Style of Thought: a Translational Point of View
A natural translation ought to be in accordance with the context of the specific message, which includes grammatical and lexical elements that detail matters such as an source text style. Steiner (1975:25) holds “that language is essentially something private, which exists to define one’s identity”. Therefore, translators need to be sensitive to the register and style of the source text and thus be aware not to use slang, vulgarities, or colloquialisms when not asked in the ST text. Nida (1964:168) argues that:
the appropriateness of the message within the context is not merely a matter of the referential content of the words. The total impression of a message consists not merely in the objects, events, abstractions and relationships symbolized by words, but also in the stylistic selection and arrangement of such symbols.
By drawing on the notion of style, Leech (1981:12) assures that “each writer has a linguistic ‘thumb-print’”. While drawing on the notion of style, Leech (1981:12) assures that “each writer has a linguistic ‘thumb-print’”.
1. Style and Meaning
Rooney (2004) simply describes two different definitions of good and bad style:
A good style, i.e. a suitable style would require less information to decipher the content it contains, whereas a bad style, an unsuitable form, would hinder its content and would require us to ask questions as to its nature. In other words: a good style would contain no redundancies, whereas a bad style would contain too many.
In general, Leech and Short (1981:10) see style as: “it refers to the way in which language is used in a given context, by a given person, for a given purpose. The style of a particular writer means his linguistic habit.” Namely, the way language is used in a particular genre, period, and school of writing. Leech also (ibid:11) makes it clearer that: “in a text we can study style in more details, and with more systematic attention to what words or structures are chosen in preference to others.” Hence, the linguistic views of style in English as they can be paraphrased in Leech’s (1981) tend to base on one of three different views:
Firstly, style can be considered as the (a) Departure from the set of patterns which are labeled as a (norm). According to this view, stylistic analysis consists of comparison between features in the text, that its style needs to be analyzed, and features in the body of the text defined as (norm) and in fact, these are the background.
Secondly, style is viewed as (b) Addition of stylistic traits, which are neutral from the expression(norm) if so stylistic analysis becomes a stripping process in which we isolate and describe the skin (norm) (stylistic features). Then a speaker or writer starts with (unmarked core) of meaning, which s/he then surrounds with stylistic features.
Thirdly, style has been viewed as (c) Connotation whereby each linguistic feature acquires its stylistic value from the textual and situational environment, stylistic analysis then the study of the relation between the specific stylistic features and their environment (Crystal, 1980; Sebeok, 1960; Leech, 1981; Enkuist, 1964). While in the devotion of the linguistic function, Beaugrande, R. and Dressler W. (1981:16) write that:
Linguistics has been employed as a tool for discovering and describing style…despite the diversity of approaches; nearly all work reflects the conviction that style results from the characteristic selection of options for producing a text or set of texts.
Searle (1979: viii) holds that there are five ways in using language and tell how things are: assertives, directives, commissives, expressive, and declarations. For this to be understood, the translator may have to decide the meaning. In order to go round this, the translator has to analyse the mood of the structure. Let alone the literal sentence meaning and how this interacts with the writer’s utterance meaning. Searle (ibid:ix) says, “In the special case of indirect speech acts, the speaker means what he says but he also means something more”. Therefore, Searle adds, “Reference has been regarded as the central problem in philosophy of language”. Being with meaning, translators seek an effective transfer of meaning. For some authors, meaning generally reflects wit, sense, and eloquence. Hazlitt, in an article in ‘A Book of English Essays’ (1977:155), explains that “It is not to take the first word that offers, but the best word in common use; it is not to throw words together in any combinations we please, but to follow and avail ourselves of the true idiom of the language”. In order to accomplish this, clarity means understanding; this is what Nida requires for the process of translating from the source text to the target text to be accomplished. He (2001:3) declares, “translators do not translate languages but texts”.
2. Stylistic Features in English Argumentative Texts
In this section, one may find it inadequate to define issues separately: stylistic features, argumentation, and theory of translation, all of which need high competence to go round them, though some English comments may helpfully contribute in the argument of this section. Features of style may particularly contribute to the infrastructure of the argumentative English texts. In this regard, Nida and Taber (1969:134) argue, “Every feature of language, from the total structure of the discourse to the sounds of the individual words, is included in the components of style”. Chomsky in ‘LINGUISTIS, A very short introduction’ by Matthews (2003:92) goes more profound saying: “Convincing or not the argument is one that many people far beyond linguistics have found very challenging”, while Hatim (1997:145) made it clearer that “a certain degree of evaluativeness is thus inevitable in almost any kind of text”.
