Article Citation: Mika'il Ibrahim (2018). The Semantic Implications of Lexical Variation in the English Translations of the Holy Qur'an. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 16. ISSN 0794-9316
THE SEMANTIC IMPLICATIONS
OF LEXICAL VARIATION IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY QUR’AN
By
Mika’ilu Ibrahim, PhD
Department of Modern
European Languages and Linguistics
Usmanu Ɗanfodiyo University, Sokoto.
mikabarau@yahoo.com.
Abstract
This
study examines the extent of lexical variation and its semantic implications
among three English translations of the Holy Qur’an with special reference to
Chapter of Noah by Marmaduke Pickthall (1930), Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1962) and
Saffarzadeh Tahereh (2007). It uses an eclectic approach that operationalizes
the qualitative instruments of descriptive content analysis to explain the
meaning of alternative lexical items used by the translators while using
Cruse’s (1986) entailment model as a framework for measuring the nature of
semantic differences of the variations. The paper finds considerable lexical
incongruence that yields three out of four entailment possibilities: mutual
entailment, unilateral entailment and contrariety emanating from poetic, modern,
theological and related stylistic preferences. No instance of contradiction has
been identified though paradigms of lexical surplus and deficit have been
discovered in some of the translations. Generally, however, contexts of the
texts have contributed in mitigating the semantic effects of non-mutual
entailments and other lexical inconsistencies identified.
Introduction
This paper explores lexical
semantics using data from three English translations of the Holy Qur’an on
Chapter Noah (Chapter 71) with a view to finding the extent of their lexical
variation and discovering the ‘sense relations’ that inform the variation as
well as its impact on the general meaning of the selected texts. The term
‘lexical semantics’ (Lyons 1968, 1995; Palmer1976; Cruse 1986, 2000; Badecker
and Ernst 2004) has been referred to as ‘word semantics’ (Thakur 1999) or even
‘vocabulary semantics’ (Hatch and Brown 1995). This variation is more in
nomenclature since there is a great deal of similarity in terms of the scope
and approach to the studies. Palmer (1976), drawing largely from Lyons (1968)
for example, treated the aspect of lexical semantics using sub-topics that
border on the definition of the word as well as its collocation and sense
relations. The aspect of sense relations, which is closely related to this
study, sees the meaning of words through their relationship with others in
terms of proximity in meaning (synonymy), oppositeness (antonymy), extension
(polysemy) inclusion (hyponymy).
The
concern with the lexical aspect of semantics in this study is emphasised
because words are basic to meaning realisation and studies in their
relationship suggest that no two words are the same. As Lyons (1968:447)
argues, “it is almost a truism that total synonymy is an extremely rare
occurrence, a luxury that language can ill afford”. Yet, a look at the
different translations of the Holy Qur’an reveals variation in the choice of
lexical items from one translator to another which makes the examination of
words and the extent of differences in the nuances of their meaning in general
necessary. This exercise enables one to investigate the ‘substitutability’ of
apparently synonymous words in the context in which they appear so much that
the same interpretation is realisable in different translations.
An
Overview of Relevant Studies
Religious texts are divided into two
in relation to the sanctity and translatability of the language in which they
were revealed. Some religions, like Islam and Judaism, consider the original
languages of their scriptures as integral part of their meaning such that they
are not translatable to provide symmetrical meaning in another language. Other
religions like Buddhism and Christianity believe that it is the message of the
text that matters not its language. They, therefore, believe in the translatability
of the text with equal validity to other languages - though at a point in the
history of Catholicism, translation of the Bible assumed a profane status in
Christianity (Simon 1995)
Despite
the above, several translations of the Qur’an are available in the world by
Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Quoting the World
Bibliography of Translations of the Meanings of the Qur’an, Simon (1995)
mentioned 2,668 ‘printed translations of the Koran’ presented in about seventy
languages among which there were 300 versions in Urdu alone. English is one of
the several languages in which Qur’an has been translated and there exist
several scholarly notes critiquing language of these translations.
The
English translators of the Qur’an themselves begin with notes that constitute a
great deal of literature of linguistic relevance in general and lexico-semantic
importance in particular. In fact, hardly is there such a translation that does
not begin with a note that emphasizes the difficulty in finding the English
equivalents of certain lexical nuances, stylistic variations and cultural
mismatch between the language of the Qur’an
and the English language. A sample of this could be found in the introduction
to the translation of Tahereh (2007:1209) who puts “New equivalents of Qur’anic
terms and expressions, which I have found and presented, may receive sound
judgment only by comparing them with other translations”
In a
survey of the entire English translations of the Qur’an available, Kidwai
(1987) concludes that no translation can be said to be perfect. Closely related to Kidwai’s study in survey
approach is the work of Abdelwali (2007) who also made ‘a survey of the
existing English versions of the Qur’an’. In this survey, he highlighted the
instances of lexical challenges which Qur’an poses to an English translator. An
example he gives in this regard is the translation of the word ‘nazzala[1]’
in 3:3 (chapter 3: verse 3) which stands for the ‘piecemeal’ revelation of the
Qur’an that lasted for 23 years. This word is different from its companion,
‘anzala’ in the same verse which is to do with a ‘singular revelation of the
Torah and Gospel’ -see Al Faruqi (1986) for a glossary of Islamic words which
translation to English amounts to semantic adulteration of the original.
