‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

Explicitation : A Problem-Solving for Translating Arabic

Religious Non-Equivalent Items Into English
By
Asst. Lect. Tahseen Ameen Faisal
Department of Translation
Tikrit Uninersity

Abstract
Due to the discrepancies between Arabic and English, one is Semitic
and the other is Endo-European, explicitation in translation is inevitable
especially in terms of culture specific items. To bring about accessible
version(s) is a laborious task on the part of the translator once s/he has to
resort to such translation strategies as annotation, transliteration, addition
and paraphrasing.

1. Preliminaries
It is perhaps, with one consent accepted that complete symmetry or
sameness can hardly exist between languages descending from the same
family, with greater reason those are not genetically nor culturally related.
Accordingly, the more divergent the languages are, the more explicitations
in translating from one language into another, Arabic and English are not
exceptions. The aim of this study is to provide some useful translation
strategies to be adopted by Arabic-English translator as a first aid to solve
the socio-cultural problems. It is hypothesized in this study that paraphrasing
strategy is the most commonly used for rendering the Arabic cultural

333
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

specific terms into English. To verify this hypothesis , Hajj Mabrur is the
case in point.

2. Explicitation
Explicitation is a term introduced by Vinay&Darbelnet (1958). It is a
sort of supplementary procedures, which they list in addition to their direct
translation and oblique translation procedures. Unlike implicitation,
explicitation signifies information that is only implicitly mentioned in the
source text (ST) (Munday,2009 :202). Such a process is brought about by
the translator filling out ST, for example by including additional phrases,
spelling out implicatures or adding connectives to help the logical flow of
the text to disambiguate and increase readability. This process may be
motivated by the translator’s conscious desire to explain the meaning to the
target text (TT) reader, or may sometimes simply be an inevitable result of
the act of mediation. However, whatever the reason, the result is that “the
translator simply expands the TL text, building into it a semantic redundancy
absent in the original” (Blum-Kulka, 1986:21). Commentators on translation
have long been paying attention to the phenomenon, as can be seen for
example in Guttinger’s (1963) general observation that TTs tend to be longer
than their originals, or Nida’s claim that translated messages are more
comprehensible if drawn out by the addition of a certain amount of
redundancy (1964:131). However, it is only relatively recently that
researchers have started taking serious notice of it. For example, Blum-
Kulka (1986), in a study of cohesion and coherence in translation, finds a
greater concentration of cohesive devices in translated text, irrespective of
differences between SL and TL (1986:19); she concludes that “it might be
334
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

the case that explicitation is a universal strategy inherent in the process of

language mediation, as practiced by language learners, non-professional and
professional translators alike” (ibid:21). Similarly, Baker, commenting on
explicitation of a rather different kind, cites the example of how a translator
adds several lines explaining to Arab readers the significance of an allusion
to American President Harry Truman (1992:246-8). Furthermore, on the
stylistic level it has been pointed out by van Leuven-Zwart that “a limited
degree of explicitness is characteristic of modern prose” (1990:81), so that a
translator seeking to make a TT seem dated may well consider increasing the
level of explicitness in the text. Toury posits the phenomenon as being one
of a number of universals of translation (1980:60); however, serious
investigation of this phenomenon has not yet progressed very far, although it
is hoped that new avenues of research will be opened up through the study
of machine translation.

3. Equivalence:
Since antiquity, translation equivalence has always been a central
concept in translation theory. It is always there, in the heart of translation
theory and in the background of the minds of translation theorists and
translators. All the linguistically oriented schools of translation theory have
in common the central concept of translation equivalence, which shifted the
focus of translation theory away from the traditional polarization of 'literal'
or 'free' to a presupposed interlingual tertium comparationis of equivalence
(see Snell-Hornby 1988).
Translation equivalence of the last few decades need to be seen in a
historical context, dated back to the history of translation theory. Therefore,
335
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

