Problems of Equivalence in Translating Cognate Accusative Encountered by Saudi EFL Learners

Intisar Hassan Abdul Magid Mohammad


Arabic is the most widely spoken Semitic language and has seen phases of change from the Quranic form to the more popular Modern Standard Arabic that is used for communication today. It shares some of its features with other languages in the family, and the use of the Cognate Accusative is one such characteristic. For this reason, Arabic is known as a Cognate Language like other languages of this family. However, English is of the Indo-European family and naturally has a different set of rules and preferences. Training learners in language forms that differ in style and value discourse elements differently can be a daunting task as what sounds natural in one can be frowned at in the other. With students inclined to literally translate between such languages as in the case of KSA, the change of form can be quite difficult to understand. Where no equivalence exists between two languages, the translator’s need to establish it for obvious reasons is one of the most problematic and challenging endeavours in translation theory. Teachers of language and translation in KSA are concerned with learning problems that arise due to lexical and grammatical non-equivalence between Arabic and English which often leads to confusion and incorrect output during translation process. The current study aimed at investigating one of the Arabic grammatical structures which has no equivalent in English (Cognate Accusative). The Cognate Accusative or using the same verb root twice in a construction is valued in Arabic discourse as it serves usually one or more of three purposes: Adding emphasis, explaining the type, and explaining the number. However, this is absent in English as the construction is seen as unnatural and hence, incorrect. Following analytical methods, the study targeted two objectives: One, testing the learners’ ability to translate the Cognate Accusative; and two, to gather an understanding of the strategies they adopted in the process. The study is likely to be of great value in a foreign language learning environment as is the case in the KSA. We used written tests to collect the data, followed by detailed interviews to elicit information on the translation strategies used. Participants were female undergraduate students (N=35) at Hurimilla College of Science and Humanities, Shaqra University, KSA, of which fifteen were randomly interviewed consequently. The data collected was analysed using SPSSR. The findings showed that this structure is indeed confusing for students with 37% of them using literal translation, and 12.29% producing incorrect versions or sometimes avoiding translating them. Personal interviews revealed that the reason of these results can be directly attributed to the absence of these categories in English, and non-equivalence between Arabic and English.


Equivalence, Translation, Saudi EFL Learners

Full Text:



Abd Al-Mouain, A. (2004). Al-Mawsoua Al-NahwiyaWa Al-Sarfiya The Syntactic and Morphological Encyclopedia. Al-Mouyassara . Cairo: IbnSina Bookshop.

Abu-Jarad, H. A. (1986). English Interlanguage of Palestinian University Students in Gaza Strip: An Analysis of Relative Clause and Verb Tense. (Doctoral Dissertation, Ball State University), accessed December 13, 2018

Al-Ashmoni, A. (1955). Sharh Alfiyyat Ibn Malik [The interprestation of Ibn Malik poem (the 100 lines poem)]. Revised by Mohammad Abdul Hamid. Cairo: Maktabat Al Nahda Al Masriyya.

Al-Dahdah, A. (2001). Arabic Grammatical Nomenclature. Beirut: Lebanon Library Publishers.

Almaghary. A. (2002). Translation Problems amongst Arab Translators. Retrieved December 13, 2010,


Al-Tarifi, Y. (2003). The Chosen Encyclopedia in Syntax, Morphology, Rhetorics and Prosody. Oman: Dar Al-Isra Li Al-Nasr Wa Al-Tawzia.

Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge.

Bassnett-McGuire, S. (1991). Translation Studies. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Bell, Roger T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Longman.

Broek, R. Van den (1978). "The Concept of Equivalence In Translation Theory: Some Critical Reflections", in J. S. Holmes, J. Lambert and R, Van den Broek (eds), Literature and Translation, Leuven: Academic.

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay on Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ghazala, H. (1995). Translation as Problems and Solutions (4th Ed.). Syria: Dar El- Kalem El-Arabi. Quarterly, 17 (3), 121–139.

Hashim, N. (1996). English syntactic errors by Arabic speaking learners reviewed. Eric. Doc 423660, Full Text.

Ibn Al-Nathim. (2000). SharhIbnN-NathimʕalaɁalfiyyatIbn Malik [IbnNathim's explanation of Ibn Malik's poem (the 1000 lines poem)]. Revised by Mohammed Bassel Al-Sud. Dar Al-Kutub Al-ʕilmiyya.

IbnAquil, B. 1995. SharhAlfiyyatIbn Malik [The Interpretation of Ibn Malik’s poem (the 1000 lines poem)]. Revised by Mohammad Abdul Hamid.Beruit: Almaktaba Al Asriyah.

IbnHisham, J. (1962). AwDaH Al MasalikelaAlfiyyatIbnMalik [The clearest paths to Ibn Malik’s poem (the 1000 lines poem)]. 5thedition. Revised by MuhiAddein Abdel Hamid.Beruit : Dar Ihyaʿ Al Turath.

Mukattash, L. (2001). “Some Remarks on Arabic-English Contrastive Studies”. Pozan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. School of English, Pozan: Adam Mickiewicz University.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.

Nida, E. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.

Vinay, J.P. & Darbelnet, J. (1958). StylistiqueComparée du Francaiset de l' Anglais: Méthode de traduction. London; Toronto: G.G. Harrap; Paris: M. Didier.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.