A Checklist of Linguistic and Cultural Problems in Translation

APPENDIX 2 Problems in translation normally fall into two types: linguistic and cultural. Tis appendi! treats linguistic problems. Linguistic Problems in Translation  "#yntactic and #emantic Problems$

A %ec&ist: ' (e!ical and )orpological Problems '.' le!ical Ambiguity: Polysemy and *omonymy '.2 (e!ical +aps: %ulturally ,ound Terms Terms and (oanwords '.- %ognates '. %ollocations './ #cientific and Tecnical Terms '.0 Affi!es 2. #yntactic Problems 2.' Prase #tructure 2.2 Number and +ender  2.- 1ord rder and Empasis 2. #tructural Ambiguity 2./ Time 3eference - Ponological Problems -.' Transliteration  #emantic Problems .' Denotati4e 4s. %onnotati4e )eaning .2 +eneral 4s. #pecific "Tecnical$ "Tecnical$ )eaning .-. )odality 5ollowing te four le4els of linguistic analysis6 I will classify te linguistic  problems into four types: le!ical6 syntactic6 ponological and semantic semantic problems. 1 Lexical and Morphological Morphological Problems

In general6 7ust as a writer faces te problem of te coice of proper words6 te  problem is doubled for a translator because te latter operates wit two linguistic systems. Problems generated by te le!ical system of a language in translation are numerous. I sall deal wit four suc problems6 wic I tin& are particularly important: le!ical ambiguity "polysemy and omonymy$6 collocations6 scientific and

tecnical terms6 loanwords and culturally bound terms "in te #($6 le!ical gaps "in te T($ and cognates. 1.1 Lexical Ambiguity: Polysemy and Homonymy

(e!ical ambiguity stems from two related penomena: a word tat is  polysemous in te #( or tat is a omonym. omonym. A polysemous word is one tat as more more tan one meaning. 1ords 1ords li&e 8eye86 8and86 8ead8 "parts of te uman body$6 8stand86 8sleep86 8rise8 "postures$ are li&ely to be polysemous in many languages. 6 i.e. tey are almost bound to possess bot literal and figurati4e meanings. ,ut tere may  be no correspondences between languages. In Englis Englis 9and may denote all of te following: part of te arm; power6 possession; influence; a ired labourer; a round of applause; pysical assistance< is ambiguous. A omonym is a word tat is pronounced or spelled te same way as anoter but as a different meaning. 5or e!ample6 in te sentence =As se stood on te tip of te windy cape6 se wrapped er cape more closely around er> te two words 9cape are

omonyms. Te word ban& and conse?uently te sentence =I4e 7ust come from a  ban&> is ambiguous. b4iously6 b4iously6 polysemy and omonymy omonymy "te latter is also &nown as 9sared e!ponence in %atford "'@0/> @$ terms$ constitute a problem for translators. trans lators.  Nida "'@0@: 0-$ diminises te problem of of polysemy claiming tat =te different meanings of a single word are rarely in competition6 for tey not only a4e relati4ely welldefined mar&ers wic elp to differentiate te meanings6 but so often are so di4erse as not to compete wit one anoter for te same semantic domain>. It is true6 tat te conte!t fre?uently elps in a te!t but not always. Tis problem of ambiguity is doubled wen it is deliberate "or6 again to use %atfords6 '@0/: @ terms wen it is 9functionally rele4ant$ in te #T as wen eiter polysemy or omonymy are meant for some retorical purpose "pun6 alliteration6 etc.$ in a literary or poetical wor& and tere is no corresponding e?ui4alent in te T(.

1.2 Lexical Gaps: ulturally !ound Terms and Loan"ords

#ince cultures differ in significant ways6 culturally bound terms may a4e no e?ui4alents in te T(. 1ords 1ords referring to religious practices suc as BC 6FGH BC  FGJK "ablution$6 FLM 6OQR6 to cultural practices suc #aint Salentines Salentines Day 6 Tan&sgi4ing day6 day6 tan&sgi4ing6 etc. may a4e no e!act e !act e?ui4alents in oter

languages. In tis case tey can eiter be translated by te nearest e?ui4alent6 by substituting te term wit a definition or transferred into te T(. In tis latter case6 wic is te only procedure tat preser4es te e!actness and specificity of te original words6 tey become loanwords. ,y subse?uent use tey may become adopted and adapted to te T( ponological and syntactic rules and considered standard. #ometimes loanwords occur in te #( for a specific stylistic effect. A caracter in a no4el6 for e!ample6 may use loanwords for te prestige 4alue tey gi4e im. In tis latter case tey are simply transferred as a wole6 i.e. preser4ed in te TT if tey acie4e te same effect. Sery fre?uently6 owe4er6 a loan word in te #( is better rendered by a loanword from anoter language in te TT. In )orocco6 for e!ample6 it is primarily 5renc terms and sometimes Englis terms wic gi4e te spea&er a  prestige. +erman loanwords are simply not &nown in )orocco. Anoter source of le!ical gaps in a language is te noncongruity of morpological systems of languages and te subse?uent noncongruity of produced words or terms. A feature tat is systematically encoded in language6 let us say te incoati4e "e.g. UVWY6 be Z become Z get cut$ or causati4e in Arabic6 or te infinite meanings associated wit affi!es in Englis may not be encoded in anoter.  Ne4erteless6 wate4er idea is encoded in one language can also be e!pressed in anoter; if not so elegantly at least by a paraprase or e!planation. Terefore le!ical gaps do not raise an insurmountable problem for translators. 1.# ognates

#ometimes6 students translating a te!t easily fall into te trap of a cognate. =A word is cognate wit anoter if bot deri4e from te same word in an ancestral language> "WordWeb Thesaurus$. Now te problem is tat seemingly identical words in two different languages do not necessarily con4ey te same meaning. Tese are called false friends6 or fau! amis in 5renc. ,y way of illustration6 9ner4ous in Englis6 wic means 9an!ious6 afraid is different in meaning from 5renc 9ner4eu!6 wic means 9angry. #imilarly6 Englis 9sympatetic6 wic means 9sowing or feeling sympaty and compassion6 is different from 5renc 9sympati?ue6 wic means 9nice6 agreeable and li&able. 1.$ ollocations

