Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Literary Translation:
Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning
By
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.
Preface ........................................................................................................ ix
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
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.
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
- 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,
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).
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).
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
(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
(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
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
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).
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
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
the meaning intended, the illocutionary force of the speaker, and then
decide how that same force can be rendered.
ϡϷΖϟΎϗέϮτϔϟϦϣϦϏήϓΎϤϟϭ
ϥήϔϟΓήΠΣϲϓϲΑϥΎϘΤϠΗϢΛˬΖϴΒϟϒϴψϨΗΔΠϳΪΧϲϠϋϭˬϡϮϴϟϞϴδϐϟ ΔθΎϋΎϳ ϚϴϠϋ -
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ
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:
ϡϷΖϟΎϗέϮτϔϟϦϣϦϏήϓΎϤϟϭ
ϥήϔϟΓήΠΣϲϓϲΑϲϘΤϠΗϢΛˬΖϴΒϟϒψϨΗϑϮγΔΠϳΪΧϭˬϡϮϴϟϞϴδϐϟΔθΎϋΎϳϚϴϠϋ-
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΄τΧϲϧ΄ΑήϗϲϨϜϟϭ”. The utterance
(TXLYDOHQW)RUFHLQ/LWHUDU\7UDQVODWLRQ 27
ϪδϔϧϚϟΎϤΘϴϟϩΪϬΟϯέΎμϗϝάΒϳϮϫϭϝΎϗϢΛΎΑήτπϣΎΒϴϬΘϣϪϨϋΝή˰ΨϓΖ˰ϤμϟΔΒ˰ϗΎϋϑΎΧ
ϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΕ΄˰˰τΧϲϧ΄ΑήϗϲϨϜϟϭϼΠόΘϣϢΛϣΎ˰˰δΘϟϦϣϲ˰θΑΎϬϠϣΎ˰˰όϳ ΎϫΪϟϭϥΎϛ-
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:
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΖϧ
“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˯ϲδΗϲΘϟΎϬΘόϴΒσϊϣΎϴθϤΗΓήϤϟΎΑϦψϟ˯Ϯ˰γϰϠϋΔ˰ΠϳΪΧΖΑΩϦϴΣϰϠϋ
ϩάϫΎϬΌϴΠΗ ϦϳϦϣΎϬ˰ϣϷΖϟΎϘϓϦϳΰ˰ΨϟΔϓή˰ϏϦϣΓΪ˰˰ϴόΑήϴϏΎϬΗΎϴΑϦϣΎϬ˰ϓϮΨΗϒΨΗϢϟϭˬ
ΎϬΘϨϤ˰γϦϤδϧϼϓΎϬΗΎϔλϭϰσΎ˰όΘϧΎϨϠϛˮΎϬόϨμΗϲΘϟΕΎ˰ϔλϮϟϦϣ …ˮΔσή˰ϔϤϟΔϨϤ˰˰δϟ
ιϦϳή˰˰μϘϟϦϴΑϡΎ˰˰ϴϧϦΤϧϭΏΎ˰δΣήϴϐΑΎϤ˰ϬϨϣϔ˰τΗϥάϠϟϞ˰˰δόϟϭϦ˰Ϥ˰δϟϦϜϟϭ
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.
ΔϜΣΎοΕήΒϧϲϓϝϮϘϳϮϫϭΎϬΟϭίΕϮλϊϔΗέϭ
ͿϢϜϋΩϮΘγ-
ϞΜϣϲϓϪόϤδΗΎϬϧϻϮϟϭˬΔθϫΩϭϒϐθΑϪΑΎΤλωΩϮϳϮϫϭΎϬΟϭίΕϮλϰϟ·ΖμϨΗΖϧΎϛϭ
ϪϟϦϳϦϤϓˬΖϣΰΘϟϭέΎϗϮϟϭϡΰΤϟϻ· –Ύϫ΅ΎϨΑϭϲϫ –ϪϨϣΕΪϬϋΎϤϓˬϪΗήϜϧϷΔϋΎδϟϩάϫ
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮΔϗέϭΔηΎθΑϞϴδΗϲΘϟΔϛϮΤπϟΔΑϭήτϟΕήΒϨϟϩάϬΑ
… 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)
έϭήγϰϓΎϬδϔϨϟϝϮϘΘϓϥΫΆϤϟϑΎΘϬϛΔϳΩΎϧΓήϴϤόΗϯΩΎϨϳϮϫϭϝΩΎϨϟΕϮλϊϔΗήϳϭ
ΐΎϐϟΎϬΟϭίϢϬΑήϛάΗϢΛˬΓήϴϤόΘϟϦϣ˱ΪϳΰϣϥϮΒϠτϳΔϋΎδϟϩάϫϰΘΣαΎϨϟ˯ϻΆϫͿ
ϦϴΑϝΎΣήΘϟϭϞ˰ΤϟϲϓΔϣϼδϟϪΒΤμΘϠϓˮϞό˰˰ϔϳΫΎϣϭˮϥϵϱΪϴγϥϮϜϳϦϳϯήΗϝϮϘΘϓ
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
ΐϧΫ ϼΑ Γ˯ΎγϹ ϰϘϠΘΗ ϲΘϟ ΔϴΤπϟ ΎϤΩ Ύϧ ΖϨϛϭ ˬΐϗϮόϠϟ ήϳΪϘΗ ϥϭΩ ϦϴΎθΗ Ύϣ ϦϴϠόϔΗ Ϛϧ
ΝϭΰϟϲϓϪϋέΎηϚϧϝϮϘϳϞΎϘϟϻ·ΐΠϋΎϤϓϞϘόϟϦϣ˯ϲηϰϟ·ϙΩέήϤόϟΖϨϨχΪϗϭˬϪΘϨΟ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΪϳΪΟϦϣ
“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.