In
addition to the reported surveys, other studies treat the translation dynamics
of specific chapters, translators and themes of the Qur’an. For example,
Abdelaa and Md Rashid (2016) investigated grammatical losses and the
corresponding semantic loss they bear in Qur’anic translations. They found how
loss of grammatical attributes such as conjunctions, syntactic order, duality
and tense in translating the Qur’an from Arabic to English lead to partial or
complete semantic loss in Abdel Haleem’s English translation of Sūra A’rāf Specific examples of semantic loss found by the
researchers were loss of emphasis with the omission of the affirmative lexeme ‘Walaqad’ and
omission of the pattern of succession in creation as either immediate or
prolonged was omitted with the corresponding omission of the meaning of
‘thumma’ in its first occurrence in verse 11. An earlier study by the same
authors, Abdelaal and Md Rashid (2015), examined semantic loss in Abdullahi
Yusuf Ali’s translation of Sūra Wāqi‘a using
Baker’s theory of equivalence. They found cultural mismatch, lack of
lexicalisation and semantically complex words as the basis for semantic loss in
translation. One example that represents these dynamics was the translation of
“hoorun AAeen” as “companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes” in verse
22 by Abdullahi Yusuf Ali which fails to capture the full import of the concept
by neglecting other beauties it encodes.
In
another study, Al-Azzam et al. (2015) selected 9 verses of the Holy Qur’an and
compared how three different translators of the Qur’an approached their
translation. They discovered instances of under-translation and
over-translation in words such as “aura tun-nisa” (parts of women prohibited
from exposure), zihar (divorce from statement of physical comparison between
one’s wife and mother), al-mualafa qulibihum (people inclined towards Islam)
and jizyah (tribute) because of their ‘historical, cultural, social and
regional’ undertones.
At a much deeper level of specification, Al-qad et al. (2017)
investigated the translation of pun words in four English translations of the
Qur’an. The study came with interesting deliberations on how pun words like
‘istawa’ in “al Rahman alal alarish istawa” of Taha verse 5 was translated as
‘rose over’, ‘who established’, ‘sat himself on’ and ‘firm in power’. The same
polemics also manifest in analysing the pun word ‘biayd’ in “wal al-sama’a
banainaha biayd” of Ad dhariyat verse 47 when translated as ‘by our authority’,
‘with might’ by two translators and ‘with power’ as well as how all the
translators avoided the literal ‘by our hands’. In a related direction, Fathi
and Nasser (2018) examined how the word ‘zwan’ was translated in 8 different
instances in the Qur’an by ten translators with close attention to its
polysemic posture of expressing hedging and certainty. One of the instances
used for illustrating this was in verse 2:46 (Allatheena ya thunnoona annahum mulaqoo
rabbihim waannahum ilayhi rajiAAoona)
where the root ‘than’ was translated as
‘think’, ‘consider’, ‘realise’ and ‘know’ by different translators.
This
study aims to add to the literature on the semantics of English translations of
the Holy Qur’an by focussing on the logical relations of entailment emanating
from different lexical items used by three translators on the Chapter of Noah.
Following the literature reviewed, the study considers its logical approach
using entailment frames and the choice of a chapter that has not been treated
in all the literature at the disposal of the researcher as its major
contributions.
Theoretical
and Methodological Considerations
An eclectic framework combining the
contextual approach to lexical semantics and componential analysis is used in
this study. In the contextual perspective, it uses Cruse’s (1986) ‘entailment’
frame and its four logical relations of unilateral
entailment, mutual entailment, contrariety and contradiction. According to Cruse (1986), the above relationships
are capable of explaining the nature of all the variations among lexis in
context and their semantic consequence in the following manner:
i.Unilateral
entailment:
It’s
a dog unilaterally entails It’s an
animal.
ii. Mutual entailment, or logical equivalence
The
meeting began at 10.00 a.m. entails and is entailed by
The meeting commenced at 10.00 a.m.
iii.Contrariety:
It’s a cat and It’s a dog stand in contrary relation:
It’s
a cat unilaterally entails It’s not a dog.
iv.Contradiction:
It’s dead and It’s alive stand in contradictory
relation:
It’s
dead entails and is entailed by It’s not alive (and It’s
alive
entails and is entailed by It’s not dead) (Cruse 1986: 15).
Componential approach is used as the
content descriptive tool for the analysis of the individual lexical variations
observed in one version of the translation before correlating them with their
counterparts in other versions. Cruse (2000) asserts that componential approach
is ‘earliest’ but ‘most persistent’ and ‘widespread’ that even ‘prototype
theorists’ resort to using it when it comes to analysing ‘a rich word meaning’.
However, for this study, the Carnap’s (1956) ‘meaning postulate’ of lexical
decomposition is used which, according to Lyons, has more advantages than the
classical or standard version of componential analysis. The former, unlike the
latter, decomposes the ‘sense of a lexeme’ without necessarily claiming the
universality and infinity of the ‘sense-components’.
Dictionaries
are used in specifying the meaning of the words and establishing their
‘semantic alphabets’. In this regard, The
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles is found most
instrumental because of its affinity to the research – owing to its
etymological and historical coverage as well as institutional affiliation.
