Abstract

This dissertation aims at studying the translation of Macbeth by Jabra Ibrahim Jabra (1990) from a linguistic perspective. The analysis depends on the theory of equivalence; I study the translated text on three levels: the lexical, grammatical, and cultural one.

The study consists of three parts. The first part tackles briefly the different attempts to translate Macbeth by Arab translators and persons of letters before Jabra‟s rendering and after it. The second part presents the theoretical background of the study mainly the translation theory of equivalence. The third part analyzes the translated text by Jabra comparing it with other two renderings; the one that was done by Khalil Mutran (1974) and the other by Ahmed Ameen (1994).

Conclusions are drawn as to their accuracy and their fidelity in preserving the characteristic settings of the original work, and retaining their literary and dramatic nuances and impact.

1 Acknowledgment

I express my deep gratitude to my supervisor Dr Maha Al-Saloom. With her encouragement, help and invaluable knowledge this work has come into being. I shall forever remain indebted to her. Besides being a notable scholar, she is a woman of great humanity and kindness.

I would like to thank Professor Elias Khalaf, the chairman of the English

Department at Albaath University, for his help and advice in collecting material and for his advice regarding my research. My appreciation also goes to the teaching staff in the Department of English at Albaath

University. I owe special thanks to Dr Talal Alkhaleel for some valuable suggestions.

I am grateful to Dr Ahlam Hadi, the great critic, for her help in my first reading and evaluating the different Arabic versions of Macbeth.

2

Declaration

I declare that this research is substantially my own work and that it has not been presented previously either wholly or in part for any other degree.

Candidate

Noor Sheikh Sobh

The Supervisor

Dr Maha Al-Saloom

3 ABBREVIATIONS

SL Source language

ST Source text

TL Target language

SC Source Culture

TC Target Culture

TT Target text

4 Table of Contents

Abstract...... 1

Declaration ...... 2

Acknowledgement...... 3

Abbreviations...... 4

Table of Contents...... 5

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Problems of Translating Shakespeare...... 8

1.2 Statement of the Problem ...... 13

Chapter Two Theoretical Background

2.1 Translation equivalence: its nature and types...... 16

2.1.1 Formal Equivalence

2.1.2 Dynamic Equivalence

2.2 Literal Translation……………..……………………………………19

2.3 Meaning and Translation…………………………...……………….18

2.3 Word meaning and poetic context …………………………….……20

Chapter Three Analysis of Jabra’s Translation

3.1 Lexical level …………………………………………………...... 26

3.1.1 Introduction

3.1.2 Translation problems related to denotation...... 27

5 3.1.2.1 Synonymy…………………………………………...... 28

3.1.2.2 Literalness ………………...... 33

3.2 Grammatical Level ………….……………………………………...43

3.2.1 Translation Problems due to Morphology

3.2.1.1 Derivatives……………………………………………………...44

3.2.1.2 Morphological Repetition…….………………………………....48

3.2.2 Translation Problems due to Sentential Issues

3.2.3 Cohesion and Coherence ...... 59

3.3 Cultural Level ...... 65

3.3.1 Metaphor...... 66

3.3.2 Allusions...... 74

Conclusion ...... 82

References...... 85

6

Chapter One

Introduction

7 1.1 Problems of translating Shakespeare

Although more than a century has passed since Shakespeare began to be translated into Arabic, the translations still endure a number of problems which deserve to be examined. Practical suggestions are necessary to get better translation of Shakespeare into Arabic and produce more faithful and accurate versions.

To translate literary texts from quite different languages and cultures is difficult. The case becomes more complicated and problematic when one translates Shakespeare‟s plays into Arabic, since the Elizabethan cultural background is totally different from the Arab one‟s. English and Arabic differ widely in idioms, puns, proverbs, grammar and images. Most of the times, these plays are translated into Arabic for an Arab reader who has neither read Shakespeare in English, nor had the chance to see a performance of the plays on stage. Therefore, a very accurate and faithful translation is needed in order retains all the dramatic aspects and themes of the Shakespearean plays.

However, a serious question arises as to how the passages in verse should be translated into Arabic since these plays were composed of prose and verse, Kamal Nadir (1958, p. 166) believes that:

For this reason a good translation of Shakespeare into Arabic verse has been found impracticable, and the Arab audience has to content itself with prose. Thus the Arab translator is not only translating from one language to another, but from one distinct medium into another.

Later, M. B. Twaij (1973, p. 51) adds that translating Shakespeare into Arabic verse would corrupt the original:

8 Applying Arabic poetry to Shakespeare translations would require any poet, however great his genius is, to interpolate his own words to satisfy versification demands, which would of course mean corrupting and distorting the original.

Both Nadir and Twaij discussed the possibility of translating Shakespeare into only classical Arabic forms of poetry or the form of the traditional qasida but ignored other Arabic poetic forms such as free verse

. Since the early fifties [of the 20th century], free verse has largely replaced the traditional qasida as a medium of poetic expression all over the Arab world (Alsaai, 1997, p. 31). Rhyme in the free verse movement is optional, and it can give greater freedom to translators which the traditional qasida does not allow.

Hayan Alsaai (1997, p. 33) states in his dissertation A Critical Assessment of the Translations of Shakespeare that Shakespeare's verse can be translated into any Arabic poetic form and that poetic prose is strongly recommended to be used by the translator. He provided the following reasons:

First, the capability of the Arabic language to reflect the richness of Shakespeare's language. Second, the importance of offering this literature, with all its characteristics, in Arabic for readers without making major or minor changes that affect the dramatic work, such as rendering Shakespeare's verse into Arabic mere prose.

In addition, poetry constitutes a very important element in Shakespeare's plays, particularly with regard to characterization. Badawi (1979, p. 131) asserted that “Poetry with all its elements is more effective than prose and more adequate to describe psychological experience.” In talking about poetic dramatic characters such as the character of Lady Macbeth , we

9 only see part of these characters in case we separate them from poetry and the poetic atmosphere in which they exist. Translating Shakespeare‟s poetry into prose will undoubtedly affect the dramatic impact. This leads us to another major problem. We are looking for adequate translations of Shakespeare in Arabic that keep all the peculiarities of the Shakespearean play. Shakespeare has drawn different types of characters in his plays who often reflect their social setting according to the level of language which they speak. Therefore, more than one level of language should be used by his characters in any translation. The language that a king or a prince would use is different from that of a servant or a gravedigger.

The question therefore arises as to how this characteristic can be retained in an Arabic translation of Shakespeare. In other words, what levels of Arabic would a translator use to make this characteristic clear in the Arabic version? Many Arab translators did not restrict themselves to the original text. They gave themselves liberty to omit and make many changes in the text. But, apart from that, they at times used what could be described as cultural translation. Sometimes, for example, they introduced many Islamic oaths which are common in Mutran and Ameen rendering.

Lexical gaps create yet another problem for translators. This particular problem requires more concentration so that it can be overcome, particularly when Shakespearean literature is translated into Arabic. In this context we are confronted with a crucial textual feature. It is sometimes difficult for non-academic native speakers of English to understand thoroughly some Shakespearean texts unless they read the commentaries and explanations to that particular texts. A similar problem will face an Arab when s/he reads a Shakespearean text translated into Arabic, despite any possible success this translation may have achieved.

10 This would occur for several reasons. The most significant one is perhaps the cultural gap that exists between a modem Arab reader and the Elizabethan dramatist. In other words, it is difficult for an Arab reader to grasp the whole content of a Shakespearean play when he has little concept of the age in which it was written. Therefore, whenever a Shakespearean text is to be translated into Arabic, translating the commentaries and explanations, which have already been made on the text, is also needed.

Many of Shakespeare's plays have been either adapted or translated into Arabic and the majority of them have been performed on the Arabic stage. But despite the great appreciation and admiration all Arab critics, commentators, readers and audiences have for Shakespeare's works, little critical research on translating Shakespeare into Arabic has been done to improve the translation of Shakespeare and producing better Arabic versions of Shakespeare for Arab readers.

Neither critics nor commentators have made a worthwhile contribution towards the study of translating Shakespeare in Arabic. Alsaai (1997, p. 35) claims that M. Y. Najm was the first scholar to comment on various early Arabic adaptations and translations of Shakespeare. He devoted part of his book The Drama in Modern Arabic Literature to comment briefly and generally on all Arabic versions of Shakespeare that appeared before 1914.

In 1958, Kamal Nadir wrote a dissertation under the title Shakespeare and the Arabic-speaking Audience. His main interest was the preparation of Shakespearean translations for the stage. He closely examined certain social, religious and linguistic problems which, he believed, created a gap

11 separating the Arab readers and audience from the English readers and audience. He devoted only few pages of his thesis to assess briefly the success of various early Arabic adaptations and translations of Shakespeare in the light of the original texts.

More recently, Ahlam Hadi (2009) presented critical reviews on four major translations of Macbeth in her book Macbeth in Four Arabic Translations: Mutran, Abi-Hadid, Jabra, Enani. She recommended Jabra‟s insightful reading to the original text and considered it the reason behind his faithful rendering . Hadi commented generally on the language that was used by Jabra and the other three translators. Though she expressed her admiration of Jabra‟s “faithfulness”, she briefly presented examples of what she considered literalness in Jabra‟s rendering. However, the study was held in Arabic and aimed at giving a critical review of the Arab reception to the four translations.

So far, the attempts and researches which have been made to introduce Shakespeare in the most practical and suitable way to the Arab audience and readers have failed to highlight all the major problems which confront translators. In this dissertation, I intend to investigate these problems. I shall deal with each problem, trying to find out the best means by which we can arrive at the most faithful translation of the original. For this purpose I have chosen to examine the translations of Shakespeare‟s play Macbeth

In my conclusion, I shall, as far as possible, recommend remedies for the problems outlined in my work, and suggest practical means by which a translator might produce better Arabic versions of Shakespeare.

12 1.2. Statement of the problem

This dissertation is concerned with the translation of Shakespeare‟s Macbeth into Arabic. It discusses namely Jabra Ibrahim Jabra‟s rendering of this tragedy. The reasons that this translation is selected for discussion are that it is among the most modern versions of Shakespeare‟s tragedies in Arabic and it is one of the most faithful renderings as Hadi (2009) and Alsaai (1997) considered it. It is a translation that is done by a well-known writer and a specialized professor in English Literature. This dissertation is a comparative study in the sense of discussing other translators‟ choices in some cases I felt they would highlight the way in which Jabra has(not) succeeded in rendering the best equivalents to an Arab reader.

Two questions need to be answered in this dissertation: 1. What kind of translation techniques and methods are used by Jabra in transferring Shakespeare‟s Macbeth, the Elizabethan text, from culture to culture?

2. Does the translation communicate the same meaning as the source language? This will examine whether the form of the translation easy to read, effective, accurate and appropriate for the TL or not.

Enani (1992, p.5) defines translation as a process of problem solving. He acknowledges that confronting problems and difficulties is the main core in the translation process. Such problems are created because of seeking to achieve an identical equivalent to the source text in spite of the differences between the source text and the target text. However, the translation process is a highly complex operation. The reason behind this complexity is that it involves numerous factors including linguistic, semantic, readership and cultural considerations. Therefore, as Newmark (1991, p. 27) states, translation is mainly concerned with a process

13 referred to as transfer. Accordingly, differences between the two systems of language and culture are expected to pose difficulties in deciding upon the proper process of translation. The translators are expected to face problems of translation methodology in the transference of poetic material, such as whether to translate literally, freely or otherwise. Furthermore, there are problems of finding identical equivalents between two languages; translators are likely to encounter some linguistic difficulties in deciding which equivalent is more appropriate.

14

Chapter Two

Theoretical Background

15 2.1 Translation equivalence: its nature and types.

Translation equivalence is an essential concept in the translation theories which propose that one should not seek absolute equivalence at all levels in translation. Fawcett (1997, p. 148) defines equivalence as a "relation between a source text and its translation usually intended to mean that the target unit is as close as possible in meaning to the source unit while still being natural usage in the target language”.

Nida and Taber (1982, p. 12) define the concept of equivalence as having a “'very close similarity in meaning as opposed to similarity in form”. They continue by explaining that an equivalent is different from an identity. That is to say, equivalence is concerned with the semantic and grammatical correspondence between a sentence in the source language text with that of an equivalent sentence or text in the target language. In relation to this point, Nida and Taber state that “The translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conservation of the form” (Ibid).

In other words a theory for equivalence in translation is concerned with the establishment of a frame of reference for the translator to use. It can be defined as follows: “An intuitive common-sense term for describing the ideal relationship that a reader would expect to exist between an original and its translation.” (Newman, 1994, p. 4694)

Similarly, Christiane Nord (1991, p. 22) believes that equivalence means "the greatest possible correspondence between source text and target text.” According to these definitions, the term 'equivalence' as connected to translation does not imply that "complete equivalence is an achievable

16 goal" (Hatim and Mason, 1997, p. 8). Indeed, equivalence cannot be defined in terms of sameness in translation.

Catford (1965, p. 27) stresses that in order to arrive at an equivalent, the translator should make a clear distinction between two aspects of the meaning of a text, namely the textual and the formal equivalence. In this respect, the textual meaning refers to the meaning of the lexical items in a particular text, whereas the formal meaning refers to the basic general meaning of lexical items and grammatical structures.

2.1.1 Formal equivalence

Formal equivalence refers to translating by finding reasonably equivalent words and phrases while following the forms of the SL as closely as possible. It is based on the formal correspondence between the source language text sentence patterns and the target language sentence patterns, for example, an adjective into an adjective and a noun into a noun. That is, formal equivalence follows the same symmetrical system of the original patterns of the SL text in terms of its formal elements and their meaning in terms of their source context. With respect to this, Nida (1964, p. 165) states that there is a clear distinction between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. He argues that formal equivalence is a source-oriented concept. It is based on the source language patterns revealing as much as possible about the form and content of the original message involved in the text. Nida explains that:

an F-E [formal equivalence] translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements, including: (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word usage, and (3) meaning in terms of the source context. The reproduction of grammatical units may consist in: (a)

17 translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs, etc; (b) keeping all phrases and sentences intact.

