See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330341845

A Pragma-stylistic-assessment of Three Translations of the Meanings of

Surratt Fatir into English

Article  in  Theory and Practice in Language Studies · January 2019

DOI: 10.17507/tpls.0901.03

CITATIONS READS

2 668

3 authors, including:

Ali Albashir Mohammed Alhaj

King Khalid University
174 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Literature project View project

conference project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Albashir Mohammed Alhaj on 25 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1799-2591
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 18-27, January 2019
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0901.03

A Pragma-stylistic-assessment of Three
Translations of the Meanings of Surratt Fatir into
English
Ali Albashir Mohammed
King Khalid University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Majda Babiker Ahmed

King Khalid University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Dina Ali Abdullah

King Khalid University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract—The current paper aims at investigating the stylistic constrains encounter the translators of the Holy
Qura'n into English, through analysis and comparison, the incongruities and disparities of meaning and style
in translating the Qur'anic pragama- stylistic expressions into English, that is in the work of Mohammed
Abdel Haleem, Pickthall and Mohammed Khan and Taj Al-Din Al-Hilalim
(.http://www.aijcrnet.com/journal/index/1128.The study found that different translation strategies could lead
to different translated versions of the same Qur'anic pragama-stylistics. Also, Qur'anic pragma-stylistic
differences between Arabic and English languages seem to give rise to mistranslations as far as the religious
text of Qur'anic texts. It is hoped that the study will cast new light on main important idea that the
translators of the Holy Qur'an should consult the main books of exegesis, linguistics, philosophy,
intertextuality, jurisprudence and history, etc., when he/she tries to render the Qur'anic prgama-stylistics.

Index Terms—A pragma-stylistic, assessment, Fatir, Qur'an, texts texts, strategies, mistranslations

I. INTRODUCTION
The current paper is a pragama- stylistic study which aims at investigating the stylistic constrains encounter the
translators of the Holy Qura'n into English.
A. Objectives of the Study
The study aims at:
a. analyzing the pragma-Stylistic-problems and constraints, encountered by translators while rendering the Holy
Qur'an into English.
b. identifying these pragma-Stylistic constraints that the translators face.
c. investigating the strategies used by Abdel-Haleem, Pickthall, Khan, and Hilali in rendering rhetorical expressions
in some selected ayahs of the Holy Qur'an..
B. Questions of the Study
To meet the stated objectives, the following research questions were raised:
1. to what extend does Pragma- stylistics constitute as one of the main components of translating the Holy Qur'an
into English?.
2. to what extend does Pragma- stylistics offer one of the most effective parameters according to which both the
literary competence of the translator and religious and cultural awareness of the reader of the translation of the
Holy Qur'an are revealed and gauged?
3. what are the difficulties that the translators of the Holy Quran encounter while translating the Qur'anic rhetorical
expressions into English?

II. RELATED LITERATURE

The Concept of Translation
Translation can be defined as: ''the placement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in
another language''. (Catford ,1990,p.78)
This definition vaguely refers to the textual material. It does not, however, clearly indicate as to whether the
significance is more on the meaning or style or the linguistic elements like the words and sentence structures. Catford's