Thesauruses are also used to discover the paradigm of words from which the
translators made their choices. This helps in presenting a possible alternative
word to the one which is found seriously wanting in the course of the analysis.
In addition, English-Arabic bilingual dictionaries are used in the discussion
of some Arabic words that require closer examination - considering the way in
which they are handled by the various translators. Furthermore, the researcher
counts listening to Qur’anic exegesis on the meaning of the chapter in Hausa
and basic understanding of Arabic language as resources for the interpretations
of the study.
The
choice of the translations for the study was made by considering the
translators’ background relative to their exposure to the English language.
Pickthall is a native speaker of English while Ali is from India and Tehereh
from Iran there by using English as a ‘second’ and ‘foreign’ language
respectively. This factor deserves attention considering that an individual’s
conception of meaning may be coloured by his first language and the concomitant
cultural load (See Kachru 1977). Another consideration is that all the
translations are by Muslim translators to avoid bias in lexical choice arising
through spiritual factors which some critics associate with the non-Muslim
translators of the Qur’an (Kidwai 1987; Mohammed 2005; and Brakhw and Ismail
2014). Similarly, all the translations are within the Late Modern English
period though with a considerable variation in publishing dates and they all
use few Arabic terminologies in compensation for English equivalents. Finally,
Chapter Noah, was chosen out 114 other chapters of the Qur’an because it has
not been treated by any study from the literature reviewed through the study;
similarly, the chapter is within a manageable text size for the study purpose
in the sense that it is neither too long nor too short.
Analysis and Discussion of
Findings
The discussion in this section is in
accordance with the dual goals of the study: determining the extent of lexical
variation and its semantic effects based on the entailments generated by the
sense relations of the variants.
Lexical
Variation
In comparing the translations of
Chapter Noah among the three translators, there is no verse in which the
translators choose the same words. The magnitude of the variation across the
verses can be categorised into three: minor,
intermediate and major. The minor includes those verses in which the
average range of the lexical variation is from one word to three which is found
in the Opening Verse and verses 2, 8, 15, 16, 19, 23, and 25[2].
The intermediate are those verses in which the average range of the variation
is from four to six words which includes verses 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,
17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27. The last category, the major variation, is
that with six or more lexical difference as represented in verses 1, 7, 12 and
28. It is important to note, since the verses are not of equal length, that the
level of the variation is not always caused by the length of the verse in terms
of higher number of the aggregate words. For example, verses 1 and 12 which
belong to the major category of variation are not as long as verses 23 and 25
which fall under the minor category nor longer than verses 4, 21, 26 and 27
which are within the intermediate range.
One interpretation that follows from
above is that certain senses, do not allow the possibility of choice of words
with different forms as synonyms from the inventory of English lexicon. In
verse 25 for instance, the words that appear as common factors to the three
translators (triple coincidence) are ‘drowned’, ‘made’, ‘fire’, ‘Allah’, ‘help’
and ‘found’ beside the pronouns and prepositions. In verse 23, the presence of
five proper names (Wadd, Suwa, Yaguth, Yauq and Nasr) which English
alternatives are hard to come by makes the variation less; otherwise, some of
them would have chosen the English words while others maintained the Arabic as
witnessed in the case of the name ‘Noah’ which Pickthall and Ali choose while
Tehereh chooses ‘Nuh’ instead. In the same direction, such triple coincidence of choice, and its counterpart of triple divergence, can be used as a
translational criterion of determining Cruse’s notion of ‘opacity level’ of
lexical items.
Unilateral Entailment
Unilateral
entailment involves the use of a ‘superordinate’ term interchangeably with any
of its hyponyms to mean the same thing in a context. For example, using animal
in place of any of ‘cat’, ‘horse’, ‘snake’ etc. Example of this from the
analysis of the chapter is found with two characteristics: an instance where
the use of the general word is found more appropriate: Lord/Creator and
Nurturer (verse 5 and 10), garment/shirt (verse 7), children/sons (verse 12),
made/created (verse 16), say/pray (verse 26) and earth/land (verse 2). In this
case, the words introduced first on the side of the slash entail the second
words but not vice versa. Out of the six instances, Pickthall gets four
correctly; Ali gets five and Tahereh two.
The second instance is where the use of
specific word is most appropriate as found in the following examples: ‘spoken’
and converse/appealed (verse 9). The word on the right side of the slash,
‘appealed’ is more specific and is more appropriate in the context of the
verse. In this case, only Pickthall presented it as expected though also the
choice of the others does not affect the general meaning of their translations.
Mutual Entailment
In
this kind of entailment, the words that distinguish the structures have
synonymous relationship such that the meaning of one serves exactly like the
other in a given context. However, plausible as the Cruses (1986) example of
‘began’ and ‘commenced’ is, there can be instances in which the use of these
two words interchangeably will sustain the mutual entailment with a partial meaning
consequence. Example: ‘Tim began crying’ and ‘Tim commenced crying’. In this
example, the two sentences have mutual entailment but certainly not that which
is as strong as the one in Cruse’s. In these examples, the first sentence is
semantically more appropriate considering the context of collocation in the
sentences with ‘crying’. On this note, mutual entailments analysed in the
verses are divided into two.
The first category is absolute mutual entailment where the
difference in the lexical items does not affect the general meaning of the text
in any degree on the ground of context dependency. These instances also are
sub-categorised along certain meaning nuances as follows:
i.
