‫ﻟﻐﺔ اﻟﺘﺨﺼﺺ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﻠﱡﻐﻮي‬

‫اﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮر دﻧﺤﺎ ﻃﻮﺑﯿﺎ ﻛﻮرﻛﯿﺲ‬

‫أﺳﺘﺎذ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ – ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﻜﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ – ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻵداب – ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻞ‬

‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ‬

‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﺪﯾﮭﻲ أن ﺗﻜﻮن ﻟﻐﺔ أھﻞ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬وﺑﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﺗﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﺑﻤﻔﺮدات ﯾ ﺼﻌﺐ ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻟﻤﺘ ﺮﺟﻢ أﺣﯿﺎﻧ ﺎ اﻹﺗﯿ ﺎن ﺑﻤﺜﻠﮭ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ ﻟﻐﺘ ﮫ‪ ،‬إذ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ھﺬه اﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﮭﻢ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻت اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﮭﺔ وﻓﻲ إﻣﻜﺎﻧﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﻮروث اﻟﻠﻐﻮي اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﮭﺔ أﺧﺮى‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻧﺮاه ﯾﻠﺠﺄ ﺗﺎرة إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﺮﯾﺐ وأﺧﺮى إﻟﻰ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ أو ﻛﻠﯿﮭﻤﺎ ﻣﻌﺎً رﻏﻢ أن ﻟﻠﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻗﺪرة ﻋﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺣﺘﻮاء ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﻐﺮﺑ ﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻤﺎ ﯾﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ وﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﻮي اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ‪ .‬وﺑﮭﺬا ﺷﺎﻋﺖ اﻟﻔﺮدﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻏﯿﺎب اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﻲ وﻇﮭﺮت ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﯾﻦ وﻋﺪم ﺗﻮﺧﻲ اﻟﺪﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﺜﻼً إﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‪ .‬وﻛﺎن اﷲ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻮن اﻟﻘﺎرئ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ اﻟﺠﮭﻮد ﻣﺒﻌﺜﺮة واﻟﻤﻨﮭﺠﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺒﺎت ﻋﻤﯿﻖ‪.‬‬

‫وﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺪم ارﺗﺄى اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ أن ﯾﻄﻮر ﻣﻦ ﺣﯿﺚ اﻟﻤﺒﺪأ ﻣﻨﮭﺠﺎً ﺑﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﯾﯿﺮ ﯾﻘﯿﻢ اﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﮭﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻼﺣﯿﺔ اﻟﻤُﺘ ﺮﺟﻢ واﻟﻤُﻌ ﺮب‬
‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻣﮭﺎ‪ .‬وﯾﻄﺮح ﻓﻲ ﺿﻮﺋﮭﺎ اﻟﺒﺪاﺋﻞ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻨ ﺎﻏﻢ ﻣ ﻊ ﻣﻮﺳ ﯿﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺎﺗﮭ ﺎ اﻟ ﺼﻮﺗﯿﺔ واﻟ ﺼﺮﻓﯿﺔ‬
‫وﺳﯿﺎﻗﺎﺗﮭﺎ اﻟﻨﺤﻮﯾﺔ إﻟﻰ أﻗﺼﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ‪ ،‬اﻷﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي ﺣﺪا ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ أن ﯾﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺬا اﻟﻤﻨﮭﺞ ﺗﺴﻤﯿﺔ ﺟﺪﯾﺮة ﺑﻤﻨﻄﻠﻘﺎﺗﮫ‪ ،‬ھﻲ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺔ اﻻﺣﺘﻮاء واﻹﯾﻮاء‬

‫ھﺬه اﻟﻨﻈﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺪﻋﻮ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻄﻮﯾﺮھﺎ ﺑﺠﮭﻮد ﻋﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﮭﺎ أن ﺗﻠﻐﻲ دور اﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﯿﯿﻢ ووﺿﻊ اﻟﺘﺮاﺟﻢ ﺳﻌﯿﺎً إﻟﻰ‬
‫وﺿﻊ ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﻗﯿﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
 On translating metalanguage: the language of linguistics*