Some different argumentative structures in English are to be investigated systematically by identifying certain stylistic features in distinguishing different sequential theses (Hatim, 1997). How do English writers in argumentative texts present opinions precisely as that in Said’s intellectual book of Orientalism (1978). In order to shed light upon the possible causes of the difficulties in translation, a contrastive analysis of argumentative discourse in English and Arabic is to be carried out. Nida (2001:67) states that:
Many translators, however, regard features of discourse as being irrelevant to their task as translators, because they think that all they must do is to reproduce the sentences more or less word for word and any problem will be automatically accounted for.
Thus, it is important to represent the style expected as that of the original SLT. This may be achieved only by tracing the ST author’s steps, rather than advocate particular stylistic rules. Leech (1981:11) confirms this experience as “to guess the author of a piece of writing simply on the evidence of his language”. Regarding this view, Hatim and Mason (1990) require the ‘familiarization’ of the translator with the author’s style of the ST. For instance, words may descriptively sound equivalent such as: ‘East’ vs. ‘Orient’, when such two items may be referred to as stylistic variants. Lyons (1981:295) says, “stylistics is the study of stylistic variation in language”. It is difficult to ensure whether these two words are said on the bases of stylistics or not. Comparing such discrepancy in the Arabic translation may lead to non explicit - equivalent variation of the two English exemplified items under analysis (الشرقٌ and شرق . (
In this connection, one question mark may need to be raised to the preceding argument. This is because of the fruitful collaboration, which brought to the surface, the strong relationship between linguistics and philosophy. Confirming such relation would need two definitions; the first is George Mounin–mentioned in Katharina Reiss’s (1977:107) who says: “Translation is never a uniquely and exclusively linguistic operation”. The second behind these lines, is Searle (1979:162) who says:
What to me is one of the most interesting questions in the study of language: how do structure and function interact? This question involves questions as, for example, what is the relation between the various kinds of illocutionary speech acts and the syntactical forms.
Reading this correctly may thus be the starting point for translators when it comes to making decisions about the context for argumentation, precisely that which signifies the intention in question. Hatim (1997:145) assures this idea by declaring, “what is required is setting a ‘tone’ and critically evaluating the content of what is being postulated as the point of departure for a given argument”. The importance of indicating the type of stylistic problem may be needed. As literature reviews, translators should believe in the necessity to create a strong sense of style in their reproduction, while Nida and Taber (1969:13) describe this need as: “It is usually quite impossible to represent some of the stylistic subtleties of the original”.
In addition, however, to these dimensions, the functional approach to style is targeted in order to realize something of the purpose of style. In this regard, Crystal (1995:332) generalizes that the term ‘stylistics’ can be underlined as a branch of linguistics, he (1980:10) also identifies the main purpose by asking: “why such features have been used, as opposed to other alternatives”. Nida and Taber (1969:145) tackle these functions in details and divided them as follows: “(1) Those that serve to increase ‘efficiency’, that is, those arrangements of words which provide greater ease of decoding. (2) Those that enhance interest and create impact via the choice of words, for special ‘effects”. They (ibid:150) also hold that the role of the stylistic features can be best apprehended in terms of the main two functions as: “formal and lexical”. The word order on a sequence refers to the first, while the lexical features are the idioms, which words combine for special effects, i.e. dated words in English may add colour, and setting to an account, words as “romance” and “antiquity” are some of the many.
3. Stylistic Features in Arabic Argumentative Texts
Translation into Arabic presupposes an existed knowledge of categories and methods set up for translators to help easing their heavy tasks. An argumentative text with two theses, the first is cited to be opposed by the second. This argumentation may be addressed to be explicit or implicit when the choice between these two ways is considered as a stylistic variant (Hatim, 1997:145).
Abdul-Raof (2001:154) says that if a translator looks at a full Arabic text, s/he will know that written sentences are generally delimited by “a full stop, a question or exclamation mark”. Almost each sentence contains at least one main clause while a few can be classified as minors. The function of the sentence is referred to as a statement, a question or an order, namely the main clause indicates the function, i.e., whether it is a declarative, an interrogative or an imperative. In addition, he adds that the major Arabic text types are journalistic, advertisement, scientific, narrative, letter, and poetry, instructional, descriptive, expository and ‘argumentative’. The main stylistic hallmarks of argumentative texts in Arabic language are the use of ‘emotive and figurative words’.
Aziz (1998: 91) argues, “all the four main types of cohesive devices, Reference, Ellipsis and substitution, conjunctions and lexical cohesion, are used in Arabic”. Nevertheless, there may be some structural differences between English and Arabic, which may prevent the translator from imitating the same argumentative style as that of the original. These aspects must be examined from a stylistic point of view and, if possible analyzed logically. The text-analyst, in this case, needs to see the choices of the sentence structure that the original author makes, i.e., whether the translator has used nominal or verbal, passive or not, imperative or vocative, negative or not, compound or complex, parenthetical or interrogative. According to him, lexical cohesion with its four types; repetition, synonymy, antonymy, and collocation, are used in producing a text. Aziz (ibid:105) adds that “it is probably true to say that Arabic uses lexical cohesion more than English does”. In this respect, the decoder may need to see whether a text provides sentences that initial with elements other than verbs such as adjuncts. For example, SE4-E1 “now it was disappearing” as translated into:
" وكان ألان في سبيله إلى التلاشي" .