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 19

work'' A Linguistic Theory of Translation( LTT)'' primarily focuses around various processes of translation with special
emphasis on the linguistic elements like phonetic, phonological, grammatical and lexical, graphalogical and other kinds
of translation like complete vs. partial, total vs. restricted and the like. He also deals about transliteration. The argument
of Catford cannot be underestimated, but the point of concern is that the outlook of Catford is very restricted and narrow
and does not satisfactory fulfill the requirements of translation. More important in the process of translation in the
conveying of message from one language to the other and the linguistic equivalence is secondary to the thematic
equivalence. According to Newmark (1998, p.45):
Translation is such an art wherein the message conveyed through one language is replaced by the same message in
the other language.
The examination of various definitions leads us to conclude that translation is such an art whereby the message in the
text in one language is transferred into the text of another language. The limitations and constrains involved in the
process of translation are of serious concern.
Halliday(1994,p.34), on the other hand, considers translation as''the relation between the text in the two
languages involved,''. According to him, the texts accomplish the same task under the same circumstances through
the two different languages. He has no doubt aptly emphasized upon the significance of meaning. The aspects emerge
out of a detailed examination of the viewpoints of various scholars of translation:
 Translation is a linguistic exercise that takes place between two languages.
 The language of the original text is called the source language and the language into which the translation is
made is called the target language.
 The text in the target language is called the translated text.
 The process of transfer or re-establishment of the meaning from the source language into the target language is
the essence of the art of translation.
 The expression between the SL and TL become synonymous. In other words, they convey the same meaning
without distortion.
 Several aspects figure in the process of translation. They include the linguistic aspects, socio-cultural aspects and
contextual aspects. A unique combination of all these aspects could result in a successful and meaningful
translation.
 The sole aim of the translator is to successfully transfer the essence of the original text in the translated text.
Understanding of ' translation' could be considered in two contexts:
 In an extended context and
 In a restricted context.
Translation in the extended context is considered as the transfer of meaning in one symbolic constitution into the
other symbolic constitution. "Symbolic constitution'' refers to the structural nuances of the two languages. On the other
hand, translation in the restricted sense is considered as the process that takes place between two languages. This
primarily refers to the linguistic aspects and the applications of principles to the art of translation. In fact, translation
becomes meaningful if any and only if it is considered both in the restricted sense as well as the extended sense.
The term, 'translation proper'' means interlingual translation, translation within the same text), and it is in this sense
that we have referred to translation so far. But sometimes the term is also used to refer to an intralingual translation
(rewording), a process whereby a text in one variety of the language is reworded into another. This would be the case
where the message of a text in, say, Old English (OE) is reworded into a text in modern English, or a text in one dialect
or style is reworded into another. And we can speak of 'translation' when the replacement involves not another language
but another, non-linguistic, means of expression, in other words a different semiotic system. In this sense we can say for
instance that a poem is ' translated' into a dance or a picture, a novel into an operator a film. Such transmutations are
examples of intersemiotic translation. (Jakobson, 1959/1990, p.232). What all these three processes have in common is
that they involve the replacement of one expression of a message or unit of meaningful content by another in a different
form.
There have been a number of theories of translation that have been debated about. They include:
i. Linguistic Theory.
ii. Universalist Theory.
iii. Relativist Theory.
While Catford(1991) is the proponent and authority on the linguistic theory of translation, Jakobson, 1959/1990,) has
proposed the universal and relativist theories. The theory of translation primarily deals with the linguistic aspects like
the structural and lexical equivalences, formal correspondence, transference, transliteration, several types of translation
like partial and total translation, phonological and graphalogical translation, translation shifts and the limits of
translatability. (Kelly p.1997, p.60) as the name of the theory is indicative, the linguistic theory of translation is mostly
concerned about the structure and less about the content/theme. Thus, the linguistic theory of translation fails to take
care of the content aspect which is a serious setback to the art of translation. The reason is that the primary purpose of
translation is to convey the content/theme from one language to the other without loss or distortion of the theme in the
source language; thereby the significance of the thematic accuracy over-rides the linguistic accuracy. There is no
exaggeration if it is argued that the linguistic accuracy in translation plays a secondary role. However, the linguistic

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

20 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

aspects should not be made insignificant. It means that while utmost importance is given to the thematic accuracy,
linguistic accuracy and correspondence between the SL and TL need to be maintained to the maximum possible extent.
It follows that a good translation necessitates an ideal integration of the thematic transfer and linguistic transfer from the
SL to TL. (Kelly, p.1997, p.61)
The Universalist theory according to Hewson and Martin is based on an extension of the economic concept of
contractual transaction. (Kelly, p.1997, p.68) .The term 'contract' refers to the act of translation. The term 'transaction'
refers to the act of conciliation between the two languages and the unification established between them by the process
of translation.( By unification is meant the establishment of one to one correspondence between SL text and the TL text
not merely from the linguistic aspect but from the thematic aspect as well. According to Martin and Mason,(1997,p.45):
Translation, as a particular form of contract, is an agreement between the two LC is involved to transfer
signification on a common convertibility basis in so far it is not detrimental to the specific differences between
cultures. The fundamental notion both on the economic and on the translational planes is compromise; i.e., the
agreement to remain separate in order to achieve a common goal.
The concept can be exemplified in stating that if the meaning can be generalized to the point of being transferred
without major loss from one position to another, it follows that content is relatively independent of the form in which it
has been expressed. It also means that socio-culturally determined differences do not constitute the essentials of
communication. As these two aspects are highly differentiating and distinctive, they have to be sacrificed to achieve the
transaction objective or the purpose of translation. It needs to be noted here that both content and structure go hand in
hand in any verbal communication. They cannot be construed as watertight compartments. Logically, it can be clearly
stated that language and content are interdependent and no content can be thought of in the absence of
structure/language and no structure/language can be thought of without any content. They are so intensely inter-related
that one cannot exist without the other. Therefore, in the event of sacrificing the socio-culturally determined differences
or content do no justice to ensure the quality of translation and therefore, it does not appear to be reasonable to believe
in sacrificing all these aspects.
A good translation or an ideal contract is possible within the scope of a single culture. Therefore, the Universalist
conversion envisages the relationship between cultures as possible. But, necessarily, such relationship is only partial or
flawed. (Cohen.1990,p.34). Some scholars, however, argue that in spite of diversity of cultures, there exists reasonable
quantum of universals based on which the transaction or translation could be considered as reasonable and sufficient
though the transaction/ translation excludes the total correspondence or one to one correspondence. They agree that the
transfer of the deeper and wider interpretations between the two cultures gets precluded. (Cohen.1990, p.36)
In believing that cultural relationships are contractual transactions, translation can be conceived of as a process of
transference based on the criterion of equivalence. Practically, this view boils down to the argument that a sound and
reasonable compromise between the structural and thematic equivalences has to be ensured in good translation.
Departing a little bit from this view, scholars like Hewson and Martin have preferred to argue that transference is
necessarily partial and therefore, translation necessarily involves some loss. They, however, give a word of caution that
this possible loss should be kept to the minimum and to the extent possible; it is to be compensated with the
normalization of the common core. They conclude that translation consists in constantly perfecting the fundamentally
uncontestable compromise.(Devey,1990,p.77).
The relativist theory is concerned with the concept of production within an interactive structure. From this point of
view, common core or the universals are not only compressive as non-existence, but they contribute to ''denaturing'' of
communication. The most important aspect in the art of translation is that the essential of signification lies in particulars
and differences which can never be Universalist any way, but only exist in proportion to their specificity. It follows that
signification can never be repealed, duplicated or transferred; it can only be reformulated and adapted to the ever
changing conditions of meaning definition. The point to be taken note of in this context is that ''meaning'' is the most
significant aspect in the art of translation. The act of producing the meaning intact in the language translated into
besides the alterations in the factors involved in communication i.e., the medium or language adopted is essential. It is
for this reason that constant adaptation is extremely significant and important in the context of translation.
(Cohen.1990,p.67)
As stated above, perfect integration and correlation between the structure and content, expression and reality needs to
be ensured which is associated with the concept of signification in the context of translation. Drawing the attention to
these factors,
Martin and Mason (1997)call this process as ''hermeneutic”. Meschonnic conceives of translation as a unique
combination of ''rapport and tension''. While rapport refers to a close correspondence between the SL and TL
expressions, ''tension'' refers to the idiosyncrasies particularly in the context of aspects relating to culture. These aspects
could be taken care of suitably to make the translation as perfect as possible only through exemplification and
explanations of typical and unique cultural and social aspects etc. The exemplifications and explanations so required are
called ''complexification of perspective'' Martin and Mason (1997, p.38).
Keeping in view the contradictions and variations between the above theories, Martin and Mason (1997) propose a
''variational approach'' to translation. They argue that the most crucial issue in the context of translation is the question
of transferring information between cultures. Needless to mention that in spite of existence of universal features and

