Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND
AFRICAN STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS
TRANSLATIONS OF NEAR-SYNONYMS IN THE QUR’AN,
A CONTEXT-BASED ANALYSIS
MA Dissertation
By
Antar Solhy Abdellah
MA linguistics, SOAS
Supervised by
Professor M. Abdel Haleem
Professor Bruce Ingham
Professor of Qur’anic Studies
Professor of Linguistics
SOAS, University of London
SOAS, University of London
This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of MA Linguistics of the School of Oriental and African Studies
(University of London).
September 2003
Word count: 11806 words excluding diagrams and endnotes.
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
( š•În/u‘ É>$tGÅ2 `ÏB y7ø‹s9Î) zÓÇrré& !$tB ã@ø?$#ur
¾ÏmÏRrߊ `ÏB y‰ÅgrB `s9ur ¾ÏmÏG»yJÎ=s3Ï9 tAÏd‰t7ãB Ÿw
(18 :27:
) ÇËÐÈ
#Y‰ystGù=ãB
And recite (and teach)
what has been revealed to thee
of the Book of thy Lord: None can change His Words,
and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him. (18.27)∗
∗
translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1954) , first number on the left is the number of the Sura,
followed by the number of the verse, and the then the name of the Sura in Arabic.
1
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Declaration
I undertake that all material presented by me for examination is my own work and has not
been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person(s). I also undertake that any
quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has
been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination.
Antar Solhy Abdellah
2
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Abstract
In this study, the concept of synonymity is discussed and ‘near-synonyms’ is proposed to
be the term that is more appropriate for linguistic analysis in natural languages.
Differences in meaning or usage among pairs of near-synonyms are claimed to be contextdependent, hence an analysis of the concept of ‘context’ is carried out, and a model of
translation analysis based on the context is proposed. In this model, context of the
original, linguistic- cultural- emotional, should be thoroughly analysed and carefully
regarded in the process of translating whereby there should be a parallel linguistic context,
a suitable cultural background, and an equivalent emotional context. This model is then
applied on 5 translations of the near-synonyms ‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ in the Qur’an.
3
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Acknowledgements
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, for enabling me to shed some light
on the message of the Qur’an and its translation. I pray to Him to accept this work and
benefit me with it in this life and in the Hereafter.
I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Mohammad Abdel Haleem and Professor
Ingham Bruce for their help in the structure and development of this dissertation. I also
thank my wife and son for their sufferings away from me at the time of preparing this
work. My thanks are also forwarded to my uncle who inspired me with the idea of
working on a Qur’anic topic.
Finally I thank the MBI trust at SOAS, for funding me throughout my MA course.
4
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
To the Memory of my mother.
5
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
CONTENTS
Topic
Pages
0. Introduction
9-13
14- 24
1. Chapter One : Synonyms in Linguistics
1. 1 Definition of synonymy and
14
dispute over ‘sameness’
1.2 Differences in meaning and use
15
1.3 Why people use synonymy
16
1.4 Studies FOR synonymy
17
1.5 Studies FOR synonymy in Arabic
18
1.6 Studies AGAINST Synonymy
19
1.7 Studies AGAINST Synonymy in
21
Arabic
1.8 Near Synonyms, Half way
22
between Synonyms and Nonsynonyms
1.9 Conclusion
23
25-39
2. Chapter Two: Context and Translation
2.1 Nature and Definition of Context
26
2.2 Role of Context in Determining
27
Meaning
2.3 Types and Properties of Context
2.4 Models of Context in Pragmatics
29
30
2.5 Concluding Remarks on Context
34
Models
-2.6 Role of context in translation
35
2.7 A proposed Model for Qur’an
38
translation
2.8 Conclusion
39
6
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
41- 51
3. Chapter Three: ghayth and ma ar,
Context and Translation
3.1. Context of the Original
41
3.1.1 ghayth
41
3.1.1.1 Linguistic context of ‘ghayth’
42
3.1.1.2 Cultural Context
42
3.1.1.3 Emotional Context
43
3.1.2 ma ar
44
3.1.2.1 Linguistic context of ‘ma ar’
45
3.1.2.2 Cultural Context
46
3.1.2.3 Emotional Context
46
3.2 Context of the Translation
47
3.2.1 Arberry
47
3.2.2 Ahmad Ali
48
3.2.3 Shakir
48
3.2.4 Yusuf Ali
49
3.2.5 Pickthall
50
3.3 Results and Conclusion
50
3.4 Recommendations
51
53
Appendix : transliteration key
Bibliography
58-68
7
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
INTRODUCTION
Synonymy is a linguistic term that refers to lexical expressions that share the same or
similar meanings. It falls into the domain of Semantic study. Linguists do not agree on a
certain identification of the degree of similarity that should exist between two lexical
items to be considered synonymous of each other. Linguists who believe in the existence
of synonymy state that one word can sometimes be freely substituted for another which
has the same meaning. (Schneidemesser 1980, Thrane 1986, Brodda and Karlgren 1969,
and Suarez 1971). A pair of words in this view can also be exchanged for each other in
certain contexts and with some limitations. However, the advocates of the existence of
synonymy believe that the existence of absolute synonymy is very rare and can take place,
in most cases, in two different dialects referring to the same object (Suarez 1971 and
Schneidemesser 1980). On the other hand other linguists deny the very existence of this
resemblance and claim that no two words are identical in all types of meaning;
propositional, elocutionary, or evocative (Bolinger and Clark 1977, Bloomfield 1933,
Quine 1953, among others).
In the Arabic language in particular and for long ages there has been- and still is- a big
controversy concerning whether Arabic has got words that have identical meanings. Arab
linguists fall in two opposing stands regarding synonymy : those who defend the existence
of synonymy and justifies its existence with the richness of the bases in the language, the
different dialects used to refer to the same object, or to historical developments where
obsolete words were replaced by new words that have the same meaning . The other
group of linguists represents those who defend the non-existence of synonymy, and rather
claim the existence of differences Fouroq . The term differences in this respect refers to
the different uses of seemingly similar words. In this view words can not be identical, and
the context is the only criterion for selecting words according to different mode, tenor or
tone of discourse.
In the Qur’an the case becomes even more complicated; since the Qur’an represents for
Arabs the source book of sound standard Arabic. Claiming the existence of synonymy
among different lexical items would mean that different people understand the text
differently according to the senses and the connotations aroused in the mind based on the
8
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
free substitution of similar other words (synonyms). This is one of the main reasons that
made the differences advocates defend fiercely their stand in order to protect the holy
book from misinterpretations based on such substitutions. Nevertheless, recently Omar
2001 proposed the existence of perfect synonymy in the Qu’ran, and explained that the
similarities emerge from the fact that each pair of lexical items is either derived from the
same stem, or that each word was used by different tribes in the Arab peninsula though
they refer exactly to the same object. One way of solving the problem of approaching the
holy book as a linguistic text, is what Bint Al-shati’ 1987 and Omar 2001 claim to be
near-synonyms; words that seem to share some, but not all, the shades of meaning implied
by two different lexical items. ‘Near Synonyms’ seems to be the term favoured by most
Arab and non-Arab linguists. Taylor (2003) explains that perfect synonymy is
“vanishingly rare…a logical impossibility, what we frequently do encounter are pairs of
words that are ‘near’ synonyms.” (2003:5).
The question of whether or not the Qur’an uses synonymy is not the domain of this
research, though it is a very important part of the arguments that led to both different
interpretations and different translations of the holy text. The problem of this study is
mainly how different translators dealt with Qur’anic words that seem to represent a case of
synonymy. The present study investigates the strategies used by different Qur’an
translators in translating these words, and whether they regard the context where different
words occur or just adopt one translation of a word, as well as its synonymous, wherever
one occurs regardless of the context.
THE PROBLEM OF THE STUDY:
The main problem of the research can be stated in the following question:
-
How far do translators regard the context in their translation of selected nearsynonyms in the Qur’an?
From this main question, the following questions branch:
1- What is synonymy, and what is near-synonymy?
2- Is there synonymy in the Qur’an?
3- What is context?
4- What are Models of Context?
9
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
5- What is the most appropriate model for analyzing Qur’an translations?
6- What are the most appropriate translations of the selected near-synonyms in the
Qur’an according to this model?
DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:
The present study is limited to the following aspects:
Aim: determining the appropriacy of some translations of near synonyms in the
Qur’an based on a proposed context-analysis model.
Lexical items: The near-synonymous words selected for analysis in the present study are:
‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’
Qur’an translations: the study will refer to the following authorized Qur’an translation
for analysis:
1- The Koran Interpreted, by Arberry. A. J (1964)
2- The Glorious Kur an, Translation and Commentary, by Yusuf Ali. A. (1954)
3- The Meaning of the Glorious Qur an, by Pickthall. M. M. (1999)
4- Al-Qur an , A Contemporary Translation, by Ali. Ahmad. (1984)
5- Translation of the Qur an, by Shakir.M.H(1983).
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:
In this study, I examine a number of English translations to selected near
synonyms in the Qur’an. I believe this can provide insights into the message of the Qur’an
as a text, which is the most important aspect in any linguistic or non-linguistic text. It is
hoped that this study will also provide an illustration to translators that different aspects of
contextual study require careful consideration.
PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY:
-
Reviewing related literature
-
Evaluating different models of contextual analysis, and developing a context-based
model for translating near-synonyms.
-
Applying the model on the translations of near-synonyms in the Qur’an.
-
Discussing results and suggesting further research.
METHODOLOGY
10
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
In analysing the Qur’an verses I will follow the following procedures:
1- Presenting the verse where one of the near-synonyms occurs (ghayth or ma ar) in
Arabic , with these words underline.
2-
Transliterating the verse into English using the transliteration scheme presented
in the appendix page 53.
3- Translating the verse into English except for the words (ghayth or ma ar) which
will be kept untranslated.
4- Analysing the linguistic, cultural and emotional contexts of this pair of nearsynonyms in Arabic,
5- Presenting different translations of the same verses focussing on how the words
(ghayth or ma ar) are translated
6- Evaluating the appropriacy of these translations according to the model of
contextual analysis.
STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY:
- Introduction, and aim of work
Chapter one: Synonymy in Linguistics.
This chapter examines the definitions of synonyms and near-synonyms in linguistics, the
different stands towards this linguistic phenomenon, the importance and uses of
synonyms, and reviews studies that either reject or advocate the existence of near
synonyms in natural languages. The chapter also reviews ancient as well as modern Arab
linguists’ views concerning the existence of (near) synonymy in the Qur’an. This chapter
will provide answers to questions one and two of the questions of the study.
Chapter Two: Context and Translation
This chapter investigates the concept of ‘context’ and reviews different models for
explaining the nature of discourse in context. It also studies the relevance of context
models to translation theory and translation strategies. An assessment of these models is
also presented and a context-based model is proposed for Qur’an translation analysis. This
chapter provides answers to questions three, four and five.
Chapter three: ghayth and ma ar , Context and translations .
11
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
This chapter examines the contexts where the words ‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ have been
mentioned in the Qur’an, and applies the proposed model of Context-analysis on the
different translations of these two words. Finally results are reported showing which is the
most suitable translation of these near-synonyms.
12
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
CHAPTER ONE
SYNONYMS IN LINGUISTICS
13
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
CHAPTER ONE
SYNONYMS IN LINGUISTICS
In the beginnings of the twentieth century, Ferdinand de Saussure published his Course in
General Linguistics (1916) and indicated that the study of meaning was formulated in the
shape of a signe which is a combination of a signifiant (form , sound or pattern) and a
signifiie (meaning or concept) with the relation between signifiant
and signifie as
arbitrary and based on conventions. In an ideal semantic system, a finite number of
signifiers will be paired off, one to one, with an equal number of signified. The ideal is
captured by the slogan ‘one form- one meaning’ (Taylor 2003:2). Natural languages,
however, do not conform to this ideal. Two main linguistic phenomena deviate from this
model; namely polysemy and synonymy. In polysemy, a single phonological form is
associated with two or more distinct semantic values. In synonymy, a single meaning is
symbolized by two or more distinct phonological forms.
Definition of synonymy and dispute over ‘sameness’:
Taylor (2003) finds synonymy a ‘very puzzling phenomenon’ and no less problematic
than polysemy, although synonymy has received relatively little attention from linguists.
Harris (1973) defines synonymy as ‘sameness of meaning of different expressions’. A
broader understanding of synonymy manifests the sameness involved into sameness of use
in addition to the sameness of meaning. Lyons (1986:427) beholds the context in his
definition of synonymy; “two elements cannot be absolutely synonymous in one context
unless they are synonymous in all contexts”.
It is commonly asserted that ‘perfect’ or ‘full’ synonyms, i.e. words that share exactly the
same meaning do not exist, or if they do, they are exceedingly rare. Lyons confesses that
“it is undoubtedly true that there are very few (absolute) synonyms in language”
(1986:448). For some linguists, the absence of perfect synonyms is a methodological
assumption rather than a matter of empirical fact. Bolinger (1977:1) asserts that “if two
ways of saying the some thing differ in their words or their arrangement they will also
differ in meaning”. In a similar vein, Clark proposes the ‘Principle of contrast’ according
to which “every two forms contrast in meaning”(1992:7). Bloomfield earlier rejected the
14
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
notion of sameness in meaning in his fundamental assumption that “each linguistic form
has a constant and specific meaning. If the forms are different, that their meanings are also
different, hence, there are no actual synonyms” (1933:144). Quine (1990) has even argued
that perfect synonymy is a logical impossibility1. According to Quine, to be able to say
that two words ‘have the same meaning’ presupposes that we are able to contemplate
meanings independently of the words used to represent those meanings. Since meanings
do not come isolated from the means of their linguistic expression, to identify synonymy
in terms of sameness of meaning is “irredeemably circular”. He excludes even the
sameness in use as a possibility; “two words cannot have exactly the same use, for when
we use one we are not using the other.” (1990: 131).
