[PDF] The Translation of Arabic Conjunctions into English and the

View - Download The Translation of Arabic Conjunctions into English and the

Previous PDF

Next PDF

PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

MENTOURI UNIVERSITY- CONSTANTINE

FACULTY OF LETTERS AND LANGUAGES

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Master Degree in

Applied Language Studies

Submitted by: Supervised by:

Mr Boudjemaà DENDENNE Dr. Youcef BEGHOUL

Examined by:Dr. Salah Kaouach

2009-2010 The Translation of Arabic Conjunctions into English and the

Contribution of the Punctuation Marks in the Target Language The Case of Wa, Fa and Thumma in Modern Standard Arabic i

Abd Alkader

ii My first and foremost thanks go to my supervisor, Dr. Youcef BEGHOUL, for his patience, guidance and very valuable feedbacks. I am grateful to Dr. Nacif Labed, for providing me with many sources that have made this work much easier. I am also grateful to Dr. Kaouach who has very kindly allowed me access to his classes to administer the translation tasks. My special thanks go to Mrs. Sabeh Gheraibia and Miss Chahrazed Benyounes, from the Department of Arabic, who have assissted me in revising the Arabic data used in this study. My thanks extend to the Master students who took part in the translation task for their co-operation and seriousness in taking the task. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my friends and classmates A. Ahmad Yahia, A. Amzel, A. Yassia, M. Loubi and I.Toumi. I have had the privilege to enjoy their company during the last five years. Finally, no words can appropriately express my deepest gratitude to my family, especially my parents, who prayed for me days and nights.Without their support and invocations, this humble work would have never been completed. I will not forget, of course, my brothers and sisters who have provided me with the most suitable atmosphere to accomplish this work. iii This study investigates learners' awareness of translation equivalence at textual level by exploring one of its aspects that is conjunction. It focuses on the learners' awareness of the function-multiplicity of three of the basic Arabic conjunctions: wa, fa and thumma. After identifying the most frequent functions of each, a translation task has been designed to see how these connectors would be translated into English and the extent to which these learners can master the tools that the target language (TL) offers i.e. conjunctions and punctuation marks. That analysis of the learners' performance reveals that they lack awareness of the multiple meanings the Arabic connectors have in different co-texts and misuse punctuation marks that contribute in building the text in the TL. In this respect, it is recommended that teachers of translation and those of writing and discourse analysis as well as syllabus designers should pay much attention to such issues. iv The following tables include the phonetic symbols that wil be used in this study. They are adapted from Al-Qahtani (2005: 10-13) to make them readable even to non-specialists.

Arabic Alphabet Symbols Arabic Alphabet Symbols

˯ ? ν 0d

Ε t υ D0

Ι T ω C

Ν Z ύ ^g

Ρ 0h ϑ f

Υ X ϕ q

Ω d ϙ k

Ϋ D ϝ l

έ r ϡ m

ί z ϥ n

α s ϩ h

ε S ϭ w

ι 0s ϱ j

v vowels symbols short ˴ a/@ ' u long ΍ a: ϭ u:

ϱ i:

Front Central Back

High Short i u Long i: u: Low

Short a

Long a:

vi

Stops VL

t 0t* k q ? b d 0d* f T s 0s* S X 0h h

D 0D* z ^g C

Z m n l r w j

: Voiced : Voiceless : Emphatic " ˷ " : double sound.

ϝ΍ ?al/@l

vii Table 1: Arabic Connectives Vs a Set of English Ones 6 Table 2: Distribution of Fuctions of Arabic Connectives within Halliday & Hassan's

Framework 26

Table 3: Correspondence between Punctuation Patterns and the Functions of Arabic

Connectives 33

Table 4: Functions of Arabic Connectors and Number of Tokens 36

Table 5: Use of and as a Translation for Arabic Wa 38

Table 6: Translation of Resumptive Wa 39

Table 7: Translation of Additive Wa 40

Table 8: Translation of Commentative Wa 40

Table 9: Typical Conjunctions in Translating Adversative Wa 41

Table 10: Translation of Adversative Wa 42

Table 11: Typical Conjunctions in Translating simultaneitive Wa 43

Table 12: Translation of Simultaneitive Wa 44

Table 13: Translation of Resultive Fa 45

Table 14: Translation of Sequential Fa 46

Table 15: Translation of Explanatory Fa 48

Table 16: Use of Typical Conjunctions in Translating Explanatory Fa 48

Table 17: Translation of Causal Fa 49

Table 18: Translation of the Adversative Fa 50

Table 19: Translations of Thumma. 50

Table 20: Translation of Thumma. 51

Table 21: Evaluation of the Use Punctuation Marks 52 Table 22: Wa, Fa and Thumma in Terms of Difficulty. 53 viii Figure 1: Contribution of Punctuation Marks in Semantic Relations 32 Figure 2: Use of and as a Translation for Arabic Wa 38 Figure 3: Typical Conjunctions in Translating the Adversative Wa 42 Figure 4: Typical Conjunctions in Translating the Simultaneitive Wa. 43