%ollocations migt engender 4arious problems in te process of translation. ,efore discussing tese problems it is first necessary to define and illustrate te notion of collocation. Te latter refers to te li&eliood of "potential or abitual$ co occurrence between words "i.e. teir collocability$. In oter words it =refers to te restrictions on ow words can be used togeter> "[ac& 3icards6 et al.6 '@\/$. #ome words "core words6 e.g. determiners$ readily collocate wit a wide range of words "e.g. the postman6 the letter6 a boy6 etc.$. ters a4e a restricted distribution: tey collocate wit only some words. 5or e!ample6 some prepositions are used wit  particular 4erbs "S ]P$6 some ad7ecti4es wit particular nouns "Ad7. ] N$ and some 4erbs wit particular nouns "S ] $. Tese are analy^ed as idioms6 prasal 4erbs and clic_s. =%ollocations are6 ten6 a type of syntagmatic le!ical relation<. (e!ical items wic are collocated are said to be collocates of eac oter; te potential of items to collocate is &nown as teir collocability or collocational range. %ollocational restrictions are analogous to te notion of selectional restrictions in generati4e grammar> "%rystal6 '@\/$. 5or e!ample6 in Englis6 9to e&e is bound to occur wit 9out as in 9to e&e out ones li4eliood "` to li4e from day to day6 as wit some ardsip6 a prasal 4erb$. 1e also say 9to perform an operation but we say 9to old or to a4e a discussion. Terefore6 9to perform is said 9to collocate "i.e. is used$ wit 9operation and 9old or  a4e wit 9discussion "S]$. Again6 in all li&eliood6 9blond"e$ will occur wit 9air. It is unli&ely tat it will occur wit car or pencil. 9,lond and 9air are said to collocate "Ad7. ] N$. #imilarly6 we say 9arms folded6 9legs crossed6 9ands clasped6

altoug it is basically te same gesture. As to te problems engendered by collocations6 tese are similar to tose engendered by idioms in general. In particular6 te patterns of collocations may be different in te #( and T( and tus cause te translator to run into te pitfalls of misinterpreting or misrendering te source collocations. 5or e!ample6 9to pay a 4isit can be translated into Arabic as  or O CW not  h "wic is te literal translation$6 and into 5renc as 9rendre une 4isite. In Arabic 9CWY jFk or CWY  are acceptable collocations. In Englis6 on te oter and6 te acceptable corresponding collocations are 94iolating or brea&ing te law "not contradicting te law$. Translators are ad4ised to be aware of problems of interference form te #( "especially te moter tongue$ and6 unless tere is a good reason for doing it6 not to

carry o4er from te #( collocational patterns wic are untypical of or unacceptable in te T(. Anoter problem wit collocations as to do wit te nona4ailability of a corresponding natural and accurate "e!act$ collocation or term in te T(6 i.e. a natural T( collocation tat preser4es te original meaning. *ere a possible solution is te coice of a 9typical ")ona ,a&er6

$ e4en toug not necessarily e!act

translational e?ui4alent. )ona ,a&er "cec&

pro4ides te following e!ample.

=cec& Te Englis collocation 9ard drin&s as as its e?ui4alent in Arabic 9alcoolic drin&s. *ard drin& refers to spirits6 namely wis&y6 gin6 and brandy; wereas te Arabic collocation refers to any alcoolic drin& including beer6 lager6 serry6 as well as spirits. Terefore6 te meanings of te two collocations do not map completely>. In fact6 tey do not a4e te same reference. %onse?uently tere is a loss of e!actness. #ometimes a collocation in te #( is better translated by an e!planatory definition or paraprase. Te Englis collocation a ea4y smo&er migt be translated as qGkY M q 6 not witout some loss of meaning. Anoter problem wit te translation of collocations concerns wat )ona ,a&er  "'

: $ calls mar&ed collocations in te #T. #ev "

$ defines tem as =unusual

combinations of words6 ones tat callenge our e!pectations as earers and readers6 in4ol4e deliberate confusion of collocational range to create new images. Tis is often used in fiction. #e "

$ pro4ides te following e!ample =%anada as

cosen to 9entrenc its dual cultural 9eritage in its institutions>. Te mar&ed collocation ere is 9to entrenc eritage6 wic creates an unusual image. Te  problem6 ten6 is to first recogni^e te collocation in te #( as mar&ed or unusual and6 second6 to ideally render it in te T( by a similarly mar&ed collocation. A 5renc translator rendered te pre4ious e!ample as =%anada a coisi 9dencsser x le mot est _las  z la mode son double 9_ritage{ ")ona ,a&er6

: $. In Arabic one

migt a4e said |h}Y ~•YF€ Qk Fk‚ FGHƒO „ }… YQ †kY. Te translator fins imself in a dilemma: te constraints of te T( on te one and and te specificity of te #( collocation on te oter and. 1.% &cienti'ic and Technical Terms

#ome languages belonging to tecnologically underde4eloped countries a4e a sortage of scientific and tecnical terms. Tis 4aries in degree from language to language. Arabic6 for e!ample6 suffers from tis problem6 but to a lesser e!tent

compared wit ,erber and to a larger e!tent compared wit 5renc. Te sortage of scientific and tecnical terms in some languages is due to te differences in te word formation processes in languages. Affi!es6 for e!ample6 play a ma7or role in te  production of terms in te IndoEuropean languages. Not so in Arabic. Tis issue will  be discussed at lengt in terminological problems in ‡nit . #ometimes e4en seemingly ordinary words a4e no e?ui4alents in oter languages. Arabic distinguises between ˆM and ‰k 6 on te one and6 and }M and k 6 on te oter and. 5renc and Englis use a single word "oncle6 in 5renc6 uncle6 in Englis$ to refer to bot ˆM and ‰k and single word "tante6 in 5renc6 aunt6 in Englis$ to refer to bot ˆM and ‰k . Englis distinguises between finger and toe. 5renc and Arabic use a single word to refer to bot. ,erber uses one term to refer to green and  blue. In most cases translation is not affected by suc minor problems unless of course te 4ery words are at te source of some word game or stylistic effect. Te translator as6 ne4erteless6 to be aware of te issue and opt for te most con4enient solution "e.g. by modifying a word in te T( by te use of an ad7ecti4e or a ad7ecti4al prase6 etc.$. If a le!ical item "e.g. days of te wee&6 monts of te year6 numbers6 and te sun6 te moon6 te eart6 etc.$ are pro4ed to a4e e!act e?ui4alents "i.e. isomorpous units$ in all or most &nown languages tey may be considered as le!ical uni4ersals "Newmar&6 :

$.