Differences in meaning and use:
Nida (1949) points out that close investigation of the use of expressions in a natural
language will always reveal some reason for denying their synonymity. Examples are:
‘peace and tranquillity, childish and puerile, truth and reality . Harris (1973:10) points out
that a more interesting denial of synonymy would be one based on “the thesis that a
natural language, unlike a constructed language, is such that the conditions for synonymity
of two expressions are never fulfilled”. He summarises the ways by which we may
differentiate between meanings of any two expressions by listing Collinson’s nine
possible differentiae:
1) One term is more general and inclusive in its applicability; another is more specific
and exclusive, e.g. refuse/ reject, seaman/sailor, ending/inflexion.
2) One term is more intense than another, e.g. repudiate/refuse.
3) One term is more highly charged with emotion than another, e.g. looming/emerging,
louring/threatening.
4) One term may imply moral approbation or censure where another is neutral, e.g.
thrifty/economical, eavesdrop/listen.
5) One term is more professional than another, e.g. decease/death, domicile/house.
6) One term may belong more to the written language; it is more literary than another,
e.g. passing/death.
7) One term is more colloquial than another, e.g. turn down/refuse.
8) One term is more local or dialectal than another, e.g. flesher/butcher
15
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
9) One term belongs to child-talk, is used by children or in talking to children, e.g.
daddy, dad, papa/ father2.
Why people use synonymy:
If there are such differences between any two seemingly similar expressions, why is it the
case that written, especially literary, texts and people in every day life communication use
different words to mean the same thing? Ullmann (1962:153) points out some of the
reasons behind the uses of synonymy;
1) People like to hear good words in succession and it causes a flow of
synonyms.
2) Poets use synonyms motivated by the exigencies of metre.
3) A collocation of synonyms could produce a contrast effect either serious or
humorous.
4) Synonymy is used to correct one’s use of words when one wishes to
replace a word by a more appropriate one.
5) When a poet tries to formulate his thoughts and ideas he may put in his text
all the various synonyms that come to his mind.
From this list, we can conclude that the use of synonymy is generally for stylistic
purposes rather than for a real need for the use of different words to refer to the same
object. Only number four in Ullmann’s list can represent a level of real need for the use of
synonymy other than a stylistic one.
Studies FOR synonymy:
Sturtevant (1954) discusses a case of synonymy in Old Norse and concludes that
synonyms are found in Old Norse because of the historical developments that happened to
the language. He shows how one word ‘tungl acquired a specific sense of ‘moon’ at a
comparatively late period, while another ‘ambott was a loan word.
Brodda and Kargren (1969) emphasise the existence and the ultimate need for synonymy
in natural languages as well as in computer languages. They explain that people tend to
use synonyms in their search for information; if the encyclopaedia says nothing about
‘Sweden’ one tries with ‘Scandinavia’, if nothing about ‘syntax’, one tries ‘grammar’. A
16
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
synonymy-based retrieval system is thus a vital need for reacting to people’s needs. In
their arguments, they provide a new definition for synonymy as follows: “two expressions
may be considered to have the same meaning in a given context if a reader is likely to
react to both in the same way”. Hence, the concept of sameness is broader than just
sameness of meaning or use.
Suarez (1971) presents a case of absolute synonymy in the Tehuelche language, spoken in
the Province of Santa Cruz, Argentina. He presents the following evidences for his claim:
a) the informants insisted that the words meant the same thing, b) there was complete
agreement between informants as to the words that have the same meaning, c) the words
refer to very concrete things, not emotions or adjectives, d) the same informant telling a
traditional story in different occasions, uses one or another of a pair of synonyms. He
concludes that empirically or theoretically, there can be no evidence against the existence
of absolute synonymy.
Schneidemesser (1980) discusses the various words used for carrying money in American
English; Purse, billfold, wallet, pocketbook, handbag and shows that these words are
synonymous because of the different dialects and the different regions where each word is
commonly used.
Thrane (1986) investigates synonymy in Old English and states three semantic conditions
of synonymity as follows: two expressions are variations of one another iff: a) they have
the same referent, b) the heads in the expressions are members of the same lexical
category, c) they contract the same syntactic relation with the same verb phrase in the
same context. He then applies these conditions on the adjectives of moral sufficiency in
the Old English Andreas.
Studies FOR synonymy in Arabic:
Of the ancient Arab linguists, the following are advocates of the occurrence of synonymy
in the Arabic language:
Abou Zaid al-Ansari (in Suyûti 19--), , Sibawiah (1977), Ibn Jini (1913), Fairouz Abâdi
(19--), Qu rub in al-Zrkilî (1928), Ibn Khalaweh (in Suyûti 19--), Ibn Saida (in Suyûti
17
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
1964) , Al-Hamadani (1931), Abu {ali Al-Farisi (in Anis 1965), Al-Mubarrad (1943), AlAsma{î (in Suyûti 1964).
Al-shaya{ (1993) lists the points they share in common. He explains that according to
them, the occurrence of synonymy is due to
1- the richness of the bases in Arabic, and the various patterns used to derive different
linguistic categories from the same stem,
2- the fact that some adjectives became so wide-spread that they are treated as nouns
and synonymous of original other nouns, e.g. sayf and ussam
(sword).
3- The differences among the dialects of the Arabs, e.g. sekkin and Mudya
(knife)
4- Loan words that entered the Arabic language, e.g. An-narjes and Al-{ahbar
(daffodils)
5- Majaz ; or the metaphorical uses of words, e.g lugha and Lisan
(language and tongue)
6- Differences in the pronunciation according to different dialects, e.g. zara{a and
raza{a
( to plant or drop)
Saleh (1968) explains that in modern standard Arabic the differences between pairs of
words should not be traced back to their original use as they are now part and parcel of the
modern language. Anis (1965) points out that each dialect of Arabic does not have
absolute synonymy, but the standard level of the language that refers to all these dialects
should have synonymy, and as the Qur’an is a unique and supreme literary text, synonymy
is apt to occur frequently. This is aided also by Omar’s recent study (2001) in which he
gives examples of absolute synonymy in the language of the Qur’an e.g. âthara and
Fa<ala
(to favour).
Studies AGAINST Synonymy:
Ziff (1966) on the other hand discusses the nonsynonymy of Active and Passive sentences,
and explains that it is a common misconception to think of Active and Passive sentences
as synonymous. He presents some examples like the following:
18
Antar Abdellah, 2003
-
His wife likes no one.
-
No one is liked by his wife.
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
and explains that the difference arises from identifying the lady in the sentence and
whether it is a certain lady or each one’s own wife. He concludes that there is no such
thing called synonymy between Active and Passive. Katz and Martin (1967), however,
show that the arguments laid out by Ziff (1966) are grounded on syntactic interpretation of
the sentences, and explain that rejecting synonymy based on syntactic interpretations is
wrong. So the sentences under discussion may not be pairs of synonymy simply because
there is no semantic relation between them.
Bushke (1969) conducted a psycholinguistic study on 17 college students for encoding
homophones and synonyms for verbal discrimination and recognition, and found out that
information about words semantic or phonetic attributes may be encoded selectively. He
concludes that these findings are consistent with the view that words may be treated as
complexes of differential features.
De Jonge (1993) discusses the existence of synonyms in language and whether they
represent two forms and two meanings or two forms and one meaning. He points out that
“in theory synonymy is undesirable” and attempts to show that functional differences in
meaning can distinguish two apparently synonymous verbs in Modern Italian. In his study,
De Jonge refers to Breal’s principle of economy, which is explained as follows;
“People can produce infinite set of sentences with a finite set of elements. This shows that
they abstract from reality in order to reduce it to a finite set. Otherwise, each thing and
every situation would need a new expression, and language would then require an infinite
number of units. From this point of view, it is illogical and even undesirable to suppose
that synonymy could exist, since this existence would imply an unnecessary and
uneconomical expansion of the set of units.”(1993:523). De Jonge builds on this result his
call for the search for Differences among seemingly similar expressions. He states “from
this point of view, we have to suppose that if the speaker of a language provides us with
two forms that are alike in meaning, both forms are the result of independent human
strategies and we have no other alternative than to take seriously these two linguistic
19
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
forms, however similar they may appear to be, and to try to find the ‘raison d’etre’ for
both- namely, their difference in meaning.” (p. 523).
Atkins and Levin (1995) have a lexicographical look at some near-synonyms, and explain
that “even slight shades of meaning may affect syntactic behaviour” (1995: 96). They
discuss the case of the Shake verbs in English, and conclude that these verbs show real
differences in syntactic behaviour. They believe that tracing the differences between near
synonyms is very important to the work of lexicographers in their corpus analysis and to a
database that needs to make that kind of distinctions to account for apparently random
variations in usage.
Vasudevan (1996) discusses the stylistic value of synonyms, but shows that there is no
absolute synonymy in language; he rather supports the view of differences in the meaning
or use of pairs of expressions. He also explains that poets’ choice of synonyms depends on
the context.
From a syntactic point of view, Hudson et al (1996) show that synonymy is an impossible
conception. They present various examples as evidences for this claim, like the following;
-
He is able/*capable to work hard.
-
He is capable /*able of hard work / working hard.
They conclude that we are capable of learning purely syntactic facts unaided by semantics.
Taylor (2003) differentiates between synonyms and Near-synonyms and explains that
absolute synonyms are very rare, and applies Vantage’s Theory of co-existence to account
for the near-synonymy of the English adjectives ‘tall’ and ‘high’.
Studies AGAINST Synonymy in Arabic:
The following ancient Arab Linguists reject the existence of synonymy, especially in the
Qur’an; Abu Hilal Al-{askarî (1934), Ahmad Ibn Faris (1964), Ibn Al-‘a{rabi (in Suyûti
1964) , Ibn Durstwah (in Suyûti 1964), Nour El-Din Al-Jaza’ri (1380HJ) ,Al-zamakhshari
(1925), Suyûti (1969).
Al-shaya{ (1993) explains that their evidences are the following:
20
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
1) If two words refer exactly to the same object, then logically one of them would die
out.
2) Language communication opts for economy in sending and perceiving messages,
and the occurrence of synonymy will violate this aspect of language.
3) The memory storage of one word for one object is less in space and easier in
processing than two.
4) Most of the well-known synonyms are in fact adjectives rather than real original
words that refer to an object.
5) The use of the connective and (wa in Arabic) means that two different things are
connected rather than one.
Al-{awwa (1998) traces the study of synonyms and differences in the Qur’an and explains
that even if there is synonymy in the Arabic language, the language of the Qur’an in
particular should be treated differently. She discusses three terms in the Qur’an that seem
to be synonyms and explains the difference in meaning and use according to the context of
the verses in which the words were mentioned; ath-thann, ar-rajaa , and al-khawf ,
(Doubt, hope with fear, and Fear).
Bint Al-Shati’ (1987) explains plainly that the Qur’an as a text is quite different. It is
different in that it is not written by any one of the Arabs, but rather by God in the Arabic
language. This means that each word, and even each letter, has a special role to play in the
different levels of meaning or usage in a particular context. This is one reason why
interpretations of the Qur’an are not treated as Qur’ans in their own, and that’s why the
translators of the Qur’an state that their work is a translation of the meanings perceived by
a certain translator or scholar rather than an equivalent to the holy text. Bint Al-Shati’
points out that this stand is not taken out of the feeling of protection towards the holy
book, but after long exhaustive objective studies according to a very strict scientific
methodology whereby she used to handle a certain topic in the Qur’an and analyses the
words used in it whenever this topic is mentioned in the book. She concluded that the
context is the guideline and the criterion for determining the choice of words in the
Qur’an, and that replacing a word in place of another does not fulfil all the different
aspects of meaning and uses as the original words do.
21
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Near Synonyms, Half way between Synonyms and Non-synonyms:
From surveying the studies that reject synonymy and the studies that defend its existence
we can make the following points:
1. Linguists who reject synonymy only reject absolute synonymy, and most of them
agree to partial-synonymy (expressions that share some but not all of the shades of
meaning), some of them even finds in synonymy a rich stylistic value3.
2. Linguists who defend synonymy tend to have a contemporary functional look
rather than a historical analytical view of the differences between synonyms.
3. The criterion for synonymity is the interchangeability4 in certain contexts and not
in all contexts, in other words no free substitution. Another criterion is readers’
and hearers’ reaction to the use of the linguistic expression in certain contexts.
We can thus conclude that perfect or absolute synonymy is a matter of philosophical
study5 rather than functional or linguistic, and that the phenomenon we are interested in is
in fact Near-synonyms that seems to exist in natural languages and over which there is no
such controversy.
Near Synonyms , in Taylor’s words, are “words which are similar in meaning, which tend
not to be contrastive , but which are distributed differently” (2003:1).A characteristic of
near-synonyms as opposed to words which are merely similar in meaning, is that nearsynonyms exhibit “a low degree of implicit contractiveness”(Cruse 1986: 266). Taylor
gives the example of warm and hot which, though similar in meaning, are not synonyms
or even near-synonyms, since by asserting that something is warm one may be implicitly
denying that it is hot, and vice versa. Big and large do not contrast in this way, since it
would be incoherent to assert of one and the same entity that it is big but not large (or vice
versa). But if the two words are not contrastive, they are far from being interchangeable in
all contexts. On the contrary, there is often a clear preference for one of the terms, even to
the exclusion of the other. We should say, for example, that we have prepared a ‘big
surprise’ for someone, not a ‘large surprise’. On the other hand, we talk about a ‘large
amount’ of money, rather than a ‘big amount’6. The different contextual preferences point
to substantial differences in the meanings of the two adjectives.
