TRANSLATION

FREEDOM BOUND
• As every student of translation is fully aware, the shift from the
Source Text (ST) to the Target Text (TT) is hardly a smooth, easy-going
process. A number of problems pop up as one threads one’s way
across linguistic and discursive parameters pertaining to each
language. As those of you who have read the Arabic novel ‘ ‫المترجم‬
‫ ’ الخائن‬might have noticed, the main concern for the translator is the
degree of ‘freedom’ he/she might enjoy as he/she zigzags between a
Source Text and a Target Text. As he leads his Arabic version to its
conclusion, Hamid Salim, the protagonist, made the sin of sins, which
is altering the conclusion of the novel in such a way as to suit his own
ideological convictions.
• There are different kinds of freedom, but the translator has to abide by a
certain moral code that respects rights of propert, the nature of the ST and the
readability of his TT. One might introduce changes that enhance the source
text in terms of its reception by its target readership and render what is ‘alien’,
to some extent, familiar. For instance, French translators tend to not be that
faithful when translating titles of works of literature, while other cultures insist
on strict rendering of those titles. Elif Shafak’s The fourty Rules of Love, for
instance, is translated into French as Soufi, Mon Amour, while Arabic
translations, there are two of them, of the very text keep to the extremes of
faithfulness and render the title as follows:‫ قواعد العشق األربعون‬. Generally, There
are two degrees of freedom in translation: one which is very biased towards
the source text, while the other is extremely towards the target text.
1-Interlinear translation: this kind of translation is most evident when
The TT does not abide by the rules of the TL, but rather reproduces a
text where the grammatical units are as close to those of the ST as
possible. What counts here is primarily a certain mechanical
faithfulness of the ST, regardless of whether such parallelism will be
convenient in the TL.
Example:
« Birds of the same feather flock together »
‫الطيور من نفس الريش تتجمع معا‬
• As is evident, the only purpose of such a translation is to highlight the
grammatical structure of the ST. Therefore, it is more of use to linguists
concerned with comparing between the grammatical structures of languages.
• 2- Literal translation: the denotative meaning of the SL is kept while the
grammar of the TL is respected.
• For example:
• ‫عفت الديارمحلها فمقامها بمنى تأبد غولها فرجامها‬
• The camping grounds have disappeared - their alighting places and their
stopping places /I at Mina; its Ghaul and its Rijam have become deserted.
• In this translation, the standard grammar and word order of English are
respected; however, everything which might be transferred on a simple word-
by-word basis from the Arabic is so transferred. For most purposes, literal
translation can be regarded as the practical extreme of SL bias.
• 2.1.3 Free translation: here there is only a general correspondence
between the textual units of the ST and those of the TT. A possible free
translation of the English proverb “birds of the same feather flock
together” would be “" ‫الطيور على أشكالها تقع‬
• 2.1.4 Communicative translation: usually communicative translation is,
like free translation, uses a standard expression in the SL and balances it
with a standard expression in the TL. One tends to use stock-in-trade
phrases. For example, for the colloquial expression in Arabic « ‫ اللي فاتمات‬ »
we use the English standard expression: « let bygones be bygones. »
• Here we might also refer to idiomizing translation, which respects the ST
message content, but gives priority to TL 'naturalness' over faithfulness
to ST detail; it will typically use idioms or familiar phonic and rhythmic
patterns to give an easy read, even if this means sacrificing nuances of
meaning or tone.
• 2.2 EQUIVALENCE AND TRANSLATION LOSS: equivalence in translation falls
generally into one of two categories: they are either descriptive or
prescriptive. Descriptively, 'equivalence' denotes the relationship between
ST features and IT features that are seen as directly corresponding to one
another, regardless of the quality of the IT. Thus, descriptively, the following
utterances are equivalents :
• ‫ممنوع الدخول‬ forbidden is the entrance
• ‫مع السالمة‬ with the well-being
• Prescriptively, 'equivalence' denotes the relationship between an SL
expression and the canonic TL rendering of it as required, for example, by a
teacher. So, prescriptively, the following pairs of utterances are equivalents:
• ‫ ممنوع الدخول‬No entry
• ‫مع السالمة‬ Goodbye
• 2.2.2 Translation loss: as there is no perfect reproduction of the ST in
the TT, there is always a certain loss, either in terms of textual and
cultural features. All the translator can stive to do is to reduce that
loss.
• 2.2.2.1 Translation by omission: translators tend to omit things that
are used in the ST while rendering the ST into the TT. These have to
do with the nature of language, that is, whether it accepts repetition
or favors an economical system.
• 2.2.2.2 Translation by addition: the translator can use additions in
order to enhance his TT and make it all the more accessible to his
target readership.