it was not born out of nothing. It has been evoking heated discussions
concerning its validity and usefulness in translation practice.
As to the chronological anthology of translation equivalence (partly
based on Schulte et al, 1992, and partly on others), it opens with translation
theories in the era of the Romans. During that time translation meant the
appropriation and expropriation of the content of the Foreign Language
Text, for the Native Language Text should supersede the original. The prime
concern then was with confirming the superiority of the translator's mother
tongue as a matter of patriotism. In the B.C. era, Cicero wrote:
"I translate the ideas, their forms, or … their shapes; however, I translate
them into a language that is in tune with our conventions of usage … .
Therefore, I did not have to make a word-for-word translation but rather a
translation that reflects the general stylistic features … and meaning … of
the foreign words."
The idea of achieving translation equivalence of any kind was in the
translator's background, but in an unusual way. That is, it is the equivalence
that fits in his native language, being superior to the foreign language.
However, it is absent in our contemporary sense of it. Whether the
translation distorted the meanings of the original text or not was of minor
concern to the translator. An adamant advocate of this view of translation is
Saint Jerome, the famous translator of the Greek Bible into Latin. However,
that attitude toward translation underwent a radical change in the middle of
the Eighteenth Century.Schopenhauer's (1800:32) comments on
equivalencies : "Not every word in one language has an exact equivalent in
another. Thus, not all concepts that are expressed through the words of one
language are exactly the same as the ones that are expressed through the
336
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

words of another". These equivalencies are even more delicate and

problematic in poetry in particular, where equivalents are not possible.

3.1. Equivalence at Word Level:

When a translator reads a text, he/she tries to communicate the overall
meaning of the text. To achieve this aim, he/she needs first to understand the
meaning of the smaller units that carry the meaning in the text. The smallest
unit we would expect to possess individual meaning is the word. This does
not mean that words are the only carriers of meaning in language. Meaning
can be carried by units smaller than words or more complex than single
items.

To know the meaning of an individual word does not mean merely the
knowledge of its referential or dictionary meaning. There are different types
of meaning included in lexical items: referential, connotative, associative,
metaphorical, allusive, etc. Below, an explanation of three of these will be
provided, by way of exemplification.
Schopenhauer's (1800:32) comments on equivalencies : "Not every
word in one language has an exact equivalent in another. Thus, not all
concepts that are expressed through the words of one language are exactly
the same as the ones that are expressed through the words of another". These
equivalencies are even more delicate and problematic in poetry in particular,
where equivalents are not possible.

337
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

3.2. Referential Meaning:

Reference deals with the relationship between the linguistic elements
and the nonlinguistic world of experience (Palmer 1981). Many authors have
employed the term "denotation" for what we call reference. Lyons (1977)
has used the term "descriptive meaning" and has illustrated that the other
terms used in the literature of this aspect of meaning include "referential",
“cognitive", “propositional", "ideational", and "designative". A related point
here is that not all words have the same kind of meaning; we have full words
that have the meaning we would expect to find in a dictionary. Form words,
on the other hand, belong to the grammar and have only grammatical
meaning. Others referred to them as content words or lexemes and function
words.
The concepts of one language may differ radically from those of
another. Each language has its own complexity related to vocabulary. Each
language has its own systematic relationship among lexical items. Each
subdivides different concepts or activities that may or may not exist in the
other languages. Some languages introduce distinctions where others do not,
e.g. German, Spanish, and French need two lexical items for the concept of
“know” (Politzer 1970). If we look at English and Arabic, we can find a
plenty of examples, like the word “cousin” in English which has four
equivalents in Arabic; ‫أبن العم‬, ‫أبن ألخال‬, ‫أبنةالعم‬, ‫ أبنة ألخال‬. Similarly, the second
person pronoun “you” in English has five second person pronouns in
Classical Arabic: ‫أنت‬,
‫أنت‬, ‫أنت‬, ‫أنتن‬, ‫ أنتم‬involving distinctions between singular, dual, plural, and
masculine and feminine.