22
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
The challenge now is “how to describe the meanings of near synonyms in a way that does
justice to the semantic value of each of the items, and which goes some way towards
explaining their different distributions, while still recognizing the low degree of
contractiveness between them” (Taylor 2003: 5). Taylor reviews some semantic theories
and assesses their validity in explaining near-synonyms. Saussurean structuralism does not
seem to work in this respect as the value of an item is determined by the items with which
it is in paradigmatic contrast. The theory of Semantic fields, in which the semantic value
of a term is delimited by the semantic value of its neighbours, does not have a place for
non-contrastive, or even overlapping items. Katz’s theory of Features does not have the
apparatus for representing the meanings of near-synonyms. What Taylor proposes instead
is an application of a non linguistic theory that was originally introduced to account for
aspects of colour categorization - the Vantage theory7 of Co-existence whereby two terms
can co-exist and each one refers to the same thing from a different perspective.
Conclusion:
This chapter presents answers to question one and two of the Questions of the study that
are posed in the introduction. Definitions of synonymy tend to emphasize the aspect of
sameness in meaning, in use, in the interchangeability or even in the receivers’ reaction to
the message. While linguists, including Arab linguists, do not agree on whether or not a
language has absolute synonymy, there seems to be no such big dispute regarding Near
Synonyms which are items that share some, but not all shades of meaning. The Qur’an as
a linguistic text is thought to have examples of near-synonyms where there are preferences
for using a certain item in a certain position. The context remains the most suitable
criterion for determining the interchangeability and the contractiveness of any pairs of
near-synonyms. In the following chapter, we investigate theories of context and contextual
models of discourse analysis in order to develop an understanding into the nature of nearsynonyms and the role of context in the Qur’anic choice of words.
23
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
CHAPTER TWO
CONTEXT AND TRANSLATION
24
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
CHAPTER TWO
CONTEXT AND TRANSLATION
While formal Semantics focuses on the study of meaning in its relation to some
possible world, or rather to a model or structure, the study of Pragmatics focuses on
meaning in its relation to the situation where it takes place and to the participants in the
speech act. Malinowsky (1964:63) explains that the most fundamental function of speech
is pragmatic- “to direct, to control, and to correlate human activities”. He points out that
“no study of speech except within the ‘context of situation’ is legitimate”.
Nature and Definition of Context:
Gaining Knowledge about the world means rebuilding the world cognitively. Goodman
(1979) points out that the assumption that the world does not exist in an objective sense,
but is created, or brought to existence, in the process of knowing, finds direct reflection in
language. For instance, whether time ‘flows like a river’ (as it does in English) or ‘grows
like a tree’, ‘falls like a waterfall (as it does in Mandarin Chinese- Lee Chin in
Tabakowska 1999) or ‘runs like a rocket’ (as it does in Egyptian Arabic), depends on how
the ‘individual human observer’ responsible for first creating an expression- that with time
became the linguistic convention- happened to see the things around him.
The meaning of a linguistic expression thus depends on how people perceive of this
expression depending on a certain situation, a certain time, and certain persons who take
part in the communication. Van Dijk (1977:191) views the context as “a highly idealized
abstraction from a situation and contains ...those facts which systematically determine the
appropriateness of conventional utterance”. From the point of view of Relevance theory,
Gutt (1998:42) considers the notion of context as “a psychological construct, a subset of
the hearer’s assumption about the world… it is the set of premises used in interpreting
[an] utterance” Under this definition, ‘context’ is a very wide notion that can include
virtually any phenomenon entertainable by the human mind. Serber and Wilson (1986:15)
explain: “A context, in this sense, is not limited to information about the immediate
physical environment or the immediately preceding utterances; expectations about the
future, scientific hypotheses or religious beliefs. Anecdotal memories, general cultural
25
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
assumptions, beliefs about the mental state of the speaker, may all play a role in
interpretation”.
Role of Context in Determining Meaning:
In chapter one, we discussed how two words can not be identical in all aspects of
meaning; for if they were, they would be one and the same object. Two objects may well
be indistinguishable under particular circumstances (near synonyms), which does not
justify the conclusion that they are identical. Another context may provide the means for
distinguishing them. Bosch (1984: 4) gives the example of a triangle which differs in
meaning (perception) according to different contexts1. In the following diagram, the
leftmost object differs depending on what other objects there are and thus on what objects
the target object must be distinguished from. Each set of contrasting objects makes us
focus on particular aspects or properties of the object.
Situation
Object
Natural description for the leftmost object
A
‘the triangle’
B
‘the small one’
C
‘the large one’
D
‘the equilateral one’
E
‘the white one’
F
∗
‘the black one’
26
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
It is quite strange that one and the same object is perceived differently according to the
surrounding items that constitute the context in which it appears. Even stranger is to
describe the same thing with two opposite words as ‘white’ and ‘black’; the triangle in
situation E is the same one as in situation F, only because they are in different situations
that the identity of the same triangle is perceived differently.
Gutt (1998: 41) gives another example that involves human interaction in the following
exchange:
-
Joe: ‘Will Sarah be long?’
-
Pam: ‘She is with Frank now’.
Pam does not answer Joe’s question directly, rather she informs her that Sarah is with
Frank. There are two possibilities; in a case A, Frank is known to be very quick with
people; he usually deals with a matter in a few minutes, in which case Sarah will not be
long. In a case B, Frank is known to keep people for a long time, hence Sarah will be long.
Gutt presents these cases in the following diagram:
Case A
Premise 1
Utterance
Sarah is with Frank now
Premise 2
Context A
Frank does not take long
with people
Conclusion
Implication
Frank will not take long
with Sarah
Case B
Premise 1
Utterance
Sarah is with Frank now
Premise 2
Context B
Frank keeps people a long
time
Conclusion
Implication
Frank will keep Sarah a
long time
∗
The colour of the right triangle is red
27
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Types and Properties of ‘Context’:
Van Dijk (1977:192) discusses the following points as basic characteristics of ‘context’;
1- A context has a ‘dynamic character’. It is not just one possible world-state, but at
least a sequence of world states. These states (situations) do not remain identical in
time, but change. Hence a context is a ‘course of events’.
2- This course of events has an initial state, intermediary states, and a final state.
3- In an infinite set of possible contexts, one will have a specific status, viz. the
‘actual context’. The actual context is defined by the period of time and the place
where the common activities of speaker and hearer are realised, and which satisfy
the properties of ‘here’ and ‘now’ logically, physically, and cognitively.
4- An actual context has a set of alternatives. Some of these are normal, and satisfy
the basic postulates of communicative courses of events. Others are possible,
imaginable, but not normal.
5- The context changes from moment to moment, this change affects objects in the
successive states of context. This change also affects the relations between the
possible agents and the possible patients.
Another basic characteristic of context is raised by Sperber and Wilson (1995) when
discussing the role of context in Relevance theory. A context is assumed to be organised
and this organisation affects the accessibility of a particular piece of contextual
information on a particular occasion.
On the other hand, Langacker (1987) indicates three types of context; Syntagmatic,
systemic and situational contexts. ‘syntagmatic context refers to the process of linear
combination of linguistic units to form complex linguistic expressions. This level of
context does not require that composite structures be definable or computable from their
components. An example is that the form ‘ing in English refers to a notion of action; as in
going, but this is less prominent in wedding or building. Systemic context, in contrast,
establishes the position of a linguistic unit within the network of interrelations which
together constitute the grammar of a language. In this respect, a linguistic unit derives its
value from its relation to relevant aspects of this network. The full meaning of an
expression can only arise by including relevant situational elements of the particular
situation which is being described, i.e. pragmatic circumstances (physical and social
28
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
context) that condition a particular usage event. It is this ‘situational context that finally
establishes the overall contextual meaning of an expression.
Tabakowska (1999) comments on Langacker’s theory and points out that his main interest
is in the process of conceptualisation, which results in his focussing on the perspective of
the speaker. Conversely, Speber and Wilson (1986) construe their theory from the
perspective of the hearer; they focus on the comprehension of the verbal message, which
means viewing language mainly as being grounded in social interaction.
Models of Context in Pragmatics:
Since the context of speech, or the co-text of a text, constitutes the variable meaning of a
message- whether verbal or non verbal, it seems that the study of Pragmatics is the core of
the study of ‘context’. Pragmatics studies ‘speech in context’ from the perspective of ‘the
where, the when and the who’ that constitute the basic elements in a communication.
Modelling Pragmatics then will focus on speech Acts as the process that embodies human
linguistic exchange. We believe that Speech Acts in this sense is inter-dependable on the
context in which it occurs. In the following, we review various models of context, and
comment briefly on them.
1. Bloomfield s Behavioural Model:
Bloomfield was concerned with the description of overt observable linguistic form. He
was aware at the same time of the need to place linguistic form in the broader context of
practical human events. Bloomfield’s model is based on a stimulus- Response formula
where “one person makes a reaction (R) when another person has the stimulus (S).”
(Bloomfield: 1933:24).
S
R
2- Firth s Situational Model:
Firth’s model (in Gregerson1980) focuses on the situation which works as the sphere that
encompasses the speech, and the participants.
29
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Situation
Person X
person Y
Speech
(Parole)
3- Austin s Speech Act Model:
Austin’s (1962) Model focuses on the acts accomplished by a speaker when uttering
words simultaneously. He analyses a speech act into three main components: locutionary,
which refers to the propositional meaning, illocutionary, which refers to the intended
meaning, and perlocutionary, which refers to the side effects of the utterance whether
intended or not.
Speech Act
Locutionary
Expression,
Illocutionary
Perlocutionary
propositional Intended primary force of Side effects of the utterance
content
the utterance
4- Hymes Mnemonic Model:
Hymes focuses on the components of Speech Acts and lists them as follows:
S
P
Setting
Time and place
Scene
Psychological setting (formal/informal; festive/ serious)
Participants
Speaker/ sender; addressor; hearer /receiver/audience;
addressee
E
Ends (purposes)
Outcomes and Goals
A
Act sequence
Message form and content
K
Key
Tone, manner, or spirit
I
Instrumentalities
Channels (oral, written, etc) and forms (language, dialect,
register, etc) as the means of speaking
N
Norms of interaction
The rule-governed properties of speaking (no interrupting,
30
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
whispering in church, etc)
G
Genres
Poems, myths, lectures, riddle, etc.
5- Verschueren Model of Relations:
Verschueren (1977) isolates the basic factors in context and claims that the speech act
enters into four relations;
(W)orld
(L)anguage
(S)peech (A)ct
(S)peakers
(H)earers
1. The relation with language (L): that is; the speech act (SA) imposes certain
requirements on the linguistic structures which manifest it.
2. the relation with the world (W): SA’s reflect their cultural setting. This includes
Grice’s speech maxims: ‘Be as informative as required’; ‘say only what you
believe true’; ‘be relevant’; ‘don’t be obscure, but do be succinct’.
3. the relation with the speaker (S): SA’s reflect their attitude or psychological state
of the speaker.
4. the relation with the hearer (H); this relation involves the effect upon the hearer as
intended by the speaker(represented by the arrow).
6- Ross s Model of Deep Structures:
Ross (1970) suggested that all declarative sentences could be derived from a syntactic
deep structure representation of the following type:
S1
NP
[+ 1ST prs.]
VP
V
NP
+declare
[2nd prs.]
+perform
I declare to you (message).
31
S2
(M)
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Speech acts are viewed from a syntactic perspective with speakers and addresses modeled
in terms of NP’s and V’s modified by some sort of abstract diacritic features.
7- Fleming s communicational Model:
Fleming (in Gregerson1980) presents a stratificational network scheme for the
communication process, as follows:
Audience
Communicator
Intent
Attitudes
Referential Realm
infer
Interest
perceive
Intent
select
Attitudes
Interest
Content of decoded
message
Content of message
encode
decode
Set of encoding
symbols and their
interrelationships
Set of decoding
symbols and their
interrelationships
express
Perceive
Set of physical
phenomena expressed
Set of physical
phenomena delivered
Transmission channel
deliver
transmit
8- Gregerson s Model of Communication Acts:
Gregerson’s (1980:9) model is represented in the shape of a tree where as he explains “it
is intended to express the fundamental idea that communication involves a communicative
source (CS) which determines (DET) in some sense the internal state of a communicative
32
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
goal (CG). However, each of these, (CS) and (CG), is internally complex. First with
reference to the (CS) the tree exhibits a three way conjunction of a volitional (VOL)
function, a presuppositional (PRESP) function, and an attitudinal (ATT) one. This cluster
as a group determines (DET) a predicational (PRED) function and a referential (REF) one,
which in turn determines (DET) or affects overt forms via an expressional (EXPR)
component. The (CS) determines the internal processes in the (CG), which is itself also
complex. The (CG) too possesses the same three conjoined functions (VOL), (PRESP)
and (ATT), which determine (DET) two further components.”
Communication Act
COM. SOURCE
GOAL
COM.
DET
CONJ
VOL
INTRP
CONJ
PRESP
DET
ATT
CONJ
DET
REF
PRED
EXPR
CONJ
CONJ
VOL
PRESP
DET
ATT
DET
PRCT
Concluding Remarks on Context Models:
Through surveying these models of context, we notice that some of them focus on the
nature of the message and the psychological processes involved in communication
(Fleming, Gregerson) while others focus on the interrelationships between the speech act
and the participants in the communication model (Firth, Verschueren), others emphasize
the different aspects of meaning a message may have, including its underlying meaning
(Austin, Ross) and finally some consider the type of response expected in a certain
situation (Bloomfield, Hymes). While Bloomfield’s Model focuses on the exchange
between participants, it is clear that he does not take into account other factors like the
time, place or setting of the exchange. Firth’s model does not show the type of interaction
33
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
between the participants, the time, the place, nor the purpose of interaction, which are all
important factors in understanding the message. One merit of Austin’s model is explaining
the different modes of meaning a linguistic expression might have in one and the same
context. However, the model does not represent the hearer’s response or the channels used
in conveying the message. Ross’s model fails to represent the interrelationships between
speaker and hearer and the nature of the message convey. However it can represent, as
Ross calls it, the deep structure underlying all communication, before any course of
derivations.
