Rhetorical typologists prefer to divide texts according to the rhetorical purposes (Halliday and Hasan 1976, Hatim and Mason 1990). In this respect, a classification has been made to set up a typology of texts for translation. Within this approach, an argumentative text-type –with its two mainly branching subtypes reflects Hatim and Mason’s views (1990:159), also of Hatim’s (1997:227), that the argumentation from their translational perspective, is one of two, either ‘through argumentation’ namely by a thesis cited to be argued through, or ‘counter argumentation’ namely by a thesis cited to be opposed. The meanings beyond argumentation can be defined in two: the first, Hatim (ibid:145) who argues that,
a text type whose primary focus is on ‘persuasion’, and one for which the success of a purely literal approach to translation is not always guaranteed, is argumentation. The context for argumentation specifies that the intention is one of comparing, contrasting and assessing concepts in order to reach a verdict (rightly or wrongly) regarding what is to be favoured.
The second, Abdul-Raof (2001:127) who does agree with Hatim on that:
The main purpose of an argumentative text is to persuade the reader/hearer of an idea using emotive expressions whenever needed, from an Arabic stylistic point of view, we usually encounter three main types of argumentative texts: through-argumentative, counter-argumentative, and hortatory counter-argumentative.
Once again, through-argumentation is presented within a proposition to substantiate the major thesis of the argument. This substantiation continues in order to provide authentic details for the logic of the reader as a conclusion. Then, the English counter-argumentative text presents the opponent’s view namely as a thesis which is recursively pounced upon by attacking these views as to also refute them through counter-claims in supportive points. While ‘hortatory counter-argumentative’ text can be applied as religious advises. The Qur’an and Hadith are usually their main authentic and supportive evidences in order to refute the opponent’s point of view (ibid:127-28).
Argumentation is thus used to evaluate objects, events or concepts with the aim of influencing future behaviour (Hatim, 1997:227). In the argument of this study, the purpose is to identify some general rules as to describe some argumentative patterns of stylistic change that also occur during translation as recursively intended by the original author. Two question marks may imply the argument: on the one hand, what typical signals are often in through-argumentative style in Arabic? On the other, what other typical signals are often in the counter-argumentative style in English? As this study approaches only what would be relevant from Hatim’s (ibid:145) classification, it is found that he classifies this stylistic argumentative nature under the following five approaches with adopted and selected examples for clarity from Hatim’s (1997):
I. The less-involved through- argument “any health programme, however sound, is liable to fail if those who introduce it do not work to bridge the cultural gap between the trained health worker and the people he serves”. Hatim (ibid:156) explains, “To preserving both the attention-attracting function and the evaluative tone of this utterance, the Nominal is most appropriately”
" إن آي برنامج صحي أياً كان قدره من الصواب يغلب أن يخفق إذا..."
II. The more-involved through- argument:
“The basic aim of GATT is to liberalize world trade and place it on a secure basis”. For a more- involvement, Hatim (ibid:163) says: “a Nominal must be resisted and the aim … is transformed into the verbal: " و تهدف الاتفاقية بشكل أساسي إلى ... ".
III. The explicit counter-argument
“Despite its many faults, I should not like to suggest that I regret the appearance of this book” In this case, Hatim (ibid:177) comments that “a pragmatic ‘ politeness’ strategy which is in keeping with conventions of the academic ‘review’ as a genre and must therefore be preserved in Arabic,” as:
"و بالرغم مما فى هذا الكتابُ من أخطاء فإنني لا أود أن يُفهم كلامي على أنه تعبير عن أسفي لصدور هذا الكتاب "
IV. The implicit counter-argument
“ Yet the procedures devised at Maastricht have undoubtedly aggravated the recession”. In his analysis, Hatim (ibid:196) literally says: “Following the ‘opposition’ (Yet . . .). ‘substantiation’ is produced as evidence, signalled thus فمعاهدة ماستريخت لا تقف عند فرض ".”
V. The suppressed counter-argument
“even today many theories of education hold that the main task of schools & educators consists in transmitting the acquired historical experience of mankind to the younger generation”. Hatim (ibid:219) proposes the necessity in trying “to preserve two kinds of focus: (a) that of the tone-setting argumentative function: and (b) that of even”:
" واليوم، ما زال هناك كثير من منظري التربية يعتبرون أن . . .".
Conclusion
In argumentation, Hatim (1997:227), mentions that the argumentation from his translational perspective, is one of two, either “through argumentation” namely by a thesis cited to be argued through, or “counter argumentation” namely by a thesis cited to be opposed. Being with meaning, translators seek an effective transfer of meaning in order to accomplish their heavy tasks successfully. 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”. Moreover, Nida (2001:78-80) tackles the rhetorical features of a text, he argues that: “deep structure deals with the underlying meaning of the units on surface structure in terms of their logical relations and meanings”. Rhetorical features as well as the argumentative strategies seem to have one attraction that is aiming at the acceptability of the readership. In this regard, Abdul Raof (2001:138) expresses that a sublime style when analysed, may result in a considerable effect on the reader. He says, “Tropes and figures of speech are stylistically decorative building elements that can be employed to achieve an effective and sublime style”.
For this conclusion, there emerges a need to investigate how a model of argumentation is constructed. It can be true that in rhetorical typology one may use tropes and figures objectively. However, rhetorical features reflect the aesthetic value that might be applicable in the process of translating argumentation. It seems that this approach necessitates some changeability within structures in the target text. This section may have shown the complexity beyond the argumentative strategies of some authors. Expectation of having problems in Said’s text is a reality.[b]
الأحد أبريل 12, 2009 2:25 pm