ϝϮϘΗϡϷΖΣέϦϴΣϰϠϋϚθϟϭέάΤϟϦϋϢϨΗΓήψϨΑΔΠϳΪΧΎϬΘΟΪΤϓ
ϚϬΟϭϭ ΔϔϴϔΨϟ ϚΣϭέϭ ˮ ϚσΎθϧ ϭ ϚΗέΎϬϣ ϰϓ ϚϋέΎπϳ Ϧϣ ϝΎΜϤϟ ΓέΩΎϧ ΓΎΘϓ Ζϧ -
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮάϫϦϣήΜϛϥΪϳήΗΫΎϣˮϒϴτϠϟ
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)
έΎϜϨΘγϭΔΑήϐΑϝΎϗϭϪϳΪϴΑϪϴΘΒϛέΦϴθϟΏήπϓ
ΎόϟϮϣͿϪϤΣέϙϮΑϥΎϛˬΓήΟΎϔΑϦϜϳϮϟϭΔϨόϟϖδϔϟϭˬϒϴόοϻ·ϪϠΤΘϨϳϻϒϴόοέάϋ -
ˮϲλΎόϤϟϖϳήσΐϜϨΘΗϭϪϠϴΒγΞϬΘϨΗϻΫΎϤϠϓΓήϣϦϳήθϋΝϭΰΘϓ˯ΎδϨϟΎΑ
ϝΎϗϭΔϴϟΎϋΔϜΤοΪϴδϟϚΤπϓ-
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϲϋήηϥϭΫ΄ϣϡͿ˯ΎϴϟϭϦϣϲϟϭΖϧ-
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”.
ΏΎΘϋϲϓϡϷΖϟΎϘϓ
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϡϮϨϟΖϗϭΎϤϛέάϫϦϋΎϔϜΗϥ΄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:
ΏΎΘϋϲϓϡϷΖϟΎϘϓ
ϡϮϨϟΖϗϭΎϤϛέάϫϦϋΎϔϜΗϥ΄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”.
ˬήΒμϟΎΑΐϟΎτϣΏΎμϤϟϦϣΆϤϟϦϜϟϭˬˮϲϤϬϓΖϴδϧˬϼϳϮσϦϴϧΎόΗΎϣΖϗΫˬͿϱΪΣϭ -
ιΔϳήϜδϟˮϚϧΎ˰˰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: ϚϧΎϤϳϹΙΪΣΫΎϣˬͿϱΪΣϭ-
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.
ϦϳέΪΗϻΚϴΣϦϣΔϤΣήϟϪϴϠϋϝΰϨΗϚΑέϰϟ·ϲϠγϮΗϭˬϚϧΎϤϳ·ϱήϛΫˬϢόϧ-
ιΔϳήϜδϟˮϦϳΔϤΣήϟϦϳΔϤΣήϟ-
“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˱ΎϔμϨϣΪΟϦϳϩϮϫΎϳ-
ϢδΘΒϳϮϫϭϢϜϬΗϲϓϢϴϫήΑ·ϝΎϘϓ
ιϕϮθϟήμϗˮϚϴΑκΨηϲϓϒμϨϤϟάϫϦϳΪΠΗϚϠόϟ-
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.