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 21

commonalities across cultures, the differences and unique typical aspects relating to cultures which are specific to each
community poses the real problem in the process of translation. The problem is not as intense as it is in the context of a
normal simple text, which does not involve the typical and unique characteristics relating to culture, society etc. Thus, it
may be noticed that the universal statements which are common all over do not pose any problems of serious concern in
the process of translation. According to Martin and Mason,(1997,p.40)
Variation could indeed be defined as the set of all possible formulations that can be associated within given
identifiable situations. Any partners at any moment have at their disposal sets of more or less interchangeable, more
or less applicable formulations in various degrees of parafrastic nuances that they can be freely adjusted to their
communicational objectives. Communication could, then, be conceived as the co-negotiated and contextually
motivated selection of (more or less) “predictable communication formulation.
Exemplifying the context of ''variation'', they further state that:
 The participants in the act of communication have, at all times, some notion of the differences between the
formulation options at their disposal and all their common core referential meaning. They are culturally
constitutional, the variation range made up of variation options.
 They can relate these options to various contextual determinations or parameters that they can identify.
 The variation range is supposed to correspond to some segment of reality.”
The above exemplification of the concept of “variation” leads us to infer that the linguistic formulation on the one
hand is varied within certain limits while corresponding to a unique referent and on the other hand, it is strictly
determined in terms of context while allowing for a second degree of formal predictability. Thus, the variational
approach strikes a compromise between the cultural universals mentioned in the Universalist approach and the
irreducible cultural differences in the relativist approach. These arguments boil down to the fact that the social and
culture related aspects have to be translated within the permissible range of variation and that efforts to locate and find
out ''equivalences'' would not be a useful exercise. These views of Martin and Mason concur with the earlier argument
that in the context of translating/transferring, the cultural and social aspects can be meaningfully presented in the
translation only with relevant details and explanatory notes.
The generative process and the variational approach refer to the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between and
across languages that figure in the process of translation. Needless to state that these two kinds of relations are
concerned with paraphrasing or interpretation. The normative process is concerned with the cultural equations and
mediations and the socio-cultural norms. A unique combination of both generative and normative processes could result
in a real good translation without much loss or distortion to the theme and meaning intended in the source language.
The reasons offered in favor of the preference to the variational approach compared to the other theories of translation
are that the generative and normative stages which are parts of the variational approach are supplementary to each other
i.e., they strike a compromise between the linguistic factors and the non linguistic factors. This combination is an
essential ingredient of a successful translation. The ideal combination between the two stages ensures the internal
coherence between the SL text and the TL text. The variational approach to translation, as propounded by Hewson and
Martin has been experienced by specialists in translation over a long period of time.
To come out with the sum and substance of this approach in arguing that it is a challenging task to correctly interpret
and present aspects relating to non-linguistic factors like the societal and cultural factors and those relating to customs,
habits, traditions, beliefs, myths and the like and that while the texts relating to these aspects are simply translated from
SL to TL, the translated text can be made meaningful only by corresponding the context of situation. Otherwise, the
translation loses all its significance as the intended sense gets lost.
The contribution of Martin and Mason to the discipline of translation is really appreciable as they have come out with
the technical nuances as to how the explanatory notes and the contexts of situations could be integrated with the textual
translations. It, therefore, follows that in order to arrive at a good translation, both the generative and normative
processes have to be closely inter-related as otherwise the exercise involved in translation would not yield the expected
results.

III. METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology that is used by the three researchers in collecting data of the current study .
Methods
Descriptive qualitative method was used by the three researcher to collect data, and to fulfill the above-mentioned
objectives

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Examples of Pragma-Stylistic Assessment of Some Selected Ayas of Surat Fatir‫ (فاطر‬Creator, The Angles):

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

22 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

EXAMPLE 1
ST T1 T2 T3
Abdel-Haleem Khan and Hilali Pickthall
ّ‫ْال َح ْم ُد ّ هَلِل ّ َفا ّطر ّ ال هس َم َوات‬ Praise be to God, Creator All praise and thanks are Praise be to Allah, the
ّ ‫األرْ ض‬َ ‫َو‬ of the heavens and Allah's ,the(only)Originator( or the Creator of the heavens
)1:‫(فاطر‬ earth.( The Creator:1) only Creator) of the heavens and and the earth.( The Angles:
the earth( Fatir:1) 1)

The word ‫)فاطر‬fatir ) has many different meanings in Arabic:

a. It means( creator) which means the following:

‫عامة‬ )‫البا ِري؛ الفا ِطر؛ َّللا؛ با ٍر (الباري‬ The Creator

‫اسالمية‬ ‫الخالق‬ The Creator

‫عامة‬ ‫ َّللا؛ خالق‬: ‫المبدع‬ creator

‫قانونية‬ ‫الفاعل؛ المورث؛ المؤلف‬ creator

‫الحاسوب‬ ‫ُمبدع‬ creator

‫سياسية‬ ‫مبتكر‬ Creator

‫عامة‬ ‫ص ّو ُر الكَائِنات‬
َ ‫ُم‬ the Creator of the Universe God

(http://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-en/creator/)

The General Meaning of the Intended Ayah

The meaning of this ayah is ( All the praises and thanks be to Allah) , therewith , Allah; the Exalted praises and
thanks His Honorable Own Self; the praises it is which refers the good description to Allah,( the (only) Originator
[ or the( only) Creator of the heavens and the earth) without His having some example thereof to imitate (Tafisir Al-
Jalalayn, Volume (2) :1245)
Abdel-Haleem and Pickthall rendered ‫'' الحمد‬alhamudu'' as praise whereas Khan and Hilali's rendering was'' praise and
thanks''. Khan and Hilali and Pickthall use transliteration ‫ النقحرة‬strategy to render‫ هللا‬Allah, this may result in better
comprehension if the receptor is familiar with the word 'Allah''- the Muslim name for God- which has more divinity,
whereas Abdel Haleem use the word" God'' throughout his translation of the Surah. Khan and Hilali use the
predeterminer ''all' directly before the phrasal noun,'' praise and thanks'', whereas Abdel-Hakeem and Pickthall omitted
''all' in the beginning of the translated ayah.
Khan and Hilali and Pickthall use the definite article ''the '' before the noun' earth', whereas this article has been
dropped by Abdel Haleem's renderings. The omitting of the definite article ''the'' is really confusing for the target
language (TL) receptor. In the source text, the ‫' ال‬al' play a significant textual function but has been omitted in the TL
by Abdel Haleem.
The three translators have translated ‫ فاطر‬fatir as'' the Creator'', therefore their renderings are accurate, appropriate,
and relatively equivalent to the Quranic meaning of‫ فاطر‬, but khan and Hilali took further step by using transliteration
‫النقحرة‬to render ‫ فاطر‬fatir. To conclude, the three translations are not as informative as the original.

EXAMPLE 2
ST T1 T2 T3
Abdel-Haleem Khan and Hilali Pickthall
‫( َو َما يُ َع َّم ُر ِمن ُّم َع َّم ٍر َو ََل‬ No person grows old or has And no aged man is granted a And no one growth old who
his life cut short, expect in length of life nor is a part cut growth old, nor is aught
ٍ ‫ص ِمنْ ُع ُم ِر ِه إِ ََّل فِي ِكتَا‬
ۚ‫ب‬ ُ َ‫يُنق‬
َّ ‫)إِنَّ َٰ َذلِ َك َعلَى‬
accordance with a Record: off from his life ( or another lessened of his life, but is
( ‫سير‬ ِ َ‫َّللاِ ي‬ all this is easy for God man's life), but is in a Book recorded an A Book. Lo!
)11:‫فاطر‬ ( Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz),Surely That is easy for Allah.
that is easy for Allah

Khan and Hilali and Pickthall rendered‫ب‬ ٍ ‫'' ِكتَا‬ketab'' as ''a Book'' whereas Abdel-Haleem's rendering was ''Record:''.
Also, Khan and Hilali use explanation and transliteration strategy (‫الترجمة الصوتية (النقحرة‬to render,‫ب‬ ٍ ‫'' ِكتَا‬ketab'' into ( Al-
Lauh Al-Mahfuz),this may result in better comprehension if the receptor is not familiar with the word '', ‫ب‬ ٍ ‫'' ِكتَا‬ketab'' .
Abdel Haleem used (record) and therefore, his translation for the word ‫ب‬ ٍ ‫'' ِكتَا‬ketab'' is completely out of context. He
used literal translation to render the meaning of this lexeme.
The word (yaseer( ‫سير‬ ِ َ‫ )) ي‬is a polysemic word, which has two different meanings:
1. Easy‫( سهل‬Tafisir Al-Jalalyan: volume. 2 2009:1666).
3. Concealed ‫ خفيا‬as in' the we withdraw it to Us a a gradual concealed withdrawal' ‫ )ا‬64‫(ثُ هم قَبَضْ نَاهُ إّلَ ْينَا قَ ْبضًا يَ ّسي ًر الفرقان‬.

