al masri

8/9/2019 al masri

1/187

Graduate School Form 9

(Revised 6/03)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

Thesis Acceptance

This is to certify that the thesis prepared

By Hanada A . Al-Masri ________________________________________________________

Entitled Semantic and C ultural L osses in the T ran slation o f L itera ry Text

Complies with University regulations and meets the standards of the Graduate School for originality

and quality

For the degree of D octo r o f Ph ilos op hy ___________ _ ______________________________

Signed by the final examining committee:

Victor RaskinChair

Myrdene Anderson

Salvatore Attardo

Approved by:

Shaun D.F. Hughes

Head of the Graduate Program

J l i . ' - / ' y Q U

n isThis thesis is not to be regarded as confidential.

Major Professor

Format Approved by:

or Chair, Final E xamining Committee Department Thesis Format Advisor

roduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

8/9/2019 al masri

2/187roduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

8/9/2019 al masri

3/187

SEMANTIC AND CULTURAL LOSSESIN THE TRANSLATION OF LITERARY TEXTS

(j-aj ttV 'll 'Laa .jp 2jWSMl j 2 \'l j ‘4 , 'I

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Purdue University

by

Hanada Al-Masri

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2004


8/9/2019 al masri

4/187

UMI Number: 3150731

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is depend ent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adv ersely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMIUMI Microform 3150731

Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. Th is microform ed ition is protected agains t

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 4810 6-1346


8/9/2019 al masri

5/187

To My Beloved Parents: Your Dream Came True.


8/9/2019 al masri

6/187

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my major advisor

Professor Victor Raskin for his constant support, input, and guidance which has helped to

write this dissertation.

I would also like to acknowledge the members of my committee: Professor

Myrdene Anderson, Professor Shaun Hughes, and Professor Salvatore Attardo whose

invaluable comments and suggestions contributed to the final production of this

dissertation.Also my special thanks go to all the professors in Linguistics for being a great

source of enlightenment, and for making my learning experience in the United States

both pleasant and fruitful.

Finally, I would like to thank my mother, father, brothers and sisters whose

continuous love, support, and encouragement helped me to go on, and fulfill their dream.


8/9/2019 al masri

7/187

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................vii

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1

I. Statement of the Research Problem...................................................................... 1

II. Objectives o f Research ....................................................................................... 17

III. Significance of Research...................................................................................20

IV. Methodology and Procedure............................................................................ 22

A. Data Collection .....................................................................................22

B. Method of Analysis.............................................................................. 23

V. Organization of Dissertation.............................................................................

27

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..........................................29

I. Translation from a Linguistic Perspective......................................................... 29

II. Translation from a Cultural Perspective............................................................34

III Translation from a Semiotic Perspective......................................................... 43

A. The Semiotic Theory of Sign s..............................................................44

B. Translation and Semiotics.....................................................................51

IV. Translation from a Pragmatic Perspective...................................................... 61

V. The Theory and Markedness............................................................................. 68

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

8/9/2019 al masri

8/187

V

Page

CHAPTER THREE: LINGUISTIC LOSSES:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................................74

I. Results...................................................................................................................75

II. Classification and Discussion of Cultural Losses ............................................78

A. Tolerable Losses....................................................................................78

A.I. Tolerable Losses in Style.............................................................78

A.2. Tolerable Losses in Word Relations ...........................................84

B. Serious Losses........................................................................................ 88

B .l. Loss of Pragmatic Connotations ................................................. 89

B.2. Mistranslation of Meanings......................................................... 93

B.3. Loss of Social Deixis....................................................................94

B.4. Loss of the Speaker’s Atti tude .................................................... 97

B.5. Loss of Cultural Expressions and Idioms................................... 98

B.6. Loss of Ellipsis..............................................................................99

C. Complete Losses....................................................................................99

CHAPTER FOUR: CULTURAL LOSSES:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 112

I. Results.................................................................................................................113

II. Classification and Discussion of Cultural Losses..........................................115

A. Explicit Losses..................................................................................... 118

B. Implicit Losses..................................................................................... 122

C. Modified Losses................................................................................... 132

D. Complete Losses.................................................................................. 135

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

8/9/2019 al masri

9/187

vi

Page

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION...................................................................................146

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................. 154

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Orthographic Conventions.............................................................163

Appendix B: Examples of Linguistic Losses...................................................... 164

Appendix C: Examples of Cultural Losses..........................................................169

VITA ................................................................................................................................... 172


8/9/2019 al masri

10/187

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1: A Summary of the General Losses in Relation

to the Markedness Continuum ......................................................................................... 109

Table 2: A Summary of the Detailed Losses in Relation


Table 3: A Summary of the Cultural Losses in Relation



8/9/2019 al masri

11/187

ABSTRACT

Al-Masri, Hanada. Ph.D., Purdue University, May 2004. Semantic and Cultural

Losses in the Translation of Literary Texts. Major Professor: Victor Raskin.

The present study investigates the nature and causes of semantic and cultural

losses occurring in translations of selected literary texts from Arabic to English.

Previous research showed that the losses resulted mainly from the lack of equivalence

between the source text and the target text. These losses were explained in terms of

the lack of functional equivalence and the focus on formal equivalence. The present

study proposes, in addition, that losses result from the lack of a balanced equivalence

on the semantic and cultural levels. In particular, it stresses the semiotic equivalence

approach that significantly accounts for both the semantic and pragmatic factors of

the source text. The results of the present study show that linguistic/semantic losses

are losses of verbal signs that affect the source text seriously (blocking the

understanding of the source message), or moderately/tolerablely (affecting its

aesthetic values). Cultural losses, on the other hand, are losses of the hidden cultural

information that reflect the social norms, religious beliefs, and ideological attitudes of

the source text. Whereas semantic losses result from cases of mistranslation,

superficial interpretation of the semantic and pragmatic equivalents, and literal

translation, cultural losses result from the lack of pragmatic equivalence on the

surface level, and/or the deep level of the source text. The results also show that


8/9/2019 al masri

12/187

semantic and cultural losses could be marginalized in translation by furnishing the

grounds and providing target readers with the background knowledge that facilitates

the decoding of source-language situations, and considers the cultural connotations

inherent in the source text. Accordingly, it is recommended that before actual

translation takes place, the translator should resolve the markedness of the linguistic

and cultural elements in the source text by rendering the unfamiliar familiar.


8/9/2019 al masri

13/187

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

I. Statement of the Research Problem:

Translation has always been recognized as an important genre of communication. It

plays a great role in breaking down the barriers between two different linguistic cultures,

and enables harmony and mutual understanding. For successful communication between

any two different linguistic codes to take place, there needs to be familiarity with the sets

of values, and social/cultural realities that belong to a particular culture. The absence of

such understanding would pose problems in transferring the intended meaning from one

language to another; accordingly, inevitable losses would occur. The translation process

should, therefore, ensure that the translated text presents the key elements of the source

text by well incorporating it in the new product to produce the same effect as was

intended by the source text.

The problem with translation lies in its complexity. Most of the works on translation

theory begin with the limitation that translation is an interdisciplinary, and a multilevel

phenomenon. Schulte (1987: 1-2), for example, states:

Translators do not engage in the mere transplantation of words [...] their

interpretive acts deal with the exploration of situations that are constituted

by an intense interaction of linguistic, psychological, anthropological and

cultural phenomena.