Prof. Dr. Dinha T. Gorgis

Dept. of English, Collage of Arts, University of Mosul, Iraq

Abstract

If language is easy to translate, the language about language, i.e. metalanguage, is NOT. Unless some
conceptual apparatus or framework is designed to provide a set of criteria against which translatability
can be questioned and, hence, tested and evaluated, individual translation efforts, though valuable, are
expected to remain on the scene without enabling prospective translators to overcome the difficulties
underlying those efforts in the first place. The principal difficulty encountered in approaching the
language of linguistics, as of any special register used in other sciences, is the set of technical
vocabulary which does not necessarily express the same value across languages. Even when it does,
there is the problem of 'inability' to cope with already existing technical terms in the target language,
e.g. Arabic, in which case the translator (or the lexicographer) appeals to literal translation,
arabicization and/or paraphrases. In the absence of a standard Arabic register, the translator is partly
held responsible for the reader's incomprehensibility. To circumvent these problems, the present paper
addresses the question of how translatability of (English) metalanguage can be made feasible within a
five-point programme that is intended to develop an accommodation theory of translation. This model
stipulates that available translations of English terms into Arabic can be accepted, rejected and/or
replaced. While current translations are basically meaning-based, the theory is additionally both system
and principle-based. That is, in selecting a translation equivalent for a given English term, all aspects of
Arabic grammar plus some pragmatic factors can help make appropriate decisions between this and
that translation of the same term. This theory has the advantage of bidding farewell to impressionistic
judgments that swing between 'good' and 'bad' quality of translation.

Introduction

We all perhaps agree that the translation of metalanguage is as twice difficult as translating natural
language, and the ability to carry out the former task usually presupposes the latter, but not vice versa.
For it would be sufficient for a good translator of, let’s say, an English novel into Arabic to be
proficient in the two linguistic codes and, as a given, knowledgeable in the two respective cultural
patternings as well as a skilful engineer of literary style. S/he need to know, as prerequisites, about the
author's other writings and/or his/her critics' views or even comparable works of his/her
2
contemporaries, if any, though the provision of such background would be useful. Whereas the
translator of, e.g. linguistic texts from English into Arabic need to have a considerable amount of
knowledge about the history of linguistics, adequate training in current and competing linguistic
theories and, above all, the conscious workings of Arabic grammar. It is the latter requirement that
ought to distinguish this (super) translator from conventional translators who faithfully pass over
meanings to the Arabic reader.

Based on this understanding, I have, for over two decades or so, been hesitant to translate a
textbook or even an article written in English into Arabic and vice versa, indeed, despite my very good
command at both languages. When Baghdad University formally recognized modern linguistics as a
worthwhile academic discipline in 19731 (at the M.A. level), I was encouraged to translate D. Crystal's
What is linguistics. Though the language and style of the book are fairly easy, I stopped in the middle
for fear that the reader would not be able to understand me. Since then I have been acquiring more
linguistic knowledge through intensive research and running linguistic courses at the B.A, M.A., and
Ph.D. levels. Thus, having gained more confidence and had better training than before, I decided to
translate G. Leech's Principles of Pragmatics in 1992. It all went smoothly at the beginning but, again, I
stopped half way through. My colleague, Prof. Y.Y. Aziz (a renowned translator, now at Ben Ghazi
University) who read and appreciated my translation, was entrusted to complete the translation of this
valuable textbook. But due to technical difficulties of publication in Libya, as he wrote to me, my own
'half' was returned after having made several requests. Now it awaits completion!

Even when completed, the fear that has always irritated me, viz., that the reader would not be
able to easily follow the translation of metalanguage, is justifiable. For, at least, the old question: For
whom do we translate? cannot be answered adequately. Do we translate for an Arab grammarian (and
his/her students) or, to put it bluntly, for university students majoring in linguistics and/or translation to
be enabled to understand better a given linguistic text written in, let's say English? When asked to read
and interpret part of a translated text, e.g. Y. Y. Aziz's version (1987) of Chomsky's (1957) : Syntactic
Structures, the former group (comprising a number of teachers and their students at the Arabic Dept.,
Univ. of Mosul.) found Aziz's translation incomprehensible. When the same translation was presented
to the second group (comprising a number of graduate students at the departments of English and
Translation), it was found more difficult to follow than the English text. And between these two groups
stands the poor average reader who may have some knowledge about linguistics. No wonder we, too,
find it sometimes difficult to follow (parts of) a translated text without recourse to the source version.

3
 Whichever group of readers we have in mind, the problem of incomprehensibility remains as
long as there is lack of a standard metalanguage, i.e, agreed upon Arabic linguistic register, which
ought to be founded on well-motivated criteria. One may also argue that the difficulty is not one of
finding a standard Arabic equivalent to an English term only, but of mismatching and/or misconception
of the part of the translator. A good example supporting this claim is Chomsky's AUX, translated by
Al-Sayyid (1989), among many others, as ‫ ( اﻟﻔﻌﻞ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬see below for discussion).

The above two factors (among others which we exclude from the present study), viz., the absence
of a standard register and a noticeable 'deficit' in proper linguistic orientation, have naturally led to the
existence of unwanted variations (in contradistinction to the variations that we find in literary
translation, which are basically aesthetic). Evidently, 'heterogeneity' is also the outcome of different,
though proper, linguistic orientation characterizing Arab scholars (linguists and/or translators) across
Arab countries. Thus, it is expected to find a translation done in Morocco to be different from the
translation of the same text done in Iraq, Syria, or Jordan, even if the two translators are of equal
academic status and training. In fact, the difference would mainly be due to differing linguistic
traditions, say French vs. English or continental vs. Anglo-American, etc. with varying degrees of
bringing Arabic grammatical tradition to the fore.