1.( A''ixes

2. &yntactic or Grammatical Problems

+rammar is a umbrella term tat refers in te opinions of most linguists to synta! "te structure of prases6 clauses and sentences$ and morpology "te structure of words$. #ome of te morpological problems a4e already been dealt wit in te first section. As to te syntactic problems ob4iously =Te syntactic structure of a language Šor te!t‹$ imposes certain restrictions on te way messages may be organi^ed in tat language> "Newmar&6 '

: $ or ")ona ,a&er6 '@@2: $ and ultimately

determine meaning. 2.1 Phrase &tructure

 Not all syntactic problems a4e to do wit word order. #ome errors a4e to do wit wat one considers as te &ey word in te prase. In te Englis prase 9wit

modest means 9means is te &ey word of te prase not 9modest6 wic is an ad7ecti4e. As suc6 te proper translation into Arabic is not UYCO  but ƒYC ŒŽCO. 2.2 )umber and Gender

Te grammatical categories of number and gender may also raise problems in translation since tey are eiter missing in some languages or tey are by no means identical. To start wit te grammatical category of number6 or 9countability6 Arabic6 on te one and6 and 5renc and Englis6 on te oter and6 4iew te notion in different ways. Arabic uses a treesome system distinguising between te singular "one$6 te dual "two$ and te plural "i.e. more tan two$ not only to mar& nouns but also 4erbs. Te differences are le!icali^ed in Arabic. It is possible in Arabic to say F…  Y‘Y  ˆ~}Y "i.e. literally6 came te accused and te witnesses xtwo$.

#ince te Arabic sentence e!plicitly refers to two eyewitnesses it is not difficult to encode te notion in Englis by using a numeral "namely by using te word two$. ,ut it is not always tis easy. In te Arabic 4erse ‰Q  ’GH… “F” q H  "literally6 alt you two6 and let us weep for te memory of a belo4ed and a ome$6 were te imperati4e 4erb is used in te dual6 te translator will be in a dilemma. *e can eiter try and find some de4ice for rendering te notion of te dual or simply ignore it as irrele4ant and unnatural in te T(. Anoter problem arises wen translating from Englis into Arabic. *ere a translator as to le!ically and grammatically encode differences in number wic in te source te!t are only con4eyed by te conte!t.6 ence te importance of conte!t. As to gender6 te engendered problems in translation are more serious. True6 gender studies a4e progressed enormously in te last two decades and a4e gi4en rise to some of te most interesting ideas. #o wat is gender after allv +ender refers =a grammatical distinction according to wic a noun or pronoun is classified as eiter masculine or feminine in some languages> ")ona ,a&er6

: $ wit te furter

agreement of sub7ect "wic is a noun or pronoun$ and 4erb6 or ad7ecti4e and noun6 in terms of tis grammatical category in inflected languages. As wit number6 languages differ since tey may not a4e gender systems at all or may not a4e identical ones. In some languages gender is ?uite arbitrary but in some oters it is usually based on se! or animateness or bot. ,ot 5renc and Arabic classify not only pronouns "as in Englis$ but also nouns into eiter masculine or feminine usually depending on se!. ,ut tey sometimes differ in wat tey consider as feminine or masculine. If a 9car is

feminine in bot6 te 9moon is feminine in 5renc and masculine in Arabic6 te 9sun is masculine in 5renc and feminine in Arabic6<..Englis recogni^es gender only in referring to te tird person singular: e "masculine$6 se "feminine$6 it "inanimate$. Arabic applies gender distinctions to te second and tird singular and plural personal  pronouns. Tus an Englis 9you as fi4e Arabic corresponding pronouns depending on te conte!t: q„ 6ˆ„ 6}„ 6–„ 6–„. Tis illustrates te type of difficulty tat te gender system raises in translating from Englis into Arabic if te conte!t does not elp. . A more serious problem results from a new ideological stance brougt by feminism "a mo4ement aimed at e?ual rigts for women$. Te linguistic facts are tat in most languages wic a4e a gender system6 te masculine form constitutes te dominant or unmar&ed from in te language. Tus YCM„ "9tey declared$6 —Y˜ƒY YC”  "a4e a taste of your punisment$6 ’€ Œ "e4ery writer$ are forms tat include men but do not e!clude women. 5eminists a4e a different opinion. Tey say tis constitutes a se! pre7udice. In particular6 feminists want te e?uality of te se!es to be e!plicitly sown. Tus rater tan saying 9e tey suggest 9sZe or 9imZer "or maybe erZim "$. Tis attitude is =difficult to transfer into Arabic in wic gender distinctions  per4ade te grammatical system> "cec& ,ona ,a&er6 $. In Arabic gender distinctions do not only affect nouns and pronouns but also ad7ecti4es and 4erbs troug te  penomenon of concord or agreement. Terefore any attempt to reproduce tis new stance in Arabic will result in an aw&ward and cumbersome TT. )ona ,a&er " : $ remar&s =wit all te god will in te world6 an Arab writer or translator cannot side wit tis enligtened approac to gender witout sacrificing te readability of te TT>. Tus an Arab translator is caugt in a dilemma: eiter to sacrifice te readability and fluency of is translation or to ignore tis ideological and feminist stance as inappropriate and irrele4ant. In addition to tis6 Englis gender distinctions in inanimate ob7ects "suc as cars6 planes and sips$ and pets "suc as dogs and cats$ raise problems wen translated into Arabic. Te Englis say =te cat is lo4ely6 se "or it$ is <.>. Te first coice con4eys an associati4e and mar&ed meaning6 wic is definitely lost wen translated into Arabic. 2.# *ord +rder and ,mphasis