338
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

3.3. Problems of Equivalence at Word Level:

In English-Arabic translation, there are three classes of lexical items:
1.The first includes lexical items that have straightforward equivalents in the
TL, such as the words in the following table:
Table (1): Examples of Full Equivalents at Word Level English words
Arabic full equivalents
Door \ ‫باب‬
Book \ ‫كتاب‬
Moon \ ‫قمر‬
Today \ ‫اليوم‬
Cairo \ ‫القاهرة‬
2. The second includes items which have only partial equivalents such as the
words Lord ‫ الرب‬, prayer/ ‫ الصالة‬, ululate/ ‫ يزغرد‬, etc.
3. The third includes items which do not have equivalents in Arabic (what
Newmark (1988) calls ‘the unfindable words’), so we must coin or borrow
items, e.g. Savanna, priest, kimono, etc. (Saraireh 1990).
Choosing an expression in Arabic is easy for the first class, and
inconsistencies arise from mere carelessness or inadequate knowledge of the
field in question. No problem arises here; the translator has only to substitute
the English word for the Arabic full equivalent.
The principle we start with is that everything without exception can be
translatable. I agree with Newmark (1988:6) that ‘the translator cannot
afford the luxury of saying that something cannot be translated’. Nida (1975)
has the same conviction that anything that can be said in one language can
be said in another with reasonable accuracy. However, he has concentrated
on the impact of culture and adopted the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of
339
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

linguistic relativity. This has led him to make such kinds of generalizations
as perfect communication impossible; there are no exact correspondences
between related words in different languages. Emphasis on differences
rather than similarities has led some writers other than Nida to question the
possibility of absolute equivalence. They have taken the difference as the
rule, not the exception. If we discuss this matter practically we would find
many words in English and Arabic which are identical, such as room, right,
wrong, go, eat, come, etc. Thousands of examples are available. If such a
claim is correct, dictionary compilers will not be able to compile
dictionaries. Furthermore, the general principle of translation highly
commendable to be adopted is that equivalence can be attained in a way or
another with or without a problem, or sometimes with a certain kind of
compensating procedures. The result would be equivalent messages in the
two different languages and of course with different degrees depending on
the translator's
abilities and talents beside other factors.

3.4. Cultural Equivalence:

Culture is not merely man’s intellectual and educational background. It
is ‘the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community
that uses a particular language and its means of expression’ (Newmark
1988:94). It is an important part of language and translation. However, it
represents one of the major problems facing translators. Many scholars
maintain that no matter how difficult and complicated the cultural problem
is, it is translatable. Of course this is not the belief of all scholars. We have
differing points of views concerning the translation of cultural terms and the
340
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

nature of the relationship they perceive between language and culture. Some
scholars believe that culture is only part of language and hence can be
translated (see Newmark 1988:95, Ghazala 2003:194). Others give more
emphasis to culture claiming that language is overall cultural and culture is
untranslatable. Ghazala (2003:194) has rejected the claim of Robinson
(1997) of cultural untranslatability for it implies the impossibility of
translation. Others consider translation as an act of cultural information,
such as Snell-Hornby (1988:82), (Karamanian 2002:5), etc, claiming that
translators are required to be not only bilingual but also bicultural. They
have adopted a biased-cultural approach to translation by making culture
familiar to readers by means of changing the SL culture into the TL culture.
We believe that culture is only one aspect of language and translation.
If culture is untranslatable, translation will not exist, and works would not
have been translated. Since this has never happened, the claim is definitely
false and depends on mere theorization. In what follows, we are going to
develop this argument further.
The last two decades have witnessed the burgeoning of cultural
research in translation studies. Scholars have felt the need to look beyond the
confines of linguistically oriented translation studies and search for cross-
cultural approaches. Wilss (1996) has indicated that an implication of the
contextual view of translation is that translation cannot be fully understood
outside a cultural or intercultural reference. He has also added that a culture-
oriented approach to translation is nothing new. Many scholars have viewed
translation in a cultural perspective (Nida 1964, Reiss 1976, and Vermeer
1989). Culture- oriented views are always subject to considerable
assessment.
341
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