Against this brief account of the present state of affairs, I should conclude this introduction by
saying that the small number of linguistic translations made available to us are mostly the product of
individual efforts, generally meaning-based and, above all, characteristic of literal translation,
arabicization, and paraphrases, not to mention inaccuracies and infelicities of style.

Discussion

In what fellows, I shall demonstrate with several comparable examples taken from a number of texts
and dictionaries that our current and diverse efforts to approach the foreign linguistic register and,
hence, render it into Arabic need to be reconsidered in the light of what I presently may call
'accommodation'2 theory of translation, some details of which will be outlined below. At this point, it
must be admitted that the criteria put forward are suggestive rather conclusive. And in the light of these
criteria, which I take to form the basic tenets of the theory, I intend to evaluate and test a handful of
linguistic terms as conceived and, hence, rendered into Arabic by a number of Arab scholars, notably
Aziz (1985; 1987), Al-Hamash (1982), Bakir (1985), and Ghazala (1996), among others (see
references).
4
 Primarily, I should like to avoid an authoritarian air by taking Al-Karmi's (1995) reported
'prerequisites' for both a technical and literary translator as a given, though some of them may be
challenged. My focus, however, is on the linguist, students of linguistics and/or translation, whether
trained or under training. Some of the following criteria (hopefully not all!) seem to be quite common,
but as they are thought to fit in well with the whole proposal their mention and, hence, discussion,
ought to be implemented in an integrated theory of translation. This theory, however, stipulates that any
given term intended for translation into Arabic must comply with at least one of the requirements
obtainable from answers to the following set of questions:

1. Does the English term have a one-to-one correspondence with an already existing term in Arabic
grammatical tradition? If answered in the affirmative, there is no point in translating, e.g. category
into ‫ ﻗﺎﻃﻐﻮرﯾ ﺎ‬or ‫ ﺻ ﻨﻒ‬as do Aziz and Bakir, respectively, among others Rather, the widely used
Arabic grammatical term that ought to have been selected is ‫( ﺑ ﺎب‬cf. Shanni 1977). If answered in
the negative do as required below.
2. Is the term translatable into Arabic as word for word without paraphrasing or compounding such
that the new term, which has no equivalent value in Arabic grammatical practice, can be an easy
bed-fellow with already existing terms in Arabic? If yes, then why not translating, e.g. Chomsky's
AUX (as made explicit in the Standard Theory) into ‫ اﻟ ﺴﺎﻧﺪ‬to form a tripartite with the current ‫اﻟﻤ ﺴﻨﺪ‬
and ‫ ?اﻟﻤ ﺴﻨﺪ إﻟﯿ ﮫ‬That Al-Sayyid (1989) conceives of it as ‫ اﻟﻔﻌ ﻞ اﻟﻤ ﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬is untenable; for the Phrase
Structure Rule that rewrites AUX, according to the above-mentioned model, as TENSE obligatorily
also rewrites the Modal and aspectual auxiliaries as optional elements which all belong to the
traditional category 'auxiliary verb' and, hence, the misconception (see Gorgis 1989a). This
misconception, however, seems to have a long-standing tradition of the Translation Method in
teaching foreign languages, which equates 'auxiliary verb' with 'helping verb' and, hence, the
present literal translation against which our alternative, ‫اﻟﻔﻌ ﻞ اﻟ ﺴﺎﻧﺪ‬, would be in conformity with the
set members suggested above, though both translations may be said to be semantically based (but
see below). Now if a further 'yes' is given here, another question inevitably emerges, viz. Does the
Arabic term thus selected find proper accommodation within the overall phonological and
morphological patterning of standard Arabic? If yes, check it against both number and gender
systems. And when you feel you have succeeded in finding a candidate term, test (3) below could
be conclusive unless there are (better) competitive translations. For the moment, take the term
'concept', also common in other genres, which Aziz (1985: 85ff) has translated into ‫ ﻓﻜ ﺮة‬in
accordance with the present requirements (but see below).
5
3. If all goes well with the previous procedures, you need now to be more on a solid ground by
making preferences between the term already chosen and another competitive term on the basis of
syntagmatic relations, whether at the morphological and/or syntactic level. That is, we should be
enabled to see for ourselves which of the two terms finds a better shelter at these levels, provided
that neither of its derivatives is already a translation of another word in the English lexicon. For
example, ‫ ﻓﻜ ﺮة‬is as good as ‫ﻣﻔﮭ ﻮم‬, so to speak semantically. But once each term is made dual, plural
and, above all, related to the English adjectival and adverbial forms, viz. 'conceptual' and
'conceptually', we expect, to follow Aziz, to have the following derivatives: ‫ﻓﻜﺮﺗ ﺎن‬, ‫أﻓﻜ ﺎر‬, ‫ﻓﻜ ﺮي‬, and
ً‫ﻓﻜﺮﯾ ﺎ‬. But if we opt for our alternatives, though not without difficulties, we obtain in that order:
‫ﻣﻔﮭﻮم‬, ‫ﻣﻔﺎھﯿﻢ‬, ‫ﻣﻔﮭﻮﻣﻲ‬, (cf. ‫ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮي‬, in Ghazala 1996), and ً‫ﻣﻔﮭﻮﻣﯿ ﺎ‬. Now suppose we ask a question such
as: what is a word? One of the expected answers would be: it is a concept, for which Aziz's ‫ﻓﻜ ﺮة‬
cannot stand. And since other words, e.g. idea, thought, intellectual, and the linguistic term
'ideational' (cf. Ghazala 1996), are commonly rendered into ‫ ﻓﻜ ﺮة‬and its derivatives, my options
would be more convenient. But despite this preference, the difficulty facing the translator is mainly
one of contextualizing the term and its derivatives, if any. Suppose we wanted to translate the noun
phrase: 'the students of conceptual semantics' in three ways. According to Aziz, we may roughly
get: ‫ ﻋﻠ ﻢ اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ اﻟﻔﻜ ﺮي‬..., while according to Ghazala, we get: ‫ ﻋﻠ ﻢ اﻟﺪﻻﻟ ﺔ اﻟﺘ ﺼﻮﯾﺮي‬.... For our own part,
we get: ‫ ﻋﻠ ﻢ اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﻔﮭ ﻮﻣﻲ‬.... My intuition dictates that none of the three translations would make
much sense. So we better shift ranks. That is, the English adjectival form would be realized as a
plural form in this context. Thus, a first preference would be given to ‫ﻋﻠ ﻢ دﻻﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﻔ ﺎھﯿﻢ‬, a second
preference may be given to ‫ ﻋﻠﻢ دﻻﻟﺔ اﻷﻓﻜﺎر‬, but nil preference to ‫ ﻋﻠﻢ دﻻﻟ ﺔ اﻟ ﺼﻮر‬unless ‫ اﻟﺬھﻨﯿ ﺔ‬modifies
‫اﻟﺼﻮر‬. And on a similar basis, we tend to reject the translation of 'conceptualization' as ‫ﺗﻔﻜﯿ ﺮ‬, ‫ﺗ ﺼﻮﯾﺮ‬,
or my erroneous ‫ﺗﻔﮭ ﯿﻢ‬. Rather, we choose to render it into ‫ )ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺔ( ﺗﻜ ﻮﯾﻦ اﻟﻤﻔ ﺎھﯿﻢ‬or the like. One might
argue here by saying that rank shifting is technically a costly procedure. Positively; especially,
when long paraphrases are involved. It must be remembered, however, that we are primarily
interested in establishing sets of technical terms relevant to linguistic register. This measure,
therefore, is meant to be taken in cases whereby there is no one-to-one correspondence at the same
rank and/or category level.
4. Related to (1) above, but slightly different, is the question of medieval vs. modern terms. Unlike the
modern Arab grammarian who is aware of the former and fascinated by the latter, the translator is
required to correlate between the two. Unless this is done, the old terms remain forgotten and the
innovated ones replace them. But this is unfair, unless there is good reason for so doing. For