According to Nida, the concept of formal equivalence focuses on the message itself in both form and content. The message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language. In addition, formal equivalence is thus keenly oriented towards the ST, which has a strong influence in determining accuracy and correctness. Therefore, one can argue that a formal equivalence translation is source oriented: it is designed to reveal as much as possible about the form and content of the original message.

2.1.2 Dynamic equivalence

Nida‟s dynamic equivalence is mainly based on "the principle of equivalent effect"(1964, p. 159), where the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which is between the original receptors and the message. For Nida. such a translation approach is clearly distinguished by its emphasis on the "equivalence of response", based on the assumption that anything that can be said in one language can be said in another unless the form is an essential element of the message. Nida explains this type of equivalence as containing three essential terms: (1) equivalence, which points toward the source language message, (2) naturalness, which points toward the receptor language, and (3) closeness, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation. For a translation to be appropriate, it has to take into consideration these elements. Therefore, dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will generate the same impact on the TC audience as the

18 original wording did upon the ST audience. That is the desired goal of dynamic equivalence, which is the closest natural equivalent to the SL message.

Accordingly, it is necessary to translate culturally specific elements into similar elements that would have the same effect on the TL readers. Thus, the English culturally specific phrase ''white as snow" in Arabic might be rendered as "white as milk" or anything that denotes whiteness, for white as wax", to denote a high degree of" ث١عبء ِضً اؾٌّغ ,example whiteness. This is regarded as a cultural translation equivalent transferred to the TL in the sense that the message of the SL culture is not imposed on the TL; hence the closest equivalence is sought.

2.2 Literal translation

The literal method is based on a word-for-word procedure. The translator mostly remains lexically bound to the SL vocabulary, paying little attention to contextual and cultural meaning. Wilss (1982, p. 87) states that "in the literal translation method, the syntactic structures of the SL text are preserved, while the semantic equivalent is preserved in the TL.” From this point of view, literal translation respects the TL syntactic patterns and the collocational meanings of lexical items. The following example illustrates this point:

دع ا٠٤بَ رفؼً ِب رؾبء Let the days do what they will

In this example, a literal translation may give a correct semantic rendering, so the problem with this method is that it is very rare, or impossible, to find two languages that have grammatically the same structure or word order. As a matter of fact, every language has its own

19 distinctive grammatical patterns. In this respect, Newmark (1988, p. 137) explains the essence of this method as follows: in literal translation functional equivalence is preserved and any syntactic structure, both smaller and larger than the sentence, should be transferred in order, together with the order of its word components. Newmark (1988, p. 70) believes that literal translation constitutes the basic translation procedure in both semantic and communicative translation. The translation process starts from this point to convey the semantic content of SL material.

2.3 Word meaning and poetic context

This section discusses different types of word meaning; the lexical semantics which are part of the linguistic elements of all languages, for example polysems and connotation. The meanings of words in a language are interrelated. Many poetic words in different languages have several meanings consequently they can only be understood within the text in which they are used. This entails that the meaning of a word is defined in part by its relations with other words in the language. That is to say, a word has a relationship with another so it could bear very different denotations besides its literal intended meaning. Thus, many ST words have a number of meanings, either polysemic or connotative, and can only be interpreted within the text in which they occur.

The ”أصبثزٗ ١ػٓ “ As an example of such issues is the Arabic expression Arabic term al- 'ayn, carries many meanings, as it is a polysemic term. ,implies various meanings such as the evil eye "٘زٖ ١ػٓ" For example head's eye, a spy, etc. Therefore, a translator must be familiar with the ST culture in order to understand its unique vocabulary and cultural

20 concepts. Moreover, al- 'ayn in Arabic-speaking societies carries very different polysemic and connotational meanings besides its basic meaning; it could be used metaphorically to express one's view of certain .”١ػٓ ٍٝػ اؽ٤ذاس“ matters as in

Thus, such a word allows more than one interpretation, and carries more than one meaning. Such a term can present problems to translators of poetic texts in finding equivalents. Accordingly the translation of poetry requires not only an understanding of polysemic/connotative meanings, but also of cultural meanings.

In the play that is the subject of this study, we encounter for example the sentence “We rest your hermits” (I.vi)1 said by Lady Macbeth to Dunkin which seems unfamiliar in ”ٔجمٝ ٔغبوبً ٌىُ “ the King). Jabra translates it as) the target text culture.

Culturally speaking, the choice of the word hermit is socio-cultural, connoting a high regard and utter faithfulness. However, in the TT culture ٔجمٝ خذِىُ ..أؾٔ ٚٓ خذاِىُ اٌّخٍص١ٓ : it would be better to use in such contexts

Moreover, not only do different words have different meanings but an individual word may have a set of different meanings. For example, the word "book" has various different meanings in both English and Arabic. In English it may convey the sense of one book, for example, "the Holy Book" or may be used as a verb in various contexts such as to book a also has different meanings which "وزبة room. In Arabic, the word

1 All the quoted ST extracts in this dissertation are taken from Raffel, B. 2005. The Annotated Shakespeare: Macbeth , Yale University Press: London. Unless it is referred to other sources, all the TT extracts are from Jabra, I. J., tr., 1990, William Shakespeare: Al Maasi Al Kubra: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Beirut: al Mu9asasah al Arabiya lil Dirasat wa al Nashr.

21 depend on the context in which it occurs in various situations, so that the .would be translated differently "وزت وزبة" term

is used in the Qur'an to mean the "Holy"اٌىزبة" In most cases, the word Book" meaning either the Muslim Qur'an or other Holy Scriptures of other religions such as Christianity or Judaism. So, its intended meaning depends on the situation and context in which it occurs. A word in a different situation and context may carry very different denotations and, in dealing with such terms, translators should pay particular attention to the different layers of meaning of lexical items that allow more than one meaning.

Saeed (1991, p. 53) stresses the traditional descriptive aims of lexical semantics “to represent the meaning of each word in the language; and to show how the meanings of words in a language are interrelated.”

These aims are strongly related for the meaning of a given word is defined in part by its relations with other words in the language.

However, words are also used figuratively, so they differ in the semantic interrelationships that may exist in various languages. In many imaginative writings some words carry symbolic features and values. They carry figurative or metaphorical meanings that become potential metaphors grounded in a particular language and culture as well as having a basic meaning (Berdom, 2007, p.110). Berdom adds, “the meaning of a certain word in the poetic genre embraces various layers of meanings.”

Vocabulary and metaphor used by poets are heavily dependent on the metaphorical meanings. For instance, in this play, Lady Macbeth tells her husband:

22 ... I fear thy nature:

It is too full o'th'milk of human kindness ,

This is translated literally by Jabra as :

: أخٝؾ طجؼه

ئٔٗ أ٥ِ ِّب ٠ٕجغٟ ث١ٍؾت ا٦ٔغب١ٔخ

It dose not convey the message of the ST metaphoric language at all so as ١ٍؽ” andت there is not apparent relationship in Arabic between “milk In such case it would be better to render a clearer .”ا٦ٔغب١ٔخ humanity“ image that convey a similar message in the TC; if there is none, I think the translator should have simply provided the sense of the ST, saying : ”أخٝؾ طجؼه ئٔٗ أوضش سؽّخ ٚ ئٔغب١ٔخ ِّب ٠ٕجغٟ “

Literature in general employs words chosen for their affective and connotative values rather than for their denotative content. Likewise, words in the poetic genre are also charged with other factors such as sound effects, rhyme and metre, all of which form an important part of poetic language. However, a poetic translator has to make a compromise: to preserve the figurative language and aesthetic elements of the original work as far as possible. These elements have to be considered together to avoid any misinterpretation in handling poetic language. This, of course, is one of the main problems that translators encounter: each element has its own expressive value in its connection with other elements in the text. According to Hatim and Munday (2004, p. 34) “understanding the nature of meaning and how to analyse and evaluate it is crucial for a translator working on a text who is assessing the transference of meaning.”

23 It is obligatory for the translator to analyze and make clear the meanings of connotative words and the various affecting elements of the ST text that make understanding and rendering of poetic verses difficult.

24 Chapter Three

Analysis of

Jabra’s Translation

25 3. 1 The Lexical Level

3.1.1 Introduction

Meaning is the main concern of translation. We qualify a translation as giving the same meaning, which is usually depending on cultural aspects as well as the fact that meaning is related to linguistic situations where a sentence or word is used.

Translators should not take the SL words at their face value, but they should have deeper analysis of their meanings. The meaning of a word is based on its position in definite linguistic context. Translation, however, does not remain at this level. In fact, all languages have complex words, so the meaning of these words must be derived from the context. In this regard, Newmark (1988, p. 190) notes that:

many words are profoundly affected by their context, linguistic, cultural, and situational and cannot be translated in isolation and therefore, the linguistic meaning as a concept is context bound, to which word meaning is determined more or less by context.

Translation is thus to be considered as a linguistic activity that is mainly based on the transfer of meaning. Baker (1992, p. 12) states that ''the lexical meaning of a word may be thought of as the specific value it has in a particular linguistic system and the 'personality' it acquires through usage within that system”. However, the difficulty begins when the translator starts to transfer the meaning of a word or the meaning of a particular part of a text.

26 3.1.2 Translation problems related to denotation

To depend on the denotative meaning of a word causes various problems in translation; this in a way or another entails that the translator in such case discards the other values that define the suitable equivalence to a word in different texts. These problems in fact can be grouped into two main categories in terms of its causes: problems related to synonymy and the other ones related to literalness.

3.1.2.1 Synonymy

Synonymy is one of the semantic relationships among words in a language; it means similarity in a number of features and so it causes problems within the language itself . These problems accelerate on the communicative level when translating from one language to another. According to Dickins et al., (2000, p. 67) :

To define a denotative meaning is to specify a 'range' covered by a word or phrase (in the relevant sense) in such a way that one knows what items are included in that range or category and what items are excluded... In exploring correspondence between denotative meanings, it is these intersections that are most significant, because they provide a kind of measure of semantic equivalence.

When two ranges of denotative manning are perfectly in agreement that is in every specific instance of use, they represent the strongest form of semantic equivalence which is referred to as full synonymy. For example, the word “happy” and “merry” are synonyms although merry has the additional feature of being cheerful. Thus, synonyms may share the same meaning on one dimension but not on another.

27 The matter of synonymy is of greater importance in dealing with ”خبي “ translating from one language to another; for example, “uncle” and maternal uncle" or "خبي are not synonym because “uncle” means either or ُػis only a hyponym to the largerخبي ,paternal uncle ُػ” . In fact“ concept “uncle”. The same is with cousin; most of the times this word is Further, cousin in Shakespeare‟s .”اثٓ\ح translated to Arabic as “ ُػ language means “a general, friendly appellation, not a specific term of kinship” (Braunmuller, 1997, p. 200). However, Jabra and Ameen render the ”اثٕخ اoh my paternal uncle‟s daughter, and “ ُؼٌ ”٠ب اثٕخ it as “ ّٟػ paternal uncle‟s daughter!, respectively, when Ross calls Lady Macduff oh“ أخزبٖ because ”أخزبٖ “ IV.ii). It would be better if they translated it as) sister” bears the closest equivalence to such context in Arabic.

However, full synonymy is rare. Nida (1982, p. 98) says that “close investigation of the use of expressions in a natural language will always reveal some reason for denying their absolute synonymity.” He deals with synonymy in terms of overlap. Certain lexical items have certain semantic features in common between them. Nida talks about interchangeability between lexical items in some, but not all, contexts; "terms whose meaning overlap are usually substitutable for one another in at least certain contexts, but rarely if ever are two terms interchangeable for each other in meaning in all contexts.”.

It is of great significance to distinguish between these synonymous items by referring to certain implications and shades of meaning that must be taken into consideration in translating from English into Arabic. For example, the words “graves” and “monuments” seem synonym, but they are problematic when translated. According to Schmidt (1971), Grave is the place in which a dead body is deposited; while Monument, 1) any thing by which something is remembered; memorial 2) any thing built or

28 erected in memory of actions or persons. I present a text from Macbeth to clarify the way Jabra and other translators tackle such words that seem at their face value pretty the same. As a matter of fact, for it is the subject of this study, Jabra rendering is always presented first after the source text and it is followed by back translation, later in the discussion I may refer to other translators‟ renderings of specific problematic words.

ST. If charnel-houses and our graves must send

Those that we bury back, our monuments

Shall be the maws of kites. (III, iv)

ئْ وبْ ال ثذ ٌٍٕٛا٠ٚظ ٚاٌمجٛس أْ ر١ؼذ : .TT

اٌز٠ٓ ٔذفُٕٙ ئ١ٌٕب، فٍزىٓ أظشؽزٕب

ٛؽاصً اؾٌذآد

BB. If sarcophagi and graves must have given back

The ones we bury to us, let our tombs

Be the sacs of the prey birds

Jabra (1990, p. 731) has managed to convey a successful equivalent by .qubūr". On the other hand, Mutran (1974, p" لجٛس providing the TL word al-madāfen". In" اٌّذافٓ and Ameen (1994, p. 83) provide the word (77 mean a cemetery or an area of " اٌّمبثش " and " " اٌّذافٓ fact, both words land used for burials. Therefore, the words are used inappropriately. The rendering indicate the translators limited concern with context in which these synonyms occurred.

