Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 116

Literary Translation

Literary Translation:
Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning

By

Bahaa-eddin Abulhassan Hassan


Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning,
by Bahaa-eddin Abulhassan Hassan

This book first published 2011

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data


A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2011 by Bahaa-eddin A. Hassan

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-3358-4, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-3358-5


To my family
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................ ix

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................... x

Chapter One................................................................................................. 1
The Pragmatic Approach
1.1 Literary Translation: Different Approaches
1.2 Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning
1.3 Relation between Pragmatics and Translation
1.4 Recognition of Pragmatic Problems
1.5 Strategies of the Pragmatic Approach

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 24


Equivalent Force in Literary Translation
2.1 Speech Acts
2.2 Pragmatic Translations of Speech Acts

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 38


Pragmatic Translations of Implicit Meaning
3.1 Implicit Meaning
3.2 Pragmatic Translations of Presuppositions
3.3 Pragmatic Translations of Conversational Implicatures

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 63


Pragmatic Translations of Politeness

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 74


Pragmatic Translations of Deixis
5.1 Pragmatic Translations of Person Deixis
5.2 Pragmatic Translations of Place Deixis
5.3 Pragmatic Translation of Time Deixis
5.4 Pragmatic Translations of Discourse Deixis
5.5 Pragmatic Translations of Social Deixis
viii Table of Contents

Conclusion ................................................................................................ 88

Notes.......................................................................................................... 90

Bibliography ............................................................................................. 91

Index........................................................................................................ 103
PREFACE

This book is a revised version of the author's Ph.D. dissertation and has
been developed for all those who embark on the study of literary
translation and have little or no prior background in pragmatics. It is also
intended for the general reader in linguistics and translation. Because of
this, technical terminology has been kept to a minimum. Where specialist
terms have been introduced, they are explained in the text.

This book focuses attention on pragmatic aspects in translation such as


speech acts, implicatures, presuppositions, politeness and deictic expressions.
It falls into five chapters. The first chapter explores the different models of
translation and the features of literary translation. It provides some facts
that are relevant in the subsequent analysis in which focus is given to the
importance of examining pragmatic principles in translation. The second
chapter explores the translation of speech acts. The third chapter is
concerned with translating implicit meaning such as presupposition and
implicature. The fourth chapter explains the translations of politeness
expressions. The fifth chapter presents the translation of deictic
expressions. The book explores the pragmatic problems involved in an
English translation of Naguib Mahfouz’s Trilogy. The Trilogy, namely
Palace Walk, Palace of Desire and Sugar Street, has been translated by
Hutchins et al. This translation is compared with the source text. The book
tries to figure out whether the translation of the trilogy as a literary text is
pragmatically equivalent to the source text or not.

One forever owes a debt to one’s professors. I would like to express


my gratitude to Prof. Ibrahim Maghraby for his effort and academic
guidance. I am also very grateful to Prof. Ahmed-Sokarno Abdel-Hafiz
whose remarks and suggestions contributed to the present outcome of the
book. His ideas and advice were momentous. I also owe a great debt of
gratitude to Dr. Nabil Abdel-Fatah, Prof. Laila Abdel-Raziq and Prof.
Mustafa Riyad for their help in the structure and development of the book.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL source language
TL target language
SLT source language text
TLT target language text
PA pragmatic approach
SA speech act
DSA direct speech act
ISA indirect speech act
CP cooperative principle
FTA face-threatening act
CHAPTER ONE

THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH

Translation plays an important role in bridging the gaps between the


different cultures and nations. Literary translations in particular help these
different nations reach a universal culture on a common ground. A good
translation is not simply concerned with transferring the propositional
content of the source language text (SLT), but also its other pragmatic
features. The attention given to pragmatic facts and principles in the
course of translation can enhance the understanding of the text and
improve the quality of translation. The main concern of the study can be
elaborated in the following questions:
1- Does the illocutionary force of speech acts in a literary text such as
Mahfouz's Trilogy differ in their translation?
2- Do implicit meanings such as presuppositions and implicatures in that
literary text differ in its translation?
3- Do politeness expressions in that literary text differ in their translation?
4- How are deictic expressions rendered in the translation of the Trilogy?
Although the study is concerned with the translation of a particular
work of Naguib Mahfouz (i.e. the Trilogy), it does not claim to have
exhaustive enquiry into the problems that the translator has encountered in
the process of translating the Trilogy as a literary text. Since few studies
have dealt with all nuances of pragmatic meaning in literary translation,
many aspects of this area may still need further investigation. The present
study is an attempt to attract translators’ attention to the pragmatic features
of a text. The study will probably fill the gap in the literature concerning
pragmatic translation.
The major concern of the study is to examine the pragmatic meanings
involved in literary translation. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is the
appropriate framework for the analysis presented in this work. Put
differently, in order to look into the way the pragmatic meanings are
handled in the translation of the source text, the author relied on some
pragmatic models and principles for the explanation of speech acts,
inferences, politeness and deictic expressions. The following steps show
how the analysis of the translation is conducted:
2 &KDSWHU2QH

1- Analyzing the SLT


2- Examining the TLT
3- Comparing utterance meaning in both the SLT and the TLT
4- Back-translation1 is sometimes given to help in the process of analysis
and comparison.
5- Evaluating the pragmatic equivalents that are embodied in modifications,
additions, and deletions in the TLT

1.1 Literary Translation: Different Approaches


Translation plays an important role in increasing awareness and
understanding among diverse cultures and nations. Literary translations in
particular help these different cultures reach a compromise. The increasing
interest in the literature of other languages has required a more studious
regard for the problems of literary translation. A translator deals with a
text which involves linguistic, pragmatic and cultural elements. Such
factors often pose problems to target readers. More often than not,
translators pay more attention to linguistic and cultural elements than to
the pragmatic aspects of a source text. Blatant disregard for these
pragmatic features should result in pragmatic problems in the target text.
Thus, the target text is doomed to a complete failure. Landers (2001: 7)
argues that

Literary translation, at least in the English-speaking world, faces a


difficulty that texts originally written in English do not: resistance by the
public to reading literature in translation… In technical translation, for
example, style is not a consideration so long as the informational content
makes its way unaltered from SL to TL… In literary translation, the order
of the cars – which is to say the style – can make the difference between a
lively, highly readable translation and a stilted, rigid, and artificial
rendering that strips the original of its artistic and aesthetic essence, even
its very soul.

Literary translation is a type of translation which is distinguished from


translation in general. A literary translation must reflect the imaginative,
intellectual and intuitive writing of the author. In fact, literature is
distinguished by its aesthetics. Little concern has been devoted to the
aesthetics of literary translations because these translations are popularly
perceived as unoriginal (Devy 1999: 183). Belhaag (1997: 20) summarizes
the characteristics of literary translations
- expressive
- connotative
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 3

- symbolic
- focusing on both form and content
- subjective
- allowing multiple interpretation
- timeless and universal
- using special devices to ‘heighten’ communicative effect
- tendency to deviate from the language norms
Moreover, literary translations must reflect all the literary features of the
source text such as sound effects, morphophonemic selection of words,
figures of speech …etc. (Riffaterre 1992: 204-205).
Gutt (1991) stresses that in translating a literary work one should
preserve the style of the original text. In accordance with Gutt,

this wider, stylistic dimension of communication is, of course, of special


interest to literary studies, and so it is not surprising that theorists
concerned with literary translation have paid considerable attention to the
preservation of the stylistic properties of texts" (1991: 123).

A writer’s style is known “from the words he chooses or the way he


constructs his sentences” (1991: 123). According to Savory (1957), literal
translation of a literary work does not reproduce the effect of the original.
Because literature allows multiple interpretation, there should be freedom
in literary translations to consider a wide range of implicatures. Thus,
rendering the equivalent effect of the original requires freedom to explore
different interpretations. That approach is meant to achieve relevance in
translation (1991: 156-157).
Basically, translation consists of transferring the meaning of the source
language into the target language. That process is done by changing the
form of the first language to the form of the second language. Thus, it is
meaning which is being transferred and must be held constant. But what
type of meaning a translator should transfer! Generally, linguists
distinguish different types of meaning. When it relates language to events,
entities, etc., it is called referential / denotative meaning. When it relates
language to the mental state of the speaker, it is called attitudinal /
connotative / expressive meaning. If the extra-linguistic situation affects
the interpretation of text, it is called contextual / functional / interpersonal
/ situational meaning (Crystal 1997: 237). Larson (1984: 36) adds
organizational meaning to the list to refer to the grammatical structure of a
text such as deictics, repetition, groupings, and information organization
that form a coherent text. Any level in language has its own significance
because it plays a role in the total meaning, e.g. phonetic, lexical,
grammatical, semantic and pragmatic meanings. In semantics the word
4 &KDSWHU2QH

"mean" can be applied to words and sentences in the sense of ‘equivalent


to’ (Hurford and Heasley 1983: 3). In pragmatics it can be applied to
speakers in the sense of "intend". This study is concerned with pragmatic
meaning in literary translation. Pragmatic meaning is the utterance
meaning or the speaker meaning as opposed to the sentence meaning.
Grice (1975) distinguishes those two types of meaning as non-natural
meaning and natural meaning (Levinson 1983: 16).
The attention given to pragmatic facts and principles in the course of
translation can enhance the understanding of the text and improve the
quality of translation. A good translation is not simply concerned with
transferring the propositional content of the source language text (SLT),
but also with its other pragmatic features. The study focuses on such
neglected aspects of translation as speech acts, presuppositions,
implicatures, politeness and deictic expressions in literary translation.
Those features will be explained below in a simple way. Abdel-Hafiz
(2003: 230) stresses that ignoring such pragmatic problems may contort
the translation and lessen the pleasure of the English reader. El-Zeini
(1994: XVI) states that those pragmatic problems produce an inaccurate
translation. She clarifies that the English reader’s response is different
from that of the Arab reader because of the different language systems of
Arabic and English (1994: 45).
The main objective of a translation is to “communicate the meaning of
the original accurately and clearly to the readers of translation” (Gutt
1991: 66). Meaning with all its various respects should be preserved. To
judge the similarity of meaning a translator has to experience the target
language text (TLT). S/he should acquire the sense of "the other meaning"
(El-Shiyab et al 2000: 283). If there is vagueness in the target language
text (TLT), s/he has the license to modify. Translation is defined as “a
movement in the words used to make language along the context in which
words or sentences are used" (2000: 283). That skill is called "the verbal
art" according to (Bakhtin 1981) (2000: 283). A good translator should
find a way in which the desired meaning can be expressed in the receptor
language even if the TL form is different from the SL form.
Darwish (1989) points out how meaning is conveyed to the target
audience. He explains– following Catford (1965) – that meaning belongs
to language and concepts belong to the mind. Thus, meaning cannot be
translated unless we transfer concepts. Arabic meaning is translated into
English meaning through transferring concepts. Concepts are universal.
In addition to the pragmatic approach to translation there are other
approaches to translation that may involve other aspects such as structural,
cultural, functional etc. However, recent translation approaches can be
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 5

divided into linguistics-based approaches and cultural approaches. On the


one hand, linguistics-oriented approaches have been accused of being
limited in their explanation because they do not consider the social cultural
values in translation. They have been also criticized for being directed to
specialist linguists. They are repressive (Venuti 1998: 1-26). Yet, Venuti
does not suggest abandoning those approaches. Pragmatics is also
criticized for its individualism and its idealism. “Individuals are not
usually free to manipulate language to achieve their goals, but that they are
constrained by social conventions” (Fairchlough 1989 cited in Cutting
2002: 119). On the other hand, cultural approaches highlight cultural
differences between the source text and the target text. In fact, both
linguistic and cultural studies of translation are important. “Translation is a
kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two
cultural traditions”(Toury 2000: 200).
The trend of unifying meaning is opposed by a cultural approach
which has underscored the differences of languages and viewed translation
as“a locus for the celebration of difference”(May 1994: 42). The cultural
approach has stressed the cultural turn in translation (Bassnett and
Lefevere 1990). Then, translation is defined as translating cultures not
languages (Ivir 1987: 35; Pym 1992; Lefevere 1992; Even-Zohor 1990;
Snell-Hornby 1990) (Tymoczko 1999: 21).
In fact, translation is a complex entity, which involves a large number
of variables other than reproduction of meaning. In this regard, in the
process of translating a text the translator should know not only the
languages involved, but also their cultures and rhetorical traditions
(Enkvist 1991: 14-15). Being receiver and producer of text, the translator
“has the double duty of perceiving the meaning potential of particular
choices within the cultural and linguistic community of the source text and
relaying the same potential, by suitable linguistic means, to a target
readership” (Mason 1994: 23). Baker believes that “no approach, however
sophisticated, can provide the answer to all the questions raised in the
discipline” (2001: 280). She views the different approaches as
“complementary rather than mutually exclusive”(2001: 280). Newmark
(1982: 12) argues that “a general theory cannot propose a single method
(e.g. dynamic equivalence), but must be concerned with the full range of
text-types and their corresponding translation criteria, as well as the major
variables involved”. Thus, the study does not present a general theory of
translation. Rather, it introduces a pragmatic approach to translation.
Different theories and models can be counted in the field of translation.
Bell (1991: 23-24) distinguishes between the theory and the model. He
shows that a theory explains a phenomenon and is communicated to others
6 &KDSWHU2QH

in the form of a model. A model is “an attempt at a description rather than


an explanation” (1991: 26). The term "approach" might be more appropriate
(1991: 27). Vinay and Darblent (1958: 84) recognize two types of
translations:
1- Direct translations where the linguistic features of the SLT are replaced
by their equivalents in the TLT, and
2- Oblique translations where complex methods are used to render certain
stylistic effects.
According to Jakobson (1959: 114) there are different kinds of
translation. He differentiates three ways of interpreting a verbal sign:
1- Intralingual (rewording): a verbal sign is interpreted to another within
the same language
2- Interlingual (translation proper): a verbal sign is interpreted to another
in a different language
3- Intersemiotic (transmutation): a verbal sign is interpreted to a non-
verbal sign.
Nida (1976) distinguishes three theories of translation:
1-Philological (Belloc 1931, Cary and Jumpelt 1963, and Brower 1966)
2-Linguistic2 (Catford 1965)
3-Sociolinguistic (Nida and Taber 1969)
Two centuries ago Tytler (1791) set up a series of do’s and don’ts –
which act as general laws of translation that teach translators what they
ought and ought not to do (Bell 1991:10). Then, linguistics emerged with
its descriptive type. According to Bell (1991:10), most translation theorists
except Nida, Catford and few theorists follow the prescriptive thinking of
the past. The sociolinguistic theory differs from the linguistic theory in
that it adds a communicative dimension and a functional perspective to
translation (Shaheen 1998: 27-28).
According to Nida (1964b: 127), the nature of the message determines
the types of translations. A translation depends on the degree of focus on
the form or the content. Two types of translations are distinguished:
1- a formal equivalence translation in which the form and content of the
original message is to be preserved, and
2- a dynamic equivalence translation which focuses on creating an
equivalent effect in the TLT.
Nida and Taber (1969: 12) direct the attention towards the receptor of the
message not the form of the message. In other words, the relationship
between the TL receptor and the message should be dynamic to be similar
to the relationship between the original receptor and the message.
According to Larson (1984), there are two types of translations:
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 7

1- form-based or literal translations which transmit the form of the SLT,


and
2- meaning-based or idiomatic translations which “communicate the
meaning of the SL text in the natural forms of the receptor language”
(1984: 15). This type of translation has been developed by Beekman and
Callow (1974) (Gutt 1991: 68). Then, Newmark (1988) presents a pair of
terms:
1- a semantic translation in which the SLT semantic and syntactic
structures are rendered in the TLT, and
2- a communicative translation which creates an equivalent effect in the
receptor language.
It seems that Nida’s formal translation, Larson’s literal translation and
Newmark’s semantic translation focus on the form of the text.
Nevertheless, literal translation ignores context. Similarly, Nida’s dynamic
translation, Larson’s idiomatic translation and Newmark’s communicative
translation seek one goal; that is, finding an equivalent effect. This fact has
been affirmed by Gutt (1991: 68). Gutt finds that the dynamic translation
resembles the idiomatic translation. Both convey the message of the
original text to the receptor audience and are equivalent to the original text
in a dynamic way.
According to Neubert (1991: 17-26), four approaches of translation can
be distinguished out of seven:
1- Linguistic
2- Communicative/functional
3-Psycholinguistic
4-Sociocultural
Abdel-Hafiz (2003: 229) differentiates 3 approaches:
1- Linguistic
2- Pragmatic
3- Cultural
Christiane Nord (1991: 72-73) adds two new terms: "documentary" vs.
"instrumental" translations. Documentary translations preserve the original
exoticizing flavor of the SLT. An instrumental translationconveys the SL
message in a new communicative action in the TL. Nord’s difference
between documentary and instrumental translations has already been
utilized by House (1981) when she differentiated between "overt" and
"covert" translations. Literary translation is seen as a type of documentary
translation (Nord 1991).
By and large, types of translation are radically diverse but depend
mainly on a central concept, that is, equivalence. Therefore, many
translation theorists define translation in terms of equivalence relation;
8 &KDSWHU2QH

relation between the SLT and the TLT. The translator’s objective and the
text type determine the type of equivalence used in the process of
translation. Equivalence is a relationship of equality between the SLT and
the TLT. In fact, the concept is encompassed by vagueness. Historically, it
was perceived in terms of accuracy and fidelity (Sager 1997: 25). Vinay
and Darblent (2000) deal with the methods of creating equivalent texts
(2000: 90). Jakobson (2000) also identifies equivalence as “the cardinal
problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguists” (2000: 114). As
Hartman and Stork (1972) summarize the concept, "texts in different
languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially), in
respect of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect of context,
of semantics, of grammar, of lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-for-
word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence)" (1972: 713 cited in Bell
1991: 6). With regard to equivalence, translation theorists range from
proponents thatdefine translation in terms of equivalence (Catford 1965;
Nida and Taber 1969; Toury 1980; Pym 1992,1995; Koller 1995 cited in
Kenny 2001: 77) to opponents that reject equivalence (Snell-Hornby 1988;
Gentzler 1993 cited in Kenny 2001: 77). According to Sager (1997),
pragmatic equivalence and functional equivalence are widely used in the
recent time. Sager points out that pragmatic equivalence is used to modify
the content (addition and reduction) while functional equivalence is used
to preserve the purpose of the original; “a writer intention” and “a reader
expectation”. Thus, both constitute a dynamic view of translation (1997:
32).
It is worth pausing for a moment to wonder which type of equivalence
should be given priority. Translation theorists answered this question
differently. Vinay and Darblent (1958) believe that if there is no
synonymy in the bilingual dictionary, the translator has to resort to what
they called “situational equivalence”; creating a new situation in the target
context (Vinay and Darblent 2000: 91). Then, Jakobson (1959) introduces
the term “equivalence in difference” (Jakobson 2000: 114). It depends on
his semiotic approach to translation; it “involves two equivalent messages
in two different codes” (2000: 114). Leonardi (2000: 3) notes that both
(Vinay and Darblent 1958) and (Jokobson 1959) “recognize the limitations
of a linguistic theory” because they licensed the use of non-linguistic
methods such as loan-translation and neologisms.
Nida (1964) introduces two types of equivalence: formal and dynamic;
the former focuses on the form and content of the message while the latter
on producing equivalent effect. Then, Catford (1965) differentiates between
formal correspondence and textual equivalence. He offers “departures
from formal correspondence” because of the grammatical and lexical
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 9

shifts that occur at the different levels and in the different categories
(Catford 2000: 143). Widdowson (1979) presents three types of equivalence:
structural, semantic, and pragmatic. The first accounts for the formal
similarity between surface forms of sentences. The second relates different
surface forms to a common deep structure. The third relates surface forms
to their communicative function (El Menoufy 1982: 238-252). Then,
Newmark (1977) distinguishes a semantic equivalence from a
communicative equivalence which concerns an equivalent effect on the TL
reader. According to El Menoufy (1982: 243), it is useless to choose
between semantic and communicative equivalence in translation because
the translator first starts with the semantic (replacing in the TLT the
invariant core of the SLT), then resorts to the communicative.
According to Baker (1992: 5), equivalence is sought “for the sake of
convenience”. A certain type of equivalence is given priority to other types
in a certain situation. She comments, “the ultimate aim of a translator, in
most cases, is to achieve a measure of equivalence at text level, rather than
at word or phrase level”(1992: 112). She advocates textual equivalence.
Baker emphasizes that the job of the translator is to be concerned with
“communicating the overall meaning of a stretch of language” (1992: 10).
Baker's view does not mean that equivalence at word level should not be
sought in some contexts. But at the morpheme level there is no
equivalence (Halliday 1967 cited in Newmark 1991: 67). The more a
translator seeks equivalence at a higher level the more successful s/he is.
One has to move from lower levels (micro levels) to higher levels (macro
levels). That has been approved by Halliday (2001) and termed “a
principle of hierarchy of values” (2001: 17 cited in Zequan 2004: 9). On
the contrary, there is a recent trend that denies equivalence. It defines
translation not in terms of equivalence, but in terms of difference. While
equivalence works to reduce linguistic and cultural differences, this trend
elevates the notion of difference between the original and the translation
(cf. Venuti 1998).

1.2 Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning


The pragmatic approach to translation (PA) has gained prominence in
the 1990s. It is sometimes classified as one of the text linguistic
approaches to translation – along with register analysis and discourse
analysis (Fawcett 2001: 123-124). However, it is also classified under the
heading “discourse analysis” (cf. Munday 2001: 89). While text analysis
has been more concerned with the organization of texts, discourse analysis
aims at describing social relationships and interaction through texts.
10 &KDSWHU2QH

Pragmatics is mainly concerned with inferences3. A pragmatic inference is


produced by the communicative situation (Chernov 1991: 27-28).
Obviously, the pragmatic approach (PA) utilizes the situational meaning,
which plays a decisive role in understanding any text. The message is only
interpretable in a given communication situation. Another important issue
in pragmatics is the relation between a sender and a receiver of a message.
This issue is important in the PA because it will affect communication.
The participants’ cultural background, the presuppositions that each brings
to communication and the other extralinguistic information are employed
in the PA. The PA goes beyond the syntactic and semantic code of the
text. It is concerned with the use of code for communication.
Traditionally, pragmatics was classified as a division of semiotics.
Morris (1938) distinguishes pragmatics as “the science of the relation of
signs to their interpreters” (Morris 1938 cited in Horn 1988: 116). In
modern linguistics, several conflicting definitions have arisen. According
to Crystal, pragmatics is

the study of LANGUAGE from the point of view of the users, especially of
the choices they make, the CONSTRAINTS they encounter in using
language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language has on
the other participants in an act of communication"(1997: 301).

Leech (1983: X) defines pragmatics as “the study of how utterances have


meanings in situations”. Levinson (1983: 1-35) explores other definitions.
He criticizes restricting pragmatics to the grammatical aspects which are
formally encoded in the structure of language. He also criticizes Katz’s
definition (1977: 19) of pragmatics as concerned with interpreting
linguistic forms in a context4. Levinson also criticizes Gazdar (1979: 2) for
defining pragmatics in terms of those aspects of meaning not covered in
semantics because the scope of pragmatics will depend upon the kind of
the semantic theory adopted; general semantics or truth-conditional
semantics (Levinson 1983: 12). Levinson also discards the idea of defining
pragmatics in terms of appropriateness adopted by (Van Dijk 1976: 29;
Lyons 1977: 574; Austin 1962 and Searle 1969), because it may cause
overlapping with sociolinguistics and requires “a culturally homogeneous
speech community” (Levinson 1983: 25). Finally, Levinson defines
pragmatics as the study of language use (1983: 5,25). Baker (1992: 217)
advocates that definition. Bach and Harnish (1979: 81-103) consider that
definition so broad that it includes areas as social psychology,
sociolinguistics, cultural anthropology, and rhetoric. They restrict the term
to the aspects of use that are involved in communication. Green (1989)
defines pragmatics as “natural language understanding”. Pragmatic
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 11

information is described as the “speaker’s and addressee’s mental models


of each other” (Green 2000: 1). However, Stalnaker (1972) determines the
major topics of pragmatics: “deixis…, implicature, presupposition, speech
acts and aspects of discourse structure” (Levinson 1983: 27).
According to Crystal (1997: 301), there is no coherent pragmatic
theory in the present time because of the various topics it has to explain.
The problem is that pragmatics deals with both context-dependent aspects
encoded in a language structure and principles of language use that are
irrelevant with linguistic structure. Context-dependent aspects that are
encoded in the language structure are deixis, presupposition and speech
acts (cf. Levinson 1983: 9).
Levinson (1983) recognizes the boundaries of pragmatics. It is the area
between semantics and sociolinguistics. He arranges language areas as
follows: syntax and phonology/semantics/pragmatics/sociolinguistics
(1983: 27). Semantics/pragmatics distinction will be discussed below.
Pragmatics/sociolinguistics distinction is clear. They feed each other
(1983: 374). Gregerson (1980: 14-16) shows that pragmatics and rhetoric
share one goal: a speaker tries to influence her/his hearers.
Drawing a division line between semantics and pragmatics is necessary
to understand the nature of pragmatic information. The distinction reflects
the difference between linguistic and extra-linguistic information, meaning
and use, context-invariant and context-sensitive meaning, saying and
implying, literal and nonliteral use, and content and force. Understanding
the distinction, linguists can avoid the ambiguity of the semantic
representation through pragmatic alternatives (Morgan 1975 cited in Green
1989: 106).
At the present time linguists disagree about the boundary between
semantics and pragmatics. Some linguists view them as different aspects
of the same general study. Both concern meaning (Kreidler 1998: 18-19).
Other linguists see pragmatics as an independent level of language
analysis. Whereas semantics relates meaning to logic and truth (linguistic
meaning), pragmatics relates meaning to context of utterance (speaker
meaning). Others do not consider pragmatics to be a level of linguistic
theory but a way of linking language to social aspects. Then, pragmatics is
“more akin to sociolinguistics than semantics” (Levinson 1983: 33).
Levinson (1983: 33-53) proves that pragmatics is part of competence and a
component of linguistic theory. Different approaches to semantics /
pragmatics distinction are explored briefly in the study.
Austin draws the distinction by contrasting locutionary and
illocutionary acts (1960: 93-101). Later, Grice (1978) advocates a unitary
semantics supplemented with conversational implicature. Grice and his
12 &KDSWHU2QH

followers, like Atlas and Levinson (1981) and Horn (1989), presume that
default implicatures play a role in the interpretation of the semantic
representation. It is claimed that implicatures are universal principles of
rationality which are rarely lexicalized (Levinson 1996: 192). Leech
(1983: 229) depends on the difference between grammar and rhetoric; and
between sense and force to explain the distinction.
Bach (1999a) presents an underdetermined semantics in which
pragmatic aspects of meaning contribute to what is said. In case of an
utterance which is semantically underdetermined, pragmatic processes
contribute to reach a proposition. He illustrates that the notion of context
cannot be depended upon to formulate the semantics / pragmatics
distinction because “context plays a role in semantics as well as
pragmatics” (1999a: 6). He differentiates between context in a narrow
semantic sense that is restricted to few variables – such as the identity of
the speaker and the hearer; and the time and place of an utterance – and
context in a broad, pragmatic sense that is the speaker’s communicative
intention. He acknowledges that understanding semantically incomplete
sentence requires pragmatic supplementation. This pragmatic
supplementation explains the relationship between semantics and
pragmatics. Context can be used to explain how pragmatics complements
semantics (1999a: 6). Bach proposes the concept of implicature which
includes expansion and completion of what is said. He claims that
"pragmatic information concerns facts relevant to making sense of a
speaker’s utterance of a sentence" (1999a:8). Furthermore, he emphasizes
that understanding utterances is achieved through the Gricean notion of
reflexive communicative intention.
Later, Carston (1999) assures that pragmatics enriches semantics.
Semantic entailments are enriched pragmatically to reach a proposition.
Enrichment is achieved either through explicature which is derived by
inferentially developing the logical form or implicature which is derived
only by inference. Carston’s approach is built on the relevance theory of
Sperber and Wilson (1986) which replaces rational communication with
innate principles of cognitive processes and information processing; it
maximizes contextual effects at a minimum of processing cost.
Jaszczolt (1999) proposes an unambiguous default semantics in which
intention intrudes to exorcize the ambiguity of the semantic representation.
Jaszczolt’s approach is built on a dynamic view of semantics and
pragmatics in which they are interwoven. Thus, there is no division
between semantics and pragmatics.
In conclusion, whether pragmatic factors supplement semantic
representation as Bach (1999a) proposes or they intrude into semantic
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 13

representation, semantics and pragmatics are distinctive and complementary.


The relationship between them is that of feeding eachother. Levinson
(1983: 34) explains that “neither semantics nor pragmatics is autonomous
with respect to each – information provided by the one component must be
available to the other”. Belhaaj (1997: 14) comments that “‘a marriage of
convenience’ must be established between semantics and pragmatics”.
This intermarriage, in the terms of Yus (1999: 9), is necessitated by two
facts: “(a) that semantics cannot find purely semantic answers to purely
semantic questions, and (b) that pragmatics cannot find purely pragmatic
answers to purely pragmatic questions.”