6
 example, I find no convincing reason why the currently used ‫ اﻟ ﺴﯿﺎق‬rather than ‫ اﻟﻤﻘ ﺎم‬be the
translation of 'context'. Don't you think that the famous statement ‫ﻟﻜ ﻞ ﻣﻘ ﺎم ﻣﻘ ﺎل‬, introduced by
Medieval Arab grammarians, stand fairly well for Malinowski and Firth's 'context of situation'?
Unlike the status of 'category' discussed in (1), it would probably be too late to suggest a
replacement. Instead, we either endorse both or choose between them, whereby the one that is least
connotative, more pertinent to the genre in which it is being used, and has been established as a
convention, will be selected. Thus, the one that is much in vogue, I reckon, is: ‫اﻟ ﺴﯿﺎق‬. But a
dictionary-maker should not lose sight of the other.

Similarly, the two notions introduced by Chomsky (1957; 1965), viz. 'deep' (underlying) structure
vs. 'surface' structure, and translated variously into: 1. ‫ اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﯿﻘ ﺔ‬vs. ‫ اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻈ ﺎھﺮة‬2. ‫ اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿ ﺐ اﻟﺒ ﺎﻃﻨﻲ‬vs.
‫ اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺐ اﻟﻈﺎھﺮي‬3. ‫ اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﺘﯿﺔ‬vs. ‫ اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻔﻮﻗﯿ ﺔ‬4. ‫ اﻟﺒﻨ ﺎء اﻟﻌﻤﯿ ﻖ‬vs. ‫( اﻟﺒﻨ ﺎء اﻟﻈ ﺎھﺮ‬cf. Al-Hamdani 1982: 129, among
many others), also have their correlates in medieval Arabic grammar. For example, Al-Zajjaji (d. 949)
is reported by Peterson (1972) to have drawn a distinction between ‫ ﻣﻌﻨ ﻰ‬and ‫( ﻟﻔ ﻆ‬taken from Arabic
rhetoric), where neither the former refers to the meaning of a word, nor the latter refers to the phonetic
form of the word. Rather, the former term accounts for the underlying (presumably semantic) structure
of a sentence while the latter for its phonetic representation. Certainly, the two paradigms, viz.
Chomsky's and Al-Zajjaji's, are different, but when notions across different traditions denote similar
values they may be equated, at least roughly. This juxtaposition has a parallel in the linguistic
literature. Recall here, for example, the rough correspondence made between Saussure's 'langue' vs.
'parole' and Chomsky's 'competence' vs. 'performance'. After all, terms are arbitrary concepts upon
which we first impose signification and, then, when widely recognized by concerned circles, they
become conventional. But when no longer in use, they are simply shelved and, hence, forgotten. And
this, generally speaking, is our present state of affairs in the Arab world.