Figure 5: Rank of Difficulty of Wa Functions. 44

Figure 6: Use of so in Translating Sequential Fa. 47 Figure 7: Typical Conjunctions in Translating Explanatory Fa. 49

Figure 8: Rank of Difficulty of Fa Functions. 51

Figure 9: Translations of Thumma. 52

Figure 10: Evaluation of the Use of Punctuation Marks. 53 Figure 11: Frequency of the Occurance of Punctuation Marks 54 Figure 12: Wa, Fa and Thumma in Terms of Difficulty 54 Figure 13: Arabic Connectors and their Functions in Terms of Difficulty 56 ix

MSA: Modern Standard Arabic.

SL: Source Language.

ST: Source Text.

TL: Target Language.

TT: Target Text.

Vs: Versus

x

Introduction 4

I.1 Arabic and English Conjunctions from a Contrastive Perspective 5 I.1.1 Arabic and English Conjunctions within Blum-kulka's Framework 6

I.1.1.1 The Framework 7

I.1.1.2 The Application of Blum-Kulka's Framework 8

I.1.2 Puctuation in Arabic and English 11

I.2 Cohesion in Arabic and English 12

I.2.1. Cohesion in Arabic 13

I.2.1.1 Tools for Achieving Cohesion in Arabic 13

I.2.1.2 Conjuctions in Arabic 15

I.2.1.3 Fuctions of Wa 15

I.2.1.3.1 Resumptive Function 15

I.2.1.3.2 Additive Function 16

I.2.1.3.3 Commentative Function 16

I.2.1.3.4 Adversative Function 16

I.2.1.3.5 Simultaneitive Function 16

I.2.1.4 Functions of Fa 17

I.2.1.4.1 Resultive Function 17

I.2.1.4.2 Sequential Function 17

I.2.1.4.3 Explanatory Function 17

I.2.1.4.4 Causal Function 18

I.2.1.4.5 Adversative Function 18

xi

I.2.1.5 The Function of Thumma 19

I.2.2 Cohesion in English 19

I.2.2.1 Tools for Achieving Cohesion in English 20

I.2.2.2 Conjuctions in English 21

I.2.2.3 Categorazation of English Conjunctions 22

I.2.2.3.1 Additive Function 22

I.2.2.3.2 Adversative Function 23

I.2.2.3.3 Causal Function 24

I.2.2.3.4 Temporal Function 25

I.2.2.4 Punctuation as a Cohesive Device in English 27

I.2.2.4.1 The Comma 28

I.2.2.4.2 The Semicolon 30

I.2.2.4.4 The Colon and the Dash 31

Introduction 35

II.1Description of the Subjects and the Research Tools 35

II.1.1 The subjects 35

II.1.2 The Research Tools 35

II.2 The Analysis of the Test 37

II.2.1 Functions of Wa 37

II.2.1.1 Resumptive Function 38

II.2.1.2 Additive Function 39

II.2.1.3 Commentative Function 40

II.2.1.4 Adversative Function 41

II.2.1.5 Simultaneitive Function 43

II.2.2 Functions of Fa 45

xii

II.2.2.1 Resultive Function 45

II.2.2.2 Sequential Function 46

II.2.2.3 Explanatory Function 47

II.2.2.4 Causal Function 49

II.2.2.5 Adversative Function 50

II.2.3 Function of Thumma 51

II.2.4 The Use of Punctuation Marks 53

II.3 Summary of the Findings 55

General Introduction

1 Translation is not just a mere replacement of the items of the Source Text (ST) with their equivalents in the Target Text (TL), but it is rather awareness of levels above the word level. The textual level is one of those levels that are concerned with thematic and information structure and cohesion. Our problem here is stated within the scope of the latter i.e. to what extent learners can produce an ST that is as cohesive as a TT. Each language offers certain tools that may differ or overlap to achieve that. Conjunctions 1 are one of those tools. Arabic and English differ in using these cohesive markers: Arabic overuses a small set of conjunctions (basically wa, fa and thumma) each of which, usually, has multiple meanings/functions to signal the semantic relation between information chunks. Whereas, English uses a wide set of conjunctions to indicate the semantic relation that can be expressed by more than one conjunction, aided by a high developed punctuation system, in addition to other tools. For the sake of translation, we are going just to consider the semantic properties of those connectors i.e. as a tool for textual linkage. This is in order to see what functions each of the selected Arabic connector (selected on the basis of frequency in Arabic discourse) might have. Wa can be resumptive, additive, commentative, adversative and simultaneitive. Fa can be resultive, sequential (immediacy), explanatory, causal and adversative. Thumma is mainly sequential (non-immediacy). 1 The terms conjunction/s, connector/s and conjunctive/s will be used interchangeably through this study.