1.3 Relation between Pragmatics and Translation


A translation should be primarily pragmatic because pragmatics and
translation share common features. They are semiotic in nature, aiming at
increasing understanding and facilitating communication. Semiotics is “the
science that studies sign systems or structures, sign processes and sign
functions” (Bassnett 1991: 13). While pragmatics has been recognized by
Morris (1938) as a division of semiotics (the relation of sign to user),
translation is a kind of semiotic interpretation. Jakobson (2000) defines
translation as an interpretation of verbal signs by other verbal signs in a
different language. Levy stresses that “[as] all semiotic processes,
translation has its PRAGMATIC DIMENSION as well” (2000: 156).
Both pragmatics and translation are communicative, i.e. using
sentences appropriately to achieve communication (Widdowson 1979). In
the Gricean model, pragmatics deals with interpreting the communicative
act. El Menoufy (1982) stresses the contribution of the communicative
approach in translation to guarantee effective communication. Many
translation scholars such as Bell (1991: 8) and Simon (1996: 9) consider
translation as an act of communication (decoding, transmitting and
encoding) and translators as participants in communication. In Gutt’s
terms, translation is placed within the sphere of communication (1991:
22). Moreover, both pragmatics and translation utilize a functional view of
language. Functionalism is a mode of explanation by reference to external
factors. In pragmatics, “some linguistic feature is motivated by principles
outside the scope of linguistic theory” (Levinson 1983: 40). In translation,
a functional view should be adopted to compensate for the lack of a
similar cultural convention in the TL (Bassnett 1991: 22).
Bell describes pragmatics in terms of situationality, intentionality and
acceptability (1991: 209). Thus, the pragmatic approach (PA) can be said
to apply these three important features in translation. Situationality refers
14 &KDSWHU2QH

to the appropriate use in a particular situation, intentionality to the


intention of the producer, and acceptability to the effect of the TL text on
the TL receptor. The PA was used before by Widdowson (1973) to refer to
the communicative use-value of utterances (Al-Zoubi and Hassnawi
2001).
The PA is characterized by a distinctive orientation. It represents extra-
textual or external factors. Those factors in the narrow sense of the word
refer to place and time of communication (situationality) and in its broad
sense to the relationship between the producer and receptor (intentionality
and acceptability) (cf. Wilss 1977; Koller 1979; Reiss 1974). The PA
focuses on three aspects: the context of the situation, the writer’s intention
and the reader’s response. As given above, the PA is characterized with
three different features: situationality, intentionality and acceptability.
Each feature will be explained below.

(1) Situationality
Understanding an utterance involves not only its linguistic meaning but
also its appropriate use in a particular situation (El Menoufy 1982: 239).
The use of context is part and parcel in the PA (Abdel-Hafiz 2003: 230).
Abdel-Hafiz stresses the importance of context in retrieving meaning.
Without a contextual situation an utterance could not be interpreted.
Understanding or comprehension is fulfilled by associating or connecting
the new information verbalized in the text with the knowledge of the world
or of a particular situation (Nord 1991: 88-89). This process of “concrete
occurrence in a context” is called “actualization” (Lewis 2000: 266).

(2) Intentionality
Intention means the purpose of communication. In successful
communication the sender must have intention in producing the message
and the receiver interprets the message. The receiver’s interpretation
should coincide with the sender’s intention (Sager 1997: 27). Even if the
form of an utterance does not correspond to the intended function, the
receiver recognizes the sender’s intention. This is true because the sender
and the receiver know each other. They share common background
knowledge. In translation the writer and the TL reader rarely share
common background knowledge. Therefore, the role of the translator is to
mediate between the writer and the reader. Ho (1998) believes that the
intention of producer is important because semiotic acts are performative
in nature. Being performative means specifying certain purposes.
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 15

“Translations could not be regarded as synonymity-preserving mappings


between texts….[but] as purpose-preserving transformation of expressions
or utterances” (1998: 4). The PA confirms that intention should be
preserved in translation.

(3) Acceptability
When a reader receives a text, s/he associates it with her or his
background knowledge. The impression the reader gets when s/he reads is
defined as effect (Nord 1991: 130). Nord comments that

the recipient builds up a certain expectation as to the intratextual


characteristics of the text, but it is only when, through reading, he contrasts
his expectation with the actual features of the text that he experiences the
particular effect the text has on him" (1991: 37).

Many translation scholars such as (Wilss 1977; Thiel 1974, 1978,1980;


Cartellieri 1979; Reiss 1980; Koller 1979) pay attention to the recipient
(Nord 1991: 51). In fact, the focus on the receptor has been studied by
Benjamin (1923: 16). The intratextual information and the reader’s
extralinguistic information may not coincide. Then, the reader’s
expectations will not be fulfilled. Then there will be effect loss. The effect
of the target text on the TL reader should be equivalent to that of the
source text on the SL reader. Therefore, equivalence of effect should be
achieved in a pragmatic translation. Nida (1964) and Newmark (1977)
discuss effect equivalence in their dynamic and communicative
equivalence, respectively.
Effect loss may destroy the whole text. If a word, for example, is
intended by the writer to be polysemous or ambiguous in the source text it
will seldom have an equivalent in the target language. This effect loss
results in what Blum-Kulka (1986) calls "a shift in coherence" (Baker
1992: 250). Baker suggests that achieving coherence in the text requires
translators to “minimize discrepancies between the model of the world
presented in the source text and that with which the target reader is likely
to be familiar” (1992: 253). Sager (1997: 27) claims that the SL reader is
guided by the writer’s intention and the reader’s expectation. In translation
there is no writer’s intention to help the TL reader. Thus, preserving
intention is important in translation.
The solution of effect loss lies in the strategies of the PA. They are
strategies of modification (Nord 1991: 51-52). Translators have license to
cut details presupposed to be known to the reader and overstretch other
parts, which are not known to the reader. The PA strategies of
16 &KDSWHU2QH

modification will be discussed below. Focusing on the effect of the text on


the receptor, the PA guarantees “comprehensibility in the receiving culture
(Koller 1979: 186-91; Koller 1989: 99-104)” (Venuti 2000: 121). The PA
has a universal prop because contrastive pragmatics elevates common
universal understanding. Levinson (1996: 141); Gumperz and Levinson
(1996: 227); and Ochs (1996: 425-429) believe that principles of language
use have a strong universal basis, though there are local variations among
languages and cultures. Equivalence in translation has been considered to
be built on universals of language and culture (Venuti 2000: 121).
What matters here is the role of context. To reach equivalence in
translation translators should consider the context of the target culture. The
first real insights into the theory of context were the works of Malinowsky
(1923, 1935) and those of Firth (1935, 1951) (Trosborg 1997: 5). The
notion of context has been described by vagueness. Ochs (1979: 1) and
Bar-Hillel (1970:80) admit that the scope of context is not clearly limited
(Levinson 1983: 23). It includes both linguistic features and non-linguistic
features. Lyons (1977: 574) lists the following factors to determine the
scope of context:
-"knowledge ofrole and status" of participants in the utterances
-"knowledge of spatial and temporal location"
-"knowledge offormality level"
-"knowledge of themedium"
-"knowledge of appropriate subject matter"
- knowledge of "domain determining theregister of a language" (Levinson
1983: 23)
In fact, there are no"universally applicable criteria" to determine "what
does and does not belong to context" (Wilss 1994: 36). Cutting (2002)
determines four main types of context:
- situational context
- cultural context
- interpersonal knowledge context
- co-textual knowledge context (2002: 3-14)
Green (1994, 1999) argues that context represents “proposition(s) that
the speaker believes or intends” (1999: 3). Thus, mutual beliefs and
reflexive intentions between the participants are contextual factors5. In
fact, context is “a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon” (Wilss 1994:
37). Kreidler (1988: 23) argues that

[suppose] we hear an utterance, know the language, know the meanings of


the words and the sentences formed with the words. We may still not fully
comprehend what is said because we don’t know what the utterance is
about.
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 17

Meaning is partially dependent on context. Gumperz and Levinson (1996:


225) recognize that both the semantic theory and the pragmatic theory of
meaning have emphasized the role of context. The semanticists gave
priority to indexicals and the pragmaticists focused on counting contextual
information. Hanks (1996: 232) emphasizes that “linguistic meaning arises
only in context”. He explores opinions that advocated context dependency.
Thus, not only can conversational meaning arise from "the fusion of
language form with context", literal sense can as well (1996: 232).
Understanding pragmatic meaning requires identifying a context which
makes sense of an utterance. Green (1999: 15) contends that the meaning
of a lexical item in an utterance is not fixed by a linguistic system. It is
entertained with the help of the context. According to Geoff Nunberg
(1978), word meanings are more cultural than linguistic (Green 1999: 15).
Green concludes that it is impossible to infer a “core literal meaning”
(1999: 15). In other words, the idea of “null context” is not applicable. The
role of context in understanding utterances recurs in the various different
pragmatic phenomena. Thus, context helps to understand speech acts,
implicatures and deixis (Grundy 2000: 72). Speech act context helps to
determine the speaker’s intentions. Implicature context helps to determine
what is conveyed implicitly. Deictic context helps to determine reference
(2000: 72). Context also helps to resolve ambiguity and to interpret
metaphors (cf. McCabe 1998). Nida (2002) argues that “The real clues to
meaning depend on contexts” (2002: 29 cited in Wang 2003: 1-2). Context
“actually provides more distinctiveness of meaning than the term
analyzed” (2002: 31 cited in Wang 2003: 2). Steiner (1973) confirms that
“[no] grammar or dictionary is of very much use to the translator: only
context, in the fullest linguistic-cultural sense, certifies meaning” (1973:
19 cited in Wang 2003: 2).

1.4 Recognition of Pragmatic Problems


Pragmatic problems appear when the SL and TL have different
pragmatic principles. Different languages employ different pragmatic
principles and maxims in the same communication behavior. Leech
illustrates that languages have different pragmalinguistic structures and
norms and transferring “the norms of one community may well lead to
‘pragmatic failure’”(1983: 231). Thus, a principle of politeness in one
community may be impolite in another. A cooperative principle in one
community may be uncooperative in another. Fawcett (2001: 124)
considers this pragmatic difference as part of the translator’s competence.
S/he has to identify the areas of pragmatic interference between the two
18 &KDSWHU2QH

languages. S/he should recognize how the two languages observe a certain
pragmatic principle. Pragmatic competence is defined as “the ability to use
language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to
understand language in context” (Thomas 1983: 94 cited in Cutting 2002:
159). Thomas (1983) argues that pragmatic failure occurs when an
utterance fails to achieve the sender’s goal. It results in misunderstanding
and cross-cultural communication breakdown. Pragmatic problems will be
evident in case of applying pragmatic principles such as speech acts,
presuppositions, implicatures, relevance, deictic expressions and politeness
formulas to translation.
First, preserving the force of speech acts may be problematic.
Mistranslating speech acts is due to the difference between the sense and
the force of utterances; in other words, locutionary and illocutionary acts
(Hatim 2001: 179). Literal translation of speech acts will not produce the
desired effect. Translators are invited to reproduce locutionary acts and
preserve illocutionary acts to achieve the same perlocution (effect) in the
target language (Blum-Kulka 1981). Furthermore, the illocutionary force
of the whole text should be paid attention to and preserved in the TLT. In
fact, the global organization of the text has been recently highlighted in
translation. The text is viewed as a whole. Text illocutionary force is
assessed in the sequence of the whole speech acts in the text. The
hierarchical organization of speech acts in the whole text is called text act.
Translators should render "this overall picture" of speech acts because this
illocutionary structure of the whole text is part of text coherence (Hatim
2001: 180).
Second, translating implicit meaning may be problematic for translators.
Implicit meaning include presuppositions and implicatures. Presuppositions
depend on shared knowledge between the writer and the reader. In
translation it almost happens that the writer and the TL reader does not
share this sort of knowledge. El-Gamal (2001) suggests that translating
presuppositions as assertions will distort meaning. Presuppositions should
be preserved in the target text. Translating implicatures may also be
problematic. The concept of implicature is built on deliberately flouting
one or more of the cooperative maxims. Some implied meaning is inferred
beyond what is said. The problem lies in the fact that the target language
may employ a different maxim to produce the SL implicature. Baker
(1992: 236) stresses the importance of being aware of the different
cooperative principles employed in the SL and TL. An implied meaning in
the original should be matched by an equivalent implied meaning in the
TLT (Hatim 2001: 181). Blum-Kulka (1981) proposes that implicatures
should be compensated for in the TLT. Thus, preserving what is implied
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 19

will increase the effectiveness of the TLT. If a maxim is flouted in the


SLT, an equivalent or different maxim is flouted in the TLT. The most
important is the equivalence of effect, which is achieved by preserving the
intention of the writer and the function of the utterance, not the form of the
utterance.
Translating figures of speech is also important in the PA because they
are considered forms of flouting or exploiting the cooperative maxims.
Translating metaphors, irony and other forms of figures of speech pose
problems for translators. Larson (1984: 21) argues that

translators who want to make a good idiomatic translation often find


figures of speech especially challenging. A literal translation of blind as a
bat might sound really strange in a language where the comparison
between a blind person and a bat has never been used as a figure of
speech.

Translators either relay the sense of the utterance or reproduce an


equivalent figure of speech in the TLT. In fact, this problem is the
predicament of translators. Translations are either faithful without being
beautiful or beautiful without being faithful.
In a pragmatic translation, the effect and function of the original is
retained. Transferring the message of the original is not enough.
Translators have to find an equivalent figure of speech in the target
linguistic community and preserve the sense of the original as possible as
they can. Thus, the same figure of speech as well as the full sense of the
original is retained. A pragmatic translation should keep the sense and
effect of the original message. To reconcile the dilemma of faithfulness–
beauty contrast Lewis (2000: 268) suggests that "a good translation should
be a double interpretation, faithful both to language/message of the
original and to the message-orienting cast of its own language". That
solution benefits in literary texts. In other cases Newmark (1988) suggests
other solutions. He argues that

conventional metaphors and saying…should always be conventionally


translated…but unusual metaphors and comparisons should be reduced to
their sense if the text has a mainly informative function (Newmark 1988:
15 cited in Gutt 1991: 388).

If there is mismatch between the source language and the target language,
a figure of speech should be explicated.
Metonymy, malapropism and irony are good examples in which the
pragmatic approach can be used in translating them. Translating
20 &KDSWHU2QH

metonymy could not be achieved with the help of the lexicon. Interpreting
the meaning of a metonymic utterance is achieved through linking the
lexical form with pragmatic information (Lascarides and Copestake 1998:
389). Malapropism is intended to generate fun feeling in the readers. A
word may be intended to be polysemous or ambiguous in the SLT to arise
a certain effect. It should be rendered with its original effect. Irony is best
translated with the help of the PA because it is a relevance-based
approach. Relevance, as intended by Gutt (1991), means, “achieving
maximum benefit at minimum processing cost” (Hatim 2001: 182).
Applying relevance to translation means creating inferential resemblance
i.e., the target text should resemble the source text interpretively (Hatim
2001: 182). A translation is relevant if the TLT reader adequately
interprets it as the SLT reader interprets the source text. The TLT reader
associates intratextual information with background knowledge to produce
various contextual effects. The more contextual effects a translation offers
the more relevant it is. In other words, the less processing effort a
translation involves the more relevant it is (Hatim 2001: 182).

1.5 Strategies of the Pragmatic Approach


Obviously, translators have to avoid pragmatic failure in translation.
Translating the explicit meaning is not enough to produce pragmatically
successful translations. Translators are required to convey the implicit
meaning of the original (El-Shiyab et al 2000: 276-277). They resort to
modifications, additions, deletions and other strategies (Chernov 1991:
29). These shifts are recommended to achieve “a maximum of effect with
a minimum of effort” which Levy (2000: 156) calls "a minimax strategy".
Baker (1992: 250) illustrates that

anything that is likely to violate the target reader’s expectations must be


carefully examined and, if necessary, adjusted in order to avoid conveying
the wrong implicatures or even failing to make sense altogether.

These adjustments are lumped together under the category of modification.


The PA strategies of modification lie between two opposite extremes:
mere preservation and adaptation. However, adaptation is a broad term
which means changes made in the target text when the context referred to
in the SLT does not exist in the target culture (Bastin 2001: 5-8). The aim
of adaptation is to preserve the function of the original text, if not the form
as well. As Bastin (2001: 8) comments, "it is often argued that a successful
translation is one that looks or sounds like an original piece of work,
which would seem to imply that the translator is expected to intervene
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 21

actively (i.e. adapt) to ensure that this ideal is achieved". Vinay and
Darblent (2000: 91) describe adaptation “as a special kind of equivalence,
a situational equivalence.” In case of mismatches between the source
language and the target language, translators use three PA strategies of
modification: explicitation (addition / paraphrase / expansion), implicitation
(omission) and compensation. Gutt (1991: 47) shows that these techniques
make the translation functionally equivalent. Sager (1997: 33) confirms
that reduction, addition and modification of content are needed to preserve
the intention of the writer.
Explicitation, the first strategy, is a translation technique, which is
termed "explicature" in (Sperber and Wilson 1986), "paraphrasing" in
(Baker 1992: 47), "enrichment" in (Wilson and Sperber 1993; Sequeiros
2002), and "expansion" in (Bastin 2001: 7). Whatever the term is, this
strategy is used to explicate the text by additional words. In other words,
any implicit information in the SLT is made explicit. Implicitation, the
second strategy, is the opposite. Vinay and Darblent (1958) and Klaudy
(2001: 80) have discussed these two strategies. The PA is concerned with
pragmatic explicitation, which makes cultural information that is implicit
in the SLT explicit because the TLT reader does not share cultural
knowledge with the SLT writer (Klaudy 2001: 80).
A very important issue is the criterion upon which translators depend
to decide whether to preserve the implicit meaning of the SLT in the
translation or to make it explicit. Baker (1992: 247) proposes that addition
and deletion be choices of translators. If a text is more explicit than
required it will lead to an increased semantic load (El-Dash and Busnarde
2003: 25). Baker (1992: 254) warns of overdoing a text “by explaining too
much and leaving the reader with nothing to do”. As Gutt (1998) writes,
"the translator can either leave the writer in peace as much as possible and
bring the reader to him, or he can leave the reader in peace as much as
possible and bring the writer to him. (Schleiermacher, 1838: 47, as
translated in Wilss, 1982: 33)" (1998: 50). While bringing the reader to the
writer would equal using implicatures in the TLT, bringing the writer to
the reader would correspond to using explicatures. Gutt (1998: 50) admits
that the latter “would correspond to adapting the text to the context of the
target readers”. Gutt suggests that translators find "appropriate means to
overcome" pragmatic problems which result from mismatches between the
contextual information of the SLT and that of the TLT. Blum-Kulka
(1986) notes that explicitness causes shifts in cohesion. Shifts in cohesion
may be caused by shifts in levels of explicitness (more or less explicit) or
by shifts in text meanings (explicit or implicit). Arabic, for example, is
noticed to be more explicit than English; the first prefers lexical repetition
22 &KDSWHU2QH

while the second tends to prefer pronominalization. Baker (1992) assures


that inserting additional information may fill in a cultural gap (Laviosa-
Braithwaite 2001: 289).
Gutt (1991) strongly favors explicature as a means to achieve
relevance. Gutt supports “strategies for widening the contextual knowledge
of the target audience by additional means” (1998: 52). When the SLT
implicatures that are not relevant to the TLT reader are relayed as
implicatures, s/he will fail to infer meaning from them because of the
contextual differences between the two languages and cultures (Gutt 1991:
388). Thus, SLT implicatures, which are relevant to the SLT reader, are
turned into explicatures to be relevant to the TLT reader. Gutt aims to
explain the success and failure of translation. Relevance theory claims that
translation is an interpretive use of language. A translation “resembles [the
original] closely enough in relevant respects” (Wilson and Sperber 1988:
137 cited in Gutt 1998: 46). The interpretive resemblance between the
SLT and the TLT “consists in the sharing of explicatures and
implicatures” (Gutt 1998: 45). When two texts share explicatures and
implicatures, they interpretively resemble each other. Gutt (1998: 48)
comments that "the core relation between the translation and the original is
one of interpretive resemblance, which we further defined as the sharing of
explicatures and implicatures between the two texts”.
Sequeiros (2002: 1070) stresses the need for pragmatic enrichment
since the semantic representation is not complete. The logical form is
completed by this process of enrichment. Enrichment is a powerful
technique for pragmatic translation. Being explicit or implicit may be
significant in the translation to arise a certain pragmatic effect in the TLT
reader or to aid comprehension (2002: 1077). Literal translation of an
implicit meaning will lead to some loss of meaning (2002: 1086).
Pragmatic enrichment helps to interpret the original message by supplying
a context. It helps in conveying what is communicated and not what is
linguistically encoded. The notion of explicature has been reformulated by
Bach (1994). He presents the term impliciture to mean pragmatic
expansion and completion of the semantically incomplete sentence.
Impliciture is pragmatic supplementation which helps to produce full
proposition. Impliciture is different from implicature. Impliciture uses
“additional propositions external to what is said, but implicature is “built
out of what is said” (1994: 13).
Compensation, the third strategy, is defined as “making up for the loss
of a source text effect by recreating a similar effect in the target text”
(Harvey 2001: 37). As Baker (1992: 78) puts it, compensation “means that
one may either omit or play down a feature such as idiomaticity at the
7KH3UDJPDWLF$SSURDFK 23

point where it occurs in the source text and introduce it elsewhere in the
target text”. It is opted for because of the mismatches between the cultures
of the SL and that of the TL. Translators compensate for implicatures such
as metaphors and puns; politeness formulas and idioms. Nida and Taber
(1969); Wilss (1982); Newmark (1988); and Hatim and Mason (1990)
adopt the technique of compensation to counterbalance loss of meaning.
This technique has proven logical because of linguistic relativity. No two
utterances are equivalent in two different languages. In this regard,
knowledge of cross-cultural differences and similarities are important
(Trosborg 1997: 18). A rhetorical effect in the SLT is compensated for by
the same or a different linguistic device. The location of compensation is
not important in the text (Newmark 1988: 90; Hatim and Mason 1990:
202). Neubert (1991: 21) illustrates that the PA finds equivalence in the
whole text and meaning is no longer sentence-bound.
CHAPTER TWO

EQUIVALENT FORCE IN LITERARY


TRANSLATION

2.1 Speech Acts


This study is concerned with the strategies of translating speech acts in
a literary translation. Therefore, a lucid view of the nature of speech acts is
provided first. In fact, the notion of speech acts becomes one of the most
important issues in pragmatics. Austin (1962) introduces the term to mean
the actions performed in saying something. Austin revolutionizes the way
people think of language. Not only do people use language to make
statements, but also to perform actions. A speech act is represented by the
issuance of a certain kind of utterance (the locutionary act), together with
reference to the intention of the speaker (the illocutionary1 force such as
commands, promises etc.) and the effects it achieves on the listener (the
perlocutionary act). Speech acts are classified into different types:
1- Declaratives
2- Representatives
3- Commissives
4- Directives
5- Expressives (Levinson 1983: 240).
Levinson (1983) criticizes Searle for lacking "a principled basis" and for
not being based on "felicity conditions2" (1983: 240). Austin depends on
the "conventional procedures", "the circumstances" and "the persons"
participating in the act (Austin 1962: 14-15). For Searle, "felicity
conditions" are classified into:
1. general conditions: the speaker is not acting nonsense and the hearer
must hear and understand;
2. preparatory conditions: the hearer will benefit from the act;
3. content conditions: different speech acts have different content
conditions;
4. sincerity conditions: the speaker is sincere (Peccei 1999: 51; Cutting
2002: 18).
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 25

Leech (1983) proposes a descriptive view of performatives. A


performative is described by reference to the current speech situation. He
assumes that a speech act is semantically a proposition with a present-
tense verb and pragmatically an utterance with a force. He incorporates
semantics in analyzing speech acts (1983: 189-190). In his view, a regular
speech act has the following syntactic characteristics:
1. The verb of the main clause is an illocutionary verb.
2. This verb is in the simple present tense.
3. The subject of this verb is in the first person.
4. The indirect object of this verb, if one is present, is you.
5. Optionally, this verb is preceded by the adverb hereby.
6. The verb is followed (exception elliptical cases) by reported speech
clause (1983: 183-184).
Speech acts are classified into direct and indirect speech acts. In
Searle’s terms, an indirect speech act (ISA) is a speech act performed by
means of another (1979: 60). In direct speech acts (DSAs) there is a direct
relationship between the form and the function, whereas in ISAs the form
does not directly reflect its functional use. What is important is how
hearers interpret the force of ISAs. Felicity conditions are quite helpful in
this regard. In ISAs, the form resembles a certain DSA, but one or more of
the felicity conditions are obviously violated. Meanwhile, one or more of
the felicity conditions for the underlying ISA are mentioned by the
locution (Peccei 1999: 55).
Some problems may appear in the translation of speech acts in a
literary text. The first problem of translating speech acts is due to the fact
that they are culturally bound. They vary from a community to another and
from a culture to another (cf. Blum-Kulka 1982; Scarcella 1979) (El-Zeini
2001: 171). Aziz (1998: 129) notices that English speakers use
indirectness to express orders or requests, but Arab speakers use direct
speech acts (Abdel-Hafiz 2003: 233). Al-Zoubi and Al-Hassnawi notice
that Arab speakers prefer religious formulas to express thanking and
greeting (2001: 20). Cutting (2002: 21) argues that the utterance “how fat
you are” is considered a speech act of praising in India, but a speech act of
criticizing in England. The second problem is how to translate ISAs. What
is meant by an ISA is actually not in the words themselves but in the
meaning implied. According to Searle, if a speaker uses a DSA, s/he will
communicate the literal meaning which is conventionally expressed by the
words. If s/he uses an ISA, s/he will communicate meaning different from
the literal surface meaning. Translators must first analyze the speech acts
found in the SLT. If they are indirect speech acts, translators must discover
26 &KDSWHU7ZR

the meaning intended, the illocutionary force of the speaker, and then
decide how that same force can be rendered.

2.2 Pragmatic Translations of Speech Acts


Pragmatic translation is characterized by preserving the illocutionary
force and perlocutionary effect of speech acts. In the following translation
the perlocutionary effect is lost because the illocutionary force is not
preserved. The utterance “ΖϴΒϟ΍ ϒϴψϨΗ ΔΠϳΪΧ ϲϠϋϭ ϡϮϴϟ΍ Ϟϴδϐϟ΍ Δθ΋Ύϋ Ύϳ ϚϴϠϋ ”,
which is issued by the mother, Amina, to her daughter, Aisha, is a
directive speech act of ordering. It is in the form of obligation. Its
translation as “Aisha, You do the laundry today and Khadija will clean the
house.” is also functioning as a directive speech act of ordering. In fact,
Amina is addressing Aisha because she uses the pronominal suffix “ϙ ”
which is used as a second person, singular, feminine pronoun and the
vocative “Δθ΋ΎϋΎϳ”. Amina does not speak directly to Khadija. Thus, Aisha
has to tell Khadija of Amina’s order. The utterance is a verbless sentence
and the speaker uses “ϲϠϋ” which lays an obligation. It has a deontic
function. The use of “will” instead of "must" in the translation of the
second part of the utterance has contributed to the loss of the illocutionary
force intended by the producer of utterance:

ϡϷ΍ΖϟΎϗέϮτϔϟ΍ϦϣϦϏήϓΎϤϟϭ
ϥήϔϟ΍ΓήΠΣϲϓϲΑϥΎϘΤϠΗϢΛˬΖϴΒϟ΍ϒϴψϨΗΔΠϳΪΧϲϠϋϭˬϡϮϴϟ΍Ϟϴδϐϟ΍ Δθ΋ΎϋΎϳ ϚϴϠϋ -
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ
When they had finished breakfast, the mother said, “Aisha, You do the
laundry today and Khadija will clean the house. Afterwards meet me in
the oven room.” (Palace Walk, p. 32).

Back-translation:
ϡϷ΍ΖϟΎϗέϮτϔϟ΍ϦϣϦϏήϓΎϤϟϭ
ϥήϔϟ΍ΓήΠΣϲϓϲΑϲϘΤϠΗϢΛˬΖϴΒϟ΍ϒψϨΗϑϮγΔΠϳΪΧϭˬϡϮϴϟ΍Ϟϴδϐϟ΍Δθ΋ΎϋΎϳϚϴϠϋ-

The translation does not carefully handle the speech acts since it does not
preserve the perlocutionary effect. Hence, the TLT reader might not
understand the intended meaning of the utterance. The translators should
have translated the speech act as “Aisha, You do the laundry today.
Khadija should clean the house” or as “Aisha, you must do the laundry,
and Khadija must clean the house”. If the SLT and the Back-translation
had the same meaning, the translation would be more successful.
A speech act may be lost because of the tense of the introductory verb.
When Yasin admits his fault, he says, “Ε΄τΧ΃ϲϧ΄Αήϗ΃ϲϨϜϟϭ”. The utterance
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 27

is considered a commissive speech act. It is rendered as “I will admit….”


The translation does not preserve the speech act because of the use of the
future tense. The translators should have rendered it as “I admit….”

ϪδϔϧϚϟΎϤΘϴϟϩΪϬΟϯέΎμϗϝάΒϳϮϫϭϝΎϗϢΛΎΑήτπϣΎΒϴϬΘϣϪϨϋΝή˰ΨϓΖ˰Ϥμϟ΍ΔΒ˰ϗΎϋϑΎΧ
ϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ Ε΄˰˰τΧ΃ϲϧ΄Αήϗ΃ϲϨϜϟϭ ϼΠόΘϣϢΛ ΢ϣΎ˰˰δΘϟ΍Ϧϣϲ˰θΑΎϬϠϣΎ˰˰όϳ ΎϫΪϟ΍ϭϥΎϛ-
ι

Afraid that silence would prove harmful, Yasin abandoned it fearfully and
uneasily. Making a valiant effort to gain control of himself, he said, “Her
father treated her somewhat leniently.” Then he added hastily, “But I’ll
admit I made a mistake.” (Palace Walk, p. 314)
When Yasin divorces Maryam, he says: “I never want to see you
again.” Then he pronounced the irreversible triple divorce formula:

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΖϧ΃
“You’re divorced, divorced, divorced!” (Palace of Desire, p. 277)
Back-translation: ΔϘϠτϣΔϘϠτϣΔϘϠτϣΖϧ΃

Notice that the translation of the speech act uttered by Yasin may also lose
its perlocutionary effect because of not using the first person. The wrong
translation of the utterance results in changing the declarative speech act
into an assertive one. Though the translators enrich the translation
pragmatically through explicating the significance of repeating the word
"divorced", they do not use the first person as recommended by Leech
(1983: 183-184). This wrong translation diverts the meaning of the SA. It
becomes an assertion instead of being a declaration. The meaning turns to
be as if Yasin asserted that Maryam was divorced. The back-translation
and the SLT are not equal. The translation “I divorce you” may be better.
Analysis of translating speech acts is clear in exclamative utterances.
Gilbert (1999) and Hollmann (2004) classify them as speech acts. In the
following excerpt, Khadija, who speaks to her mother to show her surprise
at how fat Umm Hanafi is, utters a speech act of exclamation. When
Khadija says “ˮ ΔσήϔϤϟ΍ ΔϨϤδϟ΍ ϩάϫ ΎϬΌϴΠΗ Ϧϳ΃ Ϧϣ”, She casts doubts on Umm
Hanafi as a thief. The utterance is translated as “How did she get so fat?”

