the second paragraph. Thus, the first
translation discussed above accorded the element io^Jl ^^L^^J^x'^l .^^\ {ji a*j}
J^^\ i^j^-iw JA ;^yjl uiJi o > j ^L-Vl [j>^\j:^ JA A^yJl iiLiJl (fairly literal TT: "{af-
ter / ba'^da an] Western ideologies emptied Arabic culture of its basic content and
denuded the Arabic language of its original purport") an unacceptably ambivalent
status in English; this second translation gives it a status which is simply too major
for the information which it relays.

A rather more adequate solution is to make the Arabic subordinate clause into a
separate sentence, but place it right at the beginning of the English translation.
TT4d
Western ideologies have emptied Arabic culture of its true contents and have de-
stroyed the authenticity of the Arabic language. This book calls for a return to the
fundamental roots of Islam, as these were understood by Muslims in the age of the
Arabian apostle, and applied by the Rightly Guided Caliphs who followed him.

The virtue of this translation is that it removes the Arabic oLr^^-uNl >s^ji\ {jl J*.}
j _ ^ ^ \ i^j,^^ j ^ ; ^ ^ i ;iiji o > j ^U-^l Ul_^3^ J, i^yJt ii[^\ :L;>JI (fairly literal TT:
"{after / ba'^da an] Western ideologies emptied Arabic culture of its basic content
and denuded the Arabic language of its original purport") from the main argu-
ment presented by the writer, and so stops it interfering with that argument. Its
vice is that it introduces an element at the start of the text, where one would ex-
pect the so-called "topic sentence" (e.g. Axelrod and Cooper 2001:559) which, al-
though closely related to the topic of the passage, is not properly a general state-
ment of that topic.
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of A*, into English 279

An alternative solution would be to incorporate the element "Western ideologies

have emptied Arabic culture of its true contents and have destroyed the authen-
ticity of the Arabic language" into an initial subordinate clause, along the follow-
ing lines:
TT4e
Taking as its premise the view that Western ideologies have emptied Arabic cul-
ture of its true contents and have destroyed the authenticity of the Arabic lan-
guage, this book calls for a return to the fundamental roots of Islam, as these
were understood by Muslims in the age of the Arabian apostle, and applied by the
Rightly Guided Caliphs who followed him.

This translation solves the topic-sentence issue raised by the previous translation;
the topic sentence is now this entire singie sentence, with the main clause "this
book calls [...]" at its informational core. However, it is rather clumsy. It also illus-
trates the ways in which translation can sometimes manipulate information struc-
ture. In the Arabic ST the element Uly>^ ^ i^_j>S\ *A\J6\ ^^^Jl •z^^^yJ^^\ . ^ > l {jl A*.}
^ N l Wij^-i* ^ i->Ji iiUl o > j ^L-NI (fairly literal TT: "{after / ba'da 'an\ West-
ern ideologies emptied Arabic culture of its basic content and denuded the Arabic
language of its original purport") is rhematic with regard to the main clause, since
it comes at the end of the sentence, and is therefore to be read as presenting new
information. In this English TT the corresponding information is thematic with
regard to the main clause, since it comes at the beginning of the sentence: "ITak-
ing as its premise the view that] Western ideologies have emptied Arabic culture
of its true contents and have destroyed the authenticity of the Arabic language". It
is therefore to be read as presenting given information; i.e. the reader is expected
to be familiar with this idea (and presumably to be relatively willing to accept it
without further debate).

Both TT 4d and TT 4e involve what may be called catastrophic change in the

sense that this term is used in catastrophe theory (Woodcock and Davis 1980);
i.e. dramatic change, where in other contexts one only finds minor and incremen-
tal change. In this case, a number of small and apparently insignificant differenc-
es, both semantic and textual, between English and Arabic combine to force the
translator to make significant structural changes in translating the Arabic ST into
an accepabtle English TT.
28o James Dickins

Notes

i. I am very grateful to Ian Higgins for reading a draft version of this paper, and making many
usei'ul comments.

1. Technically, even the claim that a^ / ba'da is a preposition is a distortion. Arabic has a few
words which are recognised in the indigenous Arabic linguistic tradition as prepositions ("prep-
osition" = 31^ ^j^ I harfjaarr). However, most words which are regarded in the Western Ara-
bist tradition as prepositions in Arabic are really nouns in the accusative case (signalling adver-
bial status in Arabic), functioning as the first part (head) of a genitive structure. Thus "side" is
v ^ I janb. "Beside" is C^ t janba, which one might literally (but ungrammatically) translate
as "sidely of", or "sidewise of". "Beside the house" is o_Jl C^ I janba l-bait, i.e. literally (but un-
grammatically) "sidely of the house". There is no noun a-. / ha'd in Arabic. However, the pres-
ence of the final -ti in -u. / ba'da, which generally signals the accusative case, is sufficient for a« /
ba'da to be regarded in the Arabic linguistic tradition as an accusative noun, rather than a prep-
osition proper.

