Translating Noncanonical Ancillary Qur’anic Oppositions Into English: An Etiotypological Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1402.16Keywords:
noncanonical, ancillary opposition, frames, sequences, Qur’anAbstract
Translating the sacred in a so-called divine language has been shown to be so difficult and challenging a task for translators of the Bible or the Qur’an. The human reproduction of the divine product(ion) has biblically and qur’anically been found to raise (in)soluble challenges and (in)surmountable hurdles in bicultural and cross-cultural communication and transfer in translation. One great challenge or big obstacle thereof is the (un)transferability of noncanonical ancillary oppositions from SL (QA) to TL (E) which is sought to be explored and investigated by the current study from a linguistic-translational perspective. Based on corpus data across several languages, noncanonical ancillary opposition has been shown to co-occur in preponderant syntactic frames loaned from fellow categories, such as coordination, subordination, transition, and so forth, to perform cross-categorial discourse functions in canonical, semicanonical, and noncanonical configurations, and to entertain a propensity and penchant for special multi-principled and rule-governed sequences based on morphology, gender, agency, and so on. The specific objectives of this study are to compare and contrast SL and TL frequent frameworks and ordering sequences in the process and product of translation. It was found that a number of these frames and functions have gone untended and unrendered by the two Qur’an translators under scrutiny due to their incognizance of colligational forms and discursive functions as translation units of functional sentence perspective contributing to the semantic ends of intraversially sentential structures. It was also revealed that SL paradigmatic lexical choices were too semantically distinct and complex to lexicalize into TL.
References
Abdel-Haleem, M. (2004). The Qur’an: A new translation. Oxford University Press.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2004). The Qur’an: Limits of translatability. In S. Faiq (Ed.), Cultural encounters in translation from Arabic (pp. 91-106). Multilingual Matters.
Albukhārī, M. (1981). Sahīh Albukhārī [Bukharī’s authentic collection]. Dār al-Fikr.
Alhuqbani, M. N. (2013). The English But and Its Equivalent in Standard Arabic: Universality vs. Locality. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2157-2168. doi:10.4304/tpls.3.12.2157-2168
Al-Jammās, N. (2002). Altibāq fīl-qurʾān alkarīm: Dirāsa balāghiyya [Antonymy in the Holy Qur’an: A rhetorical study, unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Mosul.
Al-Kharabsheh, A., & Al-Jdayeh, G. (2017). Translatability of Qur’anic Antonymy. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 9(1), 51-72.
Alnaysabūrī, M. (n.d.). Sahīh Muslim [Muslim’s authentic collection]. Dār al-Fikr.
Alsager, H. N., Afzal, N., & Aldawood, A. A. (2020). Discourse markers in Arabic and English newspaper articles: The case of the Arabic lakin and its English equivalent but. Arab World English Journal, 11(1), 154-165. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.13
Alzamakhsharī, A. (1998). Al-kashshāf [The detector] (1st ed.). Revised by ʿĀ. ʿAbdulmawjūd, & ʿA. Muʿawwad. Maktabat Al-ʿUbaykān.
Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project (4th ed.). How to Content.
DeJonge, M. P., & Tietz, C. (Eds.). (2015). Translating religion: What is lost and what is gained? Routledge.
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transactions.
Hassanein, H. (2013). The lexical semantics of antonymy in the Qur’an: A linguistic study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Benha University.
Hassanein, H. (2017). Translating aspects of lexical-semantic opposition from Qur’anic Arabic into English: A cross-linguistic perspective. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 25(1), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1159236
Hassanein, H. (2020a). Ten paradigms of ancillary antonymy: Evidence from classical Arabic. Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, 80(8), 35–95. 10.21608/JARTS.2020.135396
Hassanein, H. (2020b). Identical twins, different wombs: A literature review on attiba:q in Arabic and antonymy in English. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 2(2), 7–40. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.20.2.1
Hassanein, H. (2022). Translating semantic cases from Qur’anic Arabic into English. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 51(1), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2021.2001357
Hassanein, H. (2023a). A tale of two tool(kit)s: from canonical antonymy to non-canonical opposition in the Qur’anic discourse. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 59(3), 577–608. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2022-1062
Hassanein, H. (2023b). Toward a new typology of al-ṭibāq “antonymy” in Qur’anic Arabic. Al-‘Arabiyya, 55-56, 143–174.
Hassanein, H. (2023c). Rendition of noncanonical opposition: A case study of Qur’anic composition in bilingual transposition. WORD, 69(3), 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2023.2237271
Hassanein, H., & Moustafa, B. (2024, in press). Translatability of ancillary antonymy in the Qur’an: A lexicosyntactic approach. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 24(1), 1-22.
Hurford, J. R., Brendan, H., & Smith, M. B. (2007). Semantics: A coursebook (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Hussein, M. (2008). The discourse marker ‘but’ in English and Standard Arabic: One procedure and different implementations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
Jasper, D. (Ed.). (1993). Translating religious texts: Translation, transgression and interpretation. St. Martin’s Press.
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based study. Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Mettinger, A. (1994). Aspects of semantic opposition in English. Oxford University Press.
Naudé, J. A. (2010). Religious translation. In Y. Gambier, & D. Luc van (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (vol. 1, pp. 285-293). John Benjamins Company.
Nida, E. A. (1947). Bible translating: An analysis of principles and procedures. American Bible Society.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Brill.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. (1982). The theory and practice of translation. Brill.
Wu, S., & Zhang, J. (2022). Antonym order in English and Chinese coordinate structures: A multifactorial analysis. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 530–557. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00121.wu
Yüksel, E., al-Shaiban, L. S., & Schulte-Nafeh, M. (2015). The Qur’an: A reformist translation. Brainbow Press.
