Double or half reading, double or full meaning: Amphibological and anacoluthic syntax through the lens of Qur’an translators

封面

如何引用文章

详细

The Qur’an abounds in multifaceted ambiguous and elliptical structures which sometimes attest its idiosyncratic rhetorical style and challenging formal correspondence and dynamic/functional equivalence between Arabic and English. Although previous translation studies on Qur’anic ambiguity and ellipsis are manifold, there is a paucity of past literature on amphibol(og)y and a dearth of previous research on anacoluthon in the Qur’an in particular. Therefore, the need for this study arises from the necessity to examine these two understudied syntactic phenomena, technically al-labs an-nahwi: (‘amphibology’) and fuqda:n at-tata:buc (‘anacoluthon’), through the lens of Qur’an translators and to assess the translational quality of transposing meaning duplicity and interpretive multiplicity from Qur’anic Arabic (in)to English. The specific objectives are to investigate how Qur’an translators resolved amphibolies while rendering verses superscripted by the interchangeable pause sign (∴ ∴) and to explore how they sequentialised anacolutha when translating anacoluthic verses marked by the elliptical sign (…). The study employs the qualitative contrastive method for a contrastive translational analysis of a typologically limited number of amphibolous and anacoluthic verses retrieved from the Qur’anic Arabic Corpus (QAC). Findings show that amphibology and anacoluthon are so challenging to Qur’an translators that there are remarkable variations in ambiguity resolution and anacoluthon sequentialisation. Qur’an translators act occasionally as explicitators, implicitators and neutralisers of its message and epitomise heterosubjectivity and asymmetricity in interpretative choices. The implications of these findings for Qur’an Translation Studies (QTS) highlight the importance of paratexts and epitexts for amphibological and anacoluthic syntax in translation. According to Genette (1997), paratexts and epitexts are thresholds of interpretation that add haunting subtexts to texts in translation. Subtexts are necessary to provide essential information or commentary on the translation of the original text.

作者简介

Hamada Hassanein

Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: h.hassanein@psau.edu.sa
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3770-6405