3. As Ian Higgins has pointed out to me, "a.s a matter of fact" might be regarded as additive as
well as adversative, as might "indeed". The non discrete nature of Halliday and Hasan's catego-
ries is also evidenced by the fact that Arabic j*._ I bifda can be causal or adversative as well as
temporal, as discussed in Section 5 of this paper.

4. I bave avoided underlining with Arabic text, since this interferes with printed Arabic script,
and can make it illegible.

5. I have not considered in detail the role of intonation and stress, and particularly the role of
atypical intonation and stress patterns, in spoken English. As Ian Higgins has pointed out to me,
it may be the case that certain intonation and stress patterns allow final (rhematic) adjuncts to
be foregrounded.

6. English has two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive. An example of a re-
strictive relative clause is "who live in glass houses", in the proverbial expression "People who
live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Here the subordinate clause does not have a com-
ma before or after it in written English, and is intonationaily integrated into the main clause in-
tonation unit in spoken English, Semantically, the utterance is to be interpreted along the lines,
"Some people live in glass houses; and these people should not throw stones"; i.e. the relative
clause restricts the group of people being referred to. An example of a non-restrictive relative
clause is "who live in glass houses" in "People, who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones".
Here, "who live in glass houses" requires a comma before and after it in written English. In spo-
ken English, it involves a separate intonation unit from the main clause (Cnittenden 1986:78),
may be in a lower key than the main clause (Cruttenden 1986:129), and may be less loud than
Ihe main clause (Cruttenden 1986:179). Semantically, the utterance is to be interpreted along
the lines "People shouldn't throw stones, and people (to add a piece of additional information)
live in glass houses", or more idiomatically "People live in glass houses, and (what's more) they
shouldn't throw stones".
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of a*^ into English 281

English-language references

Axelrod, Rise B., and Charles R. Cooper. 2001. The St. Martin's Guide to Writing, 6th edn.
Boston, New York, and Bedford: St. Martin's Press, xxvi + 810 pp.
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words, London: Routledge. x + 304 pp.
Burton-Roberts. Noel. 1998. "Language, linear precedence and parentheticals." In The
Clause in English: in Honour of Rodney Huddteston (Studies in Language Companion
Series), ed. by Peter Collins and David Lee. 33-52, Amsterdam: )ohn Benjamins.
Calderbank, Tony. 1990. Translation Strategies for an Arabic Political Argumentative Text,
University of Salford: MA dissertation. 72 pp.
Collins, Peter and David Lee. 1998. 77ie Clause in English: in Honour of Rodney Huddleston
(Studies in Language Companion Series). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: [ohn Ben-
jamins, XV + 342 pp.
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, x -f 217 pp.
Dickins, James and Janet C.E. Watson. 1999. Standard Arabic: An Advanced Course. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, xxvi + 592 pp.
Dickins, James, Sandor G.J. Hervey, and Ian Higgins. 2002. Thinking Arabic Translation.
London and New York: Routledge. x + 256 pp.
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, x + 255 pp,
Halliday, Micbael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New
York: Longman. 374 pp.
Hervey, Sandor G.J. and Ian Higgins. 2002. Thinking French Translation. London and New
York: Routledge. xv + 287 pp.
Quirk, Randolph et al. (1984) A Comprehensive Grammar ofthe English Language. London
and New York: Longman. 1776 pp.
Sekine. F. 1996. Clause Combining in Contextual Grammar in English. University of Bir-
mingham: PhD thesis. 262 pp..
Tomlin, R.S. 1987. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, viii +
512 pp.
Wehr, Hans. 1974. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (ed. by J. Milton Cowan, 3rd
edn.). Beirut: Librairie du Liban. xvii + 1001 pp.
Woodcock, Alexander and Monte Davis 1980. Catastrophe Theory. Harmondsworth: Pen-
guin. V +171 pp.