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 23

All the three translators have accurately translated the lexeme yaseer ‫سير‬
ِ َ‫ ي‬which means in this context (easy).

EXAMPLE 3
ST T1 T2 T3
Abdel-Haleem Khan and Hilali Pickthall
‫صطَ ِر ُخونَ فِي َها َربَّنَا‬ ْ َ‫هُ ْم ي‬ And they will cry out loud in Therein they will cry: "Our And they cry for help there,
‫صالِ ًحا َغ ْي َر الَّ ِذي‬ َ ‫أَ ْخ ِر ْجنَا نَ ْع َم ْل‬
Hell, 'Lord, let us out ; We Lord! Bring us out, we shall (saying): Our Lord! Release
will do righteous deed – not do righteous good deeds, not us; we will do right, not (the
‫ُكنَّا نَ ْع َم ُل ۚ أَ َولَ ْم نُ َع ِّم ْر ُكم َّما‬ what we did before! did we (the evil deeds) that we used wrong) that we used to do.
‫يَتَ َذ َّك ُر فِي ِه َمن تَ َذ َّك َر َو َجا َء ُك ُم‬ not give you a life long to do." (Allah will reply): Did not We grant you a life
َ‫النَّ ِذي ُر ۖ فَ ُذوقُوا فَ َما ِللظَّالِ ِمين‬ enough to take warning if "Did We not give you lives long enough for him who
ِ َّ‫ِمن ن‬
you were going to?Did a long enough, so that reflected to reflect therein?
‫صي ٍر‬ warner not come to you? whosoever would receive And the warner came unto
)73:‫( فاطر‬ now taste (the punishment), admonition, - could receive you. then taste (the flavour of
the evildoers will have it? And the warner came to your deeds), for evil-doers
nobody to help you. So taste you (the evil of have no helper.(Fatir:37)
them .'(Fatir:37) your deeds). For the Zalimun
(polytheists and wrong-doers,
etc.) there is no helper."
.(Fatir:37)

The General Meaning of the Intended Ayah

The meaning of this ayah is (Therein they will cry) i.e. there in Hellfire, they will be crying out beseeching Allah,
(Our Lord! Bring us out, we shall do righteous good deeds, not (the evil deeds) that we used to do." Means, they
will be insistently praying to be brought back to the life of the world, so that they could perform deeds unlike ( the evils)
they used to do before; yet, the Lord(Allah), may He be glorified, totally knows the fact that if he sent them back to
the life of the world, they would go back to what they had been forbidden to do , and He knows that they are but lying;
hence, to their beseech , He will not respond. This is why Allah says: (Did We not give you lives long enough, so that
whosoever would receive admonition, - could receive it? And the warner came to you) meanings, " Have you not
been granted such a life span that were you among those who benefit from the truth, you would have surely benefited
from it during the span of life you were granted?''. (So taste you (the evil of your deeds). For the Zalimun
(polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.) there is no helper.) meaning.'' So.taste the torment of the Fire, as a punishment
for your opposing the Prophets during your life span; for, verily, today you will have no helper to save you from the
torment and fetters you are suffering. ( Tafisir Ibn Kathir ( Abridge) Volume (3): 1801)
The irony in all versions has translated literally. If we look at Abdel-Haleem's translation to the ironical lexical words
‫ فَ ُذوقُوا‬fadhūqū (then you taste), we noticed that he has used literal translation strategy to come up with exact or better
meaning. The same strategy Pickthall has used when translated the ironical lexical words (then taste you), into English
uses literal translation, since according to him, translated the above ironical structure might come up with better
equivalence. In addition, both paraphrases between two brackets to the Arabic ironical word ‫ فَ ُذوقُوا‬fadhūqū (then taste
you) in three versions is different. If we look at Pickthal's paraphrases, we notice that he paraphrases the ironical word
‫ فَ ُذوقُوا‬fadhūqū (then taste you) into the fruits of your deeds. While in ،Khan and Hilali's translation, they paraphrase it as
the flavour of your deeds. Syntactically, both translations resulted in different syntactic structures. If we look at Khan
and Hilali's translation to the underlined ironical structure, it is found that the structure has started with the
conjunction ,'so', which is an indication for the consequences of events, then followed by the verb‫ فَ ُذوقُوا‬fadhūqū
reflecting similar lexical irony as in the Arabic text. In addition, the verb ‫ فَ ُذوقُوا‬fadhūqū is an order action set already by
Allah to the unbelievers on the doomsday. This is unlike Abdel-Haleem's translation, where he also starts his translation
with the adverb of time „now‟ an indication for the consequence of the events. Then the verbal sentence taste‟ as a verb
order of the ironical structure‫ فَ ُذوقُوا‬fadhūqū (then taste you) to the unbelievers when they (unbelievers) ignored Allah's
warnings. (Kadhim, 2000).