2 Hence, translating Arabic connectors into English is not an easy task for learners of

translation, at least in theory, i.e. before empirical validation is sought. The difficulty, we assume, would be at the level of both the Source Language (SL) and Target Language (TL). At the level of the former, learners should be aware of the multiple functions the selected Arabic connectors have and should be able to realize what the exact semantic relation the connector signals is. At the level of the latter, learners should be able to choose the accurate conjunction or the punctuation mark (or both) that capture the semantic relations the Arabic connector serves. The study aims at shedding light on the issue of equivalence at the textual level i.e. to what extent learners of translation at the department of English (University of Constantine) are able to realize the ST as a unified whole and able to handle the tools of the ST to render it into a unified text as such. Some pedagogical implications will be inferred not only concerning translation teaching, but also writing and discourse analysis. We hypothesise that if learners of translation were not aware of the fact that Arabic conjunctions have multiple functions/meanings, and their equivalences in the counterpart system of English are not always conjunctions as such, they would fail to translate those functions appropriately and, thus, distort the intended meaning of the ST. Are translation learners aware of the function-multiplicity that Arabic connectors have?

3 How does the faulty/non-accurate translation affect the intended meaning of

the ST? How can those connectors and their functions be ordered in terms of difficulty? To what extent do learners of translation master the use of punctuation marks as a contributor in text making? In order to verify the above stated hypothesis, a translation test that consists of a group of sentences that represent all the stated functions of the Arabic conjunctions will be administered. Each function will be represented by two sentences. The sample of tested students is in their first year Master (applied language studies) at the Department of English, University of Constantine. A test is an appropriate tool for such study, as it allows us to get access to learners' actual performance. This study includes two chapters: one is theoretical and the other is practical. The theoretical chapter will address Arabic and English connectives from a contrastive perspective with reference to the usefulness of punctuation marks in the latter and their limitations in the former. It also deals with how Arabic and English conjunctions behave in their language system. Chapter two will be devoted to the description of the translation task and the analysis of data elicited through it.

Chapter I

Arabic Vs Englis Conjunctions

Wa Fa

Thumma

4 Equivalence at textual level is still one of the dominant issues in the corpus of translation studies. Under this heading the notion of cohesion is usually discussed. Hatim and Munday (2004) cite various contributions like Blum-Kulka and Leverson (1983), Newmark (1988), Beagrande (1980), Mauranun and Kujamaki (2004). Baker's In Other Words (2001) is considered one of the reputable contributions in this field. One third of this book is devoted to the issue of textual equivalence. Under this broad title Baker gives a clear account of cohesion and conjunctions cross-linguistically. Much attention is paid to implications and problems of translating connectors from Arabic to English and vice versa. However, Baker just depends on observation i.e. suffices with the literature that exists at that time and does not provide empirical evidence. Among the empirical studies carried out by Arab authors we find, for instance, Hamdan & Fareh (1999), Saeed & Fareh (2006), and Fareh (1998). We will rely on some of those studies, but even though they deal with connectors like wa and fa and their role in text-building, they cannot be considered discoursal studies as such. This is because they include functions signalled by those connectors that are structural rather than cohesive. Furthermore, those studies could not afford safe generalization since they dealt with just one connector. In this respect, this study will differ from those studies in that it deals with more than one connector at a time. It also deals with connectors within the scope of discourse analysis: as tools of textual linkage and pays much attention to the efficiency of non-lexical markers (punctuation) in the TL, in translating their functions.

5 This chapter consists of two sections. The first section is devoted to dealing with

Arabic conjunctions Modern Standard Arabic ( henceforth MSA) and contrasting them with a set of English ones. The second one will deal with how each set of conjunctions behaves within its language system. Here we look at conjunctions in both languages from a semantic standpoint i.e. disregarding their grammatical properties, i.e. the kind of relation they signal between clauses or sentences so as to build a text. We also confine ourselves to the three-selected Arabic connectors: wa, fa and thumma trying to contrast them with some English ones such as and, so, then, but, for instance, anyway and meanwhile. The reason behind taking just those English connectives is that they represent the broad categories: additive, adversative, causal and temporal. They also represent the main subcategories: resultive, explanatory, resumptive and so on. Here we are not going to explain what each relation means since each of them will be dealt with in this research. It is also noticeable that we are, for certain reasons and purposes that will be mentioned later, including expressions like for instance among the inventory of conjunctions. These are in the table 1 which is enspired, beside some terminology, by Fareh (1998: 311). How this table should be read? We take an Arabic connector, and let it be wa, then we chose one of the relations it can signal, for instance concession. Then, we look for the English connector that signals the same relation. In this case both but and and can be a translation of wa and so on. But what is the most appropriate one? This depends on many factors that will be discussed in this study. 6

