Eng Arabic Collocations

Collocation in English–Arabic Translation

Showqi BahumaidAjman Universty of Science and Technology

1. Introduction

The term ‘collocation’ has been generally used to refer to a phenomenon in langgguage whereby a lexical item tends to keep company with other words. It is a lexggical relation of cogoccurrence that binds words together with varying degrees of strength. Thus, lean may be said to exclusively collocate with meat while heavymay have such collocates as rain, meal, traffic, fog, sleep, industry and smoker.

The notion of ‘collocation’ has been unanimously viewed by linguists as a Firthian contribution, although its earliest mention dates back to as early as 1605 (Wouden 1997:7). Indeed, Firth (1957) was foremost to view a word’s typical begghaviour to occur with other words as a central part of its meaning operating at the syntagmatic level. Later, several other prominent linguists (Halliday 1966, Sinclair 1966, Greenbaum 1970, Mitchel 1971) elaborated and developed the concept of collocation. With the surge of lexical studies over the past two decades, collocaggtion received a considerable impetus. Lexicologists and lexicographers like Cruse, Seaton, Benson, Carter and McCarthy, to mention a few, have maintained a great interest in studying collocation. Today, the label ‘collocationists’ has been coined to refer to scholars like Cowie, Mackin, Lewis and Hill who have devoted their time, energy and resources to examine various issues associated with collocation.At the end of the spectrum, away from purely theoretical concerns, translators have found themselves in a continual struggle to find appropriate collocations (Newmark 1988). For translators, the ‘intralingual’ problems of demarcating the boundaries of collocation have been compounded by the problems of ‘interlingggual’ collocability. Within this context, the present study sets out to investigate colgglocation in translation with special reference to English and Arabic.

Babel 52: 2 (2006), 133–152. issn 0521–9744 / egissn 1569–9668© Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

134 Showqi Bahumaid134 Showqi Bahumaid

2. Collocation : A working definition

Collocation, or ‘lexical collocation’ as used throughout this paper, refers to a speggcific partnership between two or more lexical items. The other type of collocation viz. grammatical collocation, which is best described by Benson (1985) as a recurggrent combination of a dominant word followed by a grammatical word, typically a preposition (abide by, admiration for, adjacent to, etc.) lies beyond the scope of this paper.

The definitions of collocation offered in various books as well as in several dicggtionaries lack a precise specification of the relation of cogoccurrence between the lexical items involved in a collocation. Instead, such loose words as ‘regular’, ‘haggbitual’, ‘repeated’ and ‘natural’ cogoccurrence are often used in these definitions to describe the kind of bond that holds between the collocating items. Meanwhile, the criteria employed by scholars to establish collocations in language are diverse and they reflect different perspectives and interests. These include ‘recurrence’ (Benggson 1985), ‘statistical significance’ (Sinclair and Jones 1974), ‘mutual expectancy’ (Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), ‘idiosyncrasy’ (Wouden 1997) and ‘predictabilggity’ (Hill 2000). As a consequence, different typologies and categories of collocaggtions have been set up. At one end, collocations have been limited to a small group of ‘unique’ combinations (e.g. rancid butter). At the other end, an allginclusive typggology of collocation is suggested embracing idioms, formulaic expressions, prefabggricated routines, figurative expressions as well as all other types of ‘set phrases’.

For the purposes of this study, a collocation is viewed as a lexical category that lies somewhere between ‘idioms’ and ‘free combinations’. An idiom (e.g. kick the bucket) is a frozen expression that does not allow any permutation of its elements (no passivization or change of word order) or the insertion of additional items beggtween them. Besides, one cannot substitute a word in an idiom with other words even if they are synonymous (e.g. foot the bill/*account/*cheque). More importantggly, however, is the fact that the meaning of an idiom cannot be deduced from the meanings of its constituent elements. Collocations is a kind of “fixed expressions” or “set phrases” which are subjected to some ‘selection restrictions’. As is the case with idioms, none of the elements of a collocation can be replaced by another lexggical item even if they have a similar meaning (e.g. long and tall are synonymous yet one can say a tall man but not a long man). Moreover, many collocations share with idioms the two features of unpermitted permutations or insertion of addggitional element within the collocating items. Unlike idioms, however, the meanggings of the elements of a collocation are reflected in the meaning of the collocation as a whole.

Collocations, as used in this study, differ from other types of “fixed expresggsions’ such as conventionalized language forms, patterned phrases and routine

Collocation in English–Arabic Translation 135Collocation in English–Arabic Translation 135

formulas (Carter 1988) in that each of these expressions has a pragmatic function while a collocation does not. For example, the routine formula by the way has the communicative function of ‘introducing a point in a discussion’. By contrast, colgglocations (e.g. to make a mistake) do not have any communicative function.

