Você está na página 1de 21

TRANSLATION METAPHORS IN SURAH AL BAQARAH OF THE HOLY

QURAN ENGLISH TRANSLATION


By: Ridwan Nasharudin
Abstract: The issue of translation work is of great importance but at the same time difficult
and complex. According to Nida and Taber (1982), translation is the reproducing in the
receptor language or target language to the closest natural equivalent of the source language
message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style. Among the potential areas of
translation problem, the translation of idioms and figurative meaning is more problematic
since they contain metaphorical expression. Because of its nature of using a figurative word to
denote meaning, a metaphor or expression with metaphorical meaning is difficult to translate
compared with words with mere literal meanings. In fact, metaphor is at the center of all
problems of translation theory (Newmark, 1988:96).

Key words: metaphors, the Holy Quran, English translation

INTRODUCTION
The translation work is very important in transmitting culture, revitalizing language,
interpreting texts, diffusing knowledge, suggesting the relationship between thought and
language, and in contributing towards understanding between nations. In addition, the
translated text has enriched the intellectual life in the target communities; it has sometime
introduced new linguistic structure or new genres into the target language. However, on
the discouraging face, translation work is inconvenient and difficult from the first place a
translator begins his work. The difficulties lie on making decision on which principle
refers to; whether the translation should incline to the source or target language; to be
faithful or beautiful, literal or free, and whether to attempt and struggle for the form or the
content. Among the potential areas of translation problems, the translation of idioms and
1

figurative meanings is more problematic since they contain metaphorical expressions.


Because of its nature of using a figurative word to denote meaning, a metaphor or
expression with metaphorical meanings is difficult to translate compared with words with
mere literal meanings. The phenomenon above attracts the writer to study the translation
of metaphor in the Holy Quran. The Qur'n has been translated into many languages,
including English. Translation of the Holy Quran is an extremely difficult endeavor,
because each translator must consult his or her own opinions and aesthetic sense in trying
to replicate shades of meaning in another language; this inevitably changes the original
text. Thus a translation is often referred to as an "interpretation," and is not considered a
real Qur'n.
According to An-Nawawi ( : 380), The first translator of the Qur'n was Salman
the Persian. He was one of Mohammed's nearest companions and translated the Qur'an
during the 7th century - some of the people of Persia asked Salman al-Farisi to write to
them something of the Qur'n, and he wrote to them the Fatihah in Persian. Furthermore,
Wikipedia (no date) states, Robert of Ketton was the first person to translate the Qur'n
into a Western language, Latin, in 1143. Alexander Ross offered the first English version
in 1649. In 1734, George Sale produced the first scholarly translation of the Qur'n into
English; another was produced by Richard Bell in 1937, and yet another by Arthur John
Arberry in 1955. All these translators were non-Muslims. There have been numerous
translation by Muslims; the most popular of these are the translations by Dr. Muhammad
Muhsin Khan, Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al Hilali, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Abdullah
Yusuf Ali, M. H. Shakir, Muhammad Asad, and Marmaduke Pickthall.
As previously said that Abdullah Yusuf Ali is one the most popular Quran
translators. It has been more than half a century since the first appearance of 'Abdullah
Yusuf 'Ali's superlative work, The Holy Quran: Text, Translation and Commentary. Since
that time, there have been innumerable reprinting and millions of copies distributed