Arabic reference

.pp 134 tJljT JIJ :Cairo .ijjLJI ^J^ J^ jj*UJi 01 j ^ ^ l .1986 ^^jJ+Jl tJ-^U-i
282 James Dickins

Abstract

This paper shows how various problematic features of the translation into English of Arabic
(jt) A*. / ba'da {'an) "after" may combine, initially incrementally, but ultimately in a "cata-
strophic" manner (cf. Woodcock and Davis 1980), at which point the translator is forced to
engage in significant TT restructuring.
The paper provides a basic temporal definition of (ol) JL*, / ba'da (an) (Section 1). It in-
troduces the notion of informational incongruity (Section 2), and develops this in relation to
the informational pairs: theme/rheme, and foregrounding/backgrounding. Whilefinalad-
junct and sentential relative clauses in English cannot be foregrounded,finaldisjunct claus-
es can be (Section 3). Some Arabic final subordinate clauses can be foregrounded, whose
obvious English translation equivalents cannot; direct (literal) translations into English of
these Arabic ST structures accordingly result in informational incongruity (Section 4). The
fact that (jl) jjv / ba'da (an) may have a temporal-i-causal or temporal+adversative interpre-
tation, unlike the purely temporal English "after" or "following" can also contribute to in-
formational incongruity in translation (Section 5). In some cases, afinalji-bw / ba^da 'an in
a temporal+causal sense occurs in a context which requires that the jt JUJ / ba'da 'an clause
be backgrounded. A direct English translation using "since" (a causal with available tempo-
ral implications), results in a foregrounded final disjunct clause in the English TT, as well as
yielding other denotative problems. At this point, only a catastrophic translation solution
seems acceptable, involving significant TT restructuring (Section 6).

La traduction vers l'anglais de l'expression arabe (ol) JUJ / ba'da {'an) "apr^s" pose certains
problemes qui risquent de s'accumuler, certes d'abord sur le mode du discontinu, mais fi-
nalement sur le mode "catastrophique" (voir Woodcock and Davis 1980).
Le present article propose d'abord une simple definition temporelle de (jl) j * , / bifda
{'an) (Section 1), avant de presenter la notion de I'incongruit^ informationnelle et de deve-
lopper celle-ci par rapport aux couples theme/rheme et premier plan du discours/arri^re-
plan du discours (Section 2). Tout en nadmettant pas la position en premier plan des pro-
positions 'adjonctives' finales, ni des relatives sententielles, l'anglais permet bien d'y placer
les propositions 'disjonctives' finales (Section 3). Il existe en arabe un certain nombre de
subordonnees finales qui se laissent placer en premier plan mais dont les ^ventuels Equi-
valents anglais doivent obligatoirement se placer i I'arriere-plan: toute traduction litterale
de ces structures arabes se solderait par une incongruite informationnelle (Section 4). Peut
^alement provoquer une incongruite informationnelle le fait que (jl) ^ / ba'da {'an)—
diffi^rent en ceci des expressions anglaises exclusivement temporelles "after" et "following"
—est aussi susceptible d'une interpretation soit temporelle + causale soit temporelle + ad-
versative (Section 5). Enfin (Section 6), il arrive parfois que jl a* / ba'^da 'an temporelle +
causative s'emploie, en texte-source, dans un contexte exigeant la mise k I'arri^re-plan de
la proposition: toute traduction anglaise avec "since" (expression causale aux implications
temporelles possibles) entrainerait en texte-cible non seulement la mise au premier plan
 Cumulative difference and catastrophic change: translation of A*, into English 183

d'une proposition finale 'disjonctive', mais encore un certain de nombre de problemes sur
le plan de la denotation. Devant une telle accumulation de problemes, Ie traducteur se voit
oblige a la solution catastrophique, avec tout ce que cela implique de remaniements struc-
turaux fonciers.

About the author

James Dickins has taught Arabic-English translation since 1986. He has held lectureships
in Arabic at the universities of Heriot-Watt and Durham, and has also taught at the uni-
versities of Cambridge, St. Andrews, and Heidelberg. His principle research interests are
functional linguistics, Arabic pedagogy, Arabic/English translation, and Sudanese Arabic.
His publications include Extended Axiomatic Linguistics (Mouton de Gruyter, 1998), Stan-
dard Arabic: An Advanced Course (with J.C.E. Watson; Cambridge University Press, 1999),
and Thinking Arabic Translation (with S.G.J. Hervey and I. Higgins; Routledge. 2002). He
is currently working on a reference grammar and an Arabic/Englisb/Arabic dictionary of
Sudanese Arabic.
Address: Arabic Section, School of Languages, Univ. of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK.
E-mail: Iames.Dickins@salford.ac.uk

CULTIVONS LA PAIX
2001-2010 DECENNIE INTERNATIONALE
DE U PROMOTION D'UNE CULTURE DE LA NON-VIOLENCE
ET DE LA PAIX AU PROFIT DES ENFANTS DU MONDE