The question that remains to be answered, however, is: Do we need to revive the medieval notion
and simultaneously encourage (or perhaps stop) innovations? I have implicitly answered the question,
though partly, in connection with the translations of 'context' above. A counter-argument would be one
that discourages rebirth on grounds that: (a) the traditional terms have become obsolete; they no longer
express the same value as their assumed correlates in current use; (b) many are so common that their
meaning today departs largely from the traditional uses for which they were intended; (c) a
considerable number of these terms have their origin in rhetoric; (d) modern Arab grammarians are no
less talented than traditional grammarians in developing metalanguage that can keep pace with

7
progress. Obviously, one can argue for and/or against such views. But as their discussion would take us
far beyond the scope of the paper, I leave the issue open for further research. Instead, we proceed with
our programme.

5. In case the previously discussed criteria do not satisfy all of your translation needs, the following
may be utilized:

(a) Coin a term by means of a suitable morphological process when literal translation is not possible;
(b) Arabicize when deemed necessary; and
(c) Paraphrase, but not at the expense of either (a) or (b) unless objectives are different.

These procedures are naturally costly. In order to keep the cost at a minimum, the order in which
they appear here must be maintained. For if you opt for paraphrasing, for example, you lose sight of
building up a stock of corresponding concepts which arabicization or coining can handle more easily.
In short, do not attempt to adopt a lower procedure at the expense of a higher one. Nor, indeed, all of
them ate the expense of the previously established ones, in which case you better stay as close as
possible to Arabic phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns.

Technically, this task, as before, expresses one sense of ‘accommodation’, i.e. let things fit in
pretty well with the overall Arabic grammatical system. And as I take the foregoing set of criteria and
assumptions to constitute a conceptual apparatus within which I shall discuss several renderings, I also
take the liberty to use ‘accommodation’ in a second sense, viz. that which expresses a relationship
between the rendered terms and the model that accounts for them. In plain words, this would mean: let
the suggested equivalents abide by the underlying principles.

So much for the theory. Let’s now move to discussion. First, we consider the problem of coining,
but not without reference to the other criteria. Relevant to coining is the notion of ‘blending’, a sort of
compounding whereby the constituent parts of the newly created word(s) are intended to express a
similar sense to that conveyed by the English term. As an example, I take the term ‘morphophonemics’
itself a blend, which is often used interchangeably with ‘morphophonology’ or just ‘morphonology’.
Disregarding differences between them, the term was originally introduced by Bloomfield prior to the
publication of his Language. Considered as a branch of Structural Linguistics in the post-Bloomfieldian
era, the term expresses an intimate relationship between phonology and morphology (cf. phonemics
and morphemics) whose basic units are respectively the ‘phoneme’ and ‘morpheme’. Except for

8
‘morphophonemics’, all other related terms have been translated and/or arabicized in the following
manner: ‫)ﻋﻠﻢ( اﻟﻨﻈﺎم اﻟﺼﻮﺗﻲ؛ )أﺻﻐﺮ( وﺣ ﺪة ﺻ ﻮﺗﯿﺔ‬, or ‫اﻟﻤ ﻮرﻓﯿﻢ؛ )أﺻ ﻐﺮ( وﺣ ﺪة ﺻ ﻮﺗﯿﺔ‬, or ‫ اﻟﻔ ﻮﻧﯿﻢ‬or ‫ ﻓ ﻮﻧﯿﻤﻜﺲ‬and (‫)ﻋﻠ ﻢ‬
‫ اﻟ ﺼﺮف‬or ‫ﻣ ﻮرﻓﯿﻤﻜﺲ‬. Based on these renderings, among others, we expect our term to be rendered into:
‫ ﻓﻮﻧﻮﻣﻮرﻓﯿﻤﻜﺲ‬or ‫( ﻣﻮرﻓﻮﻧﯿﻤﻜﺲ‬as arabicized blends). But since we want to solve the problem as required by
5.a above, we appeal to literal translation; thus, the uneconomical and inaccurate ‫اﻟﻨﻈ ﺎم اﻟ ﺼﻮﺗﻲ واﻟ ﺼﺮﻓﻲ‬.
Instead, we suggest either ‫اﻟﺼ ﺼﺮﻓﯿﺎت‬, on the basis of analogy with many technical words used in other
genres, or ‫ )دراﺳﺔ( اﻟ ﺴﻠﻮك اﻟ ﺼﻮﺗﻲ‬as a translation equivalent which is partly based on the practice of
traditional Arab grammarians and partly on the understanding of the field itself. Still, we prefer our
blend for at least two reasons: On one hand, our goal is, to reiterate, more of concept than phrase
oriented. On the other hand, when the blend functions as an adverb or as a modifier to a head, e.g. rule,
it lends itself more easily to case endings as required, for example, by agreement. Thus: ‫)ﻗﻮاﻋ ﺪ( ﺻ ﺼﺮﻓﯿﺔ‬
for 'morphophonemic rule(s)' and ً‫ ﺻﺼﺮﻓﯿﺎ‬for 'morphophonemically'.