ΎόϴϤΟαΎϨϟΎΑϦψϟ΍˯ϲδΗϲΘϟ΍ΎϬΘόϴΒσϊϣΎϴθϤΗΓ΃ήϤϟΎΑϦψϟ΍˯Ϯ˰γϰϠϋΔ˰ΠϳΪΧΖΑ΃ΩϦϴΣϰϠϋ
ϩάϫΎϬΌϴΠΗ Ϧϳ΃ϦϣΎϬ˰ϣϷΖϟΎϘϓϦϳΰ˰Ψϟ΍Δϓή˰ϏϦϣΓΪ˰˰ϴόΑήϴϏΎϬΗΎϴΑϦϣΎϬ˰ϓϮΨΗϒΨΗϢϟϭˬ
ΎϬΘϨϤ˰γϦϤδϧϼϓΎϬΗΎϔλϭϰσΎ˰όΘϧΎϨϠϛˮΎϬόϨμΗϲΘϟ΍ΕΎ˰ϔλϮϟ΍Ϧϣ …ˮΔσή˰ϔϤϟ΍ΔϨϤ˰˰δϟ΍
 ιϦϳή˰˰μϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϡΎ˰˰ϴϧϦΤϧϭΏΎ˰δΣήϴϐΑΎϤ˰ϬϨϣ΢ϔ˰τΗϥ΍άϠϟ΍Ϟ˰˰δόϟ΍ϭϦ˰Ϥ˰δϟ΍ϦϜϟϭ
Khadija, on the other hand, was disposed to suspect the woman, since it
was her nature to be suspicious of everyone. She did not hide her fear that
the servant slept too close to the storeroom. She asked her mother, “How
28 &KDSWHU7ZR

did she get so fat? From the remedies she concocts? We all consume those
and we haven’t gotten fat like her, It’s the butter and honey she skims off
without measure when we’re asleep.” (Palace Walk, p.28)

Notice that the utterance is not translated literally since the SLT question
form “Ϧϳ΃ Ϧϣ” is often used to ask for a place, but the translators analyze
the utterance as an indirect speech act of exclamation functioning to show
surprise at the way of being fat. In the following example Amina is
surprised when she heards al-Sayyid’s voice.

ΔϜΣΎοΕ΍ήΒϧϲϓϝϮϘϳϮϫϭΎϬΟϭίΕϮλϊϔΗέ΍ϭ
Ϳ΍ϢϜϋΩϮΘγ΃-
ϞΜϣϲϓϪόϤδΗΎϬϧ΃ϻϮϟϭˬΔθϫΩϭϒϐθΑϪΑΎΤλ΃ωΩϮϳϮϫϭΎϬΟϭίΕϮλϰϟ·ΖμϨΗΖϧΎϛϭ
ϪϟϦϳ΃ϦϤϓˬΖϣΰΘϟ΍ϭέΎϗϮϟ΍ϭϡΰΤϟ΍ϻ· –Ύϫ΅ΎϨΑ΃ϭϲϫ –ϪϨϣΕΪϬϋΎϤϓˬϪΗήϜϧϷΔϋΎδϟ΍ϩάϫ
 ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮΔϗέϭΔηΎθΑϞϴδΗϲΘϟ΍ΔϛϮΤπϟ΍ΔΑϭήτϟ΍Ε΍ήΒϨϟ΍ϩάϬΑ
… and her husband’s voice rang out cheerfully: “May God keep you.” She
would listen lovingly and with amazement to her husband’s voice when he
said good night to his friends. If she had not heard him every night at about
this hour, she would not have believed it. She and the children were
accustomed to nothing but prudence, dignity, and gravity from him. How
did he come by these joyful, jesting sounds, which flowed out so merrily
and graciously? (Palace Walk, p.6)

The sentence “…ϩάϬΑ Ϫϟ Ϧϳ΃ ϦϤϓ” is functioning as a speech act of


exclamation. It is translated as “How did he come by these…” It is
translated as "How did she come by…." It could be translated as “How
come he has these…”
In another example, Amina, waiting for her husband in the balcony, is
surprised that people stay up late in the street. Her utterance “ ˯ϻΆϫ Ϳ
αΎϨϟ΍” , which is a direct exclamative in the SLT, is rendered in the form
of the interrogative “By god, are these people… ?”, which is an indirect
exclamative in the TLT. In English, an interrogative form may express
exclamation. The translators render skillfully the direct speech act as an
indirect speech act to give the sense of the SLT exclamation. The ISA is
used to render the same perlocutionary effect of the speech act. Hence, the
translation of the utterance is pragmatic.

έϭήγϰϓΎϬδϔϨϟϝϮϘΘϓϥΫΆϤϟ΍ϑΎΘϬϛΔϳΩΎϧΓήϴϤόΗϯΩΎϨϳϮϫϭϝΩΎϨϟ΍ΕϮλϊϔΗήϳϭ
ΐ΋Ύϐϟ΍ΎϬΟϭίϢϬΑήϛάΗϢΛˬΓήϴϤόΘϟ΍Ϧϣ˱΍ΪϳΰϣϥϮΒϠτϳΔϋΎδϟ΍ϩάϫϰΘΣαΎϨϟ΍˯ϻΆϫͿ
ϦϴΑ ϝΎΣήΘϟ΍ϭϞ˰Τϟ΍ϲϓΔϣϼδϟ΍ϪΒΤμΘϠϓˮϞό˰˰ϔϳ΍ΫΎϣϭˮϥϵ΍ϱΪϴγϥϮϜϳϦϳ΃ϯήΗϝϮϘΘϓ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍
A waiter’s voice would ring out like the call of a muezzin: “Another ball of
tobacco for the pipe,” and she would merrily ask herself, “By God, are
these people ordering a refill at this hour?” They reminded her of her
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 29

absent husband. She would wonder, “Where do you suppose he is now?


What is he doing?… May he be safe and sound whatever he does.” (Palace
Walk, p. 5)

In the preceding example, Amina speaks to herself. Her exclamation is a


speech act with a locution (her utterance) and an illocution (her intention
to show exclamation), but it lacks a perlocution (an effect on a hearer)
since there is no addressees. However, the utterance is a complete speech
act. In the next example Yasin speaking to his mother utters another
speech act of exclamation.

ΐϧΫ ϼΑ Γ˯ΎγϹ΍ ϰϘϠΘΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϴΤπϟ΍ ΎϤ΋΍Ω Ύϧ΃ ΖϨϛϭ ˬΐϗ΍ϮόϠϟ ήϳΪϘΗ ϥϭΩ Ϧϴ΋ΎθΗ Ύϣ ϦϴϠόϔΗ Ϛϧ΍
Ν΍ϭΰϟ΍ϲϓϪϋέΎηϚϧ΍ϝϮϘϳϞ΋ΎϘϟϻ·ΐΠϋ΃ΎϤϓϞϘόϟ΍Ϧϣ˯ϲηϰϟ·ϙΩ΍έήϤόϟ΍ΖϨϨχΪϗϭˬϪΘϨΟ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΪϳΪΟϦϣ
“You do just what you want without thinking about the consequences. I’ve
always been the victim who has been hurt for no fault of his own. I would
have thought that life would have taught you some lessons. So imagine my
surprise when someone tells me you’re planning to get married again….”
(Palace Walk, p. 118)

The translators preserve the speech act of exclamation. The utterance “Ύϣ
ϻ· ΐΠϋ΃” contains double negative. Double negation is used in Arabic to
show exclamation. In the TLT the exclamative utterance is expressed via
the directive form “imagine my surprise when…”
The translators frequently manage to determine the underlying
illocutionary force of indirect speech acts. In the following indirect speech
act, an interrogative sentence is used to make assertion. It is not a direct
speech act functioning as questioning the identity of who can match her.
The utterance “ϚσΎθϧ ϭ΃ ϚΗέΎϬϣ ϲϓ ϚϋέΎπϳ Ϧϣ”, which is produced by the
mother addressing her daughter Khadija, means, “no one matches you”. It
is rendered as “Who can match your skill?” which is also an indirect
speech act functioning as the assertion that no one matches her.

ϝϮϘΗϡϷ΍ΖΣ΍έϦϴΣϰϠϋϚθϟ΍ϭέάΤϟ΍ϦϋϢϨΗΓήψϨΑΔΠϳΪΧΎϬΘΟΪΤϓ
ϚϬΟϭϭ ΔϔϴϔΨϟ΍ ϚΣϭέϭ  ˮ ϚσΎθϧ ϭ΃ ϚΗέΎϬϣ ϰϓ ϚϋέΎπϳ Ϧϣ  ϝΎΜϤϟ΍ ΓέΩΎϧ ΓΎΘϓ Ζϧ΃ -
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮ΍άϫϦϣήΜϛ΃ϥΪϳήΗ΍ΫΎϣˮϒϴτϠϟ΍
Khadija cast her a glance full of suspicion and doubt. Then their mother
started to speak: “ you’re an extraordinary girl. Who can match your skill
or energy? Or your quick wit and pretty face? What more can you ask
for?” (Palace Walk, p.30)

The target reader would be able to understand the translation of that


indirect speech act as an assertion. Another interrogative is used to make
30 &KDSWHU7ZR

assertion in the following example where al-Sayyid Ahmad is mocking


Shaykh Mutawali.

έΎϜϨΘγ΍ϭΔΑ΍ήϐΑϝΎϗϭϪϳΪϴΑϪϴΘΒϛέΦϴθϟ΍Ώήπϓ
ΎόϟϮϣͿ΍ϪϤΣέϙϮΑ΃ϥΎϛˬΓήΟΎϔΑϦϜϳϮϟϭΔϨόϟϖδϔϟ΍ϭˬϒϴόοϻ·ϪϠΤΘϨϳϻϒϴόοέάϋ -
ˮϲλΎόϤϟ΍ϖϳήσΐϜϨΘΗϭϪϠϴΒγΞϬΘϨΗϻ΍ΫΎϤϠϓΓήϣϦϳήθϋΝϭΰΘϓ˯ΎδϨϟΎΑ
ϝΎϗϭΔϴϟΎϋΔϜΤοΪϴδϟ΍ϚΤπϓ-
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϲϋήηϥϭΫ΄ϣϡ΃Ϳ΍˯Ύϴϟϭ΃ϦϣϲϟϭΖϧ΃΃-
The shaykh struck his hands on his knees and exclaimed with astonishment
and disgust, “A weak excuse fit only for a weak person. Immorality is
damnable even if it is with a debauched woman. Your father, may God
have mercy on him, was crazy about women. He married twenty times.
Why don’t you follow his path and shun the sinner’s?” The proprietor
laughed out loud. He asked, “Are you one of God’s saints or a nuptial
official?…” (Place Walk, p. 40).

The TLT reader would understand that the speaker is mocking Shaykh
Mutawali. In fact, the translators render the indirect speech act of asserting
as it should be. The form is interrogative but the function is a statement of
fact. The meaning intended is “You are not a nuptial official”.
An indirect speech act is sometimes preserved in the TLT but with a
different form. In the following example the indirect speech act begins
with the question word “Ϧϳ΃”, which literally means “where”.

ΏΎΘϋϲϓϡϷ΍ΖϟΎϘϓ
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϡϮϨϟ΍ΖϗϭΎϤϛέάϫϦϋΎϔϜΗϥ΄ΑΎϤϜϟϲΘϴλϭϦϳ΃
Their mother said critically, “Have you forgotten my advice to cease your
banter when it’s time to go to sleep?” (Palace Walk, p. 69)
Back-translation:
ΏΎΘϋϲϓϡϷ΍ΖϟΎϘϓ
ϡϮϨϟ΍ΖϗϭΎϤϛέάϫϦϋΎϔϜΗϥ΄ΑΎϤϜϟϲΘΤϴμϧΎϤΘϴδϧ΃

The illocutionary force of this ISA is the assertion “you haven’t followed
my advice”. The translators successfully determine the meaning of the
question form in the SLT. They use a question as an indirect speech act
but with a different form. They use the question “Have you forgotten…”
which has the same meaning. The SLT and the Back-translation are equal
in meaning. In the next example, the utterance “ Ϧϳ΃ ” is rendered “what”.

ˬήΒμϟΎΑΐϟΎτϣΏΎμϤϟ΍ϦϣΆϤϟ΍ϦϜϟϭˬˮϲϤϬϓΖϴδϧ΃ˬϼϳϮσϦϴϧΎόΗΎϣΖϗΫˬͿ΍ϱΪΣϭ -
ιΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ˮϚϧΎ˰˰Ϥϳ·Ϧϳ΃
“Proclaim that God is one. I’ve had my own taste of suffering like yours.
Have you forgotten Fahmy? Even so, an afflicted Believer asks God for
strength. What has happened to your faith?”(Sugar Street, p. 179)
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 31

Back-translation: ϚϧΎϤϳϹΙΪΣ΍ΫΎϣˬͿ΍ϱΪΣϭ-

The speaker, Amina, uses the question form to assert that her daughter,
Aisha, has lost faith. The utterance “Ϧϳ΃”is not functioning as a referent to
a place. Thus, the translation of the ISA is pragmatic. The meaning
intended is the exclamative “something has happened to your faith”. The
Back-translation has the same perlocution of the SLT. Thus, the translation
is successful.
The same utterance is mistranslated in the following example where
Aisha says “ΔϤΣήϟ΍ Ϧϳ΃”. It is translated as “where”, which may not be
suitable.

ϦϳέΪΗϻΚϴΣϦϣΔϤΣήϟ΍ϪϴϠϋϝΰϨΗϚΑέϰϟ·ϲϠγϮΗϭˬϚϧΎϤϳ·ϱήϛΫ΍ˬϢόϧ-
ιΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ˮϦϳ΃ΔϤΣήϟ΍Ϧϳ΃ΔϤΣήϟ΍-
“Yes, remember your religion and entreat God for merciful relief, which
my come from some totally unexpected source.” “Merciful relief! Where
is it? Where?” (Sugar Street, p.179)

The translation of that ISA is not pragmatic. The intended meaning is the
assertive speech act “there is no mercy”.
Another example of non-pragmatic translation of speech acts is in the
following excerpt.

ϝϮϘΗϰϫϭΔΠϳΪΧΖΨϔϨϓ
ˮ˱ΎϔμϨϣΪΟ΃Ϧϳ΃ϩϮϫΎϳ-
ϢδΘΒϳϮϫϭϢϜϬΗϲϓϢϴϫ΍ήΑ·ϝΎϘϓ
ιϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˮϚϴΑ΃κΨηϲϓϒμϨϤϟ΍΍άϫϦϳΪΠΗϚϠόϟ-
Khadija huffed and said, “… Where can I find someone who will treat me
fairly?” With a smile Ibrahim said sarcastically, “Perhaps you’ll find this
equitable person in your father”. (Palace of Desire, p.230)

Khadija says “ˮ Ύ˱ϔμϨϣ ΪΟ΃ Ϧϳ΃ ϩϮϫ Ύϳ”, implying that no one can treat her
fairly. It is an ISA in the form of a question, functioning as assertive. The
translation is not pragmatic because “Ϧϳ΃”is rendered literally. It would be
better to render the ISA as “Who can treat me fairly?”
The utterance “ΏϮϠϘϟ΍ ϲϠϋ ϢϜΤϟ΍ ϲϓ ϖΤϟ΍ Ϛϟ Ϧϳ΃ Ϧϣ” which is uttered by
Ahmad addressing his brother Abdel Mon’em, is not pragmatically
translated. It is functioning as an assertive implying that his brother has no
right to judge a man’s heart.

ϼ΋ΎδΘϣϒΘϫϭˬΐοΎϐϟΎϛϩΪϴΑΪϤΣ΍ΡϮϠϓ
 -ιΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ˮΏϮϠϘϟ΍ϰϠϋϢϜΤϟ΍ϰϓϖΤϟ΍ϚϟϦϳ΍Ϧϣ-
32 &KDSWHU7ZR

Ahmed waved his hand as if angered and asked loudly, “Where do you get
the right to judge a man’s heart?” (Sugar Street, p.68)

It can be rendered as “Who gives you the right to judge a man’s heart?” In
fact, translators have the right to modify any utterance to preserve
meaning. In the following example the translators render the word “ϒϴϛ”
as “why”. Yasin’s mother is addressing him.

ΝΪϬΘϣΕϮμΑΖϤΘϤΗϢΛ
ϲΗ΍ϮϋΩ Ϧϋ Ζοήϋ΃ ϒϴϛ ˮΪΤϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ ϰϠϋ ϚΒϠϗ Ύδϗ ϒϴϛ Ϛϟ΄γ΃ ϲϨϋΩ ˮϝϮϗ΃ ΍ΫΎϣ …
ΔϳϭΰϨϣΎϣ΃Ϛϟϥ΃ΖϴδϧϒϴϛˮϒϴϛϒϴϛˮΏϭήϜϤϟ΍ϲΒϠϗ˯΍ΪϧϦϋΖϤϣΎμΗϒϴϛˬˮΓέΎΤϟ΍
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮΎϨϫ
In a trembling voice she said, “…. What can I say?… Let me ask you why
you were so hardhearted to me. How could you turn away from my loving
pleas? How could you turn a deaf ear to the cry of my grieving heart?
How?… How? How could you forget you had a mother secluded here?
(Palace Walk, p. 115)

The interrogative form is used to make assertion. The mother’s utterances


are disguised statements. The evidence is that she uses consecutive
questions without waiting for answers. Her utterances can be rendered as
“You shouldn’t be so hardhearted to me….”
An interrogative form can be used to make a suggestion. In the
following example, Shaykh Mutawali is urging al-Sayyid Ahmad to
follow his father’s footsteps.

ϖϳήσΐϜϨΘΗϭϪϠϴΒγΞϬΘϨΗ ϻ΍ΫΎϤϠϓΓήϣϦϳήθϋΝϭΰΘϓ˯ΎδϨϟΎΑ˱ΎόϟϮϣͿ΍ϪϤΣέϙϮΑ΃ϥΎϛ -
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϲλΎόϤϟ΍
“Your father, may God have mercy on him, was crazy about women. He
married twenty times. Why don’t you follow his path and shun the
sinner’s?” (Palace Walk, p. 40)

The utterance “ϻ ΍ΫΎϤϟ” is, on the surface a question, functioning as a


directive indirect speech act of suggesting. The translation is functionally
or pragmatically equivalent to the SLT utterance because English uses
“why” plus a negative to convey suggestions.
Another ISA with the force of suggesting is clear in Umm Ali’s
utterance“ϢϠόΗϻ΃”. She wants to attract the attention of al-Sayyid Ahmad to
think of Madam Nafusa as a wife.

ΔϠϣέ΃ΔγϮϔϧΖγ ϥ΃ ϢϠόΗϻ΃ϥ΍έϭΪϟ΍ΎϬϟ˯ΎηΎϣΎϬοήϏϝϮΣϪϴϓΕέ΍ΩΚϳΪ˰ΣΪόΑϪϟΖϟΎϗ


 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟ΍ϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒ˰˰γϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟ΍ϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ΍
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 33

She had told him, after being around the bush for some time, “You surely
know that Madam Nafusa, the widow of al-Hajj Ali al-Dasuqi, owns
seven stores in al Mugharbilin?” (Palace Walk, p. 83-84)
Back-translation:
ˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟ΍ϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒγϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟ΍ϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ΍ΔϠϣέ΃ΔγϮϔϧΖγϥ΃ϢϠόΗΪϴϛ΄ΘϟΎΑΖϧ΃

In the preceding example the ISA of suggesting is not preserved. The


translators used the assertive “you surely know…” which is not used in
suggestions. It is rendered as a speech act of assertion. The Back-
translation is different from the SLT. In fact, interrogation plus negation is
used to make suggestions. It could be rendered as “Don’t you know
that…”
An interrogative form is also used to produce an ISA of wishing.
Isma’il expresses a strong wish saying,“ˮήψϨϤϟ΍΍άϫϪδϔϨΑΪϬθϴϟϦϴδΣϦϳ΃”. It is
an expressive indirect speech act in the form of an interrogative with the
illocutionary force of wishing.

ΎϤγΎΑϝΎϘϓˬϥΎόϣΈΑϪΒϗ΍ήϳϞϴϋΎϤγ·ϥΎϛϭ
ιϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˮήψϨϤϟ΍΍άϫϪδϔϨΑΪϬθϴϟϦϴδΣϦϳ΃-
Isma’il, who was watching him closely, smiled and said, “If only Husayn
were here to witness this. (Palace of Desire, p. 351)
Back-translation: ήψϨϤϟ΍΍άϫϪδϔϨΑΪϬθϴϟΎϨϫϦϴδΣΖϴϟ

The translation is pragmatic because the translators determine the meaning


of the question form in the SLT. They choose the form of “If only” to
express this strong wish. The SA of wishing is clear in the Back-
translation. Moreover, another indirect speech act in the form of an
interrogative is used as assertion in the following extract. Khadija is
rebuking her younger brother, Kamal, because he wants to get a job while
still young.

ΔϳήΨγϲϓΔΠϳΪΧΖΣΎλϭ
ϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ   ˮΔϔϴχϮϟ΍ϲϓ ϚδϔϧϰϠϋΖϠΑ ΍˱Ϋ·ϊϨμΗ΍ΫΎϣϭΓήθϋΔόΑ΍ήϟ΍ϥϭΩϒχϮΘΗ-
ι
Khadija yelled sarcastically, “you want to get a job before you’re fourteen!
What will you do if you wet your pants at work?” (Palace Walk, p.57).

The indirect speech act is intended to assert that Kamal is still young and
not capable of sharing responsibility. However, the translators rendered it
in the form of a question. In fact, the form of the utterance should not be a
constraint on translators. The imperative form of “ήηΎϋ” is not rendered as
an imperative in the next example. Yasin asserts that women become
boring after marriage.
34 &KDSWHU7ZR

ήμϗ ΓέήϜϣΔϤϐϧϭ˱΍ΩΎόϣ˱΍ήψϨϣήϣϵ΍ήΧ΁ΎϫΪΠΗϥ΃ϦϣκϴΤϣϼϓΎϬδϔϧβϴϘϠΑΔϜϠϤϟ΍ήηΎϋ
ιϕϮθϟ΍
Even if you had an affair with the Queen of Sheba herself, you’d
inevitably find she became boring to look at and like a song you’re tired of
hearing.” (Palace of Desire, p. 365)
Back-translation:
ΔϤϐϧϭ˱΍ΩΎόϣ˱΍ήψϨϣήϣϵ΍ήΧ΁ΎϫΪΠΗϥ΃ϦϣκϴΤϣϼϓΎϬδϔϧβϴϘϠΑΔϜϠϤϟ΍ΕήηΎϋϮϟϰΘΣ
ΓέήϜϣ

The utterance “ήηΎϋ” is a pseudo-directive, i.e. an utterance which looks


superficially like a directive because of its imperative form. It is an ISA
that is interpreted as an assertion with the emphatic meaning that women
are alike. The translators choose the expression “even if” to render that
ISA. It is a pragmatic translation. The back-translation has the same effect
of the ISA of the SLT.
Pragmatic failure occurs when a speech act is lost. In the next example
in which Yasin flirts with a woman, a speech act is lost.

ϦϴΑ ϱϭΪϋΎϳϩϮϫΎϳΦϴθϟ΍΍άϫΐϳΫΎΠϣϦϣΏϭάΠϤϟϲϧ΍ϭΦϴηΔΒϘϟ΍ΖΤΗϭϰϠΑ…
 ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍
“… yes, and under the dome lies the shaykh in his tomb. I’m certainly a
devotee of this shaykh. Hear me, Shaykh Adawi!” (Palace Walk, p. 75)
Back-translation: ϱϭΪϋΦϴηΎϳϲϨόϤδΗ΃

His utterance “ϯϭΪϋΎϳϩϮϫΎϳ” is an expressive speech act of praising. In


the translation the speech act is not preserved and turns to be a vocative as
clear in the back-translation. In fact, there is no such a man who is called
“Adawi”. Target readers may not understand such a translation. It can be
rendered as the flirtatious expression “How pretty!” or “How cute!”
In the following excerpt the directive speech act of request is not
preserved. When Aisha requests from Khadija to stop letting her down,
she says “ϚϴϠϋϡ΍ήΣ”

ΔϴΒμϋϭΏ΍ήτο΍ϲϓΔθ΋ΎϋΖϔΘϬϓ
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ  ϡ΍ήΣϚϴϠϋϡ΍ήΣ-
Upset and nervous, Aisha shouted at her, “Shame on you. Shame”. (Palace
Walk, p. 139)

In the translation Aisha’s request is turned into an expressive speech act of


deploring. It can be rendered “please stop it”.
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 35

When Aisha encourages her sister Khadija to meet the matchmakers,


she says “ΎϧΪϋϮϳΎϨΑέ” as an expressive speech act of wishing (supplication)
to get married.

ϥϵ΍ϲϧήψΘϨΗϰΘϟ΍ΓήΠΤϟ΍ϦϣϢΣέ΃ΔϤϜΤϤϟ΍ϥ·ˬΖϗΪλ-
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΎϧΪ˰˰ϋϮϳΎϨΑέˬϚΒϠϗϱϮϗ-
“You’re right. A court of law is more merciful than the room of women
waiting for me now.” “Be brave. Our Lord has promised us…” (Palace
Walk, p. 145)
Back-translation: ΎϧΪϋϭΎϨΑέˬϚΒϠϗϱϮϗ-

Such a translation does not preserve the speech act of wishing because of
the perfect tense used. Moreover, the word “ΎϧΪ˰˰ϋϮϳ” is rendered literally as
“promise” which does not give the right meaning. The illocutionary force
of wishing can be expressed as “May God help me”. The back-translation
and the SLT are not equal. Notice the indirect speech act of request which
is uttered by Khadija in the following excerpt.

ϝϮϘΗϰϫϭϖϓήΑΎϬΘόϓΩϭΎϬϴΒϜϨϣϰϠϋΎϫΪϳΖόοϭϭΔΠϳΪΧΎϬϨϣΖϣΪϘΗϭ
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΔϧΎϣ΃ΔΤΗΎϔϟ΍-
Placing her hands on her shoulders, she gave her a gentle push, saying,
“Reciting the opening prayer of the Qur’an will protect you.” (Palace
Walk, p. 166)
Back-translation: ϚϴϤΤΗϑϮγΔΤΗΎϔϟ΍

Khadija speaks to her mother and asks her to recite the opening prayer of
the Qur’an for her when she visits the shrine of al-Husayn. The speech act
of request is not preserved. It is rendered as an assertion as is clear in the
back-translation. There is an implicit verb in Khadija’s utterance. It can be
rendered as “Recite the opening prayer of the Qur’an for me.”
In the next example, when al-Sayyid Ahmad looks at the body of
Zubayda, she says “ϚϨϴϋ”

ϊϨτμϣϑϮΧϰϓϝϮϘΗϰϫϭϒϗϮΘϟ΍ΪόΑΎϬϣΪϘΗΖϠλ΍Ϯϓ
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ͿΎΑΫϮϋ΃ϚϨϴϋ-
After her pause, she continued to advance, smiling. She said with
pretended fear, “Your eye! God protect me from it.” (Palace Walk, p. 92)

Zubayda’s utterance has an implicit verb. It should have been rendered


explicitly. The expression “ϚϨϴϋ” is an indirect speech act implying the
order “Keep off your eyes” or “Don’t stare me out” or “Don’t look at me
in this way”. It is rendered literally as “your eye”. Culturally, the
expression “ϚϨϴϋ” is used to thwart the evil eye. The TLT reader might
36 &KDSWHU7ZR

understand that Zubayda feels the strength of emotion behind his look. In
English, the expressions “May the evil-eye be struck blind!” or “Knock on
wood” or “Touch wood” are used to thwart the evil eye.
In the following example the utterance “Ϳ΍˯Ύηϥ΃ήϴΧ” is an ISA, on the
surface an assertive, functioning as a directive with the illocutionary force
of asking for information. It is translated as “good news” which is an
assertive.

ˬιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ Ϳ΍˯Ύηϥ΃ήϴΧ-
- Good news. (Palace Walk, p. 105,427)
Back-translation: Δ˰Βϴσ΍έΎΒ˰Χ΃

The back-translation and the SLT are not the same. The speaker intends to
say “What is up?” or “What happens?” In another example the same
utterance is translated as an expressive act of wishing.

ˬιϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˮͿ΍˯Ύηϥ΃ήϴΧ-
I hope it’s good news, God willing. (Palace of Desire, p. 108)

In fact, the use of religious expressions is very common among Arab


speakers. They sometimes use these expressions in the form of wishing as
in the utterance “Ϳ΍˯Ύηϥ΍ήϴΧ” but with the force of asking for information.
In its underlying structure the utterance is a directive speech act. In fact,
the phenomenon of using religious expression is considered an aspect of
being polite (see politeness). A problem may appear if a translator does
not recognize the intention of the speaker. The TLT would be overdone
with false speech acts. In the following example Zubayda wants to stop
arguing with al-Sayyid. She says “Ϳ΍ ϙΩΎϓ΃” to end the conversation and
return to the main topic.

ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ήϜδϟ΍ϭϦΒϟ΍ϭίέϷ΍ϡϮϴϟ΍ΎϨΒδΣϦϜϟϭͿ΍ϙΩΎϓ΃
“May God help you… but all we need today are rice, coffee, and sugar.”
(Palace Walk, p. 89)

Thus, the utterance “Ϳ΍ϙΩΎϓ΃” is not an expressive speech act of wishing. It


is a directive speech act of request. To illustrate the communicative
function of the utterance the translators could have enriched it with
additional adverbs such as “anyhow”.
In the following excerpt, Zanuba suggests that al-Sayyid Ahmad
should go away if he considers their marriage shameful. She says “ ϊϤϓ
Δϣϼδϟ΍”.
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 37

˯ΎϴΘγΎΑΖϟΎϘϓ
ιϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ …ϡϼδϟ΍ϊϤϓϙήόϳϲΟ΍ϭίϥΎϛϥΎϓ-
She said disdainfully, “If marrying me would disgrace you, then good
bye.” (Palace of Desire, p. 292)

Her utterance is rendered “good bye”. It is a directive speech act of


ordering. The directive act is not preserved. It can be rendered as “go
away”.
In the utterance of Shaykh Mutawali addressing al-Sayyid Ahmad, an
indirect speech act of praising has the interrogative form “Ϧϣ”. It is
rendered in the form of a question.

ιΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ˮήϤϘϟΎϛΐΘϜϤϟ΍˯΍έϭβϠΠϳϱάϟ΍΍άϫϦϣ-
“Who’s that person as handsome as the full moon sitting behind the desk?”
(Sugar Street, p. 16)

A single word may represent a speech act. The word “Ϣόϧ” uttered by
Kamal addressingIbrahim is a directive speech act of questioning.

ϝΎϤϛΖϛϮηϢϴϫ΍ήΑ·ϝ΄γϭ
ˮϚΘΑϭΰϋϲϠϋϒγ΁΍ΫΎϤϟϯέΪΗ΃-
-ιΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ˮϢόϧ-
Ibrahim Shawkat asked Kamal, “Do you know why I’m sorry you’re a
bachelor?” “yes?” (Sugar Street, p.117)

The word “yes” is the request “Tell me why”. In another situation when
Khadija is addressing Abd al-Muni’m, she is asking him to complete his
words. The word “Ϣόϧ” is a speech act which means, “go on speaking”.

ϻ·ϚϟΫΪόΑΎϬΑϩήϛάϳϼϓϪϘΑ΍ϮγΔΤϔλΖϴΤϣϡΎϘΘγ΍ϭΏΎΗ΍Ϋ·ϥΎδϧϹ΍ϭ …ˮΎϬΒϴόϳ΍ΫΎϣ -
ϒγ΃ϲϓΎϬγ΃έΰϬΗϰϫϭΖϟΎϘϓˬϚδϣ΃ϭ
ιΔϳήϜδϟ΍ …ϲϨϔλˬˮϢόϧ-
“What’s wrong with her?… When a person repents and lives righteously,
his former misdeeds are erased. After that, the only people who would
remind him of them are…” He stopped. Shaking her head sorrowfully, she
challenged him, “Yes? … Tell me what I am! (Sugar Street, p.215)

Thus, the study asserts that the form of the speech act should not hinder
the process of translation. Translators should search for the real force of
the speech act.
CHAPTER THREE

PRAGMATIC TRANSLATIONS
OF IMPLICIT MEANING

3.1 Implicit Meaning


The goal of this study is also to give an overview of the different ways
of translating implicit meaning in a literary translation. An implicit
meaning or an inference is any additional information used by the listener
to connect what is said to what must be meant (Yule 1996: 131).
Understanding implicit meaning of an utterance that seems to have literal
meaning is what makes inferences. The study aims at proving that “the
translator must be aware of the implicit and explicit information which is
being communicated” (Larson 1984: 38, his emphasis).
Thomason (1977) views inferences1 as the main concern of pragmatics.
The question raised in this study is how pragmatic inferences are
translated. In other words, the study tries to clarify how the TLT reader
retrieves implicit meaning, as does the SLT reader. A reader could draw
inferences as a consequence of a trigger, “aspects of the form and
juxtaposition of the utterances” (Levinson 1983: 49). Pragmatic inferences
of an utterance arise from some linguistic features which lead the hearer to
think of meanings other than the literal meaning. Pragmatic inferences
include presuppositions and implicatures (cf. Levinson 1983: 167; Baker
1992: 259; Munday 2001: 98). While presuppositions are considered
background assumptions; “the existing knowledge common to speaker and
hearer that the speaker does not therefore need to assert” (Grundy 2000:
119), implicatures are foreground conclusions; “conclusions after hearing
an utterance as to the meaning the speaker intends to convey” (2000: 119).
Presuppositions can be defined as “what a speaker assumes is true or is
known by the hearer” (Yule 1996:132). They rely “on precise meanings
that are embedded inside utterance” (Short 1996:225), thus producing
specific assumptions. Levinson (1983:167) emphasizes that this concept
(presupposition) is based “more closely on the actual linguistic structure of
sentences [e.g. temporal clauses, cleft sentences, non-restrictive relative
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 39

clauses etc.]”. The following utterance illustrates the concept of


presupposition:

Three of his brothers are in the army.

The (implicit) meaning embedded inside this utterance indicates that he


has more than three brothers, maybe four or five. This meaning is
considered a presupposition because we deal with a specific assumption of
a rather precise matter that is embedded within the sentence.

Presupposition can be triggered by syntactic structure as in the


following sentence where the relative clause gives rise to presupposition:

a. My father, who was a teacher, died last year.


b. My father, who was a teacher, didn’t die last year.

The structure of these sentences (i.e. the fact that they include a non-
restrictive relative clause) triggers presupposition: my father was a teacher.
Evidence that we have presupposition in (a) comes from the fact that it
remains intact under negation: both (a) and (b) have the same
presupposition. However, presuppositions that are triggered by factive
verbs such as "know" are not negated:

a. I know that the man did this.


b. I don’t know that the man did this

It is noticed that conventional implicature should not be confused with


presupposition. Conventional implicatures are often associated with
particular lexical items such as ‘again’:

He stole the car again

The implicature triggered by this word in the sentence refers to the fact
that he stole the car before. Consequently, conventional implicatures are
said to be non-cancelable and detachable (Horn 1988: 123; Thomas 1995:
57). Evidence that we are dealing with conventional implicature is that the
inference cannot be denied:

*He stole the car again, but he didn’t do so before.


40 &KDSWHU7KUHH

Presupposition is different from conversational implicatures.


Conversational implicatures fall into three types: (a) standard implicature,
(b) particularized conversational implicature and (c) generalized
conversational implicature. The standard implicature arises as the result of
observing the maxims of conversation (e.g. maxim of relation), as in:

A: I’ve just run out of petrol.


B: Oh; there’s a garage just around the corner.

B’s utterance implicates, by invoking the maxim of relation, that gas can
be obtained from the garage.
The second type, the Particularized Conversational Implicatures, are
inferences that are particular to the context of the utterance in which they
arise (Levinson 1983: 126). They require shared knowledge between the
speaker and the hearer. They arises as the result of flouting or infringing
conversational maxims or principles (e.g. quality or quantity etc) as in:

A: How old is your wife?


B: There is a big theatre around the corner.

In that exchange, B has flouted the maxim of relevance: his response is not
relevant to the question raised by A. The response implicates that inquiry
into personal matters is not acceptable.
The third type of conversational implicature which is called generalized
conversational implicature (Levinson 1983:126). This type of implicature
is defined as “those that arise without any particular context or special
scenario being necessary” (1983:126). Thus an utterance like "I walked
into a house" gives rise to a generalized conversational implicature: the
house was not my house.
Conversational Implicature is a type of pragmatic inference in which
meaning is conveyed through non-conventional means. A few years after
Grice’s theory of meaning-nn which distinguishes between speaker
meaning and sentence meaning, he outlines a theory of conversational
implicature which is built on what he called the "Cooperative Principle"
(CP). He proposes that participants in conversation observe some
principles to ensure successful communication (Levinson 1983: 101).

The Cooperative Principle


Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange
in which you are engaged.
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 41

The maxim of Quality


Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically:
(i) do not say what you believe to be false
(ii) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

The maxim of Quantity


(i) make your contribution as informative as is required for the current
purposes of the exchange.
(ii) do not make your contribution more informative than is required

The maxim of Relevance


Make your contributions relevant

The maxim of Manner


Be perspicuous and specifically:
(i) avoid obscurity
(ii) avoid ambiguity
(iii) be brief
(iv) be orderly

According to Grice, participants are assumed to abide by the CP. Since


utterances should be relevant to a certain topic, the maxim of Relevance is
of particular importance. Participants always connect utterances to
establish a certain continuity of sense. Baker (1992) concludes that
implicatures “are essential to maintaining the coherence of discourse”
(1992: 226-227). She finds similarity between implicatures and coherence
(1992: 227).
According to Grice (1967, 1975, and 1978), those maxims are
unconsciously used in verbal interaction. Inferences arise from observance
or non-observance of these maxims; implied meaning can be inferred via
observing or not observing the maxims. Inferences resulting from
observing the maxims are called Standard Implicatures (Levinson 1983:
104). They are often deductions from the maxim of Relevance. Non-
observance of the maxims can be exploited for communicative purpose.
Inferences coming about from deliberate and ostentatious breaching or
flouting the CP are called Conversational Implicatures (1983: 104-109).
In flouting the maxims a speaker does not obey the maxims blatantly.
So s/he implicates meaning. S/he depends on mutual knowledge between
her/him and the addressee (reflexive communicative intention in Grice's
term); the speaker knows that the hearer knows that her/his sentence
implies something different from the surface meaning or the literal
42 &KDSWHU7KUHH

meaning of the form. Thus, the hearer can infer implicit meaning (1983:
17, 113). Thomas (1995: 58) points out that implicature is produced by the
speaker and inference is produced by the hearer. Levinson gives the
following example to illustrate flouting of the maxims.

A: Where's Bill ?
B: There's a yellow VW out side Sue's house (1983: 102)

B’s utterance fails to fulfill the maxims of Quantity and of Relevance. The
utterance can be interpreted to mean that Bill is in Sue’s house since A and
B know that Bill has a yellow VW. Conversational implicature “provides
some explicit account of how it is possible to mean …more than what is
actually said…” (1983: 97). Grice differentiates between flouting and
violating the maxims. In violating the maxims, the speaker deliberately
and unostentatiously disobeys the maxims to deceive the hearer (Thomas
1995: 73; Peccei 1999: 27 Cutting 2002: 36-41).

3.2 Pragmatic Translations of Presuppositions


Different presuppositions generated by participants’ common ground
in the Trilogy are analyzed and compared to their counterparts in the
translation. It is worth pausing for a moment to notice how
presuppositions are translated. In the following example it is presupposed
that Kamal has told his family many stories before. This presupposition is
preserved in the translation.

ϦϴΑ  ωϮϨϟ΍ ΍άϫ Ϧϣ Δμϗ Ϧϣ ήΜϛ΃ Ϛϟ ήϛΫ΃ ϲϧ· ϪϟϝϮϘΗ ΎϬϧ΄ϛΓήΧΎγΓήψϨΑ ϲϤϬϓ ϪΟΪΣϭ -
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍
Fahmy glanced at him scornfully as if to say, “I know it isn’t the first
story like this you’ve told.” (Palace Walk, p. 54)
Back-translation:
ϦϣΎϬϴϜΤΗϲΘϟ΍ϰϟϭϷ΍ΔμϘϟ΍ΖδϴϟΎϬϧ΃ϑήϋ΍ϲϧ·ϪϟϝϮϘΗΎϬϧ΄ϛΓήΧΎγΓήψϨΑϲϤϬϓϪΟΪΣϭ
ωϮϨϟ΍΍άϫ

The phrase “ΔμϗϦϣήΜϛ΍” is rendered as “not the first story”. Though the
back-translation and the SLT have different literal words, they mean the
same. The participants’ joint assumption that Kamal always tells such
stories is clear to the SLT reader and the TLT reader. In the next example
Amina’s mother tells her that she should have thanked God that she
remains the only wife of al-Sayyid.
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 43

ΔϴϧΎΛΝϭΰΘϳϥ΃ϭ΃ˬ˯ΎηϮϟΎϫΩήΘδϳϥ΃ϪόγϮΑϥΎϛϭˬϰϟϭϷ΍ϪΘΟϭίϖϠσϥ΃ΪόΑϚΟϭΰΗΪϘϟ
ˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΓΪϴΣϭΔΟϭίϙΎϘΑ΃Ϫϧ΃ϰϠϋΎϨΑέϱΪϤΣΎϓˬΎΟ΍ϭΰϣϩϮΑ΃ϥΎϛΪϗϭˬΔόΑ΍έϭΔΜϟΎΛϭ
 ι
“He married you after divorcing his first wife. He could have kept her too,
if he’d wanted, or taken second, third, and fourth wives. Thank our Lord
that you remain his only wife.” (Palace Walk, p. 5)

There are two presuppositions in the utterance of Amina’s mother. The


first is that al-Sayyid did not get his first wife back. The second is that
though al-Sayyid is able to marry again, he did not. The two presuppositions
are retained in the TLT.
In the following excerpt the negative interrogative “Ύϣ΃” is translated
once as a positive interrogative and another as a negative interrogative. It
seems that a presupposition has nothing to do with negation.

ϪϟϝΎϘϓϪΣίΎϤϳϥ΃Ω΍έ΃έϮτϨΤϟ΍ΐΣΎλϥ΄ϛϭ
…ˮΔΑήόϟ΍ϦϣϚϟϭΰϧΪόΑϪδϔϨϟΩ΍ϮΠϟ΍ϝΎϗ΍ΫΎϣΖόϤγΎϣ΃-
ϪΒϴΠϳϝΎϗϢΛϥϮϜδϟ΍ϰϟ·ϭΩΎϋϰΘΣΪϴδϟ΍ήψΘϧΎϓϦϴϜΣΎοΔΑήόϟΎΑϝΎΟήϟ΍ήΠϔϧ΍ϭ
 -ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ …ˮϪδϔϧϪΘΑΎΟ΃΍ΫΎϤΑΖόϤγΎϣ΃-
The owner of the carriage teased her husband, asking, “Did you hear what
the horse said to himself when you got out?…”
The men in the vehicle exploded with laughter. Her husband waited for
them to quiet down. Then he replied, “Didn’t you hear the answer?…”
(Palace Walk, p.6)

Though there is no clear evidence whether negation changes meaning or


not, Quirk et al. (1985) identify a slight difference between a negative
interrogative and a positive interrogative. Negative interrogation
presupposes a request for "the listener’s confirmation" (Beijer 2002:12).
Using negation with interrogation presupposes that the speaker expects
that the listener has prior knowledge of the topic. Thus, some presupposed
information may have been lost because of losing negation. There is lost
presupposition in the positive interrogative.
In other examples, presuppositions may be preserved in the translation
despite of changes in the conventional meaning of the utterance. Notice
the presupposition resulting from the use of the relative clause “ϦϣΖϓήϋϦϣ
˯ΎδϨϟ΍” in the utterance of Zubayda when she is addressing al-Sayyid.

ΖϟΎϗϭΔγήτϏϲϓΎϬγ΃έΓ΃ήϤϟ΍Ζόϓήϓ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˯ΎδϨϟ΍ϦϣΖϓήϋϦϤϛΖδϟϙΪόΑ-
The woman raised her head haughtily and replied, “Keep your distance ….
I'm not like the woman you've had.” (Palace Walk, p. 94)
44 &KDSWHU7KUHH

Back-translation:
ΖϟΎϗϭΔγήτϏϲϓΎϬγ΃έΓ΃ήϤϟ΍Ζόϓήϓ
˯ΎδϨϟ΍ϦϣΖϜϠΘϣ΍ϦϤϛΖδϟΖϧ΍ΎϤϛϰϘΑ΍-

The utterance “˯ΎδϨϟ΍ϦϣΖϓήϋϦϣ”, which means that al-Sayyid has affairs


with many women, is rendered “woman you’ve had”. The translators don't
change the meaning of her utterance because the phrases "know women"
and "have women" have the same meaning. The change of the literal
meaning of an utterance doesn't result in losing presupposition. The joint
assumption that al-Sayyid have affairs with many women is preserved in
the translation. Thus, the presupposition is clear to the TLT reader. A
presupposition may not be built on the conventional meaning of a word. In
the next excerpt Umm Ali wants to make al-Sayyid think of Madam
Nafusa as a pride and she speaks of her in an indirect way.

ΔϠϣέ΃ΔγϮϔϧΖγϥ΃ ϢϠόΗϻ΃ϥ΍έϭΪϟ΍ΎϬϟ˯ΎηΎϣΎϬοήϏϝϮΣϪϴϓΕέ΍ΩΚϳΪ˰ΣΪόΑϪϟΖϟΎϗ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟ΍ϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒ˰˰γϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟ΍ϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ΍
She had told him, after beating around the bush for some time, “You surely
know that Madam Nafusa, the widow of al-Hajj Ali al-Dasuqi, owns seven
stores in al Mugharbilin?” (Palace Walk, p. 83-84)

The mutual knowledge that Madam Nafusa is a good pride is clear to the
SLT reader and the TLT reader. The presupposition that Ali al-Dasuqi is
dead is preserved by the word "widow" in the translation. The presupposed
information on Madam Nafusa which results from the factive verb "know"
is preserved, though the Arabic question is negative and the English
equivalent is affirmative. In the following example, Amina speaks to
Kamal and presupposed that he comes back to the place where he was
before.

ϪΑΖϔΘϬϓ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮΎϨϫϰϟ·ϚΑΩΎϋϱάϟ΍Ύϣ-
She shouted at him, “What are you doing here?” (Palace Walk, p. 123)
Back-translation: ˮΎϨϫϞόϔΗ΍ΫΎϣ

In fact, the word “ΩΎϋ” gives rise to a conventional implicature. Amina


implicates that Kamal has been in the same place before. This
conventional implicature is not preserved in the translation. Therefore, her
presupposition is lost in the translation. The utterance could have been
rendered as “why did you come again?” Another presupposition that is
built on a conventional implicature is not rendered in Yasin’s utterance.
The word “ΩϭΎόϳ” in the following example gives rise to the conventional
implicature that Kamal was afraid before.
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 45

˱ϼ΋ΎϗϦϴγΎϳϪϘϬϘϓ
 ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϢϬϠΟέ΃ϦϴΑΖϧ΃ϭϑϮΨϟ΍ϙΩϭΎόϳϢϟ΃ΉήΟϰΘϓϦϣϚϟΎϳ-
Yasin laughed loudly. He remarked, “What a daring boy you are….
Weren’t you afraid when you were surrounded by their legs?” (Palace
Walk, p. 4)

Yasin’s presupposition is not preserved in the translation. The utterance


could have been enriched by adding the word "again".
In the next example Aisha speaks to Khadija and presupposes that
Kamal make up the story he tells.

ϩάϫ Ύϣ΃ Ίη ϖϳήτϟ΍ ϲϓ ϡϼϏ ΕϮϣ ϕϼΘΧ΍ ΎϬϣΎϤΘϫ΍ΓΪΣ ϦϣϒϔΨΘϟ ΔϜΣΎο ϢΛ ϖΣϚϟ -
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ήΧ΁ΊθϓΔϳΎϜΤϟ΍
“You're right.” Aisha laughed to relieve her tension and continued:
“There’s a big difference between the death of the boy in the street and
this story”. (Palace Walk, p. 124)
Back-         ΔμϘϟ΍ ϩάϫϭ ωέΎθϟ΍ ϲϓ ϡϼϐϟ΍ ΕϮϣ ϦϴΑ ήϴΒϛ ϑϼΘΧ΍ ϙΎϨϫ  ϖΣ Ϛϟ -
translation:

The conventional meaning of "making a story up" is not preserved in the


translation. Thus, the TLT reader will not catch Khadija’s presupposition.
In the following example Umm Hanafi speaks to Amina and presupposes
that there is a group of soldiers when she and Kamal are coming from
school.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΎϨϣΎϣ΃ΰϔϘϳΩϮϨΠϟ΍˯ϻΆϫϦϣϥΎτϴθΑ΍Ϋ·ϭϦϳΪ΋ΎϋΎϨϛ
We were on our way home when a devil of a soldier jumped in front of
us…(Palace Walk, p. 401)

Thus, the presupposition is not preserved. From the examples mentioned


above the study aims at pinpointing the importance of translating
presuppositions. Literary translators should pay attention to the translating
of presuppositions. It is worth pausing for a moment to wonder whether a
presupposition of an utterance is preserved or not in the TLT.

3.3 Pragmatic Translations of Conversational


Implicatures
Conversational implicature is meant by Grice to be applied to spoken
discourses. Baker suggests to “play down the inadequacy of Grice’s theory
of implicature in terms of its application to written discourse…” (1992:
225). Apart from this, the examples of implicatures are originally part of
spoken exchange in Mahfouz’s Trilogy. In the example of Umm Ali, when
46 &KDSWHU7KUHH

she tries to convince al-Sayyid of marrying Madam Nafusa, she flouts the
maxim of Manner by the use of indirectness. She also flouts the maxim of
Quantity by the use of circumlocution. Tautology is considered a flouting
of the maxim of Quantity. The implicature is that Madam Nafusa is highly
recommended as a bride.

ΔϠϣέ΃ΔγϮϔϧΖγϥ΃ϢϠόΗϻ΃ϥ΍έϭΪϟ΍ΎϬϟ˯ΎηΎϣΎϬοήϏϝϮΣϪϴϓΕέ΍ΩΚϳΪ˰ΣΪόΑϪϟΖϟΎϗ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟ΍ϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒ˰˰γϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟ΍ϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ΍
She had told him, after beating around the bush for some time, “You surely
know that Madam Nafusa, the widow of al-Hajj Ali al-Dasuqi, owns seven
stores in al Mugharbilin?” (Palace Walk, p. 83-84)

Mistranslating the ISA results in the loss of the implicature. In the next
example Amina deliberately uses the same strategy of indirectness, which
is a politeness formula. When she wants to tell al-Sayyid of Fahmy’s wish
to marry Maryam, she uses too many words to mitigate the subject instead
of saying the idea directly. This sort of circumlocution results in an
implicature in which she flouts the maxim of Quantity. The implicature is
that she is afraid of presenting the idea.

ϝϮϘϳϮϫϭΖϓΎϬΘϤϟ΍ΕϮμϟ΍ΎϤϫ˯ΎΠϓ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϥ΍ϮοέΪϤΤϣΪϴδϟ΍ΐϴτϟ΍ΎϧέΎΟϑήόϳϱΪϴγ-
They made out the feeble voice saying, “Sir, you know our excellent
neighbor Muhammad Ridwan?” (Palace Walk, p.127)

As explained above, conversational implicature is the outcome of


adhering to or impinging the maxims of the cooperative principle.
Translators should consider whether the TLT reader would interpret the
implicature or not. An implicature in the SLT may be translated with a
different degree of explicitness. The translators of the Trilogy explicate the
implicature of the mother’s utterance in the following example to
guarantee the comprehension of the TLT.

ϝϮϘΗΔΠϳΪΧϭ
ΪΣ΃ΔϴΑήΘϟϦϴΤϠμΗϻΔϨϴϧΎϳΖϧ΃
˯ϭΪϫϲϓϡϷ΍ΖϤΘϤΘϓ
ιˬϦϳή˰˰μϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ Ϛ˰˰˰˰˰δϔϧϰδϨΗϻ΃ϰϠϋΔϴΑήΘϟ΍ήϣ΃ϚϟϙήΗ΄γˬͿ΍ϚΤϣΎγ
Khadija observed, “Mother, you’re not fit to raise anyone.” Her mother
muttered calmly, “God forgive you. I’ll leave the child rearing to you, so
long as you don’t forget your own manners.” (Palace Walk, p.26)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 47

The utterance “Ϛδϔϧ” gives rise to a conversational implicature because the


mother flouts the maxim of Manner. The translatorsexplicate the utterance
and render it as“your own manners”.
In the following exchange between al-Sayyid and Zubayda they flout
the maxim of Manner. They speak of having sexual affairs but in a covert
way. In order to make the implicature clear the translators should have
enriched their utterances pragmatically. In fact, the degree of explicitness
is an important factor in translating implicit meaning. In the following
example Zubayda and al-Sayyid speak figuratively, creating an extended
metaphor. She likens her chastity to ablution. She presupposes that al-
Sayyid is so corrupt that his touch will sully her chastity.

ϖϠϗϲϓΎϬϟ΄δϓ
ˮϲΑήπΑϲϣήϜΘΗϢϟ΍ΫΎϤϟ-
ΓήΧΎγΖϟΎϗϭΎϬγ΃έΕΰϬϓ
ϲ΋ϮοϭξϘϧ΃ϥ΃ϑΎΧ΍-
ΔϔϬϟϲϓϝ˯ΎδΘϓ
ˮ˱ΎόϣϲϠμϧϥ΃ϲϓϊϤσ΃΃-
ήΧΎγϝϻΩϰϓΖϟ˯ΎδΘϓΓ΃ήϤϟ΍Ύϣ΃
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϡϮϨϟ΍ϦϣήϴΧϰϫϰΘϟ΍Γϼμϟ΍ˬΔϠϴπϔϟ΍ΐΣΎλΎϳˬϰϨόΗ΃-
He asked her anxiously, “Why don’t you honor me with a beating?” She
shook her head and replied scornfully, “I’m afraid I would have to
repeat my ritual ablutions.” He asked longingly, “May I hope we can
pray together?” … The woman asked with ironic coquetry, “Do you mean,
reverend sir, the kind of pray the muezzin says is better than sleep?”
(Palace Walk, p.93)

In fact, she has not performed the ritual ablution before. The utterance
“ϲ΋Ϯοϭ ξϘϧ΃ ϥ΃ ϑΎΧ΃” should be translated with a higher degree of
explicitness. In other words, the metaphor of sullying ablution should be
turned into a simile. Thus, the utterance should be translated as “touching
you is like sullying ablution”. This metaphor is an implicature. Keeping
such an implicature in the translation risks its comprehensibility. The
translators should have explicated the implicature to convey the intended
meaning. The proposition that prayer is better than sleep is unknown to the
English reader. The translators explicate the utterance “Γϼμϟ΍” because
some degree of explicitness is significant for the Englishreader In fact, a
translator’s decision to be explicit or implicit is governed by context. In
this example there are no contextual clues to help the English reader
understand the comparison of the metaphor. If this metaphor is exchanged
with a simile in the translation, it will be more intelligible.
In fact, figures of speech are interpreted by Grice to be floutings or
exploitations of the maxims (Levinson 1983: 109-111; Grundy 2000: 76-
48 &KDSWHU7KUHH

77; Cutting 2002: 37-38). Metaphors, for example, are viewed as floutings
of the maxim of Quality. There have been semantic approaches to
metaphor. Levinson (1983) argues that they “fail to yield adequate
accounts of the phenomena” (1983: 148). According to Levinson, a
pragmatic approach to metaphor is needed but it is not the whole thing. As
Levinson comments, “[it] may be conceded, though, that the theory of
implicature alone cannot produce or predict such interpretations” (1983:
159).
Larson (1984) identifies the problems of translating metaphors.
Difficulty in translating metaphors is due to the fact that “the image used
in the metaphor or simile may be unknown in the receptor language”
(1984: 250). Moreover, the image may be unclear and difficult to be
interpreted by the TLT reader. The receptor language sometimes draws
comparisons which are different from those which occur in the SL
metaphor (1984: 251). As Larson comments,

In light of these various problems – the difficulty in discovering the


meaning of metaphors in the source language and the misunderstanding
which there may be in their interpretation – the translator must give careful
consideration whenever a metaphor is found in the source text… A literal
translation of a metaphor or simile often leads to wrong meanings or no
meaning at all. (1984: 252)

Larson summarizes five ways of translating metaphors.


1- The metaphor may be kept if the receptor language permits (that is, if it
sounds natural and is understood correctly by the readers).
2- A metaphor may be translated as a simile (adding like or as).
3- A metaphor of the receptor language which has the same meaning may
be substituted.
4- The metaphor may be kept and the meaning explained (that is, the
topic and/or point of similarity may be added).
5- The meaning of the metaphor may be translated without keeping the
metaphorical imagery. (1984: 254)
Dobrzynska (1995) advocates the first, third and fourth solutions. The
first choice means preserving the exact original metaphor. The third
presents the substitution of an SL metaphor with a TL metaphor that has a
similar sense. The fourth refers to the strategy of explicitness. Therefore,
Dobrzynska considers three possibilities:
1. M ৐M procedure = preserving the original metaphor
2. M1 ৐ M2 procedure = using another TL metaphor
3. M ৐ P procedure = explacating or paraphrasing the metaphor.
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 49

Dobrzynska considers explicitation as “better than absolute faithfulness to


the original or introduction of a metaphor that is false from the cultural
point of view” (1995: 603). In fact, the problem of translating metaphor is
a problem of being either faithful or beautiful. As Dobrzynska comments,
"it is not always possible to adhere to the principle of faithfulness, M ৐
M, without risking that a metaphorical utterance will become
incomprehensible or will lead to an interpretation which is incompatible
with the one intended in the original" (1995: 600).
Translators should also consider metaphors as conversational
implicatures. In the next example Zanuba tells al-Sayyid that she does not
understand him. The metaphor of being in two different valleys is used in
the SLT to mean that the two speakers are different.