8/9/2019 al masri

14/187

2

This emphasizes the fact that translation is not a mere transference of verbal signs

(words), but involves higher levels of semantic, textual and situational contexts, and other

extra-linguistic factors. This is probably why it has been hard for translation scholars to

agree on a unified theory of translation (cf. the essays in Hickey, 1998). In his evaluation

of the current translation theories, Holmes (1994: 97) states “the state of translation

theory is still not very powerful in the sense that it does not explain the phenomena to the

extent that we should like it to”. We can understand the complexity of the translation

process by comparing the reading process in both the source text, and the translated text.

In reading the source text, there is a direct interaction between the source-language author,

the text, and the source readers. In translation, however, the process is indirect and

reveals a series of interdependent relationships: it involves the relationship between the

translator and the source author; between the translator and the source text; and between

the translator and his target audience. Translation, in this sense, is the process whereby a

third party (translator) intervenes in the communication process by means of which the

source author conveys a message to the readers. The more efficient the translator, the less

losses will the new reproduction have.

The existing literature on the theory, practice, and history of translation is huge

although the greatest bulk has been produced in the 20th century (cf. Bassnett-McGuire,

1980; and Hart, 1998). Such literature broadly defines the process as the matching

between the source text and the target text. Such sort of matching was given different

labels: “similarity”, “analogy”, “adequacy”, “invariance”, “congruence”,

“correspondence”, “transfer”, “relevance”, “equivalence” (Broeck, 1976; Bassnett-

McGuire, 1980; Larson, 1984; Hart, 1998; Pedersen, 1988; Newmark, 1991). As for


8/9/2019 al masri

15/187

3

translation process per se, it was given many various, and sometimes, overlapping

definitions. Newmark (1991) offered the labels “communicative” and “semantic”

translation to account for the various functions of translation. Koller (1972) proposed the

“equivalence effect Principle” (cited in Hart, 1998); Nida (1964): “dynamic

equivalence/formal equivalence”; Catford (1965): “cultural translation/linguistic

translation”; House (1981): “overt translation/covert translation”. The present study

adopts the term ‘equivalence’. As a working definition for the purpose of this study,

“equivalence” will refer to the sameness of effect that signs in the source and target texts

have on the audience for which they are intended (following Kruger, 2001).

Before proceeding to the objectives and significance of this study, it is worth

presenting, at this point, a brief history of translation. Translation researchers believe that

the most important function of translation is to break down the barriers between different

cultures. This led to the dismissal of the Whorfian proposition, which holds that people of

different cultures view the world differently; hence the impossibility of translation (Hart,

1998: 36). The function of translation has shifted over years. It first started with the

translation of the bible; thus had a word-for-word, translation, or “literal” translation;

where translatability is concerned with linguistic “equivalence” of languages. Later on,

the focus shifted to the pragmatic transference of meaning. After the invention of

printing in the fifteenth century, the role of translation underwent significant changes.

“Functional/communicative translation” has served to assert national identity through

language revival. Accordingly, communicative translation was an attempt to transpose

ideas from an alien culture into the other. In addition, communicative translation was a

means of compensating for the lack of formal equivalence. Translators, accordingly,


8/9/2019 al masri

16/187

4

looked for one of two solutions: either import words from the foreign culture into the

target culture; or look for approximate equivalents in the target culture. This shift created

the debate between the so-called “literal” versus “free” translations; or what Bassnett-

McGuire (1980: 61) called “overfaithfulness”, and “looseness”. The following

paragraphs will give a brief summary of three of the central issues of debate among

translation researchers; namely translatability, equivalence, and free versus literal

translation. A detailed presentation will be discussed in chapter two within the framework

of different translation models.

Translatability is understood as the possibility of transferring the messages

intended in the source text to the target text. In this regard, Catford (1965: 99) offered

two types: linguistic untranslatability, and cultural untranslatability. On the linguistic

level, untranslatability occurs when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the

target language for a source-language item. Cultural untranslatability, on the other hand,

occurs when the target-language culture lacks a relevant situational feature for the source-

language text. Catford (ibid: 99) argues that linguistic source-language features are more

absolute than cultural ones. Here, I share Pedersen’s (1988: 17) disagreement with

Catford because linguistic difficulties can be overcome when the translator is bilingually

competent. In the light of this, translatability can be looked at as a “relative” notion.

Pedersen (1988) holds an intermediate position between two extremes: that of the

Whorfian position, where nothing can be translated across linguistic and cultural barriers;

and that held by some Marxist theorists (e.g., Koller, 1972-cited in Pedersen) that

everything is translatable. Pedersen (ibid: 14) draws on the importance of situational

equivalence, and proposes translatability depends on the possibility of producing “not a


8/9/2019 al masri

17/187

5

text which is semantically identical with the original, but one which is situationally

equivalent to it”. Pedersen (1988: 44) holds that translation should necessarily change the

target language-text when expressing ideas unknown to the target language before the

translation in question. To this effect, Pedersen (ibid: 21) emphasizes the element of

adaptation particular to literary translation. That is, the translator should transfer the

effects meant by the source author by giving the target-language audience the best

impression possible of the foreign author.

Petrilli (2003) discusses the issue of translatability from a semiotic perspective.

She believes that there is no such thing as “untranslatability” because “translatability is

the very condition of the life of signs” (ibid: 42). She remarks “the problem of

translatability concerns the fact that, ultimately, the interpretant of a text can only be a

verbal interpretant from another given language” (Petrilli, ibid: 44). It follows that

translation difficulties should not be attributed to resistance of some sort by the text in

translation. Rather, these difficulties are due to the major focus on verbal signs and

ignoring the nonverbal signs. In this regard, Petrilli disagrees with Jakobson (1971)1, and

argues the text can only be transferred from one language into another, not on the basis of

interlingual translation (that focuses on verbal signs); but on the basis of intersemiotic

translation (that focuses on both verbal and nonverbal signs). More importantly,

translatability, according to Petrilli (ibid: 50), depends on “explicitation of interpretants”

that connects the text to its communicative situation. Such “explication”—or what Petrilli

(2003: 28), sometimes called expressability —is the major criterion for translatability. i.e.,

1Jakobson’s (1971: 261) three types o f translation are: interlingual translation, intralingual translation,

and intersemiotic translation (see chapter two for a detailed discussion).


8/9/2019 al masri

18/187

6

“can what is said in one historical-natural language be expressed in another?” Petrilli

(2003: 31) concludes her article by alluding to the advantages of translatability. She

proposes that translatability does not only signify the possibility of translation, but also

indicates an open relation between the source text and the translated one. Translatability

also has the advantage of openness. That is, the translated text may continue to be

translated (Petrilli, 2003: 31).

We will now turn our discussion to the issue of equivalence, which has been one

of the central and controversial issues in translation. Equivalence has been debated (from

a semiotic and non-semiotic view point) in varying degrees (cf. Bassnett-McGuire, 1980:

23-9; and Gorlee, 1994: 170).

According to Newmark (1991: 3), for translators to try to define equivalence it is

“a common academic dead-end pursuit”. For the sake of generality, it could be argued

that equivalence was pursued along two lines in translation studies: the first lays

emphasis on the semantic problems; hence the transfer of the semantic content from the

source language into the target language. The second explores equivalence in its

application to literary texts (cf. Pedersen, 1988; and Bassnett-McGuire, 1980). Catford

(1965: 36) proposes that the issue of equivalence would be better dealt with in terms of

“relevance”. By this, Catford refers to the dependence of meaning on situation.