V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Results in a Nutshells
1. There are various instances where prgama –stylistic details are given in the Holy Quran. These prgama –stylistic
expressions are usually rendered by literal rendering or performing transliteration. The translators are often
unable to analyze these cultural terms and aspects of the Holy Quran and neither are they able to find the best
and closest expressions to convey the same meaning and images.
2. It is extremely difficult to translate the Qur’an literally because the Arabic terms, expressions, and lexemes often
have multiple literal meanings and are often used figuratively. In addition, many forms of Arabic lexical
structures contain nuances of meaning that cannot be translated into another language owing to linguistic barriers.
Therefore, the translations of the Holy Quran are largely based on interpretation, paraphrasing, and explanation
of the source text.
B. Implications and Recommendations for Future Research

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

24 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

This study and other similar studies can play a role in enhancing the translational knowledge, understanding, and
performance of students. Moreover, the study can support teaching Arabic to English translations in Arab universities.
Students can potentially benefit from this study in the application of the knowledge of translational techniques and
strategies to holy texts such as Qur’an.

REFERENCES
[1] Abdur-Razzaq ibn Hammam as –Sana'ni. Almusannaf.Beiut, Al-Maktab al-Islami.
[2] Ali, Abduaalh Yusuf. (1993). The Holy Quran, Maryland, USA: Amana Crop.
[3] Abdel-Haleem, M. (1999). Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style. New York: I.B. Tauris and Co. Ltd.
[4] Abdullah, A. (2003). Translations of Near Synonyms I the Quran:AContext -based Analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis.
London: University of London.
[5] Abdelwali, M. (2007). The Loss in the Translation of the Qur’an. Translation Journal, 11 (2), April. Retrieved 10 June, 2010,
from http://translationjournal.net/journal/ 40quran.htm.
[6] Abdul-Raof, H. (2001). Qurʾān Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis. London: Routledge.
[7] Abdul-Raof, H. (2003). Conceptual and Textual Chaining in Qurʾānic Discourse. Journal of Qurʾānic Studies, 5 (2), 72-94.
[8] Abū-Sayyideh, A. (2001). Synonymy, Collocation and the Translator. Turjuman, 10 (2), 53-71.
[9] Ahmed, M. (2001). Cognitive Bases of Translating Metonymy. Retrieved
20/9/2018http://www.google.com/search?hl=ar&lr=&biw=1259&bih=551.
[10] Ahmed, Nazik, N. (2008). Translating Religious Text: An Investigation into English Translations of the Thirtieth Part of the
Noble Quran. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Omdurman Islamic University.
[11] Akbar, M. (1988). The Meaning of the Qur’an. Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd.
[12] Al-Azzam, B.H.S. (2005). Certain Terms relating to Islamic Observances: Their Meanings with Reference to Three
Translations of the Qur’an and a Translation of Hadith. Boca Raton, Fl: Thesis.com.
[13] Al-Batal, M. (1985). The Cohesive Role of Connectives in a Modern Expository Arabic Text. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Michigan: University of Michigan.
[14] Al-Fakhari,A. "On Translation the Noble Quran. Journal of King Saud.Vol.2.3005; pp.67-68
[15] Al- Munjid (Arabic Dictionary).(1999). Beirut: Dar Al- Mashariq.
[16] Al-Sowaiddia, Belqees. (2011). Translating Near Synonyms in Holy Quran, unpublished Theses. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Michigan: University of Michigan.
[17] Ali, A. (1983). Word Repetition in the Qur’an – Translating Form or Meaning. Journal of Language and Translation, (Vol.6.
(1999)19, 17-34. (Australia).
[18] Ali, M.Y. (1983). The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (3rd ed., Vols. 1-3). Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf
Publishers.
[19] Al-Kharabsheh, A. (2001). Translating Autoantonymy in the Qur’an. Across Languages and Cultures, 9 (1), 17-40.
[20] Al­Suyūṭī, Jalāl al­Dīn. (1986). Al­Mazhar fī ulūm al­lughah al­ʿArabiyah. (M. Mawlā, A. al­Jawi and M. Ibrāhīm, Eds.).
Baurit: Al­Maktabah al­ʿAsriyyah.
[21] Al­Zamakhsharī, Abū l­Qāsim. (1999). Al­Kashshāf ʿan ḥaqāʾiq ghawāmiḍ al­tanzīl. Beirut: Dār al­Maʿrifah.
[22] Amos,F.R.(2004). Early Theories of Translation. London: Rutledge.
[23] Arberry, A. J. (1980). The Koran Interpreted (Vols.1-2). London: George Allen & Unwin.
[24] Ayoub, M. (1992). The Qur’an and its Interpreters. (vol. 2). State University of New York.
[25] Aziz, Y. (1998). Topics in Translation with Special Reference to English and Arabic. Benghazi: University of Garyounis.
[26] Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London: Routledge.
[27] Badldinger K. (2001) .Semantics Theory. Oxford: Basisl Blackwell.
[28] Barnwell, K. (1999). Towards Acceptable Translation. Notes on Translation, 95, 19-25.
[29] Bassnett, S. (1980). Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
[30] Beekman, J. & Callow, J. (1988). Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
[31] Bell, R.T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman.
[32] Benjammin, A.(1989). Translation . A New Theory of Words. London: Oxford University Press
[33] Blight, R. (2005). Footnotes for Meaningful Translations of the New Testament. Journal of Translation, 1(1), pp. 7-9..
[34] Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English. London, New York, etc: Arnold.
[35] Cantarino, V. (1995). Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose: The Compound Sentence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[36] Catford, John C. (1990). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An essay on applied linguistics, London: Oxford University Press.
[37] Cresswell, S. (1994). Content Analysis: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Nurse Researcher, 4(3), 5–16.
[38] Cohen, J.M. (1990). English Translators and Translations. London: Longman.
[39] Cook, G. (1999). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[40] Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[41] Devey, C. (1999). Linguistics for Writers. Buffalo: SUNY Pres.
[42] Dickins, J., Sandor H. & Higgins, I. (2002). Thinking Arabic Translation. A Course in Translation Method: Arabic to English.
London: Routledge.
[43] Dixen.R.M.N. (1988). What is Language. London; Longman Gropu.LTM
[44] El-Awa, S. (2006). Textual Relations in the Qur’ān: Relevance, Coherence and Structure. London: Routledge.
[45] Elmarsafy, Z. (2009). Manifesto for a New Translation of the Qur’an: The Politics of “Respect” and the end(s) of Orientalism.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[46] Fatihi, A. (2003). Communication Dimension of Quranic Translation. New Delhi: Adam.
[47] Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories explained, Manchester: St Jerome.
[48] Finch, S.E. (1981). Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Edward Arnold.

