Abstracts
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to investigate the current problems the students graduating in English at the ISLT are likely to encounter when setting out to render English into Arabic. My teaching experience with them was beneficial, albeit quite short (one year-long only, 2000-2001). The material gathered, on the other hand, was wide-ranging and, better still, so provocative that I readily agreed to venture onto dangerous ground.
Studies in the past have often failed to delve deep into possible meanings and extend beyond traditional boundaries so as to assess the scope of words and explore the meaning potentials. Recent advances in the literature argue that translators should be sensitive to the losses and gains of cultural elements and assess the “weight” of these elements in the source text in order to bring about the same/similar effects.
It is true that loss of meaning is inevitable and the transference to the translator’s language can only be approximate (Newmark 1988, 7). The current trend in translation theory is to explore situations to make it possible to transcend linguistic as well as cultural barriers. Translators will continue to reproduce only restricted facets of meaning so long as they do not vanquish ordinary processes of thought and approach the words in the SL text as units of discourse. I make no pretence at being able to offer definitive solutions. This account aims at identifying the potentially problematic areas in translating English into Arabic. The sense of new in this experience embodies a larger vision, apparently a different quality of recognition since the focal interest is laid on the interpretive weight of words as constituent parts of the act of communication.
Keywords/Mots-clés:
- translatability,
- words,
- connotation,
- meaning potentials,
- interpretive weight
Résumé
L’article traite de la traductibilité à partir d’exemples recueillis durant un cours de traduction (version). L’auteur envisage les problèmes que les étudiants de fin d’études à l’Institut des Langues (Tunis) sont susceptibles de rencontrer lors du passage de l’anglais à l’arabe. Cet article rend compte des valeurs, des sentiments et des jugements que suscitent les mots – unités irréductibles du langage qui ne relèvent pas d’une dénotation et du codage strictement linguistiques. En raison de leur force illocutoire, les mots, formules et expressions ne peuvent être transposés tels quels sans aucune perte de sens en amont. Il convient donc d’étudier les situations dans lesquelles on peut transcender les barrières qui nous enferment – qu’elles soient psychologiques, linguistiques ou culturelles – afin d’opérer les choix les meilleurs. Pour ce faire, le traducteur doit défier les modes d’appréciations orthodoxes et appréhender le mot – surtout s’il est fortement connoté – comme unité de discours à part entière. Seule la primauté de l’interprétatif permet donc de saisir le pouvoir quasi magique des mots, d’où l’intérêt d’une vision plus large.
Appendices
References
- Bauer, L. (1983): English Word-Formation. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics: Cambridge University Press.
- Bell, R.T. (1991): Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Longman: London and New York.
- Biguenet, J. & Schulte, R. (Eds.) (1989): The Craft of Translation. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.
- Chomsky, N. (1965): Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Crane, S. (1893): The World of Maggie. In Katz, J. (ed.). 1969. The Portable Stephen Crane. Penguin Books.
- Eggins, S. (1994): An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Pinter Publishers: London.
- Frame, D. (1989): “Pleasures and Problems of Translation.” In Biguenet, J. & Schulte, R. (Eds.).
- Gadacha, A. (1991): Diglossia: A Case Study of Tunisia. Mémoire de DEA. Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis.
- —– 1998. Language Planning and Language Conflict, the case of multilingual Tunisia: Contemporary aspects of status, function, and structure of the languages and language varieties used and sociolinguistics implications of the language shift. Mémoire de Thèse. Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis.
- —– 1998. «Réflexion sur le rôle des facteurs socioculturels dans l’alternance codique et l’emprunt en Tunisie». In Lafage, S. & Queffélec, A. (Eds.). Le Français en Afrique. 13 Déc. Didier Erudition.
- Gumperz, G.G. (1982): Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1985): An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
- Keeley, E. (1989): “Collaboration, Revision, and Other Less Forgivable Sins in Translation.” In Biguenet, J. & Schulte, R. (Eds.).
- Lyons, J. (1977): Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
- Mitchell, T. F. and Al-Hassan, S.A. (1994): Modality, Mood and Aspect in Spoken Arabic with Special Reference to Egypt and the Levant. London: Kegan Paul.
- Newmark, P. (1981): Approaches to Translation. Oxford. Pergamon.
- —– 1988. A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney and Tokyo.
- Palmer, F.R. (1981): Semantics. CUP: Cambridge.
- Peden, M.S. (1989): “Building a Translation, the Reconstruction Business.” In Biguenet, J. & Schulte, R. (Eds.).
- Rabassa, G. (1989): “No Two Snowflakes Are Alike: Translation and Metaphor.” In Biguenet, J. & Schulte, R. (Eds.).
- Raffel, B. (1989): “Translating Medieval European Poetry.” In Biguenet, J. & Schulte, R. (Eds.).
- Robert, S. (1994): «Sur le rôle du sujet énonciateur dans la construction du sens: liens entre temps, aspect et modalité». In Yaguello, M. (éd.), pp. 209-229.
- Roman, A. (1990): Grammaire de l’arabe. Que sais-je? Paris: PUF.
- Schramm, A. (1996): “Using Aspect to Express Viewpoint in EST Texts.” English for Specific Purposes. 15/2, 141-163.
- Upjohn, J. (2001): Minimum Competence in Scientific English. PUG.
- Widdowson, H.G. (1979): “The Deep Structure of Discourse and the Use of Translation.” In Widdowson, H.G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. OUP.
- Wolfgang, I. (2002): On Translatibility. <http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol4/iser.html>
- Yaguello, M. (éd.). (1994): “ Subjecthood and Subjectivity. The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory “. Proceedings of the Colloquium Subjecthood and Subjectivity: the status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory. London 19-20 March 1993. OPHRYS.