the difficulties arising when translating from arabic to ... · sing when translating from arabic...

THE DIFFICULTIES ARISING WHEN

TRANSLATING FROM ARABIC TO

ENGLISH

Hassan S. Aldossary

Registration no.: 140146866

1

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2

What is translation? ...................................................................................................................... 2

What is culture? ............................................................................................................................ 3

Cultural Hindrances ...................................................................................................................... 6

1. Culture-Exclusive Expressions .......................................................................................... 6

2. The Translator ..................................................................................................................... 8

3. Emotiveness ...................................................................................................................... 10

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 13

References ................................................................................................................................... 14


2

Introduction

Since there are different, variant and multiple definitions of “translation” and what is meant by it, a number

of challenges and hindrances have emerged, requiring translators from one language to another to overcome

them by recognising the root of the problems and providing solutions to them. However translation is

defined, that definition is going to shape and affect how a SL text is going to be dealt with in order to

convey the intended meaning or message into a TL text. These problems range from variable aspect,

whether they are syntactic-based, semantic-based, pragmatic-based or cultural-based. To increase the

concentration of this essay, we are going to narrow it down to two languages: Arabic and English.

What is translation?

Translation is basically the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an

equivalent target-language text (Bhatia 1992). It is subject to different factors that can affect its purpose or

intended message. These factors include fidelity and transparency. Fidelity in terms of translation means to

what extent translators and their translation, i.e. TL texts, are faithful and mirror the SL texts’ message or

intended meaning without any kind of modification, i.e. intensifying, distorting, weakening, adding or

subtracting, to any part of its context. While transparency is pertinent to the degree to which a translation

conforms to native speakers and their target language, following its idioms, syntax, and grammar

conventions while preserving the social, cultural and political contexts. Regardless of how translation is

viewed whether it is a process or a product, this is not the focus of this essay, although it can be of a relation

to it.

For English and Arabic, they are structurally different and they stem from dissimilar language families.

Arabic is categorised as a member of the Semitic family of languages, while English as a member of the

Indo-European language family. Arabic is recognised as the official spoken language in more than 20


3

countries in the Middle East and North Africa. English is an Indo-European language and the official

spoken language in a number of countries, including Britain, the United States, and most of the

commonwealth countries.

In terms of syntax, Arabic and English demonstrate variant structures or word orders. Arabic has a feature

of being a synthetic language (Bahameed, 2008). For instance, inflection of nouns is for case (a form of a

noun, pronoun or adjective indicating its grammatical relation to other words in a text) and inflection of

verbs is for mood (a form of a verb to express whether the action or state it denotes is conceived as fact or in

some other manner (as command, possibility, or wish). In terms of prosody, both of the two languages have

their own versification systems and in terms of phonology and phonemic inventories, they are not the same

(Bahameed 2008). Furthermore, when evaluating the actual translation hindrances, the geographical

distance cannot be overlooked between Arabic and English from where they originated, which led to a

cultural distance between Arabic and English. Consequently, a classification for the main translation

hindrances, which influence the translation quality of the outcome, can be made into: 1) lexical hindrances,

2) prosodic hindrances, 3) structural hindrances, and 4) cultural hindrances (Bahameed 2008). Due to high

significance of culture and its influence on language and translation, this essay is going to focus mainly on

the cultural hindrances and cover some of the other classifications.

What is culture?

A number of fundamental issues pertaining to defining culture arise when asking the question: what is

culture? The difficulty here lies in that there is no consent to one definition of culture. In a statement,

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1963) say that a number of sociologists and anthropologists view ‘culture’ as a

vague term and reject using it in scientific discourse. Nevertheless, in spite of their discretion about the

term, the term ‘culture’ is extensively used in many fields such as the information systems literature,

avoiding the attempt to define it, which may stem from the complexity of the term.


4

However, despite the lack of one agreed-upon definition of culture, it serves the purpose of this essay to

look at some definitions in order to have an idea about what culture is and relate it to translation. One

definition is that which Newmark (1988) presents culture as “a particular society’s way of life and all that it

produces.” Bloch (1991) defines culture as what a society must and need to know to function efficiently in a

particular environment. In more extensive detailing than Newmark and Bloch and in a non-behaviourist

approach, Rohner (1984) defines culture as a symbolic-meaning organisation or system that determines how

individuals’ mind-set functions. Rohner emphasises how people comprehend and perceive their actions or

behaviours in light of two elements: 1) Systematicity of culture, in that it is categorically structured. 2)

Culture as an expressive means of individuals’ thoughts about the world. Additionally, Sapir (1949: 79)

notes that "ethnologists and culture historians use culture technically to exemplify any component or people

acquired socially in life, material and spiritual." In Lado’s definition (1957: 111), culture is "systems

structured for arranged and repeated behaviour". In addition, Bennett (1968: 10) views culture as “the mirror

for a particular society’s collective behaviour.”