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 25

[49] Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R.(1988). An Introduction to Linguistics. London: Routledge.

[50] Gülen, M. F. (2006). On the Holy Qur’an and its Interpretation. New Jersey: The Light.
[51] Gutt, E.A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell.
[52] Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
[53] Harold,F. (2000) .Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
[54] Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
[55] Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997a). The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
[56] Hatim, B. & J. Munday. (2004). Translation: an Advanced Resource book. London: Routledge.
[57] Heidegger, M. (1997). On the Way of Translation. Battleboro, Vt.: Amana Books.
[58] Hervey, S. & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation. A Course in Translation Method: French to English. London: Routledge.
[59] Hocksema, T. (1998). Differences in Translation. . London: Routledge.
[60] Hosni, A.M. (2004). On Translating the Qur’an: An Introductory Essay. Journal of King Saud University, 2(2), 93-134.
[61] House, J. (1990). Translation Quality Assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
[62] House, J. (2005). Text and Context in Translation. Journal of Pragmatics, (2006) 38, 338–358.
[63] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tablets.
[64] http://www.thefreedictionary.com.
[65] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=39&letter=E.
[66] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/swear_2.
[67] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0620720#m_en_gb0620720.
[68] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452123/perjury.
[69] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evil?view=uk.
[70] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-niggardly.htm.
[71] http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/59/index.html.
[72] http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/barren.
[73] http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/51/index.html.http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/33/index.html.
[74] http://www.altafsir.com/index.asp.
[75] http://arthursclassicnovels.com/koran/koran_irving11.html (http://www.aijcrnet.com/journal/index/1128)
[76] Irving, T. B. (1985). The Qur’an: The First American Version. Battleboro, Vt.: Amana Books.
[77] Ibn Katheer, Isma'eel. (1988). Tafseer Al-Quran-Adheem. Beirut, Dar al-Marifah.
[78] Ibn Katheer, Isma'eel. (1998). Al-Bidayah Wa An –Nihayah, Dubai: Dar Abi Hayyan.
[79] Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawzeeyah. (1992). Zad Al-Ma'ad Fee Hady Khayral- Ibad .Beirut: Mu'assasah Ar-Risalah.
[80] Jakobson, 1959/1990, Jasper, D.(1993)(ed). Translating Religious Texts: Translation, and Interpretation. London: The
Macmillan Company. Ltd.
[81] Johnstone, B. (1991). Repetition in Arabic Discourse, Paradigms, Syntagms, and the Ecology of Language. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
[82] Kelly, L.G. (1997/2001). The True Interpreter: A History of Translation theory and practice in the West. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
[83] Kadhim,Karis Ameir. (2000) A Discourse Analytical Approach to Stylistic Variations Changes Employed in Arabic
Translation. Retrieved 23 December, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328145462_
[84] Khalifa, M. (2005). Translation: Tried and True? Retrieved 20 August, 2018, from
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/translate.htm.
[85] Khan, M.E. (2008) Approximation of the Meaning of the Holy Quran: A linguistic Analysis. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
[86] Koller, W. (1989). Equivalence in Translation. Harmondsworth: Penguin
[87] Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[88] Larson, M.L. (1984). Meaning based translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equivalence. Lanham: University of Press of
America.
[89] Leech, G. (1993). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[90] Levy, and Shreve. (2000). Pragmatics. London: Continuum.
[91] Lewis,R. (2005). Training the Translator. London: The Macmillan Company. Ltd.
[92] Laboner. (2008). Semantics. London: Continuum.
[93] Lockwood, A. (2001). Introduction to Stratification Linguistics. London: The Macmillan Company. Ltd.
[94] Lyons, J. (1998). Semantics. Vol.1& 2 London: The Macmillan Company. Ltd.
[95] Makram, Ali.S. (1999). Mu'jam Al-Qiraa'at Al-Qur'aniyya.(1999). Tehran: Intisharat Uswa.
[96] Malinowski, B. (1923/1990). The Problem of Meaning in Primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards (Eds.), The
meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul.
[97] Marlonr. J. (1988). Introduction to Translation. London: The Macmillan Company. Ltd.
[98] Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum)
[99] Martin and Mason, (1997). The Translator as A Communicator.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
[100] Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1999). The Environments of Translation. In Steiner, E. & Yallop, C. (Eds.) Beyond content. Berlin: de
Gruyter
[101] McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[102] Merriam­Webster (Ed.) (1995). Merriam­Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms: A Dictionary of Discriminated Synonyms with
Antonyms and Analogous and Contrasted Words. Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
[103] Moore. A. (2001). ''Semantics''-Meaning. Etymology and the Lexicon .from , Retrieved 27August, 2018, from
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/translate.htm.
[104] Munday, J. (2005). Introducing Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
[105] Neubert, A. & Shreve, G. (1990). Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent State University Press.
[106] Newmark, P. (1998). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