From a pragmatic point of view, we believe that Hymes’s model is the most
comprehensive one, as it deals with various aspects of the situation where a speech act or a
message may be conveyed. Hymes’ model pays equal attention to the type of message
delivered as well as the norms that govern the expected response or even the manner of
producing the message. However, Hymes’s model focuses mainly on the nature of the
speech act in one language, and does not address problems that arise when transferring
this speech act, or text, into another language through translation. In the remainder of this
chapter, we investigate the role of ‘Context’ in translation, and review some context-based
models of translation.
Role of context in translation:
We have already seen examples where meaning can change depending on the context in
the same language. By translating a text for a target audience with cultural background
different from that envisioned by the original writer, the translator is, in effect “quoting
the original writer out of context” (Gutt, 1998: 49). Gutt considers all instances where a
text is presented to an audience with a context different from the one originally envisaged,
as “secondary communication situations”.
Referring to the importance of cultural context in translation, Ali (1991:33) works out a
new definition for translation; “the process of translating is better defined as a
reproduction in the TL of a message contained in a SL.” He views the process of
translating as a mental process where a translator “analyses the structures of the SL into
kernel elements or features before he can dissect the intended meaning of the linguistic
34
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
expression”. It may be helpful for the translator to realize that not all the problems he
encounters in translating a text are problems peculiar to translation. Gutt (1998:50)
explains that “any text transferred from its original context to a different one is likely to be
affected in its meaning by that change, even when there is no change of language.”
Darwish (1999) illustrates a view of the translator’s mind as follows:
He emphasizes that “The travel path is not always in one direction. It is in fact
bidirectional even
when translation occurs in one direction. The action-reflex mechanism works like a
pendulum shifting back and forth from one language set to the other, with the translator
constantly referring back to the source text.” Another important factor in this view of
mind is the role played by culture which represents the framework for the context of
communication.
When dealing with a problem caused by contextual differences, the translator should ask
himself whether he could, or even should, address this problem by amending the
translated text, or whether other means need to be sought ( like using a footnote, or writing
an introduction to the text,..etc). This is especially true when the ‘differences in context
are extensive and would require major reworking of the text’ (Gutt 1999). That’s why
Nida and Taber (1969) find it important for the translator to recognize the three main
35
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
functions of language; “informative, expressive, and imperative”. Consequently an
adequate translation- like all adequate communication- “must not only provide
information which people can understand but must present the message in such a way that
people can feel its relevance (the expressive element in communication) and can then
respond to it in action (the imperative function).” (1969: 27) They perceive the translation
process as an interaction model encompassing the interaction of the original sender and
receiver as well as the new sender ( the translator) and the new audience, as represented in
the following diagram:
S
M1
A: Source Language
R1
B: Receptor Language
R
S
R’
S’
M2
R2
Nida and Taber view the translation process as a model where an original speaker, source
(S) conveys a message (M1) to his original audience, receptors (R1). A translator to
perform his function must first become a displaced receptor (R) and then in turn a source
(S), producing , often in a totally distinct historical-cultural context, a message (M2) to be
conveyed to new receptors (R2). Their model does not only show the place of original
writers, and original audience in addition to the translator and the new audience, it also
shows the place of the translator-critic (R’, S’). This critic has traditionally concentrated in
his judgments only on the adequacy of the match between M1 and M2 with regard to form
and meaning (the dotted arrow). What Nida and Taber advocate is that the reaction of the
receptor R1 and R2 be the focus of critical attention in seeking dynamic equivalence in
translation (dashed arrows).
One advantage of this model is that it takes into consideration the original context of the
text and compares it with the context of the target language. The appropriacy of the
translation hence would be determined based on the effect the target text has on the new
audience. Gutt (2000: 391) quotes Mounin who presents this notion in a rigid way when
commenting on translating a successful play: “prior to faithfulness to the wording, to
grammar, to syntax, and even to the style of each individual sentence in the text, must be
36
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
faithfulness to that which made this piece a success in its original country. One has to
translate its effectiveness on stage first before giving consideration to the reproduction of
its literary or poetic qualities.” When translating religious texts, the Qur’an or the Bible
for example, this principle of relevance will have to be modified; since the relevance here
will not be only in the effects aroused in the target audience, but more over in the exact
meaning of the original and how it developed. It all depends on the needs of the audience,
and with a religious audience in mind, a translator has to work out the different aspects of
the original context and try to translate the context and amend the target text accordingly.
Nida (1986: 38) states “there are certain important religious symbols which though often
obscure in their meaning, are necessarily important for the preservation of the integrity
and unity of the biblical message”. Beekman and Callow (1974) support this stand by
referring to the ‘principle of historical fidelity’ where the preservation of historical details
is seen so highly relevant that it “overweighs the additional processing effort required”
(Gutt, 2000: 388).
A proposed Model for Qur’an translation:
Although Nida’s model of the translation process is an interactive one that encompasses
both the context of the original message and the message after translation, we believe it is
still inadequate for religious translation where the ‘historical as well as cultural fidelity’
comes before the effect of the message on different audiences. Translating the word of
God, The Qur’an, needs more attention to the linguistic, historical and cultural contexts
more than any piece of literature. For this reason we propose the following model which
we believe well represents the process of adequate and appropriate translation of NearSynonyms in the Qur’an:
Emotional Context
37
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Cultural Context
Context
Linguistic
Original Message
Cultural Background
Target Message
Parallel
Linguistic context
Equivalent emotional effect
What we propose in this model is that the original message should be understood with
respect to three types of context:
1- Linguistic: the vocabulary, the structure and the morphology of Near
synonyms
2- Cultural: the situation, the metaphorical devices used and the overall
meaning of the verse in which the Near Synonym occurs, and
3- Emotional: the evocative meanings aroused in the mind and soul of the
audience, and the communication end of the verse.
These three levels of context are not isolated; they are interrelated and some times
overlapping. They are also in circular interaction where they lead naturally to each other
and together form the message.
In the other hand, the translated form should also have three types of context:
1- Parallel Linguistic: the choice of lexes and structure in the target language,
2- Cultural background: by giving footnotes, or introduction to a group of verse that
have a certain topic, or by the choice of cohesive and coherent devices that keep
the effect of the original,
3- Equivalent emotional: as reflected in the choice of words, and the order of
presentation.
38
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Conclusion:
In this chapter, we reviewed the nature of context in language interaction and the models
of communication in context. This chapter answers questions three, four and five of the
questions of the study. A definition of context can thus refer to ‘the setting of the
interaction, the participants involved, the type of relations between them, the culture
background, the message conveyed, the means of conveying it, and the instruments of
receiving it’. Translation as a communication act is affected by the context, and any
change in context will consequently cause a change in the original message, that’s why all
translations, and reported messages are considered ‘secondary communication acts’.
Finally we proposed a model for translating Near Synonyms in the Qur’an bearing in
mind, the three types of context- linguistic, cultural and emotional. In the next chapter,
we will apply this model on the words ‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ in the Qur’an and their
translations.
39
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
CHAPTER THREE
GHAYTH AND M
AR, CONTEXT AND
TRANSLATIONS
40
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
CHAPTER THREE
GHAYTH AND MA AR, CONTEXT AND TRANSLATIONS
In this chapter, we apply the proposed context-translation model on the distribution and
translation of the Near-Synonyms ‘ghayth and Ma ar
‘. The main purpose of
this analysis is to decide on which translation, and which translation strategy, is the most
appropriate in conveying the meanings of this pair of Near-Synonyms.
3.1 Context of the Original:
3.1.1ghayth;
The word
is derived from the stem .
The stem has the meanings of help at times
of distress, saving, rescue, and sending mercy on people. The word
the Qur’an five times; three of them as a noun
and two as a verb
was mentioned in
and
. The
following are the verse where the expression is used beginning with the verbs;
Idh tathtaghith$na rabakum fas-staj~ba 8 (8:∗9 :
) ÇÒÈ N
ö 6
à 9s >
z $f
y Ft ™
ó $$ ùs N
ö 3
ä /- ‘u b
t qWè ‹óÉ Gt ¡
ó @n Œø )Î
lakum. (Remember when you asked for ‘ghawth’ from your Lord, and He responded to
you)
thumma ya’ti min (12: 49:
) ÇÍÒÈ b
t rŽç Ç
Å è÷ ƒt mÏ ŠùÏ ru ¨
â $Z¨ 9#$ ß^$ót ƒã mÏ ŠùÏ P× %æ
t 7
y 9Ï ºŒs ‰
Ï è÷ /t `
. BÏ ’AÎ 'ù ƒt N
§ Oè
ba{di dhalika {~mun fiyhi yugh~thu an-n~su wa fiyhi ya{*ir$na. (After that there will
come a year when people will be ‘yughathun’ and when they will press wine).
’inna Allaha {indahu {ilmu 9 (31: 34 :
y ‹ø ót 9ø #$ ^
Ú ”iÍ \t ƒã ru pÏ ã
t $¡
¡ 9#$ N
ã =ù æ
Ï ¼nç ‰
y Yã
Ï !
© #$ b
¨ )Î
) ÇÌÍÈ ]
ass~{ati wa yunazilu al-ghayth. (Truly Allah has the knowledge of the Hour and it is he
who sends ‘al-ghayth’.)
wa huwa al-ladhi yunazilu 10 (42: 28 :
ã ”iÍ \t ƒã “%
Ï !© #$ qu d
è ru
) ÇËÑÈ #( qÜ
ä Zu %s $Bt ‰
Ï è÷ /t `
. BÏ y]‹ø ót 9ø #$ A
al-ghayth min ba{di m~ qana $. (It is He who sends ‘al-ghayth’ after they have despaired).
kamathali ghaythin ‘a{jaba al-kuff~ra 11 (57: 20 :
x @
È Vs J
y .x (
) ÇËÉÈ ¼mç ?è $7t Rt ‘u $ÿ
¤ 3
ä 9ø #$ =
| f
y ã
ô &r B]‹ø î
nab~tuhu. (Like a ‘ghayth’ whose vegetation pleases the unfaithful).
41
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
3.1.1.1. Linguistic context of ‘ghayth’:
Ibn Man ur (1956) explains that ghayth
In this sense ma ar
in Arabic means “rain and pasture or grass”.
has the same meaning as
. However, Ibn Man ur finds it
important to state “ the water coming from the sky is originally called ‘ma ar’ while the
grass and pasture that grow as a result of this water are referred to as ‘ghayth’”. He
moreover mentions the meanings of the stem and the verbs derived from
which all in
general mean “to ask for help”12. He also gives an account about Al-A*ma{’i who praises
a maiden who used the two words quite differently13.
{Abd al-W~ id ibn {Ali al-
Lughawi (1957:189) on the other hand points out that “If the Earth is full of water that
comes from the sky, this is called ‘ghayth’. Firuzabadi (1817) explains that ‘ghayth’ is the
cold rain that grows grass”.
Al-Doqr (in Al-Mu addith 2003) mentions the account of a nomad who was rudely
requesting God to send water from the sky to rescue them from drought, and that he used
the word ‘ghayth’ to explain this meaning 14. While Tha{alibi (1998) mentions more then
36 words for different types of water that comes from the sky, and explains the difference
in meaning and usage between them. ‘ghayth’ is this taxonomy is “water that comes after
a drought and when people need it15”. On the other hand, Razi (in Al-Mu addith 2003)
finds no difference between ‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’, and states that “ghayth is the ma ar that
Allah sends to the Earth”.
While ‘ghayth’ in classical Arabic is always connected with the meanings of help or
rescue, we find that ‘ma ar’ does not have such direct relation with these meanings. In the
verses mentioned above, each time the word ‘ghayth’ is mentioned, it suggests the
meaning of saving or rescue.
3.1.1.2. Cultural Context:
In the cultural context of the word ‘ghayth
’ we explore the interpretations given to
this lexical item in the verses in some Qur’an Exegeses. Al-Qur ubi (in Al-Mu addith
2003) explains that “sending saving water from the sky is something that Allah only
knows and that no other one, including the prophet, has knowledge of. Al-ghayth is the
name given to the water that is profitable at the time of its falling, while al-ma ar may be
harmful or useful”. Suyûti (1957) explains that a man came to the prophet (SAW16) and
42
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
asked when his wife will give birth to his baby, when he will die, and when will water
come from the sky to save them. Then this verse (31:34) was revealed. He also mentions
that a man came to the second Caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and complained that people
are having drought and they have reached the point of despair, here Omar said: Only now
you will have rain and recited the verse
17
( 42:28)”. Ibn Kathir(1978 ), mentions an
account about the prophet (SAW) when he spoke about him self saying: the instructions
and guidance that I have been sent with are like and abundant ‘ghayth’ that came on a
ground, some of it absorbed the water and grew heavy grass, and some didn’t catch it so
they stayed bare18” It is quite important to note that the example given by the prophet uses
the word ‘ghayth’ rather than ‘ma ar’ especially in a context where he would like to show
the mercy and guidance with which he was sent. abari (1980) explains that in the battle
of ‘Badr’ the prophet of Allah kept pleading with God and kept praying for Him, that the
prophet’s cloak has dropped from above his shoulders, then Abu Bakr, the first Caliph in
Islam, asked the prophet to take it easy as for sure Allah will make him victorious. At that
time the verse (8:9) was revealed using the verb
which is derived from ‘ghayth’ to
19
mean pleading and sincere prayer for help . Finally, Al-Qur ubi (in Al-Mu addith 2003)
gives an account about the story of the prophet Joseph and his interpretation of the
Egyptian King’s dream. The King asked Joseph to explain what is meant by seven fat
cows and seven dry ones; Joseph tells him that there will come seven good years where
they have to plant a lot, after those seven hard years will come where people may benefit
from what they saved in the former seven years. Joseph however goes on to tell the king
about another year that was not in the dream where people will have mercy from the sky
and where they will be saved and celebrate by making wine20. The word used for that
mercy coming from the sky is ‘ghayth’
.