Relevance, to him, is the ability to communicate messages from the source-language text

into the target-language text. For Catford (ibid: 93-4), the basic concern of translation is

to ensure that all the “relevant” features of the source-language message are

communicated to and reflected in the target text. In cases where translation is read


8/9/2019 al masri

19/187

7

outside of the source-language context, comprehension presupposes a certain amount of

shared extralinguistic background.

Neubert (1967)—cited in Bassnett-McGuire (1980: 27)—approaches equivalence

from the view point of the text. He postulates that equivalence must be considered a

semiotic category; comprising syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic components. According

to him, these components are arranged hierarchally, so that semantic equivalence takes

priority over syntactic equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence modifies both of the other

elements. Accordingly, Neubert (ibid) connects equivalence to semiotics, and proposes

that “equivalence overall results from the relationship between signs themselves, the

relationship between signs and what they stand for, and the relationship between signs,

what they stand for and those who use them”.

Dinda Gorlee (1994: 170) criticizes the traditional (non-semiotic) view of

equivalence, where the source text and the translated text are ideally placed in a one-to-

one correspondence. This means they are to be considered as “codifications of one piece

of information, as logically and/or situationally interchangeable”. Gorlee (ibid: 174-182)

adopts Peirce’s (CP: 5,448, n, 1,1906) use of the term “equivalence”, which states: “two

signs whose meanings are for all possible purposes equivalent are absolutely equivalent”.

Based on Peirce’s universal categories (firstness, secondness, and thirdness), Gorlee (ibid:

174) proposed the term “semiotic equivalence”. It consists of three aspects termed

“qualitative equivalence”, “referential equivalence” and “significational equivalence”

(these types of equivalence will be discussed further in chapter two under the semiotic

perspective to translation). Kruger (2001: 183) postulates that the semiotic approach

offers the “full deployment of the meaning potential of the original sign (source text) in


8/9/2019 al masri

20/187

8

the translation”. According to Kruger, the semiotic approach sets by far the highest

standard for equivalence.

Another issue directly related to equivalence is the issue of methodology. There

are three types of translation methodology: literal or formal equivalence (focusing on

word-for-word translation); literary or dynamic equivalence (focusing on the transference

of meaning, rather than the form); and adaptive or functional translation (focusing on

recreation of the intention or signification of the source text) (cf. Hart, 1998; and

Pedersen, 1988). Following is a presentation of these methodologies as adopted by

different scholars.

Newmark’s (1991) main contribution to the general theory of translation lies in

introducing the concepts “communicative translation”, and “semantic translation”.

According to Newmark (ibid: 10-13), equivalence in the two types of translation should

comply with the usually accepted syntactic correspondences for the two languages in

question. The literal word-for-word translation is unnecessary; provided that the

equivalent effect is secured. Both semantic and communicative translations overlap

widely. That is, a translation can be, more or less, semantic; more or less, communicative.

Accordingly, Newmark (ibid: 11) proposes “there is no reason why a basically semantic

translation should not also be strongly communicative”. Newmark sketches the features

of both types of translation as follows: in semantic translation, faithfulness is directed

towards word-for-word equivalence, i.e., accurate and exact. It is more author-centered

(i.e., pursues the author’s thought process), and so is source-language oriented. In

communicative translation, faithfulness is faithfulness to the effect of the message. It is

reader-centered; focuses on the object of the author’s intention, and so it is target-


8/9/2019 al masri

21/187

9

language oriented. In evaluating the two kinds of translation, Newmark {ibid.: 11)

proposes that semantic translation is usually “more awkward, more detailed, more

complex, but briefer”. Communicative translation, on the contrary, is “easy reading, more

natural, smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, conforming to

particular register of language, but longer”.

Newmark (1991: 106) believes that opponents of literal translation avoid it for

two reasons: either because they associate it with “translationese”, or they want to leave

their own mark on the translation, to be more colloquial, informal, or idiomatic than the

source text. Translationese: is the phenomenon of interference where a literal translation

of a stretch of the source language text (a) plainly falsifies its meaning, or (b) violates

usage for no apparent reason. Newmark (ibid: 78) defines the phenomenon as “an error

due to ignorance or carelessness which is common when the TL [target language] is not

the translator’s language of habitual use, and not uncommon when it is”. To avoid such

interference in translation, Newmark {ibid: 76) proposes the “principle of accuracy”,

which rests on the assumption that there is a limit to the areas of meaning of words as

well as sentences, “every word of the original has to be accounted for though not

necessarily translated” (Newmark, ibid: 76).

Hart (1998) agrees with Newmark on the applicability of both types of translation

(formal, and dynamic), and adds that the choice of either is based on the value/ type of

text. Hart {ibid: 170) believes it is broadly sufficient to use mainly dominant formal

equivalence when the narrative consists of a series of universally shared stereotypes

which have basically truth-values. In this case, “the linguistic signs function more or less

on a literal, objective, and surface level with their original” (Hart, ibid: 170). This is due


8/9/2019 al masri

22/187

10

to the fact that the corresponding frames exist already in the other culture and only the

labels have to be changed to conform to the new linguistic and cultural circumstances.

One the other hand, dynamic pragmatic equivalence is more sufficient when the text is

based on implicit values, where the linguistic signs per se do not reflect the whole truth

about the socio-cultural realities. In this regard, Hart (ibid: 171) postulates “the audience

must possess specific previous knowledge in order to understand the implicit sense of the

communication”. This knowledge enables the audience to perceive rapidly the contrast

between what is said and what is meant.

Gutt (1991: 102) is a supporter of communicative translation. He postulates that

the translation should bring together the contextual effects of the text to allow the

audience an adequate access to the translated text. He describes the process as follows:

If we ask how the translation should be expressed, the answer is: it should

be expressed in such a manner that it yields the intended interpretation

[emphasis is added] without putting the audience to unnecessary

processing effort. Hence considerations of relevance constrain both the

intended interpretation of the translation and the way it is expressed, and

since consistency with the principle of relevance is always context-

dependent, these constraints, too, are context-determined” (quoted in Hart,1998: 50).

Vermeer (1989) proposed the skopos theory of translation, which also

favors communicative translation. Vermeer (ibid: 182-3) describes his theory as

follows:

What the skopos states is that one must translate, consciously andconsistently, in accordance with some principle respecting the target text.

The theory does not state what the principle is: this must be decided

separately in each specific case...the skopos theory merely states that the

translator should be aware that some goal exists, and that any given goal is

only one among many possible ones, (quoted in Hart, 1998: 46).

The skopos theory allows for adaptation of the source text to be adequate to the needs and

ends prescribed for the target text. In this regard, Hart (1998: 46) comments:


8/9/2019 al masri

23/187

11

We should not presuppose or demand equivalence of a translation; the

value of the final text is its adequacy, that is, the appropriate choice of

linguistic signs at the correct semantic, syntactic and pragmatic levels,

with respect to the various characteristics of the circle of readers at whom

it is directed.