Arabicization, as we have just noticed, is not to be recommended when there is a way out. To my
thinking, many arabicized terms come into existence because:

a) their producers have a limited knowledge about the field, whether in the source language or
target language (though competent in both languages);
b) the field of enquiry could be still young so that its underlying assumptions and notions are not
clear enough to be equated with what is available in Arabic; or
c) there is a feeling that Arabic is in need of a universally acknowledged set of technical terms; or
even the least likely
d) it is the easiest process. Not too many will make fuss about them; for they are often justifiable
and can easily be replaced when difficulties unfold.

To make this picture clearer, let me introduce the term 'pragmatics'. Some fifteen years age, I
introduced this field of enquiry to the readers of Al-Hadba weekly, published in Mosul, under the title
which reads: ‫ﻣﺎ ھﻲ اﻟﺒﺮاﻏﻤﺎﺗﯿﻜﺎ‬. Upon reading this brief article, my colleague, Yowel Y. Aziz, commented:
"why not ‫ "?ﺑﺮاﻏﻤﺎﻃﯿﻘ ﺎ‬I readily accepted his modification because it reminded me of similar analogues,
e.g. ‫ ھﺮﻃﻘﺔ‬for 'hypocrisy'. The earlier form did not live long because it was soon replaced by the second
(cf. Gorgis 1989b). Following my proposal, Mosul University has been running a pragmatics course for
Ph.D. students majoring in English language and linguistics. M.A. students doing translation are having
now a course under the label: semantics and pragmatics, and M.A. students majoring in English

9
literature will have the pragmatics of literature next term. It is to be noted that none of the other Iraqi
universities is running pragmatics courses. A similar sad situation seems to prevail in other Arab
countries; for only a few number of researchers are affiliated to IPrA and only a small number of
papers have addressed issues within pragmatic perspective for the last fifteen years or so. Still worse is
the absence of translated literature despite the fact that numerous introductions to the field have
appeared since the publication of Jacob Mey's Pragmalinguistics in 1979. The only relevant work made
available to us is Ghazala (1996) in which we find a number of translated notions that also need to be
reconsidered in the light of our present programme. For the time being, however, we take his
translation of 'pragmatics' which reads: ‫ﻋﻠ ﻢ اﻟ ﺬراﺋﻊ‬. Regrettably, this translation, like ‫ اﻟ ﺬراﺋﻌﯿﺎت‬advocated
by Al-lisan Al-'arabi, is much closer to 'pragmatism' ‫ ﻓﻠ ﺴﻔﺔ اﻟ ﺬراﺋﻊ‬than to the tenets of 'pragmatics'.
Incidentally, I came across ‫ اﻟﺒﺮﻏﻤﺘﯿ ﺔ‬in Ibn Khaldūn after I had suggested the now-in-use ‫ﺑﺮاﻏﻤﺎﻃﯿﻘ ﺎ‬.
Although the former relates to philosophy and the latter to communication, I was disappointed; for both
are arabicized forms that could mean the same for the reader. So I went as back as 113 B.C. to trace the
origins of 'pragmatics' (in contradistinction to the American philosophy 'pragmatism'). I came to the
conclusion that 'action' and 'utility' are two key terms in present-day pragmatics for which I
suggested the Arabic equivalent ‫ اﻟﻔﺎﺋﺪاﺗﯿﺔ‬to my students. When this translation was circulated, one of my
students (now teaching in Libya) brought to my attention a second best term, viz. ‫اﻟﻨﻔﻌﯿﺔ‬, being the
translation of 'utilitarianism'. Although my coin violates the rules of word formation in Arabic, it
sounds Arabic.