Associate Professor

Alkharj, Saudi Arabia

参考

  1. Abdelaal, Noureldin. 2019. Faithfulness in the translation of the Holy Quran: Revisiting the skopos theory. SAGE Open July-September. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019873013
  2. Abdul-Ghafour, Abdul-Qader, Norsima M. Awal, Intan S. Zainudin & Ashinida Aladdin. 2019. The interplay of Qur’ānic synonymy and polysemy with special reference to al-asfār and al-kutub (the Books) and their English translations. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 25 (1). 129-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2501-10
  3. Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 1999. Untranslatability of semantically oriented Qur’anic syntax. Offshoot: A Journal of Translation and Comparative Studies II. 39-46
  4. Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2001. Qur’an Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis. Surrey: Curzon Press.
  5. Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2019. Text Linguistics of Qur’anic Discourse: An Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
  6. Abu-Chacra, Faruk. 2007. Arabic: An Essential Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
  7. Ad-Darwi:sh, Muhyi:-d-di:n. 1980. Icra:b al-Qurʔa:n al-Kari:m wa-Baya:nih [‘The Parsing and Eloquence of the Holy Qur’an’]. Hums: Al-Yama:ma.
  8. Al-Ali, Mohammed N. & Mohammad Q. Al-Zoubi. 2009. Different pausing, different meaning: Translating Qur’anic verses containing syntactic ambiguity. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 17. 227-241
  9. Alduhaim, Asmaa. 2021. Translating near-synonyms in the Quran: A semantic analysis of three near-synonyms and their English translations. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 27 (1). 76 - 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-2701-06
  10. Al-Jarrah, Rasheed S., Ahmad M. Abu-Dalu & Hisham Obiedat. 2018. Translation of strategic ambiguity: A relevance theoretic analysis. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54. 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0001
  11. Al-Kharabsheh, Aladdin & Bakri Al-Azzam. 2008. Translating the invisible in the Qur'an. Babel 54 (1). 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.54.1.02kha
  12. Allaithy, Ahmed. 2019. Challenges in translating the Qur’ān - translating the untranslatable: Omission/ellipsis. In Stanley D. Brunn & Roland Kehrein (eds.), Handbook of the changing world language map, 1-35. Vienna: Springer
  13. Az-Zamakhshari:, Abu:-l-Qa:sim. 1998. Al-Kashsha:f [‘The Detector’]. 1st edn. Rev. by ʿA:dil A. ʿAbd al-Mawju:d & ʿAli: M. Muʿawwad. Riyadh: Maktabat Al-ʿUbayka:n
  14. Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge
  15. Becher, Viktor. 2011. Explicitation and implicitation in translation A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts. PhD thesis, University of Hamburg, Germany
  16. Bisiada, Mario. 2016. Lösen Sie Schachtelsätze Möglichst auf: The impact of editorial guidelines on sentence splitting in German business article translations. Applied Linguistics 37 (3). 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu035
  17. Blumczynski, Piotr. 2017. Ubiquitous Translation. London and New York: Routledge
  18. Bousquet, Kathryn, Tamara Y. Swaab & Debra L. Long. 2019. The use of context in resolving syntactic ambiguity: Structural and semantic influences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35. 354-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1622750
  19. Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. and rev. by Gregory Trauth & Kerstin Kazzazi. London and New York: Routledge.
  20. Catford, John. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University.
  21. Crystal, David. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
  22. Daas, Qa:sim. 2004. Icra:b al-Qurʔa:n al-Kari:m [‘Parsing the Holy Qur’an’]. Damascus: Da:r al-Muni:r
  23. Daimi, Kevin. 2001. Identifying syntactic ambiguities in single-parse Arabic sentence. Computers and the Humanities 35 (3). 333-349
  24. Darir, Hassane. 2012. Translating the implicit: Low-contextualization in the case of translating the Qur’an into English. In Hassane Darir, Yu:suf Al-Idri:si: & cAbdu-l-Hami:d Zahi:d (eds.), Tarjamat al-bala:gha al-qurʔa:niyya bayna asʔilat al-huwwiya wa-thaqa:fat al-a:khar [‘Translating Qur’anic rhetoric between inquiries about identity and culture of the other’], 297-327. Irbid: Modern Books World
  25. Dickens, James, Sándor Hervey & Ian Higgins. 2016. Thinking Arabic Translation: A Course in Translation Method: Arabic to English. 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.
  26. Dupriez, Bernard. 1991. A Dictionary of Literary Devices. Trans. and adapt. by Albert W. Halsall. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  27. El-Hadary, Tariq H. 2008. Equivalence and translatability of Qur’ānic discourse: A comparative and analytical evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Leeds, UK
  28. Genette, Gérard. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (Trans. Jane E. Lewin). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Greene, Roland, Stephen Cushman, Clare Cavanagh, Jahan Ramazani & Paul Rouzer. 2012. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. 4th edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  30. Greene, Roland & Stephen Cushman. 2016. The Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms. 3rd edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  31. Ha:mid, cAbdu-l-sala:m A. & Majdi: Qandi:l. 2019. David Justice wa-ara:ʔuh fi: mazhar tara:ki:b al-carabiyya [‘David Justice and his views on aspects of Arabic syntax’]. ALMICHAAL 21. 75-122.
  32. Hassanein, Hamada. 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