3.1.1.3 Emotional Context:
Abdel Haleem (2001:36) points out that the language the Qur’an employs in speaking
about water is lively and full of movement. He refers to the verse (42:28) mentioned
above and comments on the emotional effects of the word ‘ghayath’ in its context saying
“He sends down water and the earth ‘becomes green on the morrow’. This is intensified
by personification: the earth is ‘barren and lifeless’ and ‘lowly’, but when God sends
down water on it ‘it thrills and swells’, the effects of the rain are the ‘marks/pints of God’s
43
Antar Abdellah, 2003
mercy”. ‘ghayth
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
’ is always used in The Qur’an to remind people of the blessing of
God and of his mercy upon them21.
3.1.2 ma ar;
The word ‘ma ar
’ is mentioned in the Qur’an fifteen times in the form of verbs ,
and nouns
,
as shown below;
) ÇÊÉËÈ ( N
ö 3
ä Gt s
y =Î ™
ó &r #( qþ èã Ò
Ÿ ?s b&r Ó
# Ì
y •ö B¨ NFç Z.ä r÷ &r @•Ü
s B¨ `BiÏ “Œ] &r N
ö 3
ä /Î b
t %.x b)Î N
ö 6
à ‹ø =n ã
t y
y $Yo _
ã w
Ÿ ru 4
:
wa la juna a {alykum ‘in kana bikum ‘adhan min ma arin ‘aw kuntum mardâ ‘an 22 (4 :102
ta<a{$ ‘asli atakum ( and there is no blame on you if you put away your arms because of
the inconvenience of ‘ma ar’ or because you are ill).
s Bt N
ô •t Ü
Ï Bø &é Ó
û LÉ 9© #$ pÏ ƒt •ö )
s 9ø #$ ’?n ã
t #( qö ?s &r ‰
ô )
s 9s ru
) ÇÍÉÈ 4 äÏ qö ¡
¡ 9#$ •t Ü
wa laqad ‘ataw {ala 23 (25 :40 :
al-qaryati al-lati ‘um irat ma ara as-saw’i. (and they came across the city that was
‘’um irat’ a fatal ‘ma ar’.)
wa ‘am arnâ {alyhim ma aran
24
(27 :58 :
s Bø &r ru
) ÇÎÑÈ û
t ï‘Í ‹
x ZJ
ß 9ø #$ ã•Ü
s Bt äu $! ¡
| ùs ( #•\ Ü
s B¨ Ng
Î Šø =n æ
t $Rt •ö Ü
fasâa’a ma aru al-mundharîna. ( and we ‘’am arnâ’ on them a ‘ma ar’ and truly the
‘ma ar’ of those who were warned is the worst.)
wa ‘am arnâ {alyhim
25
(26 :137 :
s Bø &r ru
) ÇÊÐÌÈ û
t ï‘Í ‹
x ZJ
ß 9ø #$ •ã Ü
s Bt äu $! ¡
| ùs ( #•\ Ü
s B¨ LiÏ ‹ø =n æ
t $Rt •ö Ü
ma aran fasâa’a ma aru al-mundharîna. ( and we ‘’am arnâ’ on them a ‘ma ar’ and truly
the ‘ma ar’ of those who were warned is the worst.)
wa ‘am arnâ 26 (7 :84 :
s Bø &r ru
) ÇÑÍÈ ú
š
üBÏ Ì•f
ô J
ß 9ø #$ pè 7t )
É »ã
t c
š
%.x #
y ‹ø 2
Ÿ
•ö à
Ý R$$ ùs ( #•\ Ü
s B¨ Ng
Î Šø =n æ
t $Rt •ö Ü
{alayhim ma aran fa-n ur kayfa kana {aqibatu al-mujrimîna. (And we ‘am arna’ on them
a ‘ma ar’, see then what was the end of the sinners.
27
(11 :82 :
s Bø &r ru $g
y =n ùÏ $™
y $g
y Šu =Î »ã
t $Yo =ù èy _
y $Rt •â Dö &r äu $! _
y $J
£ =n ùs
) ÇÑÌÈ Š7 qÒ
à ZB¨ @
9 Šf
dÉ ™
Å `BiÏ oZ ‘u $f
y m
Ï $g
y Šø =n ã
t $Rt •ö Ü
fa lamma jâ’a ‘amruna ja{alnâ {alyahâ safilahâ wa ‘am arnâ {alyha ijâratan min sijjîlin
man<udin. (And when our command came, we made it up side down, and ‘am arna’ on it
rocks of fire).
fa ja{alnâ {aliyaha 28 (15 :74 :
) ÇÐÍÈ @
@ Šf
dÉ ™
Å `BiÏ oZ ‘u $Ú
y m
Ï N
ö kÍ Žö =n ã
t $Rt •ö Ü
s Bø &r ru $g
y =n ùÏ $™
y $kp Žu =Î »ã
t $Yo =ù èy f
y ùs
safilahâ wa ‘am arnâ {alyhim ijaratan min sijjîlin (then we made it up side down and
‘am arna’ on it rocks of fire)
44
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
$kp ŽùÏ x
Ó ƒ‘Í ( ¾mÏ /Î Lêä =ù f
y è÷ Gt ™
ó #$ $Bt qu d
è @
ö /t 4 $Rt •ã Ü
Ï ÿø E
’ Ú
Ö ‘Í %æ
t #‹
x »d
y #( q9ä $%s N
ö kÍ JÉ ƒt ŠÏ r÷ &r @
Ÿ 6Î )
ø Gt ¡
ó B• $Ê
Z ‘Í %æ
t nç r÷ &r ‘u $J
£ =n ùs
fa lamma ra’awhu {ari<an mustaqbila ‘awdiyatihim qâlû 29 (46 :24 :
) ÇËÍÈ L× ì9Ï &r >
ë #‹
x ã
t
hatha {âri<un mum iruna bal huwa masta{jaltum bihi r un fîha {adhabun ‘alîmun. (when
they saw the a cloud traversing the sky, coming to meet their valleys, they said, "This
cloud is mum iruna!" "Nay, it is what you were asking to be hastened!- A wind wherein is
a Grievous Penalty!
Ï Bø 'r ùs 8
x ‰
Ï Zã
Ï `
ô BÏ ,
¨ s
y 9ø #$ qu d
è #‹
x »d
y c
š
%.x b)Î O
¢ g
ß =¯ 9#$ #( q9ä $%s Œø )Î ru
A #‹
>
x èy /Î $Yo KÏ •ø #$ rÍ &r äÏ $! J
y ¡
¡ 9#$ `
z BiÏ oZ ‘u $f
y m
Ï $Zu Šø =n ã
t ö• Ü
wa ‘idh qâlû allahumma ‘in kana hadha huwa al- aqu min {indika 30 (8 :32 :
) ÇÌËÈ O
5 Š9Ï &r
fa ‘am ir {alaynâ ijarâtan min as-samâ’i ‘awi ‘tinâ bi{adhâbin ‘alîmin. (Remember how
they said: "O Allah if this is indeed the Truth from Thee, then ‘am ir’ down on us a stones
form the sky, or send us a grievous penalty."
It is worth noting that 13 instances of these 15 are telling the story of the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah, to whom was sent the prophet Lot.
3.1.2.1 Linguistic Context:
We have seen before how Tha{alibi (1998) classifies different types of rain. He seems to
use the word ‘ma ar’ as a general umbrella for all of these terms since he gives a title for
this taxonomy as “ explaining the names of ma ar’
”. The same stand
seems to be taken by most classical Arabic lexicographers (Firuzabadi, Ibn Man ur, Ibn
Al-Athîr, Al-Razi and Al-Asfahâni) as they mention the word ‘ma ar’ in their explanation
of different types of water that comes from the sky. This is not strange as it is the only
common item still in use in Modern dialects of Arabic. Modern Arabs speak about ‘ma ar’
with the general meaning of rain rather than specifying a certain type of rain, unless the
speaker
is
highly
educated
or
wants
45
to
convey
a
specific
meaning.
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
3.1.2.2. Cultural Context:
Whereas Arabs, whether old or Modern, use the word ‘ma ar’ as a general term to mean
‘water that comes from the sky’, the Qur’an however seems to specify and explain that
water that comes with mercy is ‘ghayth’ while water that comes with punishment is
‘ma ar’. Khidr (1991: 32) points out that the instances where ‘ma ar’ is connected with
punishment are unmistakenable in the Holy book; “even in the verse that does not
explicitly mention punishment (4:102) there is a hint on the inconvenience, or the
annoyance caused by ‘ma ar”. Al-Shafi{i (in Al-Mu addith 2003) points out that
whenever there seemed to be ‘ma ar’ in the sky, the prophet (SAW) used to pray to God
that it would carry mercy , not punishment, and that it would not harm the Muslims31. It
is also reported that whenever the sky thundered and enlightened, the prophet (SAW)
used to be sad until refreshing water comes from the sky32. When asked about this, AlQur ubi tells us, the prophet (SAW) used to say “there were people before you -the
people of Sodom- who once saw ‘ma ar’ like this and thought that it carried mercy for
them but it carried punishment33”.
As most of the verses that have the word ‘ma ar’ refer to the story of the people of
Sodom, it is important to give the context of this story. Lot was a nephew of Prophet
Abraham, and was sent as a Prophet and Warner to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah,
who were committing the sin of homosexuality. Two angels in the shape of handsome
young men came to Lot in the evening and became his guests by night. The inhabitants of
Sodom in their lust for unnatural crime invaded Lot's house but were repulsed. In the
morning, the angels warned Lot to escape with his family. Tabari (1980) points out that
Lot’s wife was not faithful to him and she deserved to be punished like the sinners of
these cities34. Then God rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from
the heaven; and overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the
cities, and that which grew upon the ground. Lot’s wife looked back from behind him,
and became like them.
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
3.1.2.3. Emotional Context:
The whole atmosphere accompanies with the word ‘ma ar’ in the Qur’an is one of
punishment, destruction, retribution, or in the least sense inconvenience and annoyance.
Abdel Haleem (2001:37) comments on this nature of rain in the Qur’an by pointing out
that “ in contrast with the benign nature of water manifested in such adjectives as
‘purifying’, ‘blessing’, ‘fresh’, ‘saving’, ‘mercy’, man is sometimes reminded of the
destructive side of water, when, instead of being sent down in due measure it is ‘loosed’,
made to ‘rise high’, and ‘billows surge from every direction’, when nothing could
provide protection from the flood”.
In a similar manner, Yusuf Ali (in Al-Mu addith 2003) explains that the shower of stones
was accompanied with a mighty Blast ‘Sai a’
. Here it was the violent wind and
noise accompanying the rain of brimstones, possibly with some volcanic action that
destroyed the city of Sodom35.
From surveying the different contexts of ‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ in the Qur’an, we can
safely say that they cannot be total synonyms, and the fact the Modern spoken Arabic, as
well as classical non-Qur’anic Arabic, use ‘ma ar’ to refer to the general meaning of
‘rain’ is not a justification for considering ‘ghayth and ‘ma ar’ to be the same in the
Qur’an context. Hence a translation of these near-synonyms by using the word ‘Rain’
tends to be really vague. In the remainder of this chapter we analyse some translations of
‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ and assess their appropriacy in keeping faithfulness to the context of
the original.
3.2 Context of the Translation:
3.2.1 Arberry (1964)
Arberry gives the following translation for the word ‘ghayth’ in verse (24:28
);
“And it is He who sends down the rain, after they have despaired,
and He unfolds His mercy”. (1964: 501).
For the word ‘ma ar’ mentioned in (27 :58 :
) he offers;
47
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
“And We rained on them a rain; and evil indeed is the rain of
them that are warned”. (1964: 387)
As we have seen in the arguments above, the word ‘rain’ is quite vague in determining
the properties of the water that comes down from the sky. Although the contexts of the
two verses refer to different states, in fact opposite states, the wording used in the original
is suitable to each atmosphere while the word ‘rain’ in both contexts in Arberry’s
translation is not accepted at least according to our proposed model of translation
analysis.
3.2.2 Ahmad Ali (1984)
Ahmad Ali gives the following translation for (25 :40 :
);
“They must have surely passed by the town on which We had
rained the terrible rain of ruin”.( 1984: 309)
For (24:28
);
“It is He who sends down rain when they had despaired of it, and
showers His benevolence”. (1984: 415)
and for (31: 34:
) he offers;
“Only God has the knowledge of the Hour. He sends rain from the
heavens, and knows what is in the mothers’ womb”. (1984:315)
and finally for the verb yughath
in (12: 49:
) he writes;
“This will be followed by a year of rain, and people shall press
(the grapes).” (1984: 204)
It seems that Ahmad Ali could in some instances realize the difference in effect that the
words ‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ have in the structure of the meaning. Thus he translates
‘ma ar’ as “a terrible rain of ruin”, but he does not mention any thing about the quality of
‘ghayth’ in the following two verses, finding it enough to depend on the context of the
verse to show that this is a different ‘rain’, and the context can sometimes be ambiguous
as in (31: 34:
) where the verse can refer to the power of God in destroying the
disbelievers or to the mercy of God bestowed on His servants.
3.2.3 Shakir (1983 on-line version):
48
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Shakir gives the following for the word ‘ghayth’ in (24:28
);
“And He it is Who sends down the rain after they have despaired,
and He unfolds His mercy; and He is the Guardian, the Praised
One.”
For the same word in (57: 20:
) he offers;
“Know that this world's life is only sport and play and gaiety and
boasting among yourselves, and a vying in the multiplication of
wealth and children, like the rain, whose causing the vegetation to
grow, pleases the husbandmen…”
while for ‘ma ar’ in (27 :58 :
) he writes;
“And We rained on them a rain, and evil was the rain of those
who had been warned.”
and for the same word in (7 :84 :
) he gives;
“And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end
of the guilty.”