Modern
elements: the words which are still in use in daily use: Beneficent/Most
Gracious (Opening Verse), warn/admonish (verse 1), plain/clear (verse 2),
stated term/appointed term (verse 4), add/increase (verse 6), whenever/every
time, grown/persist, refusal/denial, pride/arrogance (verse 7), seek/ask (verse
10), help/increase/add (verse 12), when/seeing/whereas (verse 14), go
about/travel/thread (verse 20), disobeyed/rebelled , save/but, loss/ruin (verse
21), leaving/abandon/forsake (verse 23), error/straying (verse 24),
unbeliever/disbeliever (verse 26), `beget/breed/production (verse 27),
lewd/wicked/corrupt (verse 27).The use of the above words brings about a lot of
meaning proximity among the translators and is capable of giving virtually
equal comprehension to a modern reader of the translations of the Qur’an.
ii.
Archaic
words versus words with modern currency: these words constitute absolute
entailment, but the former category is hardly found in modern usage of English.
The instances are: ere/before (verse 1), thy/your (verse 1, 27), unto/to (verse
1, 2, 7, 8), thou/you (verse 7), aileth/matter, reason (verse 13), conscious
(with the sense of recognition)/hope, acknowledge (verse 13), ye/you (verse 15,
20). All the words at the left of the
slash in the instances above are considered ‘archaic’ because of their rare
occurrence in the modern usage compared to those on the right. Instances of
using archaic words in the translation are more associated to Pickthall and Ali
and it is more with the former than the latter. In fact, in the case of
Pickthall, even his grammatical affixations are made using archaic forms as in
the case of ‘mayest’ (verse 7), hath (verse 16, 17), maketh (verse 18). There
is no example of an archaic word in Tahereh’s translation.
The use
of archaic words by Pickthall reminds of the famous King James Version of the
English translation of the Holy Bible which uses a lot of such words. The use
of these words, therefore, gives the text an automatic religious identity. This
makes the reader to approach it with the sense of holiness it deserves. The semantic importance of such impression is
that it prepares the mind of the reader towards the content of what he/she will
come across in the text. On the other hand, the use of archaic words has the
disadvantage of obscuring meaning to the modern reader who has to look up the
dictionary for the meaning of such elements introduced. For example, an average
modern reader of English may find it difficult to understand that ‘ere’ is the
same with ‘before’ or ‘oft’ the same with ‘often’. Thus, reading the English
translation of Qur’an in this form may either be done only by people with
special training in English, like the reading of Shakespearian English or with
a lot of difficulty by constant reference to dictionary out of the semantic
complexity posed by the words.
iii.
Special
usage words versus general usage words: these are words that are identified
with a given association with special discourse like poetic and theological
against those that are in everyday use of English. Instances of using these
words are in the following: plenteous (poetic)/abundant (verse 11), pardon
(theological)/forgive, perdition (theological)/ruin (verse 28).
The use
of the special words, like the case of the archaic ones, is found in the
translations of Pickthall and Ali than with Tahereh. The semantic value of
using the special words - especially the theological ones - is more positive
than negative. The reason is that they are part and parcel of modern English
vocabulary only that they assume the form of registers of a given discourse. As
such, they give the discourse a religious identity without stripping it off its
modern undertone; they, therefore, help in comprehending the text in its proper
context. In this situation, as far as the meaning processing is concerned, the
use of special words, particularly those with theological currency where
available, is better than the use of the general ones.
iv.
Brevity
versus verbosity: this is a situation of choosing between the use of few words
to express certain propositions versus the use of so many words in expressing
similar circumstance. Handling this situation is a very important aspect of
lexical semantics especially in a language like English which is very rich in
vocabulary. Instances of this albeit with absolute mutual entailment in this
study include: by stages/ in diverse stages/stage by stage (verse 14),
harmony/one above another/top one another (verse 15).
In
the above instances, the brief words are used by Pickthall while the longer
phrases by Ali and Tahereh. Absolute mutual entailment was achieved in all the
circumstance. But the point in noting this is to emphasise the importance of
brevity in a translation like that of Qur’an considering that some readers may
like committing it to memory; an effort which too much words will make
difficult.
v. Complex
versus simple words: in some instances of the verses,
all the
translators use complex words where obviously simple counterparts exist.
Instance of this includes: doom/chastisement/torment (verse 1) instead of a
simple word like ‘punishment’ which can equally serve in the context. Also,
‘grievous’ by Ali instead of ‘severe’ or ‘painful’ as others use (verse 1).
‘Expositioning’ by Tahereh against ‘open’.
The
second category of mutual entailment is the Non-Absolute
Mutual Entailment. This is the instance in the verses where mutual
entailment is achieved despite the variation in words among the verses but with
a slight variation in meaning which is as a result of the following:
i.
Appeal
to context of the verse against the individual words of the original: in this
situation, some translators get obsessed with the meaning of the individual
words of the original in isolation so much that they work around getting its
English equivalent without necessarily considering its suitability with the
English context so framed. This brings about a slight meaning obstacle to the
reader as a result of odd contextualisation of a given word. Entailment in the
meaning of the text is achieved in this circumstance but with some adjustments
on the English reader’s part. Instances of these are: accomplish/arrive or
cometh, understand/knew (verse 4), repugnance, detest/flight (verse 6)
publicly/aloud (verse 8), public/secretly (verse 9) where all the first words,
in each case, are more appropriate to the English context of the verse and the
second words more compatible with the Arabic words used in the original.