throughout the world. It is, by far, the best known, most studied, and most respected
English translation of the Qur'an. It was the monumental and authoritative work of its
kind and it subsequently inspired many such similar endeavors. The eloquent poetic style
of the translation and the authenticity of the extensive commentaries and explanatory
notes, have, no doubt, contributed greatly to its much deserved reputation as the English
translation of the meaning of the Qur'an. The tremendous impact that this work has made
upon the English-reading Muslims (as well as, many non-Muslims) of the world, has
never been greater than it is today and shall continue-insha'a Allah (Allah willing)-for
generations to come. It has enabled interested readers of English, who do not have a
proficiency in reading and comprehending Qur'anic Arabic, to greatly enrich their
understanding of the meaning and the incomparable beauty and perfection of the Glorious
Qur'an. It has given them a more authentic and reliable translation and commentary from
which they could make a serious study.
THEORY OF TRANSLATION
In general, translation is a process of switching or replacing a text from one
language (Source Language or SL) to another language (Target Language or TL). The
following are several meaning of translation defined by translation experts. According to
Brislin (1976:1), translation is the general term referring to the transfer of thoughts and
ideas from one language (source) to another (target), whether the language are in written
form or oral form. Compared with the general definition above, Brislin has given to
additional terms that have made the definition more specific, namely that translating
involves the switch or change of thoughts or ideas from one language to another, and that
this switching or changing process may be done in both written and oral form. Catford
(1965:20) defined translation as the replacement of textual material in one language
(source language) by an equivalent in another language. According to Newmark
(1981:7), translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and
3

or statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another


language. Compared with Brislin, Catford and Newmark give more emphasis on the
transfer of the linguistic system of the source language text to the target language text.
Meanwhile, Larson (1984:2) gives lengthy definition of translation. According to Larson,
to translate means:
1. to study the lexicon, grammatical structure communication situation, and the
cultural context of the source language,
2. to analyze the source language text in order to find the meaning,
3. to state again the similar meaning by using the lexicon and grammatical structure
which is appropriate to the cultural context of the target language.
The various definition of translation above indicates that the act of translation is not
easy and simple as what most people have thought. To summarize, translation is not
merely a process of finding similar word between two languages in a bilingual
dictionary. It involves text, text meaning and the process of adapting the meaning to
make it acceptable and natural in the target language without changing the content or the
message. In addition, a translated text should be able to carry with it the uniqueness of
the original text in a way that is acceptable and natural in the cultural context of the
target language. The writers theoretical position is stick to this translation definition.
When translating, a translator engages himself to a set of activities of process.
Nida & Taber (1969:33) illustrate the translation process as the following.
Figure 01. Nida and Tabers model of translation process
Source Language

Target Language

Analysis

Restructuring

Text Content in SL

Transfer

Text Content in TL

As indicated in figure 1, there involves three steps or stages in the process of


translation: analysis, transfer and restructuring. During analysis stage, the translator
analyzes the source language to study (a) the structural rules that exist in the SL text, and
(b) the word meaning and orders in order to understand the whole meaning or content of
the SL text. The result of this first stage, which is the SL meaning or message understood
by the translator, is transferred from SL to TL in the mind of the translator. Then, in the
restructuring stage, the meaning or message is adapted to the structural rules that exist in
the TL before it is reproduced in the TL text.
THEORY OF METAPHORS
Theories have different viewpoints in viewing the taxonomy of metaphor, and
therefore, have come up with different classification of metaphor. Some theories use the
term metaphor very broadly as almost synonymous with figurative, others use it very
narrowly, as naming one very specific figure along side many other ones (Lycan,
1999:210). From these two different viewpoints, there appear two major schools in the
study of metaphor, the figuralists and the literalists (Veale 1995:57). The proponents of
figuralist viewpoint, as Veale remarks, see metaphor as a natural element of our
conceptual repertoire, an organic component of language and cognition. Therefore, the
relation between language and thought is wholly figurative. They further believe that
metaphor is a cognitively irreducible phenomenon, providing an essential and
irreplaceable service to cognitive agent. With such a frame of mind, thus, they jump to the
conclusion that all language is metaphoric (Veale 1995:61)
There have been two well known and long standing semantic approaches to
metaphors: comparison views and interaction views (what Leezenberg 2001 terms