#ince syntactic structures con4ey meanings6 canges in te structures ultimately lead to canges in meaning. If a #( te!t consists of sort sentences6 te translator is e!pected to translate tem by sort sentences and again if it consists of long sentences te translator is e!pected to render tem by long ones unless sort and long sentences function differently6 i.e. a4e different communicati4e functions6 in te two languages. %ompared wit Englis6 wic is a #S language wit a mar&edly fi!ed word order "meaning tat te word order is essential to te meaning of te sentence$6 Arabic is a S# language wit a relati4ely free word order. ne te most common errors made by students is substituting an unmar&ed structure in te #( by a mar&ed one in te T(6 tus failing to obser4e te differences in te grammatical structures between languages and accidentally canging te focus or e4en te meaning of te message. In order to appreciate tis fact we must ma&e a distinction between wat is gi4en and wat is new in a message. A sentence normally consists of two components: one con4eys information wic is already &nown to te earer "i.e. te teme$ and te oter con4eys new information tat te spea&er wises to con4ey "i.e. te reme$. In a basic sentence structure te sub7ect of a sentence is almost te teme and te predicate te reme. Tere are structures6 owe4er6 were a sub7ect pro4ides te new rater tan te gi4en information. 5ailing to obser4e tis fact results in inaccurate translations. In te e!ample =It is translation tat I li&e most>6 translation is presented as te new piece of information and it is a structures tat is difficult to translate into Arabic. it is not accurate to say in Arabic }RFY ’…„ or }RFY ™ ’…„  Fš„ for te Englis sentence is a cleft one. 5or te lac& of an e!act translation one migt say at least }RFY ™ Fš„ ›H…„  œ 6 wic at least focuses on te fact tat it is translation and not anyting else tat I li&e.. 2.$ &tructural Ambiguity

Ambiguity is of two types: le!ical and grammatical "or structural$. *a4ing discussed le!ical ambiguity in '.'6 it is now con4enient to define grammatical ambiguity. Duff "

: $ defines it as follows =+rammatical ambiguities arise wen te

 point of stress in a clause or wen relationsips between words6 groups or clauses in a longer unit are not clear6 i.e. on does not &now wat goes wit wat>. Te last sentence in te ?uotation abo4e is particularly enligtening. It implies tat structural ambiguity is bound to raise problems for te translator.

Te first problem wit ambiguity is caused by wat %atford "'@0/: @$ calls sared e!ponence6 by wic e means =tose cases were two or more distinct grammatical "or le!ical$ items are e!pounded in one and te same ponological or grapological form>. *is e!ample is =Time flies>.6 wic ta&en as it is out of conte!t can eiter mean: =*ow ?uic&ly time passes> or =)a&e obser4ations on te speed of flies>. Te ambiguity is triggered by te fact tat =s> can eiter mar& te plural or te tird person singular present. #imilarly6 in te famous sentence suggested by %oms&y =5lying palanes can be dangerous>6 tere are two interpretations: eiter 9it can be dangerous to fly planes or 9Planes tat are flying can be dangerous. ne can list endless suc sentences. If pro4ided6 owe4er6 te conte!t will usually sow wat interpretation is meant unless6 of course6 te 4ery ambiguity is deliberate. A second case of ambiguity is caused by reference: te fact tat it is possible for a pronoun to refer e?ually to two sub7ects or ob7ects. Tis problem is aggra4ated by te fact tat Englis is not language tat is ric in case or gender endings. Duff "

:$

 pro4ides te following e!ample =In connection wit any contract  to be financed by te bank 6 it  "te ban&$ does not permit a borrower to<..>. 9It is normally understood as referring to A tird case of ambiguity is related to compounds. Tere is first te problem tat languages differ in te ma!imum lengt of a compound. +erman is6 for instance6 &nown to be capable of long compounds6 but Englis is less so and Arabic6 if one migt tal& about compounds6 e4en less. Tere is te furter problem tat compounds are potentially ambiguous. Te difficulty does not only lie in tat =a body guard guards te body and a mud guard guards against te mud> "Duffv =a li?uid crystal display as tree readings.

%ec&

$6 but also tat

Te first refers to a display of

li?uid crystals6 te second to a li?uid display of crystals and te tird to a display tat is li?uid and crystal. In tis case only &nowledge of te topic ma&es it possible for a reader or translator to decide on one reading from tese tree as te most rele4ant one>. 2.% Time -e'erence

Anoter ma7or difficulty in translation as to do wit te way eac language mar&s or not relations in time and differences of aspect. Time relations =a4e to do wit locating an e4ent in time. Te usual distinction is between past6 present and future> ")ona ,a&er6 '@@2: @\$. Aspectual differences = a4e to do wit te temporal

distribution of an e4ent6 for instance6 its completion or noncompletion6 continuation or momentariness> ")ona ,a&er6 '@@2: @\$. Te fact tat languages ne4er mar& time and aspect in te same say is empasi^ed by Alan Duff "'@\': 0$ wo says =te tree main tense bloc&spast6 present and future is ne4er ?uite te same in any two languages; eac language as its own proper mecanisms for mar&ing duration6 continuity6 possibility> "cec&$. If languages differ in tat respect6 ten6 te translators 7ob is to find te best way to render a specific notion from one language into anoter. #. Phonological Problems

Te most prominent problem as far as te ponological le4el is concerned as to do wit transliteration6 wic concerns primarily proper nouns "see ‡nit \ and '' in Translation I$. $. &emantic Problems

Te semantic le4el constitutes te core of all linguistic le4els since te ultimate aim of te translator "or language6 indeed$ is te e!pression and transfer of meaning. Tis is te le4el were all te pre4ious problems are present: e?ui4alence "synonymy$ of words6 e?ui4alence of e!pressions6 e?ui4alence of collocations and idioms6 le!ical ambiguity6 structural ambiguity6 etc.<.. 5irst6 wat are te inerent problems of a definition of e?ui4alencev Te  penomenon of e?ui4alence in translation is similar to tat of synonymy in one specific language. 5or two words or e!pressions to be synonymous or e?ui4alent tey do not need to a4e te same range of meanings6 unless6 of course6 wat is meant is absolute or complete synonymy or e?ui4alence "see ‡nit $.1 enotati/e and onnotati/e Meaning

#ee %ultural Problems of Translation $.2 General and &peci'ic 0Technical Meanings

$.# Modality

$.