Like Arberry, Shakir does not seem to differentiate between the uses of the words
‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ and uses ‘rain’ as a sufficient equivalent item depending on the
context of other words in the same verse for clarification. We have discussed that the
occurrence of ‘rain’ close to ‘despair’ as in (24:28
(7 :84 :
), or close to ‘guilt’ as in
), is not enough for reproducing the message in another contextually
different language.
3.2.4 Yusuf Ali (1954)
Yusuf Ali seems to have realized the difference in meaning and emotional effect of
‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’; he translates ‘ma ar’ in (7 :84 :
) as;
“And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see
what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!” (1954:
364)
and adds to the meaning expressed in the words ‘shower of brimstone’ a footnote that
says “the shower is expressly stated in Q. xi. 82 to have been of stones. In xv. 73-74, we
are told that there was a terrible blast or noise (sai at) in addition to the shower of stones”
49
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
(1954: 364). He picks the word ‘shower’ for ‘ma ar’ in almost every instance the latter in
mentioned; (27 :58 :
) , (26: 137:
), and (25 :40 :
).
For the word ‘ghayth’, Yusuf Ali uses ‘rain’; so in translating (24:28
), he says ;
“He is the One that sends down rain (even) after (men) have given
up all hope, and scatters His Mercy (far and wide). And He is the
Protector, Worthy of all Praise.” (1954: 1313)
and finds it enough to add in brackets ‘even’ in order to show the contrast between a state
of despair and a state of mercy being sent. When translating the verb yughathu
which
is derived from ‘ghayth’, however, he does not pick ‘rain’ which he seems to keep
peculiar to the noun ‘ghayth’. Rather he uses ‘abundant water’ (12:49:
);
“"Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people
will have abundant water, and in which they will press (wine and
oil)" (1954: 568).
3.2.5 Pickthall (1999)
Like Yusuf Ali, Pickthall seems to use different items for translating ‘ghayth’ and
‘ma ar’, but unlike Yusuf Ali, he does not make ‘rain’ peculiar for ‘ghayth’ nor for
‘ma ar’, but rather uses a clarifying adjectives that state the nature of the water
concerned. Thus, in translating ‘ghayth’ in (24:28
), he uses ‘saving rain’;
“And He it is Who sendeth down the saving rain after they have
despaired, and spreadeth out His mercy. He is the Protecting
Friend, the Praiseworthy” (1999: 666).
While in translating ‘ma ar’ in (25 :40 :
), he uses ‘fatal rain’;
“And indeed they have passed by the township whereon was
rained the fatal rain. Can it be that they have not seen it? Nay, but
they hope for no resurrection” (1999: 497).
In another position (27 :58 :
), he uses ‘dreadful rain’;
“And We rained a rain upon them. Dreadful is the rain of those
who have been warned” (1999: 526),
50
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
and for the verb yughathu
which is derived from ‘ghayth’, he does not mention
anything related to water coming from the sky, and instead refers to the effects of this
water in people’s life (12:49 :
);
“Then, after that, will come a year when the people will have
plenteous crops and when they will press (wine and oil”
(1999:331).
3.3 Results and Conclusion:
In this study, the concept of synonymity was discussed and near-synonyms were proved
to be a more appropriate term for linguistic analysis in natural languages. Differences in
meaning, or usage among pairs of near-synonyms are claimed to be context-dependent,
hence an analysis of the concept of context was carried out, and a model of translation
analysis based on the context was proposed. In this model, context of the original ,
linguistic- cultural- emotional, should be analysed and carefully regarded in the process
of translating whereby there should be a parallel linguistic context, a cultural background,
and an equivalent emotional context. When applying this context on five different
translations of a sample of near-synonyms in the Qur’an, we noticed that some translators
do not differentiate the meaning or effect of each of the words ‘ghayth’ and ‘ma ar’ and
opt for the word ‘rain’ as an equivalent (Arberry, Ahmad Ali, Shakir). These translations
are not considered adequate in conveying the message of the original according to the
proposed model. On the other hand two translators seem to have realized the difference in
meaning, usage, and emotional effect these words have, and thus adopted different
strategies for rendering the message in English; Yusuf Ali used ‘rain’ to mean ‘ghayth’,
in the noun form, all the time and ‘shower of…’ to mean ‘ma ar’, while Pickthall used
‘rain’ for both of them, and added clarifying adjectives to explain different types of water
that comes from the sky. According to the proposed model these latter two translations
are more appropriate in conveying the message expressed in the near-Synonym ‘ghayth’
and ‘ma ar’ as they are mentioned in the Qur’an.
51
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
3.4. Recommendations:
In the light of the results reached in the present study, we recommend the following
studies to further investigate and enrich the field of translation theory and translation
studies:
1- A detailed study of near-synonyms in the Qur’an that takes the following pairs of nearsynonyms into consideration;
Al-qalb wa al-fu’âd
Al-zawaj wa al-nika
Al-sana wa al-{am
Al-jû{ wa al-makhma*a
Al- alf wa al-qasam
Al- ijr, al-{aql, al-nuhâ wa al- ilm
Al-jasad wa al-jism
Al-*abb wa al-sakb
Al-khatm wa al- ab{
Al-kitab wa al-sifr
Al-tadabbur wa al-tafakkur
Al-‘istima{ , al-‘in*ât wa al-‘i*ghâa’
2- A further study that applies the context-based model proposed in the present study, on
the translation of other linguistic expressions in the Qur’an, or in literary texts.
3- A detailed study that analyses strategies used by translators in translating the Qur’an.
4- a detailed study that analyses the concept of polysemy in linguistics and addresses the
problems raised by it in the process of translating.
5- Integrating the present study, and similar studies, into the courses of translator
education in Arabic as well as English courses of translation, translation theory, lexical
Semantics, and Pragmatics.
52
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
APPENDIX
Transliteration key
Symbol
Letter in Arabic
‘
b
t
th
j
kh
d
dh
r
z
s
sh
*
<
{
gh
f
q
k
l
m
53
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
n
h
w
(consonant)
y
(consonant)
â
(long vowel)
û
(long vowel)
î
(long vowel)
a
(short vowel)
u
(short vowel)
i
(short vowel)
al-
(whether followed by a sun or a
Al- (in manes and at the beginning of sentences).
moon letter)
1
From a logical point of view, De Jonge (1993: 523) explains that if a speaker uses two linguistic signs that
seem to mean exactly the same, the question is why he would do so: if he uses his mental capacities
efficiently, he will surely not ‘store’ more words than the minimum necessary for efficient communication.
In other words, [De Jonge ] assumes that speakers are too lazy to use more words than they actually need.”
2
In a similar manner, Harris (1973) suggests the following points for differentiating meanings of words;
a) the meaning of A is known to a person X, when the meaning of B is not,
b) the meaning of A may be rendered in some language by an expression which is not an exact
translation of B,
c) A differs in the organization of meaningful elements from B,
d) the meaning of A differs in some respect ..from the meaning of B,
e) A has for a person X associations not shared by B.
3
Vasudevan (1996: 69) lists other stylistic values for the use synonymy when discussing Sanskrit poetry;
A synonym may: 1) approximate most to the meaning,
2) add to the beauty of meaning or object considerably
3) carry figurative beauty along with it,
4) contribute to a new lease of excellence,
5) hint at a meaning almost not plausible to be imagined about the object under
description,
6) contain figurative elements contusive to beauty.
4
Ezorsky (1959) considers the interchangeability test in determining synonymy and the truth value of
sentences as the criterion of validity. She explains: “two expressions are synonymous in a language L if and
only if they may be interchanged in each sentence in L without altering the truth value of that sentence.”
54
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
5
Even philosophically, Taylor (1954) dismisses the concept of synonymy as dogmatic, mythical and
untenable. He makes three statements through which he denies the existence of synonymy; “1) it would be
impossible to explain to anyone what synonymy is, because any attempt at clarifying it would presuppose
his capacity to recognize it, 2) It is impossible ever to explicate the notion of the sameness of anything
whatever or to supply a criterion for it which is not empty in its appeal to the sameness of something else,
itself in need of a criterion, and c)It is impossible, owing to the peculiar nature of understating, to give any
criterion either for sameness or for difference of meaning”.
6
Another example is: my house is big / large, but my sister is big/ NOT large.
7
MacLaury.R. (2002). ‘Introducing vantage theory’. Language sciences, 24.
First number from the left refers to the number of the sura and the second refers to the number of the
verse, followed by the name of the sura in Arabic.
∗
8
The complete verses are as follows:
ô`ÏB žwÎ) çŽóǨZ9$# $tBur 4 öNä3ç/qè=è% ¾ÏmÎ/ ¨ûÈõyJôÜtFÏ9ur 3“t•ô±ç/ žwÎ) ª!$# ã&s#yèy_ $tBur ÇÒÈ šúüÏùÏŠó•ßD Ïps3Í´¯»n=yJø 9$# z`Ïi B 7#ø9r'Î/ Nä.‘‰ÏJã B ’ÎoTr& öNà6s9 z>$yftFó™$$sù öNä3-/u‘ tbqèW‹ÉótGó¡n@ øŒÎ)
ÇÊÉÈ íOŠÅ3ym ͕tã ©!$# žcÎ ) 4 «!$# ωYÏã
©!$# ¨bÎ) 4 ßNqßJs? <Úö‘r& Äd“r'Î/ 6§øÿtR “Í‘ô‰s? $tBur ( #Y‰xî Ü=Å¡ò6s? #sŒ$¨B Ó§øÿtR “Í‘ô‰s? $tBur ( ÏQ%tnö‘F{$# ’Îû $tB ÞOn=÷ètƒur y]ø‹tóø9$# Ú^Íi”t\ãƒur Ïptã$¡ ¡9$# ãNù=Ïæ ¼çny‰YÏã ©!$# ¨bÎ)
9
ÇÌÍÈ 7Ž•Î6yz íOŠÎ=tæ
ÇËÑÈ ß‰‹ÏJysø 9$# •’Í<uqø9$# uqèdur 4 ¼çmtGyJômu‘ çŽà³Ytƒur (#qäÜuZs% $tB ω÷èt/ .`ÏB y]ø‹tóø9$# ãAÍi”t\ム“Ï%©!$# uqèdur
§NèO #v•xÿóÁãB çm1uŽtIsù ßk‹Íku‰ §NèO ¼çmè?$t7tR u‘$¤ÿä3ø9$# |=yfôãr& B]ø‹xî È@sVyJx. ( ω»s9÷rF{$#ur ÉAºuqø BF{$# ’Îû Ö•èO%s3s?ur öNä3oY÷•t/ 7•äz$xÿs?ur ×puZƒÎ—ur ×qølm;ur Ò=Ïès9 $u‹÷R‘‰9$# äo4qu‹ysø 9$# $yJ¯ Rr& #þqßJn=ôã$#
ÇËÉÈ Í‘rã•äóø9$# ßì»tFtB žwÎ) !$u‹÷R‘$!$# äo4qu‹ysø9$# $tBur 4 ×bºuqôÊÍ‘ur «!$# z`Ïi B ×ot•ÏÿøótBur Ó‰ƒÏ‰x© Ò>#x‹tã Íot•ÅzFy$# ’Îûur ( $VJ»sÜã m ãbqä3tƒ
.
.
12
:
:
:
.((
)) :
.
.
:
:
((
)) :
.
.
.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
.
:
."
13
:
:
14
":
.
15
55
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
(
)
(
)
.
SAW: *alla Allahu {alayhi Wasalam; this Arabic sentence is the tradition whenever the name of
Muhammad is mentioned or referred to. It means ‘Peace Be Upon Him’.
16
:
17
:
.{
}
:
18
":
."
:
:
19
:
:
!
:
":
"!
}:
!
:
{
:
20
.
"
".
.
" .
"
"
:
.
"
":
.
:
:
"
.
21
Commenting on the same verse Yusuf ‘Ali (in Al-Mu addith 2003), in his commentary on his
translation, says: “that men should get such a blessing as rain when they expect it according to ordinary
calculations or probabilities does not impress them, as it is a daily occurrence. But Allah's mercy is more
than this. It comes to our aid even when all hope is lost, and gives us new chances and new openings
where we least expect them. His quality of cherishing and protecting His creatures is always active, and
what higher praise can we give? ”
22
the complete verses are the following :
56
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
(#q•=|ÁムóOs9 2”t•÷zé& îpxÿͬ!$sÛ ÏNù'tGø9ur öNà6ͬ!#u‘ur `Ï B (#qçRqä3uŠù=sù (#r߉yÚy™ #sŒÎ*sù öNåktJysÎ=ó™r& (#ÿrä‹äzù'u‹ø 9ur y7tè¨B Nåk÷]Ïi B ×pxÿͬ!$sÛ öNà)tFù=sù no4qn=¢Á9$# ãNßgs9 |MôJs%r'sù öNÍkŽÏ ù |MZä. #sŒÎ)ur
öNà6ø‹n=tã yy$oYã_ Ÿwur 4 Zoy‰Ïnºur \'s#ø‹¨B Nà6ø‹n=tæ tbqè=‹ÏJuŠsù ö/ä3ÏGyèÏGøBr&ur öNä3ÏFysÎ=ó ™r& ô`tã šcqè=àÿøós? öqs9 (#rã•xÿx. z`ƒÏ%©!$# ¨Šur 3 öNåktJysÎ=ó™r&ur öNèdu‘õ‹Ïn (#rä‹è {ù'uŠø 9ur y7yètB (#q•=|Áã‹ù=sù
(4 :102 :
s B¨ `BiÏ “Œ] &r N
ö 3
ä /Î b
t %.x b)Î
) ÇÊÉËÈ $YY ‹g
Î B• $/\ #‹
x ã
t û
t ï•Ì ÿ
Ï »3
s =ù 9Ï ‰
£ ã
t &r !