In translating the word monuments, Jabra (1990, p. 731) and Mutran (1974, p. 77) have managed to convey appropriate equivalents using

29 al-adriћā", respectively. On the other" ا٤ظشؽخ adriћatunā" and" أظشؽزٕب indicates the failure to ”لجٛسٔب”(hand, Ameen's rendering (1994, p. 83 catch the differences between synonymous words. The word monument, by convention, refers to a building, a column, a statue, etc., serving to keep alive the memory of a person or an event. Thus, translators have to pay attention to nuances of meaning that are conventionally related to certain lexical items.

Another problematic pair that shows the role of synonymy in translating such a play from English into Arabic is cry and weep as verbs. Both refer to a state at which one shows grief, pain, or distress by tears and utterances, usually in articulate utterances. According to Shewmaker (2008, pp. 131, 602), cry could mean the following: to beg for, to cry out in pain, to howl, or to proclaim. Weep, on the other hand, is “to lament with tears”. So, cry is stressing the sound, while weep is shedding of tears with or without sound.

The translators of Macbeth have not got similarly the conventional meaning aroused by the synonymous pair cry and weep. The two texts below illustrate the contexts of the two words:

TEXT 1.

ST: each new morn

New widows howl, new orphans cry, new sorrows

Strike heaven on the face. (IV, iii)

فٟ وً صجبػ عذ٠ذ : :TT

رػٕٛ أساًِ عذ٠ذاد، ٠ٚضػك أ٠زبَ عذد، ٠ٚٚالد عذ٠ذح

.رصفغ ٚعٗ اٌغّبء

30 BT. in every new morning

New widows bewail, new orphans shriek, and new woes

Slap the face of the sky

٠ٛػ”" wailing" , whileً “ Ameen translates cry in this text as a noun .”ػ” “raise screamsٍذ اٌصشخبد“ Mutran uses it in a phrase

TEXT 2

ST. I think our country sinks beneath the yoke,

It weeps, it bleeds, and each new day a gash

Is added to her wounds. (IV, iii, 40)

اػزمذ أْ ثٍذٔب ٕٛ٠ء رؾذ ا١ٌٕش، : .TT

أٗ يبكي، أٗ ٠ٕضف. ٚفٟ وً ٛ٠َ عذ٠ذ

.٠عبف عش١ّػ ػك ئٌٝ عشؽٚٗ

BT. I think that our country is beneath yoke

It is crying, it is bleeding, and in every new day

New deep cut is added to its wounds

to wail", while Mutran"”رٕزؾت “ Ameen translates the verb weep as .”weeping“ ”ثبو١خ“changes it to an adjective

This indicates that synonymous verbs can also be problematic for translators. The three translators tackle the conventionally associated nuances of meaning differently. They follow different strategies in translating the synonymous items. In rendering the words cry and weep,

31 Jabra prefers to convey formal equivalence which seeks to capture the ٠ضػك " form of the SL word. Jabra (1990, pp.158, 160) provides the words respectively, as equivalents to the words cry and weep. On ," ٠جىand " ٟ " the contrary, Mutran prefers ideational equivalence. Mutran (1974, p. 90) in translating the verb cry. He aims at conveying " اٌصشخبد ػٍذ " provides the communicative sense of the SL expression independently of function and form. That is to say, Mutran depends on the meaning of the SL word regardless of formal equivalence. The message becomes more important than the form. Moreover, in translating the verb weep, Mutran (1974, p. .On the other hand, Ameen (1994, pp . ثبو١خ provides the adjective (92 in rendering cry and " رٕزؾت " ٠ٛػ " andً " provides the words (104,105 weep, respectively. In fact, the TL words are somehow close renderings, ٠ٛػ has negative connotations since it brings to mind the high soundً but ٠صmade by some animals. Therefore, the successful rendering of cry is ؼ١ ..٠جىand of weep is ٟ

Indeed, the play is full of controversial synonymous words; controversial in their ST meaning and in their translation in the TT, such as “Banquet, feast and table”, “enemy, foe”, “wound, gashes”, and the adjectives referring to courage: brave, bold, valiant, dauntless and undaunted (Ishrateh, 2006, p. 64).

It would be a huge and ambitious task to evaluate each translated pair. Further, synonymy in itself is not that turning point in this text, rather it is how they participate for better or worse in the communicative purpose of the play. In other words, synonyms are words and what translation most cares about is words‟ meaning in a given context. What I elaborate on basically in this dissertation is how a translator render these words in the TT, i.e. in formal, literal, or dynamic equivalence.

32

3.1.2.2 Literalness

Translators may rely extensively on the dictionary, taking the literal meaning of a word or a phrase rather than the meaning intended by the writer of the original. Dickins (2002, p. 97) state that "it is vital to remember that meanings are not found exclusively in the words listed individually in the dictionary." Jabra does commit such a mistake in translating many words like belief, prophetic, and seasons, which will be explained later.

In fact, what a dictionary, and particularly a bilingual one, offers the translator is a well organized list or catalogue of meanings according to their significance and priority. In many cases, as far as the dictionary is concerned, a word's referential meaning does not appear to be of great help to translators for a number of reasons:

1. The meaning of a word is determined by its meaning in the particular text.

Dictionary meaning may not be suitable to the context of the original text. This is common in dramatic texts and especially in the Shakespearean one I am discussing where most of the words have meanings that could be surmised only in terms of the Renaissance sense, such as the following example in Scene Four, Act Three:

ST … safe in a ditch he bides,

With twenty trenched gashes on his head;

The least a death to nature.

33 ع١ٍُ فٟ خٕذق ٚفٟ سأعٗ ؽُفِشَدْ ؾػشْٚ طؼٕخ أصغش٘ب ِٛد للطبيعة

BT He is safe in trench

In his head is dug with twenty stabs

The smallest one of them is a death to nature

The word “ nature” in Shakespeare text means “(1) life, (2) a human being” (Raffel, 2005, p. 135) However, Jabra translates the word nature out of its text here referring to its current meaning „the phenomena of the physical world collectively‟; Indeed, no stab can cause death to “nature”. The meaning of the extract is rendered in a clearer way when Mutran translates it preserving the ST meaning: (Mutran, 1974, p. 64)

فٟ لؼش ؽف١شح، ٚثٙبِزٗ اؼٌٍّمخ ؾػشْٚ ِٓ اٌطؼٕبد،

.اٌزٟ أ٠غش٘ب ١ِّذ

BT in deep excavation, in his head twenty stabs,

The easiest of which is fatal.

Jabra also makes a literal translation of Ross' speech to Macduff's wife; he produces an ambiguous phrase in Arabic as a result of picking the dictionary meaning out of the text:

ST: ….for your husband

He is noble, wise, judicious, and best knows

The fits o'th' season (IV. ii)

34

سؿٚ : أِب صٚعه \ فأٗ ٔج١ً، ؽ ٚى١ُ ٚ ِذسن ؼ٠شف ع١ذا \ ٛٔثبد اٌّٛاعُ :TT

BT: Ross: Whereas your husband is noble and cognizant

and he knows well the succession of the seasons.

ٛٔثبد " The phrase 'The fits o'th' season" is literally translated by Jabra as the succession of the seasons". This translation says little for the" "اٌّٛاعُ Arab reader. According to Schmidt, season means "time generally" " ٛٔثبد اٌضِٓ " p. 1016). Thus the phrase should read in Arabic as ,1971) "the fits of time".

In addition, the word “time” has a special meaning in Shakespeare text; Shewmaker (2008, p. 555) lists many contexts of this word in Shakespeare language, the ones that fit the extracts from Macbeth are mainly “the world; one‟s fellow men”. It is unsuitable to render it as in Arabic. In fact, Jabra dose commit such a mistake and he has ”اٌضِبْ“ been criticized for that by successive translators mainly Salah Nyazi. Nyazi said in the introduction of his translation to Macbeth commenting on the translation of Jabra (2000, p. 6):

أٞ صِٓ ٚ ٌىٕٙب رػ ٟٕؼٕذ ؽىغج١ش اؼٌبٌُ أٚ إٌبط. ٠زىشس ٘زا اٌّصطؼٍ أ٠عبً ػذح time“ ِشاد ٚ فٟ وً ِشح ٠زشعُ ئٌٝ صِٓ فؼ١غش فُٙ إٝؼٌّ"

[time means in Shakespeare (text) the world or people. This term has been repeated many times and has always been translated as zaman which makes understanding the meaning very difficult ].

I present two extracts that show the unsuccessful rendering of Jabra as he translates the word time out of its text.

35 Extract one

ST To beguile the time,

Look like the time; (I. v)

ٌى١ّب رخبدع اٌضِبْ، ...... " TT

اع١ؾِ ًؼبن فؽ ٟجٗ اٌضِبْ.

BT In order to conceive the lifetime

Make your face similar to the lifetime

Extract two

ST and mock the time with fairest show (V.i)

:١٘ب، ٚاخذٟػ اٌضِبْ ثأعًّ اٌّظب٘ش" TT

BT and hey let you conceive the time with the most beautiful guises .

اخذٟػ اٌضِبْ ... فWe see the shortcoming of putting Arabic phrase like “ ٟ ؽ” It sounds strange in Arabic that someone is mocking theجٗ اٌضِبْ " time, while it would be far clearer to use what this word did mean in the اخذٟػ إٌبط : ST: the world or one‟s fellow men. Thus, it should be put like أٚ اؼٌبٌَُ ِٓ ٛؽٌه ثأعًّ اٌّظب٘ش ..

In fact, many words that have been dramatically translated by Jabra out of its text as a result of his excessive dependence on faithfulness and dictionary meaning. A further striking instance I highlight in such a case although art means in Shakespeare text ,”فٓ “ is his translation of “art” as

36 “skill” ( Braunmuller, 1997, p. 144 ) and it can be best rendered in Arabic : ِٙ” and this is clear in the following two extractsبسح“ as

Extract one

ST As two spent swimmers, that do cling together

And choke their art. (I. ii)

وغجب١ؽٓ ِزؼج١ٓ ٠زؾجش والّ٘ب ثب٢خش ف١خٕمبْ فّٕٙب TT

BT Like two tired swimmers, who cling to each other

and thus they strangle their art.

Extract two

ST This disease is beyond my practice (V. i)

٘زا اٌّشض ال ٠ذسوٗ فني .TT

BT This disease is not realized (by) my art

and in the second extract he , فٓ In the first extract Jabra translates art as also . It is a rendering of a word out of its text فٓ translates practice as According to .فٓ actually because practice in the ST does not mean art or Schmidt (1971, p. 887) and Braunmuller (1997, p. 219 ), practice means "خجشح` experience" or "skill acquired by experience"; therefore the term" .ِٙ "skill" is more appropriate in such a textبسح experience" or"

On the other hand, Ameen avoids such a pitfall and seems to be aware of the ST special meanings. In the extracts I have presented above, Ameen (1994) translates:

(P.81) فؽ ٟفشح ٚ ثشأعٗ ؾػشْٚ طؼٕخ ٚاؽذح ِٕٙب وف١ٍخ ثمزً أٞ ِخٍٛق (Nature (III.iv

(P. 100) ... ٠ذسن ع١ذاً ِزبػت اٌضِٓ (Seasons (IV.ii

37 (P. 82) فاْ ؽئذ خذاع اٌضِبْ فبعٍه عٍٛن أً٘ اٌضِبْ .. (Time (I. v

ٚ اٌطشفبْ أؽجٗ ثغجب١ؽٓ لذ أٙٔىّٙب اٌزؼت ٚ رؼٍك وً ِّٕٙب ث٣خش فؾًّ لذسرٗ Art (I.ii) ٍٝػ (P. 26) اؾٌشوخ

(P. 117) ال خجشح ٌٟ ثّضً ٘زا اٌّشض (Practice (V.i

Ameen provides dynamic equivalences and above all he avoids much of the literalness that ambiguates the Arabic text, so he resorts to paraphrase the vague meanings of the ST in many cases like the instance of art above ِٙ” as it is supposed toبسح“ as Jabra did, nor ”فٓ“ I.ii); he uses neither) mean as a word in that text. He instead gives an explanation of the sentence as a whole. Ameen thus preferred communicative equivalence over the strict faithfulness of Jabra‟s.

2. The dictionary meaning may not provide the exact equivalent.

A word gains meaning by itself and the environment of its context. The difficulty of translating a literary text is related to several factors that are related to several types of meanings which in turn represent the overall meaning of a text. Words have their own dynamics and their own domain of connotations acquired through their usage and existence within a culture. Literary translation requires the translator to be extremely careful not to translate words at their first values. They should rather render them in a form that preserves the message of the ST and pleases the TT readers.

Having restricted himself to a faithful translation, Jabra renders Macbeth into Arabic following the sequence of the line numbers and translating

38 each of them completely. Like all readers and translators, however, Jabra seems to encounter passages whose precise meaning is difficult to follow or to surmise. We find phrases which seem to be translated literally by Jabra , depending on the dictionary meaning. In Act I Scene iii, Macbeth addresses the three witches, saying:

ST: …and to be King

Stands not within the prospect of belief,

No more than to be Cawdor.

: .... ٚ اْ أعؼً فٟ ِٕظٛس اٌصذق :TT

ص١شٚسرٟ ٍِىبً ، ث١ؼذاً ثؼذ ؤٟٛ أ١ِش وٛدٚس

BT: And that I make in the prospect of truth my being king

is as remote as my being the Thane of Cawdor.

telling the truth" as an equivalent" "اٌصذق" Jabra employs the Arabic term to "belief'. In the original, the term "belief' means to believe in something, would be more appropriate for this "رصذ٠ك" or "اػزمبد" therefore the term context.

In the same scene, Macbeth addresses the witches with the following words:

ST: ... or why

Upon this blasted heath you stop our way

With such prophetic greeting? -Speak, I charge you.