ϝϮϘΗϰϫϭˬΔθϫΪϟΎΑΕήϫΎψΗϢΛˬ˯ΎϨΜϟ΍ΎϬΜόΑΔϣΎδΘΑ΍Εέ΍Ϊϓ
ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ Ω΍ϭϰϓϰϧ΃ϭΩ΍ϭϰϓϚϧ΃ήϫΎψϟ΍ˬΎΌϴηϰϨόΗΎϤϣϢϬϓ΃ϻ-
She hid the smile his praise had inspired and pretended to be astonished as
she said, “I absolutely do not understand what you mean. It’s clear that
we’re mountains apart….” (Palace of Desire, p.101)

The translators chose to change the metaphor. In English the idiomatic


expression “worlds apart” means that people are different. But the
translators uses the word “mountains” to keep the atmosphere of the
original metaphor. The metaphor in the following example is lost in the
translation. Zubayda speaks to the blind qanun player ordering him to shut
up.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ςϴΤϤϟ΍ώϠΒϳϱάϟ΍ϙΎϓΪγϭΖϧ΃ΖϜγ΍-
“You hush and shut your big mouth.” (Palace walk, p. 100)

The mouth of the "qanun" player is so big that it can swallow an ocean.
This metaphor is cancelled in the translation.
Proverbs are said to be close to metaphors (Levinson 1983: 151).
Norrick (1985) distinguishes literal proverbs from figurative ones. When
the literal reading of the proverb does not correspond to its interpretation,
the proverb is figurative (Ibrahim and Kennedy 1996: 183). Ibrahim and
Kennedy argue that “[a] figurative proverb may also be metaphoric”
(1996: 183). Thus, proverbs can be analyzed as implicatures. In the
following example, al-Sayyid speaks of his son Kamal and points at
himself.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΪγϷ΍΍άϫϦϣϞΒθϟ΍ϙ΍Ϋ
“He’s this lion’s cub.” (Palace Walk, p. 256)
50 &KDSWHU7KUHH

He means that his son behaves like him. The implied meaning is “like
father like son”. But the translators preserves the metaphor of the lion at
the cost of comprehension. The same implicature is expressed in another
situation when Fahmy speaks of his brother Yasin but with a different
metaphor.

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϡ΍ϮϋίϮϟ΍ϦΑ΍-
“The son of the goose is a good swimmer” (Palace Walk, p. 310)

Fahmy intends the same implied meaning. The translations of the two
proverbs are literal. Ibrahim and Kennedy (1996: 205-207) notice that
Egyptians use too many proverbs for the same situation. Their Arabic
language is formulaic and full of figures of speech.
Praising can also be seen as a flouting of the maxim of Quality. In the
following example al-Sayyid wants to praise Zubayda. He uses a figure of
speech in which he likens her tongue to sugar.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮΎϬϠϛΓϭϼΤϟ΍ϩάϫϚϧΎδϟϰϓϭήϜδϟ΍ϰϟ΍ϚΘΟΎΣΎϣ-
“Why do you need sugar when there’s all this sweetness on your
tongue?” (Palace Walk, p. 89)

A problem may appear when the TLT reader does not understand that
figure of speech. S/he may assume that there was actually something sweet
in her mouth. The translation of the figure of speech is literal. To preserve
the implicature the utterance could be rendered as “Why do you need
sugar when your tongue is sweet?”
Irony can be seen as a flouting of the maxim of Quality. But translating
irony is, in fact, problematic. Translating what is actually said may not
guarantee the same equivalent effect of irony. Irony is lost in the following
excerpt, for instance, in which Zubayda and al-Sayyid are pretending to be
a bride and a bridegroom. Al-Sayyid’s friends wish them a good family.

ΎϋΎΒΗϰϧΎϬΘϟ΍ϥϮΟΰϳ˯ΎϗΪλϷ΍ϖΑΎδΗϭ
ϦϴϨΒϟ΍ϭ˯ΎϓήϟΎΑ-
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΕΎϴϨϐϤϟ΍ϭΕΎμϗ΍ήϟ΍ϦϣΔΤϟΎλΔϳέΫ-
Their friends tried to outdo each other in offering their congratulations: “A
happy marriage and many sons.” “Healthy children who are good dancers
and singers” (Palace Walk, p. 104)

In fact, they are making fun of the situation. The word “ΔΤϟΎλ” is ironic. Its
literal meaning is "righteous". The intended meaning is the opposite.
When al-Sayyid is mocking his wife Amina, he repeats her utterance and
says:
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 51

ˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ  ΔϨϴϣ΍Ζ˰˰˰γΎϳ ϙέΎΒϣ  ϙέΎ˰˰Βϣ …ϲΘϨΑ΍ ϯΪΣ·ϰϠϋϞΟέϦϴϋϊϘΗϢϟ


 ι
“‘No man has ever seen either of my daughters…’ Congratulations, Mrs.
Amina, Congratulations.” (Palace Walk, p. 157)

In fact, he is not congratulating her. He means the opposite. Irony can


result from the use of indirect speech acts. Baker (1992) points out that
implicatures are influenced by the conventional meaning of certain
linguistic patterns (1992: 230). Rhetorical questions that have been
classified above as indirect speech acts are sometimes ironic. The
translation of irony cannot be interpreted without understanding the
context. In another example al-Sayyid says that he has five daughters. In
fact, he is mocking his three sons.

ϦϴΑ   ΙΎϧ· βϤΧ  ΎΛΎϧ· ϻ· ΐΠϧ΃ Ϣϟ ϰϧ΃ ϖΤϟ΍ϭ ˬ έϮϛΫ ΔΛϼΛ ΏΎΠϧ· ϰϠϋ αΎϨϟ΍ ϲϧΪδΤϳ
 ιˬϦϳή˰μϘϟ΍
“People envy me my three sons. The truth is that all I’ve got are daughters
… five daughters.” (Palace Walk, p. 157)

One of the solutions of translating irony is the technique of compensation.


The effect of irony can be reproduced near the point of loss. Translators
should not translate what is actually said, but they should strive to obtain
the effect of irony by other means (Harvey 2001: 39). Hatim (1997: 195)
proposes that “attitudinal meanings can be approached and irony analysed
as the implication by echoic mention of such meanings”. Hatim (2001:
182) argues that “the translator could have more felicitously flouted the
maxim of Quality”.
Similarly, a speaker can flout the maxim of quality by using banter.
Banter is said to be called "mock impoliteness" or as Cutting explains,
“[it] sounds like a mild aggression… but it is intended to be an expression
of friendship or intimacy” (2002: 38). In the following example, Khadija
asks Kamal how God forgives him for lying and Kamal wants to tease her.

˱ϼ΋ΎϗΎϬϔϧ΄ΑνήόϳΡ΍έΎϬΘϳήΨδΑϢτΗέ΍ΎϤϠϛϪΗΩΎόϛϭ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϰΘΧ΍έϮΨϨϣϰϠϋϖΤϟ΍ϪϟϝϮϗ΃ 
As usual when he collided with her sarcasm, he began to allude to her
nose. He said, “I’ll tell Him it’s the fault of my sister’s snout.” (Palace
Walk, p. 54)

In his utterance Kamal flouts the maxims of Quality and Relevance to end
her criticism. Banter, as implicature, is preserved in the TLT by using the
word "snout" not "nose". Using the word "nose" cancels the implicature or
52 &KDSWHU7KUHH

the banter. Another banter is in the utterance of al-Sayyid speaking to


Muhammad Iffat.

ήμϗ  ϪότϘϳͿ΍ˬκϗήϳϮϫϭ έΎϔϟ΍ήψϨϣΪϴόΘγ΍ϭβϣϷ΍ΓήϬγήϛάΗ΃ϙέϮπΣϞϴΒϗΖϨϛ -


ιˬϕϮθϟ΍
“Just before you arrive I was remembering last night and what al-Far
looked like dancing. May God strike him down” (Palace of Desire, p.
323)

The utterance “ϪότϘϳͿ΍” is translated as a true wish of striking him down.


Al-Sayyid means that al-Far is an energetic, amusing person. It should be
translated as “You little devil” or “You’re a riot”. The same utterance is
addressed to Amina with a different meaning. She interrupts him. In the
second case it is a true wish of striking her down.

ήμϗ  ϚότϘϳ Ϳ΍ ˬϚϠϤϋ ϰϟ· ϲϬΒΘϧ΍ ˬϦϴϤϬϔΗ ϻ ΎϤϴϓ ϲϠΧΪΘΗ ϻ ˬϲϨϴόσΎϘΗ ϻ ˬϢϠϜΗ΃ ϲϨϴϋΩ -
 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍
“Let me speak! Don’t interrupt me. Don’t interfere in things you can’t
comprehend. Pay attention to your work. May God strike you down”.
(Palace of Desire, p.337)

Metonymy is a figure of speech that can be seen as flouting the maxim


of Manner. The speaker uses “the name of an attribute of an entity in place
of the entity itself” (Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, p. 240).
Synecdoche is a special type of metonymy in which the entity is replaced
by an actual part of it. The nonliteral meaning of synecdoche is what is
inferred. Translating a synecdoche should not be at the cost of
understanding. In the following example Amina speaks of the Quran.

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϪϠϛΔϛήΑΎϨΑέϡϼϛ-
“The word of our Lord is a blessing in its entity”. (Palace Walk, p. 66)

The utterance “ΎϨΑέϡϼϛ” refers to the Qur’an. The translation “the word of
our Lord” may not be understood by the TLT reader to mean the whole
Qur’an. For successful translation the translators should have made the
implicit explicit. It can be rendered “the whole Qur’an”. Another
metonymy is used when Fahmy does not understand what Yasin says to
him.

-ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϝϮϘΗΎϤϣΎϓήΣϢϬϓ΍ϻ-
“I don't understand a word you’ve said” (Palace Walk, p. 336)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 53

The literal meaning of the utterance“ϑήΣ”is “a letter” but the translators


manage to get the meaning of the utterance. The utterance is translated as
“a word” but the additional clause “you’ve said” cancels the metonymy.
The translation means, “I don’t understand a word (that) you’ve said”. It
implies that Fahmy does not understand a certain word of what Yasin says.
Alternative solutions are “I don’t understand a word of it” or “I don’t
understand a word of what you say” or “I don’t understand a word”.
Ambiguity can be seen as implicature in which the speaker deliberately
flouts the maxim of Manner. In the following example, in which Gamil
asks al-Sayyid how to account for the goods Zubayda takes from the store,
he answers with an ambiguous utterance. He intends to use the ambiguity.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϯϮϬϟ΍ΎϬϔϠΗ΃ϊ΋ΎπΑϡΎϗέϷ΍ϥΎϜϣΐΘϛ΃-
“Write beside it: ‘Goods destroyed by an act of God’”. (Palace Walk, p.
90)

In fact, the utterance“ϯϮϬϟ΍”can mean air, or love. This ambiguity is not


preserved in the TLT. The indeterminacy of the utterance is meant to
generate hilarity in the readers. It is considered as pun, or malapropism or
catachresis; a kind of trope that depends on homophonic words (A
Dictionary of Stylistics, p. 286). It is difficult to find an equivalent
expression reflecting the same comic effect of the SLT. The lack of this
literary device in the English translation is unforgivable. Thus, the strategy
of compensation is the best solution for translating puns. The translators
should have created a sort of homophony to compensate for the pun.
Possible solutions are “Goods lost for goodwill” or “Goods too good to be
sold” or “Goods for the good”. The ambiguity of the word “ϪϨόϟ” in the
following example is preserved in the translation

ϪϴϨΠΑϦϴϳΎϛϮϜϟ΍ϪϤηϲϨόϴΒϳϥΎϛϪϧ΍ήΒϨϋϦδΤΑήΠϔϟ΍ώϠΑϰΘΣ-ΓΪϴΑί
Ϳ΍ϪϨόϟ-Ϊϴδϟ΍
ΔϨόϟϒϟ΃ˮήΒϨϋϦδΣ-ΓΪϴΑί
ιΔϳήϜδϟ΍  ϦϴϳΎϛϮϜϟ΍ϞΑ-Ϊϴδϟ΍
Zubayda: “Hasan Anbar was depraved enough to charge me a whole pound
for a pinch of cocaine…”
al-Sayyid: “Curses….”
Zubayda: “On Hasan Anbar? A thousand!”
al-Sayyid: “No, on cocaine”. (Sugar Street, p. 15)

The pronoun in the word “ϪϨόϟ” can refer in Arabic to Hasan or cocaine. In
English no pronoun can give rise to the same ambiguity. Thus, the
translators omitted the pronoun to preserve the ambiguity They manage to
54 &KDSWHU7KUHH

compensate for the ambiguity. In fact, translators should pay much


attention to the translating of implicatures.
Examples of pragmatic inferences that should be made explicit are
standard implicature, which results from obeying the maxims. Sperber and
Wilson (1986) characterize this type as relevance implicature that results
from observing the maxim of Relation. This kind of relevance implicature
is important for the utterance to be relevant. Simons (2002) considers
relevance implicatures as presuppositions because they are implicated
assumptions.
Translators should consider cultural presuppositions in the source text.
Ping (1999: 133) explains that “[of] the many factors that may lead to
misreadings in translation, cultural presuppositions merit special attention
from translators because they can substantially affect their interpretation of
facts and events in the source text without their even knowing it”. A
speaker’s utterance in a source text should be relevant to a hearer. The fact
that the hearer observes the maxim of Relevance is clear to the SLT reader
because the SLT producer and the SLT reader are of the same culture. But
the TLT reader would be unable to grasp the relevance of an utterance to
the hearer. Abdel-Hafiz (2004) discusses the translation of cultural
elements and stresses the use of elaboration to narrow the gap between the
source culture and the target culture. James (2002: 1) stresses that
translators should “determine how much missing background information
should be provided” in the TLT.
In the translation of Mahfouz’s Trilogy, some cultural and religious
words and expressions are explicated. In the following examples the
strategy of explicitness is a good solution. Food words and expressions are
untranslatable to an audience who has never heard of them. The word
“ΔϓΎϨϛ” in the next example has its cultural presupposition which a non-
Egyptian might not grasp. The translators explicate it

 ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΔϓΎϨϜϟ΍ϊ΋ΎΑΎηϭήϤΣώϠΑϰΘΣ
When he reached Hamrush, who sells sweets shredded pasta bars….
(Palace Walk, p. 466)

Other cultural words such as “ϥϮϧΎϛ” lose their presupposition. It is


rendered as“stove”.

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϞΑΎϘϤϟ΍Ϧϛήϟ΍ϞΘΤϳϱάϟ΍ϥϮϧΎϜϟ΍ϭ
The stove that occupied the opposite corner…(Palace Walk, p. 14)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 55

It can be rendered as “wood-burning stove” to be explicit to the TLT


reader. The word “ΔϤϟΎϋ” has different translations in the translation of the
Trilogy
"professional" (Palace Walk, p. 26)
"chanteuse" (Palace Walk, p.71)
"performer" (Palace Walk, p.89)
"singer" (Palace Walk, p.90)
"vocalist" (Palace of Desire , p.286)
None of these translations is equivalent to the word “ΔϤϟΎϋ”. To an
Egyptian, it evokes a stream of cultural information which a non-Egyptian
does not know
There are different words in all languages used to express social
relationships. In Arabic there are words to address a father’s brothers, or a
mother’s brothers. But in English these relations are expressed by one
word. In English the word “uncle” is used to mean “the brother of father or
mother”. In the following example the translation of the utterance of
Khadija is enriched by adding the word “maternal”.

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϢϬϟ΍ϮΧ΃ϪϴϠϋ΄θϧΎϣϰϠϋϯΩϻϭ΃΄θϨϴγ-
“…my children will be raised like their maternal uncles…” (Palace of
Desire, p.40)

Thus, the insertion of the word “maternal” to distinguish between the


brother of mother and the brother of father is significant in the translation
of Khadija’s utterance. Some names bear culturally presupposed
meanings. An example of a pragmatically enriched translation of a name is
in the utterance of Khadija when she is speaking to Yasin.

 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ήθϛΔΒϤΑΎϳϙήϜη΃-
“Thank you, Miss Bamba Kashar, you seductive songstress.” Palace of
Desire, p.42)

The utterance “ήθϛ ΔΒϤΑ Ύϳ” is translated as “Miss Bamba Kashar, you
seductive songstress”. Thriveni (2002: 2) comments that “ [a] name is a
linguistic cultural element, and an author uses it for its associative value. It
resists translation; therefore its evocative value is lost”.
When al-Sayyid asks Kamal about the facultyin whichhe wants to be
enrolled, he uses the word “ΔγέΪϣ”. In 1920s this wordwas used to refer to
a faculty in a university

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ΎϬΑϕΎΤΘϟϻ΍ϯϮϨΗϲΘϟ΍ΔγέΪϤϟ΍ϦϋϲϧήΒΨΗϥ΃Ϛϟϥ΁
56 &KDSWHU7KUHH

“It’s time for you to tell me which branch of the university you plan to
choose.” (Palace of Desire, p.48)

The translators render the word as“branch of the university” to produce an


adequate contextual effect at minimal processing cost. They later render it
as “college” in the same situation.

ΎϴϠόϟ΍ϦϴϤϠόϤϟ΍ ΔγέΪϤΑ ϕΎΤΘϟϻ΍ΎόΒσϚΗήπΣΔϘϓ΍ϮϣΪόΑϭˬͿ΍ϥΫΈΑΎΑΎΑΎϳΖϳϮϧ - ϝΎϤϛ


ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ
[Kamal]: “I have decided, Papa, God willing and with your approval, of
course, to enroll in the Teachers Training College.” (Palace of Desire,
p.48)

When Yasin speaks to his father of his desire to get married, he uses the
cultural presupposition “ϲϨϳΩ ϒμϧ ϞϤϛ΃”. The translators’ decision to
explicate it helps maximize the degree of understanding.

ιˬϕϮ˰θϟ΍ή˰˰μϗ ϲϨϳΩϒμϧϞϤϛ΃ϥ΃–ϙΎοέϭϚΘϘϓ΍ϮϣΪόΑ–ΖϣΰΘϋ΍-
“I’ve decided, with your consent and approval, to perfect my religious
observance by marrying.” (Palace of Desire, p.108)

Another example of a good pragmatic enrichment is clear in the


utterance of Kamal when he hears Aida calling his name

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϲϧϭήΛΩϰϧϮϠϣί΍ΪΠϨΘδϣϒΘϬΗϮϟΎϫΪόΑΕΩΩϭ
Immediately afterwards you would have liked to echo the Prophet’s
words when he would feel a revelation coming and cry out for help:
"Wrap me up! Cover me with my cloak!" (Palace of Desire, p.18)

The enrichment of the utterance is a good decision from the translators. It


gives the TLT reader knowledge about the religious expression “  ϰϧϮϠϣί
ϲϧϭήΛΩ”. In the next example Khadija is speaking of her mother-in-law’s
complaint about her. She says that people will think that she is like “ϭ΃Ύϳέ
ΔϨϴϜγ”.

ήμϗ ΔϨϴϜγϭ΃ΎϳέϲϨΒδΤϟΓήϴδόϟ΍ϑϭήψϟ΍ϩάϫϰϓϲϧϮϜθΗϰϫϭϥΎϛΪϟ΍ϰϓϊϣΎγΎϬόϤγϮϟϭ
ιˬϕϮθϟ΍
"Anyone hearing her complain about me in the store under such adverse
conditions would have thought I was a cold-blooded killer like those
dreadful women in Alexandria: Rayya and Sakina.” (Palace of Desire,
p.231)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 57

The utterance “ΔϨϴϜγ ϭ΃ Ύϳέ” is successfully translated because it is


pragmatically enriched to help the target reader understand the meaning.
The religious word ΏΎΘϜϟ΍³´Φϴη is translated as“head of a Qur’anic primary
school” (Palace Walk, p.265). The explicit translation helps preserve the
cultural presupposition. The religious word “ϦϴΘόϛέ” has no comparable
equivalent in English. Successfully the translators explicate its religious
background and render it as´four prostrations” (Palace Walk, p. 75) which
means “Ε΍ΪΠγ ϊΑέ΃” in Arabic. Their translation is pragmatic because it
preserves the presupposition. In the next example in which Amina’s
mother tells Amina that she should thank God that she remains the only
wife of al-Sayyid, there is a lost presupposition.

ΔϴϧΎΛΝϭΰΘϳϥ΃ϭ΃ˬ˯ΎηϮϟΎϫΩήΘδϳϥ΃ϪόγϮΑϥΎϛϭˬϰϟϭϷ΍ϪΘΟϭίϖϠσϥ΃ΪόΑϚΟϭΰΗΪϘϟ
ˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΓΪϴΣϭΔΟϭίϙΎϘΑ΃Ϫϧ΃ϰϠϋΎϨΑέϱΪϤΣΎϓˬΎΟ΍ϭΰϣϩϮΑ΃ϥΎϛΪϗϭˬΔόΑ΍έϭΔΜϟΎΛϭ
 ι
“He married you after divorcing his first wife. He could have kept her too,
if he’d wanted, or taken second, third, and fourth wives. Thank our Lord
that you remain his only wife.”(Palace Walk, p. 5)

The presupposition that a Muslim can marry four women according to the
Islamic teachings is clear to SLT reader. But this presupposition is not
clear to the TLT reader who can not understand the significance of the
speaker’s choice of the ordinal numbers “second, third, and fourth”. The
translators should have enriched the translation with adding a clause such
as “as do the Islamic Teachings permit”. When Yasin divorces Maryam,
he says:

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΖϧ΃ˬϰϬΟϭϦϋϲΑήϏ΍
“I never want to see you again.” Then he pronounced the irreversible triple
divorce formula: “You’re divorced, divorced, divorced!” (Palace of
Desire, p. 277)
Back-translation: ΔϘϠτϣΔϘϠτϣΔϘϠτϣΖϧ΃ˬϲϬΟϭϦϋϲΑήϏ΍

The presupposition that Yasin can not remarry Maryam is known to the
SLT reader because the repetition of the word “ΔϘϟΎσ” is significant. This
presupposition is preserved by enriching the translation with the word
"irreversible". It can be preserved through pragmatic enrichment.
Baker (1992) explores different solutions to the problem of
nonequivalence. She seems to prefer the pragmatic approach to translation.
Explaining an example, she says “the English attempts to bridge the gap
between the textual world and the world of the target reader by explaining
the unfamiliar… in terms of the familiar…” (1992: 232). Cultural
approaches to translation prefer to transliterate (transcribe) such cultural
58 &KDSWHU7KUHH

and religious words to establish national pride. As El Menoufy comments,


"it must be admitted that this is sometimes done at the expense of
achieving effective communication"(El Menoufy 1982: 246).
If there is no equivalence in the TLT, the strategy of using a TL
expression with the same sense will be better than that of explicitness.
Baker (1992) seems to order these strategies according to availability. In
the following utterance, the cultural presupposition of using the five
fingersto avoid being envied is clear to the SLT reader, but not to the TLT
reader. Thus, the translators resorted to the strategy of explicating that
presupposition. The tambourine player utters the following words to
protect Jalila.

ˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ …ϲΒϨϟ΍ϰϠϋϞμϳϢϟϦϣϦϴϋϲϓΔδϤΧϭ-
“plus five-like the five fingers of the prophet's granddaughter Fatima
held up to ward off the evil of infidels”. (Palace Walk, p. 266-267)

In the next excerpt Hilmi utters another utterance with the same meaning
when he speaks to Ridwan

ιˬΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ϪϴϠϋϰϠμϳϰΒϨϟ΍ϝΎϤΟϖθόϳϰϠϟ΍ϭˬΎηϮΑήσϭΔϟάΑϥΎϳΪΗήϳϥ΍ήϤϗ-
“Two splendid moons in suits and fezzes. All those who love the
prophet’s handsome appearance should pray for him.” (Sugar Street, p.
60)

The translators choose to explicate the utterance. However, there may be


another translation strategy in these examples. The translators could have
used the utterance “touch wood!”. It is mentioned in El-Batal’s A
Dictionary of Idioms as an equivalent to “ΔδϴϤΧϭΔδϤΧ” (p. 43). In fact, it is
proper to look at these utterances as idioms. As explained above, the
strategy of using a TL expression should be given priority over the
strategy of explicitness in such idiomatic expressions or in case of cultural
mismatches between the source culture and the target culture.
Similarly, translating idioms affects implicatures triggered from those
idioms. Idiomatic expressions are not in themselves implicatures (cf.
Baker 1992: 223). However, the conventional meaning of an idiom
generates a standard implicature resulting from observing the maxim of
Relevance. Thus, mistranslating idiomatic expressions results in the loss of
standard implicatures. Baker agrees that implicatures are influenced by the
conventional meaning of words and structures (1992: 229). Mistranslating
an idiom causes discontinuity of coherence. Coherence is linked to
implicature (Baker 1992: 222-223); observing the maxim of relevance
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 59

(finding relation between different utterances) creates a standard


implicature. In the following example Gamil welcomes Zubayda.

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϞϣήϟΎΑνέϷ΍εήϔϧϥ΃ΎϨϴϠϋΎϘΣϥΎϛϼϬγϭϼϫ΃-
“Welcome! We should have spread the earth with sand for you” (Palace
Walk, p. 87)

The translators render the idiomatic expression literally. Thus, the TLT
reader is not able to infer that Gamil is overjoyed to see Zubayda.
Implicature is also not calculable in the following example. When
Zubayda and al-Sayyid speak of Galila, she uses an idiomatic expression.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΎϣΎψϋϚΘϛήΗϭΎϤΤϟϚΗάΧ΃-
“She took you in when your flesh was firm and left you nothing but
bones.” (Palace Walk, p. 95)

She implicates that Galila benefits from al-Sayyid only when he is


powerful. Notice the utterance of Ibrahim when Yasin asks him about his
attitude when his wife and his mother quarrel.

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϦϴΠϋϦϣΎϧΫ΃ϭϦϴσϦϣΎϧΫ΃-
“I act as though one of my ears was made of clay and the other of
dough. (Palace of Desire, p. 35)

The literal translation results in discontinuity of coherence and losing the


standard implicature of observing the maxim of Relevance. The Arabic
expression “ϦϴΠϋϦϣΎϧΫ΃ϭϦϴσϦϣΎϧΫ΃” can be rendered as “I turn a deaf ear”.
In the following example, Husayn advises Kamal to get married.

ιˬΔϳήϜδϟ΍ έΎτϘϟ΍ϚΗΎϓϻ·ϭωήγ΃-
“Hurry up. Otherwise you’ll miss the train.” (Sugar Street, p.288)

The meaning intended is that Kamal will become unmarried because


people will believe that he is too old to get married. A possible translation
is “ you’ll be on the shelf”. In the following example Amina and al-Sayyid
speaks of their son Fahmy.

-ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ   ΎϫήϴϏϰϟ·ϻϭΓέΎΟϰϟ· ϪϴϨϴϋϊϓήϳϻϲϨΑ΍ϥ·ˬϱΪϴγΎϳϼϛ -



“Of course not, sir. My son doesn’t lift his eyes to look at a neighbor girl
or anyone else.” (Palace Walk, p. 128-129)
60 &KDSWHU7KUHH

The conventional meaning of the utterance “ϪϨϴϋ ϊϓήϳ” is to look quickly


and secretly. A literal translation of the utterance may cancel the standard
implicature that Fahmy was polite and did not try to steal a look at his
neighbor. The literal translation “lift his eyes” may give the false
assumption that Fahmy is looking to the ground when he walks. However,
the following utterance of al-Sayyid is not literally translated.

ˬϦϳή˰μϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΔϨϴϣ΃Ζ˰˰˰γΎϳϙέΎΒϣϙέΎ˰˰Βϣ …ϲΘϨΑ΍ϯΪΣ·ϰϠϋϞΟέ ϦϴϋϊϘΗϢϟ


 ι
“‘No man has ever seen either of my daughters…’ Congratulations, Mrs.
Amina, Congratulations.” (Palace Walk, p. 157)

The expression “Ϧϴϋ ϊϘΗ” is rendered as “see”. Thus, mistranslating the


conventional meaning of the idiom may result in losing the implicature. In
the next excerpt Khadija uses the idiomatic expression “ρ΍ήϴϗϦϳήθϋϭΔόΑέ΍”
in her speech to Amina.

ιˬϦϳή˰μϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϦϳήθϋϭΔόΑέ΃ϪΑϰϨϋ΃ϲϧΈϓ Ύσ΍ήϴϗΖϴΒϟΎΑϦϴϨόΗΖϨϛ΍Ϋ·Ϛϧ΃ϲϤϠϋ΍


 
“Listen, if you took care of the house one carat, I’m taking care of it
twenty-four.” (Palace Walk, p. 190)

That idiomatic expression means that Khadija is more successful than her
mother. In English the idiomatic expressions “be ahead of the pack” or
“lead the field” may give similar meaning.
In fact, there are difficulties in translating idioms (Baker 1992: 63-78).
Baker argues that “[a] person’s competence in actively using the idioms
and fixed expressions of a foreign language hardly ever matches that of a
native speaker” (1992: 64). She suggests that translators should translate
into the language in which they can manipulate idiomatic expressions.
Translators sometimes are not able to recognize an idiom in the source
text. Thus, they should use "monolingual dictionaries of idioms" or
"consult native speakers of the language". Ways of translating idioms rely
on "the context in which a given idiom is translated" (1992: 64-66). The
ideal but the least frequent way is to find a counterpart with similar
meaning and form. A more frequent way is to find another idiom with the
same meaning in the target language. In case of mismatches between the
SL and the TL, translators resort to the pragmatic strategies of
modification such as explicitation (expansion or paraphrase), implicitation
(omission) or compensation. As Baker comments, “[it] is therefore
unrealistic to expect to find equivalent idioms and expressions in the target
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 61

language as a matter of course” (1992: 68). Translators face the same


problems in translating fixed expressions such as proverbs.
Implicatures do not only depend on conventional meaning of words,
but also on linguistic structures (Baker 1992: 230). For example, an
indirect speech act has a surface meaning and an underlying meaning.
Mistranslating an indirect speech act results in the incalculability of
implicature which in turn affects the coherence of the text (Baker 1992:
230). When an indirect speech act is not preserved in a translation, the
implicature triggered by the ISA is lost. Notice how the following
utterance of Khadija is translated

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΍ήϴϐΘϣϦϴγΎϳϦϜϳϢϟϥ΍ϲϋ΍έΫϊτϗ΃
I’ll cut my arm off if Yasin hasn’t changed.” (Palace Walk, p. 281)

The meaning of the translation is that Khadija wants Yasin to change. The
meaning of the source text is that she is sure that Yasin has changed. The
utterance can be translated as “I’ll eat my hat” (El-Batal’s A Dictionary of
Idioms, p.9). However, that translation is problematic in the following
utterance of Khadija.