© #$ b
¨ )Î 3 N
ö .ä ‘u ‹
õ n
Ï #( r‹
ä è {ru ( N
ö 3
ä Gt s
y =Î ™
ó &r #( qþ èã Ò
Ÿ ?s b&r Ó
# Ì
y •ö B¨ NFç Z.ä r÷ &r •@ Ü
(25 :40 :
s Bt N
ô •t Ü
Ï Bø &é Ó
û LÉ © 9#$ pÏ ƒt •ö )
s 9ø #$ ’?n ã
t #( qö ?s &r ‰
ô )
s 9s ru
) ÇÍÉÈ #‘Y q±
à Sè c
š
q_
ã •ö ƒt w
Ÿ #( qRç $2
Ÿ
ö /t 4 $g
@
y Rt r÷ •t ƒt #( qRç q6
à ƒt N
ö =n ùs &r 4 äÏ qö ¡
¡ 9#$ •t Ü
š
ú
ïŽÎ 9É »ót ø 9#$ `
z BÏ $g
y »Rt ‘ö ‰
£ %s ¼mç ?s &r •t Bø #$ w
ž )Î ¼ÿ &ã #s d
÷ &r ru mç »Yo ‹ø f
y R'r ùs ÇÎÏÈ b
t r•ã g
£ Ü
s Gt ƒt ¨
Ó $tR&é N
ö g
ß R¯ )Î ( N
ö 3
ä GÏ ƒt •ö %s `BiÏ Þ
7 q9ä A
t #äu #( qþ _
ã •Ì ÷ z&r #( qþ 9ä $s% b&r w
H )Î ¾
ÿ mÏ BÏ qö %s >
z #qu _
y c
š
%2
Ÿ
$J
y sù
s ø B&r ru ÇÎÐÈ
) ÇÎÑÈ û
t ï‘Í ‹
x Zß J9ø #$ ã•Ü
s Bt äu $! ¡
| ùs ( #•\ Ü
s B¨ Ng
Î Šø =n æ
t $Rt •ö Ü
(27 :58 :
ž )Î ÇÊÐÉÈ û
w
t üèÏ Hu d
ø &r ¼ÿ &ã #s d
÷ &r ru mç »Zu ‹ø f
¤ Zu ùs ÇÊÏÒÈ b
t q=è J
y è÷ ƒt $J
£ Ï B ’?Í d
÷ &r ru Ó_Í gnÅ U
w >
bÉ ‘u ÇÊÏÑÈ û
t ,!Î $)
s 9ø #$ `
z iÏ B /3
ä =Î J
y yè9Ï ’ToÎ Î ) A
t $%s ÇÊÏÐÈ û
t ü_
Å •t ‚
÷ J
ß ø 9#$ `
z BÏ û
¨ ðs q3
ä Gt 9s Þ
ä q=è »ƒt mÏ Ft ^?s O
ó 9© ûõÈ 9s #( q9ä $%s
(26 :137 :
s Bø &r ur ÇÊÐËÈ û
t ï•Ì z
y y
F #$ $Rt •ö ¨ BŠy N
§ Oè ÇÊÐÊÈ û
t ïŽÎ 9É »ót 9ø #$ ’ûÎ #—Y qgè ”
x
) ÇÊÐÌÈ û
t ï‘Í ‹
x ZJ
ß ø 9$ # •ã Ü
s Bt äu $! ¡
| sù ( #•\ Ü
s B¨ LiÏ ‹ø =n æ
t $Rt •ö Ü
P× qö %s O
ó Fç R&r @
ö /t 4 äÏ $! ¡
| YiÏ 9#$ c
Â
rŠß `BiÏ oZ qu kö y A
t $y_•hÌ 9#$ b
t q?è 'ù Gt 9s N
ö 6
à R¯ )Î ÇÑÉÈ û
t üJ
Ï =n »èy 9ø #$ Æ
š
BiÏ ‰
7 tn&r `
ô BÏ $kp 5Í N3
ä )
s 7t ™
y $Bt ps ±
t s
Å »ÿ
x ø 9#$ b
t q?è 'ù ?s &r ¾
ÿ mÏ BÏ qö )
s 9Ï A
t $s% Œø )Î $Û
» q9ä ru
šÆÏB ôMtR%x. ¼çms?r&z•öD$# žwÎ) ÿ¼ã&s#÷dr&ur çm»oYø‹yfRr'sù ÇÑËÈ tbrã•£gsÜtGtƒ Ó¨$tRé& öNßg¯RÎ) ( öNà6ÏGtƒö•s% `ÏiB Nèdqã_Ì•÷zr& (#þqä9$s% br& HwÎ) ÿ¾ÏmÏ Böqs% z>#uqy_ šc%Ÿ2 $tBur ÇÑÊÈ šcqèùÌ•ó¡• B
(7 :84 :
s Bø &r ru ÇÑÌÈ û
t ïŽÎ 9É »ót 9ø #$
) ÇÑÍÈ ú
š
üBÏ •Ì ô fJ
ß ø 9#$ pè 7t )
É »ã
t c
š
%.x #
y ‹ø 2
Ÿ
•ö à
Ý R$$ sù ( #•\ Ü
s B¨ Ng
Î Šø =n æ
t $Rt •ö Ü
27
ã d
N
è ‰
y ã
Ï qö Bt b
¨ )Î 4 N
ö kå 5u $|¹&r $! Bt $kp :â •Å Áã B ¼mç R¯ )Î ( 7
y ?s &r •z Dö #$ w
ž )Î ‰
î n
t &r N
ö 6
à ZBÏ M
ô ÿ
Ï Gt =ù ƒt w
Ÿ ru @
È ‹ø 9© #$ `
z BiÏ ì
8 Ü
ô )
É /Î •
š =Ï d
÷ 'r /Î ŽÎ ó 'r ùs ( 7
y ‹ø 9s )Î #( qþ =è Á
Å ƒt `9s 7
y /nÎ ‘u @
ã ™
ß ‘â $R¯ )Î Þ
ä q=è »ƒt #( q9ä $%s
s Bø &r ru $g
y =n ùÏ $™
y $g
y Šu =Î »ã
t $Yo =ù èy _
y $Rt •â Dö &r äu $! y_ $J
£ n=ùs ÇÑÊÈ =
5 ƒ•Ì )
s /Î x
ß 6ö Á
• 9#$ §
} Šø 9s &r 4 x
ß 6ö Á
• 9#$
z BÏ ‘
`
} d
Ï $Bt ur ( •
š /nÎ ‘u ‰
y Zã
Ï pº Bt q§ ¡
| B• ÇÑËÈ Š7 qÒ
à ZB¨ @
9 Šf
dÉ ™
Å `BiÏ oZ ‘u $f
y Ï m $g
y Šø =n ã
t $Rt •ö Ü
(11 :82 :
) ÇÑÌÈ 7‰‹Ïèt7Î/ šúüÏJÎ=»© à9$#
ÇÐÌÈ tûüÏ%ÎŽô³ãB èpysøŠ¢Á9$# ãNåkøEx‹s{r'sù ÇÐËÈ tbqßgyJ÷ètƒ öNÍkÌEt•õ3y™ ’Å"s9 öNåk¨XÎ) x8ã•ôJyès9 ÇÐÊÈ tû,Î#Ïè»sù óOçFZä. bÎ) þ’ÎA$uZt/ ÏäIwàs¯»yd tA$s% ÇÐÉÈ šúüÏJn=»yèø9$# Ç`tã y7yg÷YtR öNs9urr& #þqä9$s%
(15 :74 :
s Bø &r ru $g
y =n ùÏ $y™ $kp Žu =Î »tã $Yo =ù èy yfùs
) ÇÐÍÈ @
@ Šf
dÉ ™
Å `iÏ B oZ ‘u $Ú
y m
Ï N
ö kÍ Žö n=ã
t $Rt •ö Ü
Ï ÿø E
’ Ú
Ö ‘Í %æ
t #‹
x »d
y #( q9ä $%s N
ö kÍ JÉ ƒt ŠÏ r÷ &r @
Ÿ 6Î )
ø Gt ¡
ó B• $Ê
Z ‘Í %æ
t nç r÷ &r ‘u $J
£ =n sù
Ÿ #( qs
w
ß 7t ¹
ô 'r ùs $kp 5hÍ ‘u •Ì Bø 'r /Î ä¥ Ó
ó «
x @
¨ .ä •ã BiÏ ‰
y ?è ÇËÍÈ L× ì9Ï &r >
ë #‹
x tã $kp ŽùÏ x
Ó ƒ‘Í ( ¾mÏ /Î Lêä =ù f
y è÷ Gt ™
ó #$ $Bt qu d
è @
ö /t 4 $Rt •ã Ü
( 46 :24 :
) ÇËÎÈ tûüÏBÌ•ôfß Jø9$# tPöqs)ø9$# “Ì“øgwU y7Ï9ºx‹x. 4 öNåkß]Å3»|¡tB žwÎ) #“t•ãƒ
Ï Bø 'r sù 8
x ‰
Ï Zã
Ï `
ô BÏ ,
¨ s
y 9ø #$ qu d
è #‹
x »d
y c
š
%.x b)Î O
¢ g
ß =¯ 9#$ #( q9ä $%s Œø )Î ru
4N
ö kÍ ŽùÏ M
| R&r ru N
ö g
ß /t ‹
jÉ èy ‹ã 9Ï !
ª #$ c
š
%2
Ÿ
$Bt ru ÇÌËÈ O
5 Š9Ï &r >
A #‹
x èy /Î $Yo KÏ •ø #$ rÍ &r äÏ $! J
y ¡ ¡9#$ `
z iÏ B oZ ‘u $f
y m
Ï $Zu Šø =n ã
t ö•Ü
(8 :32 :
) ÇÌÌÈ tbrã•ÏÿøótGó¡o„ öNèdur öNßgt/Éj‹yèãB ª!$# šc%x. $tBur
:
:
31
:
:"
32
:
)
:
:
57
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
":
.
33
(
):
(
):
.
:
:(
:
.
"
):
.(
):
.(
(24 :
") [
:
:
:
.
34
:
:
:
.
:
.
:
:
.
:
.
.
}:
}
:
!
:
!
:
:
.
!
.
:{
-
:
:
[
:
}
{
{
}:
{
}:
35
Yusuf Ali, in his commentary on his translation, points out that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were
utterly destroyed, and even their precise position cannot be identified. But the brimstone plain of the tract
still exists, right on the highway between Arabia and Syria. To the traveller in the neighbourhood of the
Dead Sea the whole locality presents a scene of dismal desolation which truly suggests the awful
punishment for unspeakable crimes. (al-Mu addith 2003, keyword :Sodom)
58
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
BIBLIOGRAPHY
59
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
BIBLIOGRAPHY
{abd al-Wa id ibn {ali al-Lughawi. (1957). Shajar al-durr fi tadakhul al-kalam bi-alma{ani al-mukhtalifah, .(ed.) Muhammad Abd al-Jawad. Cairo : Dar al- Ma{ârif
{abd al-Wa id ibn {ali al-Lughawi. (1963). Kitab al- a<ad fi al-kalâm, .(ed.) Izzah
Hasan. Damascus: al-Majma{ al-{ilmi al-{rabi.
Abdel Haleem. M. (2001). Understanding the Qur an, Themes and Style. London: I. B.
Tauris.
Abdellah. A. (2003). ‘The Problem of Translating English Linguistic Terminology into
Arabic’. Paper presented at Cambridge first conference for postgraduate students. School
of Medieval Languages, Cambridge University.
Abdellah. A. (2002). ‘What Every Novice translator needs to know’. Translation Journal.
Online: http://accurapid.com/journal/21novice.htm
Abdul-Raof. H. (2001).Qu ran Translations- Discourse, Texture and Exegesis.
Richmond : Curzon Press.
Abu Sikkîn I.M. (1984). Fiqh Al-Lugha. Cairo: Ma aba{at Al-‘amâna.
Abu Hilal al-{askarî. (1934).Al-Furûq Al-lughawiyah. Cairo : Maktabat al-Qudsi
Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi ,Mu ammad ibn {ali (1998). Al-Furuq wa-ma{na Al-tarâduf. ,
(ed.) Mu ammad Ibrahim al-Juyushi. Cairo: Al-Nahar lil-Nashr.
Al-{awwa. S. (1998). Al-wijûh wa al-na ir fi Al-Qur an Al-Karîm. Cairo: Dar AlShurûq.
Al-Anbarî. Mu ammad Ibn Al-Qasim. (1960). Kitab Al- A<ad. Kuwait: Dar Al-Ma bu{ât
wa Al- Nashr.
Al-Hamadani. Abdul Ra man Bin {issa. (1931). Kitab Al- Alfa Al- Kitâbya. Cairo:
Maktabit Al-Milîji Bil Azhar.
Ali. A. Y. (1954). The Glorious Kur an, Translation and Commentary. Beirut: Dar AlFikr.
Ali. A. (1984). Al-Qur an , A Contemporary Translation. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
60
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Ali. K. (1991). Some Aspects of the translation of political language between English and
Arabic. PhD thesis. Dept of Linguistics, SOAS, University of London.
Al-Asfahani, Raghib, usayn ibn Mu ammad. (1972). Mu{jam mufradât alfaz alQur'an.
Al-Mu addith.(2003) Search engine software on CD, and on-line, available:
http://www.muhaddith.org.
Al-Qazwîni, Ahmad Ibn Faris (1963). al-*â ibî fi fiqh al-lugha wa-sunan al-{arab fi
kalâmiha. Cairo: Badran lil nashr.
Al-Razi. Abu Bakr.(1990). Mukhtar Al-*i
. Cairo: Ma ba{at al-Tarbya wa al-Ta{alîm.