ϼΎδΘϣϒΘϫϭˬΐοΎϐϟΎϛϩΪϴΑΪϤΣΡϮϠϓ
-ιΔϳήϜδϟˮΏϮϠϘϟϰϠϋϢϜΤϟϰϓϖΤϟϚϟϦϳϦϣ-
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
ϲΗϮϋΩ Ϧϋ Ζοήϋ ϒϴϛ ˮΪΤϟ άϬϟ ϰϠϋ ϚΒϠϗ Ύδϗ ϒϴϛ Ϛϟ΄γ ϲϨϋΩ ˮϝϮϗ ΫΎϣ …
ΔϳϭΰϨϣΎϣϚϟϥΖϴδϧϒϴϛˮϒϴϛϒϴϛˮΏϭήϜϤϟϲΒϠϗ˯ΪϧϦϋΖϤϣΎμΗϒϴϛˬˮΓέΎΤϟ
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮΎϨϫ
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)
ϖϳήσΐϜϨΘΗϭϪϠϴΒγΞϬΘϨΗ ϻΫΎϤϠϓΓήϣϦϳήθϋΝϭΰΘϓ˯ΎδϨϟΎΑ˱ΎόϟϮϣͿϪϤΣέϙϮΑϥΎϛ -
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϲλΎόϤϟ
“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)
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:
ˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒγϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟϲϠϋΝΎΤϟΔϠϣέΔγϮϔϧΖγϥϢϠόΗΪϴϛ΄ΘϟΎΑΖϧ
ΎϤγΎΑϝΎϘϓˬϥΎόϣΈΑϪΒϗήϳϞϴϋΎϤγ·ϥΎϛϭ
ιϕϮθϟήμϗˮήψϨϤϟάϫϪδϔϨΑΪϬθϴϟϦϴδΣϦϳ-
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: ήψϨϤϟάϫϪδϔϨΑΪϬθϴϟΎϨϫϦϴδΣΖϴϟ
ΔϳήΨγϲϓΔΠϳΪΧΖΣΎλϭ
ϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ ˮΔϔϴχϮϟϲϓ ϚδϔϧϰϠϋΖϠΑ ˱Ϋ·ϊϨμΗΫΎϣϭΓήθϋΔόΑήϟϥϭΩϒχϮΘΗ-
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
ήμϗΓέήϜϣΔϤϐϧϭ˱ΩΎόϣ˱ήψϨϣήϣϵήΧΎϫΪΠΗϥϦϣκϴΤϣϼϓΎϬδϔϧβϴϘϠΑΔϜϠϤϟήηΎϋ
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˱ήψϨϣήϣϵήΧΎϫΪΠΗϥϦϣκϴΤϣϼϓΎϬδϔϧβϴϘϠΑΔϜϠϤϟΕήηΎϋϮϟϰΘΣ
ΓέήϜϣ
ϦϴΑϱϭΪϋΎϳϩϮϫΎϳΦϴθϟάϫΐϳΫΎΠϣϦϣΏϭάΠϤϟϲϧϭΦϴηΔΒϘϟΖΤΗϭϰϠΑ…
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
ΔϴΒμϋϭΏήτοϲϓΔθΎϋΖϔΘϬϓ
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ ϡήΣϚϴϠϋϡήΣ-
Upset and nervous, Aisha shouted at her, “Shame on you. Shame”. (Palace
Walk, p. 139)
ϥϵϲϧήψΘϨΗϰΘϟΓήΠΤϟϦϣϢΣέΔϤϜΤϤϟϥ·ˬΖϗΪλ-
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΎϧΪ˰˰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
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΔϧΎϣΔΤΗΎϔϟ-
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”
ϊϨτμϣϑϮΧϰϓϝϮϘΗϰϫϭϒϗϮΘϟΪόΑΎϬϣΪϘΗΖϠλϮϓ
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ ͿΎΑΫϮϋϚϨϴϋ-
After her pause, she continued to advance, smiling. She said with
pretended fear, “Your eye! God protect me from it.” (Palace Walk, p. 92)
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˯ΎηϥήϴΧ” 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.
ˬιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑͿ˯ΎηϥήϴΧ-
- Good news. (Palace Walk, p. 105,427)
Back-translation: Δ˰ΒϴσέΎΒ˰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.
ˬιϕϮθϟήμϗˮͿ˯ΎηϥήϴΧ-
I hope it’s good news, God willing. (Palace of Desire, p. 108)
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑήϜδϟϭϦΒϟϭίέϷϡϮϴϟΎϨΒδΣϦϜϟϭͿϙΩΎϓ
“May God help you… but all we need today are rice, coffee, and sugar.”
(Palace Walk, p. 89)
˯ΎϴΘγΎΑΖϟΎϘϓ
ιϕϮθϟήμϗ…ϡϼδϟϊϤϓϙήόϳϲΟϭίϥΎϛϥΎϓ-
She said disdainfully, “If marrying me would disgrace you, then good
bye.” (Palace of Desire, p. 292)
ιΔϳήϜδϟˮήϤϘϟΎϛΐΘϜϤϟ˯έϭβϠΠϳϱάϟάϫϦϣ-
“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.
ϝΎϤϛΖϛϮηϢϴϫήΑ·ϝ΄γϭ
ˮϚΘΑϭΰϋϲϠϋϒγΫΎϤϟϯέΪΗ-
-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·ϚϟΫΪόΑΎϬΑϩήϛάϳϼϓϪϘΑϮγΔΤϔλΖϴΤϣϡΎϘΘγϭΏΎΗΫ·ϥΎδϧϹϭ …ˮΎϬΒϴόϳΫΎϣ -
ϒγϲϓΎϬγέΰϬΗϰϫϭΖϟΎϘϓˬϚδϣϭ
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
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:
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:
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:
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).
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).