El-Shiyab (1999) calls for communicative translation in literary texts, and

supports approaching a literary text from a paralinguistic viewpoint. He (ibid: 208)

argues that the communicative value of the source text is more important than

faithfulness (literal translation). This allows the translator of a literary text a great degree

of freedom, as long as he adheres to the overall meaning of the source text. To this effect,

accuracy and faithfulness are not primary prerequisites like in other types of translation.

More importantly, the translator should be close to the mentality and thinking as well as

the experience of the source author (El-Shiyab, ibid: 208).

Walter Benjamin (1968) wrote “The Task of the Translator”, one of the central

essays on theoretical translation. He argues against literal translation or “fidelity” in the

translation of Art. Benjamin (ibid: 78) states, “What can fidelity really do for the

rendering of meaning? Fidelity in the translation of individual works can almost never

fully reproduce the meaning they have in the original”. For Benjamin, the essence of

translation lies in the multiplicity of languages. In this regard, Benjamin (ibid: 78)

emphasizes;

A translation, instead of resembling the meaning of the original, mustlovingly and in detail incorporate the original mode of signification, thus

making both the original and the translation recognizable as fragments of a

greater language, just as fragments of a vessel.

Although it is important to recreate the mode of signification of the source text

into the translated one, as Benjamin suggested, I believe it is equally important to retain


8/9/2019 al masri

24/187

12

the meaning of the source text. In the quotation above, Benjamin minimized the role of

meaning and viewed the product as a “fragment”. I believe that meaning/mode of

signification should go hand in hand in the translation process. Benjamin sums up his

view by stating: “real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, does not

block its light, but allows the pure language...to shine upon the original” (Benjamin,

1968: 82).

Bamstone (1993) discussed the two types of translation from a semiotic

standpoint. He (ibid: 228) views the relation between the source-language text and the

target-language text as the relation of a sign to its object, or of signifier to signified.

According to Bamstone, the purpose of literal translation is referential. That is, to transfer

the meaning of the word as faithfully as possible, hence, “signifier A leads to signifier B”

(Bamstone, ibid: 229). Free translation, on the other hand, is ‘metalingual’. Its purpose is

to “reinvent the formal qualities of the message, to ‘recreate’ dramatically the signifier

itself’. That is to say, “signifier B conveys a visibly different version of signifier A”.

In sum, I share the view that “what we accept as a theory depends on what we

want from the theory” (Neubert and Shreve, 1992: 33) Communicative translation would

be more appropriate, if we opt for a translation that is target-reader oriented; that informs

the reader effectively and appropriately; and that creates an effect on the target reader as

close as possible to that on the source reader. If, however the goal is to render

semantically, and syntactically equivalent text to that of the source language; then

faithfulness to the source text is essentially a feature of semantic translation. In literary

translation, the significance of the source-text message should be given priority over the


8/9/2019 al masri

25/187

13

literal meaning. This is due to the fact that literary language is highly expressive, and the

signification/ special use of words is what makes the language literary.

Since the present study deals with the translation of literary texts, its worth

presenting some of the common ideas in the field of literary translation. The shift from

lexical level to sentential level in translation was a significant step towards sophistication.

Holmes (1994) took this a step further and moved translation interest to text level; hence

becoming an initiator of the new approach of literary translation. In his model, Holmes

{ibid: 67-80) deemphasized the source-language oriented study of literary translation.

Instead, he suggests that the focus should be on translation as a product, and as an actual

object within the target culture. According to Holmes’s (ibid: 86) model of literary

translation, the translation of texts takes place on two planes: “a serial plane” (where one

translates sentence by sentence); and a “structural plane”, where one starts with

abstracting a “mental conception” of the source text; then uses this mental conception

(which might create a variety of options) as a kind of general criterion to test each

sentence during the creation of the new translated text (Holmes prefers to call this

conception a “map”). Holmes rightly postulates that literary texts are more complex than

other texts due to the fact that they include a variety of functions: informative, vocative,

expressive, or aesthetic. To this effect, and to deal better with the translation of literary

texts, Holmes {ibid: 84) sketched three map artifacts/strategies that help the translator in

the process of literary translation: the first map is the “linguistic artifact”: which is a set

of derivational rules that the translator uses to abstract his map of the source text itself. It

contains features of the text in relation to the linguistic continuum (i.e., contextual

information). The second map is the “literary artifact”: which is a set of


8/9/2019 al masri

26/187

14

corresponding/equivalent rules that help the translator to develop a target-text map from

his source-text map. This artifact relates features of the texts to the literary continuum

(i.e., intertextual information). The final map is the “socio-cultural artifact”: which is a

set of projection rules that guide the translator to use his second map (that of the

prospective target-text) in order to formulate the target text. This artifact relates features

of the texts to the socio-cultural continuum (i.e., situational information). This results in a

hierarchy of correspondences the help the translator during his translation process.

Pedersen (1988: 62) defines literary translation as the translation that “possesses a

literary quality”. He (ibid: 63) offered the following six criteria that determine the

literariness of a text: (1) being cast in a “literary form” (sonnet, prose, and the like), (2)

“emotionality” as opposed to scientific objectivity, (3) “invention” or “originality” with

regard to language, (4) “exhibitionism”; the desire to draw attention to both form and

content of the text, (5) “fictionality”; a willing suspension of disbelief, and (6)

“sociological” and “historical criteria”; where it is left to the reading public to decide

what is literature and what is not. In his model of literary translation, Pedersen (ibid: 64)

introduced the concept “distance”. He postulates that the distance between author and

source-language text, on the one hand, and translator and target-language text, on the

other hand, may vary from case to case. Pedersen (ibid: 65) applies this concept of

distance to a number of different scales; such as: time, place, language, and culture.

These scales stand in a proportional relationship to distance. For example, the bigger the

distance in time (historical period) between the source text and the translated one, the

harder the translation. This concept of distance is of a particular interest since it affects

the losses occurring in the present study. That is to say, because the geographical,


8/9/2019 al masri

27/187

linguistic, and cultural distances are significant between the two texts in question (Arabic

and English), the gaps occurring in translation are expected to be significant, and so the

more the losses. Pedersen’s model is also a helpful guide on how to overcome translation

problems that are culture-bound in nature. That is to say, the translator needs to be aware

of the cultural distance; familiarize himself with the source-language culture; and

understand the view point of the source author.

Miall and Kuiken (1994: 390) characterize literary language as “unfamiliar”. This

unfamiliarity is due to what they call “foregrounding” in literature; i.e., “the range of

stylistic effects that occur in literature, whether at the phonetic level (e.g., alliteration,

rhyme), the grammatical level (e.g., inversion, ellipsis), or the semantic level (e.g.,

metaphor, irony)”. The function of foregrounding is to create effects on the reader

different from those of the everyday language. In this regard, Shklovsky (1965: 18)-

quoted in Miall and Kuiken (1994: 391) remarked: “the purpose of art is to impart the

sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known”. Shklovsky

continues “The technique of art is to make objects “unfamiliar””. Miall and Kuiken (ibid:

405) conclude that the main effect of foregrounding is to achieve defamiliarization;

which in turn evokes effect that guides “refamiliarizating” interpretive efforts.

