Faculty of Languages and Translation Postgraduate Studies English Department Linguistics Branch 2nd Year

A Contrastive Analysis of Two Translations by T. Okasha and A. Bishir for Gibrans THE PROPHET

(Term Paper)

Prof. Hussein Mayas Professor of Linguistics

Submitted by Ahmed Sayed Ahmed Al Gaisi

A Contrastive Analysis of Two Translations by T. Okasha and A. Bishir for Gibrans THE PROPHET

1.

Introduction

The twentieth century has been called the age of translation. The term translation is itself ambiguous, since it has several meanings. Munday (2001: 4) assumes that the term translation can refer to the general subject field (of translation), the product (the text that has been translated) or the process (the act of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating). The process of translating between two languages means to transfer a text from the source language into the target language. Modern theories of translation deal with the following linguistic issues, 'equivalence' 'equivalent-effect', 'the translation shift', 'functional theories of translation' discourse and register analysis approaches.
2.

Why adopting a theory of translation is not easy?

Although every translator has his own method(s) whether covertly or overtly, choosing the most suitable, not the best, theory of translation is not an easy labour as the translation process is being evaluated regarding so many aspects. Moreover, another thing that should be pointed out is whether translation should be considered as a science or an art? It depends on both. A translator should, first, have a very good command of his mother tongue, then, of the foreign language he is translating from or into. It will be very useful task if he has a good knowledge of some classical and modern theories of translation in order to adopt whatever is suitable for his piece of work. If he understands what message he would like to deliver to his recipients when doing translation, he could predict how far he can succeed in delivering accessible translation on the basis of texts variety. A translator should always strike a balance between form and content as much as possible. If there is a contradiction, he should resort to a way in which he could convey the intended message as near as possible. If a translator is to separate semanticism from semioticism, he may produce a bad translation because form and content are but a bi-tool of communication and conveying

certain messages. Otherwise, the intended message, which is the fundamental task of translator, will risk another meaning, or be swerved or conveyed fuzzily. 3. About Okashas Translation

D r. T. Okasha set out to translate five whole books written by Gibran; they are The Prophet, The Garden of the Prophet, Sand and Butter, and Jesus Son of the Man. Successfully, Okasha shoulders this burden in the best way. He does not deprive his pen the flexibility needed for the fluency of the translation or for the equivalence. In The Prophet, he imposes neither his own character nor his time style on the text. Rather, he strikes a balance successfully between flexibility and honesty. Differences between the two ages and the long time that has passed involve this comprehensive translation and that modern study (in the introduction). Romantic view prevails The Prophet, however, it varies in its nature due to linguistic stylistic features, and thoughtful psychological provenance. This entails a cute sense of the nature of the target and source languages, and exerting fundamental effort to transfer the text (meaningfully, spiritually, and stylistically) within the least amount of non-literality due to the general style and rhythm of the target (Arabic) language. Indubitably, such little non-literality is allowable to prevent producing plain mechanical translation, and to permit our translator to use some vocabulary on structural styles that do not invade the text by torture, explanation, or addition. Okashas translation has some amount of poetry that does not discount thought, and has thought that does not turn the whole translation into a straight mental activity. Manipulating very skillfully, Okasha deals with The Prophet where the advice supersedes to the insightful vision and the philosophers view unites with the poets view and style. Okashas translation, thus, is featured by sensitivity, poeticality, and selectivity to liken Gibrans English text, and to dismiss entirely the impression that the Arabic text in translated. This is known as the Domestication Approach to Translation. On the other hand, we can feel the opposite approach in Bishirs translation, which is Foreignization.

4.

The Text Analysis

I am going to deal with the first page of Religion (p. 85) to comparing the two translations of Okasha and Bishir; for short I will use G for Gibran, O for Okasha, and B for Bishir. 1) G: And an old priest said, Speak to us of religion. O: : B: : B is using more vocabulary than O. He resorts to addition and explanation while O is committed to the economy of Gibran musical sense. refers to the will of the prophets followers to listen more and more as B uses it frequently in the beginning of all topics; he is consistent. 2) G: And he said: Have I spoken this day of aught else? O: B: O keeps up the rhythmical sense going with Gs style while Bs "" makes the reader away of such sense. 3) G: Is not religion all deeds and all reflection? O: B: It may be strange to translate reflection into ,of course the plural form is used to be plural like . The addition of serves as a strange sound within the utterance if we look to the original utterance. 4) G: And that which in neither deed non reflection, O: B: Os saves the author from contradiction; he has said, all deeds and all reflection, then he says, neither deed nor reflection. On the other

hand, Bs repeating serves as an evidence for this contradiction. 5) G: but a wonder and a surprise ever spring in the soul, O: B: Very odd to translate wonder into .Os makes the reader feel as if this wonder and that surprise are flying in the air like smoke, or remember us with the idea of resurrection that changes a status to another. Bs is also suitable and goes well with Gs springing. although it is an addition, it suits .Anyway. I liked Os utterance more than Bs. 6) G: even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom? O: B: .

Indubitably the poeticality of O is utterly touched. He makes his verb do the job and avoid using many abstract nouns, while B does not. When we reed at once we imagine factories of dry clothes or machines of wavering, etc., and the imagination and the sensitivity of the original text loses. 7) G: Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations? O: B: As we have said, Os translation is characterized by Domestication; is found in our Arabic tradition; (the Holy Quran) while is not bad but it has no special sense; it is very ordinary. stands as a piece of evidence for Os success. 8) G: Who can spread his hours before him, O: : B: : Os is less familiar than Bs " ". and may seem equivalent except for O s economy. frankly I see an abject failure as we do not, as native speakers, say it in the formal version, rather, we say as in the verses: "". ..... ""........
5

"".......... 9) G: this for god and this for myself; this for my soul and this for my body? O: " B: Another Bs failure is translating soul into as it in usually translated into not ,because is self; we usually say my self to mean . Os ...............makes him succeed in avoiding plain mechanical translation as B does. 10) G: All your house are wings that beat through space from self to self. O: , B: and are traced to the translators view as there is no much difference. O,s embodies some of the music of the utterance where gemination gives rise to poeticality unlike Bs which is music-void. Moreover, B has to translate self into not as he has just translated soul into .the word refers to human motions and feelings; to spiritual attitude, while refers to the human body and materials needs, so is more suitable than `. Although Bishirs translation is not a bad one, and although Okashas translation is brilliant, it is not possible to make typically the same response of the original text created by the original speaker or writer at all levels and types of translation, it may be just limited to some circumstances and in most cases a translator conveys more or less the original message.

References
Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge. Bassnett, S. (1991) Translation studies. London and New York: Routledge. Bell, R. (1991) Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Longman. Catford, J. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duff, Alan ((1989) Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gerding-Salas, C. (2000) 'Teaching Translation: Problems and Solutions.' Translation Journal: Website, @ Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. Newmark, P. (1981) Approaches to Translation. Oxford, Pergamon Press. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Nida, E. A. (1982). Translating meaning. California: English Language Institute. Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1982). The theory and practice of translation (3rd ed.). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Wilss, W. (2001). The science of translation: Problems and methods. INTERNET References Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (2007) 'Idioms', Website @ http://translationdirectory.com/Misreading and Mistranslation www.accurapid.com/journal/43culture.htm www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nobel-prize-winner-Naguib-mahfouzdies-aged-94-414083.html http://accurapid.com/journal/13educ.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/idioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/translation