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:
ϦϣΎϬϴϜΤΗϲΘϟϰϟϭϷΔμϘϟΖδϴϟΎϬϧϑήϋϲϧ·ϪϟϝϮϘΗΎϬϧ΄ϛΓήΧΎγΓήψϨΑϲϤϬϓϪΟΪΣϭ
ωϮϨϟάϫ
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
ΔϴϧΎΛΝϭΰΘϳϥϭˬ˯ΎηϮϟΎϫΩήΘδϳϥϪόγϮΑϥΎϛϭˬϰϟϭϷϪΘΟϭίϖϠσϥΪόΑϚΟϭΰΗΪϘϟ
ˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΓΪϴΣϭΔΟϭίϙΎϘΑϪϧϰϠϋΎϨΑέϱΪϤΣΎϓˬΎΟϭΰϣϩϮΑϥΎϛΪϗϭˬΔόΑέϭΔΜϟΎΛϭ
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)
ϪϟϝΎϘϓϪΣίΎϤϳϥΩέέϮτϨΤϟΐΣΎλϥ΄ϛϭ
…ˮΔΑήόϟϦϣϚϟϭΰϧΪόΑϪδϔϨϟΩϮΠϟϝΎϗΫΎϣΖόϤγΎϣ-
ϪΒϴΠϳϝΎϗϢΛϥϮϜδϟϰϟ·ϭΩΎϋϰΘΣΪϴδϟήψΘϧΎϓϦϴϜΣΎοΔΑήόϟΎΑϝΎΟήϟήΠϔϧϭ
-ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ…ˮϪδϔϧϪΘΑΎΟΫΎϤΑΖόϤγΎϣ-
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)
ΖϟΎϗϭΔγήτϏϲϓΎϬγέΓήϤϟΖόϓήϓ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ˯ΎδϨϟϦϣΖϓήϋϦϤϛΖδϟϙΪόΑ-
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:
ΖϟΎϗϭΔγήτϏϲϓΎϬγέΓήϤϟΖόϓήϓ
˯ΎδϨϟϦϣΖϜϠΘϣϦϤϛΖδϟΖϧΎϤϛϰϘΑ-
ΔϠϣέΔγϮϔϧΖγϥ ϢϠόΗϻϥέϭΪϟΎϬϟ˯ΎηΎϣΎϬοήϏϝϮΣϪϴϓΕέΩΚϳΪ˰ΣΪόΑϪϟΖϟΎϗ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒ˰˰γϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ
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
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ ˮΎϨϫϰϟ·ϚΑΩΎϋϱάϟΎϣ-
She shouted at him, “What are you doing here?” (Palace Walk, p. 123)
Back-translation: ˮΎϨϫϞόϔΗΫΎϣ
˱ϼΎϗϦϴγΎϳϪϘϬϘϓ
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϢϬϠΟέϦϴΑΖϧϭϑϮΨϟϙΩϭΎόϳϢϟΉήΟϰΘϓϦϣϚϟΎϳ-
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)
ϩάϫ Ύϣ Ίη ϖϳήτϟ ϲϓ ϡϼϏ ΕϮϣ ϕϼΘΧ ΎϬϣΎϤΘϫΓΪΣ ϦϣϒϔΨΘϟ ΔϜΣΎο ϢΛ ϖΣϚϟ -
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑήΧΊθϓΔϳΎϜΤϟ
“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:
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΎϨϣΎϣΰϔϘϳΩϮϨΠϟ˯ϻΆϫϦϣϥΎτϴθΑΫ·ϭϦϳΪΎϋΎϨϛ
We were on our way home when a devil of a soldier jumped in front of
us…(Palace Walk, p. 401)
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.
ΔϠϣέΔγϮϔϧΖγϥϢϠόΗϻϥέϭΪϟΎϬϟ˯ΎηΎϣΎϬοήϏϝϮΣϪϴϓΕέΩΚϳΪ˰ΣΪόΑϪϟΖϟΎϗ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒ˰˰γϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ
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.
ϝϮϘϳϮϫϭΖϓΎϬΘϤϟΕϮμϟΎϤϫ˯ΎΠϓ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϥϮοέΪϤΤϣΪϴδϟΐϴτϟΎϧέΎΟϑήόϳϱΪϴγ-
They made out the feeble voice saying, “Sir, you know our excellent
neighbor Muhammad Ridwan?” (Palace Walk, p.127)
ϝϮϘΗΔΠϳΪΧϭ
ΪΣΔϴΑήΘϟϦϴΤϠμΗϻΔϨϴϧΎϳΖϧ
˯ϭΪϫϲϓϡϷΖϤΘϤΘϓ
ιˬϦϳή˰˰μϘϟϦϴΑϚ˰˰˰˰˰δϔϧϰδϨΗϻϰϠϋΔϴΑήΘϟήϣϚϟϙήΗ΄γˬͿϚΤϣΎγ
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
ϖϠϗϲϓΎϬϟ΄δϓ
ˮϲΑήπΑϲϣήϜΘΗϢϟΫΎϤϟ-
ΓήΧΎγΖϟΎϗϭΎϬγέΕΰϬϓ
ϲϮοϭξϘϧϥϑΎΧ-
ΔϔϬϟϲϓϝ˯ΎδΘϓ
ˮ˱ΎόϣϲϠμϧϥϲϓϊϤσ-
ήΧΎγϝϻΩϰϓΖϟ˯ΎδΘϓΓήϤϟΎϣ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϡϮϨϟϦϣήϴΧϰϫϰΘϟΓϼμϟˬΔϠϴπϔϟΐΣΎλΎϳˬϰϨόΗ-
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
“ϲϮοϭ 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,
ϝϮϘΗϰϫϭˬΔθϫΪϟΎΑΕήϫΎψΗϢΛˬ˯ΎϨΜϟΎϬΜόΑΔϣΎδΘΑΕέΪϓ
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗΩϭϰϓϰϧϭΩϭϰϓϚϧήϫΎψϟˬΎΌϴηϰϨόΗΎϤϣϢϬϓϻ-
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)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ ςϴΤϤϟώϠΒϳϱάϟϙΎϓΪγϭΖϧΖϜγ-
“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.