It would be sufficient at this point to give a brief summary of the basic notions

and views of a semiotic perspective to translation (a thorough discussion is presented in

chapter two of this study). The semiotic perspective is one of the most, if not the most,

recent approach to translation (Kruger, 2001: 180). Many translation theorists have

moved away from a purely linguistic perspective towards incorporating non-linguistic

disciplines, such as semiotics to supplement the existing theories on translation. (Van


8/9/2019 al masri

28/187

16

Kesteren, 1978; Bassnett-McGuire, 1980; Kruger, 2001; Malmkjaer, 1991; Rethore, 1993;

Gorlee, 1994; Colapietro, 2003; Short, 2003; and many others).

The role of semiotics in translation was acknowledged by many translation

researchers in earlier stages. However, its actual application to translation is a fairly

recent phenomenon. Nida (1964)—who is a rich source of information about the

problems of losses in translation—acknowledges the role of semiotics in his approach to

translation, and points implicitly to the Peircean view of text and discourse. In this

regard, Nida states:

Language consists of more than the meaning of the symbols and the

combination of symbols; it is essentially a code in operation, or, in other

words, a code functioning for a specific purpose or purposes. Thus we

must analyze the transmission of a message in terms of dynamic

dimension. This dimension is especially important for translation, since

the production of equivalent messages is a process, not merely of

matching parts of utterances, but also of reproducing the total dynamic

character of the communication. Without both elements the results can

scarcely be regarded, in any realistic sense, as equivalent (Nida, 1964:120).

Nida’s "dynamic dimension" in which "equivalent messages" are produced points

to Peirce’s continuous process through which a sign stands in a certain “dynamic

relation” to the signs preceding it and the signs following it; forming a system of signs.

Neubert and Shreve (1992: 48) also make the connection between semiotics and

translation. They note that the semiotic perspective frames the possibilities of language

and restrains it from moving away from its signifier, they state: “in text comprehension,

the receiver builds a model of what the linguistic signs are supposed to mean” (Neubert

and Shreve, ibid: 48).


8/9/2019 al masri

29/187

17

Generally speaking, the semiotic approach views translation as a “semiosis”

process that deals with the interpretation of verbal signs. Gorlee (1994) views translation

from the viewpoint of interpretive semiotics. She (ibid: 186) holds that translation deals

with signs “interpretable by logical interpretants; it is a pragmatic process of making

sense of intellectual concepts, or signs of Thirdness”. In the following sections, I intend

to state the objectives of the present study, its significance, and the methodology used.

II. Objectives of the Research:

The present study is mainly concerned with the issue of losses occurring in the

translation of literary texts. The term “losses” is used in two senses. In the general sense,

it refers to the loss (complete or partial) of any verbal sign (be it a word, a phrase, a

sentence, or a text). In its specific sense, the term refers to losses affecting the

interpretation of verbal signs on the semantic and cultural levels. Such losses are assumed

to reduce, or negatively affect the ways by which target readers understand the translated

text. The present study has the following objectives:

1. Providing a complete inventory of the linguistic and cultural losses occurring in

the translation of literary texts. Since losses are inevitable in translation, it is not

my intention to evaluate the translator’s strategies; rather the translation is

analyzed to investigate the main causes of the losses in the hope to reach a

suitable approach that minimizes such losses in translation.

2. Discussing the issue of equivalence as its focal point. The study draws on the

interconnection between linguistic equivalence and cultural equivalence. In

particular, it discusses how the lack of equivalence, or inequivalence (on the

linguistic and cultural levels) affects the correct understanding of Arabic language


8/9/2019 al masri

30/187

18

and culture. Inequivalence is taken here to refer to the elements which

systematically pose difficulties in translation. Some of the well-known examples

are metaphors, idioms, and culture-bound terms.

3. Discussing the semiotic approach to translation within the larger framework of the

existing translation theory. This is hoped to contribute to the question of

equivalence. In particular, to show how the semiosis process builds a logical

paradigm for the translation of signs; hence efficiently accounts for the losses

occurring in the translation of signs between two different linguistic systems and

cultures.

4. Discussing the hypothesis that literary language is generally hard to translate. I

propose that figurative terms, in particular, are harder to translate than the familiar

terms, hence are marked. It follows that the translation of the marked requires a

conscious decoding on the part of target readers, as well as knowledge of the

social values that are highly sensitive to the background. The task of target

readers, accordingly is never easy, since it is “more a matter of relations between

signs and signs than between signs and objects” (Merrell, 2000: 31). Ultimately,

the losses will be ordered hierarchically on the markedness continuum (ranging

from the least marked to the most marked) according to the degree with which

they affect of the source message.

The present study postulates that the wide “distance” (to use Pedersen’s, 1988

term); and the difference in the mentality and thought pattern of Arabic and English

speakers are major factors resulting in various losses in translation. For linguistic

equivalence to be achieved in literary translation, I propose that semantic ties and


8/9/2019 al masri

31/187

19

pragmatic appropriateness should be equally maintained. In this regard, Levinson (1983)

suggests it is important to include pragmatic factors in any proper semantic analysis. In

other words, to minimize semantic/pragmatic losses in translation, the translator should

not only take into account the equivalence of meaning, but also investigate higher levels

of content, context, semantics, and pragmatics (Anderson, 2003). Accordingly, it is

claimed that linguistic equivalence—as a “semiosis” process of interpretation—is directly

related to pragmatic equivalence. Thus, the study proposes that an investigation of the

connotative meaning (or shades of meaning) is more crucial, than denotative meaning, for

evaluating the losses occurring in literary translation. In other words, there would be an

emphasis on the semiotic/pragmatic approach, whereby the investigation of the losses

would take into consideration what language-users mean, rather than what their language

means (Levinson, 1983: 5). The pragmatic approach has the advantage of being an

intermediate approach that is neither “purely theoretical nor relevant merely to specific

translation problems, but rather which is common to all translation” (Hickey, 1998: 5).

The discussion of cultural equivalence will address two main issues: first, how

cultural losses affect the source text: directly, causing distortion of the source messages

conveyed; and indirectly, affecting target readers’ appreciation of the aesthetic values of

the source text. Second, it is argued that cultural losses are losses of the hidden

information, and cultural identity; hence the detachment and alienation from the religious

beliefs, social customs and ideological attitudes o f the source (Arabic) culture.

Peirce placed translation systematically in a wider framework than that of

linguistics (Gorlee, 1994). Following Pierce, I would propose that cultural losses are

better accounted for using the general framework of semiotics. Unlike linguistic models


8/9/2019 al masri

32/187

of translation, which overlook the cultural aspects, the semiotic perspective clearly states

the interrelation between our innate linguistic competence; using that competence; and

connecting it to our culture. This process will be explained in relation to the concepts of

“etic” and “emic” later in chapter four. Semiotic is also broader in the sense that it is the

study of everything; i.e., everything is a sign. Accordingly, cultural heritage is more

comprehensively dealt with semiotically than linguistically. This, however, does not

marginalize the benefits of linguistic theories in the study of translated literary texts.

Accordingly, Perice’s terms will be applied to this study as follows: both the source text

and the translated text are viewed as signs. The source language is referred to as the “first

sign”; the actual verbal sign of the source text is referred to as the “object” of the sign.

The idea formed in the mind of the translator about the first sign is referred to as the

“interpretant”. The target language (sign) used by the translator to convey the meaning of

the first sign is referred to as the “second sign”. Finally, the idea formed by target readers

of the object will be referred to as the “final interpretant”. In this study, the concept

“sign” will be used in the sense used in the general semiotic approach—derived from

Peirce and Saussure— which consists of an expression and a content that forms a unity,

and it is linked to a referent in the outside world.