ΖϟΎϗϭˬΎϬϔϟ΍ϮγϦϣΔϠμΨΑΔΠϳΪΧΖϜδϣ΄ϓ
ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϝΎΣΎϬϟ΢ϠλϮϟ΍άϫϖϠΣ΃
Grasping a lock of her hair, Khadija said, “I’ll chop this off if she
reforms.” (Palace of Desire, p.245)

In fact, the paralinguistic act of grasping a lock of her hair is inconsistent


with using the translation “I’ll eat my hat”. The paralinguistic act and the
utterance of Khadija communicate the same meaning. El-Batal argues that
“the difficulty of translating a text with paralinguistic acts lies in their
being culture-specific” (2000:XII).
Proverbs can be considered as cultural presuppositions. Ibrahim and
Kennedy (1996) consider proverbs as a component of a context of shared
knowledge or what Quinn and Holland (1987) term a community’s
cultural models. "Cultural models are presupposed, taken-for-granted
models of the world that are widely shared by the members of a society
and that play an enormous role in their understanding of that world and
their behavior in it" (1987: 4 cited in Ibrahim and Kennedy 1996: 185).
Ibrahim and Kennedy (1996) argue that “interpretations of given proverbs
by people from differing cultural backgrounds should show corresponding
differences in the use of language…” (1996:181). For example, not all
proverbs should be translated literally. Translators should find a pragmatic
equivalent in case of not finding a literal equivalent. When the two
62 &KDSWHU7KUHH

previously mentioned Arabic proverbs are translated literally, their cultural


meaning is lost.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΪγϷ΍΍άϫϦϣϞΒθϟ΍ϙ΍Ϋ-
“He’s this lion’s cub” (Palace Walk, p. 256)
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϡ΍ϮϋίϮϟ΍ϦΑ΍
“The son of the goose is a good swimmer” (Palace Walk, p. 310)

The two Arabic proverbs are known to the SLT reader. However, the TLT
reader is not familiar with the metaphors of "the lion's cub" and "the son of
the goose". They should be translated as “Like father, like son” or they can
be explicated.
CHAPTER FOUR

PRAGMATIC TRANSLATIONS OF POLITENESS

One of the aims of this study is to examine how politeness expressions


can be rendered in a literary translation. In the terms of Brown and
Levinson (1987), politeness1 is a communicative process that means the
use of language to show a friendly attitude to people. It serves to establish
interpersonal relationships among language users. The phenomenon has
been analyzed by several linguists (cf. Lakoff 1973; Brown and Levinson
1978, 1987; Leech 1983). Cutting (2002) distinguishes politeness from
deference. Politeness is a pragmatic phenomenon that is not expressed by
the form of the words, but by their function and meaning. It implies
speakers’ choice of linguistic expressions to organize their interpersonal
relationships. In contrast, deference is “a polite form expressing distance
from and respect for people of a higher status, and does not usually include
an element of choice” (2002: 52). It can be seen in honorifics such as "Sir"
and "Madam".
Politeness is said to be a universal phenomenon. Brown and Levinson
(1987) assume that all competent language users have an awareness of the
face. Face as introduced by Goffman (1967) is the public presentation of
self or the public self-image (1987: 61). A rational person is able to choose
appropriate linguistic expressions to maintain the mutual faces of the
speaker and the interlocutor. According to Brown and Levinson (1987),
speakers should consider each other’s feelings and avoid face-threatening
acts (FTAs). Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are the events which “run
contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the speaker” (Brown and
Levinson 1987:65). For example, a speaker may prefer to phrase a request
in such a way that the hearer is not offended.
Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) have developed the notion of face.
There are essentially two types of face, the negative face and the positive
face. Negative face is the desire to be independent and not to be imposed
on by others. Positive face is the desire to be appreciated by others and to
show involvement with them. These aspects of face are used in pragmatics
to analyze the rapport between interlocutors. When one wants to perform a
face-threatening act, there are three ways to achieve one’s goals:
64 Chapter Four

1. To do the act on-record baldly, with negative politeness, or with


positive politeness,
2. To do the act off-record,
3. Not to do the act (Brown and Levinson 1987).
Let us see how the framework of Brown and Levinson can be used to
analyze the phenomenon of politeness.
First, to perform the acts on-record means to do it in an open and direct
way. This strategy is the most usual. One can do it baldly without redress.
Such utterances are direct speech acts containing imperatives without any
mitigating devices. For example, if one wants to borrow some money, s/he
can say:

Lend me some money.

Second, one can do the acts on-record with negative politeness redress.
Negative politeness respects the hearer’s negative face. It emphasizes the
distance between the speaker and the hearer and helps them avoid the
imposition. Thus, the act of borrowing money can be expressed as follows:

Could you please lend me some money?

This strategy can be achieved by using indirect requests, some mitigating


devices (expressions which soften the request) such as "if possible", "I
wonder" "please". Some speakers use a pessimistic formula, i.e. they
anticipate refusal (1987: 102, 131).

I couldn’t borrow some money, could I?

In fact, the more the speaker gives the hearer the option to refuse the
request, the more the degree of politeness is. Speakers sometimes
minimize the imposition by making the act seem smaller than it is.

Could I just borrow a tiny bit of paper?

Thus, “politeness phenomena depart from the principle of maximal


economy of utterance” (Grundy 2000: 146). Hatim and Mason (1997)
consider that brevity or economy of utterance is in line with familiarity
and solidarity by claiming common ground (1997: 88).
Third, one can do the acts on-record with positive politeness redress.
Positive politeness saves the positive face. It emphasizes closeness and
solidarity and demonstrates that both speakers have a common goal. This
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI3ROLWHQHVV 65

strategy can be achieved by using knowledge of personal information,


nicknames, informal pronunciation, shared dialect and slang, gossip,
frequent reference to speaker and hearer as "we" and less indirect requests.
The act of borrowing money can be done like this:

Jen my old mate, I know you have lent me before,


but how about having the pleasure of lending me again.

Fourth, one can do the act off-record by asking for help indirectly, and
saying something like:

I wonder where is my wallet.

That off-record communicative act is an indirect speech act in which a


declarative representative functions as a request. Indirectness is a strategy
of being polite. The wish to be polite can justify why speakers choose to
imply an idea or to use an indirect speech act (Peccei 1999: 69). According
to Lakoff (1975) there are two benefits of indirectness: defensiveness and
rapport. Defensiveness refers to giving speakers space to disclaim the act
or retreat behind the literal meaning of words. Rapport means emphasizing
solidarity (1975 cited in Tannen 1994: 32). It also gives the hearer the
option to ignore the act. Finally, one can do the act by avoiding saying
anything. One can hint at what s/he is doing, sigh loudly or shake her/ his
head.
Leech (1983) proposes a politeness principle with conversational
maxims. According to Leech, there are six maxims: tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty agreement and sympathy.
The Tact Maxim
"Minimize cost to other" and "maximize benefit to other".
The Generosity Maxim
"Minimize benefit to self" and "maximize cost to self"
The Approbation Maxim
"Minimize dispraise of other" and "maximize praise of other"
The Modesty Maxim
"Minimize praise of self" and "maximize dispraise of self"
The Agreement Maxim
"Minimize disagreement between self and other" and "maximize
agreement between self and other"
The Sympathy Maxim
"Minimize antipathy between self and other" and "maximize sympathy
between self and other".
66 Chapter Four

Differences in politeness conventions can cause difficulties cross-


culturally (Cutting 2002: 53). Hatim and Mason (1997) explain that “the
dynamics of politeness can be relayed trans-culturally but will require a
degree of linguistic modification at the level of texture” (1997: 82).
Translators should consider comparisons of politeness strategies and
maxims across the boundaries of speech communities.
Baker (1992: 234) gives license to translators to modify the text to suit
the target culture. As she argues,

[Different] cultures…. have different ideas about what is and what is not a
"taboo" area. Sex, religion, and defecation are taboo subjects in many
societies, but not necessarily to the same degree within similar situations.
In some translation contexts, being polite can be far more important than
being accurate. A translator may decide to omit or replace whole stretches
of text which violate the reader’s expectations of how a taboo subject
should be handled – if at all – in order to avoid offence. (1992: 234)

The word "Ϳ΍", for example, is translated throughout the Trilogy as


"Lord", and "God" for dogmatic appropriateness. Politeness norms may
explain intelligent decisions taken in the course of translating which could
otherwise cause pragmatic failure. Leech (1983) identifies pragmatic
failure that may result from mistranslating politeness expressions. "The
transfer of the norms of one community to another community may well
lead to "pragmatic failure", and to the judgment that the speaker is in some
way being impolite, uncooperative, etc." (1983: 231).
One area of meaning that should be balanced in a literary translation is
the different strategies of politeness used in the SLT. The factors
mentioned above determine the characters’ choice between directness and
indirectness. In the following examples some utterances are analyzed in
terms of Brown and Levinson. Let us examine how the different politeness
expressions are rendered in the Trilogy. The politeness strategies of the
following utterance have been preserved in translation. The use of
indirectness as a negative politeness strategy is clear in the following
exchange between Amina and Khadija:

ϝϮϘΗϡϷ΍ΖΣ΍έϦϴΣϰϠϋϚθϟ΍ϭέάΤϟ΍ϦϋϢϨΗΓήψϨΑΔΠϳΪΧΎϬΘΟΪΤϓ
ϚϬΟϭϭ ΔϔϴϔΨϟ΍ ϚΣϭέϭ  ˮ ϚσΎθϧ ϭ΃ ϚΗέΎϬϣ ϰϓ ϚϋέΎπϳ Ϧϣ  ϝΎΜϤϟ΍ ΓέΩΎϧ ΓΎΘϓ Ζϧ΃ -
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮ΍άϫϦϣήΜϛ΃ϥΪϳήΗ΍ΫΎϣˮϒϴτϠϟ΍
Khadija cast her a glance full of suspicion and doubt. Then their mother
started to speak: “you’re an extraordinary girl. Who can match your skill or
energy? Or your quick wit and pretty face? What more can you ask for?”
(Palace Walk, p.30)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI3ROLWHQHVV 67

Amina’s utterance combines both positive and negative politeness. Her


praising and admiration of Khadija is a positive politeness strategy. Both
strategies exist in the translation.
In the following example, Umm Ali, the matchmaker, tries to convince
al-Sayyid to marry Madam Nafusa. She uses a pre-sequence that prepares
the ground for a further sequence; that is, marriage. Pre-sequences are a
strategy of negative politeness (Cutting 2002: 47).

ΔϠϣέ΃ΔγϮϔϧΖγϥ΃ϢϠόΗϻ΃ϥ΍έϭΪϟ΍ΎϬϟ˯ΎηΎϣΎϬοήϏϝϮΣϪϴϓΕέ΍ΩΚϳΪ˰ΣΪόΑϪϟΖϟΎϗ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟ΍ϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒ˰˰γϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟ΍ϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ΍
She had told him, after being around the bush for some time, “You surely
know that Madam Nafusa, the widow of al-Hajj Ali al-Dasuqi, owns seven
stores in al Mugharbilin?” (Palace Walk, p. 83-84)

The indirect speech act of Umm Ali’s utterance is a negative politeness


strategy. But the loss of the ISA in the translation affects the degree of the
utterance politeness (see indirect speech acts).
Another example illustrating the use of indirectness as a strategy of
negative politeness is evident in the utterance of Amina when she wants to
convince al-Sayyid with Fahmy’s request of marrying Maryam, the
daughter of Mohammad Ridwan.

ϝϮϘϳϮϫϭΖϓΎϬΘϤϟ΍ΕϮμϟ΍ΎϤϫ˯ΎΠϓ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϥ΍ϮοέΪϤΤϣΪϴδϟ΍ΐϴτϟ΍ΎϧέΎΟϑήόϳϱΪϴγ-
They made out the feeble voice saying, “Sir, you know our excellent
neighbor Muhammad Ridwan?” (Palace Walk, p.127)

Amina’s sentence has a third person reference to al-Sayyid. The use of the
third person is a sign of indirectness that is a strategy of politeness. Amina
seeks to avoid imposing by being hesitant and frightened. The use of the
second person pronoun “you” in the translation affects the politeness of
the utterance. It can be rendered as “My master knows….” In fact,
indirectness is a negative politeness that gives option to the hearer and
enables the speaker to retreat behind the literal meaning of the words.
In some cases, the misunderstanding of politeness expressions may
give a false impression that characters use directness or indirectness. In the
exchange between al-Sayyid and Zubayda, he uses indirectness when he
asks her to make love with him. Zubayda is evasive and defensive. Her
reply is ambiguous.

ϖϠϗϲϓΎϬϟ΄δϓ
ˮϲΑήπΑϲϣήϜΘΗϢϟ΍ΫΎϤϟ-
ΓήΧΎγΖϟΎϗϭΎϬγ΃έΕΰϬϓ
68 Chapter Four

ϲ΋ϮοϭξϘϧ΃ϥ΃ϑΎΧ΍-
ΔϔϬϟϲϓϝ˯ΎδΘϓ
ˮ˱ΎόϣϲϠμϧϥ΃ϲϓϊϤσ΃΃-
ήΧΎγϝϻΩϰϓΖϟ˯ΎδΘϓΓ΃ήϤϟ΍Ύϣ΃
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϡϮϨϟ΍ϦϣήϴΧϰϫϰΘϟ΍Γϼμϟ΍ˬΔϠϴπϔϟ΍ΐΣΎλΎϳˬϰϨόΗ΃-
He asked her anxiously, “Why don’t you honor me with a beating?” She
shook her head and replied scornfully, “I’m afraid I would have to repeat
my ritual ablutions.” He asked longingly, “May I hope we can pray
together?” … The woman asked with ironic coquetry, “Do you mean,
reverend sir, the kind of pray the muezzin says is better than sleep?”
(Palace Walk, p.93)

What is really going on in that example is not apparent from the


propositional meaning of what is said but from what is implicated. As
explained in the study, the implicature is lost in the translation. Because of
their face-threatening utterances, they get behind their off-record strategy.
Their strategy is to avoid going on-record. This off-record strategy of
vagueness and ambiguity is not retrievable in the translation.
Another example of the negative politeness strategy of minimizing the
imposition is attested in the response of Zubayda to the compliment of her
maid.

ΎϬΗϻϮϣϦϋϦϠόΘϟΔϴΑΎτΧϪΒηΔΠϬϟϰϓΔϳέΎΠϟ΍ΕϮλϼϋΎϤϨϴΑ
Ϣϟ΍Ϯόϟ΍ΔϜϠϣΓΪϴΑίΖδϠϟϮϫϭΖϧ΍ωΪΟΎϳϊγϭ-
ΏΫΎϛήΟίϦϋϢϨΗΔΠϬϠΑΔϳέΎΠϟ΍ΐσΎΨΗΖϟΎϗϭΔϋϮΠδϣΔϜΤοΓΪϴΑίΖδϟ΍ϦϋΕΪϧϭ
ˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϊο΍ϮΘϟ΍ΔϠϴπϓΖϓήϋϼϫ ΓΪΣ΍ϭΓήϣϢϟ΍Ϯόϟ΍ΔϜϠϣϞΠϠΟΎϳϚΤϣΎδϳͿ΍ -
ι
Meanwhile the maid’s voice rang out almost oratorically to announce her
mistress: “Make way, fellows, you and the other one, for Madam Zubayda,
queen of the singers.” A muffled laugh escaped from Madam Zubayda.
Addressing the maid in a counterfeit tone of reprimand, she said, “May
God forgive you, Jaljal…Queen of the singers! That’s enough. Haven’t
you learned the virtue of humility?” (Palace Walk, p.87).

The negative politeness strategy is ignored in the translation of the


utterance. The translators render “ΓΪΣ΍ϭΓήϣ” as “that’s enough” which gives
the impression of being impolite. They should have rendered it as: “Queen
of singers! Not so much”.
In the following example Yasin uses the negative politeness strategy of
minimizing the imposition by making it seem smaller than it is.

ϦϴΑ  ˮςϘϓ ˯ΎϘϠϟ΍ ΐΤϤϟ΍ ˯΍ΰΟϭ ˬϙ˯΍έϭ ϦϳΪϬθΗ ΎϤϛ ήϤόϟ΍ Ζϴπϗ ϝΎϤΠϟ΍ϭ ϦδΤϟ΍ Ζγ Ύϳ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI3ROLWHQHVV 69

“Beautiful and lovely lady, I have spent my whole life following after you,
as you have seen. Can’t a lover aspire to be rewarded with at least a
meeting?” (Palace Walk, p.244).

The phrase “at least” indicates minimizing the imposition. To be faithful


the translators should have rendered the request as: “Can’t a lover aspire to
be rewarded with just a meeting?” The phrase “at least” is different from
the word “just”. Thus, the word “just” would be a negative politeness
strategy of minimizing the imposition.
In the family’s meeting Amina is praised by Khalil. She responds by
mitigating the compliment and praising Khadija’s mother-in-law. Praising
her mother-in-law annoys Khadija. Ibrahim wants to alleviate the situation
to satisfy his wife. In the following example Ibrahim addresses Amina.

 -ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϲΗΎϤΣΎϳϱ΃ήϟ΍΍άϫϰϠϋαΎϨϟ΍ξόΑϙήϘϳϻ-
“Some people would not concede that to you.” (Palace of Desire p. 30)
Back-translation: ϯ΃ήϟ΍΍άϫϰϠϋαΎϨϟ΍ξόΑϙήϘϳϻ

Ibrahim, in fact, refers to Khadija by his utterance “some people”. The


word “some” is considered a generalized conversational implicature. The
speaker implies “not all people”. It is therefore an example of negative
politeness. Ibrahim uses the strategy of impersonalizing, stating the
imposition as a general rule. Ibrahim decides to combine positive and
negative strategies to produce a hybrid, so he gives his mother-in-law a
name that emphasizes the strengthening of in-group identity and closeness.
His utterance “ϲΗΎϤΣ Ύϳ ” is important. Ibrahim’s utterance is meant to
alleviate the imposition and potential loss of Khadija’s face. In the same
time it shows a friendly attitude to his mother-in-law. In the translation of
Ibrahim’s utterance the negative politeness strategy is preserved but the
positive politeness strategy is lost. The translation is problematic because
it does not show Ibrahim’s positive face; his desire to be accepted by his
mother in-law and to be treated as a member of the group.
The positive politeness strategy of being optimistic is cancelled in the
following translation. When al-Sayyid welcomes Mr. Iffat, he says:

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϊΒγΎϳϙ˯΍έϭ΍ΫΎϣˬΩΎϧΎϨΣΎΒλ-
“It’s a damp morning. What do you know, you lion?” (Palace Walk,
p.328)

His utterance “ΩΎϧ ΎϨΣΎΒλ” is translated literally. It should have been


rendered as “May the day be promising!”
70 Chapter Four

The use of the question tags is a sign of positive politeness because


their function is to seek agreement. Notice the question tag in the
following example.

ϩΎΧ΃ΎΒσΎΨϣ-ξΒϨϟ΍βΟϞϴΒδΑϮϫϭ-ϞϴϠΧϝΎϗ
Ξ΋ΎΘϨϟ΍ήϴΨΑΖΗΎϓΔϤγΎΣΔϴϣΎΘΨϟ΍ϚΘϤϠϛΖϧΎϛ-
ϝΎόϔϧΎΑΔϠ΋ΎϗΓήϣϝϭϷϪΠϳΪΧΖϤϠϜΘϓ
 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˮϚϟάϛβϴϟ΃΢ϠμϟΎΑΖΗ΃-
Khalil took the pulse of the situation by saying to his brother, “Your final
remarks were decisive and brought good results.” For the first time since
the tribunal, Khadija spoke out, passionately: “It brought a truce - isn’t
that so?” (Palace of Desire, p. 239)

The translation is problematic: the tense of the question tag is present,


whereas the tense of the main part is past. There is no reference to the
pronoun “that”. A proper translation is “didn’t it?”.
The use of religious expressions is considered an aspect of being polite
in Arabic. Most Arab speakers use religious expressions as mitigating
devices to respond to compliments. In the next example, al-Sayyid
responds to the compliment of Shaykh Abd al-Sammad by a religious
expression.

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΪϤμϟ΍ΪΒϋΦϴηΎϳͿ΍ήϔϐΘγ΍-
“I ask God’s forgiveness, Shaykh Abd al-Samad…” (Palace Walk, p.40)

Religion constitutes the largest component of the Arab culture. The


repeated use of "Allah" in the characters’ blessings, curses and greetings is
a reminder of that fact. The religious expression in Arabic is a polite
utterance. It must be compensated for in the English translation by an
equivalent polite utterance. Al-Sayyid’s utterance can be rendered as “
May God forgive me”.
The failure to use politeness strategies results in impoliteness. Negm
(1999: 240) explains that impoliteness has little concern in the model of
Brown and Levinson but Leech’s model gives examples of impolite
speech without formulating any maxims for it. Gu (1990) is the only
model that refers to impoliteness (1999: 240). An example of impoliteness
is obvious in the utterance of al-Sayyid addressing his wife when she
interrupts him.

ήμϗ  ϚότϘϳ Ϳ΍ ˬϚϠϤϋ ϰϟ· ϲϬΒΘϧ΍ ˬϦϴϤϬϔΗ ϻ ΎϤϴϓ ϲϠΧΪΘΗ ϻ ˬϲϨϴόσΎϘΗ ϻ ˬϢϠϜΗ΃ ϲϨϴϋΩ -
 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI3ROLWHQHVV 71

“Let me speak! Don’t interrupt me. Don’t interfere in things you can’t
comprehend. Pay attention to your work. May God strike you down”.
(Palace of Desire, p.337)

A polite utterance is turned into an impolite one in the following example.


The positive politeness strategy of praising is lost in the translation of al-
Sayyid’s utterance which is addressed to Zanuba.

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϝϮϬϜϟ΍ϊϣϲϟΎϐϟ΍ΖϗϮϟ΍ϲόϴπΗϻϝϼΤϟ΍ΖϨΑΎϳ-
“Girl, Don’t waste precious time in talk.” (Palace of Desire, p.102)

The word "Girl" is an offensive word which turns the utterance into an
impolite one. The utterance “ϝϼΤϟ΍ΖϨΑ”can be rendered as “a good lady”
which is considered a polite utterance.
An impolite expression is translated as a polite one in the following
example in which Zanuba thinks that Yasin’s statement which she has just
heard is silly or not important.

 ιˬΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ϲΘΣήϓΎϳ-
“I’m overjoyed.” (Sugar Street, p.54).

Her utterance is ironic. But the translation loses irony and changes the
utterance into a positive politeness strategy of exaggerating interest or
approval. It should be translated as “Big deal”. In the next example
another impolite utterance is translated as a polite one. When a friend of
Yasin mocks at him, he says ironically,

 ιˬΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ϦϴόΑέϷ΍ϭΔόΒδϟ΍ϦΑΎϳϚϴϠϋͿ΍Ϣγ΍-
“God protect you! You’re forty-seven.” (Sugar Street, p. 270)

The utterance is translated as a polite speech act of wishing and blessing.


Another area of meaning that should be balanced in a literary
translation is the interpersonal relationships of the characters that permeate
in the SLT. Any change in these relationships means the loss of a source
text meaning. The social distance and relative power of the characters
should be maintained in the translation. Therefore, this area of
interpersonal meaning should be preserved in the TLT. In this respect,
Leech’s model provides a descriptive frame for interpersonal relationships.
Let us examine some examples showing how the original interpersonal
relationships of al-Sayyid, the main character in the Trilogy, are rendered
in the translation. He is portrayed in the Trilogy as a man of contradictions.
While he is a pious, respectable man at home, he gets drunk and commits
72 Chapter Four

adultery outside. Though he is tyrannical with his wife and children, he is


meek and submissive with prostitutes. In the following exchange between
Amina and al-Sayyid, he does not obey the maxim of approbation.

ΩΩήΗΪόΑΕΩήτΘγ΍ϭ
ϪΘϣΫϰϠϋϰϘΒΘϟΐϴτϟ΍ΎϧέΎΟΔϤϳήϛϢϳήϣΐτΨϳϥ΃ϩΪϟ΍ϭϪϟΰϴΠϳϞϫϯΪϴγΎϳϝ΄δϳϰϤϬϓ -
ˮΝ΍ϭΰϠϟϼϫ΃ήϴμϳϰΘΣ
έΎϜϨΘγϻ΍ϭΐπϐϟΎΑϪΗ΍ήΒϧΖψϠϏΪϗϭΪϴδϟ΍ΕϮλϼϋΎϨϫϭ
ϦϴΑ ϰΘϠϗΎϣϰόϤγϰϠϋϯΪϴϋ΃Ϳ΍˯ΎηΎϣϡϼϐϟ΍΍άϫˮΔϴϟϭΎϳϦϴϟϮϘΗ΍ΫΎϣˮΐτΨϳ-
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍
She continued after some hesitation: “Fahmy asks, sir, whether his father
will allow him.. to become engaged to Maryam, the daughter of our
excellent neighbor, so that she will be under his supervision until he is
ready to get married.” The father’s voice grew louder and his tone was
harsh with anger and disapproval: “Get engaged? … What are you saying,
woman? … He’s only a boy! … God’s will be done … Repeat what you
just said.” (Palace Walk, p.128)

When al-Sayyid sees the beautiful Zubayda, he expresses his admire. He


obeys the approbation maxim

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ Ϳ΍˯ΎηΎϣͿ΍ϢγΎΑ-
“In the name of God. God’s will be done” (Palace Walk, p.92)

Al-Sayyid seems to observe the maxim of approbation only outside his


family. This fact is clear in the translation of his utterances. Although the
literal translation of al-Sayyid’s utterance to Zubayda may not convey his
admiration, it can be rendered as “Aren’t you a beauty!” Let us move on to
al-Sayyid’s observance of the agreement maxim. His speech with Amina
indicates that he never seeks agreement with his family.

Ϯϫ΍άϫϡ΍ΩΎϣϭˬϚΒπϏϻ·ϥϮϬϳΊηϞϛˬϱΪϴγΎϳΐπϐϟ΍ΔϘθϣϚδϔϧϢθΠΗϻ - ΔϨϴϣ΃
Ύ˱Ϥ΋΍ΩϙήϣϷϦϋάϳΎϤϛωϮπΧϞϜΑϪϟϦϋάϴγϭˬϩΎϳ·ϪϐϠΑ΄δϓϚϳ΃έ
ϦϴΑ   ήϴΧ ΎϬϨϣ ϰΟήϳ ϻ Δϔϴόο ϡ΃ Ϛϧ·Ϛϟ ϝϮϗ΃ϥ΃ Ϊϳέ΃ϲϨϜϟϭ ˬ Ωήϳ Ϣϟ ϡ΃ Ω΍έ΃ Ϧϋάϴγ -
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍
Amina: “Don’t burden yourself, Sir, with the trouble of getting angry.
Nothing matters except your anger… Since this is what you think, I’ll tell
him. He will submit to it totally, just as he obeys all your commands.”
“He’ll obey me whether he wishes to or not. But I want to tell you that
you’re a weak mother and nothing good can be hoped from you.” (Palace
Walk, p.128)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI3ROLWHQHVV 73

Though the utterance of Amina obeys the sympathy maxim, al-Sayyid


does not care for it. To the contrary, he obeys the agreement maxim and
the sympathy maxim with Zanuba.

ΎϬϟ΄γϲΘΣΔϔϠϜΘϣΔϣΎδΘΑ΍ϪϴΘϔηϲϠϋϭΎϬϴϟ·ήψϨϳϞόΟϢΛ
ˮϚΒπϏ΃΍ΫΎϣ-
ΎϫέΪλϲϠϋΎϬϴϋ΍έΫΖϜΒηϢΛˬ˱ΎϴϠϣΖϤμϟ΍Ζϣίϼϓ
 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˮϚΒπϏ΃ΎϤϋϝ΄δΗ΃ϲϧ·-
He looked at her with a forced smile and then asked, “Why are you
angry?” She kept silent for a long time, her only response being to fold her
arms across her chest. “I’m asking why you’re angry.” (Palace of Desire,
p.88)

The contradiction of al-Sayyid’s character is clear in the translation of the


Trilogy. In general, the translators manage to maintain interpersonal
relationships in Mahfouz’s Trilogy.
CHAPTER FIVE

PRAGMATIC TRANSLATIONS OF DEIXIS

Deixis1 refers to the features of language which encode context in


utterances, i.e. using lexical or grammatical features to refer directly to the
personal, temporal or locational characteristics of a situation. The
phenomenon of deixis reflects the relationship between language and
context (Levinson 1983: 54). It “concerns the ways in which languages
encode or grammaticalize features of the context of utterance” (1983: 54).
Lexical items that refer to context are called indexical or deictic. Because
this property of indexicality relates language to context deixis belongs to
pragmatics2. Levinson (1983) specifies five types of deixis:

1. Person deixis: It refers to “the encoding of the role of the participants”


in the utterances.
2. Place deixis: It regards “the encoding of spatial locations relative to the
location of the participants”.
3. Time deixis: It means, “the encoding of temporal points and spans
relative to the time at which an utterance was spoken”.
4. Discourse or text deixis: It is used to refer backwards or forwards in
discourse. It is sometimes called co-text.
5. Social deixis: It is distinguished as “the encoding of social distinctions
that are relative to participants-roles” (1983: 62-63).