A further distinction should be made between a collocation and a free comggbination. In a collocation, the meaning of at least one of the collocates is substanggtially delimited. To give an example, in the collocation to catch a train, the number of senses in which catch is used has been reduced to one. This cannot be said to apply to such a free combination as to sell a car.

3. Collocation in translation: anticipated problems

Research conducted by lexicologists and lexicographers (Benson 1985, Carter 1988, Carter and Mccarthy 1988, Lewis 1993, Hill 2000, etc.) as well as translation theorists (e.g. Newmark 1985, 1988) on collocation has revealed that the translaggtor will be confronted by numerous problems of various sorts in rendering colloggcations. For the sake of convenience, such problems will be broadly classified into two types: ‘intralingual’ and ‘interlingual’.

3.1 Intralingual problems

These relate to the problems of identifying collocations and establishing collocaggbility within a language.

3.1.1 As noted in Section 2 above, collocation has not been rigorously defined by linguists. There is no clearly cutgoff point between a collocation and a nongcolgglocation. One cannot justify, by reference to some clearly specified criteria, the collocability and nongcollocability of such combinations as a good/*strong/*high chance, a *good/strong/high probability and a good/strong/*high likelihood.

3.1.2 Two or more synonymous words may overlap in certain lexical environggments but stand in a mutually exclusive relation in others. For example, both remmmote and distant may collocate with past yet only remote can collocate with villagewhile distant alone can collocate with memory.

3.1.3 Deciding whether or not a collocation is ‘acceptable’ constitutes part of the intuitive knowledge of the native speakers of the language. They can also disggtinguish ‘habitual’, ‘occasional’ and ‘unique’ collocations. Moreover, only native speakers of a language can recognize the figurative potential of collocability of a certain word. They realize, for example, that barren cannot only have “material” collocates (e.g. land and region) but also “figurative” ones (e.g. discussion and argummment).


3.1.4 Collocability is a matter of more or less. In other words, what constitutes an acceptable collocation for one native speaker may not be so for another. This creates even further difficulty for the EFL learner or the translator.

3.1.5 Some collocations are associated with specific registers. The collocation dull highlights, for example particularly relates to the registers of meteorology and photography. Knowledge of a wide range of collocations in various registers in the target language is, therefore, quite essential for the translator.

3.1.6 New collocations can always be added to the lexicon of a language. An ‘unusual’ collocation (e.g. a grief ago) starts at a subjective level. If it gains curggrency, it joins the ‘regular’ collocations thus becoming a property of the language; otherwise, the collocation remains a kind of ‘poetic creation’. Thus, the translator has the enormous task of learning all new collocations.

3.2 Interlingual problems

These revolve around questions of collocability across languages. Obviously, such problems constitute the translator’s main concern as s/he searches for “acceptable” collocations in the target language.

3.2.1 Lexemes differ in their collocability from one language to another.3.2.2 A ‘free’ phrase in the source language may have, as its equivalent, a colgg

location in the target language and vice versa. (e.g. English: to overlook something/Arabic: يغض الطرف عن شئ)

3.2.3 The collocational range of words may be different in the source and targgget languages. Example: English: catch a fish/a cold/a train/fire; Arabic:يصطاد سمكة/يصاب بنزلة برد/يلحق بالقطار/تشتعل النار فيه

3.2.4 Some collocations, which have a ‘literal’ meaning, may correspond to each other across languages while those with a ‘metaphorical’ sense may not. (e.g. English: barren land/barren argument; Arabic: أرض قاحلة/جدل عقيم

3.2.5 Some collocations are languagegspecific i.e. exclusively used in a parggticular language (e.g. English: eat one’s soup’/ Arabic: drink one’s soup.)

3.2.6 Several collocations in the target language may be culturegbound. (e.g. English: Hercules of his times/Arabic: عنرت زمانه

4. Dictionaries of collocations

Lexicographers have recognized the importance of collocations in language. Toggday, most of the general user’s monolingual (English) dictionaries (e.g. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary 1993) contain some information on collocations alggthough the amount and quality of such information vary from one dictionary to


another. More significantly, several collocational English dictionaries have been published over the past two decades, the most important of which are the BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English (1997), LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations(1991), A Dictionary of Collocations (1994) and Oxford Collocations Dictionary(2002). Further, online corpora (e.g. The Bank of English) with their concordancgges provide an enormous amount of information on permissible combinations for the translator.