In
the above situation, the use of lexical items which are in agreement with the
context are considered semantically more appropriate. This is because
translation is expected to, as much as possible, reconcile the content of the
‘source language’ to suit the context of the ‘target language’ since it is done
for the benefits of the people who understand the latter code. On the other
hand, where there is an English word which exactly matches the Arabic and at
the same time rhyme with the English context, it is then better to use it than
use its synonym which may fulfill only one of the conditions. In this regard,
Tahereh handles the situation better than the other translators. She treats
four out of the five instances right while Pickthall gets two and Ali one.
ii.
Figurative
and nonfigurative consideration: some of the words vary because of the
treatment of a certain context as figurative by one translator and treating it
as nonfigurative by the other. Yet, mutual entailment is realised with a slight
variation of sense by the translators in their respective ways. These instances
are: made/spread out (verse 19), send rain/let loose sky (verse 11), growth,
plants/earth (verse 17).
All
the words at the left side of the slash are used in a nonfigurative sense in
the context of the verses; those in the right of the slash are used in
figurative sense. However, the same meaning nuance is achieved in all the
instances. The use of the figurative sense of the context in the above
situation is found twice with both Pickthall and Tahereh but none with Ali.
This shows that the two other translators are more concerned with the role
which metaphorical language can play in conveying the meaning of the verses
than Ali.
iii.
Normative
meaning: this situation involves the use of words which can be attached certain
negative evaluative judgement in a context where a neutral or positive sense
could be used. One incident was encountered in this regard in worshippers,
devotees/slaves (verse 27).
The
word ‘slave’ as used by Pickthall in the verse against the others will not
ordinarily affect the mutual entailment of the verse. But the fact that the
word can generate some negative connotations brings about a slight variation of
sense which requires the attention of a translator. Even if Pickthall insists
in getting the closest word to the original, he should have used the word
‘servants’ in place of ‘slaves’; the former being with the lesser tendency of
attracting negative evaluative meaning.
iv.
Stylistic
effect: in this instance, the words used have similar denotation that creates
mutual entailment among the different contexts they are used but one gives
stylistic effect and the other does not. Examples (those which give stylistic
effect presented left of the slash): forthbringing/resurrection (verse 18),
made/created (verse 16), use of ‘plot’ (verse 22) and ‘increase’ (verse 23) as
both nouns and verbs.
The
stylistic implication of each of the above is better appreciated in the
respective context of the translations. The use of ‘forthbringing’ by Pickthall
in the context emphasises the word ‘bring you forth’ which precedes it thereby
achieving both verbal and semantic repetition. On the other hand, using ‘made’
stylistically brings about a break to the use of ‘created’ which has already
being used in a verse just before the one in question for similar purpose; this
is also following the Arabic pattern which equally alternates the wordings.
Finally, the use of ‘plot’ and ‘increase’ as both verbs and nouns as used by
Pickthall and Tahereh brings about verbal and semantic repetition which
emphasises the meaning. Considering that the Holy Qur’an prides itself with
stylistic power in its original, the same stylistic effect needs be presented
in English with the maximum possibilities that meaning can allow and lexical
awareness is an important tool towards achieving that.
Contrariety
This
is a kind of entailment which exists in a situation that involves the use of
co-hyponyms of the same ‘super ordinate’ term interchangeably; for example,
using ‘oranges’ in place of ‘mangoes’. It can also be the same with the case of
‘gradable opposites’ interchangeably. In this case, the fact that it is
referent A unilaterally entails that it is not B although it is not B does not
unilaterally entail that it is not A. This is, therefore, a one way
contradiction. Two instances of this kind of entailment are recorded in the
analysis of the chapter: delayed, put
back/put forward (Table 5), streams/rivers (Table 13). There is no sense of the
phrasal verb ‘put forward’ that denotes the expected meaning elements of
‘postponement’ in the context of this verse; on the contrary, some of its
meaning denote the opposite. On the other hand, ‘delayed’ used by Pickthall and
‘put back’ used by Tahereh carry the expected nuances. On the instance of
difference between ‘river’ and ‘streams’, the dictionary meaning of the two
words presents a river as a ‘copious stream of water’ and a stream as ‘a course
of water flowing continuously along a bed on the earth, forming a river’. The
suitability of the later could be derived from the contextual association of
the two words with ‘garden’ which is more associated with mildly flowing water.
Its appropriateness is further consolidated by considering the Arabic word used
‘anhar’.
Contradiction
This
is a kind of entailment which applies to the use of strict opposition or what
is usually called ‘binary opposites’ interchangeably in a given context. In
this situation, the fact that it is referent A entails that it is not B and
that it is not B entails that it is A. Cruse exemplifies this using the words
‘dead’ and ‘alive’. In the chapter analysed, no instance of this kind of
entailment was found in the entire analysis of the lexical variation that
exists among the translators. This is a point worthy of noting considering that
the logical relation of contradiction was not found with all the disparity in
the English background of the translators, the publishing date of their
translations and the volume of lexical variation found among them. This shows
the level of alertness of all the translators in adhering to the meaning of the
original with their best respective abilities.