However, culture-oriented approaches to translation vary in the

degree in which they view translation as a cultural entity. At one extreme,
one can posit the view of radical linguo-cultural relativism. Nobody in
translation research endorses this radical version of linguo-cultural
relativism today, because relativity is in discord with an increasingly
universalistic computer-dominated linguistic area that aims at formulating
rules comparable to those of natural science. In former times there have been
advocates of untraslatability like Humboldt, Sapir and Whorf. Wilss thinks
that an exclusively culture-related concept of translation is untenable (1996).
Some texts may be culture-specific but some may not. One should not
overstress cultural differences.
Newmark (199:73) has mentioned that language is a substantial but a
partial reflection of culture. Culture may be defined as the total range of
activities and ideas and their material expression in objects and processes
peculiar to a group of peoples as well as their cultural environments; thus
pampas , (‫براري ) أميركا ألجنوبية‬
tandoori , )‫طعام معد على التنور(طريقة شمال الهند‬
are cultural words. Language is also universal and individual: thus sea, head
and earth are universal words. Translation is more or less possible because
of the universal and the culturally overlapping constituents of
language. Culture is the social aspect of in language. There is hardly a book
on interlingual relations between English and Chinese that does not state that
dragons are kindly and protective in Chinese, baleful in English. Mourning
is black in English but white in Chinese. The sun is as oppressive in some
Arab countries as it is lovely in England; thus demonstrating the

342
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

impossibility of translation. But this is not exactly the case. Many cultural
beliefs and connotations are brittle in particular.
Aixela (1996) has discussed the translation of culture-specific items.
He has stated that each linguistic or national-linguistic community has at its
disposal a series of habits, value judgments, classification systems, etc.
which sometimes are clearly different and sometimes overlap. This way,
cultures create a variability factor that the translator will have to take into
account. He has mentioned that at present there is a clear recognition of the
fundamental role played by cultural transference in translation, a fact that
becomes clear if we think of the presence of the term 'cultural' and its
derivatives in a significant proportion of the modern literature on translation.
Cultural asymmetry between two linguistic communities is necessarily
reflected in the discourse of their members. Translation provides the
receiving society with a wide range of strategies, ranging from conservation
(acceptance of the difference by means of the reproduction of the cultural
signs in the source text), to naturalization (transformation of the other into a
cultural replica).
The choice between these two strategies will show the degree of
tolerance of the receiving society and its own solidity. Culture-specific items
are usually expressed in a text by means of objects and of systems of
classification and measurement whose use is restricted to the source culture,
or by means of the transcription of opinions and description of habits equally
alien to the receiving culture. The main difficulty lies in the fact that
everything in a language is culturally reproduced beginning with language
itself. In translation, a specific-item does not exist by itself. It is the result of
a conflict arising from any linguistically represented reference in a source
343
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

text when transferred to a TL poses a translation problem due to the non-

existence or to the different value (whether determined by ideology, usage,
frequency, etc.) of the given item in the TL specific.
Aixela (1996:61-64) has provided two main strategies that can be applied to
culture specific items in translation. He has explained these strategies
supporting them with a few examples from English into Spanish. They are
conservation and substitution. The former can be considered as strategies for
foreignization but the latter are for the naturalization of cultural specific
items. He has listed them with their examples but he did not explain the
degree of their preference. He did not explain the merits and drawbacks of
their application. His typology needs illustrations and clarification since it is
not supported with enough examples to explain their application. They are
complex, highly technical,
and obscure. Moreover, there is a difficulty in the differentiation among
them and consequently they are complicated to be applied.
Newmark (1988) has provided twelve procedures that can be used in the
translation of cultural specific items. These procedures have been elaborated
by Ghazala (2003:196-208), supported with illustrative examples that can
provide guidance for translators whether experienced or trainee.

344
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

Table (5): Procedures for Translating Cultural Terms

Arabic
Procedure English Example
Equivalent
‫مجلس‬
1-Cultural equivalent Parliament
‫مجلس االمة‬/‫الشعب‬
2-Cultural correspondence Plateau ‫نجد‬
3- Accepted standard
Spare Parts ‫قطع غيار‬
translation
4-Naturalization Hercules ‫هرقل‬
‫مجلس الملكة‬
5-General sense Privy council
‫الخاص‬
6-Transcription/transliteration/
Cricket ‫كريكت‬
transference
7-Literal translation of
The House of Commons ‫مجلس العموم‬
meaning
Alexander the Great
8-Translation couplet ‫االسكندر االكبر‬
(Naturalization+Translation)
Love virus
‫فيروس الحب في‬
9-Translating triplet (Transcription+Transliteration+
‫الحاسب اآللي‬
ParaPhrasing)
10-Classified Lincoln ‫مدينة لنكولن‬
11-Neutralization/
functional/descriptive ‫القصر الرئاسي‬
Kremlin
equivalent ‫الروسي‬