ِىجش : ... ٚ ٌّبرا رٛلفٓ ع١شٔب فٟ ٘زٖ اٌفالح اٌّّطشح ثبٌصٛاػك :TT

! ثٙزٖ اٌز١ؾبد إٌج٠ٛخ؟ رىٍّٓ! آِشوٓ

39 BT: Why do you stop us with prophetic greetings in this thunder- blasted desolate place. Speak, I order you!

which ”اٌز١ؾبد إٌج٠ٛخ ` Jabra translates the phrase "prophetic greeting" as does not fit the context. These greetings come from witches. When they greet Macbeth, they tell him that he is to become Thane of Cawdor and which "ٔجKing. In Arabic, "prophetic" has two different meanings: "ّٞٛ which carries the meaning of "رٕجإhas a religious implication and "ّٞ "foretelling" and "prophesying". In the original text, it is the second meaning which is employed. Therefore, the phrase should read in Arabic .اٌز١ؾبد اٌزٕجإ٠خ as

Further instance of the pitfall of sticking to dictionary meaning and the literalness resulted of such doing is shown in the following extract :

ST . Unnatural deeds

Do breed unnatural troubles… .(V.i)

ا٤فؼبي اؾٌبرح TT

ئّٔب رٌٛذ اٛؾٌار ِٓ اٌَّٛٙ

BT The abnormal actions

Generate abnormal worries

.sounds quite strange in Arabic in such context ا٤فؼبي اؾٌبرح Jabra‟s phrase اٛؾٌار ِٓ It is obviously followed with another literal rendering as well of This shows how many troubles of literalness a translator may . اٌَّٛٙ encounter if s\he sticks to the dictionary meanings of a word. Uunnatural otherwise, the Arabic ,غ١ش طجcould be better rendered as „abnormal‟: ٟؼ١

40 ؽ connotes quite negative associations that do not fit this contextبر word where it is just referring to crimes of murdering for the sake of ruling.

On the other hand, Ameen‟s rendering seems once again more comprehensive to such nuances of meanings. Ameen translates the problematic words I have presented above as the following :

أِب ػٓ اؼٌشػ فاْ ١ٍٔٗ ِغزجؼذ ؽأْ ٍٟ١ٔ ٌمت ع١ذ وٛدٚس Belief

ٌّبرا رؼزشظٓ طش٠مٕب فٟ ٘زا اٌّشط اٌّٙغٛس ٌز١١ؾٕٕب ثّضً ٘زٖ إٌجٛءاد؟ Prophetic

ِب اٌخًٍ غ١ش اٌطجٟؼ١ ئال ٔز١غخ فؼً غ١ش طجUnnatural deeds ٟؼ١

The most controversial feature in Ameen‟s translation is that he avoids translating difficult words and phrases resorting to explaining the message of the ST in simpler wording. This is controversial because there is no agreement upon this way of translating a Shakespearean play. A play should have, at some points, uncertainty and elaborate diction. We see that in the foresaid example of “not within the prospect of belief”; he does not literally translate it, instead he explains the whole sentence as . ”ُِغْزَجؼَْذ“

However, there are many cases in Jabra‟s rendering where the denotation meanings do work very well in the TT. Indeed, this is the common phenomenon and what I presented above are only some instances of shortcoming that do not belittle the whole work of Jabra. In her review of Jabra‟s translation, Hadi (2009) also expressed her admiration of Jabra‟s “accurate” translation to certain words such as Nature's copy. In the

41 following extract, Jabra gives formal and what seems to be “model” equivalence:

ST: Macb. O! full of scorpions is my mind,dear wife !

Thou know'st that Banquo, and his Fleance, lives.

Lady M. But in them Nature's copy's not eterne. (Ш ii)

!ِىجش: آٖ ، ٍِٟء ثبؼٌمبسة رٟٕ٘، صٚعزٟ اؼٌض٠ضح " :TT

أٔذ ر١ٍّؼٓ أْ ثبٔىٚ ٚٛاثٕٗ ف١ٍبٔظ فٟ ل١ذ ا١ؾٌبح

١ٌذٞ ِىجش: ٌٚىَّٓ ػَمْذَ ا١ؾٌبح فٙ١ّب ١ٌظ ثب٤ثذٞ

BT: Mac. oh! my mind is full of scorpions, dear wife

you know that Banquo, and his son Fleance are alive

L. Mac. but their life‟s copy is not permanent

ػ) “Nature‟s copy” is an excellent equivalent to theمذ ا١ؾٌبح ) The phrase referential word “copy/ copyhold or tenure ” (Schmidt, 1971). It means the contract by which a piece of land is given to someone till his/her death when it is returned to its former owner. Consequently, the meaning of the implicit metaphor in Lady Macbeth‟s speech would be that Banquo and his son have temporarily „right of life‟, the fact which consoles her husband. So as context is given, the denotation meaning of a word do help in rendering the message of the ST.

Nevertheless, every language has its own linguistic system in terms of its grammar and structures, so languages in general do not accurately correspond to each other as far as structure is concerned. This means that the grammar of a particular language such as Arabic may be somewhat

42 different from that of English and Italian. Of course, this does not mean that there is no close semantic or functional equivalence. Hence, it is possible to arrive at a suitable translation, bearing in mind that these differences do not prevent the finding of "equivalent meaning", as all languages express human experiences.

3.2 Grammatical Level

Language is not all about words and words‟ meaning; we cannot evaluate a text depending on the meanings of its words separately. Rather, structure is the essence of any text. It is structure that gives a string of words its own meaning and if neglected the communicative message of a text would fail to reach the receptor. Arabic, however, has flexible structure that allows a variety of ways to arrange words into comprehensive utterance. It has, on the other hand, very elaborate grammar that assigns gender and number (singular, dual, and plural) to a noun , verb, and adjective at some cases; case, tense and aspect to a verb, and so on.

A great deal of the explicit literal meaning of a text is carried by the arrangement of words and phrases. Furthermore, a TT has normally to be constructed by putting words into grammatical configurations according to the conventions and structures of the TL, and using the lexical means available in the TL. Translators can never ignore the level of grammatical variables in either the ST or the TT.

43 3.2.1 Translation problems due to morphology

3.2.1.1 Derivatives

Lexical issues are a particular category of grammatical issue, so it is not surprising that some of them are most conveniently examined under the heading of grammatical arrangement. There are two types of grammatical structure: (1) morphological patterns affecting individual words - affixation/inflection, compounding and derivation; (2) syntactic patterns, whereby words are linked to form more or less complex phrases and sentences. In both, what concerns the translator is the fact that the structural patterns differ from language to language. Even where apparent cross-linguistic similarities occur, they can be misleading. For example, is a mean of forming adverbs in Arabic, English- اً the accusative suffix more likely adds -ly to form adverbs.

However, the word-class of many lexis change in the translation for better or worse of the target text structure. Some adverbs have been like the following adverb , اً simply rendered as Arabic adverbs by adding but ,‟ث١ؼذاً“ away which could be simply rendered as an adverb in Arabic that seems not as easy in the following line:

ST Let us … shift away. (II. iii)

(Jabra: 1990, 710) ٌٕغبدس خٍغخ ً TT

BT Let us leave stealthily

In this sentence, neither the English adverb ends with ly, nor it is translated to an equivalent adverb. It is not translated to what it really means in its text as long as away dose not conventionally mean stealthily. Further, Jabra does not keep the word-class of the ST items with their

44 counterparts from the target language; instead he uses a circumstance .”خٍغخً“ accusative

Indeed, many English adverbs are not formed by adding ly to an adjective such as the adverbs good, well, again, beyond, etc. and they have been translated as adverbs in Arabic or to other forms such as prepositional phrases : recently, for example, can be rendered as :

PP فٟ اٚ٢ٔخ ا٤خ١شح ؽ adv. \ orذ٠ضبً أٚ ِإخشاً

PP ثؼضَ ػadv \ orبصِبً : determinedly

Adverbs may also be translated as cognate accusatives (absolute accusatives):

She was injured bitterly.

أص١جذ ئصبثخً ث١ٍغخً

To translate an adverb as a noun or nominal sentence is also common in Jabra‟s rendering of Macbeth, in the following extract an adverb (highly) :١ّػك“ is rendered as noun in Arabic “deep

ST . Conduct me to mine host: we love him highly, (I. vi)

خزٟٕ٠ ئٌٝ سة اٌج١ذ ِع١ف١ّػ : ٟكٌ ؽجٕب ٌٗ TT

BB take me to the householder, my host: deep (is) our love to him

Jabra translated the sentence “we love him highly” to a nominal sentence ١ّػ ”; we see that the originally adverb word “highly” becomesكؽٌجُّٕب ٌُٗ “ ؽ”. In theجٕب “ the object in the Arabic nominal sentence whose subject is source sentence the adverb highly modifies the verb love, and in the ١ّػ” also modifies the subject “our loveك target nominal sentence “deep

45 ؽ”. So I think there is no translation loss on the communicative level asجٕب both forms give the same meaning; it is a matter of different structuring that has been used by Jabra in this example and it is quite common to render the English sentence as a nominal one with slight differences on the communicative level.

Interestingly, the word deep occurred in other places in the ST as an adverb, but it was rendered differently in the target text like the following:

ST: _Our fears in Banquo

Stick deep; … (III. i)

ِخبٚفٕب ِٓ ثبٔىTT ٚٛ

١ّػمخ اٌٛخض،...

BT Our fears of Banquo

(are) deep stings.

Jabra also translates the English sentence Our fears stick deep to a the originally adverb deep is ; ِخبٚفٕب ١ّػمخ اٌٛخض nominal sentence ١ّػ) to the subject of the nominalمخ ) rendered as an object ١ّػ” in the TT modifies theمخ However, the word “deep .(ِخبٚفٕب)sentence word “fears” unlike its function in the ST where it modifies the verb “stick”. This could be considered a translation loss as changing the structure has caused shift in meaning to some extent.

46 Prepositions are not less problematic and they have variety of alternatives in the TT; they can of course be translated as prepositions, adverbs, and phrasal verbs. In the extract I referred to it in (section 3.1.2.2), the preposition beyond was translated to a phrasal verb by Jabra:

ST This disease is beyond my practice (V. i)

٘زا اٌّشض ال ٠ذسوٗ فTT. ٟٕ

BT This disease is not realized (by) my art

Indeed, the grammatical differences between Arabic and English appear vividly in verb system. According to Dickins et al, (2002, p. 99),

English has a system of verb tenses in the proper sense; that is to say, particular tenses relate fairly consistently to natural time. Arabic, on the other hand, operates with a system that combines tense and aspect. The perfect can refer to completion of the action with the notion that it he ate; while the imperfect can refer to theأوًَ happened in the past like “non-completion” of the action regardless of the fact that it happened in is translated as is\was ٠أوً the past or in the present like in some contexts eating. It is “context-dependent” (Ibid). The flexibility of Arabic tense usage may sometimes cause difficulties particularly in translating from Arabic to English; however, in our case study, the play of Macbeth, the tense of the English verb slightly causes problems in the verb-sentence as a whole. Jabra used pretty difficult structure in Arabic and I will elaborate on this point in later section.

47 3.2.1.2 Morphological repetition

The marked manipulation of grammatical structure is a common feature in literary texts. The translator of such texts must always decide how distinctive the grammatical structures are, what their function is, and what the aim of the ST is. A common Arabic feature which poses problems is morphological repetition. Dickins et al, (2002, p. 101) classify three forms of morphological repetition as the most important for translation, they are: pattern repetition, root repetition and suffix repetition.

3.2.1.2 .1) Pattern repetition

فؼًَ، فبPattern repetition means the repetition of the same pattern ( ، ًػ اٌغ١ّغ ا١ٍؼٌُ etc.) It is quite common feature of Arabic like ِفٛؼي ، ِفؼٍخ More important from a stylistic .(ف١ؼً ف١ؼً samee, aleem: faeel... faeel) point of view is where pattern repetition is combined with some kind of semantic relationship. The general effect of pattern repetition is normally to give some additional emphasis (Ibid.). There are three types of semantic relationship in the repeated patterns: (i) semantically related words; (ii) synonyms or near-synonyms; (iii) antonyms.

Here I provide a famous line from the play; it expresses one of the key themes of the play and shows repeated pattern of antonym:

ST All witches: Fair is foul, and foul is fair (I.i)

اٌغبؽشاد :اٌغ١ًّ ٛ٘ اٌذ١ُِ ٚ اٌذ١ُِ ٛ٘ اٌغ١ًّ ٍٝػ اٌذٚاَ TT

BT the beautiful is the ugly and the ugly is the beautiful always

Indeed, pattern repetition is used to provide textual cohesion in addition to other stylistic purposes in the ST; however, Jabra tries to render this

48 form and it is quite fine in the TT except some cases when he scarifies the communicative equivalence in order to maintain the formal one. This is obvious when we compare his translation of the previous sentence with Ameen‟s:

لذ غذا اٌغ١ًّ لجؾ١بً ٚ اٌمجؼ١ ع١ّالً

It (the beautiful..) has“ لذ غذا Ameen phrasing of the Arabic sentence as become ” conveys the message that there is a coming change, a change in the norms of nature that will cause the apparently beautiful things seem ugly and vise versa. On the contrary, Jabra sticks to the ST structure translating here word-for-word (as grammatical transposition) As a result, he gives a sentence that sounds in Arabic like an established fact (X is Y) as if it is the norms of nature to be like that: the beautiful is the ugly! I think the Arab reader will not get the implicit notion of the coming changes and chaos which the Witches were announcing at the opening scene of the play.