In grammar6 modality refers to a classification of propositions "statements$  based on an assessment of te necessity or probability "possibility or impossibility$ of wat is said. It is to be distinguised from modulation "see ‡nit @$. )odal 4erbs "a grammatical category$ constitute te primary source for e!pressing modality in Englis. Tere are mar&ed differences between 9*e can Z may Z migt Z sould Z must go. ,esides modal 4erbs6 Englis can e!press modality troug non4erbal "le!ical$ categories namely ad4erbs "e.g. certainly6 possibly$ ad7ecti4es "e.g. certain6 possible$ and nouns "e.g. certainty6 possibility$. )odality in Arabic is acie4ed by 4arious le!ical items representing different word classes including a few 4erbs "e.g. ™JHQ 6qž} $6 ad7ecti4es6 ad4erbs "}… 6}O $6 nouns " Ÿ $ and particles "œ 6 $. Apart from te fact tat modal 4erbs in Englis form a distinct grammatical category wit definite syntactic caracteristics6 Arabic and Englis are similar in many respects. #ee *alliday6 '@¡: '\@ Turjuman6 '@@26 'Z'6 pp.

'¡'''/

Linguistic Problems  !arriers in Translation: 3urther -eading

,oo&s  (ado6 3. '@/. (inguistics Across %ultures. Ann Arbor6 Te ‡ni4ersity of )icigan Press6 pp. @/¡ "ow to compare two sound systems$6 pp/' "ow to compare two 4ocabulary systems$6 pp. @-'¡@ "ow to compare two writing systems$  )ounin6 '@0-6 (es Probl¢mes T_ori?ues de la Traduction. %. '6 2 and -6 '/ "linguistic barriers$  %atford6 [. %.6 '@0/. A (inguistic Teory of Translation. %. '- "language 4arieties in translation$  Duff6 '@\'6 Te Tird (anguage. %. -.26 -.-6 -.6 -./  )oua&&et6 Amed6 '@\\. (inguistics and Translation: #emantic Problems in Arabic Englis Translation. Damascus: Dar Tlass for #tudies6 Translation and Publication6 pp. /\00 "semantic deri4ation and le!ical gaps$6 pp. 0¡ "dictionary meaning 4s. conte!tual meaning$6 pp. '\ "polysemy$6 pp.\\- "synonymy and le!ical translatability$6 pp. \-'¡' "antonymy$6 pp. '@@2'¡ "connotation$6  *atim 6 ,asil6 and Ian )ason6 '@@¡. Discourse and te translator. (ongman6 pp. 2/ 20 "contrasts between language systems$6 -\/- "registers6 dialects6 field of discourse6 mode of discourse6 tenor of discourse$  £owell6 £. A^i^ and )ufta #. (ataiwis6 '@@@2¡¡¡. Principles of Translation. Dar Annada Alarabiya6 n.p.6 pp. '¡ "translation and meaning; reference6 denotation6 connotation<$6 pp. @0'¡/ "gain and loss$  ¤aid6 Abdelamid6 2¡¡. A )odel for )etapor Translation. Al 1ataniya6 )arra&ec)orocco6 pp. 2- "denotati4e and connotati4e meaning$ Articles

 ¤iad ¥ebbe6 ). and Ataf £oussef6 '@@'. =(inguistic Problems in Translation Teory>. (inguistica %ommunicatio6 Sol. -6 No. '6 pp.  (e 5eal6 ¥. De7ean6 '@@2. =(inguisti?ue et Traduction. Tur7uman6 Sol. '6 No. '6 pp.  Ali6 #ala #alim6 '@@. =Temporality and Temporal Dimension in Translation wit 3eference to ,atesons Translation of PreIslamic des>. Al(issan AlArabi6 No. 6  pp. \'\  )uammad 3a7i ¤ugloul and *ussein #alama Abdul 5atta6 '@@@. =Temporal E!pession in Englis and Arabic: A %ase #tudy in %ontrasti4e le!ical #emantics>. (anguages and (inguistics6 International Periodical of linguistics edited by )oa Enna7i6 No. 6 pp. -@1eb pages "(anguage Ambiguity: a %urse and a ,lessing: ttp:ZZaccurapid.comZ$ "1y cant a %omputer Translate )ore li&e a Person: ttp:ZZwww.ttt.orgZ $

APPENDIX ultural Problems in Translation

A %ec&list: 2. '. Denotation and %onnotation or Types of )eaning "Teories of )eaning$ 2. 2. )etapors 2. -. Idioms 2. . Politeness 5ormulas and 5orms of Address 2. /. Te +ender of Inanimate Nouns Irony #ituation6 3ele4ance and te %ooperati4e Principle +rices %on4ersational )a!ims Taboos Power and #ocial Distance Problems related to cultural differences constitute te second type of problem tat a translator faces in te course of translation. Tese cultural differences include =many e!tralinguistic features6 suc as religion6 social bac&grounds6 unfamiliar natural penomena6 and oters> ")oua&&et6 '@\\: '\¡$. 1e a4e already discussed te relationsip between culture and language in ‡nit '- =(anguage6 %ulture and Translation>. 1e a4e also discussed some of te cultural problems in ‡nit \ =Translation6 Translatability and ‡ntranslatability$ and in ‡nit @ =Adaptation or

%ultural E?ui4alence> in te 5irst %ourseboo& in Translation. %ultural problems is an umbrella term tat includes 4arious problems in te process of translation suc as  problems arising from mi!ing between te denotati4e and connotati4e meanings of words6 forms of address6 and te problems associated wit idioms and metapors. Te following ?uotation from #andor *er4ey and Ian *iggins"

: $ stresses 7ust ow

serious cultural problems are in translation: =It is useful to discuss general cultural differences as suc6 because tey are sometimes bigger obstacles to successful translation tan linguistic ones>. 2.1 enotation and onnotation