345
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

Arabic
Procedure English Example
Equivalent
‫قميص‬:‫الكيمون‬
‫ياباني فضفاض الى‬
12-Componential analysis Kimono
‫الركبة بأكمام‬
‫عريضة وحزام‬
‫شرائح لحم فخذ‬
13-Paraphrase Ham
‫الخنزيرالمملح‬
14-Translation lable Fax ‫بريد سريع‬/‫فاكس‬
15-Deletion High tea ‫الشاي‬
‫سترة ذات‬:‫الكلتية‬
‫ثنيات طويلة‬
‫يرتديها الرجال‬
16-Glossary, notes and
Kilt ‫والنساء في اسكتلندا‬
footnotes
‫وافرادالفرق‬
‫االسكتلندية في‬
‫الجيش البريطاني‬

There are number of reasons that impel translators in certain cases to choose
one of the translation strategies. The first one is the degree of linguistic
prescription: there are different attitudes towards the strategies. This also
differs among individuals as well; some translators try their best to defend
their language against foreignization, while others consider this as
something minor and sometimes inevitable. I believe that we should try our
best to decrease the number of foreign words in our language. Our language

346
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

is an integral part of our identity; the Arabic language will be weakened by

the invasion of so many foreign words.
To sum up, we can conclude that the translation of culture-specific
terms is possible. It is hard but possible task. Translators should be careful in
their choices.

4. Non-equivalent Words:
One of the most difficult problems facing a translator is to find lexical
equivalents for words, objects and events not known in the receptor culture.
Of course, a translation has to consider not only the two languages but also
the two cultures. Because of the differences among cultures, there will be
some concepts in the SL which do not have lexical equivalents in the TL.
This may be due to differences in geography, customs, worldview and other
factors.
Larson (1984) has indicated that there are three basic alternative ways in
which a translator can find an equivalent expression in the receptor
language. These are:
1. A generic word with a descriptive phrase, e.g. hound ‫ كلب الصيد‬, sushi ‫نوع‬
‫ من السمك يؤكل باردا‬, ,etc.
2. A loan word, e.g. computer and ‫ حاسوب‬, technology ‫ تقنية‬, television ‫تلفزيون‬
, etc.
3. And a cultural substitute, e.g. parliament and ‫مجلس الشعب‬
When a translator is confronted with words in the SL which have no
equivalent in the receptor language vocabulary, his first responsibility will
be to understand clearly the meaning of the word and its use in the context in

347
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

which it occurs. Sometimes the author is more concerned with the form of
the thing, but sometimes function is more important. Things and events can
be looked at from a different perspective.

Baker (1992) has tackled the problems of non-equivalence at word

level, indicating that the strategies dealing with the problem depends on the
nature of non-equivalence, beside the context and the purpose of translation
which will rule out some strategies and favor some other. Some of these
problems are: culture-specific words; the SL concept is not lexicalized in the
TL, e.g. the word ‘privacy’ is difficult to be translated into other languages.
They can be shown in the following table:

Table (4): Strategies for Dealing with the Problem of Non-equivalence at

Word Level Type of problem Strategy for dealing with non-equivalence
(one strategy can be used with more than one problem)
Strategy for dealing with non-
Type of problem equivalence (one strategy can be
used with more than one problem)
1-Culture-specific concept 1-Translation by a more general
2-The SL concept is not lexicalized word
in the TL 2-Translation by a more neutral word
3-The SL word is semantically 3-Translation by cultural substitution
complex 4-Translation by using a loan word
4-The SL and the TL make different or a loan word plus explanation
distinctions in meaning 5-Translation by paraphrase using

348
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

Strategy for dealing with non-

Type of problem
used with more than one problem)
5-The TL lacks a super- ordinate
6-The TL lacks a specific term
7-Differences in expressive meaning
8-Differences in physical or
interpersonal perspective
9-Differences in form
10-The use of loan words in the
source text
equivalence (one strategy can be
unrelated words
6-Translation by omission
7-Translation by illustration
8-Translation by paraphrase using
related words

To sum up, it can be suggested that meaning should be the

preoccupation of all translations. Translators have to do their best to transfer
as much of the original meaning as they can into the TL. In all these
situations and others, the translator finds himself obliged to adopt some
strategies to bridge these semantic gaps.