In other words, culture is an accumulation of experience, which consists of belief, morals, traditions, arts,

knowledge, and any set of habits that people of a society attain. It also encompasses one language’s whole

behaviour and habits system, being a vital subset of that culture (Bahameed 2008). In general, culture

should be monolingual, although it is possible in a number of cases for a single language to traverse many

cultural boundaries and limits. For instance, several multi-cultural societies have adopted English as their

official and dominating language (Bahameed 2008).

Due to the complexity of the term and the numerous ways of approaching it, it has resulted in broad ranges

of disagreements among humanities scholars. While these opposing or different views do not have to be

considered as inadequate (Van de Vijver & Hutschemaekers, 1990), they may complement various aims by

dealing with different aspects or elements of culture. To demonstrate such differences, take two opposing


5

extremes of schools of thought. On one hand, the first school views culture as a "superordinate organizer",

where it emphasises the behaviour, while the other school adopts a different angle and considers culture as a

regulating element, which includes education, economics and politics (Van de Vijver & Hutschemaekers,

1990: 5). The standpoints of both these schools should complement one another and be viewed as such, as

different takes on the matter at hand.

Culture can be, as some researchers suggest, most notably Hofstede (1980), measured statistically when

regarded as a collection of variables. Hofstede (1980) states that culture is not inherited but learned. In other

words, it is derived from individuals’ social environment, but not from their genes. He proposes that culture

is a paradigm administered by "human mental programming" (Hofstede, 1980: 15-16) that consists of three

levels. These levels are: (a) the universal level, which is inherited by and linked to the shared physical

nature of all humans; (b) the collective level, denoting to the culture, which is acquired from different

members of a group and is common within a group; and (c) the individual level, which is particular to the

member and can be both acquired and inherited. The human nature is compromised of the rudimentary units

of `mental programming,' e.g. being able to feel love, joy, sadness, anger, the environment observation, and

being able to make these feelings and observations reach others. Thus, culture modifies how individuals

express such abilities, influencing human actions and reactions in the process (Bahameed 2008).

Communicative interactions’ levels are subject to cultural elements (Ito & Nakakoji, 1996). A particular

society’s customs, ideas, interests and further cultural features are mirrored by language. In this process, the

cultural importance of a particular group of people’s qualities, such as religion, aesthetics, environment,

society…etc., is evident and can be seen in a language’s vocabulary of such a society (Bahameed 2008). For

example, Arabic demonstrates this linguistic feature to represent that cultural element by a variety of names

for winds, rain, dates, camels, horses, swords...etc. On the other hand, English shows a range of linguistic

marks accompanying the sea, as English native speakers are constantly accustomed to it in their


6

environment. Another example, in the Muslim Arab societies, it is lawful for a man to marry up to four

wives if he can treat them equally and fairly, whereas in the Christian West, polygamy is prohibited"

(Makhlouf, 1996: 4). Polygamy, thus, is strange and unacceptable to the people of the West because

normally it never happens in their society and it is by no means part of their culture (Bahameed 2008).

After looking at translation and culture with their attempted definitions, the relation between them is strong

and they cannot be separable from one another. Cultural differences between languages can prove to be

challenging and may, to some extent, make the translation of such anomalies impossible (Durdureanu

2011). When translating between two languages, there is a kind of transferring or exchanging of some

cultural and linguistic features. Such an activity results in intercultural translation. In the next section, we

are going to highlight some of the difficulties that arise when translation between English and Arabic, in

light of their different settings and cultures.

Cultural Hindrances

1. Culture-Exclusive Expressions

When translating between from Arabic to English, the issue of culture-exclusive expressions is on the

horizon. Translators have to handle texts including sayings, Qur’anic verses, events occurred in the distant

past, proverbs, legendary personages , names of places and objects, plants animals…etc. that only exist in a

specific culture exclusively. Additionally, considering the expected challenges is of paramount importance

when dealing with interpretation of cultural contexts of worlds with entirely dissimilar traditions and

conventions, namely the Arabic-speaking world to the English-speaking world in this case. For this reason,

it is necessary to comprehending the text’s message or meaning before translating, but not just for the sake

of words. This necessitates that translators ought to familiarize themselves with the two cultures, i.e. Source

culture and Target culture, and be aware of the differences between them (Bahameed 2008).