Other Issues of Lexico-semantic Concern
In
the process of this analysis and discussion, the phenomena of lexical surplus and lexical deficit are observed from the lexical variation among the
translations which discussion, though necessary, may not be accommodated by the
frame of entailment. Lexical surplus is found in the translations where words
are used by one translator which neither reflect words used by other
translators nor any word of the original. Words are given this status when they
are not placed in parenthesis. Lexical deficit on the other hand involves the
non-representation of certain lexical items which have been represented by other
translators and can be found in the original text.
The case of Lexical surplus is
specifically associated with the translation of Tahereh in verses 4, 5, 6, 9,
12, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, and 28. It is only in verse 28 that Tahereh shares
this with Ali. The excess ranges from one word to two and even a whole phrase,
as witnessed in verse 6. The leading factor of this deviation is the inability
of the translator to appreciate the semantic importance of ‘presupposition’
which is engrained in some lexical items of English and which, with the help of
context, do not need the use of other words to complement them. In other
occasions, they are caused by the lack of realisation of ‘illocutionary’ force
of some contextual frames which do not require a lexical item to reflect the
‘speech act’ they perform as witnessed in verse 24 and 26. In those instances,
the context of the verses alone can evoke the act of supplication without
necessarily using the word ‘please’ which does not exist in the original.
Lexical deficit on the other hand is
mostly found with Ali as evident in verse 1, 2, 12, 19, and 24. Pickthall has
only one of such cases as presented in verse 16. Tahereh’s deficit that
resembles this is syntactic because it involves the deletion of a complete noun
phrase in the Opening Verse, “In the name of Allah, the Merciful Beneficent”
where ‘merciful’ was used as a qualifier to the ‘head’ (Beneficent) instead of
treating it as the ‘head’ as well like the other translators used with related
lexical items. This circumstance can be attributed to the failure of the
translators to understand the lexical multiplicity of some Arabic words and
their formative intricacies which, in translation to English, require the use
of more than one word to express them. For example, the challenge in verse 16 and
19 have to do with undermining the semantic relevance of the vowel doublet at
the final position of the Arabic words used at the end of the verses. Others
are out of neglecting the additional emphatic meaning engrained in the Arabic
words used like the case of verse 1 where Ali missed the emphasis captured by
Pickthall and Tehereh as “Lo” and “Verily” to represent the Arabic ‘inna’.
Conclusion
Lexical
variation is a manifest trend among the different texts of the translations
examined and is determined by the semantic complexity of the propositions in
view. Analysis of the variations reveal higher instances of mutual entailments
which is characterized by substitutive use of synonymous words. There were also
instances of unilateral entailment realised in the hyponymic frame of
interchangeable use of superordinate terms and any of its co-hyponyms;
occasional cases of contrariety represented by selection within a set of
co-hyponyms also identified. No instance of contradiction, an entailment
represented by interchangeable use of binary opposites, was found. Outside the
entailment frames, the study identified lexical incongruences leading to
semantic surplus and deficit. The measurement of semantic consequence of the
variations on entailment frames reveals differential senses along the lines of
precision, simplicity, figurative as well as poetic and theological priorities.
However, the semantic effect of the overall variations has been minimized by
the respective context of the texts to the extent that they do not cause
radical meaning discrepancies. Nevertheless, the trend of lexical surplus and
lexical deficit observed in some of the translations is adjudged to be a
potential semantic flaw that should be avoided in a sensitive translation
endeavor like the one at hand.
References
Abdelaal
N.M. and Rashid S. M. (2016) “Grammar-Related Semantic Losses in the
Translation of the Holy Qur’an with Special Reference to Surah Al’A’araf (The
Heights) in Sage Open 1-11.
Abdelaal
N.M. and Rashid S. M. (2015) “Semantic Loss in the Holy Qur’an Translation with
Special Reference to Surah Al-Waqi’a (Chapter of the Event Inevitable) in Sage Open.
Abdelwali
M. (2007) “The Loss in the English Translation of the Qur’an.” In Translation Journal. Vol II: 2.
Abubakar
Y. I. (2001) “Figures of Speech in English Qur’anic Translation.” An Mphil Thesis
submitted to the Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana.
Al Aqad
M. H. and Kaur K. et al. (2017) “Translation of Selected Pun Words from the
Holy Qur’an into English”. Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, Special Issue for INTE.
Al-Azzam
B., Al haydib M. and Al Huqail (2015) “Cultural Problems in the Translation of
the Qur’an” in International Journal of
Applied Linguistics and Translation 1(2) 28-34.
Al-Faruqi
I. R. (1986) Toward Islamic English.
Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought.
Ali Y.
A (1962). The Holy Qur’an, Text,
Translation and Commentary. Beirut: Dar Al-Arab.
Badecker
W. and Ernst T. (2004) “Lexical Semantics.” In T, Georgios & P, Wai Yi.(Ed), Language Files. Columbus:
Ohio State University.
Baker
M. (1992) In other Words. London and
New York: Routledge.
Brakhw
A.A. and Ismail S.F.S. (2014) “The Importation of the Holy Qur’an into English:
Factors in the Translatability Process” Arab World English Journal Special
Issue on Translation 3, 95-104.