Another famous repeated pattern in the play is the following which shows near-synonymous words repeated in one pattern :

ST But now I am cabin‟d, cribb‟d, confined, bound in

To saucy doubts and fears… (III. iv)

أِب ا٢ْ، فاٛؾؾِ ٟٔس، ؾِصٛس، ؾُِْزَجظ، رىجTT " ٍِّٟٕ

ٌَغُٛطُ اٌّخبٚف ٚاؾٌىٛن

BT But now I am confined, stranded, imprisoned, tied

With huge fears and doubts

49 The words cabined, cribbed, confined, bound in the ST fall into one pattern (four successive adjectives after verb be), three of them are also alliterate. The semantic relation between them is near-synonymy. They are translated into similar pattern (verb be + three successive adjectives); adjectives are rendered in near-synonymous alliterate words as well. ٛؾؾِس .. Thus, Jabra succeeds in keeping the morphological pattern ؾِ mahshoor, mahsoor and the word-class of the ST in addition toصٛس the semantic relations involved in these words. However, since this style of morphological repetition is quite welcomed in Arabic especially in literary texts, Jabra added such patterns in the TT even when there is none in the ST. This is noticed in many occasions in the play, particularly in his translation of the Witches‟ speeches and the Porter‟s. Ameen tries to keep the repeated pattern but Jabra seems more consistent as he follows quite formal translation so as he keeps the line-numbering of the ST. Particularly, the extract above has been translated by Ameen as:

أِب ا٢ْ فأٔب ؽج١ظ ِم١ّذٌ ِغغْٛ ، رىجٍٟٕ اٌّخبٚف ٚ اؾٌىٛن اٌىشٙ٠خ.

Ameen rendered three successive adjectives as there are in the ST and two are alliterate as well, but his pattern falls short of the pattern which was employed in Jabra rendering.

3.2.1.2. 2) Root repetition

Root repetition refers to the repetition of the same morphological root within the text in near intervals such as „he drank the drink‟. It is not common in English, however. According to Dickins (2002, p.103), root repetition simply “reflects the fact that words in Arabic are typically made up of roots along with patterns, etc. and that general semantic considerations will sometimes cause a writer or speaker to use two words

50 having the same root in close proximity.” For example, He wrote a book: .وزتَ وزبثبKataba kitabً

It is generally used in Arabic to pose emphasis on some words or for mere stylistic and prosodic purposes. In the translation of Macbeth , Jabra tries to make his version sound quite formal in Arabic and one of the formal artistic styles in Arabic is to use morphological repetition, so this occurs in many places in the TT where it has not even been used in the ST. Jabra adds it as a stylistic device that may reflect the formality of the Shakespearean text. An example for that is clear in the following extract:

ST Thrice to thine and thrice to mine

And thrice again to make up nine (I. iii)

ٌه صالس ، ٌٟ ٚ صالس TT

ٚأخشٜ صالس ، رضٍش اٌضالس

BT : you have three, and me three

and other three, to multiply thrice

”thulth صٍش “ tuthaleth” is a verbal derivation of the noun رضٍش" “ The verb meaning “to multiply thrice”2. “Tuthaleth al thalath” have the same root and are added to render the artistic feature of the ST although the original lines do not contain such root repetition particularly. The original lines here do contain lexical repetition to reflect the melody and charm of the Witches‟ words and their avoidance to use even numbers. Jabra‟s

Thalatha: to make the two ) ثلثَ: ثلثَ االثنين يثلثهما ثلثا صار لهما ثالثاً...( ابن منظور. مادة ثَلَثَ 2 three, Ibn Manzūr, 1970.

51 rendering here was successful in providing formal equivalence in addition to the artistic message of the origin. Further instance on that is his translation of the following lines :

ST Donalbin: ....where we are,

There 's daggers in men's smiles: the near in blood,

The nearer bloody (II ii)

, دٚٔبٌج١ٓ:... ف١ؾضّب TT ٓؾٔ

,عزىّٓ اٌخٕبعش فٟ ثغّبد اٌشعبي: ٚألشثُٙ دِبً ئ١ٌٕب

ألشثُٙ ئٌٝ ئدِبئٕب

BT where we are

There will be daggers in men‟s smiles: and the closer in their blood to us

The closer they are to bleed us

The repeated roots “near, nearer; blood, bloody” were also rendered in Indeed, this is peculiar to Jabra since ”ألشة ، دِبً : ئدِبء “ Arabic here with Mutran‟s rendering, the one that was famous for its elaborate diction, deletes the musical scenes of the witches, the porter, and many others and even the above extract of Donalbin‟s important speech; while Ameen‟s renders them in quite simpler prose that dose not encompass such morphological repetitions. This could be one of the „rare‟ situations Nida (1964, p. 157) refers to “only rarely can one reproduce both the form and content in a translation, and hence in general form is usually sacrificed for the sake of the content.”

52 These morphological repetitions serve not only as a stylistic feature, but also as a text-building device contributing to the cohesion of the text. I elaborate on this point further in the next section of the sentential issues.

3.2.2 Translation problems due to sentential issues

Grammatical arrangements give utterances particular communicative purposes, whatever overtones may come out to be involved. According to Dickins et all, (2002, p. 113) “Structure,… in the event, phonic, and lexical features, gives the text more than its informative values” and particularly if that text is a literal one like the play which is the subject of this study. Moreover, Hervey and Higgins (1992, p. 64) state :

A spoken text counts on the sentential level as a sequence of sentences, each with a built-in communicative purpose conveyed by one or more [features] as intonation; sequential focus (for example the word-order of „Him I don‟t like‟, which shifts the emphasis onto the object of the sentence); or illocutionary particles (for example alas which has the force of qualifying a statement as an expression of regret—in other words, an illocutionary particle tells the listener how to take an utterance).

These features do not fit into syntax very well; their function, and „meaning‟, consists in marking sentences for particular communicative purposes. In the this section I discuss some of the sentential problems which encounter Jabra.

53 3.2.2 Stress pattern

The subject of this study is a play that it is written basically in order to be rehearsed and acted on stage. This fact shows the importance of translating its sentential features as much adequately as the target language allows. The spoken language is extremely rich with intonations distinguishing the meaning of a sentence. Similarly, stress can be used in written English to express different types of meaning by typing in italic or in capitals, e.g. She saw this boy. (neutral), versus She saw this boy or She saw this boy ,etc. Although this type of referring to a stress using italic can be used in Arabic, it does not allow shift stress within the sentence as freely as English does. Instead, two devices are used in Arabic for giving the same effect; first, Arabic can shift word order second, in Arabic one ; سأد ٘زا اٌٌٛذ or ٘زا اٌٌٛذ سأرٗ .somewhat freely, e.g so the independent pronoun “ ٛ٘” here is سأرُٗ can add elements, e.g. ٛ٘ added at the end of the sentence in order to stress its referent. Most often such pronouns in neutral utterances are kept implicit (not written but understood from the context and distinguished by markers or particles If it is .(”سأadded to the word like the “hu ُٖ ” at the end of the verb “saw: ٜ written independently it is for shedding emphasis on it, more accurately for stressing what it refers to like the following monologue of Macbeth; he is thinking over the witches‟ prophecy:

ST : Macbeth Aside: Cannot be ill, cannot be good: (I. iii)

ال ٛ٘ ثبؾٌش ، ٚ ال ٛ٘ ثبٌخ١ش : :TT

Jabra uses an independent pronoun (ٛ٘) and repeats it twice though in the ST, the sentence does not start with the pronoun (it) either; the subject of the source sentence is only discerned from the context of Macbeth‟s

54 words to the prophecy of the witches. Jabra stresses such an important thought of Macbeth by putting his sentence in this form; it is an utterance of a man who is obsessed with “ ٛ٘it , that prophecy” and thinking over and over it.

However, many features of the spoken sentential level are often missed in written texts although written English has punctuation marks. For instance, a sentence which ends with an exclamation mark can refer to a fall-rise intonation of a demand, or to high level intonation of a command, or other possibilities. Therefore, punctuation marks are not of great help to distinguish nuances of sentence meanings that go beyond what is written. This problem would accelerate in translation to Arabic since written Arabic has not such strict use or rules for punctuation marks. According to Dickins et all. (2002, p. 116):

the orthographic sentence in Arabic … is frequently much longer than the orthographic sentence in English. In English, the orthographic sentence typically corresponds directly to the spoken sentence. … By contrast, in Arabic a single orthographic sentence fairly frequently does not correspond very happily to a single spoken sentence;...[it] would be likely to be split up into two or even more spoken sentences with two or more complete intonation patterns, each of these patterns marking off a separate sentence.

The case of punctuation becomes more complicated in translating this play from English into Arabic. Among the translators I acknowledged in this study, Jabra seems more consistent in rendering such punctuations so as he is the only translators who rendered the play in free verse following the line numbering of the original. This does not mean that he uses the punctuation of the ST as it is; on the contrary, the following lines show that he uses an exclamation mark instead of the stop in the source demand sentence . He somehow aims at conveying the intonation of apologizing:

55 ST: Macbeth : Give me your favour. My dull brain was wrought

With things forgotten. (I.iii)

ِىجش : اػ ٟٔٛؾِٕفٛوُ ! دِبغٟ اٌّزٍجذ لذ أص١ش .TT

ثأِٛس ِٕغ١خ .

Thus, he tried to render this sentential feature, but this once again falls short to convey the one of the original for many reasons in addition to the one I referred to earlier of the uncertainty of the Arabic punctuation rules that could help in determining the intonation and nuances of meaning. I provide an example from Lady Macbeth‟s speech in a very acute part of the play when she and her husband are committing the murder :

ST Lady Macbeth : Alack, I am afraid they have awaked,

And 'tis not done; th'attempt and not the deed

Confounds us. Hark! I laid their daggers ready,

He could not miss 'em. Had he not resembled

My father as he slept, I had done't. My husband?

ٚا أعفبٖ! أخٝؾ ئْ ّ٘ب اعز١مظب ، TT

ٚ اٌفؼٍخ ِب أزٙذ ... اؾٌّبٌٚخ ، ال اٌفؼً ،

ٟ٘ اٌزٟ رؾجطٕب. –عؼّبً!- ١٘أد خٕغشٙ٠ّب ،

ال ثذ أْ ٠شاّ٘ب . – ٌٛ ٌُ ٠ىٓ فؽ ٟجٗ أثٟ .

ٛ٘ ٚ ٔبئُ ، ٌفؼٍزٙب أٔب . –صٚعٟ

56 Jabra uses punctuation marks that are different from the ones in the original text most of the times. He adds hyphens, dots, and commas to reflect the haziness of an evil mind about to kill the king, while he deletes the important question mark at the end of the speech when she was apparently checking if her husband had done the mission or not. It is basically a questioning tone that is lost in Jabra‟s line not just an orthographic mark. The examples on such cases are so many that it seems unworthy to argue on the fact that there is a great loss in carrying out the intonation of the original text.

Indeed, sentence should be treated as a message rather than a string of grammatical and lexical items. In supporting such view, Baker (2000, p. 22) declares:

As a message, the clause consists of two elements: the theme, what the clause is about, comes first and provides a point of orientation. The rheme is what the speaker or writer says about the theme and provides new information. The distinguishing between rheme and theme serves the translator job. It helps in determining the place of stress in normal statements, then rendering it in the suitable forms. It is, as Newmark (1988, p. 78) states: “Normally one proceeds from the known to the unknown: one begins with the theme, and therefore the new elements with the highest degree of CD [communicative dynamics] come last in a sentence.”

On the sentence level, both English and Arabic generally tend to stress a word in the rheme. In cases when rheme comes first in the sentences like passive voice, stress falls on the rheme, also.

However, in translating from English into Arabic, the distinction between thematic and rhematic information is most problematic where it proves

57 difficult to reproduce the same word order. Dickins, et all. (2002, p.119) state that “Word order in this respect is not alterable for theme-rheme consideration”. This appears throughout the translated text since the Arabic word-order does differ from that of English; the following extract illustrates this point :

ST: Macbeth [aside] : Come what come may,

Time and the hour runs through the roughest day. (I.iii)

ِّٙب ؽذس :TT

فاْ أػغش ا٠٤بَ ٠خشلٙب اٌضِٓ ٚ اٌغبػخ

BT : Whatever may happen

The hardest days (are) worn out (by) time and hour

In the ST, stress falls on rheme at the end of the sentence (runs through the roughest day). In the TT, stress falls on the rheme which comes at the for the normal word-order in ,(ئْ أػغش ا٠٤بَ ) beginning of the sentence Arabic is Verb - Subject -(Complement) and this sentence thus can normally be written like:

٠خشقُ اٌضُِٓ ٚ اٌغبػخ أػغشَ ا٠٤بَ

like the ”أػغش ا٠٤بَ “ However, for imposing further stress on the phrase one in the ST, Jabra shifts it to the beginning of the sentence and thus .is its object ”٠خشلٙب اٌضِٓ “ and the phrasal verb ”ئَّْ“ makes it the subject of This technique of changing word-order is common in Arabic to stress certain phrases instead of others. In addition, the translation of this extract shows , apart from Jabra‟s literal translation of the word “hour to join the two lines. It is ”ف“ the translator has added a connector ,”عبػخ

58 one of the most common features in Arabic texts to add conjunctions and coordinators for the sake of making the text more cohesive or for mere artistic purposes. The factors that serve for the cohesion of a text is to be discussed in the next section.

3.2.3 Cohesion and coherence

The basic criterion to value a translation is firstly to question its accuracy transferring the information, secondly to question its organization: cohesion and coherence. The last two criteria surpass the level of words and words meaning, to tackle how sentences are joined together into a text on surface and deeply into their logical connection.

