Complications of Translating the Meanings of the Holy Qur’an at Word Level in the English Language in Relation to Frame Semantic Theory

Asjad Ahmed Saeed Balla, Ahmed Gumaa Siddiek

Abstract


The present study is an attempt to investigate the problems resulting from the lexical choice in the translation of the Holy Qur’an to emphasize the importance of the theory of “Frame Semantics” in the translation process. It has been conducted with the aim of measuring the difference in concept between the two languages Arabic and English. In order to find out this difference two words have been chosen from the Qur’an to see how the different English frames can affect the translation of the Holy Qur’an. In addition to that the paper aims to reveal the strategies used by translators to avoid such effect.  We also intended to see which factors that can mostly affect the translation of the Qur’an: the linguistic background or the cultural knowledge. Four hypotheses were coined to deal with the difference in frame knowledge (conception) between Arabic and English. The analysis of the data showed that the linguistic background contributed more to the translators’ ability than the cultural knowledge. A rank ordering for the five translations performed in the present study resulted in that the first rank (completely appropriate) was assigned to Yusuf Ali’s translation and the second position was booked by Pickhall’s translation.


Keywords


Quran, Islam, translation, lexical choice. Cultural background, linguistic background

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdelwali, M. (2007). The loss in the translation of the Qur’an. 11(2). http://accurapid.com/journals/40quran.htm. Retrieved on 9/10/2008

Adrienne, L., and Keith, L. (1970). Theory of Learning by Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs

Albusairi M. (2000). Certain Applications of Linguistics to Translation and Lexicography. Beirut: The Holy Qur’an publishing house

Ali, A.Y. (1983). The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and commentary. Marland.Amana Corp. Beirut: The Holy Qur’an publishing house

A. Yusuf, A. (1934). The Holy Qur’an Translation Commentary. Beirut: The Holy Qur’an publishing house.

Alston, W. (1943). Philosophy of Language. Englewood cliffs: Prentice-Hall,USA.

Baker, M. (1992). In other words: course book on translation. London and New York: Routledg

Cramer, D. (1994). Introducing Statistics for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge

Fillmore.C. (1985). Frames and Semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 5 (2), 222-254

Geeraerts, D. (1992). ‘The Semantic Structure of Dutchover.’ Leuvense bijdragen 81, 205-30.

Geeraerts, D. (2002). The theoretical and descriptive development of lexical semantics. The lexicon in focus. Competition and convergence in current lexicology, 23-42.

Irving, T.B. (1985). The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary. Marland-Amana Corp.

Issues in Pragmatics (PLIN 3001).

Jeony-Ho, C. (2000). The Implication of Frame Semantics for Translations, l.2.

Picthall, M. (1969). The Qur’an: The First American Translation. Bratleboro: Amana Books.

Raof, A. (2001). Qur’an Translation Culture and Civilization in the Middle East. Routedge, UK.

Raof, H. (2001). Qur’an Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis. Routedge, UK.

Sale, G. (---). George Sale Quran Translation. http://www.mlivo.com/translation/sale%20George.htm retrieved on 3/3/2008.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.5p.172

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




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

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.