7

As it is influential to culture, translators have to take into account the environmental conditions and natural

settings of the two cultures; Arabic belongs to a desert area, entailing hot and dry climate conditions, while

English belongs to an area of cold and wet climate conditions. In consequence, a number of Arabic

expressions are associated with cold weather to show positivity and preferable inferences of happiness and

gladness to Arabs (Ilyas, 1989). Here is an example:

Source خبر يثلج الصدر

Transliteration khabarun yuthlij aS-Sadir

Back translation [News] [freezes] [the chest].

Target What great news!

Fig. 1

This relation between cold and happiness in the Arab culture is conceivable. However, coldness and

happiness does not exist in the English-speaking culture, which may result in failure to understand it, or

even to misunderstand it negatively (bad news) when mistranslated. This can be seen in this example: The

scream sent chills through them. Whereas the environmental counterpart in English expressions that entail

positive inferences are usually associated with warmth rather than cold, for example 'They have been given a

warm welcome' and ‘She is a warm-hearted (kind) person.' For this reason, when translating from English

text to Arabic texts, some problematic ecological expressions and idioms will pose challenges to translators.

These expressions are relative to the languages they belong to and do not necessarily have the same value in

different languages. In other words, these problematic expressions are not interchangeable between English

and Arabic; what is acceptable in English could be unacceptable in Arabic and vice versa (Ilyas, 1989).

Subsequently, proverb translations is not going to be an exception to this type of hindrances. Due to the lack

of equivalents or the counterparts between the two languages, ecology-based or culture-exclusive

expressions and concepts may prove to be perplexing. Yet, translating a number of proverbs becomes


8

achievable if the translators take into consideration the fact that they should convey messages and not just

simply words. Look at the following Arabic proverb as an example:

Fig. 2

When it is rendered literally, it becomes "a companion of two professions is a liar ". This rendition presents

inadequate meaning to the English audience. On the other hand, there is a correspondent in English

(functional equivalence), and that is "A Jack-Of-All-Trades is a master of none."

As can be seen from the previous examples, translating culture-exclusive expressions and idioms can raise a

number of controversies. Bahameed (2008) states that the extent to which such problematic idioms and

expressions can be translated between two languages of two different cultures is greatly subject to the

translator: who the translator is, what their background is, and how they decode and re-encode the source

text and target text. He regards the translator as the decisive factor. The next section is going to discuss the

role translators play.

2. The Translator

Translators shoulder a great amount of responsibility to make the translation process either a success or

just a failure. In order to produce a sound translation of a text, the translators should act as the author’s

reflection in the Target Language and culture, representing the author’s feeling, thoughts and ideas when

translating. In other words, they think and feel as if they were the author when translating the texts, viewing

the world in the author’s eyes (Al-Najjar, 1984, cited in Bahameed, 2008).

However, this makes Rose’s argument of identifying with the author controversial by asking the questions,

‘Is it practical? And if so, how to achieve such identity with the author? It appears that Rose's condition for

Source صاحب صنعتين كذاب.

Transliteration SaaHib Sen’atein kaththaab

Back translation [A companion of] [two professions] [is a liar].

Target A Jack-Of-All-Trades is a master of none.


9

achieving such identity with the author of the SL message does not seem to be practical for the reason that

the same SL text can have many different TL renditions even if the same translator processes it (Bahameed,

2008). This entails there are other significant factors that can influence the produced translation’s quality,

such as the background of the translator, the psychological state of the translator…etc. In this regard, Wilss

(1996) substantiated that the success of translators to deal with their translation is dependent on numerous

factors such as their experience, temperament, the pleasantness (or unpleasantness) of the textual content,

the correlation (or non-correlation) of the difficulty degree of the relevant text to be translated and the level

of the translator's competency.

It should be also intuitive to see the translator as a reader. Translators, first, analyse the author’s text in the

Source Language, decode it and then re-encode it in the Target Language. It is widely thought that the

translator’s task might seem simpler than that of the author because the author is the one who provides and

writes new information, whereas the translator simply reiterates what the author has provided or written

(Bahameed, 2008). However, the translator's task is easier said than done, as Shunnaq (1998) states:

“It is axiomatic to say, therefore, that the translator's task is more difficult than the writer's because the

former is confined to the ideas of the latter. Moreover, he is obliged to convey the ideas of the SLT into the

TLT giving utmost care to the linguistic and cultural norms of the TL, as well as its naturalness. In other

words, the translator is expected to produce a TLT, which should be equivalent, creative, and genuine, and

has the SL-cultural flavour.” (Shunnaq, 1998: 33).