One may reasonably argue here that I am betraying the criteria already discussed. I agree, but let
me defend my position. Intuitively, I feel that ‫ ﻧﻔﻌﯿﺔ‬is as good and, yet, as connotative as ‫ ذراﺋﻌﯿﺔ‬roughly
corresponding to Leech's (1983) 'means-end analysis'. Moreover, these two, supposedly, equivalent
terms are philosophically oriented. Therefore, I am more for defining the relatively new field of
pragmatics by our innovated word than any of the ones mentioned above. But one may also suggest,
that ‫ ﺑﺮاﻏﻤﺎﻃﯿﻘﺎ‬be used, at least parenthetically, as long as it has been recognized officially. Thus: ‫اﻟﻔﺎﺋﺪاﺗﯿﺔ‬
(‫ )اﻟﺒﺮاﻏﻤﺎﻃﯿﻘﺎ‬would be two faces of the same coin.

Parenthetical coupling (in the sense just used) is only meant to be a temporary measure. Another
type of coupling which is extensively used in the literature is that whereby the alternant, usually taking
the form of a paraphrase (and, sometimes, a definition), follows an arabicized form. If the former
procedure is adopted systematically as a strategy, it will have the advantage of creating synonymy. But
when the latter is encouraged, it will have the advantage of explanatory methods pertinent to pedagogy,

10
but the disadvantage of losing sight of the ultimate goal, viz. building up a stock of technical
vocabulary for which a prospective dictionary-maker aspires. Paraphrases, however, also appear
frequently in the translated literature without arabicization. My position is that paraphrases, whether
being coupled by their respective arabicized equivalents or not, should not be done at the expense of
any of the foregoing criteria unless they are well motivated.

As examples for unwanted coupling, take the term 'phoneme', arabicized by Aziz (1985), among
others, as ‫ اﻟﻔ ﻮﻧﯿﻢ‬and defined (see p. 266) as ‫ أﺻ ﻐﺮ وﺣ ﺪة ﺻ ﻮﺗﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺮﯾ ﻖ ﺑ ﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﻌ ﺎﻧﻲ‬or 'aphasia', arabicized as
‫ أﻓﺸﯿﺎ‬and defined as ‫( ﻓﻘﺪان اﻟﻘ ﺪرة ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻟﻜ ﻼم واﻟﻔﮭ ﻢ‬p. 257). While it is possible to suggest Arabic equivalents
which can convincingly stand for these two terms, e.g. ‫ ﺻﻮت ﻣﺠﺮ‬or ‫ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺻ ﻮﺗﯿﺔ‬or just ‫ وﺣ ﺪة ﺻ ﻮﺗﯿﺔ‬for the
former, and ‫ اﻟﺤﺒﺴﺔ‬for the latter, coupling of this sort must be discouraged as long as there is much room
to accommodate such terms fairly well within our proposed criteria. By the same token, the other type
of paraphrasing, i.e. without coupling, will also find difficulties within our model. Take, for instance,
Ghazala's (1996) alternative translations to each of the three basic notions advanced by Speech Act
Theory, viz. 'locutionary act', 'illocutionary act', and 'perlocutionary act'. The number of interpretations
given to each is in that order as follows: five, four, and five, the majority of which do NOT comply
with the underlying principles of our accommodation theory. For one thing, at least, most of his
translations (inaccurate, though) cannot be made plural or modified, say by 'two' or 'several', in which
case generalizations are not possible. Consider the first (out of five) translation given to the first type of
act which reads: ً‫ أداء اﻟﻘ ﻮل ﻟﻔﻈ ﺎ‬and the fourth (again out of five) translation provided for the third type of
act which reads: ‫ﻣﻔﻌﻮل أداء ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺎ وﻧﺘﺎﺟﮫ‬.

I do not intend to take this exposition as a criticism (which he seems to frown at). Rather, we
want to test the validity of our programme against a number of available translations; his do not fit
well. Therefore, I may suggest a trichotomy which coheres with our framework. Thus, while
maintaining the reported order, the suggested equivalents can be ‫ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻨﻄﻖ‬: ‫ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﻄ ﻮق‬: ‫ ﻓﻌ ﻞ اﻹﺳ ﺘﻨﻄﺎق‬or
more down-to-earth tripartite ‫ ﻓﻌ ﻞ اﻟ ﺘﻠﻔﻆ‬: ‫ ﻓﻌ ﻞ اﻟﻤﻠﻔ ﻮظ‬: ‫ ﻓﻌ ﻞ اﻟﻤﻼﻓﻈ ﺔ‬in which case the translator would not
encounter any difficulty as regards contextualization and, hence, the successful application of our
proposed accommodation theory3.

Conclusion

At the outset of this paper, it was suggested that in order to translate metalanguage, in contradistinction
to literary language, the translator ought to be adequately trained in different linguistic theories and,
11
above all, be aware of the working threads of Arabic grammar to a considerable extent. Still, it was
noted, there is always the fear that the reader would find a translated linguistic text incomprehensible.
The source of difficulty was ascribed mainly to the absence of standard terminology in the Arab world4
and mismatching owing to misconception. Both of these, among other things, have motivated us to
claim that many linguistic terms that have been translated into Arabic and/or arabicized need to be
considered in the light of what we have come to call 'a translation theory of accommodation', one
which presently advocates a five-point programme (subject to criticism and/or revision) that is equally
thought to enable the prospective translator of linguistic register to see into the nature of intricacies
involved. As we have seen, a small number of translated examples have been tested and evaluated,
though roughly, against our criteria which yielded better results. We, thus, come to the conclusion that
if one term lends itself more easily to the underlying principles of the proposed model, i.e. if it
accommodates better within both Arabic grammar and the framework, than an already existing term,
our choice must rest with the first without reservation.