Carnap
R. (1956) Meaning and Necessity.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Cruse
D. A (1986) Lexical Semantics.
Cambridge: CUP.
Cruse
D.A (2000) Meaning in Language - an
Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. New York: OUP.
Faucet
P. (1997) Translation and Language.
Manchester: St Jerome.
Fathi
S. Y and Nasser L.A (2018) “The Translation of the Verb ‘than’ in the
Glorious Qur’an into English: A linguistic and Semantic Study”
Hatch
E. and Brown C. (1995) Vocabulary
Semantics and Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Ibrahim,
M. (2009) “A Semantic Study of Selected English Translations of the Holy
Qur’an: A Lexical Examination of the Chapter of Noah” An M.A Dissertation
submitted to the Department of English, University of Ghana, Legon, 2009.
Kachru B. B. (1977) “Liberation Linguistics and the Quirk Concern”
in English Today.
Kempson
R. (1977) Ruth M. Semantic Theory.
Australia: CUP.
Kidwai
A. R. (1987) “Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations
of the Quran” in The Muslim World Book
Review. Vol. 7: 4.
Lyons
J. (1968) Introduction to Theoretical
Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Lyons
J. (1977) Semantics 1. Australia:
CUP.
Lyons
J. (1995) Linguistic Semantics: An
Introduction. Australia: CUP.
Mohammed
K. (2005) “Assessing English Translations of the Qur’an.” In The Middle East Quarterly. Vol. XII:
Number 2.
Muhammad
S. (2007) “A Comparative Study of Four English Translations of Surat Ad-Dukhan
(the Chapter of Smoke) on the Semantic Level”. A Dissertation Submitted to the
Department of Linguistics, University of Minia.
Malumfashi,
I. and Yakasai, S.A. (1993) Translation:
An Introductory Guide. Sokoto: Fisbas.
Oxford University (1933) The
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Oxford: OUP.
Palmer,
F R (1976) Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
Pickthall
M. M. (1930) The Meaning of the Glorious
Qur’an. Hyderab: Hyderab Government Press.
Simon
S. (1995) “Translators and the Spread of Religions.” In Jean Delisle and Judith
Woodsworth ed. Translators through
History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 159-187.
Thakur
D. (1999) Linguistics Simplified:
Semantics. New Delhi: Bharati Bhawan.
Tehereh
(2007) S. The Holy Qur’an - Translation
with Commentary. Tehran: Alhuda International Publisher and Distributor.
Wortabet
W. T. (1968) Wortabet’s Arabic-English
Dictionary. Beirut.
Appendix: English Translation
of Chapter Noah (Chapter 71) from Pickthall (1930), Ali (1962 and Tehereh
(2007)
|
|
Pickthall |
Ali |
Tehereh |
|
|
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. |
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. |
In the name of Allah, the Merciful Beneficent. |
|
71:1 |
Lo! We sent Noah unto his people (saying): Warn thy people
ere the painful doom come unto them. |
We sent Noah to his people (with the command) “Do thou
warn thy people before there comes to them a grievous chastisement” |
Verily, We sent Nuh to his people stating: “Admonish your
people by way of warning them before there comes to them a painful Torment. |
|
71:2 |
He said: “O my people! Lo! I am a plain Warner unto you. |
He said: “O my people! I am to you a Warner, clear and
open: |
He said: “O my people! Truly to you I am a Divine
Expositioning Warner: |
|
71:3 |
(Bidding you): Serve Allah and keep your duty unto Him and
obey me. |
That ye should worship Allah, fear Him and obey me: |
“Worship Allah and fear from the disobedience of His
commands and obey me. |
|
71:4 |
That He may forgive you somewhat of your sins and respite
you to an appointed term of Allah, when it cometh, cannot be delayed, if ye
but knew. |
“So He may forgive you your sins and give you respite for
a stated term: for when the Term given by Allah is accomplished, it cannot be
put forward: if ye only knew” |
“So He may forgive your sins; and will bestow a respite on
you till an appointed Term, but when the ordained Term of Allah arrives it
cannot be put back if you understand, Ɗwhat
I mean] |
|
71:5 |
He said: My Lord! Lo! I have called unto my people night
and day |
He said: “O my Lord! I have called to my people night and
day: |
Nuh said: “O my Creator & Nurturer! Truly I called my
people by night and day constantly, |
|
71:6 |
But all my calling doth but add to their repugnance; |
But my call only increases (their) flight (from the Right) |
“But my call increased only to their detest and keeping
away from the Truth; |
|
71:7 |
And Lo! Whenever I call unto them that Thou mayest pardon
them they thrust their fingers in their ears and cover themselves with their
garments and persist (in their refusal) and magnify themselves in pride. |
And every time I have called to them, that thou might
forgive them, they have (only) thrust their fingers into their ears, covered
themselves up with their garments grown obstinate, and given themselves up to
arrogance. |
And whenever I called them to Faith so That you may
forgive them, they thrusted their fingers into their ears Ɗnot to hear my voice] and they covered their heads with
their shirts Ɗnot to see my face] and they
persisted in their Denial and showed a grave arrogance. |
|
71:8 |
And lo! I have called unto them aloud |
“So I have called to them aloud” |
“Then I called them to Faith publicly; |
|
71:9 |
And lo! I have made public proclamation unto them, and I
have appealed to them in private |
Further I have spoken to them in public and secretly in
private, |
“Then I conversed with every individual publicly or
privately: |
|
71:10 |
And I have said: seek pardon of your Lord. Lo! He was ever