This statement upon which this claim is made shows that the task of the translator is more challenging than

what it seems to be, because translation constantly copes with hindrances arising from the conveyance of the

message from the Source Language to the Target Language. Providing complete equivalence when

translating particular Arabic texts into English poses daunting challenges for Arab translators. Such

hindrances influence may extend to the translation of proverbial idioms and expressions. Which means


10

translating with full equivalence seems to be out of reach for this type of text we are dealing with, namely

culture-exclusive expressions). This stems from 1) the constant pressure placed on the translator by their

desire to attain fidelity to both the semantics and syntax of the Source Language texts, and 2) their objective

to provide translations that meet varieties of tastes and cultural anticipations of the Target Language

audience (Bahameed, 2008).

This brings us to ask ‘who is the translator?’ The significance of this question is evident when we consider

the result of the translation process, counting in the variety of factors that can influence it, one of which is of

paramount importance, the translator. If one translator can produce many different versions of a specific

text, it is only natural to think that translators with different cultural backgrounds and languages will not

produce identical versions. For that reason, it is important that translators have to be mindful of and familiar

with the cultural extents of the environment from which the SL text is a part of, and a crucial prerequisite

for the successful rendition of the text (Bahameed, 2008).

3. Emotiveness

Another cultural hindrance is emotiveness. It is associated to the emotional intention of the speaker encoded

in the text. To comprehend a text, it requires more than just understanding words and their representations

of the world. There are further inherent factors, such as thoughts and feelings, in the texts to take into

account. Some varieties of text function as expressive or a stimulant for emotional reactions to a distinct

theme, while other types of text function as denotative only. In other words, some writers use a

neutral/objective language, whereas others use emotive/subjective language (Bahameed, 2008). Shunnaq

(1993) provided an example demonstrating this function in the following lexical item:


11

Source Transliteration Back translation Target Function

.abyaD/ - white adj/ أبيض .1

qamiisun abyaD/ shirt white white shirt denotative/ قميص ابيض .2

thauratun bayDa/ revolution white white revolution connotative/ ثورة بيضاء .3

thauratun bayDa/ revolution white/ ثورة بيضاء .4peaceful, bloodless

revolution emotive

Fig. 3

qamiisun abyaD/ (white/ قميص ابيض abyaD/ (white, adj.) is descriptively or denotatively used as in/ أبيض

shirt) while emotively or connotatively as in ثورة بيضاء /thauratun bayDa/ (white revolution), which

metaphorically or connotatively means (peaceful, bloodless revolution). Consequently, emotiveness is

significantly associated with the notions of denotativeness and connotativeness. In a broad sense, that means

the denotative meaning is tantamount to the dictionary or referential meaning, while the connotative

meaning is tantamount to the emotive or expressive meaning. Subsequently, native speakers of a language

are more appreciative of the emotive meanings of words than the referential or denotative meaning. This is

why the emotive meaning analysis is by no means as easy as that of a referential meaning.

It is argued that an emotive meaning has a responsive function to words, i.e. particular words are wont to

provide emotive meaning to accomplish their function of triggering certain emotive responses by language

speakers (Shunnaq, 1993: 39). What determines this function is for what purpose the text is written or

spoken. Shunnaq concurs with Stevenson’s definition of emotiveness. Stevenson (1963) defines the emotive

meaning of a word or phrase as an intense and constant tendency, accumulated throughout the course of

linguistic history, enabling speakers to directly express their emotions, attitudes, or feelings; and it is also a

tendency aiming to evoke feelings, emotions or attitudes of the addressees whom the speakers’ remarks are

directed to.


12

Occasionally translators are obliged to prioritise the elements of emotion and affection in the Source

Language over the informative elements if the context demands that, as Newmark (1981) suggested. In that

regard, Shunnaq (1993) shares Newmark’s suggestion because an Arab translator who copes with lexical

items of emotive nature into English should be attentive to this emotiveness priority as well as to the

context, the cultural context in particular, which can also extensively assist in the proper rendition and

analysis of the emotive meaning in the Target Language. Shunnaq continues to say that there are abundant

examples of lexical items or expressions in Arabic, which are challenging and incongruous when translating

into English in spite of the translators’ efforts and that translators may fail to convey their emotive and

connotative meanings, while only achieving to convey the denotative meanings.

That is also applicable to proverbial expressions and idioms, in that they are linguistically structured with

embedded and rooted emotions of a specific culture from which they are selected. When translating from

Arabic into English, proverbial expressions should have greater attention not only because of the amount of

wisdom they hold but also because they also splendidly mirror the modest beliefs, humour, and character of

Arabs (Bahameed, 2008). Theodory (1959) demonstrates this point using the following proverb:

Source الماء بطل التيمم ،إذا حضر.