While reference means "referring to" entities in the context, deixis


means "pointing to" entities in the context. Reference enables language
users to identify an entity being referred to. In other words, reference is the
use of language to refer to the same referent that is mentioned somewhere
in the text (anaphoric or cataphoric) or is dependent on the context outside
the text (exophoric). On the one hand, reference means identifying a
referent. On the other hand, deixis means introducing a referent (Levinson
1983: 86; Cutting 2002: 7).
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI'HL[LV 75

5.1 Pragmatic Translations of Person Deixis


Person deixis means the use of expressions to point to a person, with
the personal pronouns "I, you, he, she, it, we and they". Let us examine
how person deictic expressions are rendered in the Trilogy. In Amina’s
utterance which is addressed to her two daughters, Aisha and Khadija, the
dual ending “ϥ΍” in the verb “ϥΎϘΤϠΗ” makes it easy for the SLT reader to
understand that Amina wants to meet both of her daughters. But the
translation “meet me” is ambiguous. Ambiguity may arise because of the
different language systems of English and Arabic. In Arabic there are three
numbers, singular, dual and plural. They are distinctive in form. The
addition of “both” can keep her utterance unambiguous.

ϡϷ΍ΖϟΎϗέϮτϔϟ΍ϦϣϦϏήϓΎϤϟϭ
ϥήϔϟ΍ΓήΠΣϰϓϰΑϥΎϘΤϠΗϢΛˬΖϴΒϟ΍ϒϴψϨΗΔΠϳΪΧϰϠϋϭˬϡϮϴϟ΍Ϟϴδϐϟ΍Δθ΋ΎϋΎϳϚϴϠϋ-
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ
When they had finished breakfast, the mother said, “Aisha, you do the
laundry today and Khadija will clean the house. Afterwards meet me in the
oven room.” (Palace Walk, p.32)

In the next example Yasin’s mother is surprised when she sees him.
She pleads to Allah. Yasin’s mother uses the third person pronoun when
she speaks of Yasin in her pleading. In the translation the second person
pronoun is used.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϼΟέέΎλϰΑέˮϲϨϴϋϕΪλ΍ϒϴϛϲϨΑ΍ϦϴγΎϳ-
“Yasin! My son!… How can I believe my eyes?… My Lord… You’ve
become a man….” (Palace Walk, p.114)

The use of the second person may weaken her pleading. In fact, she wants
to express her astonishment.
Concerning deictic expressions, translators should pay attention to the
referent of a deictic. In the following example the intended meaning has
not been successfully translated because of the misinterpretation of the
non-deictic function of the pronoun “Ϧϣ”. It has a general reference. Thus,
this generalized usage of the deictic expression is non-deictic (Grundy
2000: 24). Maryam tries to convince Yasin to bring his ex-wife back.

 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϝϼΤϟ΍ϰϓϦϴγ΃έϖϓϭϦϣΖΨΑΎϳ-


“How lucky the man is who brings two people together in a moral way.”
(Palace of Desire, p. 64)
76 &KDSWHU)LYH

It is Maryam who suggests that Yasin and Zaynab, Yasin’s ex-wife,


should have reunited. Thus, the translation “the man” is not suitable. Even
if Maryam intends a generic reference the word “Ϧϣ” should not have been
translated as “the man”. It can be rendered as “How lucky the one who
induces a couple to marry”. Another example of the wrong reference of a
deictic is clear in the translation of the utterance “ϩέΎϤΤΑϞΧΩϪϟΎϨΘϜγ”. It is
an idiomatic expression produced by the proprietor of the coffeehouse
when he speaks to Zubayda.

 ιˬΔϳήϜδϟ΍ ˬϩέΎϤΤΑϞΧΩϪϟΎϨΘϜγˬϚΤοΔϳΎϔϛ-
“That’s enough laughter! ‘When we did not scold him the first time, he
brought in his jenny.’….” (Sugar Street, p.227)

Though the speaker is one person the first person plural pronoun "Ύϧ" is
used in the SLT and "we" is used in the translation. Translators should
modify these idiomatic expressions or proverbs to match with the context.
Some linguists may hold the view that changes in proverb forms are
unfavorable. According to Ibrahim and Kennedy (1996: 182), proverbs are
traditionally characterized with"fixedness of form". Norrick (1985) holds
a dynamic view of proverbs. Norrick considers proverbs to be "typically
general and impersonal". Ibrahim and Kennedy explain that proverbs “do
not require reference to any specific person or aspect of the context in
order to be understood, although typically they are indexed to specific
situations” (1996: 182). “So fixedness in proverbs is only relative,
allowing for simultaneous standard variants and some structural and
lexical alternation in the standard, stored forms. Proverbs are never
completely frozen” (1985: 46 cited in Ibrahim and Kennedy 1996: 182).
Moreover, it is noticed that most idiom dictionaries use indefinite
pronouns such as someone, something, and somebody in their entries. The
proverb “Give somebody an inch and they’ll take a mile” is an example
(cf. Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms 1998: 204).
In addition to all of the above, culture is an important factor in
interpretation. The translation should reflect interpretation.In fact, the use
of first person plural pronouns is a discourse strategy in the Arab world.
This dimension of the Arab culture is called "collectivism" (Hofstede
1991). Culturally, collectivism is the tendency to emphasize the "we"
identity or the importance of group. On the contrary, individualism is the
tendency to give priority to the "I" identity or the unique self (cf. Ting-
Toomy 1988; Hofstede 1991; Ozcelik 2001). While the Arab world is
defined as a collective culture, the Western culture has been thought of as
an individual culture. Hofstede considers this individualism-collectivism
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI'HL[LV 77

dimension as one of five cultural dimensions. Culture has been thought to


influence the way people communicate.
In accordance with Hofstede, a collective culture such as the Arab
world gives priority to group goals and the individuals are integrated into
groups (family, friends, or country). The discourse strategy of using the
plural is a sign of their cultural dimension. Though a speaker is one
person, s/he uses plural pronouns. In the Western world, people focus on
their personal needs and goals. To achieve appropriateness in the
translation the Arab discourse strategy of collectivism should be exchanged
with the western discourse strategy of individualism. A pragmatic
translation should be appropriate to the receptor or target culture.
Appropriateness of the translation is not merely a matter of the referential
content of the words, but also of the discourse strategies of the receiving
culture. What is inherently appropriate in the Arab world may be quite
incomprehensible in the Western community. Discourse strategies reflect
worldviews, cultural differences and ideological perspectives (i.e. way of
thinking and speaking) (Hatim 2001: 70). Thus, the first person singular
pronoun "I" is better used instead of the first person plural pronoun since
the speaker is one person.
Another inappropriate translation of personal pronouns lies in the use
of the masculine pronouns "he, him, his" while the reference that needs to
be effected is a woman. Since the man is referring to Zubayda, the
pronouns "him, he, his" are not suitable. The utterance has been translated
as if addressed to a man. In the Arab world this use of masculine pronouns
is part of the Arab culture. One of the cultural dimensions that Hofstede
identifies in the Arab world is masculinity. In a high masculinity ranking
community such as the Arab world the females are controlled by male
domination. This use of masculine pronouns is inconceivable for the
Western world. The use of masculine pronouns may be appropriate in
another situation. When al-Sayyid hints at making love with Zanuba, she
uses the same proverb.

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϙΪόΑϩέΎϤΤΑϞΧΩϪϟΎϨΘϜγˬͿ΍Ϳ΍-
“My God! If we don’t speak up, he’ll try to bring in his donkey too. Keep
your distance.” (Palace of Desire, p. 102)

For the sake of convenience the translators should have used the
feminine pronouns "she, her" instead of the masculine pronouns in the
translation of the proprietor’s utterance. Another solution is the use of the
second person pronouns “you, your” since the addressee exists. Thus,
possible translations are:
1. “When I did not scold her the first time, she brought in her Jenny”
78 &KDSWHU)LYH

2. “When I did not scold you the first time, you brought in your Jenny”
Though both translations retain the figurative language of the SLT, it is
not quite clear whether the TLT reader would succeed in connecting the
words of the proverb itself to the situation in which it is used. An
equivalent proverb in English is “I give you an inch and you take a mile”.
Another example of the use of the plural is clear in the following
exchange between Yasin and al-Sayyid. In Yasin’s utterance “ϲϨϧϮϠΘϘϴγ” the
third person plural pronoun has a symbolic reference.

 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˮΪϴόμϟ΍ϲλΎϗ΃ϰϟ·ϲϨϧϮϠϘϨϴγ-
“They’re going to transfer me to the furthest reaches of Upper Egypt.”
(Palace of Desire, p.380)

The use of plural is conceivable in the Arab culture. To solve the problem
of reference the passive can be used. A possible translation is “I am going
to be transferred to the furthest reaches of Upper Egypt”.
Another example of the use of first person plural pronoun is in the
exchange between al-Sayyid and Shaykh Mutawalli. Though the speaker is
one person, he uses a plural pronoun. Let us look at the pronominal form
“we” in the following rendering. The study explains why the translators
should have "I" rather than "we".

Ύ˱ΒΣήϣΦϴθϠϟ Ϊϴδϟ΍ ϝΎϗ


 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϚΘϳ΅ήΑϊΘϤΘδϧϢϟϭ˯΍έϮηΎϋάϨϣϲϟϮΘϣΦϴηΎϳΎϨΘθΣϭ΃-
[Al-Sayyid] said to welcome him, “We’ve missed you, Shaykh Mutawalli:
We haven’t had the pleasure of seeing you since the holiday of Ashura.”
(Palace Walk, p.38)

This strategy of using plural pronouns is a feature of the Arab culture. But
the English reader is not familiar with this strategy. First, the pronominal
suffix "Ύϧ" which is the first person plural accusative form can be used as
an honorific mode of address in Arabic. “The plural is occasionally used
for the singular to denote respect” (Cowan 1958: 11). Thus, the use of "Ύϧ"
can be a way of showing respect to the addressee. Second, this pronominal
form can be used to show solidarity between the speaker and the
addressee. The pronoun "we" should include the addressee in the reference
because the speaker is one person speaking to another. If the speakers are
more than two, the addressee can be excluded (Grundy 2000: 27). In
Aisha’s utterance “ΎϧΪϋϮϳΎϨΑέ” she uses the plural pronoun. The translation
is not appropriate since the TL reader would be confused because of the
pronoun “us”.
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI'HL[LV 79

ϥϵ΍ϲϧήψΘϨΗϰΘϟ΍ΓήΠΤϟ΍ϦϣϢΣέ΃ΔϤϜΤϤϟ΍ϥ·ˬΖϗΪλ-
ιϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΎϧΪϋϮϳΎϨΑέˬϚΒϠϗϱϮϗ-
“You’re right. A court of law is more merciful than the room of women
waiting for me now.” “Be brave. Our Lord has promised us…” (Palace
Walk, p. 145)

The utterance can be rendered as “May God promise me”. Sometimes a


deictic has no determinate reference. The traditional hypothesis that a
deictic has a determinate reference has proven false. A deictic is affected
by what is called "deferred reference" (Nunberg 1993: 6 cited in Grundy
2000: 23). A theory of deferred reference makes difference between the
index (what is actually pointed to) and the interpretation (what is referred
to) (2000: 23). An example of deferred reference is in the exchange talk
between Yasin and Zanuba. When they are alone together, he asks to meet
her. But she replies:

ˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ ϦϴΑ  Γήϴϐλ ΔϤϠϛ ˯ΎϘϠϟ΍ ΔσΎδΑ ϞϜΑ ΐϠτϳ ϢϜϨϣ ΪΣ΍Ϯϟ΍ ΔϳΩΎϘΘϧ΍ ΔΠϬϠΑ ΖϟΎϘϓ
 ι
She observed critically, “Each of you asks for a rendezvous, as though
there were nothing to it…. (Palace Walk, p.244)

Zanuba points to a single man and uses a plural form “ϢϜϨϣ ΪΣ΍Ϯϟ΍”. What
she actually points to is Yasin. What she wants to refer to, the
interpretation, is the few men who wants to have affairs with her. She does
not mean the whole men. The translators successfully render the utterance.
It is translated as “each of you”. In fact, their choice of "each" as pronoun
is better than another pronoun such as "every" because "each" is normally
used with a small number of persons considered individually, not as a
whole.
A deictic may be used for generic reference. The generic reference of a
pronoun is said to be non-deictc (Grundy 2000: 24). In the following
utterance of the maid the pronouns “ϮϫϭΖϧ΃” are not deictic since she is not
addressing any body. Anybody who could hear her would be an addressee.
She does not mean two certain people. The pronouns are translated “you
and the other one”. The English reader might think that there are two
bystanders.

ΎϬΗϻϮϣϦϋϦϠόΘϟΔϴΑΎτΧϪΒηΔΠϬϟϲϓΔϳέΎΠϟ΍ΕϮλϼϋΎϤϨϴΑ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ Ϣϟ΍Ϯόϟ΍ΔϜϠϣΓΪϴΑίΖδϠϟϮϫϭΖϧ΃ωΪΟΎϳϊγϭ-
Meanwhile the maid’s voice rang out almost oratorically to announce her
mistress: “Make way, fellows, you and the other one, for Madam
Zubayda, Queen of Singers.” (Palace Walk, p. 87).
80 &KDSWHU)LYH

In fact, the maid’s utterance has not a deictic function. The translators
could have rendered it as “Make way, fellows, for Madam Zubayda,
Queen of Singers”.
The following speech between Yasin and Kamal contains general
reference to women.

ΏΎϴσΏέΩϲϓΓ΃ήϣ΍ϰϟ·ΖϴόγΎϣϞϠϤϟ΍ϻϮϟϭ-
Ϊϳ΍ΰΘϣϡΎϤΘϫΎΑϝΎϤϛϪϟ΄δϓ
ˮ˯ΎδϨϟ΍ϞϜϛΓ΃ήϣ΍ϲϫΖδϴϟ΃-
 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ΔόϠγΎϫΪϨϋϯϮϬϟ΍ˬΐϠϗϼΑ
 Γ΃ήϣ΍ΎϬϧ·ˬϼϛ-
If it weren’t for boredom, I wouldn’t look for women in Massage Alley.”
With ever-increasing interest, Kamal asked, “Aren’t these women like any
others?”
“Certainly not. A prostitute’s a woman without a heart. For her, love’s a
commodity.” (Palace of Desire, p.365)

Notice that the translators replace the singular with the plural. This is
plausible to indicate generic reference. The speakers are pointing to the
prostitute they visit, but they mean all the prostitutes. This is clear in the
next example.

ΐϴΠϋέϭήδΑ ϦϴγΎϳ ϝΎϗ


Ύϣ ϞϜΑ ΎϬΒΣ΃ ˬΎϬΒΣ΃ ϰϧ΃ ϊϗ΍Ϯϟ΍ ˬΎϬϨϣ ϙί΍ΰΌϤη΍ ήϴΛϷ ϢϠϜΗ΃ Ϣϟ ˮΓ΃ήϤϟ΍ Ϧϋ ΖϠϗ Ύϣ ϙ ˯Ύγ΃ 
 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ΎϬϴϓ
He [Yasin] said with curious joy, “…. Were you offended by my
comments about women? I wasn’t saying that to arouse disgust for them.
The fact is that I love them. I love them with all their faults….” (Palace of
Desire, P. 368)

The translators consider the deictic function of the referents. This function
is considered one of the features of the pragmatic translation.
Let us examine the translation of the next utterance of Khadija. The
reference of the pronoun “it” is missing. It refers to “your final remarks”
which is plural. This brings about a sort of inconvenience. The exchange is
between Khalil Ibrahim and Khadija.

ϩΎΧ΃ΎΒσΎΨϣ-ξΒϨϟ΍βΟϞϴΒδΑϮϫϭ-ϞϴϠΧϝΎϗ
Ξ΋ΎΘϨϟ΍ήϴΨΑΖΗΎϓΔϤγΎΣΔϴϣΎΘΨϟ΍ϚΘϤϠϛΖϧΎϛ-
ϝΎόϔϧΎΑΔϠ΋ΎϗΓήϣϝϭϷϪΠϳΪΧΖϤϠϜΘϓ
 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˮϚϟάϛβϴϟ΃΢ϠμϟΎΑΖΗ΃-
Khalil took the pulse of the situation by saying to his brother, “Your final
remarks were decisive and brought good results.” For the first time since
the tribunal, Khadija spoke out, passionately: “It brought a truce - isn’t that
so? …” (Palace of Desire, p. 239)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI'HL[LV 81

In order to be coherent the sentence “Your final remarks” can be changed


into “your final speech”.

5.2 Pragmatic Translations of Place Deixis


Place deixis means encoding spatial context through demonstratives
such as "this, that" or adverbs such as "here, there" or adjectives such as
"up, down, above, below, in front of, behind" or verbs such as "come, go,
bring, take". An example of the deictic use of verbs may be displayed by
the verb “ϊϠσ΍” which indicates direction. The verb in the following
utterance of al-Sayyid works like a deictic because it requires knowledge
of context to be interpreted.

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΐϠϜϟ΍ϦΑΎϳϡήΠϣΎϳϊϠσ΍-Ϊϴδϟ΍
“Go upstairs, you criminal. You son of a bitch.” (Palace Walk, p.279)

First, a number of assumptions about the context must be made to


understand the meaning. When al-Sayyid catches Yasin in the oven room
with Um-Hanafi, he rebukes Yasin and orders him to leave the room. The
translators render the word “ϊϠσ΍” as “go upstairs” because the oven room
is at the courtyard. It is known from the co-text that al-Sayyid yanks him
toward the door. In the next example the translators rendered the
expression “ϰγ΍έ ϕϮϓ” literally as if it were a deictic expression. In the
extract Aisha speaks to Khadija.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϚϟϮΧΪΑήόη΃ϥ΃ϥϭΩϲγ΃έϕϮϓΓ΄ΠϓϚΘϳ΃έ
“I suddenly saw you, over my head, without knowing you’d come in….”
(Palace Walk, p.138)

The preposition "on" is more effective than "over" since the latter denotes
distance separating two objects. The utterance “ϲγ΃έϕϮϓ” is an idiomatic
expression which can be encountered in English with “be on someone’s
back” (El-Batal’s Dictionary of Idioms, p. 114). The utterance means that
Aisha is annoyed by Khadija.

5.3 Pragmatic Translations of Time Deixis


Time deixis means encoding temporal context through deictic items
such as "now, then, ago, later, yesterday, tomorrow…etc." Tense is an
important factor in time deixis. Levinson considers it as “one of the main
factors ensuring that nearly all sentences when uttered are deictically
anchored to a context of utterance” (1983: 77).
82 &KDSWHU)LYH

Let us start examining time deictic expressions and how they are
rendered. In the following example the word “ΎϨϫ” is not a place deictic
word. The translators render it as a discourse deictic. It is translated as “at
this”. It should be rendered as “at that” or “then”.

ϝΎϗϭΎϬΘϳϮϴΣϪϴϨϴϋΓήψϧΕΩήΘγΎϓ
Ϫγ΃έΞθϓϪϬΟϭϰϠϋςϘγϪϨτΑϰϓϪϠϛέΎϤϟ-
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϦϴΘϤϴΘϴϟ΍ϦϋϪϴϨϴϋϊϓήϳϥ΃ϥϭΩϦϴγΎϳϝΎϗΎϨϫϭ
…his eyes recovered their lively look. He said, "When the man kicked
him in the stomach, he fell on his face and split his head open.” At this,
Yasin, without raising his eyes from the two orphan girls, commented,….
(Palace Walk, p.54)

Translators should pay attention to the tense-time distinction. Time is a


universal, non-linguistic concept, but tense is the correspondence between
the form of the verb and the concept of time. In the following utterance the
tense of the verb “ΖϗΪλ” is past, but the time of the event (the reference) is
present. The maid produces the utterance to agree with her mistress. It
means "you are right". But it is translated as “you were right”.

ΔϠ΋ΎϗΎϬΗΪϴγϝϮϗϰϠϋΔϳέΎΠϟ΍ΖϨϣ΄ϓ
ϦϴΑ  Ω΍ϮΠϟ΍ ΪΒϋ ΪϤΣ΃ ϢϳήϜϟ΍ Ϊϴδϟ΍ ΎϧΪϨϋϭ ΍˱ΪϴόΑ ΐϫάϧ ΍ΫΎϤϟ ˬΔϧΎτϠγ Ύϳ ϚΗΩΎόϛ ΖϗΪλ -
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍
The maid agreed: “You were right as usual, Sultana. Why should we go
far away when here we have the noble Mr. Ahmad Abd al-Jawad?” (Palace
Walk, p.88)

In another example the translators managed to achieve correspondence


between tense and time. When Amina gets angry with him, Yasin intends
to leave the house.

ˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ˬϒγϷ΍ϞϛϪϴϠϋΎϔγ΁ΖϴΒϟ΍ ϙήΗ΄γˬΖϴΒϟ΍΍άϫήΠϫϪϴϠϋΰόϳϦϣϝϭ΃Ύϧ΃ -


 ι
“I’m the one most distressed by my departure… I’m leaving the house
most regretfully.…” (Palace of Desire, p. 116)

Yasin is going to leave the house immediately. The translators use the
present progressive to refer to a future event anticipated in the present.
They use the appropriate tense that relates the utterance to the context. In
the utterance of al-Sayyid which is addressed to Zubayda they use the
present perfect progressive to render the past tense of the SLT. It could
have been rendered as “Who talked to you about me?”
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI'HL[LV 83

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϰϨϋϚΛΪΣϱάϟ΍Ϧϣ-
“Who’s been talking to you about me?” (Palace Walk, p.94)

Some deictics have no deictic function. Time adverbs, for instance, in


the following example are not deictic. They are part of an idiomatic
expression. When Zanuba tells Yasin about the man sitting with Zubayda,
she says:

ˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ Ϊϐϟ΍ϰϟ·ϡϮϴϟ΍ϦϣϪϨϋΙΪΤϓϪϣήϛΎϣ΃ˬϪΑήσϭϪϔτϟϰϓϪϟήϴψϧϻϞΟέ-
 ι
“He’s a man with no equal in his graciousness or sensitivity to music. As
for his generosity, we could talk about that from today till
tomorrow….” (Palace Walk, p.247)

The Arabic utterance “Ϊϐϟ΍ϰϟ·ϡϮϴϟ΍ϦϣϪϨϋΙΪΤϓ ” is an idiomatic expression.


It means that one can speak too much of his generosity. The time adverbs
do not actually refer to temporal context. The utterance does not mean that
the speaker is going to speak 24 hours. This idiomatic expression has no
literal equivalent in English. In fact, this literal translation does not distort
meaning. To avoid misinterpretation the utterance can be translated as:
“As for his generosity, he can be the talk of the town”.

5.4 Pragmatic Translations of Discourse Deixis


Levinson defines discourse deixis as “the use of expressions within
some utterance to refer to some portion of the discourse that contains that
utterance” (1983: 85). Utterance-initials are examples of discourse-deictic
words. Time-deictic words such as "last" and "next" and place-deictic
words such as the demonstratives "this" and "that" can function as
discourse-deictic. Levinson (1983) differentiates between discourse deixis
and anaphora. Anaphora is used to refer to the same entity or referent.
Anaphora is usually a pronoun (1983: 85-86). He gives this illustrating
example.

Harry’s sweetheart; he’s so considerate.

So Harry and he refer to the same referent. But discourse deictic


expressions introduce a referent. He gives the following examples:

I bet you haven’t heard this story


That was the funniest story I’ve ever heard
84 &KDSWHU)LYH

Translators must, therefore, take account of all types of deictic


expressions. Here are examples of some translation problems within text
deixis. The demonstratives “΍άϫ” and “ϩάϫ” are used as discourse deictics in
Arabic to refer to portions of the discourse which may be forthcoming or
foregoing. The difference is that “΍άϫ”is used for a masculine referent and
“ϩάϫ” for a feminine referent. Their equivalents in English are “this” and
“that” but they have a different deictic function. “This” is used to refer to a
forthcoming portion and “that” to a preceding portion (Levinson 1983:
85). Notice the translations of “΍άϫ”in the following examples.

ΪϳΪηήΛ΄ΗϰϓϡϷ΍ΖϟΎϘϓ
ΔϟϮϔτϟ΍ϦγϲϓΔγέΪϤϟ΍ϦϋΎϤϬϋΎτϘϧ΍άϨϣϲΗΎϨΑϯΪΣ·ϰϠϋϊϘΗϢϟϞΟέϦϴϋϥ·-
ΎϬΑΡΎλϭϒϜΑΎϔϛ Ϊϴδϟ΍ Ώήπϓ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮΔϴϟϭΎϳ΍άϫϲϓϚη΃ϲϨΘΒδΣϞϫϼϬϣϼϬϣ-
His wife replied very emotionally, “No man has ever seen either of my
daughters since they stopped going to school when they were little girls”.
He [al-Sayyid] struck his hands together and shouted at her, “Not so fast…
Slow down. Do you think I have any doubts about that, woman….” (Place
Walk, p. 157).

The word “that” refers to the last utterance of the wife. The deictic “΍άϫ”is
translated as “that”. In the next example Ibrahim comments on his mother-
in-law’s opinion.

 ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ ϲΗΎϤΣΎϳϱ΃ήϟ΍΍άϫϰϠϋαΎϨϟ΍ξόΑϙήϘϳϻ-


“some people would not concede that to you”. (Palace of Desire, p.30)

The utterance “ϱ΃ήϟ΍ ΍άϫ” which has a discourse deictic function is


translated as “that”. In the following examples there may be problems in
the translations of “΍άϫ”.

ϲϧΎϛΩϰϓΎϣήϴΧϭ΍ˬϲϧΎϛΩϦϣήϴΧΐϳέϼΑϲδϔϧ- ΓΪϴΑί˱ΎΒσΎΨϣΪϴδϟ΍ 
ϝϮϘΗϰϫϭΓήϛΎϣΔϣΎδΘΑΎΑΎϬϬΟϭϕήη΄ϓ
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϚΘϋΎπΑΓΩϮΟϦϋϩΎϨόϤγΎϣϒϟΎΨϳ΍άϫ-
[Al-Sayyid addressing Zubayda]: “I’m no doubt better than my store, or
the best thing in it”. She beamed with a mischievous smile and said, “This
contradicts what we’ve heard about the excellence of your merchandise.”
(Palace Walk, p.89)

The word “΍άϫ” refers to the preceding sentence of al-Sayyid. It is


translated as “this”. It should have been translated as “that”. In the next
example, when Aisha hears Khadija hinting at the officer whom Aisha
loves, she is annoyed.
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI'HL[LV 85

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮϡϮϬϔϤϟ΍ήϴϏϡϼϜϟ΍΍άϫΎϣ-
“What’s this nonsense you’re saying?” (Palace Walk, p. 139)

Again the word “΍άϫ” is translated as “this” but it has a symbolic deictic
function. In the same situation Aisha produces the following utterance.

Ε΍ήΒϨϟ΍ϕϮϨΨϣΕϮμΑΖϔΘϫϭˬΎϬϴΑ΃Ϣγ΍ωΎϤγΪϨϋΓΎΘϔϟ΍ήόηϒϗϭ
 -ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΔΌτΨϣΖϧ΍ΔΌτΨϣΖϧ΃΍άϫϖϴϠϳϻΔΠϳΪΧ-
Aisha’s hair stood up on end at the mention of her father… She nearly
choked as she cried out, “Khadija… this isn’t right…. You’re mistaken…
You’re wrong.” (Palace Walk, p.139-140)

The word “this” refers to the preceding utterance of Khadija. It should


have been translated as “That does not suit you fine”. In the next example
the translators render the referential pronoun “ΎϬϴϓ” as “that” in the
utterance of Shaykhu Mutawalli.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ˮΎϬϴϓϝϮϘΗ΍ΫΎϣˮήϤΨϟ΍ϭ
“And wine? What do you say about that?”(Palace Walk, p.41)

Shaykh Mutawalli uses the word “ήϤΨϟ΍” as a foreground and refers to the
entity by using the pronoun “Ύϫ”. The translation of the pronoun as “that”
indicates that the translators consider it as a place or discourse deictic
expression. In fact, it can not be a deictic expression. It should be
considered as reference to the word “wine”. Thus, it should have been
translated as “it”.
Translators should also pay much attention to the non-verbal elements
of discourse. Non-verbal elements are considered important in discourse
deixis. In the phase of SLT analysis translators have to pay attention to the
function of the non-verbal elements of the SLT. They should be preserved
or compensated for in the TLT or adapted to the conventions of the target
culture (Nord 1991: 110). Nord argues that "it is important in each case to
analyze the function of these elements. Quotation marks, for example, can
point to an ironic meaning… or to a neologism introduced ad hoc and
explained in the text or to a reference to somebody else’s utterances"
(1991: 111). Notice in the following example that when al-Sayyid repeats
his wife’s utterance, he means a sort of irony. In the Arabic version the
repeated utterance is written with double quotation marks.