Te first problem to be discussed in tis respect is te one associated wit denotation and connotation. As is well &nown6 tere are two main types of meaning: denotation and connotation. Denotation refers to te literal6 te referential6 ob7ecti4e6 cogniti4e or scientific meaning of a word. In Newmar&s "'@\': ''@$ terms =Denotation is te direct specific meaning of a word6 optionally sown ostensibly "i.e. in poto and diagram or by printing$ and described as far as possible in summary obser4able terms> "cec&$. Te denotati4e meaning is normally te dictionary definition or first definition of a word in a dictionary. In ,ells "'@@': @\$ terms it is=<. te sared property of te speec community wic uses te language of wic te word or sentence forms a part>. %onnotation6 on te oter and6 refers to te metaporical6 emoti4e6 poetic or associati4e meaning of a word. Newmar& "'@\': ''@$ defines it as ="cec&$ tat aspect of meaning of a particular word or wordgroup wic is based on te feelings and moral ideas it rouses in te transmitter or receptor6 in brief6 te meaning con4eyed or suggested apart from te ting it e!plicitly names or describes>. As a matter of fact6 connotati4e meanings stem from our e!perience6 education6 religion6 culture6 and traditions. 1ereas some words a4e only denotati4e meanings "i.e. neutral meanings$ in a gi4en language or for "certain$ people in a gi4en society6 oters a4e  bot denotati4e and connotati4e meanings again depending on te same 4ariables. Te  problem for translation is tat connotations in a specific language and culture may not  be understood or may be strange to people of oter cultures. To furter understand connotations and te problems tey cause to te translator  I sall distinguis between si! types of connotati4e meaning following #andor *er4ey and Ian *iggins "

: $6 wic are te following: allusi4e meaning6 attitudinal

meaning6 associati4e meaning6 collocati4e meaning6 reflected meaning6 and affecti4e meaning. Te first type of connotati4e meaning is allusi/e meaning. Tis latter occurs wen<<
.

Anoter type of connotati4e meaning is attitudinal meaning. Nida "'@0@: @'$ ascertain tat =we do not only understand te reference of words6 but we also react to tem emotionally6 sometimes negati4ely>..<<<..tis is tat part of meaning<<<< In te following utterances: 1o is tat  girl v Z wo is tat lassv 1o is tat wenchv Girl 6 lass and wench may be said to refer to a young uman female6 i.e. te same referent. ,ut wereas =girl> as a neutral meaning "no associations6 no e!pressed "fa4orable or unfa4orable$ attitudes about te referent$6 =lass> as a positi4e poetical meaning and =wenc> as negati4e and unpleasant associations. Terefore te translator sould be aware of <<.. #ometimes an attitudinal meaning in4ol4es te deliberate misinterpretation or manipulation of te meaning of a concept in order to sa4e interests and maintain  power as done by interest groups in te mass media or in "pseudo$intellectual discussions. Tis can be also referred to as te ideological meaning of words. ,y way of e!emplification6 te terms 9martyr"dom$ and 9suicide bomber refer in fact to te same act6 wic is causing te deat of oneself and enemies. ,ut from te point of 4iew of te committed6 tis is totally legitimate and te only way to acie4e 7ustice in te ligt of te ine?uality of powers. 5rom te point of 4iew of te oter side6 tis is outrageous and is in no way 7ustifiable. Te facts6 owe4er6 are tat te same act is gi4en two labels or two names. #trictly spea&ing martyrdom and its closest Arabic e?ui4alent h~Ÿ do not refer to te same concept. )artyrdom6 in Englis is willingly accepting deat rater tan renouncing ones religion. h~Ÿ in Arabic is offering ones life in te ser4ice of +od; it is a form of defying deat and in7ustice "life in te ereafter$. ne can list innumerable binary oppositions "martyrdom  suicide  bombing6 terrorism  self defence or struggle for independence6 freedom of speec x racism or non respect for religious and cultural practices or interference$6 based on te model good 4s. e4il. Te labels are two sides of te same coin. In tis respect6 disseminating a term is also disseminating an ideology6 an attitude and a case. Te tird type is associati/e meaning. Tis latter refers to tat part <<<<<.A good e!ample of a common noun wit associati4e meaning is te term

qGM ayn in Arabic. Tis term fre?uently refers to te organ of sigt6 i.e. an eye. Te

Arabic term6 owe4er6 refers also to a way of loo&ing at a person wic may cause im arm "disease6 failure6 fall6 etc$. 1ate4er opinion we may a4e of tis meaning as a superstitious belief or as a fact6 te point is tat an Englis spea&er is unli&ely to understand tis associati4e meaning and te translator as to find ways of bringing te association. #imilarly words suc as pig6 dog and don&ey a4e unpleasant negati4e associations "connotations$ in te Arab culture besides teir denotati4e meanings6 associations wic are not te same in oter cultures. A

symboli^es wisdom in te

European culture but it is associated wit bad luc& and is considered a bad omen in te )oroccan culture. Te four type of connotati4e meaning is collocati/e meaning6 wic is ac?uired  by a word or e!pression by 4irtue of its association or rater its collocation wit anoter word. ..<<..Te problem wit tis type of meaning arises from introducing unwanted collocati4e clases in te TT. To illustrate tis6 #andor *er4ey and Ian *iggins "<<<.$ pro4ide te following e!ample: =Elle nourrissait un serpent dans son sein>6 literally rendered as =#e arboured a sna&e in er breast>. Te latter translation introduces strange and unwanted collocati4e clases in te TT6 wic are a4oided if te translation is =#e arboured a 4iper in er bosom>. -e'lected meaning is te fift type of connotati4e meaning. It is te meaning

gi4en to an e!pression <<<<<<..An e!ample from #andor *er4ey and Ian *iggins "

: $ is te following.<<<<. [ust as it is necessary to try and

 preser4e a reflected meaning wic is present in te #(6 it is necessary to a4oid te creation of an inappropriate reflected meaning in te TT. Te last type of meaning is te a''ecti/e  one. It refers to <<.."#andor *er4ey and Ian *iggins6 : $. Te problem wit tis type of meaning as was te case wit most of ten pre4ious types is introducing unwanted affecti4e meanings into te TT. #andor *er4ey and Ian *iggins "

: $ classification of meaning into se4en

types is similar to tat made by (eec "'@6 '@\': @2-$6 a semanticist6 wo also recogni^es se4en types of meaning: conceptual meaning6 connotati4e meaning6 social meaning6 affecti4e meaning6 reflected meaning6 collocati4e meaning and tematic meaning. Note owe4er tat te two ta!onomies o4erlap but are not te same. Tis is ow tey map into an o4erall picture.