Hatim and Munday (2004, p. 335) define cohesion as “...the requirement that a sequence of sentences display grammatical and/or lexical relationships which ensure the surface continuity of text structure.” This surface unity is achieved by a number of ways such us using discourse connectives (then, so, however, also, and so on), root and lexical repetition, rheme-thematic elements, and ellipsis. In fact, to delete a part of sentence can be sometimes a way to hold text together. In English, for example, the subject of a sentence can be ellipted in the main clause but not in the subordinate clause: we can say He’s good at his job. Knows what he' s doing, but not He’ s good at his job because knows what doing. In translation, it is important to know what each language is allowed to miss out and in what circumstances. This technique has not been used by Jabra very often for the text itself is so complex to bear such omission. It occurred most of the time at the end of a sentence where it does not make

59 the meaning vague but serves the unity and elegance of the speech, like the following :

ST Upon this blasted heath you stop our way

With such prophetic greeting? Speak, I charge you. (I.iii)

رٛلفٓ ع١شٔب فٟ ٘زٖ اٌفالح اٌّّطشح ثبٌصٛاػك .TT

ثٙزٖ اٌز١ؾبد إٌج٠ٛخ؟ رىٍّٓ! آِشوٓ .

BT Why do you stop us with prophetic greetings in this thunder- blasted desolate place. Speak, I order (you)!

conventionally lacks a complement as I order ”آِشوٓ “ The translated verb )you( (with what?). This pretty comprehended complement is deleted from the sentence and it sounds perfect. Ameen, on the other hand, does not use such ellipsis and his sentence sounds not as elegant as Jabra‟s because he repeats:

(Ameen: 1994, p. 32) ِىجش: .. ٚ ٌّبرا رؼزشظٓ طش٠مٕب... .. رىٍّٓ! آِشوٓ ثبٌىالَ.

In addition, the use of connectives differs from English to Arabic. In English, they have definite use and meaning, contrary to Arabic, e.g. „ ٚ and’ could mean „but, though, and‟ or nothing at all and be replaced by a semicolon. That is because Arabic uses connectives to join clauses as it has not systematic punctuations. They are redundant in English if ever ١ؽش have accurate equivalents especially the secondary connectives like and so on. However, to translate a text into Arabic, a translator shouldئر stick to every feature of the Arabic text. This accounts for Jabra‟s elaborate use of connectives in his rendering of Macbeth.

60 Coherence, on the other hand, is the “conceptual connectedness of a text” Fawcett (1997, p. 146). It is the standard which all well-formed texts must meet. I will discuss an extract from the play pointing out the cohesion/coherence features used or missed in it:

ST Macbeth : [Aside] Two truths are told,

As happy prologues to the swelling act

Of the imperial theme.—I thank you, gentlemen.

Aside

Cannot be ill, cannot be good: if ill,

Why hath it given me earnest of success,

Commencing in a truth? I am thane of Cawdor:

If good, why do I yield to that suggestion

Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair

And make my seated heart knock at my ribs,

Against the use of nature? Present fears

Are less than horrible imaginings:

My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical,

Shakes so my single state of man that function

Is smother'd in surmise, and nothing is

But what is not.

61 )عبٔج١بً( ؽم١مزبْ ل١ٍزب :TT

رٛطئز١ٓ ؾِشلز١ٓ لٌفصً اٌّزٕبِٟ

ٛؽي اٌّٛظٛع اٌٍّىؽ .ٟىشاً، أٙ٠ب اٌغ١ذاْ .

)عبٔج١بً( ٘زا اٌخطبة اٌخبسق ٌٍطجؼ١خ

ال ٛ٘ ثبؾٌش ، وال ٛ٘ ثبٌخ١ش :

فئْ ٠ىٓ ؽشاً، ٌّبرا ػ ٟٕؾّٕ٠شثٛٔبً ثبٌٕغبػ ،

ثبدئبً ثؾم١مخ صبدلخ؟ أٔب أ١ِش وٛدٚس :

فئْ ٠ىٓ خ١شاً ، ٌّبرا أسأٟ أعزغٍُ ٌزٌه اؾ٠٦بء اٌزٞ

صٛسرٗ اٌشاػجخ ٠ٕزصت ٌٙب ؼؽشٞ

و رغؼً لٍجٟ اٌّغزى١ٓ ٠مشع أظالٟػ ،

ؽزٚراً ػٓ طجؼ١زٟ ؟ ئْ ِٛاظغ اٌخٛف اٌشإ٘خ

٤خف ٚلؼبً ِٓ اٌزخ١الد اٌّشػجخ.

وئْ فىشٞ اٌزٞ ١ٌظ اٌمزً ف١ٗ إال ِزخ١الً

١ٌضٌضي و١بٟٔ اؽٌّّٛذ ئٔغبٔبً،

حتى ١ٌخزٕك اٌفؼً فٟ اٌزىٙٓ

وِب ِٓ ؽم١مٟ إال اٌزٞ ١ٌظ ثبؾٌم١مٟ

In the source text, five connectives are used as, and(twice),so, but; whereas ten in the translated text. This is fairly acceptable in Arabic texts, but this text seems a bit hazy. In fact, other problems in the translated extract has hindered a clearer communicative message. First, there is the ؽم١مزبْ ل١ٍزب .problem of redundancy, e.g

رٛطئز١ٓ ؾِشلز١ٓ لٌفصً اٌّزٕبِٟ

62 Two successive lines in Arabic started with indefinite noun and seem very detached, particularly the second one which sounds quite odd in ؽم١مخ Arabic if not ungrammatical. Further, his translation of truth here as ؽ which is redundantم١مخ صبدلخ at the beginning of the speech, then as style in Arabic and there is not such word in the original text, either. Is ؽ lying truth?! Obviously, it is aم١مخ وبرثخ ؽhonest truth ,andم١مخ صبدلخ there meaningless phrase that also causes a problem on the coherent level.

Second, Jabra in this extract, and many similar ones through out the play, uses monotonous pattern of sentence structures. Almost the whole speech ئْ ّ is built on nominal sentences that start with the subordinate clauses of ٚ . In fact, the shortcoming is increased as he repeatedly sticks to ئْ ؽزٝ .. the inversion pattern of sentence. In the standard usage, the main clause normally precedes the subordinate clause of cause or reason. The present inversion in the position of the subordinate clause is often an imitation of the English pattern_ in English it is normal to say, Because I hear too much, I can hear almost nothing, placing the main clause after the subordinate. However, employing such pattern in more than seven successive lines really causes a pitfall on both stylistic and communicative level. Third, despite his use of many connectives every other line, the cohesion on the intersentential level is still poor. This is clear for example in the underlined lines: one sentence consists of four lines with a complicated use of grammatical anaphors, namely the which delays the predicate of the sentence another اٌزrelative pronoun ٞ more line.

Indeed, Jabra‟s translation lacks cohesion as well as coherence to some extent particularly if we compare it to Ameen‟s rendering. For example the previous extract is rendered by Ameen way clearer and cohesive than Jabra‟s; he turns the three shortcomings I referred to earlier into better

63 structuring despite his inaccurate rendering to some words such as ,( صبثذseated (rendered as fixed ,(ئغشاء suggestion (rendered as temptation ؽevils!). However, as a text, it sounds muchشٚس and fears (rendered as united and logical than Jabra‟s attempt.

ِىجش : )عبٔجب( لذ روشْ ؽم١مز١ٓ ّ٘ب ثّضبثخ ِمذِز١ٓ ع١ؼذر١ٓ ٌٍفصً اٌضاخش ثّٛظٛع اؼٌشػ . )ٌشٚط ٚ أٔغٛط( ؽىشاً ٌىّب أٙ٠ب اٌغ١ذاْ. )عبٔجبً( ٘زا اٌزؾغ١غ ِٓ لٜٛ ِب ٚساء اٌطجؼ١خ ال ٠ّىٓ أْ ٠ىؽ ْٛشاً ... ال ٠ّىٓ أْ ٠ىْٛ خ١شاً....فاْ وبْ ؽشاً فٍّبرا ػٚزٟٕ ثبٌٕغبػ ،ثبدئخ ثزوش ِب ٛ٘ صٛ٘ ٚ ، ؼ١ؾ أٟٔ عأصجؼ ع١ذ وٛدٚس؟ ٚ ئْ وبْ خ١شاً، فٍّبرا أعزغٍُ ٦غشاءٍ ثؾغ ٠مف ٌٗ ؼؽش سأعٚ ، ٟ ٠غؼً لٍجٟ اٌضبثذ ٠خشط ػٓ طجؼ١زٗ ف١مفض ِصطذِبً ثأظالٟػ؟ ئْ اؾٌشٚس اٌزؼٔ ٟبٙ١ٔب ؽ ْٛ٘٤أٔب ِٓ رّٕٛ٘ب ؾٌشٚس ِغزمجٍخ ..ٚ ئْ فىشٞ ١ٌضٌضي ئٔغب١ٔزٟ اٌٛإ٘خ سغُ أْ اٌغش٠ّخ ٌُ رزغبٚص ؽذٚد اٌّخ١ٍخ ، فارا اؼًٌّ ا٠٦غبثٟ ٠خٕمٗ ئطالق اؼٌٕبْ ٌٍخ١بي ، ٚ ئرا ثٟ (Ameen (1994, pp. 33-34ال أسٚ ٜعٛداً ئال ٌّب ال ٚعٛد ٌٗ.

Thus we see how language differences influence the translated text, on the lexical, grammatical, and textual levels. All these levels, if given well studying, can keep the translator away from lots of pitfalls and facilitate his/her aim in bridging the gap between two languages. This aim, nevertheless, cannot be well achieved without understanding the two cultures and cultural implications in each text. In the next section, I discuss some linguistic problems arising from different cultures which encounter the translators of Macbeth .

3.3 Cultural Level

Translation as a process of communication normally communicates the intended meaning of the original language to its counterpart (TL) culture in a different language and to a different audience. Linguistic theories provide the basis for the translation process, and analysis of the linguistic form of SL units (word, sentence or a text) regardless of the SL author

64 cultural background. However, the meaning of a word or a sentence relies not only on its place in the text but also on other factors outside the text.

Generally speaking, when dealing with a poetic text, the subject of culture must be considered in the translation process, as it directly affects the understanding of the ST message, and constitute an essential factor in determining the appropriateness of linguistic units (Berdom, 2007, p. 121). Commenting on such issues, in his article "Source culture and target reader/creativity in translation" Aziz (1982, p. 20) states that "translation is not merely confined to language; it also involves translating culture.”

English and Arabic have different characteristics both linguistically and culturally. Linguistically, the two languages belong to very different language families: English is an Indo-European language while Arabic is a Semitic one. Consequently, there are no complete correspondences between the two languages. Nida (1988, p. 156) states:

No two languages are identical, either in the meaning given to corresponding signals or in the ways in which such signals are arranged in phrases and sentences; it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondences between languages. Hence there can be no fully exact translations.

Accordingly, the task of translation needs to be carried on carefully, given the cultural differences between SL and TL balancing communication between the two cultures. Nevertheless, this demands the translator a careful use of culturally specific metaphors and allusions in particular.

65

3.3.1 Metaphors

Metaphor is only one of a number of what are traditionally known as figures of speech. Other figures of speech include synecdoche3, metonymy4, irony5, and simile6. All are of interest in translation. However, metaphor is by far the most important, according to Dickins et al, for it is the most common and the most difficult in translation due to the cultural and linguistic differences involved:

It is the most widespread, and because it poses the most challenging translation problems. Metaphor can give rise to difficulties in translation between any two languages, but where the languages concerned are as relatively different culturally and linguistically as English and Arabic, the difficulties are sometimes quite pronounced. (2002, p. 146)

Translators have to be careful when selecting appropriate equivalents for metaphorical words and expressions. I discuss some examples of words/expressions in order to reflect on some important cultural differences between the two languages. Two cultures involved in a translation may have different environmental backgrounds with regard to elements such as climate, flora and fauna. The environmental features of the Arab World and the United Kingdom where the play took place, are used as an example. As the Middle East has a hot and very dry climate,

3 synecdoche : a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2004) as in Syria lost by five goals; Syria is used to represent the Syrian team. 4 Metonymy : noun a word or expression used as a substitute for something with which it is closely associated, e.g. Washington for the US government. (Ibid.) 5 Irony: the expression of meaning through the use of language signifying the opposite, (Ibid.) 6 Simile: a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind (e.g. he was as brave as a lion). (Ibid)

66 the UK's climate is cooler and wetter. A translator of English/Arabic texts may come across problematic aspects of environmental expressions; some words have different connotations in the other's language. For example, Arabic expressions associated with coldness express favourable ,literally means coolness of the eye. Whereas "لشح ١ػٓ " .connotations, e.g the equivalent ecological English expressions that have positive connotations are usually associated with warmth, for instance, warmth of the eye. The English expression: "They were given a warm welcome" is another example that has a positive connotation. In the play, Macbeth says addressing the Ghost:

ST Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold; (III. iv)

ػظبِه ال ٔخبع فٙ١ب ٚ دِه عبِذ TT

BT your bones are without marrow and your blood is solid

Jabra in this extract was aware of this cultural differences in the connotations of cold/heat in each culture; therefore, he used the Arabic in order to give the same negative ”ثبسد “ instead of ”عبِذ “ word connotation of the source sentence. Ameen‟s was not such successful in :”ثبسد this extract particularly when he rendered it as “cold

(ػ (Ameen, 1994, p. 84ظبِه ال ٔخبع فٙ١ب ٚ دِه ثبسد

would not دِه ثبسد As I said earlier cold in Arabic is favorable, so to say the ,”عبِذ “ convey the negative association of the source culture, while exaggerated sense, does work well for such context. What applies to one culture may not to others, particularly for words that have special cultural aspects reflecting SL cultural features. Newmark (1988, p. 105) gives notes on how to translate the different types of metaphors:

67 An original universal metaphor should be translated literally; an original cultural metaphor should retain as much of the original image as is possible consonant with the situational and linguistic context bringing and making the meaning clear to the second readership. A standard metaphor should be translated by its standard equivalent or, failing that, comprehensibly adapted.