III. Significance of the Research:

There has long been a major criticism of the style of Arab writers when writing in

English (Sa’adeddin, 1989). That is to say, Arab writers impose such devices as repetition,

exaggeration, connectives, and many others (which are the main characteristics of Arabic

style) onto the English text (whose brevity is the main feature). Recently, however, a

major shift has occurred in attempts to analyze the problem. The basis for this shift has


8/9/2019 al masri

33/187

21

been the investigation of source Arabic texts translated into English. Holes (1984), who

drew the attention to the importance of research on Arabic, suggests that the focus of

research is now on developing an approach which involves “recognizing and treating

separately, levels of Arabic inference, with the emphasis on linguistic systems which

operate at a textual level” (Holes, ibid : 228). Accordingly, this study, having literary

translation as its focal point, is hoped to enrich the research on the Arabic language, and

to eliminate any misconceptions either about the Arabic language, or the Arabic culture.

To this matter, it is hoped to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps between two distant codes.

This study approaches the process of translation from linguistic and cultural

viewpoints. Most of the recent studies have dealt with translation within the broader

framework of linguistics; focusing on phonetic, syntactic, or morpho-syntactic levels. To

the best of my knowledge, very few studies dealt with the translation, particularly of

Arabic literature, from a purely semiotic perspective. Although it is not my intention to

present a new translation theory, I am hoping to add to the research carried out so far in

translation studies, by showing how the semiotic approach better deals with the long

lasting debate about the issue of equivalence; and how it explains—better than other

approaches—the causes of losses.

Finally, this study is particularly significant to readers and researchers who are

non-native speakers of Arabic. It is directed towards target readers who are unfamiliar

with the Arabic language and culture. Accordingly, it is hoped they will have a better

appreciation of the aesthetic values of Arabic literature; and will learn more about the

beliefs, attitudes, and ways of thinking of the Arabic culture. Generally speaking, the

study is hoped to facilitate the cross-cultural understanding.


8/9/2019 al masri

34/187

22

IV. Methodology and Procedures:

A. Data collection:

The discussion of linguistic and cultural losses in the present study is based on the

analysis of literary texts; namely two collections of contemporary Arabic short stories;

along with their translations into English. The first collection is entitled “Three Egyptian

Short Stories”; whose title is transliterated from Arabic as “Thalath Qisas Misriyah”. The

collection includes: Farahat’s Republic, The Wallet, and Abu Sayyid. This collection is

written by Youssef Idris (1991), and consists of a total of twenty five pages. It is worth

mentioning that this collection, as well as the second collection described below, is

published in the same book where the titles are given both in Arabic and in English. The

language of this collection is a combination of Modem Standard Arabic and dialectical

Egyptian Arabic. The collection is translated by Saad El-Gabalawy— a native speaker of

Arabic.

The second collection is entitled “Five Innovative Egyptian Short Stories”;

transliterated from Arabic as “ Khams Qisas Misriyyah”. The collection includes: The

Pigs, The Torpedo, Nobody Complained, The Reader and the Glass o f Milk, and Men.

This collection is written by Saad El-Khadem (1994), and has a total of twenty three

pages. Similar to the first collection, the language of this collection is a combination of

both Modem Standard Arabic and dialectical Egyptian Arabic. The significance of this

lies in the fact that dialectical Arabic is a genuine representation of cultural norms, which

in turn are important reflections of different linguistic phenomena. This could have

possibly been marginalized, had the text been written in Modem Standard Arabic only.


8/9/2019 al masri

35/187

23

The English versions of the two collections are translated by Saad El-Gabalawy -

except for the short story Men, which was translated by its source author. The translator

is a native speaker of Arabic, and is known for his accuracy, clearness, and naturalness.

The two source authors are chosen in particular for two main reasons: first, they

are two of the most remarkable contemporary writers in Egypt; Youssef Idris—the author

of the first collection—is a major exponent of the radical movement from romanticism to

committed realism in modem Egyptian literature, particularly in the field of short fiction.

His familiarity with the masses makes him feel at home with the crowd, and enables him

to reveal the truth of the Egyptian society. Saad El-Khadem—the author of the second

collection—is both a writer and a translator, who is known for his numerous scholarly

studies in German and comparative literature. El-Khadem has also done extensive

editorial work, and literary translations. The second reason is due to the nature of the

literary productions of the two authors. Both of their works are derived from daily life

situations, which are dramatized through the artistic touches of connotations and literary

devices. Accordingly, they are true representations of the cultural beliefs, cognitive

attitudes and social costumes of the Arabic/Egyptian culture. This makes them interesting

from a translational viewpoint, and an excellent material for both semantic and cultural

analyses.

B. Method of Analysis:

The losses discussed in the present study will be analyzed within the framework

of the semiotic/pragmatic approach to translation—based on Peirce’s (1931-1966)

general theory of signs. I will not attempt to give an exhaustive account of Peirce’s


8/9/2019 al masri

36/187

24

thoughts, but will limit myself to the ideas having a direct connection with my main

themes.

The examples in the body of analysis are presented in four different forms: the

first line represents each example in its source-language form (Arabic); the second line

represents the researcher’s transliteration of the example in English; the third line is the

researcher’s literal translation of the source language; and the fourth line is the example

in its English form, as reproduced by the translator. Each example will be followed by

parenthesis that makes reference to the text from where the example is taken. This

method of analysis serves to show clearly such instances of: mistranslation, literal

translation, functional translation, and so on. To this end, two methods of analysis are

adopted in the present study: the analytical method, and the comparative method.

The analytical method is conducted by means of a close analysis of examples, not

so much to pass judgments on the product; rather to analyze the strategies adopted by the

translator and how they led to the losses. The data are analyzed as a complete inventory

of the losses resulting from the lack of equivalence in literary translation. Following

Holmes’s (1994: 87) guidelines, I started my analysis with describing a set of distinctive

features to each text in turn. By this, I mean these verbal signs that strike me as

significant and deserving of analytical analysis. Then, with the aid of a set of comparison

rules, I compared the two texts in order to determine the correspondences between them.

Finally, from that comparison, I built a hierarchy of the losses according to their types:

linguistic, and (socio)cultural. These two groups are, in turn, further subcategorized into

other types (e.g., implicit, explicit, complete, and others.) The type of the loss is

determined by the degree of information that does exist in the source verbal sign, but is


8/9/2019 al masri

37/187

25

lost in the translated sign. The losses are discussed in relation to the issue of equivalence.

By means of illustration, the loss would be classified as ‘explicit’, when a certain verbal

sign is explicitly lost (either in form, or in content) in the translated text. However, if

equivalence is maintained on the surface level (formal equivalence), but not on the deep

level, the loss is categorized as implicit. In which case, the loss is primarily a loss of

cultural, and/or linguistic signification.

In order to assess which level of equivalence should be established, the criterion

of analysis is based on two levels of translational units: word level, and textual level. The

former is concerned with linguistic equivalence. It is used to investigate the losses

resulting from word-for-word translation. Pedersen (1988: 24) postulates “the smaller the

average size of the units, the closer is source language to target language”. On the other

hand, for the purpose of evaluating translational equivalence from the view point of target

readers, the analysis on the textual level becomes crucial (c f Nida and Taber, 1969: 101).