Forgiving. |
Saying ‘Ask forgiveness from your Lord, for He is oft
forgiving; |
“I said to them: “Ask your Creator & Nurturer’s
Forgiveness; verily He is the Highly Forgiving; |
|
71:11 |
He will let loose the sky for you in plenteous rain, |
“He will send rain to you in abundance |
And then He will send rain to your lands in abundance, |
|
71:12 |
And will help you with wealth and sons, and will assign
unto you Gardens and will assign unto you rivers. |
“Give you increase in wealth and sons; and bestow on you
rivers (of flowing water) |
And will add to your wealth and children and will provide
for you Gardens and flowing streams; |
|
71:13 |
What aileth you that ye hope not toward Allah for dignity |
“What is the matter with you, that ye are not conscious of
Allah’s majesty |
“What is the reason that you do not acknowledge the
Highness of Allah’s stand? |
|
71:14 |
When He created you by (diverse) stages? |
“Seeing that It is He that has created you in diverse
stages? |
“Whereas He has created you stage by stage; |
|
71:15 |
See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in
harmony, |
“See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one
above another, |
“Do you not see how Allah has created the seven Heavens on
top of one another? Ɗwith full adjustment] |
|
71:16 |
And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a
lamp |
“And has made the moon a light in their midst and made the
sun as a (Glorious) lamp? |
“And has created the moon the light in them for the night
and the sun a glorious Light-giving lamp Ɗfor
the day] |
|
71:17 |
And Allah hath caused you to grow as a growth from the
earth, |
“And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing
(gradually) |
“And Allah has
created you from the earth like plants, |
|
71:18 |
And afterward He maketh you return thereto, and He will
bring you forth again, a (new) forthbringing. |
“And in the End He will return you into the (earth) and
raise you forth (again at the Resurrection)? |
“Then He will return you to the earth Ɗin your graves] and then He will bring you out on the
Resurrection Day; |
|
71:19 |
And Allah hath made the earth a wide expanse for you |
“And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet” |
And Allah has spread out the earth for you as a carpet |
|
71:20 |
That ye may thread the valley-ways therof. |
“That ye may go about therein, in spacious roads” |
“So that you may travel through its vast Roads, towards
your destination” |
|
71:21 |
Noah said: My lord! Lo! they have disobeyed me and
followed one whose wealth and children increase him in naught save ruin; |
Noah said: “O my Lord! They have disobeyed me, but they
follow (men) whose wealth and children give them no increase but only lose. |
Nuh said: “O, my Creator & Nurturer! They have
rebelled against me and they followed a person whose wealth and children do
not increase to him but total loss (because he is a disbeliever): |
|
71:22 |
And they have plotted a mighty plot, |
“And they have devised a tremendous plot. |
“And they have plotted a grave plot against me and my
mission: |
|
71:23 |
And they have said: Forsake not your gods. Forsake not
Wadd nor Suwa nor Yaguth and ya’uq and Nasr |
“And they have said (to each other) “Abandon not your
gods: ‘Abandon not your gods: abandon neither Wadd nor Suwa; neither Yaguth
nor Yauq, nor Nasr’; |
“And the chiefs of them have enjoined the people saying:
“You should not leave your gods, nor you should leave Wad nor Suwa neither
Yaghuss and Yauq and Nassr; |
|
71:24 |
And they have led many astray, and Thou incresest the
wrong-doers in naught save error. |
“They have already misled many; and grant Thou no increase
to the wrong-doers but in straying (from their mark) |
“And indeed they have led astray many so please do not
increase for the disbelievers but total astray” |
|
71:25 |
Because of their sins they were drowned, then made to
enter a Fire. And they found they had no helpers in place of Allah. |
Because of their sins they were drowned (in the flood) and
were made to enter the fire and they found- in lieu of Allah- none to help
them |
“So Ɗupon Nuh’s invocation] they
were drowned in the sea due to their disbelief; then they were made to enter
the fire, and they found none to help them but Allah,ƊWho would not help those whose respite for repentance was
over] |
|
71:26 |
And Noah said: My Lord! Leave not one of the disbelievers
in the land. |
And Noah said: “O my Lord! Leave not of the unbelievers, a
single one on earth! |
And Noah prayed: “O, my Creator & Nurturer! Please do
not let any of the disbelievers on the earth; |
|
71:27 |
If Thou shouldst leave them, they will mislead Thy slaves
and will beget none save lewd ingrates.
|
“For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but
mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones. |
“If you do, they will mislead your worshippers and will
have no production but corrupt and ingrateful offsprings; |
|
71:28 |
My Lord! Forgive me and my parents and him who entereth my
house believing men and believing women, and increase not the wrong-doers in
aught save ruin |
“O, my Lord! Forgive me, my parents, all who enter my
house in faith, and (all) believing men and believing women: and to the
wrong-doers grant Thou no increase but in perdition!” |
“O my Creator & Nurture! Bestow your forgiveness on me
and my parents and the believers who come to my home and associate with me
and all the believing men and women; and to the disbelievers and
transgressors do not give but perdition” |
The official website of the DEGEL Jounal is https://www.degeljournal.com
0 Comments