ϰϟ·ϝϭϷ΍ Ϫόϓ΍Ω ϥ΃ϯΪϟΖΒΛ ΍Ϋ·ϻ· ϞΟέ ΖϴΑ ϰϟ· ϲΘϨΑ΍ ϞϘΘϨΗ Ϧϟ ϞΑ ϼϬϣϼϬϣ - Ϊϴδϟ΍
ϯΪΣ· ϰϠϋ ϞΟέ Ϧϴϋ ϊϘΗ Ϣϟ Ύϧ΃ Ύϧ΃ Ύϧ΃ ϲΗήϫΎμϣ ϰϓ ΔλΎΨϟ΍ ϪΘΒϏέ Ϯϫ ΎϬϨϣ Ν΍ϭΰϟ΍
 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΔϨϴϣ΃ΖγΎϳϙέΎΒϣϙέΎΒϣϰΘϨΑ·
86 &KDSWHU)LYH

[Al-Sayyid]: “Not so fast… No daughter of mine will marry a man until I


am satisfied that his primary motive for marrying her is a sincere desire to
be related to me… me… me… me. ‘No man has ever seen either of my
daughters….’ Congratulations, Mrs. Amina, congratulations.” (Palace
Walk, p. 157)

Notice the translators compensate for the double quotation marks of the
repeated utterance in the SLT by using single quotation marks in the TLT
because double quotation marks are used for the whole utterance. In the
Arabic version the utterances of the characters are preceded by a dash. If
utterances are not so, they are thoughts of the characters. To explicate
these thoughts the translators added introductory phrases such as “he
wondered”, “he puzzled”, or “he thought” (cf. Palace of Desire, p.66).

5.5 Pragmatic Translations of Social Deixis


Social deixis concerns the social relationship between the participants
of the speech (Levinson 1983: 89). Terms of address are socially deictic
items. When Amina addresses al-Sayyid, she says “ϱΪϴγΎϳ”. The utterance
is translated as “sir”.

 ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϯΪϴγΎϳήϴΨϟ΍˯Ύδϣ
“Good evening, Sir”. (Palace Walk, p.8)

The word “sir” is a term of address that shows respect to a man. It is


suitable because Amina always shows respect to her dominating husband.
It shows the relationship between al-Sayyid and Amina. When Abd al-
Muni’m wants to spoil his wife, Na’ima, he says to her “ΔϣϮόϧ” (Suger
Street, p.126). It is translated as “Sweet Na’ima” to show the close
relationship between them.
Address terms are important for establishing social relationships. The
word “Δϴϟϭ ” is used by al-Sayyid in two different situations. The first is in
the following example.

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ΪΠϟΎϓϢϠϜΘϧΎϨϴϋΩϭͿ΍ϰϘΗ΍ΔϴϟϭΎϳ-
“ Lady, fear God. Let’s have a serious talk.” (Palace Walk, p.95)

When al-Sayyid addresses Zubayda, his word “Δϴϟϭ” is a polite flirtatious


utterance. The translators render it as “lady”. In a different context the
same word is addressed to Amina, al-Sayyid’s wife.
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI'HL[LV 87

ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ …ˮΔϴϟϭΎϳϦϴϟϮϘΗ΍ΫΎϣ ˮΐτΨϳ-


“ Get engaged? … What are you saying, woman?…” (Palace Walk, p.128)

In the second situation al-Sayyid is angry and annoyed because she


interrupts him. The word “Δϴϟϭ ” is rendered as “woman” which is a rude
way of addressing women. From the two situations one can determine the
relationship between the characters. The relationship between Yasin and
Zanuba is clear in the following utterance.

ιˬϕϮθϟ΍ήμϗ˭ιˬϦϳήμϘϟ΍ϦϴΑ ϲϠϤΟΎϳ

The utterance indicates that Yasin is the man who is strong and brave and
has a physical strength. He is the man who is supposed to protect her. The
word is translated as “My camel” (Palace Walk, p. 245; Palace of Desire,
p.399). It can be translated as “My macho man”.
CONCLUSION

Given the above analysis of the English translation of Mahfouz’s


Trilogy, the study shows that there are many mismatches between the SLT
and the TLT. One of the findings of the study is that Mahfouz’s Trilogy
has certainly lost much of its meaning in Hutchin et al’s translation into
English. Their translation fails to assess the effectiveness of the source text
and to preserve its implied meaning. Much of its illocutionary force has
been lost because speech acts are not adequately examined from a
pragmatic perspective. Some pragmatic inferences in the source text have
been gone undetected in this translation. This resulted in the discrepancy
between the meaning stated in the TLT and the meaning intended by the
author of the SLT. All this inconvenience could have been avoided if the
presuppositions and implicatures had been carefully translated. Moreover,
neither politeness expressions nor deictic expressions are carefully
rendered. All these problematic renderings have contributed to the
distortion or loss of meaning.
First, speech act is shown to be a key concept in pragmatics. In direct
speech acts form reflects function. In indirect speech acts form does not
reflect function. One of the findings of the study is that the translators of
the Trilogy manage to interpret the true force of some speech acts. But the
illocutionary force of other speech acts has been sacrificed in the
translation. Thus, translators should interpret the force or illocution of
speech acts. A successful translation of a speech act should have the same
perlocution of the original speech act. The pragmatic approach pays
considerable attention to preserving the illocution and the perlocution in
the translating of speech acts.
Second, ignoring implicit meaning is considered one of the many
factors that may lead to pragmatic failure in a translation. Losing
presuppositions and implicatures will distort the source message and result
in communication breakdown between the source writer and the target
reader. Another finding of the study is that some presuppositions and
implicatures are not maintained in the translation. Consequently, the loss
of these inferences results in losing relevance in their utterances. These
utterances become irrelevant to the TLT reader. Therefore, a translator
who is concerned with transferring only explicit meaning components will
not communicate the correct meaning. Implicit information needs to be
Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 89

considered in the process of translation. The relevance-theoretic approach


can be adopted in translating pragmatic inferences to keep utterances
coherent. Thus, the utterances of the SLT would be relevant to the TLT
reader.
Third, politeness is important in determining social relationships. In
Brown and Levinson’s model, people face wants can influence the form of
an utterance. Another finding of the study is that politeness of some
utterances is obscured in the translation of the Trilogy. Thus, translators
should pay much attention to the politeness phenomenon. They should
consider speakers’ FTAs and analyze them in order to achieve
communicative translations. Any mistranslation of politeness formula may
change a polite expression into an impolite one or vice versa. However,
the translation maintains the interpersonal relationships of the characters
which are found in the SLT. Leech’s model is very helpful in analyzing
these relationships. In fact, interpersonal pragmatics is a very important
area of meaning which should be noticed in a translation.
Fourth, translators should pay attention to the deictic usage of deictic
expressions. Any mistranslation of a deictic expression may result in a
pragmatic failure. In the pragmatic approach to translation there is a
growing concern to the translating of deictic expressions.
To summarize, the meaning of text, literary or nonliterary, is not often
transparent. More often, the meanings cannot be fathomed out unless
various factors are attentively explored and examined. The translation of a
literary text cannot be successful unless the translator is attentive to
pragmatic facts that need taking the context into consideration. Any
attempt to ignore such facts results in absolute failure.
Drawing on the findings of the study, the researcher puts forward the
following recommendation:
1- Pragmatics should be introduced as an important discipline which can
contribute in translation studies.
2- The analysis of the source text is a milestone in translation.
3- Translation problems still need further investigation.
4- Approaches to translation should combine both translation theory and
practice.
5- All works of literature whether it be prose, poetry, novels or drama
should require a high degree of artistry and talent from those who translate
them.
NOTES

Chapter One
1. Back-translation is not a quality control criterion. It is an explanatory tool. In
nonliterary texts it can be used to see if the original meaning has been maintained
or not. But in literary texts, which have images and idioms, back-translation may
distort the original meaning.
2. The linguistic theory is different from the philological theory in that the former
is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
3. There are two types of inferences translators draw to interpret a message. A
pragmatic inference, in fact, is one of the two types. The other is a cognitive one.
4. Levinson opposed defining pragmatics in terms of context because of its
vagueness; context “is not easy to define” (1983: 23).
5. Context plays the most important role in retrieving meaning. Meaning is
partially dependent on context.

Chapter Two
1. The term "speech act" and the term "illocutionary act" are often used
interchangeably.
2. The notion of "felicity conditions" is suggested to refer to the criteria of
performing an appropriate speech act.

Chapter Three
1. Levinson (1983) considers inferences as a way of computing context.

Chapter Four
1. This area of meaning that is known as interpersonal pragmatics seems to be
ignored in some translations.

Chapter Five
1. The term "deixis" has a Greek origin meaning "pointing to".
2. Some aspects of deixis cannot be accounted for in a truth-conditional semantics
(Levinson 1983: 94-96).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdel-Hafiz, A.S. 2003. “Pragmatic and Linguistic Problems in the


Translation of Naguib Mahfouz’s The Thief and the Dogs: A Case
Study”. Babel 49, No.3. 229-252.
˰˰˰˰˰. 2004. “Cultural elements in the translation of Mahfooz’s The
Beginning and the End and Palace of Desire”. Trans, 15.Nr. Juni 2004.
Available on line: www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/07_1/abdelhafiz15.htm
˰˰˰˰˰. (i.p.). “Pragmatics: Concepts and Principles”.
Atlas, J.D. and Levinson S. 1981. “It-clefts, Informativeness and Logical
Form”, in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic
Press. pp. 1-66.
Austin, J. 1960. How to Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Aziz, Y. 1993. “Explicit and Implicit Reference in Arabic-English
Translation”. Babel 39, No.3. 129-150.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1998. “Translation and Pragmatic Meaning”, in A. Shunnaq et al.
(eds.), Issues in Translation. Jordan: Irbid National University. pp.
119-141.
Bach, K. 1994. “Conversational Impliciture”, Mind and Language. 9, 124-
162. Available on line: userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1999a. “The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction: What It Is and Why It
Matters”, in K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from
Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 65-84. Available
on line: userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1999b. “The Myth of Conventional Implicature”, Linguistics and
Philosophy, vol.22: 327-366. Available on line:
userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach.
Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: A coursestudy on translation. London
and New York: Routledge.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and
Applications”, in Mona Baker et al. (eds.), Text and Technology: In
Honour of John Sinclair, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233-50.
˰˰˰˰˰. 2001. “Translation Studies”, in Mona Baker et al. (eds.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge. pp. 277-280.
Bar-Hillel, Y. 1970. Aspects of Language. Amesterdam: North-Holand.
92 %LEOLRJUDSK\

Bassnett, S. 1980/1991. Translation Studies. London: Routledge.


Bassnett, S. and A. Lefevere (eds.). 1990. Translation, History and
Culture. London and New York: Printer Publishers.
Bastin, G. 2001. “Adaptation”, in Mona Baker et al.(eds.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge. pp. 5-8.
Beaugrande, d. 1978. Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating.
Amsterdam and Assen: Van Gorcum.
Beijer, F. 2002. “The Syntax and Pragmatics of Exclamations and other
Expressive / EmotionalUtterances”. Online:
http://lu.se/research/working papers/pdf.
Belhaag, A.E. 1997. “Papers on Translation Theory and Practice”, Al-
Lisan Al-Arabi. No.43. 3-32.
Bell, R.T. 1991.Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice.
London: Longman.
Belloc, H. 1931. “On translation”, The Taylorian Lecture. Oxford:
Clarendo Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1981. “The Study of Translation in View of New
Developments in Discourse Analysis: The Problem of Indirect Speech
Acts”, Poetics Today 2 (4): 89-95.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1986/2000. “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation”, in L.
Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (2000). London and New
York: Routledge.
Brower, R.A. (ed.). 1966. On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press / New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. 1999. “The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction: A View from
Relevance Theory”, in K . Turner (ed). The Semantics/Pragmatics
Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 85-
125.
Cary, E. and W. Jumpelt. 1963. Quality in Translation. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Catford, J. 1965/2000. “Translation Shifts”, chapter 12 in C. Catford, A
Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 73-82. Reprinted in L. Venuti
(ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (2000). London and New York:
Routledge. pp. 141-147.
Chaudhuri, S. 1999. Translation and Understanding. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.


Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 93

Chernov, G.V. 1991. “Cognitive and Pragmatic Inferencing and the


Intercultural Component in Translation”, in S. Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.),
Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Cowan, D. 1958. Modern Literary Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. 1997. Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London and New York:
Routledge.
Darwish, A. 1989. “The Translation Process: A view of the Mind”.
http://www. surf.net.au/writescope/translation.
El-Dash, L. and J. Busnardo. 2003. “Interaction of Semantic and
Pragmatic Choices in the Translation of Verb Forms: English and
Portuguese”. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 35, Issue 12: 1823-1841.
Devy, G. 1999. “Translation and Literary history: An Indian View”, in S.
Bassnett et al (eds.), Post-colonial Translation: Theory and Practice.
London and New York: Routledge. pp. 182-188.
Enkvist, N. E. 1991. “Discourse Type, Text Type, and Cross-Cultural
Rhetoric”, in S. Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.), Empirical Research in
Translation and Intercultural Studies. TĦbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
El-Ezabi, A.A. 1990. Semantic and Pragmatic Equivalence in Translation.
Unpublished Thesis. Al-Azhar University.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.
Farghal, M. and A. Borini. 1998. “Pragmalinguistic Failure and the
Translatability of Arabic Politeness Formulas into English: A Case
Study of Mahfouz’s Awlad Haritna”, in A. Shunnaq et al. (eds.), Issues
in Translation. Jordan: Irbid National University. Pp. 143-168.
Fawcett, P. 2001. “Linguistic Approaches”, in Mona Baker et al (eds.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New
York: Routledge. pp. 120-125.
Ferrara, A. 1985. “An extended theory of speech acts: appropriateness
conditions for subordinate acts in sequences”. Journal of Pragmatics
4:233-252.
Firth, J.R. 1935. “The technique of semantics”. Transactions of
Philosophical Society, reprinted in Firth (1951), 7-33.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1951. Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
El-Gamal, A. 2000. Preserving Presupposition in Mahfouz’s Midaq Alley,
Miramar, and Fountain and Tomb. An unpublished doctoral thesis.
Cairo: Faculty of Al-alsun.
94 %LEOLRJUDSK\

˰˰˰˰˰. 2001. “Presupposition, Perceptional Relativity and Translation


Theory”, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, Vol. 14: 37-62
Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical
Form. New York: Academic Press.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour.
New York: Pantheon Studies.
Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1994. “The structure of CONTEXT; the representation of pragmatic
restrictions” in HPSG. Urbana, IL: Department of Linguistics,
University of Illinois.
˰˰˰˰˰. 2000. “The Nature of Pragmatic Information”. A revised version of a
paper presented at HPSG 99, in Edinburgh.
Gregerson, K. 1980. “Pragmatics and the Search for Context in
Linguistics”. Philippine Journal of Linguistics. Vol. II, No. I (June
1980).
Grice, H.P. 1967a. “Logic and Conversation”, in P. Cole and J.L. Margan
(1975), Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1967b. “Further notes on Logic and Conversation”, in P. Cole, (1978),
Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic Press, 113 – 28
Grundy, P. 2000 . Doing Pragmatics. New York: Arnold.
Gu, Y. 1990. “Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese”, Journal of
Pragmatics 14. 237-257.
Gumperz, J. and S. Levinson. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity.
Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Gutt, E.-A. 1991. Translation and Relevance: cognition and context.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1998. “Pragmatic Aspects of Translation: Some Relevance-Theory
Observations”, in Leo Hickey (ed.), The Pragmatics of Translation.
Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Hanks, W. 1996. “Language form and communicative practices”, in J.
Gumperz and S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 232-270.
Harvey, K. 2001. “Compensation”, in Mona Baker et al. (eds.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge. pp. 37-40
Hatim, B. 1997. Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and
Cotrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: Exeter University Press.
˰˰˰˰˰. 2001. “Pragmatics and Translation”, in Mona Baker et al (eds.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New
York: Routledge. pp. 179-183.


Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 95

Hatim, B. and I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London and
New York: Longman.
Hatim, B. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London and New
York: Routledge.
Ho, H. 1998. “On Different Conceptions of Translation: The Pragmatic,
the Semantic and the Syntactic”, The Humanities Bulletin, Vol.5,
Chinese university of Hong Kong. www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
London: McGraw-Hill U.K.
˰˰˰˰˰. “Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions”. On-line: www.geert-
hofstede.com
Holmes, J.S. 1972/2000. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.
University of Amsterdam. Reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.), The
Translation Studies Reader (2000). London and New York: Routledge.
pp. 172-185.
Horn, L. R. 1988. “Pragmatic Theory”, in F.J. Newmeyer (ed.),
Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Volume 1: Linguistic Theory
Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 113-145.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
House, J. 2001. “Quality of Translation” in Mona Baker et al. (eds.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New
York: Routledge. pp. 197-200.
Hurford, J. and B. Heasley. 1983. Semantics: A Course study. Cambridge:
Cambridge university Press.
Hutchins W. and O. Kenny (trans). 1989. Palace Walk. Cairo: The
American University in Cairo Press.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1991. Palace of Desire. Cairo: The American University in Cairo
Press.
Hutchins W. and A. Samaan 1987. Sugar Street. Cairo: The American
University in Cairo Press.
Ibrahim, Z. and D. Kennedy. 1996. “Figurative Language in the Speech
Patterns of Egyptians and Americans”, in A. Elgibali (ed.),
Understanding Arabic. Cairo: AUC Press.
Isham, W. and Lane, H. 1993. “Simultaneous Interpretation and the Recall
of source-language Sentences”, Language and Cognitive Processes 8
(3): 241-64.
Jakobson, R. 1959/2000. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”, in
Reuben Brower (ed.), On Translation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press. Reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies
Reader (2000). London and New York: Routledge. pp. 113-118 .
96 %LEOLRJUDSK\

James, K. 2002. “Cultural Implications for translation”. Translation


Journal 6, No 4, Oct. 2002.Available on line: http://accurapid.com
Karttunen, L. 1973. “Presuppositions of compound sentence”, Linguistic
Inquiry, 4, 169-93
Jaszczolt, K. 1999. “Default Semantics, Pragmatics, and Intentions”, in K.
Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different
Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 199-232. Available on line:
www.cus.cam.ac.uk /~kmj21
Katz, J.J. 1977. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New
York: Crowell.
Katz, J.J. and D.T. Langendoen. 1976. “Pragmatics and presupposition”,
Language, 52, 1-17.
Kay, P.1996. “Intra-Speaker Relativity”, in J.J. Gumperz and S.C.
Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University press. pp. 97-114.
Keenan, E . L . 1971 “Two kinds of presupposition in natural language”,
in C. J. Fillmore & D.T. Langendoen (eds.) Studies in Linguistic
Semantics. New York: Holt, pp.45-54.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1972 “On Semantically based grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 413-61.
Kenny, D. 2001. “Equivalence”, in Mona Baker et al (eds.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge. pp.77-80.
Kitis, E. 1999. “On relevance again: From philosophy of language across
‘Pragmatics and power’ to global relevance”, Journal of Pragmatics
31: 643-667.
Klaudy, K. 2001. “Explicitation”, in Mona Baker et al. (eds.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge. pp. 80-84
Koller, W. 1989. “Equivalence in Translation Theory”, in A. Chesterman
(ed. And trans.), Readings in Translation Theory, Helsinki: Oy Finn
Lectura Ab, pp. 99-104.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1979/1992. Einfuhrung in die Ubersetzungswissenschaft, 4th edn.
Heidelberg and Wiesbaden. Quelle and Meyer.
Kreidler, C.W. 1988. Introducing English Semantics. London and New
York: Routledge.
Lakoff, R. 1973. The logic of politeness: Or minding your P’s and Q’s.
Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the CLS. Chigaco: CLS,
292-305.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
Landers, C. E. 2001. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Great
Britain: Multilingual Matters LTD.


Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 97

Larson, M. L. 1984. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-


Language Equivalence. New York: University Press of American, Inc.
Lascarides, A. and A. Copestake, 1998. “Pragmatics and Word Meaning”.
Journal of Linguistics 34: 387-414.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. 2001. “Universals of Translation”, in Mona Baker
et al. (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London
and New York: Routledge. pp. 288-291.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lefevere, A. 1978. “Translation Studies: The Goal of the Discipline”, in
James S. Holmes et al. (eds.), Literature and Translation. Louvain:
ACCO.
Leonardi, V. 2000. “Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and
Reality”. Translation Journal 4, No.4, October 2000. http://
accurapid.com/journal
Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1996. “Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description”, in J.
Gumperz and S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 177-202.
Levy, J. 1967/2000. “Translation as a Decision Process”, in To Honor
Roman Jakobson II. The Hague: Mouton. Pp.1171-82. In L. Venuti
(ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (2000). London and New York:
Routledge. pp.148-159.
Lewis, P. 1985/2000. “The Measure of Translation Effects”, in L. Venuti
(ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (2000). London and New York:
Routledge. pp.264-283
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahfouz, N. 1956. Bein al-Qasrayn. Cairo: Maktabat Misr.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1957. Qasr al-Shouq. Cairo: Maktabat Misr.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1957. al-Sokareya. Cairo: Maktabat Misr.
Malinowski, B. 1923. “The problem of meaning in primitive languages”,
in C. K. Ogden, I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic, vol.2. London: Allen &
Unwin.
Malmkjær, K. 2001. “Unit of Translation”, in Mona Baker et al. (eds.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New
York: Routlege. pp. 286-288.
Mason, I. 1994. “Discourse, Ideology and Translation”, in R. de
Beaugrande et al. (eds.), Language, Discourse and Translation in the
West and Middle East. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
98 %LEOLRJUDSK\

May, R. 1994. “Where Did the Narrator Go? Towards a Grammar of


Translation”, The Slavic and East European Journal, Volume 38, Issue
I. 33-46.
McCabe, A. 1998. “Sentences combined: text and discourse”, in J.
Gleason (ed.) Psycholinguistics (2nd edn). Fort Worth: Harcourt
Brace.
El-Menoufy, A. 1982. “A communicative Approach to Translation”, in
Discourse Analysis: Theory and Application (Proceedings of the
Second National Symposium on Linguistics and English Language
Teaching). Cairo: Cairo Univ., Alexandria Univ. and CDELT Ain
Shams Univ.
Morris, C.W. 1938. “Foundations of the Theory of Signs”, in O. Neurath,
R. Carnap and C. Morris (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified
Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 77-138.
Munday, J. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and
Application. London and New York: Routledge.
Negm, M. 1999. “An Analysis of the Notion of Politeness as Politic
Behaviour with Reference to Selected Literary Texts”. CDELT
Occasional Papers 29.201-253.
Neubert, A. 1991. “Models of Translation”, in S. Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.),
Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Newmark, P. 1977. “Communicative and Semantic Translation”, Babel
23: 163-80.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1988. A Text study of Translation. London: Prentice-Hall.
Nida, E. 1976. “A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories
of Translation”, Application and Research. New York. pp. 47-91.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1964/2000. “Principles of Correspondence”, in E. Nida, Towards a
Science of Translating, Leiden, Holland: E.J.Brill. Reprinted in L.
Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (2000). London and New
York: Routledge. pp. 126-140.
˰˰˰˰˰. 2002. Contexts in Translating. Bejamins.
Nida, E. and C. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nord, C. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation (Translated by C. Nord and P.
Sparrow). Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
Norrick, N. 1985. How Proverbs Mean: Semantic Studies in English
Proverbs. Berlin: Mouton.
Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference. Ph.D. dissertation,
CUNY. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Club.


Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 99

˰˰˰˰˰. 1993. “Indexicality and deixis”, Linguistics and Philosophy 68, 1-43.
Ochs, E. 1979. Introduction: What child language can contribute to
pragmatics, in E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental
Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1996. “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity”, in J. Gumperz
and S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge:
Cambridge university Press.
Ozcelik, S. 2001. “The relationship between culture and the conflict
resolution styles”. The National Conference on Peacemaking and
Conflict Resolution (NCPCR)
Peccei, J. 1999. Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge.
Ping, K. 1999. “Cultural Presuppositions and Misreadings”, Meta, XLIV,
1, 1999.
Quinn, N. and D. Holland. 1987. “Culture and Cognition”, in D. Holland
and N. Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of
Contemporary English. London & New York: Longman.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London &
New York: Longman.
Riffaterre, M. 1992. “Transposing Presuppositions on the Semiotics of
Literary Translation”, in R. Schulte and J. Biguenet (eds.), Theories of
Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago
and London: The university of Chicago Press. pp. 204-217.
Sadock, J. 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York:
Academic Press.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1975. “The Soft Interpretive Underbelly of Generative Semantics”, in
Cole and Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New
York: Academic Press. pp. 383-96.
Sager, J.C. 1997. “Text Types and Translation”, in A. Trosborg (ed.), Text
Typology and Translation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia. John Benjamins.
pp. 25-42.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1976. “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts”, in Language in
Society 5. 1-24
Sequeiros, X. R. 2002. “Interlingual Pragmatic Enrichment in
Translation”. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1069-1089.
Shaheen, M. 1998. Theories of Translation and their Application.
Amman/Jordan: Dar Al-Thaqafa Library.
100 %LEOLRJUDSK\

El-Shiyab, S., R. Al-Khanji & M. Al-Abdullatif. 2000. “Translation: The


Translator’s Intuition and Senses”. Arab Journal for the Humanities
72: 274-285.
Short, M. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose.
London: Longman.
Simons, M. 2002. “Presupposition and Relevance”, in Zoltan Szabo (ed.),
Semantics versus Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Simon, S. 1996. Gender in Translation. London and New York:
Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, M. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and
Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1988. “Representation and Relevance”, in R.M. Kempson (ed.),
Mental Representations: The Interface between language and Reality.
Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. pp. 133-53
˰˰˰˰˰. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Stalnaker, R.C. 1972. “Pragmatics”, in Davidson and Harman (eds.),
Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel. pp. 197-214.
˰˰˰˰˰. 2002. “Common Ground”, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 25: 701-
721.
Strawson, P.F. 1950. “On referring”. Mind, 59, 320-44
˰˰˰˰˰. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.
Thomas, J. 1983. “Cross-cultural Pragmatic failure”. Applied Linguistics.
4/2: 92-112.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an introduction to Pragmatics. London
and New York: Longman.
Thomason, R.H. 1977. “Where Pragmatics Fits in”, in Rogers, Wall &
Murphy (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives,
Presuppositions and Implicatures. Washington: Centre for Applied
Linguistics. pp. 161-6.
Thriveni, C. 2002. “Cultural Elements in Translation: The Indian
Perspective”. Translation Journal 6, No.1, Jan. 2002. Available on
line: www.accurapid.com
Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. “Intercultural Conflict Styles: A face negotiation
theory”, in Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (eds.), Theories in intercultural
communication (pp.213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Toury, G. 1978 revised 1995/2000. “The Nature and Role of Norms in
Translation”, in G. Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies – and
Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins (1995), pp. 53-69.


Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 101

Reprinted in L.Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (2000).


London and New York: Routledge. PP. 198-211.
Trosborg, A. 1997. “Text Typology: Register, Genre and Text Type”, in
Anna Trosborg (ed.), Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.pp.3-24.
Turner, K. 1999. Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier
Tymoczko, M. 1999. “Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation”, in
S. Passnett et al (eds.), Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and
Practice. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 19-40 .
Van Dijk, T. 1977. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse. England: Longman.
Venuti, L. 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an ethics of
difference. London and New York: Routledge.
˰˰˰˰˰. (ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:
Routledge.
Vinay, J.-P. J. Darblent. 1958/2000. “A Methodology for Translation”
(Translated by J.C. Sager and M.J. Hamel 1995), in L. Venuti (ed.),
The Translation Studies Reader (2000). London and New York:
Routledge. pp. 84-93.
Wang, Sh. 2003. “Review of Contexts in Translating”, The Linguist. On-
line: http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews
Widdowson, H.G. 1973. An Applied Linguistic Approach to Discourse
Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1979. “The Deep Structure of Discourse and the Use of Translation”,
in Explorations in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford university
Press. 101-12.
Wilss, W. 1977/1982 trans. The Science of Translation. Tubingen: Gunter
narr.
˰˰˰˰˰. 1994. “Translation as a Knowledge-based Activity: Context, Culture,
and Cognition”, in R. de Beaugrande et al. (eds.), Language, Discourse
and Translation in the West and Middle East. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Xiaoshu, S. and C. Dongming. 2003. “Translation of Literary Style”,
Translation Journal 7. No.1, January 2003. http: //accurapid.com/
journal
Yule, G. 1996. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge university
Press.
Yus, F. 1999. Review of Turner’s The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface.
The Linguist. Available on line www.Linguistlist.Org/issues.
El-Zeini, N. 1994. Criteria for the Evaluation of Translation: A Pragma-
Stylistic Approach. Unpublished Thesis. Cairo University.
102 %LEOLRJUDSK\

˰˰˰˰˰. 2001. “Expressions of Gratitude in Cairene Arabic: Pragmalinguistic


Study”, International Journal of Arabic English Studies (IJAES) Vol.2
Nos.1&2. June 2001. pp. 171-214.
Zequan, L. 2004. “Register Analysis as a Tool for Translation Quality
Assessment”. Translation Journal 7, No.3, July 2004,
http://accurapid.com/journal
Al-Zoubi, M. and A. Hassnawi. 2001. “Constructing a Model for Shift
Analysis in Translation”. Translation Journal 5, No 4, Oct.
2001.Available on line: http://accurapid.com/Journal / 18 theory .htm


INDEX

A
acceptability 
Ambiguity 

B
Baker 

C
communicative translation 
compensation 
context 
conventional implicature 
Conversational implicature 
conversational implicatures 
Cooperative Principle 
cultural presuppositions 

D
deixis 
Direct translations 
documentary 
dynamic equivalence 

E
explicature 
explicitation 

F
felicity conditions 
formal equivalence 
form-based 

I
illocutionary 
implicit meaning 
104 Index

implicitation 
instrumental 
intentionality 
Interlingual 
Intersemiotic 
Intralingual 
Irony 

J
Jakobson 

L
Larson 
literary 
locutionary 

M
meaning-based 
metaphors 
Metonymy 

N
natural meaning 
Newmark 
Nida 
non-natural meaning 

O
Oblique translations 

P
perlocutionary 
politeness expressions 
pragmatic meaning 
pragmatics 
Praising 
presupposition 
Proverbs 

S
semantic translation 
Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 105

situationality 
speech acts 

T
types of meaning 

Вам также может понравиться