  33. Hassanein, Hamada & Jens Scheiner. 2020. The Early Muslim Conquest of Syria: An English Translation of al-Azdī’s Futūḥ al-Shām. London and New York: Routledge.
  34. House, Juliane. 2019. Translation as a prime player in intercultural communication. Applied Linguistics 41 (1). 10-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz007
  35. Ibn ʿA:shu:r, At-Ta:hir. 1984. Tafsi:r at-Tahri:r wa-t-Tanwi:r [‘The Exegesis of Liberation and Enlightenment’]. Tu:nis: Ad-Dār At-Tu:nisiyya li-l-Nashr.
  36. cImra:n, Hamdi: B. 2018. Min Ishka:liyya:t al-Tarjama Waqf al-Muca:naqa fi: al-Qurʔa:n al-Kari:m [‘Of the problematics of translation is the inter-embracing pause in the holy Qur’an’]. Giresun: Aswa:t li-l-Dira:sa:t wa-l-Nashr
  37. Justice, David. 1987. The Semantics of Form in Arabic in the Mirror of European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
  38. Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2007. Spoken parenthetical clauses in English: A taxonomy. In Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 25-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
  39. Kha:tir, Sulayma:n Y. 2000. Manhaj Si:bawayh fi: al-Istishha:d bi-l-Quraʔn al-Kari:m wa-Tawji:h Qira:ʔa:tih wa-Maʔa:khidh bacd al-Muhdathi:n calayh [‘Sibawayh’s Method for Quoting from the Glorious Qur’an and Directing its Readings and the Criticisms Levied against it by Modern Grammarians’]. PhD thesis, Omdurman Islamic University, Sudan.
  40. Kiss, Tibor & Artemis Alexiadou. 2015. Syntax: Theory and Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  41. Klaudy, Kinga. 2005. Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational symmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6. 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
  42. Lane, Robert. 2018. Peirce on Realism and Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Langley, Larret. 1835. A Manual of the Figures of Rhetoric, etc. Doncaster: C. White, Baxter-Gate.
  44. MacDonald, C. Maryellen, Neal J. Pearlmutter & Mark S. Seidenberg. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101. 676-703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
  45. Makutoane, Tshokolo J., Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé & Jacobus A. Naudé. 2015. Similarity and alterity in translating the orality of the Old Testament in Oral Cultures. Translation Studies 8 (2). 156-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2014.992462
  46. Mieszkowski, Jan. 2009. Who’s afraid of anacoluthon? MLN 124. 648-665. 10.1353/mln.0.0145
  47. Mir, Mustansir. 2006. Language. In Andrew Rippin (ed.), The Blackwell companion to the Qur’an, 88-106. MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  48. Mohaghegh, Ameneh & Hossein Pirnajmuddin. 2013. The trace of translators’ ideology: A case study of English translations of the Qur’an. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 19 (1). 51-64.
  49. Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.
  50. Munday, Jeremy. 2016. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. 4th edn. London and New York: Routledge.
  51. Mustafa, Burçin K. 2019. Ambiguity, ideology, and doctrine propagation in Qur’an translation. Journal of Qur’anic Studies 21. 21-49. https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2019.0367
  52. Najjar, Ibrahim, Soh Kwee & Thabet Abu al-Haj. 2019. Mode in Arabic-English Translation: With Reference to the Quran. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (2). 509-522. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-2-509-522
  53. Naudé, Jacobus A. 2010. Religious translation. In Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of translation studies, 285-293. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  54. Newmark, Peter. 1982. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  55. Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  56. Nida, Eugene. 2001. Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  57. Omer, Sir El-Khatim. 1997. Stopping or pausing during Quranic recitation and its impact on meaning. Journal of King Saud University: Educational Science and Islamic Studies 9 (1). 113-149.
  58. Pym, Anthony. 1995. European translation studies, une science qui dérange, and why equivalence needn’t be a dirty Word. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 8. 153-176. https://doi.org/10.7202/037200aradresse copiéeun
  59. Rangarajan, Sudarsan. 2017. The anacoluthon in le Rouge et le Noir: Cutting cords and tying knots. Neophilologus 101. 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-017-9521-0
  60. Raoufkazemi, Fatemeh, Majid Khorsand, Moussa P. Asl & Amin Amirdabbaghian. 2020. Expertise and explicitation in English translations of the holy Quran. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 26 (3). 154-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2020-2603-12
  61. Salama, Amir. 2021. A methodology for Qur’anic lexical translation: Synergizing semantic preference, discourse prosody, and para/intertextuality. Translation Spaces 10 (2). 278-305. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.20042.sal
  62. Schipper, Jeremy. 2012. The syntax and rhetoric of Ruth 1:9a. Vetus Testamentum 62. 642-645. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-12341085
  63. Simpson, Paul. 2004. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.
  64. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
  65. Tüfekçican, Dilek. 2017. The representation of anacoluthon in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 21 (1). 1-17.
  66. Vinay, Jean-Paul & Jean Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  67. Wansbrough, John. 1970. Maja:z al-Qurʔa:n: Periphrastic exegesis. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 33. 247-266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00103325

版权所有 © Hassanein H., 2022

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##