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΪγϷάϫϦϣϞΒθϟϙΫ
“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.
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϡϮϋίϮϟϦΑ-
“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.
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮΎϬϠϛΓϭϼΤϟϩάϫϚϧΎδϟϰϓϭήϜδϟϰϟϚΘΟΎΣΎϣ-
“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.
ΎϋΎΒΗϰϧΎϬΘϟϥϮΟΰϳ˯ΎϗΪλϷϖΑΎδΗϭ
ϦϴϨΒϟϭ˯ΎϓήϟΎΑ-
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΕΎϴϨϐϤϟϭΕΎμϗήϟϦϣΔΤϟΎλΔϳέΫ-
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
ϦϴΑ ΙΎϧ· βϤΧ ΎΛΎϧ· ϻ· ΐΠϧ Ϣϟ ϰϧ ϖΤϟϭ 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)
˱ϼΎϗΎϬϔϧ΄ΑνήόϳΡέΎϬΘϳήΨδΑϢτΗέΎϤϠϛϪΗΩΎόϛϭ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϰΘΧέϮΨϨϣϰϠϋϖΤϟϪϟϝϮϗ
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
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)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϪϠϛΔϛήΑΎϨΑέϡϼϛ-
“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.
-ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϝϮϘΗΎϤϣΎϓήΣϢϬϓϻ-
“I don't understand a word you’ve said” (Palace Walk, p. 336)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 53
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
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϞΑΎϘϤϟϦϛήϟϞΘΤϳϱάϟϥϮϧΎϜϟϭ
The stove that occupied the opposite corner…(Palace Walk, p. 14)
3UDJPDWLF7UDQVODWLRQVRI,PSOLFLW0HDQLQJ 55
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗϢϬϟϮΧϪϴϠϋ΄θϧΎϣϰϠϋϯΩϻϭ΄θϨϴγ-
“…my children will be raised like their maternal uncles…” (Palace of
Desire, p.40)
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗήθϛΔΒϤΑΎϳϙήϜη-
“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
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗΎϬΑϕΎΤΘϟϻϯϮϨΗϲΘϟΔγέΪϤϟϦϋϲϧήΒΨΗϥϚϟϥ
56 &KDSWHU7KUHH
“It’s time for you to tell me which branch of the university you plan to
choose.” (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˰θϟή˰˰μϗϲϨϳΩϒμϧϞϤϛϥ–ϙΎοέϭϚΘϘϓϮϣΪόΑ–ΖϣΰΘϋ-
“I’ve decided, with your consent and approval, to perfect my religious
observance by marrying.” (Palace of Desire, p.108)
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗϲϧϭήΛΩϰϧϮϠϣίΪΠϨΘδϣϒΘϬΗϮϟΎϫΪόΑΕΩΩϭ
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)
ήμϗΔϨϴϜγϭΎϳέϲϨΒδΤϟΓήϴδόϟϑϭήψϟϩάϫϰϓϲϧϮϜθΗϰϫϭϥΎϛΪϟϰϓϊϣΎγΎϬόϤγϮϟϭ
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
ΔϴϧΎΛΝϭΰΘϳϥϭˬ˯ΎηϮϟΎϫΩήΘδϳϥϪόγϮΑϥΎϛϭˬϰϟϭϷϪΘΟϭίϖϠσϥΪόΑϚΟϭΰΗΪϘϟ
ˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΓΪϴΣϭΔΟϭίϙΎϘΑϪϧϰϠϋΎϨΑέϱΪϤΣΎϓˬΎΟϭΰϣϩϮΑϥΎϛΪϗϭˬΔόΑέϭΔΜϟΎΛϭ
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:
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΔϘϟΎσΖϧˬϰϬΟϭϦϋϲΑήϏ
“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: ΔϘϠτϣΔϘϠτϣΔϘϠτϣΖϧˬϲϬΟϭϦϋϲΑήϏ
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
ˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ…ϲΒϨϟϰϠϋϞμϳϢϟϦϣϦϴϋϲϓΔδϤΧϭ-
“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
ιˬΔϳήϜδϟϪϴϠϋϰϠμϳϰΒϨϟϝΎϤΟϖθόϳϰϠϟϭˬΎηϮΑήσϭΔϟάΑϥΎϳΪΗήϳϥήϤϗ-
“Two splendid moons in suits and fezzes. All those who love the
prophet’s handsome appearance should pray for him.” (Sugar Street, p.
60)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϞϣήϟΎΑνέϷεήϔϧϥΎϨϴϠϋΎϘΣϥΎϛϼϬγϭϼϫ-
“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.