The majority of the metaphors in this play that caused problems in translation belong to the second type Newmark mentioned: cultural metaphors.

Jabra produces some colourless renderings of certain cultural metaphors. When Macbeth addresses the servant who informs him that Birnamwood is moving towards Dunsinane, successive metaphors are employed in the passages concerned:

ST: Macbeth : The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon (V.ii)

! عخطه ا١ؾٌطبْ ػجذاً أعٛد ، ٠ب ٚغذاً ١ٍؽجٟ اٌٛعٗ :TT

BT: The devil damn you as a black slave. Oh, rascal, you of milky face.

This was followed by a series of metaphors addressing the servant angrily :

ST: Macbeth: Go prick thy face, and over-red thy fear,

Thou lily-liver'd boy. What soldiers, patch?

Death of thy soul! those linen cheeks of thine

Are counsellors to fear. What soldiers, whey-face? (V. ii)

ار٘ت ٚ خض ٚعٙه ِٛ ٖٚ خٛفه ثبؾٌّش :TT

68 ٠ب ٌٚذ اصْثمٟ اٌىجذ. أٞ عٕٛد، ٠ب ِٙشط؟

ِٛربً ٌشؽٚه! خذان ثٍْٛ اٌخبَ ٠ٍمٕبْ اٌفضع أٞ عٕٛد ٠ب ٚعٙبً ِٓ ٌجٓ؟

BT: Hide your face in disgrace, and disguise your fear with red, you lily livered boy. What soldiers, you clown, death for your soul, the colour of your cheeks is the colour of linen. Your cheeks teach fear. What soldiers, you milky face?

١ٍؽ was unsuccessfulجٟ اٌٛعٗ In fact, his translation of "cream faced" as since [milky face] sounds odd in Arabic. Neither the colour of milk nor the milk itself in Arabic culture connotes negative association as such of the source language. His translation to the later morphemes is not better. ٚ ; as if the liver of theٌذ اصْثمٟ اٌىجذ Jabra translates "lily-livered boy" as boy is in the colour of lily which is usually white. Shakespeare in the ST tells us that the liver (traditionally the organ of courage) is in the colour of a lily, white, hence cowardly. The idea of ST metaphor is quite blurred have صٔجك nor اٌىجذ as it is rendered by Jabra because neither liver correspondent implication of cowardice in Arabic culture. Similarly, ٠ب ٚعٗ ِٓ and "whey-face" as " خذان ثٍْٛ اٌخبَ" rendering "Linen cheeks" as do not carry the same implications of cowardice in Arabic as they do "ٌجٓ in English. They do not give either negative associations of the SL culture. These cultural metaphors would be way clearer if Jabra had used adapted metaphors of cowardice in TC, or at least had explained it like .”ٚعٙبً عجبٔبً ؽبؽجبً“ simply

Jabra follows the ways that Newmark (Ibid) suggests in dealing with cultural metaphors, but there is always a kind of loss in translating certain metaphors at the cultural level because they, most often, have no cultural

69 counterpart in the TL. For example, in the brief dialogue between Dunkin‟s sons after the murder is discovered:

ST Donaldbain : What should be spoken here,

Where our fate hid in an auger hole may rush

And seize us?...

Malcolm : Nor our strong sorrow upon the foot of motion.

دٚٔبٌج١ٓ : ِبٌزٞ ٔمTT ٌٗٛ

ٕ٘ب ١ؽش ِص١شٔب ِخف١بً فٟ خشَ ِخشص

لذ ٠ٕطٍك ٚ ٠ّغه ثزالث١جٕب ؟ ... .

ِبٌىٚ : ٌُٛ ال ؽضٕٔب ا١ّؼٌك ثذأ ٠زؾشن

BT what can we say

Here where out destiny (is) hidden into a hole of bradawl

It may come out and catch us?

Nor our deep sadness has started to move

In this extract, the metaphor of their hiding fate in the hole of bradawl awaiting to come out and catch them, then the image of moving sadness all are discerned to cultural implications. Braunmuller (1997, p.125) explains this referring to “the popular belief that witches can go in and out at auger holes”. This implication is lost in the TT language, however. Jabra, particularly in this extract, has not even added an explanation note for such cultural metaphor, so it seems a strange image to the Arab reader. Newmark (1988, p. 91) states:

70 The additional information a translator may have to add to his version is normally cultural (accounting for difference between SL and TL culture) … and is dependent on the requirement of his, as opposed to the original, readership. … such information can normally only be given outside the version, although brief concessions for minor cultural details can be made to the reader.

Apart from the extract mentioned above, Jabra adds notes explaining certain cultural metaphors quite a lot to the extent that other scholars blame him for, like Nyazi (2000, p. 10) who argues that Jabra added many explanatory notes and he considers it an evidence of his laboured diction and literalness. Despite the pitfall of literalness, these explanatory notes do clarify many of the allusions and cultural implications in many extracts.

This play is originally full of metaphoric language, which makes the attempt to render it in another language that is of totally different cultural background quite delicate task for any translator. Part of its complexity is the elaborate metaphors; we see a lot of developing metaphors that spread اinto a number of lines, for example, five lines around the metaphor of ٌَٕٛ Sleep that knits up the ravelled sleeve of care'‟ in"اٌزٞ ٠شرك لّبؽخ اٌُٙ اٌّّضلخ Act II.ii; seventeen lines of the comparison of men to dogs in Act III.i; nine lines of meteorological violence culminating in "nature's germens tumble all together" IV.i, and many others. All are linguistically and culturally dense and they create a big challenge in the Arabic text. This is clear in the following five lines developing the metaphor in Macbeth‟s speech:

ST And pity, like a naked new-born babe,

Striding the blast, or heaven's cherubim, horsed

71 Upon the sightless couriers of the air,

Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,

That tears shall drown the wind. (I. vii)

ٚ اؾٌفمخ وطفً ١ٌٚذ ػبس

٠ّزطٟ اٌضٚثؼخ أٚ وّالئىخ اٌغّبء خٍٙ١ب

سٚاوط اٌفعبء اٌخف١خ

عزٕفخُ اٌفؼٍخ اؼ١ٕؾٌخ فٟ وً ١ػٓ

ؽزٝ رُغشقَ اٌشؼ٠َ ثبٌذِٛع

BT pity is like a naked newborn babe

Rides the whirlwind or like the angles of the sky whose horses

(are) runners of the secret space

Shall blow the horrifying deed in every eye

Till (they) drown the wind with tears

At the beginning there is a simile “pity, like a naked new-born babe”; vulnerability can relate pity with babe in one image. However, Shakespeare continues developing this image “or heaven's cherubim, blow in every eye till wind be drowned with tears” in the next four lines. The alternative offered here between an image of vulnerability ('babe') and one of heavenly power ('heaven's cherubim) at first seems confused, but the compressed images join together Macbeth's future opponents: Banquo's children, who will succeed to Scotland's throne, and the near- divinely endorsed forces that will drive Macbeth from that throne. Brooks (1947, p. 45) comments:

72 Pity like the human and helpless babe, or powerful as the angel that rides the winds? It is both; and it is strong because of its very weakness. The paradox is inherent in the situation itself; and it is the paradox that will destroy the over brittle rationalism on which Macbeth founds his career.

However, the translated extract above lacks a lot of the original cultural implications. Apart from the fact that Jabra makes the “newborn babe” contrary to ” اؾٌفمخ وطفً .. ٠ّزطٟ اٌضٚثؼخ “ the one who rides the whirlwind ”ؽفمخ“ And his use of .اؾٌفمخ وطفً رّزطthe original image that “pity rides .. ٟ in this context is a bit unsuccessful since it originally occurred in a series would be far suitable as it is ”سؽّخ“ ,of celestial context and in such use used in similar contexts in the Bible and the Quran personalized and .”ث١ٓ ٠ذٞ سؽّزٗ “ having hands_ as in

The image depends on two parties: the vulnerable newborn babes and that ِالئىخ ones in heaven, „the cherubim‟. In rendering 'heaven's cherubim‟ as which ”ِالئىخ اٌغّبء “ there is something missing regarding the word اٌغّبء is too general one in Arabic while „the cherubim‟ connotes the child‟s soul. Hence, it lacks the implied reference to Banquo‟s children who, as heavenly empowered, will ruin Macbeth or to the souls of Macduff‟s children who are killed by Macbeth later in the play.

Without a doubt, reading the play as translated by Jabra would make us feel like there is always a translation loss at the cultural level. The extracts illustrated above all assert that readers cannot get the meaning and aesthetic of the metaphoric language without knowing its cultural implications; these implications extend to the references or “allusions” they suggest. In the next section I tackle some of the allusions in the play and how the translator managed to render their implications in the target language.

73

3.3.2 Allusions

Allusion is one of the basic elements to observe in Shakespeare‟s works in general and particularly this play. Abrams (1992, p. 9) defines allusion as “a passing reference, without explicit identification, to a literary or historical person, place, or event, or to another literary work or passage.” He mentioned that the meaning of allusion (as the most common type of intertextuality) as an English word was equal to the initial meaning of “illusion” and in the early Renaissance it was used in the sense of a pun, or word-play in general. Later it meant any symbolic likening, whether in allegory, parable or metaphor. Another meaning, which is still the correct modern one, follows by the early seventeenth century and involves any implied, indirect or hidden reference. Generally allusion is considered a literary device, like alliteration or simile, the poet or author uses it in order to invite a specific kind of aesthetic experience and finally a kind of textual object/moment is created.

The occurrence of allusions is more challenging in translation. Not only does the translator of Macbeth have to cope with the usual linguistic difficulties of translating from English to Arabic, he also has to handle different references and allusions. In some of its parts, the text of this play is filled with diverse references: religious, historical and cultural. Very often, these three references cannot be separated from each other as mythology is usually mixed with historic events and vice versa. For example, readers encounter the allusions in 'two-fold balls and treble to the descent of Scottish ؾ٠ًّ وشر١ٓ اصٕز١ٓ ٚ صٛاٌظ صالصخ (sceptres' (IV.i kings from Banquo when Macbeth describes the ghost. This is a strange description in the TT, so Jabra adds a footnote here to relate these lines

74 with the English and Scottish tradition in monarchy coronation. Though it cuts the reading, it is a helpful cultural remark. Later in the play we come upon the undramatic description of touching for the King's Evil (James performed this ceremony); and the dramatic use of witchcraft, a matter on which James considered himself an authority. This is an obvious example where mythology (the fictitious ability to heal) is assorted with historic events (King James is real historic figure) in an allusion. A further example is the allusion to the Gunpowder Plot (II.iii) “here's an equivocator that could swear in both the scales” in the Porter scene where real historic event is subtly mixed with other cultural implications around this word. Jabra finds no better ways to pass these references to the Arab reader than explaining them in notes. Thus in the same scene which is dense with cultural references, the Porter welcomes in his imagined hell a farmer who expects plenty crop, and then an “English tailor come hither for stealing out of a French hose.” Jabra translated these lines literally, so he needed a long explanatory notes that outnumbered the original speech.

In addition, translators find further difficulty in rendering the Roman and Greek references to the Arab reader in the text. This is so common type of allusion that spreads throughout the original text. Macbeth, awaiting the murderers, compares himself and Banquo with Mark Antony and Octavian (Shakespeare's Octavius), the man who became Augustus Caesar, the first Roman emperor. This reference is quite meaningful in the ST yet it needs again an explanatory note by Jabra in the TT:

ST There is none but he,

Whose being I do fear; and under him

My genius is rebuked, as it is said

Mark Antony's was by Caesar

75 ..١ٌظ صّخ ِٓ أخؾبٖ TT

ئالٖ، ِٚالوٟ اؾٌبسط ئصاءٖ ١ِٙٓ

وّب وبْ ِالن أطٍٝػ،ٛ١ٔٛ ِب ٠مبي، ئصاء ل١صش

Interestingly, Ameen in the previous extract managed to explain the reference without extra-textual notes:

ئٟٕٔ ال أخٝؾ أؽذ عٛاٖ . فٕغٛ٘ ّٟ دائّبً ثب٘ذ اٌعٛء ئٌٝ عٛاس ٔغّٗ، رّبِبً وّب ٠مبي ػٓ ٔغُ (Ameen (1994, p. 162 ِبسن أٔطٛ١ٔٛ ئٌٝ عٛاس ٔغُ أٚوزبفٛ١ط ل١صش

His translation is better at the communicative level, though as we have seen it is not always available especially in cultural allusion which is strict to certain community as the implications of the farmer and tailor. This asserts what Munday (2009, p. 81) concludes:

Not all allusions have such clear exospheric and exportable referents, but rather carry with them „cultural baggage‟, opening up frames or schemata more specifically related to what is appropriate or valued in a particular culture.