referentialists and descriptivists respectively). However, many language experts have seen
serious points of both these views.
The referentialist or Comparison views perhaps have been settled by Quintilian
since long time ago, and up the present time are still developed by later supporters like
Henle (1958), Mooij (1976), and Fogelin (1988) (Leezenberg 2001:71). It is not easy to
say that before the Quintilian time there was not any study about metaphor. In fact, there
was a study of it by Quintilian predecessor, Aristotle, in his Rhetoric and Poetics
(Mooij 1976:64). Aristotle defined metaphor as consisting of giving a thing a name that
belongs to something else; the transference being either from genus to species, or from
species to genus, or from species to species, or on ground of analogy. His theory of
metaphor, Mooij furthers, is considered to hold substitution view, the view of which has
not received wide and endured plausibility by his successors who instead have developed
comparison theory of metaphor which have wider and have endured longer plausibility.
Therefore, the writer doesnt elaborate such view (substitution view) in his description of
metaphor.
The referentialist or comparison views have several distinct characteristics in
regards to metaphor analysis (Leezenberg 2001:71-73) which can be summarized as the
following. First, they all stress a close correspondence between metaphor and simile or
comparison, or claiming that the meaning of metaphor is equal to that of a corresponding
simile. The view of metaphor as an elliptical simile suggests the equation of the literal
meaning of a metaphor with that of simile, while the other suggests for identifying its
figurative meaning to the literal meaning. Look at, for example, the metaphor like
(1) Man is a wolf
This sentence is held to assert not that man is a wolf, but at most that man is like a wolf.

A second characteristic of referentialist or comparison position is that they take


the referents of the expression used, i.e., the objects denoted by them, as determining the
interpretation of the metaphor. So, the expression
(2) John is a lion
is understood in virtue of john and the lion is sharing a property like bravery.
The third characteristic is a natural corollary of the second: in metaphors, the
expressions typically retain their literal reference, as it is the properties of the term as
applied literally that determine the metaphorical interpretation. In other word, metaphors
have a kind of double meaning: the literal meaning serving as the basis, and the figurative
derived from it. But, somehow, both meanings are active. Referentialists thus see
metaphor as derivative in the sense that it is a function of literal interpretation.
Theory of Metaphor Translation
One set of metaphor translation procedures is recommended by Newmark (1988:
84-96). In discussing the translation of metaphors, Newmark recommends a list of seven
main procedures. He also suggests that the translator should attempt to render the
metaphor translation as accurately as possible, and not to pare them down. Before
presenting Newmarks procedures, the writer would like to provide some terminologies
and their definitions that Newmark uses in the explanation of metaphor translation.
a) Object : that is, the item which is described by the metaphor
b) Image

: that is, the item in terms of which the object is described

c) Sense

: that is, the point of similarity, which shows in what particular


aspects of the object and the image are similar.

d) Metaphor

: the word taken from the image.

Then, by applying these terms, Newmarks suggests the procedures for translating
metaphors as the following.

1) A translator may reproduce the same image in the target language if the image
has comparable frequency and currency in the appropriate register. This procedure
is common for one-word metaphors, such as ray of hope becoming sinar
harapan and sunny smile becoming senyum cerah.
2) A translator may replace the image in the source language with a standard
target language image which does not clash with the target language culture and
popular to most readers. For example, an idiom a wolf in sheeps clothing may be
substituted by a standard target language (Indonesian) metaphor musang berbulu
ayam, and sitting on a bad lettuce may be translated as duduk di atas bara,
and when in Rome do what Romans do may be translated as dimana bumi
dipijak disitu langit dijunjung.
3)

A translator may translate the metaphor by simile for retaining the image.
This is the obvious way of modifying a metaphor, particularly if the target
language text is not emotive in character. This procedure can be used to modify
any type of metaphor, simple or complex one. Thus the expression Sam is a pig
may be translated as a simile in Indonesian Sam seperti seekor babi.