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ ΎϣΎψϋϚΘϛήΗϭΎϤΤϟϚΗάΧ-
“She took you in when your flesh was firm and left you nothing but
bones.” (Palace Walk, p. 95)
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗϦϴΠϋϦϣΎϧΫϭϦϴσϦϣΎϧΫ-
“I act as though one of my ears was made of clay and the other of
dough. (Palace of Desire, p. 35)
ιˬΔϳήϜδϟέΎτϘϟϚΗΎϓϻ·ϭωήγ-
“Hurry up. Otherwise you’ll miss the train.” (Sugar Street, p.288)
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
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑήϴϐΘϣϦϴγΎϳϦϜϳϢϟϥϲϋέΫϊτϗ
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.
ΖϟΎϗϭˬΎϬϔϟϮγϦϣΔϠμΨΑΔΠϳΪΧΖϜδϣ΄ϓ
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗϝΎΣΎϬϟϠλϮϟάϫϖϠΣ
Grasping a lock of her hair, Khadija said, “I’ll chop this off if she
reforms.” (Palace of Desire, p.245)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΪγϷάϫϦϣϞΒθϟϙΫ-
“He’s this lion’s cub” (Palace Walk, p. 256)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϡϮϋίϮϟϦΑ
“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
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:
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.
Fourth, one can do the act off-record by asking for help indirectly, and
saying something like:
[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)
ϝϮϘΗϡϷΖΣέϦϴΣϰϠϋϚθϟϭέάΤϟϦϋϢϨΗΓήψϨΑΔΠϳΪΧΎϬΘΟΪΤϓ
ϚϬΟϭϭ ΔϔϴϔΨϟ ϚΣϭέϭ ˮ ϚσΎθϧ ϭ ϚΗέΎϬϣ ϰϓ ϚϋέΎπϳ Ϧϣ ϝΎΜϤϟ ΓέΩΎϧ ΓΎΘϓ Ζϧ -
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮάϫϦϣήΜϛϥΪϳήΗΫΎϣˮϒϴτϠϟ
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
ΔϠϣέΔγϮϔϧΖγϥϢϠόΗϻϥέϭΪϟΎϬϟ˯ΎηΎϣΎϬοήϏϝϮΣϪϴϓΕέΩΚϳΪ˰ΣΪόΑϪϟΖϟΎϗ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϦϴϠΑήϐϤϟϲϓϦϴϛΎϛΩΔόΒ˰˰γϚϠϤΗϲϗϮγΪϟϲϠϋΝΎΤϟ
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)
ϝϮϘϳϮϫϭΖϓΎϬΘϤϟΕϮμϟΎϤϫ˯ΎΠϓ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϥϮοέΪϤΤϣΪϴδϟΐϴτϟΎϧέΎΟϑήόϳϱΪϴγ-
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
ˮϲΑήπΑϲϣήϜΘΗϢϟΫΎϤϟ-
ΓήΧΎγΖϟΎϗϭΎϬγέΕΰϬϓ
68 Chapter Four
ϲϮοϭξϘϧϥϑΎΧ-
ΔϔϬϟϲϓϝ˯ΎδΘϓ
ˮ˱ΎόϣϲϠμϧϥϲϓϊϤσ-
ήΧΎγϝϻΩϰϓΖϟ˯ΎδΘϓΓήϤϟΎϣ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϡϮϨϟϦϣήϴΧϰϫϰΘϟΓϼμϟˬΔϠϴπϔϟΐΣΎλΎϳˬϰϨόΗ-
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)
ΎϬΗϻϮϣϦϋϦϠόΘϟΔϴΑΎτΧϪΒηΔΠϬϟϰϓΔϳέΎΠϟΕϮλϼϋΎϤϨϴΑ
ϢϟϮόϟΔϜϠϣΓΪϴΑίΖδϠϟϮϫϭΖϧωΪΟΎϳϊγϭ-
ΏΫΎϛήΟίϦϋϢϨΗΔΠϬϠΑΔϳέΎΠϟΐσΎΨΗΖϟΎϗϭΔϋϮΠδϣΔϜΤοΓΪϴΑίΖδϟϦϋΕΪϧϭ
ˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϊοϮΘϟΔϠϴπϓΖϓήϋϼϫ ΓΪΣϭΓήϣϢϟϮόϟΔϜϠϣϞΠϠΟΎϳϚΤϣΎδϳͿ -
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).
ϦϴΑ ˮςϘϓ ˯ΎϘϠϟ ΐΤϤϟ ˯ΰΟϭ ˬϙ˯έϭ ϦϳΪϬθΗ ΎϤϛ ήϤόϟ Ζϴπϗ ϝΎϤΠϟϭ 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).
-ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗϲΗΎϤΣΎϳϱήϟάϫϰϠϋαΎϨϟξόΑϙήϘϳϻ-
“Some people would not concede that to you.” (Palace of Desire p. 30)
Back-translation: ϯήϟάϫϰϠϋαΎϨϟξόΑϙήϘϳϻ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϊΒγΎϳϙ˯έϭΫΎϣˬΩΎϧΎϨΣΎΒλ-
“It’s a damp morning. What do you know, you lion?” (Palace Walk,
p.328)
ϩΎΧΎΒσΎΨϣ-ξΒϨϟβΟϞϴΒδΑϮϫϭ-ϞϴϠΧϝΎϗ
ΞΎΘϨϟήϴΨΑΖΗΎϓΔϤγΎΣΔϴϣΎΘΨϟϚΘϤϠϛΖϧΎϛ-
ϝΎόϔϧΎΑΔϠΎϗΓήϣϝϭϷϪΠϳΪΧΖϤϠϜΘϓ
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗˮϚϟάϛβϴϟϠμϟΎΑΖΗ-
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)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΪϤμϟΪΒϋΦϴηΎϳͿήϔϐΘγ-
“I ask God’s forgiveness, Shaykh Abd al-Samad…” (Palace Walk, p.40)
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)
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗϝϮϬϜϟϊϣϲϟΎϐϟΖϗϮϟϲόϴπΗϻϝϼΤϟΖϨΑΎϳ-
“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 “ϝϼΤϟΖϨΑ”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.
ιˬΔϳήϜδϟϲΘΣήϓΎϳ-
“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,
ιˬΔϳήϜδϟϦϴόΑέϷϭΔόΒδϟϦΑΎϳϚϴϠϋͿϢγ-
“God protect you! You’re forty-seven.” (Sugar Street, p. 270)
ΩΩήΗΪόΑΕΩήτΘγϭ
ϪΘϣΫϰϠϋϰϘΒΘϟΐϴτϟΎϧέΎΟΔϤϳήϛϢϳήϣΐτΨϳϥϩΪϟϭϪϟΰϴΠϳϞϫϯΪϴγΎϳϝ΄δϳϰϤϬϓ -
ˮΝϭΰϠϟϼϫήϴμϳϰΘΣ
έΎϜϨΘγϻϭΐπϐϟΎΑϪΗήΒϧΖψϠϏΪϗϭΪϴδϟΕϮλϼϋΎϨϫϭ
ϦϴΑϰΘϠϗΎϣϰόϤγϰϠϋϯΪϴϋͿ˯ΎηΎϣϡϼϐϟάϫˮΔϴϟϭΎϳϦϴϟϮϘΗΫΎϣˮΐτΨϳ-
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)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑͿ˯ΎηΎϣͿϢγΎΑ-
“In the name of God. God’s will be done” (Palace Walk, p.92)
ϮϫάϫϡΩΎϣϭˬϚΒπϏϻ·ϥϮϬϳΊηϞϛˬϱΪϴγΎϳΐπϐϟΔϘθϣϚδϔϧϢθΠΗϻ -ΔϨϴϣ
Ύ˱ϤΩϙήϣϷϦϋάϳΎϤϛωϮπΧϞϜΑϪϟϦϋάϴγϭˬϩΎϳ·ϪϐϠΑ΄δϓϚϳέ
ϦϴΑ ήϴΧ ΎϬϨϣ ϰΟήϳ ϻ Δϔϴόο ϡ Ϛϧ·Ϛϟ ϝϮϗϥ ΪϳέϲϨϜϟϭ ˬ Ωήϳ Ϣϟ ϡ Ωέ 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
ΎϬϟ΄γϲΘΣΔϔϠϜΘϣΔϣΎδΘΑϪϴΘϔηϲϠϋϭΎϬϴϟ·ήψϨϳϞόΟϢΛ
ˮϚΒπϏΫΎϣ-
ΎϫέΪλϲϠϋΎϬϴϋέΫΖϜΒηϢΛˬ˱ΎϴϠϣΖϤμϟΖϣίϼϓ
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗˮϚΒπϏΎϤϋϝ΄δΗϲϧ·-
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)
ϡϷΖϟΎϗέϮτϔϟϦϣϦϏήϓΎϤϟϭ
ϥήϔϟΓήΠΣϰϓϰΑϥΎϘΤϠΗϢΛˬΖϴΒϟϒϴψϨΗΔΠϳΪΧϰϠϋϭˬϡϮϴϟϞϴδϐϟΔθΎϋΎϳϚϴϠϋ-
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ
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.
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϼΟέέΎλϰΑέˮϲϨϴϋϕΪλϒϴϛϲϨΑϦϴγΎϳ-
“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.
ιˬΔϳήϜδϟˬϩέΎϤΤΑϞΧΩϪϟΎϨΘϜγˬϚΤοΔϳΎϔϛ-
“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
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗϙΪόΑϩέΎϤΤΑϞΧΩϪϟΎϨΘϜγˬͿͿ-
“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.
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗˮΪϴόμϟϲλΎϗϰϟ·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".
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
ϥϵϲϧήψΘϨΗϰΘϟΓήΠΤϟϦϣϢΣέΔϤϜΤϤϟϥ·ˬΖϗΪλ-
ιϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΎϧΪϋϮϳΎϨΑέˬϚΒϠϗϱϮϗ-
“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)
ˬϦϳήμϘϟ ϦϴΑ Γήϴϐλ ΔϤϠϛ ˯ΎϘϠϟ ΔσΎδΑ ϞϜΑ ΐϠτϳ ϢϜϨϣ ΪΣϮϟ 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 ΪΣϮϟ”. 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.