However, the translation of this play encompasses further problems on the cultural levels, particularly on rendering the religious references. One of the problematic words in the TC is the one referring to God; in the play we encounter words like Faith, Heaven, Powers, etc. in so many contexts. Jabra does not seem so more systematic than Ameen rendering them the accurate equivalence in each context. We know that these words cannot in Arabic. In addition, Jabra is aware of this اهلل be simply translated as religious consideration in the ST and he refers to it in his notes :

وبْ فٙػ ٟذ ؽىغج١ش لبْٛٔ ٠ّٕغ اٌّّض١ٍٓ ِٓ ئعبءح اعزؼّبي اعُ اٌغالٌخ، أٚ اٌّغؼ١ ، أٚ اٌشػٚ اٌمذط، وّب ٙؼّٕ٠ُ ِٓ روش ٘زٖ ا٤عّبء ثصؾجخ ِب ٟؽٛ٠ ثبٌزفىٗ أٚ ا٦صُ . اٌىٍّخ اؾٌىغج١ش٠خ ٕ٘ب ٍٝػ ا٤سعٟ٘ ؼ "اهلل" فٟ ا٤صً ، غ١ش أْ اٌّّض١ٍٓ ٠غزجذٌٙٔٛب ثىٍّخ

76 اٌغّبء ، خٛفبً ِٓ ػمبة اٌمبْٛٔ ، وبٔذ اٌغشاِخ ؾػشح عٙ١ٕبد ػٓ وً ِشح ٠مغ فٙ١ب روش ( Jabra, 1990, p. 767) اهلل فٟ ِضً اؾٌبالد إٌّصٙ١ٍػ ؿٛب. [There was an act at Shakespeare time that prohibits using the name of God, Jesus, or Holy Spirit by actors in inappropriate contexts as joking and offending. Shakespeare‟s word here is likely to be “God/ Allah” in the original, but the actors substituted it with “heaven” in fear of retribution; the forfeit was ten pounds to every time this [.is pronounced in the prohibited contexts ”اهلل/name “God

in his translation; he translates the ”اهلل“ Nevertheless, Jabra uses the word :(BT: God forbid) "ال عؼّ اهلل" word "heaven" in Lennox's speech, as

and I do think

That, had he Duncan's sons under his key

As, an't please Heaven, he shall not. (III. vi)

When the messenger addresses Lady Macduff with the word "Heaven"

Heaven preserve you; (IV. ii)

,ؽ" though it occurred in a solemn contextفظزه اٌغّبء" Jabra translates it as i.e. it is not used in the forbidden contexts which he refers to in the notes before. Similarly, „heaven” is repeatedly used in the ST in few lines later in Macduff ‟s speech (IV. iii):

Heaven rest them now/…

… But gentle Heavens/ …

... Heaven forgive him too!

77 "عبؾِزٗ اٌغّبء !" ”اٌغّبء اٌخ١شح “ ”أساؽزُٙ اٌغّبء ا٢ْ “ Jabra translates it to in اٌغّبء"“ not ”اهلل “ though it would be better in Arabic to appeals to God such contexts. On the other hand, Ameen adapts theses expression a bit غفشأه “ ”..سؽّبن اٌٍُٙ.. “ ”ط١ت اهلل ِضٛاُ٘ “ closer to the TT culture; he uses .respectively for the above expressions ”اٌٍُٙ

Jabra‟s inconsistency in translating these religious names, is best exemplified at the end of the same scene, Act four:

ST …, Macbeth

Is ripe for shaking, and the powers above

Put on their instruments.

ِبٌىَٛ : ِىجش ؽبْ لطبفٗ ، ٚ اٌمٜٛ ا٠ٍٛؼٌخ TT

. رشرذٞ عالٙؽب

,”اٌمٜٛ ا٠ٍٛؼٌخ “”ِىجش ؽبْ لطبفٗ “ Apart from his odd wording in Arabic to ئٟٔ أسٜ سؤٚعبً لذ “ Jabra probably wants to evoke the Arabic allusion of On the other hand, Ameen provides dynamic .”أؼٕ٠ذ ؽ ٚبْ لطبفٙب equivalence once again at the expense of intertext allusion; he translates the previous extract as :

لذ ؽبْ أٚاْ عمٛغ ِىجش ، ٚ لذ اخزبسٔب اهلل ٥ٌخز ثبٌضأس ،

This kind of intertext allusion has been used by Jabra in many occasions of the text; it enhanced his translation on the cultural and linguistic level as well in my opinion. The following extract illustrates this point further:

ST Lady Macduff: … for the poor wren,

The most diminutive of birds, will fight,

Her young ones in her nest, against the owl. (IV. ii)

78 ...فبٌجغبس اٌّغى١ٓ، TT

أصغش اؼٌصبف١ش وٍٙب، ١ؽٓ رىْٛ

فشاخٗ فٟ اؼؼٌ، ٠مبسع اٌجَٛ

اٌصnot the denotation of the ST‟s word “ ٛؼ ,”اٌجغبس “ Jabra preferred to use ئْ اٌجغبس فwren”, in order to evoke in our minds the Arabic proverb “ ٟ This allusion serves the communicative purpose of the lines ”أسظٕب ٠غزٕغش in the TT since, in the origin, they have been said to tempt Macbeth in metaphoric language, it is so clever then to create this effect in the TT by referring to an Arabic proverb that serves the meaning of the speech.

In other direct allusions or quotations to Biblical texts particularly, Jabra does not hesitate to embed such allusions in the target text, while Ameen fairly often omits them. In the following extract Jabra keeps the intertext allusion of the original text and adds note clarifying the Biblical verses they were referred to:

ST Macduff: Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope

The Lord's anointed temple, and stole thence

The life o' the building! (II.iii)

ِىذف : ٌمذ أزٙه اٌمزً اؾٌشاَ ٕٛػح TT

١٘ىً اػٛؾٌّّ ثض٠ذ اٌشة ٚعشق ِٕٗ

١ؽبح اٌج١ٕبْ !

There are two compact allusions to the Bible in order show us the grave crime of killing the King as the worst violation of a sacred thing:

but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put“ (اٌٍّه اٌزؼؾُِ َٞ ثض٠ذ اهلل) forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD's anointed.”

79 1Co:3:16: “Know ye not that ye are the (ا١ٌٙىً ١ؽ ٚبرٗ ) 7Sam.24:10 and temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1Co:3:17: “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are”. Though these seem not so familiar to the Arab reader, they add a lot to the faithfulness of the translated text in my opinion, the thing that is missing in Ameen‟s rendering when he omits such religious expressions. Indeed, these verses and other cultural allusions tell us a lot about the cultural background of the ST and so participate in a way or another in the overall meaning of the work.

So, from the above discussion, we can conclude that a theory of translation includes more than the text itself. That is to say, the meaning of a word or a sentence depends not only on its place in the text but also on other factors and matters outside the text. For example cultural facts and factors are also relevant to the interpretation of SL word meaning. In this regard, Larson (1984, p. 430) notes that “meaning of this kind needs to be conveyed with the conditions of a culture and its audience.” He gives a clear cut picture when he states that:

Each society will interpret a message in terms of its own culture. The receptor audience will decode the translation in terms of its own culture and experience, not in terms of the culture and experience of the author and audience of the original.

Cultural words and references exhibit various connotations that need to be considered by the translator. The challenge for the translator, then, is double-faced. First, the figurative meaning of lexical items creates a great

7 Jabra (1990, p. 705) refers mistakenly to the number of the verses as “14:10” and “16:6” in his notes.

80 challenge for translators of poetic texts; hence, a translator must recognize when words in the SL are being used in a secondary sense in order to produce a reasonable translation. Second, when a word in the TL is being used in its secondary meaning, care must be taken to build in the adequate context to guarantee correct meaning, since secondary meanings are dependent on context.

81 Conclusion

This research has tackled the translation of Macbeth in Arabic by Jabra Ibrahim Jabra from a linguistic point of view. It has followed the translation theory of equivalence evaluating the translated text in the light of dynamic and formal equivalence particularly. In order to do such a task, the target text has been analyzed on three levels: the lexical, grammatical, and cultural one, elaborating on each one separately, and relating them with one another to complete the overall message of the work.

Studying the lexical level has revealed the problems that involved in translating words at their first value, disregarding their meaning in a text and their connotations, and the translation loss resulted in. Throughout the discussion I have provided extracts from the target text illustrating the points that need to be reconsidered by translators and researchers in this field. Such extracts that were translated either wholly literally or had certain communicative shortcoming as a result of the translator‟s misinterpreting the denotation of some words in such a text or in a context. We cannot forget a huge problem in the source text of this subject play which is, ironically, its language. The play is written in the Renaissance English, thus it has very peculiarities as a literal work in English firstly, and when translated to Arabic, secondly. Therefore, translators should pay attention to the special meaning of some words in that era in order to avoid inappropriate renderings as we saw for example in words like time, seasons, nature and so many other ones throughout the discussion of this play.

However, translation is not a matter of words and word meanings as we have seen. The structure that forms a string of words into one complete

82 thought is by far important. It is worthy dealing with the grammatical differences between languages and the loss resulted in translation. Shifting from one language structure to another is like shifting the models that frame our thoughts into a comprehensive utterance. We should be careful in modeling our thoughts in a way that opts the syntax of the target language. I have dealt with different sentential issues that are delicate in translation such as morphology, morphological repetitions, and stress pattern. All has been illustrated in extracts, translated, and back- translated to show the nuances of meaning that may result. I proceed to evaluate the text as a united structure and meaning. The most accurate level in the translation process is to maintain the structural and conceptual unity of the text in the target language.

Structural and lexical levels cannot be separated from the cultural background where a language really goes beyond what is written and what is translated. The translation process becomes a transposition of one culture into another. In this regard I have stopped at some metaphoric expressions and allusions that exemplify the cultural touch of the ST onto the TT and shown how Jabra dealt with.

I have made some suggestions to cope with the translation loss I referred to at each level. These suggestions were strengthened with the explanations of established ST editors like Shewmaker, Braunmuller, and Schmidt. Yet, the evaluation is still open to further discussion as all subjects of human interest. The translation of Macbeth into Arabic is still in need to more objective, linguistic assessment on the one hand. On the other hand, it is still in need to be examined at its dramatic value on the Arabic stage. Unlike the other famous works by Shakespeare such as Hamlet and Antony & Cleopatra, Macbeth is still unfamiliar to the Arab linguists and dramatists because of its dense language and events which

83 are fairly welcomed in the Arabic stage. At the end, I hope that this research can help in shedding light on the recent translation and arabization movement and, bearing in mind the considerations I have referred to, it can pave the way for other researches in this field in order to get better understanding of not only Shakespeare‟s works but also the English language and culture as a whole.

84

85 References

Alsaai, H. (1997). A Critical Assessment of the Translations. diss. London: London University.

Abrams, M. H. (1992). A Glossary of Literary Terms, Earl McPeek: Massachusetts.

Aziz, Y. (1982) Cultural Problems of English/Arabic Translation. Babel: International Journal of Translation, Vol. 28. pp.20-30.

Bradley, A. C. (1992). Shakespearean Tragedy. London: Macmillan Press

Berdom, A. (2007). A comparative Study of Some English Translations of Parts of Three Mu'allaqat. diss., Dueham: Durham University

Brooks, C. (1947). The Well Wrought Urn. London: Dennis Dobson Ltd.

Badawi, M. M. (1988). Early Arabic Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London and New York: Routledge.

Blake, N. F. (1985). Shakespeare's Language: An Introduction. Houndsmills: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Dickins, J. et all. (2002). Thinking Arabic Translation. A Course in Translation Method: Arabic to English. London and New York: Routledge.

86 Enani, M., M. (1992). Fan Al- Tarjamah. Cairo: Al Masriya Al `Alamiya Lil Nashar - Longman.

Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories Explained Series. Manchester: St. Jerome

Fromkin, V. and R. Rodmen. (2007). An Introduction to Language. 9th ed. New York: Michael Rosenberg.

Gove, P. (1980). Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms. Merriam- Webster.

Hadi, A. (2009). Macbeth fi Arbaa Tarjamat Arabiea. Cairo: Dar Sharkeat

Hatim, B. and I. Mason. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.

Hatim. B. and J. Munday. (2004). Translation: An Advanced Recourse Book. London: Routledge.

Hervey, S. and I. Higgins. (1992). Thinking Translation : A Course in Translation Method, French-English. New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge.

Ishrateh, M. (2006). The Translatability of Cognitive Synonyms in Shakespeare's Macbeth, diss. Nablus: Annajah University.

Manzūr, A. (1970). Lissan Al-Arab. Beirut: Dar Sader.

Newman A. (1994). The Nature of Equivalence, in Asher, R. and Simpson, J. M. eds. The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 9. Pergamon Press Ltd.

87 Nida, E. (1964). Toward a Science of Translation: with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Nida, E. and C. Taber, (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.

Nadir, K. (1958). Shakespeare and the Arabic-speaking Audience. Diss. Birmingham University

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice Hall International.

Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd

Schmidt, A. (1971). Shakespeare Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary. Volumes I and II. New York: Dover Publications.

Soanes, C. and A. Stevenson. (2004). Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shewmaker, E. F. (2008). Shakespeare’s Language. New York: Facts On File.

Saeed, J. (1991). Semantics. London: Blackwell.

Twaij, M. B. (1973). Shakespeare in the Arab World. Diss. Evanston: Northwestern University.

Wilss. W. (1982). The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Gunter Narr: Verlag Tubmgen.

88

Arabic Translations of Macbeth

Shakespeare, W. (1974). Macbeth. Translated by Khalil Mutran. Beirut: Dar al Jee1.

Shakespeare, W. (1990). Macbeth. Translated by Jabra Jabra as Al Maasi Al Kubra: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. Beirut: al Mu9asasah al Arabiya lil Dirasat wa al Nashr.

Shakespeare, W. (1994). Macbeth. Translated by Ahmed Ameen. Cairo: Dar al Shurüq.

Shakespeare, W. (2000). Macbeth. Translated by Salah Nyazi. London and Beirut: Arab Diffusion Company.

Editions of Macbeth in English

Braunmuller, A. R. (1997). The New Cambridge Shakespeare: Macbeth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Muir, K. (1995). The Arden Shakespeare. London: Routledge.

Raffel, B. (2005). The Annotated Shakespeare: Macbeth. London: Yale University Press.

89