Looking at lexicographic work on Arabic collocations, a rather bleak picture emerges. There is an extremely limited amount of information on collocation in both monolingual (Arabic) and bilingual (Arabic–English/English–Arabic) dicggtionaries. Besides, no monolingual (Arabic) or bilingual (Arabic–English/English–Arabic) collocational dictionary has been compiled as yet.

5. Studies on Arabic–English Translation Collocation: An Overview

As noted in Section (1) above, a considerable amount of material on collocation has been written in English especially over the past two decades. By contrast, studggies on collocation in Arabic (Husam AlgDin 1985, ElgHannach 1995, etc.) are quite modest. The use of collocation in the works of early Arab scholars has not been investigated yet. Besides, no attempt has been made to “glean” an Arab notion of collocation in those writings, let alone evolve such a notion. It is not therefore surggprising that the relatively few modern studies on collocation attempted by Arab researchers tend to utilize the conceptual framework developed in English lexicggal studies.

Several studies that border on lexicography and translation have dealt with collocation. For example, Abu Ssaydeh (1995 and 2001) discusses the various problems involved in the identification and categorization of collocations in Enggglish and stresses the need for the production of an Arabic–English collocational dictionary.

Collocation in translation from English into Arabic and vice versa is the subggject of investigation in two major ‘theoretical’ studies written by Heliel (1990) and Ghazala (1993). In his study, Heliel begins by expounding the concept of collocaggtion taking, as a point of departure, Benson’s (1986) distinction between collocaggtions and other word combinations. He then discusses the salient features of colloggcations focusing on those, which would cause special problems for the translator. These include the differences between semantically equivalent lexemes in English and Arabic in terms of their collocability and acceptability. In addition, he illusggtrates the inadequate treatment of collocation in most monolingual (English) and bilingual (English–Arabic and Arabic–English) dictionaries. The study ends with


a call for conducting ingdepth studies of collocation in both languages and proggducing appropriate materials for the teaching of collocation in translator training programme. Ghazala’s twogpart study on collocation proposes certain typologies of collocations based on their grammatical structure, rhetorical function and conggtextual use and provides copious illustrative examples for each typology. It further addresses some of the problems that a translator may face in rendering each type of collocations. Several general procedures for rendering English collocations into Arabic and vice versa have been proposed.

6. The present study

6.1 Rationale

The special importance of collocation in language has been recognized by most writers on the subject. It plays a variety of highly significant roles in a text. Colgglocations are considered a distinct aspect of lexical cohesion (Halliday and Hasan 1976:318). They can further provide evidence of intentionality, since what constiggtutes an ‘acceptable’ collocation varies from one language user to another (Hatim and Mason 1990:204). In addition, certain collocations are associated with a specifggic register (Section 3.1) and they, therefore, form part of its distinctiveness (Crysggtal and Davy 1969:168). At the level of translation, collocation presents a major hurdle as the translator faces the arduous task of finding acceptable collocations in the target language. As Newmark (1988: 180) writes, “the translator will be ‘caught’ every time, not by his grammar, … not by his vocabulary, … but his unacceptable or improbable collocations’.

The problem of searching for ‘acceptable’ collocations is aggravated by the lack of adequate bilingual resources on collocation (dictionaries, thesauruses, etc.) to which the translator may look (Section 4). It must be pointed out that deggspite the considerable difficulty of rendering collocations across languages, colloggcation in translation has not been accorded sufficient attention. As far as English–Arabic and Arabic–English translation is concerned, no empirical study, to the knowledge of the present writer, has been conducted, as yet, on the actual renggdering of collocations in the two languages attempted by translators. Such a study would be particularly useful in that it would, among other things shed some light on the various aspects of difficulty in rendering collocations and the procedures that translators employ in the rendition of collocations whose target language equivalents are unknown to them. Results obtained from such a study would proggvide essential feedback for the training of translators in the proper handling of collocations.


6.2 Aim

The major goals of this study are to (a) examine the relative difficulty of rendergging English collocations into Arabic and vice versa, (b) find out the types of colgglocations that are most problematic for the translator, (c) identify the procedures that translators resort to in rendering collocations if they are unfamiliar with their counterparts in the target language, and (d) assess the extent to which monolingggual (English) and bilingual (English–Arabic/Arabic–English) dictionaries are helpful for the translator in rendering collocations.