#andor *er4ey and Ian *iggins Denotati4e meaning6

(eec Denotati4e6 conceptual meaning6

Allusi4e meaning =e4o&es a saying or ?uotation..> Attitudinal meaning =some widespread attitude to te referent<> Associati4e meaning =e!pectations tat are rigtly or wrongly associated wit te referent> %ollocati4e meaning6

%ollocati4e meaning6 =1at is communicated troug association wit words wic tend to occur in te

3eflected meaning6

en4ironment of anoter word> 3eflected meaning6 =1at is communicated troug association wit anoter sense of te same

Affecti4e meaning6

e!pression> Affecti4e meaning6 =1at is communicated of te feelings and attitudes of te spea&erZwriter> %onnotati4e meaning #ocial meaning Tematic meaning

It seems to me, that both taxonomies fail to take into account an ideological meaning I referred to above. This meaning, as I said above, involves the deliberate misinterpretation and manipulation of terms and concepts to achieve specific ends. 2.2. Metaphors

Te second problem wic is associated wit culture relates to metapors. *ere are some dictionary definitions of a metapor. A metaphor is

8a figure of speec in wic an e!pression is used to refer to someting tat it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity8 " WordWeb Thesaurus) =a way of describing someting by comparing it to someting else tat as similar ?ualities6 witout using te words li&e or as > " Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)

=A figure of speec in wic a word or prase tat ordinarily designates one ting is used to designate anoter6 tus ma&ing an implicit comparison8 " The  merican !eritage Dictionary of English$. =a. te application of a name or descripti4e term or prase to an ob7ect or action to wic it is imaginati4ely but not literally applicable. b an instance of tis> " Concise "#ford Dictionary$. =A figure of speec in wic a name or descripti4e word or prase is transferred to an ob7ect or action different from6 but analogous to6 tat to wic it is literally applicable; an instance of tis6 a metaporical e!pression> "$horter "#ford English  Dictionary$. 5rom a translation point of 4iew6 metapors migt be defined as =imaginati4e tougt processes<<<<.> "Peter Newmar&6

:

$

5rom te pre4ious definitions we &now tat a metapor as te following caracteristics:  it is an e!pression6 a word6 or prase wic is used as a way of description6  it is a figure of speec6 i.e. it in4ol4es metaporical6 figurati4e "not literal$ meaning6  it is an implicit comparison6 and suggests description by focussing on similarity.  "culture bound (i&e a simile6 a metapor is comparison but it is not direct6 only implied. Te autor does not say one ting is li&e anoter6 e says it is anoter. As to te possible problems raised by metapors in te course of translation6 tese are prominent for te reasons tat metapors are deeply rooted in a culture and tey in4ol4e creati4e or nonliteral use of language. ,ut before e!emplifying and discussing tese problems it is necessary to recogni^e different types of metapor. Peter Newmar& "

: $ distinguises between si! types of metapors. In tis

discussion6 owe4er6 I sall limit myself to only two types: stoc& metapors and original metapors. A stoc& metapor is = "cec&$ an establised metapor wic in an informal conte!t is an efficient and concise metod of co4ering a pysical andZor a neutral situation bot referentially and pragmatically> "Peter Newmar&6

: $. ="cec&$

#toc& metapors are te re4erse of plain spea&ing about any contro4ersial sub7ect or wate4er is taboo in a particular culture. Tey cluster around deat6 se!6 e!cretion6 war and unemployment; tey are te ardiest means of disguising te trut or pysical facts. Terefore6 stoc& metapors are more culture bound> "Peter Newmar&6

: $.

Te problem caused by wit tis type of metapor in translation is tat te translator is tempted to reproduce a T( metapor wic is totally unnatural. 5or e!ample6 it would be absurd to translate

as

. Tis is wy6 according to Peter Newmar& "

: $ te reproduction of stoc& metapors sould be confined to one word metapors as tey rarely cause suc a problem6. An e!ample is 8a sea of troubles86 wic can be translated as Œ‘}Y q ˆ „ F¦O. ,ecause original metapors are particularly fre?uent in literary te!ts6 tey are especially rele4ant to students of te arts. An original metapor6 as Peter Newmar& "<<:

$ says6 is = one tat is created or ?uoted by te #( writer in autoritati4e and

e!pressi4e te!ts. It contains an important writers message6 is personality6 is comment on life and may a4e a more or less cultural element>. *e adds =tere is no ?uestion te more original and surprising it is "and terefore te more remote from te national culture$6 te easier it will be to translate6 since in its essence it will be remote from common semantic as well as culture associations>. As is clear from tese two ?uotations6 te cultural element is less important in tis type of metapor6 and conse?uently tey do not raise insurmountable problems for te translator. #till an original metapor fre?uently in4ol4e a word play or pun on a polysemous word in te #(. In te absence of a corresponding T( word6 te translator as to coose between reproducing bot senses or coosing one and losing te word play. 5or e!ample6 in =a glaring error>6 9glaring means 9sining intensely and 9outrageously bad6 a possible translation into Arabic is ¦§ BVk„. Sery fre?uently6 it is safer to attempt a literal translation. 9To put ones cards on te table6 is safely translated into Arabic as ¨‘ž  ›Y„ qM . 2. # 4dioms

Idioms constitute anoter source of cultural problems for translators. *ere are si! selected dictionary definitions of an idiom. =a group of words establised by usage and a4ing a meaning not deducible from tose of te indi4idual words> " Concise "#ford Dictionary$

=a group of words wit a meaning of its own tat is different from te meanings of eac separate word put togeter> " Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) =A speec form or an e!pression of a gi4en language tat is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from te indi4idual meanings of its elements> "The merican !eritage Dictionary)% =a form of e!pression6 grammatical construction6 prase6 etc. peculiar to a  person or language; a prase6 etc. wic is understood by spea&ers of a particular language despite its meanings not being predictable from tat of te separate words> "The $horter "#ford English Dictionary $. =a group of words wose meaning cannot be predicted from te meanings of te constituent words> "Collins$ 8an e!pression wose meanings cannot be inferred from te meanings of te words tat ma&e it up8 " WordWeb Thesaurus $. 5rom a translators point of 4iew6 Peter Newmar& "'@\\v:

$ defines it as

="cec&$ a group of words wose meaning cannot be predicted from te meanings of teir constituent words>. #imilarly6 )ona ,a&er "

: $ states ="cec&$ Idioms are

fro^en patterns of language wic allow little or no 4ariation in form6 often carry meanings wic cannot be deduced from teir indi4idual constituents>. Duff6 interestingly6 " :

$ specifies tat =Idioms are cultural products carrying #( cultural

colouring>. Tis empasis on te culture specificity of idioms is wat 7ustifies teir inclusion witin te cultural problems of translation. As we can see from te pre4ious definitions6 an idiom as te following caracteristics:  consists of more tan one word6 and is usually an e!pression or prasal 4erb6  te meaning of te idiom is not deducible from te meanings of te indi4idual words6  idioms raise more problems for nonnati4e spea&ers. Terefore6 An idiom is an e!pression "prase or clause$ wose meaning cannot  be deri4ed from te sum of te meanings of its parts. In oter words6 te meaning of an idiom cannot be inferred from te meanings of te words tat ma&e it up. #ometing te pre4ious definitions do not tal& about is te relationsip between idioms and metapors6 wic are discussed in te pre4ious section. An idiom may in4ol4e a metapor as in 9its raining cats and dogs or 9see te ligt6 but may also in4ol4e prasal 4erbs as in 9loo& into "in4estigate scientifically$ and oter fi!ed e!pressions as in 9nice and cold "` nice because cold$6 As to te problems triggered by idioms6 I sall focus on two suc problems. Te first one is tat some idioms a4e a double meaning: a literal and a figurati4e one.

)ona ,a&er " : $ pro4ides te following e!ample: =to ta&e someone for a ride> may  be interpreted eiter as offering someone a ride or decei4ing im. Te point is tat te translator may miss te figurati4e meaning of an idiom and conse?uently miss te real message. Te second problem is tat some idioms may a4e seemingly identical ones in te T(6 but te similarity may be only on te le4el of form wereas teir respecti4e meanings may be different.

"

:

$ pro4ides te following e!ample. =To pull

someones leg>6 wic means in Englis 9to &id6 to tell somebody false information for fun is said to be identical on te surface le4el wit an Arabic idiom6 namely 9yisab ri7lu "to pull is leg$6 wic is found in some dialects of Arabic. Te point is tat te latter idiom means someting different6 in particular it means 9is to tric& somebody into tal&ing about someting e would rater a4e &ept secret "

6

:

$. Alternati4ely6 idioms in different languages6 wic a4e different forms may a4e te same meaning. 5or e!ample6

.

All in all cultural problems fall into tree categories "£owell £. A^ia and ). #. (ataiwis "'@@@2¡¡¡: ''$: geograpical6 religious and social. As an e!ample of geograpical differences between te #ource and te Target %ultures we a4e already discussed te possible problems tat #a&espeares sonnet in wic e says =#all I compare tee to a #ummers day> migt raise to te student of translation in ‡nit \. Te e!ample abo4e is also representati4e of te problems of te translation of metapors. 1e a4e also touced upon te role played by religion in saping culture and attitudes in our distinction between denotati4e and connotati4e meanings. As to social aspects of culture it is enoug to point out te differences of customs6 beliefs and abits in te two cultures6 of wic marriages6 funerals and festi4als are manifestations. In te Arab culture6 for instance6 people usually li4e in a large family wit teir parents6 wic by itself may be an unusual notion to a westerner. #imilarly6 an owl is a sign of wisdom in te European culture but it is a bad omen in te Arab culture. ter aspects of culture may relate to articles of dress6 food6 taste and dwelling. Tus te translator is not only re?uired to master te two languages but also to be fully aware of te differences between te two cultures beind te languages and ma&e te appropriate coices or pro4ide e!planations for te benefit of te T( reader. ultural Problems  !arriers in Translation: 3urther -eading

,oo&s

 (ado6 3.6 '@/. (inguistics across %ultures6 pp. ''¡'22 "*ow to %ompare two %ultures$  )ounin6 '@0-. '@0-6 (es Probl¢mes T_ori?ues de la Traduction. %. 6 /6 '2 "language and culture$  %atford6 [. %.6 '@0/. A (inguistic Teory of Translation. %. '  #teiner6 +eorge6 '@/. After ,abel: Aspects of (anguage and %ulture. (ondon: !ford ‡ni4ersity Press "% 0. typologies of %ulture$  ,assnett)c+uire6 #usan '@\¡. Translation #tudies. pp. '-' "language and culture$6 pp. -¡-' "loss and gain$  Duff6 '@\'6 Te Tird (anguage. %. '.0 "cultural differences and translation$  Newmar&6 '@\'. Approaces to Translation %. 2 6 pp. 2¡2 "cultural e?ui4alence$6 %. - and / "communicati4e and semantic translation$  *atim6 ,asil and Ian )ason6 '@@¡. Discourse and te Translator. (ongman6 %. 26 esp. pp. -2-- "sociocultural conte!t$6 p. '0@ "semiotic6 communicati4e and  pragmatic dimension of conte!t$  Altwai7ri6 Abdula^i^ tman6 '@@\. Te Arab %ulture and ter %ultures6 pp. @ "Introduction about culture$  £owell6 £. A^i^ and )ufta #. (ataiwis6 '@@@Z 2¡¡¡. Principles of Translation. Dar Annada Alarabiya6 n.p.6 pp. '¡0'¡@ "language 6 culture and translation$6 pp. '¡@''' "relati4ity and culture$6 pp. ''''22 "cultural problems of EnglisxArabic translation: geograpical culture6 religious culture6 social culture6 material lo4e6 linguistic culture$ Encyclopedias Articles Tomas6 [enny6 . =%ross%ultural Pragmatic 5ailure>. (inguisticsv6 Sol. '6 No 26  pp. @'''2 "politeness6 taboos6 $ 1eb pages "%ultural Implications for translation: ttp:ZZaccurapid.comZ$ "%ultural Elements in Translation: te Indian Perspecti4e: ttp:ZZwww.translationdirectory.comZ #ee also (inguistic and %ultural Problems in Translation file #ee also TranslationanIntroductionand,ibliograpy file