4) A translator may replace a metaphor by simile plus sense (or occasionally a


metaphor plus sense). This is a compromise procedure; it has the advantage of
combining communicative and semantic relation in addressing itself both to the
layman or nonprofessional and the expert if there is a risk that simple transfer of
the metaphor will not be understood by most readers. Thus, the utterance I am
completely at sea may be translated into simile plus sense as Aku seperti berada
di tengah laut tak tahu kemana arahnya daratan,
5) A translator may attempt a conversion of metaphor to sense. Depending on the
type of text, this procedure is common and is to be preferred to any replacement of
SL by TL image which is too wide of the sense or the register (including here

current frequency, as well as the degrees of formality, emotiveness and


generalities, etc.). In principle, when a metaphor is converted to sense, the sense
must be analyzed componentially, since the essence of an image is that it is
pluridimensionalotherwise literal language would have been used. Further, the
sense of an image will usually have an emotive as well as a factual component, an
element of exaggeration which will be reduced in the translation in inverse ratio to
the liveliness of the metaphor. Thus, the expression Hes crummy requires
contextual as well as componential analysis. For a person, the major components
are probably unpleasantness, decay, incapacity, small-mindedness, being behind
the times, and the translator would have to choose from these, as well as some
more components before finding the best equivalence in the target language.
6) A translator may attempt deletion. If the metaphor is redundant or otiose, there is
a case for its deletion, together with its sense component, provided that the SL text
is not authoritative or expressive (that is, primarily an expression of the writers
personality). A decision of this nature can be made only after the translator has
weighed up what he thinks more important and what less important in the text in
relation to its intention. A deletion of metaphor can be justified empirically only
on the ground that the metaphors function is being fulfilled elsewhere in the text.
7) A translator may reproduce the metaphor and combine it with sense. Occasionally,
the translator who transfers an image may wish to ensure that it will be understood
by adding a gloss. Thus the metaphorical expression The tongue is a fire may be
translated to Indonesian as Lidah adalah api, and suggest that the translator may
add as the gloss Api bisa membakar apa saja, dan apa yang kita ucapkan juga
bisa menghancurkan apa saja. This suggests a lack of confidence in the
metaphors power and clarity, but it is instructive and may be useful if the
metaphor is repeated.

Metaphors in the Holy Quran and their translation.


According to muslimamerica.net (2007), The Qur'an is rich in metaphor and
idiom, and explicitly states that some passages are obscured. Ayats that have proved
obscure to us remain obscure in translation. In other cases, a phrase or a single word has
a metaphorical or idiomatic significance in Arabic that has a corresponding metaphor or
idiom in American idiomatic English. Where a corresponding American idiom departs
radically from the Arabic terms of an idiom, we have rendered the Arabic terms in a
footnote. Unfortunately, the translator has to suffer twice when he approaches these
metaphoric expressions. First, s/he has to work out their figurative meaning intralingually
(i.e. in the language in which a metaphor is recorded). Second, s/he has to find out
equivalent meanings and similar functions of these expressions in the TL.
In line with translation of metaphor, Al-Hasnawi (2007) states that Translation of
'metaphor' has been treated as part of the more general problem of 'untranslatability.' This
trend builds on the fact that metaphors in general are associated with 'indirectness,' which
in turn contributes to the difficulty of translation. Different theories and approaches have
been proposed with regard to metaphor translation, each of which has tackled this
problem from a different point of view.
DISCUSSION
In analyzing the English translation of metaphor in the surah Al Baqarah, the
writer identified two kinds of metaphors. There are one word metaphor and complex
metaphor (consisting of two or more).
The metaphors are translated to English through various metaphor translation strategies.
The following presents representative examples.

10

1. The translator reproduced the same image in the TL or the

translator

reproduced the image of metaphor in SL text into TL text.(M-M)



Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil;
great is the penalty they (incur).(2:7)




In their hearts is a disease;

and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the

penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).(2:10)











It is not required of thee (O Messenger), to set them on the right path,
but Allah sets on the right path whom He pleaseth. Whatever of good
ye give benefits your own souls, and ye shall only do so seeking

the

"Face" of Allah. Whatever good ye give, shall be rendered back to you,


and ye shall not Be dealt with unjustly. (2:272)

In this strategy, the translator has adopted or reproduced the image of the original
metaphors to the target language text. This strategy is aimed to keep the originality,
because the image of the original metaphor has comparable frequency and currency in the
TL context. It is referentially faithful to the original and contextually acceptable in the TL
text. The translator may have used this strategy in the consideration that the metaphor is
11

of original or fresh type. Such metaphor type has strong expensive and aesthetic linguistic
power. Therefore, the translator has striven to translate it equivalently expressive and
aesthetic in TL text, namely by adopting or reproducing the same metaphorical image in
the translation. Some reader of the translation may find such language difficult, but it is
not impossible to understand, and therefore, acceptable.