5. Translation of The Religious terms

Religious texts have the features of sacredness , which are based on
faith : either the message or the word or both are believed to be holy . The
SL sacred items cannot be rendered into the TL without losing their divine
value (Aziz & Lataiwish , 2000 :111).
Different translations have produced different versions of the Quranic
original texts. One easily feels the great impact and influence of the exegetes

349
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

on the translators' renderings from their explanatory notes and the exegetical
material which they incorporated in their translations of the texts (Ilyas,
1989:92-4).
As the inimitability of the Quran lies in its style , eloquence , structure
and lexes which cannot be imitated by the most skillful Arab writers
themselves, "how much more difficult, then, would be the attempt to render
the Glorious Quran in a medium foreign to the characteristic linguistic and
rhetorical devices of classical Arabic ? " (Khan, 1987 :12).
Muslim scholars, however, are reluctant to translate the glorious
Quran because they view that it is untranslatable owing to its unique
inimitable style. Such an inimitability of the Quran has been recognized by
one generation after another. For example, Al-Baqilani discussed this subject
in his book (‫‘ )إعجاز القران‬Icjazul-Quran’, as did Al-Razi in his ( ‫نهاية اإليجاز في‬
‫‘ )دراية اإلعجاز‬Nihayatul-Ijaz fi Dirayatil-Icjaz’. Al-Jurjani, on his part,
tackled the subject in his book (‫‘ )دالئل اإلعجاز‬Dalailul-Icjaz’ (cf. Matlūb,
1996:9-10). Simlarly, Al-Būti (2003:231) maintains the impossibility of
rendering the glorious Quran owing to its unique style whereby the intended
meaning can be conveyed via one polysemous word apart from its abstract
semantic sense. Famous among others is Al- Otheimeen (2002:33) who is in
favour of communicative translation because it is goal-oriented as he states
in his book (‫‘ )أصول في التفسير‬Usool fi-t-Tafsir’.
The following are some religious examples that reflect how
explicitation, with its different sub-strategies employed in such kind of texts.
Hajj Mabrur is the book adopted for purpose of the study, as it is rich with
many cultural specific terms related to such unique event’s (Hajj) rituals
which have no equivalence in English . We find that the translator has no
350
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

other way to tackle such a translation problem other than using the
procedure as a problem-solving strategy .
4. Hajj Mabrur:( a case in point )

(1)-Hajj Mabrur (pp.7)

{ A faultless Hajj that is free of sin and graced with divine acceptance.}
(2)-Nafagah Halal (pp.7)
{ Lawful costs of living.}
-“ whoever performs Hajj, and abstains from evil words, indecent behavior
and quarrel will return like the day he was born, (i.e. free of all sins).(pp.8)

The Essence of Hajj:

(3)-Ihraam (pp.21)
{ donning the pilgrim’s garb.}
(4)-Talbiya (pp.22)
{ Supplication that is said when one enters into ihram.}
(5)-Tawaf (pp.22)
{ Circumambulation of the Ka’bah.}
(6)-Sa’y (pp.22)
{ Running between two hillocks called Safa and Marwah.}
(7)-Rajm (pp.23)
{ Casting stones at the pillars, i.e.Jamarat.}
(8)-Halq(pp.23)
{ Shaving the hair.}
(9)-Nahr(pp.23)
{ Animal sacrifice.}
351
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

Forms of Hajj: There are three forms of Hajj,(Tamattu’, Qiran, and Ifrad.
(10)Tamattu’ (pp.29)
{ Combining Hajj and Umrah with a break in between.}
(11)Qiran (pp.30)
{ Combination of Umrah and Hajj in intention at the same time.}
(12)Ifrad (pp.30)
{ Hajj only.}
Scenes from Arafah:- The following are some scenes from Arafah day
rituals:
(13)Husn-ul-Khatimah (pp.43)
{ Dying as Muslim.}
(14)Ramiy (pp.45)
{ Pelting Jamarat( stones).}
(15)Hadiy (pp.46)
{ Animals for sacrifice.}

6. Conclusion
The study concludes that as far as case is related with the religious texts,
especially that of terminology, strategy No (8),i.e. translation by paraphrase
using related words , is the most commonly used one as is the case with
examples (1-9), since it conforms to the Target Language audience norms.
Translators have opted for Translation by illustration ,i.e. strategy No (7) as
a secondly resorted means to convey the message as explicit as possible as in
examples (10-15). The other strategies are the least commonly used if they
were.