The textual level (including paragraph(s), and text) is concerned with the losses of the

overall coherence of the source-language text (textual equivalence).

The comparative method, on the other hand, aims at comparing two versions of

the same text (the English translation and the Arabic source). Newmark (1991: 163)

argues “the only way to asses the deficiencies of the translation is to examine the

linguistic differences between it and the original”. Guided by this, the comparative

method is expected to give insights onto two levels of deficiencies: texts as linguistic

entities, and texts as reflections of culture. By doing so, the study is hoped to highlight

the differences between two linguistic codes (Arabic-English), and their cultural

associations. Accordingly, losses will be better explained as either a result of linguistic,


8/9/2019 al masri

38/187

26

or cultural gaps. Within the comparative method, losses will also be compared and

categorized on the continuum of markedness, as mentioned earlier.

Since this study adopts the semiotic/pragmatic framework, the following

pragmatic and semiotic parameters are used: the pragmatic parameters adopted include

the extralinguistic elements, which are defined in this study as those involved in the

communication process, and which can be guessed at “simply by observing the situation

in which the text is used” (Nord, 1991: 43). These pragmatic parameters include: (1) the

sender (the original author); (2) the receiver (the target reader); (3) the communication

channel (the source text written in Arabic, and the target text written in English); (4) the

system (the culture where the message is produced); (5) the context of situation (which is

here particular to the source language); and (6) the ‘initiator’—as used by Hatim and

Mason, 1994: 11—who is the translator. These parameters are variables with relevance in

the communication process; in this case translation.

Two semiotic parameters are used: the first parameter is “text type”; literary texts

in this study. This parameter is central to the analysis since it is closely connected to the

pragmatic parameters. That is to say, literary texts are complex entities; and a rich

material for idiomatic and metaphoric expressions. The second parameter is

“intertextuality”; it includes “all those factors which enable text users to identify a given

text element or sequence of elements in terms of their knowledge of one or more

previously encountered texts or elements” (Hatim and Mason, 1997: 17-18). Malmkjasr

(1991: 469) also defines intertextuality as “the way in which the use of a certain text

depends on knowledge of other texts”. This is also a relevant criterion because the

examples used in the source text contain information that depend, for their understanding,


8/9/2019 al masri

39/187

27

on the knowledge of other texts (e.g., idiomatic and metaphoric expressions); hence the

effect of intertextuality on textual coherence. In short, this parameter would enable us to

assess translation, and to determine the degree of losses in the translated text.

Another test used to assess cases of inequivalence in this study is the so-called

“back translation”. Unlike actual translation which is made directly from the source

language to the target language; back translation refers to the translation of the target text

back to its source language. Newmark (1991: 7) views back translation as a conclusive

test, in any type of translation, to determine the degree of equivalence between source

text and target text. He proposes that back translation of words and clauses “may be

useful in dealing with errors; therefore interference, interlanguage or unconscious

translationese can be illuminated by back-translation, as an aid in the production of

creative discourse or texts” (Newmark, 1991: 61).

One final note regarding the methodology used: technical terms belonging to

specific theories, semiotic and otherwise, are systematically set in double quotation

marks as they are first mentioned. Words and expressions with special emphasis are

italicized.

IV. Organization of the Dissertation:

The organization of the chapters in this dissertation is as follows: Chapter One is a

preliminary set up of the research problem, objectives, significance, and methodology.

Chapter Two is a presentation of related literature on translation from linguistic, cultural,

semiotic, and pragmatic perspectives, it also presents a synopsis on the theory of

markedness. Chapter Three is an analysis of the losses from a linguistic viewpoint.


8/9/2019 al masri

40/187

28

Chapter Four is an analysis of the losses from a cultural viewpoint. Chapter Five is the

conclusion.


8/9/2019 al masri

41/187

29

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The aim of this chapter is to present and review the most significant theories of

translation. The structure of this chapter consists of five sections as follows: the first

section is a presentation of translation from a linguistic perspective; the second is a

presentation of translation from a cultural perspective; the third is a presentation of

translation from a pragmatic perspective; the fourth is a presentation of translation from a

semiotic perspective; the last section is concerned with the theory of markedness, which

will furnish the ground for the arrangement of the losses occurring in literary translation

into categories based on their types. It is worth pointing out that the notions of translation

presented earlier in chapter one will be further discussed here from the viewpoint of

different translation models.

I. Translation from a Linguistic Perspective

Most linguistic theories on translation could substantially fall under one of the

following three groups: the first group represents translation researchers who are in favor

of a purely lexical approach to translation. The second group approaches translation from

a text-linguistic viewpoint. The third group looks at the process of translation as a matter

of socio-cultural equivalence. These different approaches exist side by side, and each of


8/9/2019 al masri

42/187

30

them focuses on specific aspects in translation, and looks at the product or the process of

translation from a specific angle.

The first view of translation is represented by the “linguistic model”. This model

views translation from a structural viewpoint. It focuses on the systematic relationships

between the source and the target languages, and investigates the transfer or replacement

of source language signs by target language signs in order to establish correspondence

between languages.

Advocates of this model (e.g., Catford, 1965) view equivalence as a repertoire of

semantic universals that match the meaning between languages. To them, meaning is

sentence-bound; achieving correspondences between two languages starts from the

bottom level. That is, they start solving each problem at time; lexical problems, syntactic

problems, semantic problems. This ‘bottom-top’ approach is acknowledged also by

Newmark (1991: 126). Catford’s (1965: 20) definition of translation as “the replacement

of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent material in another language (TL)”

illustrates the view held by this model. In other words, this precise description of the

systematic regularities between signs of the two languages involved was seen as a

precondition for the faithful and accurate reproduction of the source text. The target-

language text was required to be identical to the source-language text in style, effect, and

respect of the rules and norms of the target language.

The strength of this model lies in studying the linguistic resources in both source

and target languages. It allows the techniques available in the target language to

overcome structural differences between source and target languages. The weaknesses of

this model, however, may be summarized in three points: first, it focuses only on the


8/9/2019 al masri

43/187

31

grammatico-lexical correspondences, and so overlooks the extra-linguistic factors of the

source text. As such, it does not account for the pragmatic modifications needed to the

target text. Second, due to its comparative-descriptive nature, all the source-target

differences occurring in translation are accounted for narrowly; that is, they are due to

differences in the two language systems. In this regard, Schaffner (1999: 3) draws on the

limitations of this linguistic approach “a chosen TL-form may well be correct according

to the rules of the language system, but this does not mean that the text as a whole

appropriately fulfils its communicative function in the TL-situation and culture”. Third,

this approach has been rejected by proponents of other models (e.g. Newmark, 1991: 22)

for being “too abstract and removed from application”.

The second view is held by the “text-linguistic model”. This model is a further

development of the linguistic model. It maintains that the differences between the source

text and a translation are not limited to differences on the sentence level; rather they

operate at a level beyond that of the sentence, i.e. textual level. Unlike the linguistic

model, which follows a ‘bottom-top’ process, and operates on the sentential and lexical

levels, the text-linguistic model is a ‘top-bottom’ approach. According to this model, the

focus of translation is no longer the reproduction of meaning, but a production of texts;

where text norms need to be added to the norms of the linguistic systems (Neubert and

Shreve, 1992: 22). Its basic premise is text-typology. The main assumption here is that

knowledge of cross-cultural similarities in genre conventions is crucial to the translator in

order to produce appropriate target-language texts.