2. The translator reproduced the image of metaphor in SL text


into TL text plus
sense. The translator retained the metaphor and added the
sense (M-M+P).










They say, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word:
we need no more)."

Nay, Allah's curse is on them for their blasphemy:

Little is it they believe. (2:88)

In this strategy, the translator reproduced the image of metaphor in


SL text into TL text plus sense or combined it with sense. In example
(1) the metaphor word gulfun, The translator translated it into English
by wrappings and added the sense which preserve Allah's Word: we
need no more. The translator may aim to make the reader understand
the meaning of that word. This strategy is effective because the
translator

has

survived

the

original

metaphor

and

made

the

reproduction of the metaphor to English. If he only reproduced the


metaphor to English to wrappings and not combined it with sense,
the translation may not be understood well by the readers.

12

3. The translator replaced the image of metaphor in SL with


sense or literal
phrase in TL(M-P)
The verse below reflected the strategy above:



To Allah belong the east and the west: Whithersoever ye turn, there is
the presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, all-Knowing. (2:115)
In this verse, the word

, in English means face is

translated into the presence . So, the word is translated into


the presence of Alloh. The translator didnt translate

into

the Face of Alloh but he replaced the image of metaphor into


the phrase the presence of Alloh. In other words, the translator didnt
reproduce the image of metaphor in SL text into TL text(M-M), but replaced the
image of metaphor in SL with sense or literal phrase in TL(M-P).The
translator may aim to make the meaning clear, because if it is
translated by the face of Alloh the meaning may not be proper.
CONCLUSION
There are three metaphor translation strategies used by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, there
are:
(1) A translator reproduced the same image in the target language or the translator
reproduced the image of metaphor in SL text into TL text (M-M). There are 31 verses
represented this strategy. According to the data analysis the translator didnt emphasize
the relation of kinds of metaphor and categories of semantic field. Because for
example nominative, predicative, and sentential metaphor sometimes they are

13

translated in some strategies. In term of categories of semantic field they are also
translated in some strategies. For example the face of Alloh which belong to Being in
the categories of semantic field is translated into the presence of Alloh in verse 115
( M-P) and in verse 272 it is translated into the face of Alloh (M-M) and the word
face related to human is translated into His whole self in verse 112 (M-P). The
number of strategy of reproducing the same image in the target language or the
translator reproduced the image of metaphor in SL text into TL text (M-M) dominated
in the translators strategy in translating metaphor. It is probably aimed to keep the
originality of metaphors in the consideration that the metaphor is of original or fresh
type. Such a metaphor type has strong expensive and aesthetic linguistic power.
(2) The translator reproduced the image of metaphor in SL text into TL
text plus sense. The translator retained the metaphor and added the
sense (M-M+P). There two verses represented this strategy. The
translator used this strategy probably is aimed to keep the originality
of metaphor, but to make the readers understand the meaning, the
translator added literal word as described in verse 88 and 93.
Because if the translator didnt add the literal word or sense in that
metaphor will misunderstood the meaning of the verse. So, to avoid
misunderstanding the translator added literal word in metaphor.
(3) The translator replaced the image of metaphor in SL with sense or
literal phrase in TL (M-P). There are four verses (112, 115, 138 &
207). In this strategy the translator didnt translate the metaphor
into metaphor, but he changed or reproduced the metaphor into
literal phrase as in verse 112 the word wajhahu is translated into
his whole self, the word wajhullohi is translated into the presence
of Alloh, the word shibghatallah is translated into the baptism of