Transliteration itha HaDara al-maa, baTala at-tayyammum.

Back translation [If] [present] [the water] [discontinued] [the use of earth].

Target If water is present for ablution, the use of earth is discontinued

Fig. 4

The rendition of التيمم at-tayyammum as "the use of earth" sounds odd and does not hold much emotiveness

in the English version. At-tayyammum (Arabic: تيمم ) refers to the dry ablution in Islam using sand or dust,

which may be performed in place of ablution “wudu” (Arabic: وضوء ), only if there is not sufficient clean

water or there is not readily available amount of it (Dweik & Suleiman 2013). This lexical item has emotive


13

associations that are derived from and connote the dry conditions of Arabia. The aforementioned example

demonstrates how such linguistic expressions and idioms would evoke the emotions and feelings of the

Arabs (because it is mostly associated with the desert nature of Arabia). However, when translating such

expressions, they will not convey the same feeling to the Target Language audience due to the cultural

differences and the emotiveness level. This is why responses can greatly vary between SL audience and TL

audience, and it justify this proverb for being more emotive to Arabs than its English translation on English-

speakers (Shunnaq, 1993).

Conclusion

After discussing the previous hindrances or difficulties, it is safe to assume that applying one translation

theory, in this case the equivalence theory, to overcome cultural challenges when translating texts in Arabic

to English may not be the wisest decision. The cultural element must be considered in order to achieve

accurate translation with more emotive influence on the TL audience. One text is subject to variable factors

that affect the translation outcome, thus we need to incorporate different strategies to preserve the fidelity

and meaning of the text, syntactically and semantically.


14

References

1. Al-Najjar, M.F. (1984). Translation as a Correlative of Meaning: Cultural and Linguistic

Transfer between Arabic and English. PhD Thesis. Indiana University.

2. Bahameed, A.S., 2008. Cultural Hindrances in Arabic-English Translation. Translation

Journal, 12(1).

3. Bhatia, N., 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language,

4. Bennett, W.A. (1968). Aspects of Language and Language Teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University. Press.

5. Bloch, M. (1991). Language, Anthropology and Cognitive Science. Man. 26(2): pp. 183-

198.

6. Durdureanu, I.I., 2011. TRANSLATION OF CULTURAL TERMS : POSSIBLE OR

IMPOSSIBLE ? The Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education - JoLIE, 2011(1),

pp.51–63.

7. Dweik, B.S. & Suleiman, M., 2013. Problems Encountered in Translating Cultural

Expressions from Arabic into English. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(5).

8. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. International Differences in Work-Related

Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

9. Ilyas, A. (1989). Theories of Translation. Mowsil: University of Mowsil.

10. Ito, M. and Nakakoji, K. (1996). Impact of Culture on User Interface Design. In: M. Elisa and

J. Nielsen, Editors, International User Interfaces, New York: Wiley, pp.105-126.

11. Kroeber, A.L. anid Kluckhohn, C. (1963). Culture: A critical review of concepts and

definitions. New York: Vintage Books, (Originally Published as: Papers of the Peabody

Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume XLVII, Number 1, Harvard

University, USA, 1953).

12. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Machigan Press.

13. Makhlouf, M. (1996). Libyan Proverbial Expressions: A Translation Perspective of Arab

Subculture. Thesis. Irbid: Yarmouk University.

14. Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

15. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

16. Rohner, R.P. (1984). Toward a Conception of Culture for Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Journal of Cross-cultural psychology. 15(2): pp. 111-138.


15

17. Sapir, E. (1949). Culture, Language and Personality. California: University of California.

18. Shunnaq, A. (1993). Lexical Incongruence in Arabic-English Translation due to

Emotiveness in Arabic. Turjuman. 2(2): pp. 37-63.

19. Shannaq, Abdullah, Dollerup, Cay, and Saraireh, Mohammed (eds) (1998). Problems in

Translating Arabic Texts into English. In, Issues in Translation. Irbid: Irbid National

University & Jordanian Translators' Association, pp.33-52.

20. Stevenson, C.L. (1963). Facts and Values. Yale: Yale University Press.

21. Theodory, C. (1959). A Dictionary of Technical Terms. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Press.

22. Van De Vijver, F. and Hutschemaekers, G. (1990). The investigation of culture: Current

issues in cultural psychology. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

23. Wilss, W. (1996). Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour. Amesterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

the difficulties arising when translating from arabic to ... · sing when translating from arabic...

Documents