12
Notes

1. Before that, specifically starting the academic year 1968-69, my teacher, Mahmood Al-Marjani,
a Brown Univ. graduate (now lecturing at Ben Ghazi Univ.) introduced me to phonology as a
requirement of an English pronunciation (phonetics) course. To him, I owe a great deal for that
excellent introduction.
2. Borrowed from phonological theory with courtesy, the term may be used interchangeably with
'adaptation', to follow Verschueren (1987). Though the two constructs are differently motivated,
they would mean here something like: let things fit in well.
3. For better or worse, this theory can be taken as a working hypothesis. The least that can be said
in its defense at present is that it seeks 'harmony' between related concepts at whatever level.
But, certainly, more detailed accounts are required to verify its credibility (see also n.4 below).
4. One may, to the contrary, argue that a fair amount to work has already been published by Al-
Lisān Al-'arabi which could be claimed to represent a standard. In this vein, Al-Fahri (1983;
1986a; 1986b; 1987 and Al-Hamzawi (1980), among others, must be acknowledged. But like all
others, e.g. Bakalla et al. (1983), Al-Khuli (1982), and Aziz (1985; 1987), to mention but some,
they all need to be tested against our theory or, perhaps, a comparable one. Furthermore, there is
the suggestion that calls for joint efforts, i.e. a more balanced coordination between Arab
scholars with western orientation and Arab grammarians lacking that orientation. This move,
intended to remedy the present situation, has the double advantage of bringing together
prominent representative practitioners from both Asian and African Arab countries to, first,
exchange views and remove differences and, second, establish a coherent program, in the light
of which a unified English-Arabic linguistic dictionary can be compiled.

13
References

Al-Fahri, A.A. (1984). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 32: 139-147.

Al-Fahri, A.A. (1986a). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 26: 193-240.

Al-Fahri, A.A. (1986b). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 27: 259-274.

Al-Fahri, A.A. (1987). "The linguistic term" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 28: 217-234.

Al-Hamash, K.I. (1982). A dictionary of linguistic and phonetic terms: English-Arabic. Baghdad: Al-
Rasheed Press.

Al-Hamdani, M. (1982). Psycholinguistics (in Arabic). Mosul: Mosul University Press.

Al-Hamzawi, M.R. (1980). "Modern linguistic terms in Arabic studies" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi,
18/2: 87-122.

Al-Karmi, H.S. (1995). "Translation – A problem". Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 40: 43-46.

Al-Khuli, M.A. (1982). A dictionary of theoretical linguistics: English-Arabic, Arabic-English. Beirut:

Lebanon Library.

Al-Sayyid, Sabri I. (1989). Chomsky: paradigm and critics (in Arabic). Alexandria: Dār Al-Ma'rifa Al-
Jāmi'iyya.

Bakalla, M.H. (1983). A dictionary of modern linguistic terms: English-Arabic, Arabic-English. Beirut:
Lebanon Library.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Arabic Version, by Y.Y. Aziz (1987.
Baghdad: Dār Al-Ma'moun.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Mass: MIT Press. Arabic Version, by M.J. Bakir
(1985). Mosul: Mosul University Press.

Ghazala, H. (1996). A dictionary of stylistics and rhetoric: English-Arabic. Malta: ELGA Publications.

14
Gorgis, D.T. (1989a). A review article of Al-Sayyid (1989). Baghdad: Al-Jāmi'a Weekly, 20: 2.

Gorgis, D.T. (1989b). "On terms in modern linguistic studies" (in Arabic). Baghdad: Al-Jāmi'a
Weekly, 26: 7.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Peterson, David (1972). "Some explanatory methods of the Arab grammarians". Papers from the 8 th
Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 504-515.

Saussure, F. de. (1974). Course in general linguistics. Fontana: Collins. English Translation by Wadi
Baskin (1959). New York: Philosophical Library. Arabic Version by Y.Y. Aziz (1985). Baghdad: Afāq
Arabiyya.

Shanni, A. (1977). "A glossary of linguistic sciences" (in Arabic). Al-Lisān Al-'arabi, 15/2: 115-138.

Verschueren, Jef. (1987). Pragmatics as a theory of linguistic adaptation. IPrA Working Document I.

* This paper appeared in Translation Studies, The Quarterly Journal of the Department of Translation
Studies, 1999. Vol. (1): No. (2), PP. 9-22. Baghdad: Bayt El-Hikma.

15