352
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

References
Aixela, Javier Franco. 1996. Culture-Specific items in Translation, in Roman
Alvarez and M. Carmen-Africa Vidal (eds.), Translation,
Power, Subversion, 52-79. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
LTD.
Al-Hilali, M. T., Khan, M. (trans.) 1998. Translation of the Meanings of the
Noble Qur’an in the English Language . Madeena, King Fahd
Complex.
Aziz, Y. and Lataiwishi (2000) Principles of Translation Qar-Younis
University Press.
Baker, Muna (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook On Translation,
London: Routledge.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1986) “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in
Translation”, in Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka
(eds), 17-35.
Dryden, John. 1680. On Translation, in Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet
(eds.), Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays form
Dryden to Derrida, 1992:17-31. London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Ghazala, Hasan 2003. Translation as Problems and Solutions: A
Coursebook for University Students and Trainee Translators.
(5th edition.). Beirut: Dar Wa Maktabat Al-Hilal.
Guttenger, Fritz (1963) Zielsprache. Theorie und Technik Des Ubersetzens,
Zurich:Manesse Verlag.
Ilyas, A. (1989) Theories of Translation Mosul University Press, Mosul.

353
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

Karamanian, A.P. 2002. Translation and Culture. Translation Journal. 6.1:

January 1-5.
Larson, Mildred L. (1984) Meaning-based Translation:A Guide to Cross-
language Equivalence, Lanham: University Press of America.
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van (1990) “Translation and Original: Similarities
and Dissimilarities, II”, in Target 2:1,69-95.
Lyons, Jones. 1977. Semantics. vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Munday, J. (2009) The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies.
Routledge Taylor and Francis Group and Newyork.
Newmark, Peter (1988) . A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice-Hall.
Newmark, Peter 1998. More Paragraphs on Translation. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Nida, Eugene 1975. Language Structure and Translation: Essays by Eugene
Nida Selected and Introduced by Anwar.S.Dil. California:
Stanford University Press.
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translation: With Special
Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible
Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Palmer, Frank R. 1981. Semantics. ( 2nd edition ). Cambridge: Cambridge
UP.
Politzer, Robert. 1970. Vocabulary Problems. Foreign Language Learning:
A Linguistic Introduction. New York: Prentice-Hall.77-83.
Reiss, Catharina. 1976. Text Type and Translation Method: Operative Texts.
Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Robinson, Douglas. 1997. Becoming a Translator. Routledge: London and
New York.
354
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
\

4192 ‫) اذار‬91( ‫العدد‬

Saraireh, Mohammad Atawi. 1990. Some Lexical and Syntactic Problems in

English-Arabic Translation. Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin. Ann
Arbor: UMI. 9024788.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1800. On Language and Words, in Rainer Schulte
and John Biguenet (eds.), Theories of Translation: An
Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, 1992. 32-35.
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Snell-Hornby. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Toury, Gideon (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: The
Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
Vermeer, H.J. 1989/2000. Skopos and Commission in Translation Action, in
L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, 221-232.
London: Rutledge.
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Jean Darbelnet (1958) Stylistique Comparee du francais
et de l’anglais: Methode de Traduction, Paris. Didier.
Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

355
 ‫مجلة آدآب الفرآهيدي‬
‫\‬

‫العدد (‪ )91‬اذار ‪4192‬‬

‫المستخلص‬

‫نظ ار لوجود الفوارق بين اللغتين العربية واالنكليزية‪ ،‬حيث أن احداهما لغة سامية والثانية لغة هندية‬

‫اوربية‪ ،‬فان االظهار في الترجمة أمر المناص منه السيما فيما يتعلق بالمفردات الخاصة بثقافة‬

‫معينة‪ .‬ولتحقيق ترجمة مفهومة‪ ،‬على المترجم بذل جهود جبارة متمثلة باللجوء الى استخدام‬

‫استراتيجيات ترجمية كااليضاح والنقل الصوتي واالضافة والتفسير‪.‬‬

‫‪356‬‬