ΎϬΗϻϮϣϦϋϦϠόΘϟΔϴΑΎτΧϪΒηΔΠϬϟϲϓΔϳέΎΠϟΕϮλϼϋΎϤϨϴΑ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϢϟϮόϟΔϜϠϣΓΪϴΑίΖδϠϟϮϫϭΖϧωΪΟΎϳϊγϭ-
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.
ΏΎϴσΏέΩϲϓΓήϣϰϟ·ΖϴόγΎϣϞϠϤϟϻϮϟϭ-
ΪϳΰΘϣϡΎϤΘϫΎΑϝΎϤϛϪϟ΄δϓ
ˮ˯ΎδϨϟϞϜϛΓήϣϲϫΖδϴϟ-
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗΔόϠγΎϫΪϨϋϯϮϬϟˬΐϠϗϼΑ
ΓήϣΎϬϧ·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.
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.
ϩΎΧΎΒσΎΨϣ-ξΒϨϟβΟϞϴΒδΑϮϫϭ-ϞϴϠΧϝΎϗ
ΞΎΘϨϟήϴΨΑΖΗΎϓΔϤγΎΣΔϴϣΎΘΨϟϚΘϤϠϛΖϧΎϛ-
ϝΎόϔϧΎΑΔϠΎϗΓήϣϝϭϷϪΠϳΪΧΖϤϠϜΘϓ
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗˮϚϟάϛβϴϟϠμϟΎΑΖΗ-
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
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΐϠϜϟϦΑΎϳϡήΠϣΎϳϊϠσ-Ϊϴδϟ
“Go upstairs, you criminal. You son of a bitch.” (Palace Walk, p.279)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϚϟϮΧΪΑήόηϥϥϭΩϲγέϕϮϓΓ΄ΠϓϚΘϳέ
“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 “ϲγέϕϮϓ” 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.
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
ϪγέΞθϓϪϬΟϭϰϠϋςϘγϪϨτΑϰϓϪϠϛέΎϤϟ-
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϦϴΘϤϴΘϴϟϦϋϪϴϨϴϋϊϓήϳϥϥϭΩϦϴγΎϳϝΎϗΎϨϫϭ
…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)
ΔϠΎϗΎϬΗΪϴγϝϮϗϰϠϋΔϳέΎΠϟΖϨϣ΄ϓ
ϦϴΑ ΩϮΠϟ 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)
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
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϰϨϋϚΛΪΣϱάϟϦϣ-
“Who’s been talking to you about me?” (Palace Walk, p.94)
ˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΪϐϟϰϟ·ϡϮϴϟϦϣϪϨϋΙΪΤϓϪϣήϛΎϣˬϪΑήσϭϪϔτϟϰϓϪϟήϴψϧϻϞΟέ-
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)
ΪϳΪηήΛ΄ΗϰϓϡϷΖϟΎϘϓ
ΔϟϮϔτϟϦγϲϓΔγέΪϤϟϦϋΎϤϬϋΎτϘϧάϨϣϲΗΎϨΑϯΪΣ·ϰϠϋϊϘΗϢϟϞΟέϦϴϋϥ·-
ΎϬΑΡΎλϭϒϜΑΎϔϛΪϴδϟΏήπϓ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮΔϴϟϭΎϳάϫϲϓϚηϲϨΘΒδΣϞϫϼϬϣϼϬϣ-
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.
ϲϧΎϛΩϰϓΎϣήϴΧϭˬϲϧΎϛΩϦϣήϴΧΐϳέϼΑϲδϔϧ-ΓΪϴΑί˱ΎΒσΎΨϣΪϴδϟ
ϝϮϘΗϰϫϭΓήϛΎϣΔϣΎδΘΑΎΑΎϬϬΟϭϕήη΄ϓ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϚΘϋΎπΑΓΩϮΟϦϋϩΎϨόϤγΎϣϒϟΎΨϳάϫ-
[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)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮϡϮϬϔϤϟήϴϏϡϼϜϟάϫΎϣ-
“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.
ΕήΒϨϟϕϮϨΨϣΕϮμΑΖϔΘϫϭˬΎϬϴΑϢγωΎϤγΪϨϋΓΎΘϔϟήόηϒϗϭ
-ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΔΌτΨϣΖϧΔΌτΨϣΖϧάϫϖϴϠϳϻΔΠϳΪΧ-
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)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑˮΎϬϴϓϝϮϘΗΫΎϣˮήϤΨϟϭ
“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 ϪόϓΩ ϥϯΪϟΖΒΛ 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 Νϭΰϟ
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΔϨϴϣΖγΎϳϙέΎΒϣϙέΎΒϣϰΘϨΑ·
86 &KDSWHU)LYH
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).
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑϯΪϴγΎϳήϴΨϟ˯Ύδϣ
“Good evening, Sir”. (Palace Walk, p.8)
ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑΪΠϟΎϓϢϠϜΘϧΎϨϴϋΩϭͿϰϘΗΔϴϟϭΎϳ-
“ Lady, fear God. Let’s have a serious talk.” (Palace Walk, p.95)
ιˬϕϮθϟήμϗ˭ιˬϦϳήμϘϟϦϴΑ 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
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
Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 93
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\
Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 97
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\
Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning 101
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