26 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

[107] Nida, E. (2001). Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[108] Norris,C. (1991). Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
[109] Palmer, F. (1988). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[110] Panmna., L. (1982). ''Homonymy and Polysemy. In Lingua.No58.pp.105-136.
[111] Ping, K. (1996). A Socio-semiotic Approach to Meaning in Translation. Babel, (42) 2, 289-300.
[112] Ping, K. (1999). Translatability vs. Untranslatability: A Sociosemiotic perspective. Babel, (45) 4, 289-300.
[113] Pitckhall, M. (2001). The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: An explanatory translation. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
[114] Popovie, A. (1989). Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[115] Qurtubi, Mohammed ibn Ahmed. (1988). Al- Al-Jami'li Ahkam Al-Quran.Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-'Illmeeyah.
[116] Richard, J. (1991). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
[117] Sadiq, S. (2008). Some Semantic, Stylistic and Cultural Problems of Translation with Special Reference to Translating the
Glorious Qur’ân. Sayyab Translation Journal (STJ), 1, pp., 38-40..
[118] Scheliermacher, F. (1999). Translation Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[119] Shata, I. (1988). The Problems Involved in Translating Arabic Cognitive Synonyms into English. The Islamic University
Magazine (Human Studies Series), 17(1), 869-890.
[120] Shunnaq, A. (1992). Functional Repetition in Arabic Realized Through the Use of Word–Strings with Reference to Arabic–
English Translation of Political Discourse. Nouvelles De La Fit-Newsletter, 1(2), 5-39.
[121] Shunnaq, A. (1993). Lexical Incongruence in Arabic-English Translation due to Emotiveness in Arabic. TurjumÄn, 2(2), 37-63.
[122] Simms, K. (1993). Translating Sensitive Texts: Linguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
[123] Simon, S. (1997). Gender in Translation. London: Routledge
[124] Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
[125] Steiner, G. (1998). After Babel: Aspect of Language and Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[126] Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. London: Routledge.
[127] Shawkani, Mohammed ibn 'Ali. (1993). Nayl Al-Watar,Cario: Dar Al-Hadith.
[128] Taylor, J. R. (2002). Near synonyms as Co­extensive Categories: ‘High’ and ‘tall’ revisited. Language Sciences, 25, 263-284.
[129] Toury, G. (1990). The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation. In L. Venuti, (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London:
Routledge.
[130] Vinary J.and Darbelnet. (1995). Stylistics of French and English ( translated by Dider. London: Routledge.
[131] Widdowson, H. (1989). Introduction to Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UP.
[132] Wills, W. (1982). The science of translation. Tubingen: Narr.
[133] World book dictionary online Retrieved 30August, 2018. http://www.thefreedictionary.com
[134] Yule, G. (2009). The Study of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[135] Zhu, X. (2006). No Context, no Text: The Importance of Context in translation. Sino-US English Teaching, 3(9), 79-81.
[136] Zahir, M. (2008). The History of Translation. Translation Directory. Retrieved from
24/8/2018http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1695.ph.

Ali Albashir Mohammed was born on 12th of June 1966. He obtained three PhDs in English literature,
University of Khartoum (2003), PhD in translation, Omdurman Islamic University 2014 and PhD in Applied
linguistics Sudan University of Science and Technology, 2018. Ali is a translator, translation expert and
consultant and editor .Now Ali is working as a university professor at King Khalid University/ Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Ali has published 20 books and 30 Articles in national and international journals.

Majda Babiker Ahmed obtained her PhD in translation from Omdurman Islamic University 2015, and
Master Degree from Nile Valley University in Applied Linguistics 2011. Now Majda is working as a
university professor at King Khalid University/ Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. She is a freelance translator expert
and editor. Majda published many articles national and international journals.

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 27

Dina Ali Abdullah Ali Currently, Dina is working as an assistant Professor, King Khaild University /College
of Ahad Rufadi- English Department She is a freelance translator expert and editor. Dina published many
articles national and international journals.

© 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

View publication stats