14

Alloh, and the word yasyri nafsahu is translated into gives his life.
The translator used this strategy may aim to make the meaning
clear. Based on the data collection and data analysis, the translator
used the strategies depending on the context of the verses.
Finally, the translators, whose task is to produce a TL text that bears a close
resemblance to the SL text, should be aware of cognitive and cultural issues when
translating from Arabic into English or vice-versa. Therefore, it is not enough for
translators to be bilingual, but they should be bicultural as well. Because translators suffer
twice when approaching some metaphors which are cultur-bound and due to their
figurative meaning intralingualy, it is recommended that translators be trained in coping
with metaphor translation not only in foreign-language programs, but also in their native
language. Sometimes, even native speakers are not always able to comprehend the
figurative meaning of messages in their own language.

REFERENCES

Ary, Donald, Jacobs, Lucy, & Razavieh, Asghar. 2002. Introduction to Research in
Education. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Al-Hilali, Muhammad T, & Khan, Muhammad M. 1985. Translation of the meanings of
the Noble Quran: In the English Language. Madinah: King Fahd Complex for the
printing of the Holy Quran.
Ali, Abdullah Y. 2001. The Holy Quran Translation. New Delhi: Goodword Books.
Al-Shabuni, Ali. 1976. Shafwat Al-Tafasir: Tafsir li Al Qurlan Al-Kariem. Beirut: Dar Al
Fikr.
Al-Suyuthi, Jalal ad-Din. 1935. Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al Quran. Beirut: Dar Al Fikr.
15

An-Nawawi, 1915. Al-Majmu'. Cairo: Matbacat at-'Tadamun n.d.


Asrori, 1995. Penggunaan Bahasa Qiyas dalam Al Quran. Tesis tidak dipublikasikan.
Malang: IKIP Negeri Malang.
Ahmadin, Dimjati. 2002. Semantic Analysis on The Meaning of the Glorious Koran by
Marmaduke Pickthal. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: State University of Malang.
Ainin, Mohamad. 2002. Pertanyaan dalam Teks Bahasa Indonesia Terjemahan Al-Quran.
Disertasi tidak dipublikasikan. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.
Barnwell, Katharine G.L. 1980. Introduction to Semantics and Translation: With Special
Reference to Bible Translation. Horsleys Green: Summer Institute of Linguistics
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London:
Longman.
Bogdan, Robert C & Biklen, Sari K. 1998. Qualitative Research in Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn Bacon.
Brisling, Richard W. (Ed). 1976. Translation Application and Research. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Catford, J.C. 1974. A Linguistics Theory of Translation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ching, Marvin K.L., Haley, Michel C., & Lunsford, Ronald F. 1980. Linguistics
Perspective on Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Davidson, Donald. 1978. What Metaphors Mean. In Martinich, A.P., 2001. The
Philosophy of Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. & Steen, Gerard J.

1997. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics.

Amsterdam: Jonh Benjamin Publishing Company.


16

Ibnu Katsir, Imam Abu Al Fidaa. 770 H. Tafsir Al Quran Al Adhim. Beirut: Daar Al Fikr
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Larson, Mildred N. 1984. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language
Equivalence. Boston: University Press of America, Inc.
Leezenberg, Michiel. 2001. Context of Metaphor. Boulevard: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Malkmkjer. Kristen. 1998. Translation and Language Teaching. Manchester: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. Approaches to Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall
Nida, Eugene, A., & Taber, Charles R. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, Eugene, A. 2001. Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Pedoman Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. 2003. Malang: Percetakan Universitas Negeri Malang.
Suryawinata, Zuchridin & Hariyanto, Sugeng. 2003. Translation: Bahasan Teory dan
Penuntun Praktis Menerjemahkan. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius.
Wahab, Abdul. 1991. Isu Linguistik: Pengajaran Bahasa dan Sastra. Surabaya: Airlangga
University Press.
Wahab, Abdul. 1986. Javanese Metaphors in Discourse Analysis. Unpublished
Dissertation. Urbana: University of Illinois.

17

Wikipedia. No date. Website. (on-line), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an,


retrieved 20 April, 2007)

18

19

20

21

Você também pode gostar