This model views equivalence as the process of carrying over the semantic values

and pragmatic functions of the source text as means of reconstructing a new text


8/9/2019 al masri

44/187

32

semantically and pragmatically compatible with the target language norms. In short,

equivalence is maintained at textual and communicative levels. Karamanian (2002: 2)

supports this approach and suggests that the focus on translation should be from the

macro to the micro level of analysis. She (ibid: 2) states that “an analysis of parts cannot

provide an understanding of the whole”. Nida and Taber (1974) hold an intermediate

position between the linguistic model and the text linguistic model. They (ibid: 105)

argue “in transferring the message from one language to another, it is the content which

must be preserved at any level; the form, except in special cases, such as poetry, is

largely secondary, since within each language the rules for relating content are highly

complex, arbitrary and variable”. Nida and Taber’s (1974) view is partial in the sense that

they view the message component as the crux of the translation process. By doing so,

they underestimate the aesthetic values of the source text as a whole. The implication

here is that form should not be marginalized in translation; especially when the language

is as important as the content. This particularly applies to literary translation, where form

conveys the creativity of the source author.

One of the weaknesses of this model is its ignoring the linguistic systems of the

two languages (source and target), which are important in particular types of text, mainly

those appreciated for their aesthetic effects. The chief merit of this model, though, is its

focusing more on the acceptability of translation to the target readership; this makes

translation pragmatically functional. Furthermore, the fact that it focuses on the

communicative contextualization of words is an advantage over the linguistic model. In

other words, it deals better with the translation of cultural terms, idioms, and figurative


8/9/2019 al masri

45/187

33

language. Neubert and Shreve (1991: 24) add that this model is broader and has a more

realistic presentation of translation equivalence.

The third model is the “socio-cultural”. This model enriches the theoretical

perspectives of translation as a practice. Similar to the text-linguistic model, this model

minimizes the linguistic model. It views translation as a cross cultural communication

process. It treats the source text as a unique product of historical and social structure of a

particular culture. Catford (1965: 20), and Yongfang (2000: 1) are supporters of this view

and call for “cultural equivalence”, which Holmes (1994: 95) preferred to call

“translation sociology”. That is, the area that describes how a translated text functions in

the society into which it comes. Proponents of this model, dismiss the idea of equivalence

in its entirety on the grounds that it yields unnatural translation. They argue that

translators prevent readers from appreciating the source text because they cannot

overcome the loss of the historical and social structures; major barriers to translation. In a

nutshell, they hold the view that texts are not translatable; and if so, they would be

corruptions of the source text. Criticism of this model may be summarized by the

following two points: Neubert and Shreve (1992: 27) criticize the idea that “translations

should always read like translations”. The second is the view towards readership. They

believe that the effects that translation produces on the target-language reader must be

different from those on the source-language reader. This is an underestimation of the

communicative goals adopted by advocates of the text-linguistic model. In general, the

model is criticized for being too narrow, and applicable only to certain types of texts.

In conclusion, each of the aforementioned models is interesting from a particular

point. Each model views translation from a different viewpoint, and focuses on different


8/9/2019 al masri

46/187

34

aspects of a larger phenomenon. However, I find myself in agreement with Savory (1957)

in his general criticism of linguistic approaches to translation. He comments:

[...] there are no universally accepted principles of translation, because the

only people who are unable to formulate them have never agreed among

themselves, but have so often and for so long contradicted each other that

they have bequeathed to us a volume of confused thought which must be

hard to parallel in other fields of literature (Savory, 1957: 49).

II. Translation from a Cultural Perspective

This section deals with what is commonly referred to as “cultural translation”.

Some of the most prominent concepts and ideas related to cultural translation are: the

concepts of “etic” and “emic”; the concept of norms; the relation between language and

culture “ethnography”; and the semiotic perspective of culture.

Cultural translation is known to be one of the most challenging aspects of

translation (Larson, 1984a; Farghal, 1995; Baker, 1996; Buchowski, 1996; Anderson,

2003). It involves the translation of linguistic structures as a part of culture, in which the

translator takes into account not only the equivalence of meaning, but also investigates

higher levels of content, context, semantics, and pragmatics. Accordingly, in any study of

translated texts, researchers of cultural translation consider factors like: language, society,

culture, and the modes of thinking in which they function; along with historical period

and ordinary psychodynamics (Anderson, 2003: 390).

When talking about cultural translation, one cannot simply ignore the role of the

Summer Institute of Linguistics (now SIL International). This institute—which is one of

the largest and most active group of linguists in the world—has contributed to translation

research in establishing the connections between language and culture. Pioneered by

Kenneth Pike, the institute started with a primarily focus on translating the bible for


8/9/2019 al masri

47/187

35

language groups who do not have it. Pike, who is both a Christian missionary (Bible

translator) and a linguist, emphasized the scientific approach to bible translation (Simons,

2003: 84). Pike’s work influenced generations of researchers and field workers (Nida,

Larson, Wise, Headland, Canfield, Simons), who saw in him a rich source on different

aspects of life: language, culture, worldview, religion, and ways of thinking and learning.

Pike’s emphasis on the need to see things from a different perspective enabled his

followers to broaden their horizons and to be more scientifically objective in their

handling of meaning in translation. Pike’s influence on the research of cultural translation

is reflected in his triad or dyad concepts: “person and relation between persons”, “etics

and emics”, “form-meaning composites” “units in context”. For Pike, the analysis of

verbal and non-verbal elements was not “either/or”, but “both/and” (Wise and Headland,

2003: xvii).

The concepts of “etic” and “emic”—the Outsider and the Insider—are probably

what is Pike (1954) best known for. The term “etic”, derived from “phonetic” in

linguistics, refers to the analysis of language sounds. “Emic”, on the other hand, is

derived from “phonemic”, and designates culture-bound, or language bound units of

analysis. The terms “emics” and “etics” were created out of “a need to include nonverbal

behavior in linguistic description” (Pike, 1990: 30). Later, the terms became widespread

and popular in different academic disciplines other than linguistics and anthropology by

the end of 1980s: psychology, sociology, folklore, semiotics, cross-cultural research,

ethnography, and many others (Headland, 1990: 18). Due to this interdisciplinary feature,

the terms were given different and sometimes incorrect definitions. For example, “emics”

and “etics” were equated with verbal versus nonverbal; specific versus universal; insider


8/9/2019 al masri

48/187

36

versus outsider view; or subjective versus objective knowledge. The importance of the

two concepts lies in expressing the interplay between rules of analysis (language) and

actual practice (culture). In other words, every language has its own emics: situated

beliefs and behaviors, and its own “etics”: abstract ones (Anderson, 2003). Anderson

(2003: 391) remarks that “the translation entailed in ethnography cannot be limited to that

between the “other” and “us””. That is to say, both the “etics” , and the “emics” of the

source language should be accounted for in translation, since they reveal facts about

events in the source culture, and deep meanings of the source language; respectively.

Anderson’s (2003) valuable contributions to cultural translation rese

al masri

Documents