Hatim (1997:174) declares that “Arabic favours through–argumentation over counter-argumentation. Within the latter form, Arabic tends towards a mode to which we will here refer as explicit counter-argumentation”. In this favoured type, a concession may be traced in a structured thesis. From translational perspective, one may expect some strategies as well as shifts during the process of translating the SLT. Hatim (ibid:188) expects translators to “note how the crucial function of source text punctuation is decoded and glossed in Arabic”, as in Hatim’s example below:
(ST) “Now it will rise, perhaps quickly: a European rope trick, with Mr. Major as fakir.”
"أما الآن فإن الجنيه الإسترليني سترتفع قيمته وربما بسرعة لكن ذلك لن يتحقق إلا إذا استطاع ميجر صنع المعجزات".
In the process of translation, Hatim (ibid:212) focuses on a particular problem when translating into Arabic. This problem may appear beyond the identified signals that differentiate one argumentative tactic from another. Regardless an implicit or an explicit a text can be, through or counter, the problem that concerns him more is whether the argumentative signals are suppressed or not (in both SLT and TLT). He confirms that
Arabic tends towards the ‘unsuppressed expression of discourse relations. There are substantiating particles (e.g. إذ ، ف ، حيث ) which have no equivalents in English…The translator must therefore first retrieve the signal, if missing from the English text, and then restore it in the Arabic text.
In Arabic, Hatim (1997:217) assures that the “suppressed argumentation in Arabic is the exception rather than the rule, and that Arabic tends to favour the explicit expression of connectors”.
4. Conclusion
Familiarization with Arabic texts from a translational perspective is analytically to seek the linguistic competence that can be implemented objectively. Precisely when such an argumentative text and an author are both involved in the reproduction of an effective Arabic translation. In this paper, Hatim’s (1997) practical guide would be negotiated in details, for its being one of the many that this contrastive study has found reliable and approachable. Newmark (1988:16) says, “The authority of the text is derived from good writing”, he adds that
the point is that ‘expressive texts, i.e. serious imaginative literature and authoritative and personal statements, have to be translated closely, matching the writing, good or bad, of the original…, have to be translated in the best style that the translator can reconcile with the style of the original.
In this concern, structural and grammatical differences among languages impose difficulties in the process of translation. For instance, if a translator does not consider the structures and norms of the target language, then s/he may fail to convey the message of the original. This is a clear indication to the complexity of the process of translating. The translator may enjoy the stylistic beauty of a text, as to be creative in reproducing on the target language reader an effect that can be compared to the original. What matters most, as it is the case in such argumentative text, is the choice of approach, whether to translate literally or not. It seems exceptional that the translator can be able to transmit Said’s eloquent style in argumentation into the Arabic language.
5. Bibliography
Aziz Y. Y. (1998) Topics In Translation, Benghazi: Garyounis University.
Beaugrande, de R. and Dresseler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics, London:Longman.
Crystal, D. And Davey (1980) Investigating English Style, London: Longman.
Crystal, D. (1995) A dictionary of linguistics and phonatics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Enkvist, N. J. Spencer (1964) Linguistics and Style, Oxford: Oxford University press.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990) Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman.
Hatim, B. (1997) English Arabic / Arabic English Translation, Jana Gaugh, London.
Leech, G. N. and Short, M. H. (1981) Style in fiction, London: Longman
Lyons, J. (1981) Language and Linguistics, New York: CambridgeUniversity press.
Newmark, P. (1988b) A Textbook of Translation, New York: Prentice hall.
Nida, E. A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translation, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. and Taber, C.R (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E. J.Brill.
Nida , E. (2001) Context in Translation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oxford Collocations (2003) ‘dictionary for students of English’, Oxford:Oxford University press.
Reiss, K. (1977) Texttype, Ubersetzungstypen und die Beurteilung vog Ubersetzungen.
Lebende Sprachen 22, 3, 97-100.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, New York: Pantheon Books.
Searle, J. (1979) Expression and Meaning, Cambridge: University press Cambridge.
Sebeok, T. A. (1960) Style in Language, Cambridge: University press, Mass.
Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel:aspects of language and translation, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
6. Websites
Roony, Tom (2004) Comments, Central European University, Accessed 23,
June, 2004,
rooneyt@ceu.hu <rooneyt@ceu.hu
الجمعة مارس 05, 2010 4:34 pm