Al-Zirkili, Khayr al-Dîn. (1928). al-{alâm. Cairo: al-Mu'allif
Anis. I. (1965) Fi al-lahajât al-{arabiya. Cairo : Anglo Egyptian bookshop.
Arberry. A. J (1964). The Koran Interpreted. London: Oxford University Press.
Al-shaya{. M. (1993). Al-Furûq Al-Lughawya wa athruha fi Tafîir al-Qur an Al-Karîm.
Riyadh: Al-{ubykan.
Atkin. B. and Levin. B. (1995). ‘Building on a corpus: A linguistic and lexicographical
look at some near-synonyms’. International Journal of Lexicography, Vol 8, 2, Summer.
Oxford University Press.
Austin. J.R. (1962). How to do things with Words. Oxford, Clarendon Press
Beekman. J. and Callow.J. (1974). Translating the word of God. Zondervan, Grand
Rapids. Mich.
Bint al-Shati', {a’isha {abd al-Ra man. (1978). al-I{jaz al-bayanî lil-Qur'an wa-masâ'il
Ibn al-Azraq. Cairo : Dar al-Ma{ârif.
Bloomfield. L. (1933). Language. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Bolinger .D. (1977). Meaning and Form. London: Longman.
Bosch. P. (1984). Lexical learning, context dependence, and metaphor. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club
Brodda. B. (1969). “Synonyms and synonyms of synonyms”. Statistical Methods in
Linguistics, Stockholm, Sweden. 1969, No. 5.
61
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Buschke. H. (1969). “Encoding homophones and synonyms for verbal discrimination and
recognition”. Psychonomic Science. Austin, TX. 1969, No. 14.
Buschke. H. (1972). “Word feature encoding: synonym and antonym discrimination after
generating synonyms or antonyms.” Psychonomic Science, TX. 1972, No. 29.
Clark. E. (1992). Conventionality and contrast: pragmatic principles with lexical
consequences. In Lehrer and E. Kittay, Ed. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: new essays in
Semantics and lexical organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cruse. D. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darwish. A. (1999). The translation Process: A view of the Mind. Online Article.
Available: http://www.surf.net.au/writescope/translation/mindview.html
De Jonge. B. (1993). “The existence of synonyms in a language - two forms but one, or
rather two, meanings”. Linguistics, 1993, Vol.31
Duffley. P. J. (1999). “The Gerund and the infinitive with the verbs Intend, Mean,
Propose and Their close synonyms”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 1999 Sept, Vol. 44,
No. 3.
El-Sheikh. S. (1977). A linguistic Analysis of Some Syntactic and Semantic Problems of
English-Arabic translation. Ph.D. thesis. SOAS, University of London.
Firuzabadi, Mu ammad Ibn Ya{qûb. (1817). The Qâmûs, The ocean, an Arabic
dictionary, collated with many manuscript copies of the work and corrected for the press
by Ahmud-oobno Moohummudin il Ansareyool Yumunee Yoosh Shirwanee. Calcutta,
Printed at the press of the editor.
Firuzabadi, Mu ammad Ibn Ya{qûb. (nd). Ba*â ir dhawi al-tamyîz fi la
{azîz. (ed.) Muhammad Ali al-Najjar.
f al-kitâb al-
Franklin. K. (1992). ‘Speech Act Verbs and the Words of Jesus’. In Language in Context,
Essays for Robert E. Longacre. Hwang and Merrifield editors. University of Texas.
Gaines. M (1975). “Some effects of synonyms on the recognition of words and meaning”.
Ph D thesis, Department of Psychology, Florida State University.
Goodman. N. (1979). Ways of World-making. Cambridge, Mass: Hackett Publishing
company.
Gregerson, K. (1980). ‘Pragmatics and the search for context in linguistics’. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics. Vol 11, No. 1. June.
62
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Gutt. E. (2000). ‘Translation as interlingual interpretive use’. In Lawrence Venuti (ed).
The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
Gutt. E. (1993). Translation and Relevance, Cognition and Context. Oxford :Blackwell.
Gutt. E. (1998). Pragmatic Aspects of Translation: Some Relevance-theory Observations.
In Hickey. L(ed). The Pragmatics of Translation. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Hamadhani, {abd al-Ra man ibn {issa. (1931). al-Alfa al-kitâbiya. Cairo : Dar alMa{ârif
Harris. R. (1973). Synonymy and Linguistic Analysis. Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Hudson. R. (1996). “Synonyms and syntax”. Journal of linguistics, Sep 1996, Vol.32, .2
Hymes. D. (1972). Models of Interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz. J.
Hymes.D. Directions in sociolinguistics : the ethnography of communication. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ibn al-Athîr, Mubarak Ibn Mu ammad. (1905). Al-nihayah fi gharîb al- adîth wa alathar. Cairo.
Ibn Al-Shajarî. (1962). Ma itafaqa Laf uhu wa Ikhtalafa Ma{nahu. (ed.) {atya Rizq.
Beirut: Dar Al-Nashr Frantish Shitiner.
Ibn al-Sikkît .(1895).Kanzu al- uffa fi tahdhîb al-alfâ . Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique
Ibn Jinni, {uthmân Ibn {abdullah. (1913). al-Kha*â'i*. (ed.) Muhammad Ali al-Najjar.
Ibn Kathîr, Isma{îl Ibn {umar. (1987). Tafsîr al-Qur'an al-{'azîm. introduction by Yusuf
{abd al-Ra man al-Mar{ashli. Beirut: Dar al-Ma{rifah
Ibn Man ur. (1956). Lisan Al-{arab. Beirut: Dar Sider.
Katz. J. and Fodor. J. (1967). ‘The structure of a semantic theory.’ Language No. 39.
Katz. J. and Martin. E. (1967). ‘The Synonymy of Actives and Passives.’ The
Philosophical Review. Vol. 76, 4, Oct. 1967.
Khidr. S. (1991). Al-Qur'an wa Al-Tarâduf al-Lughawi- Dirasa Ta lîlya liba{<
mutaradifat al-Qur'an. Cairo: Dar Bilal Lil Nashr..
Kim. HJJ. And Hupka. R (2002).”Comparison of associative meaning of the concepts of
anger, envy, fear, romantic jealousy, and sadness between English and Korean”. Crosscultural research. 2002 Aug, Vol. 36, No. 3
63
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
La{îbi. H. (1980). Al-Tarâduf fi Al-Lugha. Baghdad: Dar Al- urrya Lil- iba{a.
Langacker. M. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 2. Descriptive
application. Stanford: Stanford University press.
Lyons. J. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: the University Press.
MacLaury.R. (2002). ‘Introducing vantage theory’. Language sciences, 24.
Malinowsky. B. (1964). The dilemma of contemporary linguistics. In Hymes (eds.),
Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Mubarrad, Mu ammad Ibn Yazîd. (1943). Al-Kamil fi al-lugha wa-al- adab wa-al-na w
wa al-ta*rîf . (ed.) Ahmad Muhammad Shakir and Zaki Mubarak. Cairo.
Nida, E. A. (1949). Morphology : the descriptive analysis of words. Ann Arbor.
Nida. E and Taber.C. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden : Brill for the
United Bible Societies
Nida. E. (1986).Toward a science of translating : with special reference to principles and
procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden : Brill
Nour El-Din Al- Jaza’ri.(1380 HJ- Islamic Calendar). Furûq Al-Lughaat. Al-Najaf: Dar
Al-Kutub AL-{ilmya.
Omar. A. M. (2001). Drasat Lughawya fi al-Qur an Al-Karîm wa Qirâ atihi. Cairo:
{âlam al-Kutub.
Pearson, BZ (1995). Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants -one
language or two. Journal of Child Language. 1995 Jun Vol. 22
No. 2
Pickthall. M. M. (1999). The meaning of the Glorious Qur an. London: Albirr
Foundation
Quine. W.V.O. (1990) Quiddities : an intermittently philosophical dictionary.
Rasheed. H A. “Synonymy in the Holy Quran”. Dirasat, Oct 2002, Vol.29, No.3
Ross. J.R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacobs.R and Rosenbaum.P (eds.)
Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass., Ginn and company.
Saeed. J. (1998) Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Salih, .S. (1986) Dirasat fi fiqh al-lugha. Bierut: Dar Al-{ilm lil-Malâyîn.
64
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Saussure. F De. Course in general linguistics. edited by Charles Bally and Albert
Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Reidlinger[i.e. Riedlinger] ; translated from the
French by Wade Baskin. London: Fontana.
Serber.D.& Wilson.D. (1986). Relevance : communication and cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Serber.D.& Wilson.D. (1995). Relevance : communication and cognition 2nd edition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Shahîn. T. (1980).Al-Mushtarak al-lughawi na ariyatan wa-ta biqan.Cairo: Maktabet
Wihba.
Shakir. M. M. (1983). Translation of the Qur an, English text only. on-line version,
available: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Sibawayh, {amr Ibn {uthman. (1977). Al-kitâb. Cairo: Al-Ma ba{a Al-misrya Al {ama.
Sinclair. M (1993). ‘Are academic texts really decontextualized and fully explicit? A
pragmatic perspective on the role of context in written communication’. Text; 13(4)
Sturtevant. A. (1954). “Concerning doublet Synonyms in Old Norse”. Modern Language
Notes. Vol. 69, No. 5,May 1954.
Suarez. J. (1971). “A case of absolute synonyms”. International Journal of American
Linguistics. Boulder, CO 1972, No. 37.
Suyûti, Jalal al-Din. (19--). al-Muzhir fi {ulûm al-lugha. Cairo: Muhammad Ali alSubay
Suyûti, Jalal al-Din. (1957). al-Durr al-manthûr fi al-tafsîr bi-al-ma'thûr. Tihran.
Suyûti, Jalal al-Din. (1964). Bughyat al-wu{ah fi abaqât al-lughawiyîn wa-al-nu ah /
(ed.) Muhammad Abu al-Fa<l Ibrahim. Cairo: {issa al-Babi al- alabi.
Suyûti, Jalal al-Din. (1969). Mu{tarak al-aqran fi i{jaz al-Qur'an. (ed.) Ali Muhammad
al-Bajawi. Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-{arabi.
Tabakowska. E. (1999). New Paradigm Thinking in Linguistics, Meaning is the Context.
In Dilly. Roy (ed.). The Problem of Context. New York: Berghahn Books.
abari. Mu ammad Ibn Jarîr.(1980).Jami{ al-bayan fi tafsîr al-Qur an. Beirut: Dar alma{rifa.
65
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Talmon. R. (2000). “From the history of the study of Quranic Syntax.” Linguitique Arabe
et Semitique. Centre d’Etude des Langues et Litteratures du Monde Arabe. Universite de
Paris.
Taylor. JR. (2003). “Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: 'High' and 'tall'
revisited”. Language Sciences, 2003 May, Vol. 25, No.3
Taylor.R. (1954). ‘Disputes About Synonymy’. The Philosophical Review. Vol. 63, 4,
Oct. 1954.
Tha{alibi, {abd al-Malik Ibn Mu ammad. (1998). Fiqh al-lughah wa-sirr al-{arabiyah.
(ed.) Khalid Fahmi. Cairo: Maktbet al-Khanji.
Thrane. T. (1986). “On delimiting the senses of near synonyms in historical Semantics: A
case study of adjectives of ‘Moral Sufficiency’ in the old English Andreas”. In
Kastovsky. D. (ed) Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries. Belin:
Moutonde Gruyter.
Ullmann. S.(1962). Semantics : an introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Van Dijk. T. (1977). Text and Context, Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of
discourse. London: Longman.
Vasudevan. T. (1996). “The stylistic value of synonyms”. Journal of the Oriental
Institute, Sep-Dec 1996, Vol.46
Verhaar. J (1969). The Verb Be and its synonyms. IV: Twi/modern Chinese . Arabic.
New York: Humanities.
Verschueren. J. (1977). The analysis of speech act verbs: theoretical preliminaries.
Indiana university Linguistic club reproduction.
Zahran. B.(1980). Min Mu*anafat Al-Tharwah Al-Lughawyah- Kitâb al- ashbah wa alna a'ir li {abd al-Ra man bin {issa al-Hamadhani. Cairo: Dar Al-Ma{arîf.
Zamakhshari. Mu mmad Ibn {umar. (1925). al-Kashshaf {an aqa'iq ghawami< altanzîl. Beirut: Dar Al Ma{rifa.
Ziff. P. (1966). ‘The Nonsynonymy of Active and Passive Sentences’ The Philosophical
Review. Vol. 75, 2, Apr. 1966.
66
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
Arabic References35
.
.
.
:
.(1905) .
(1962)
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.(1913) .
.
.(1987) .
.
.
.
2003
).
:
.
:
.
.
:
.
:
.(1984) .
.
.(1934) .
.
.
CD
.(1960)
:
:
.(1956) .
.(1972) .
.http://www.muhaddith.org :
.
:
.
.
.
.
.(1965).
.(1978) .
.(1998)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
:
.
.
.(1998).
.
-
.(1991).
.
.
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
.(1990) .
.
.
:
.
.(1928).
.
.(1925).
-
.
.
.(1980)
.
.
:
.(1895)
.
.
67
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
.
:
.
:
.
:
.
.
.(1977).
.
.
.
.
.(19--).
.
.(1957).
.
.(1964).
.
.
:
.
.
.(1969).
.
.
.
.
:
:
.
.(1980)
.
.(1993)
.
.
:
.
:
:
.
.
.(1986).
.
.
.(1980) .
.
.(1957)
.
.
.
:
.
.
.(1963)
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.(1998).
.
.(1817) .
.
.(19--).
.
:
.
.
.(1980)
.
.
.(1943).
.
.
.
.(1963) .
.
.
.(2001)
:
:
.
.
.
.( 1380).
(1931).
.
68
Antar Abdellah, 2003
University of London , SOAS MA Linguistics
69