Semantic

Relations

wa fa thumma and but so then for Instance Mean- while

Anyway

Addition

Contrast

Concession

Comment

Simultaneity

Reason

Result

Purpose

Sequence

Explanation

Resumption +

In the above table, the minus sign (-) means that the connector lacks this relation within its semantic properties; the plus sign (+) means that it has this relation. It is worth noting that the Arabic connectors serve some other functions, but they will be beyond the scope of this study. Furthermore, the listed semantic relations, whether in Arabic or in English, might be expressed by other connectives, not mentioned here. Blum-kulka (1986:17-35) introduces shifts of cohesion and coherence that are likely to occur in translated corpus. Shifts of coherence are beyond the scope of this study, so we confine ourselves to the former ones. 7 According to Blum-kulka, "[T]he process of translation necessarily entails shifts (...) in textual (...) relationships..." (ibid: 17). Shifts of cohesion fall into two types. The first, shifts in explicitness, i.e. the TT exhibits higher level of explicitness. That is to say, more cohesive devices are used: Blum-kulka cites an example where a TT (French) uses more devices than the ST (English) i.e. TT is more explicit (and longer) and, hence, is of higher level of semantic redundancy. The second, shifts in meaning, i.e. TT shows a change in the explicitness and implicitness of the meaning of the ST (ibid: 18). Such shifts should be linked to stylistic preference or explicitation, but the lack of empirical studies makes it difficult to argue in favour of one of them (ibid: 19). In what follows is a summary of this framework, which shows the way in which empirical validation should be sought (ibid: 33):

1. Establishing how cohesive ties, in a given register, are chosen in two languages

and, then, spotting instances of shifts via the examination of translated corpus to and from one another.

2. Classifying those ties into obligatory (imposed by the grammatical system of the

two languages, or optional (related with stylistic preference). The latter should be considered, since they provide the evidence for shifts of cohesion. One of the following patterns of cohesion shifts are, then, likely to be revealed across the two languages (ibid: 33).

1. Cohesive ties of TT 'approximate' the norms of ST.

8 2. Cohesive ties of TT 'reflect' the norms of the ST, and this could be referred to as

transfer in the process of translation.

3. Cohesive Ties of TT "form a system of their own"; this may indicate a process of

explicitation. Under this heading, we try to deal with the issue of translating conjunctions within this framework. The aim is just to see Arabic and English conjunctions in contact without a reference to a specific register. While the empirical validation is not within the scope of our study, research in this area is highly recommended. Therefore, we depend here on the already existing literature to see the reality of conjunction-shifts across Arabic (SL) and English (TL). Considering the first step, i.e. the way conjunctions behave in both languages, a detailed account will be given in section two of this chapter. Let us consider the following example, which appears in a contrastive study of an Arabic novel and its English version ( A. Obeida 1998: 3): (1) He also believed in God [...], thus his students loved him. [italics added] The translator, here, could have just rendered wa to and, but he preferred an item that explicitly signalled the relation between chunks. A. Obeida also noticed that different conjunctions, like thus, therefore, so, because, added to the English version even when they do not exist or are implicit in the ST (ibid: 3). This is due, in Baker's words, to the fact that "[M]ost translators (...) in practice, (...) strike balance between accuracy [of meaning] and naturalness". Naturalness is sought via the use of typical connectives, and

9 "sometimes at the expense of accuracy." While the direct translation of connectives, often,

"represents a sacrifice of naturalness for the sake of accuracy." (2001: 196). Another example cited in Dinkins et al. (2002; translated by Mehdi Ali 2007) is:quotesdbs_dbs14.pdfusesText_20

[PDF] arabic dlpt vocabulary

[PDF] arabic english arabic legal translation hanem el farahaty

[PDF] arabic english dictionary of qur anic usage

[PDF] arabic english glossary

[PDF] arabic english legal translation

[PDF] arabic glossary english

[PDF] arabic glossary words

[PDF] arabic grammar glossary

[PDF] arabic grammar in english

[PDF] arabic keyboard download

[PDF] arabic keyboard download for windows

[PDF] arabic keyboard download for windows xp free

[PDF] arabic keyboard download free windows 8

[PDF] arabic keyboard free download for windows 10

[PDF] arabic keyboard free download for windows 8