6.3 Limitations of the study

This study may have been constrained by the limited number of translators parggticipating as informants viz. four. It should be borne in mind, however, that transgglators are usually reluctant to take part in such studies in spite of the assurances they may be given regarding the strict confidentiality with which their responses would be treated. A further limitation of the study is related to the relatively small number of collocations investigated viz. thirty. Obviously, the use of an extenggsive number of collocations that would provide a wider coverage of such a vast area of lexis as collocation would render their analysis ‘unmanageable’. It is worth mentioning that in order to counteract the possible negative effect of the limited corpus of the study, special care was taken, as will be seen below (Section 6.4) to ensure that the collocations selected for investigation represent the various typologggies of collocation.

6.4 Data collection

For the purposes of the study, a twogpart translation test that consists of 30 senggtences was developed. The sentences contained 15 English collocations and 11 Arabic ones in addition to four Arabic phrases, which have certain English colgglocations as their equivalents (see Appendix). The inclusion of collocations in senggtences rather than in larger stretches of discourse is made on account of the fact that the sentence is practically the maximum unit of translating. Besides, special care was taken to ensure that the sentences involved in the test provide sufficient context for understanding the meanings of the collocations in which they are used. Some of the collocations selected for the test are of the general type (e.g. to make a noise) while others are usually associated with specific registers (e.g. domino effect,political register). The collocations cut across a variety of common grammatical structures in both English and Arabic. (Examples: Adjective + Noun: bleak prosmmpect; Noun + Noun: project rationale; Adverb + Adjective: duly authorized; Adgg


verb + Verb: badly need; Noun + Adjective: اسنان اصطناعية; Verb + Noun: جيري مباحثات;Noun + Prepositional phrase: سيل من املعلومات). Some of the collocations included in the test have several collocates (e.g. Arabic: حيدث سابقة English: set/establish/creggate a precedent) while others are quite restricted in their collocates (e.g. Arabic: English: good offices). Most of the collocations tested are ‘habitual’ or ‘fagg مساٍع محيدةmiliar’ (e.g. to make an appointment) while only a few of them are ‘uncommon’ or ‘infrequent’ (e.g. virtually dead). Further, some of the collocations selected for the test have literal meanings (e.g. Arabic: الطبخ English: cooking utensils) while أواين others are metaphorically used (e.g. broken English). Two culturegspecific colloggcations have been further included in the test: English: rate-capping and Arabic: Rate-capping” was particularly common in the UK in Thatcherite“ .اخللفاء الراشدونdays and, as Newmark (1988:145) rightly notes, is ‘cultural’ and has no future outggside the UK. The other collocation اخللفاء الراشدون is exclusively used in the Muslim culture and would certainly be familiar to the testees.

Four Arab university instructors who practiced translation for different periggods of time kindly accepted to act as informants. One of the informants worked as a fullgtime translator in an educational institution for about eight years while two practiced translation in a ‘freelance’ capacity for at least five years. The fourth inggformant, however, had only a limited experience of occasional translating for less than two years. All the informants attended translation courses as part of their university studies and two of them later taught translation to undergraduate stuggdents for at least two semesters. As far as qualifications are concerned, three inggformants obtained the Master degree (one in translation and two in teaching Enggglish as a second language) from British universities while the fourth informant has completed her undergraduate training in English language and Literature in an Arab university. The informants were given ample time to perform the translation task at their own pace and submit it whenever they wished. They were allowed to use all the resources available to them.

6.5 Discussion of results

The results clearly show that the informants’ overall performance in the two parts of the test was well below average. Table 1 indicates the score achieved by each translator in the test.

As shown in the table, the informants’ correct renditions of the collocations tested (total: 30) ranged between six and eleven (15–37%). However, the rendering of Arabic collocations into English seems to be even more difficult than rendering English collocations into Arabic. In the former case, the range between the lowggest and highest scores (13–40%) is considerably lower than in the latter one (27–47%). This variation in scores may be partially attributed to the fact that a person’s


competence in the foreign language is much more limited than in his/ her mother tongue. The main procedure employed by the translators in their renditions inggcluded giving the equivalent TL collocation (e.g. English the sterner sex/Arabic: اخلشن :or ‘closest’ TL collocation (e.g. English: project rationale/Arabic (’اجلنس (مربرات املرشوع

One of the major causes of the informants’ unsatisfactory performance in the test is the nongexistence of most of the English collocations tested in any of the two English–Arabic dictionaries that are widely used in the Arab region viz. AlmMawrid English–Arabic Dictionary (2000) and Ilias Modern English–Arabic Dicmmtionary (1993). By contrast, almost all those collocations appear in some monolingggual (English) dictionaries (Table 2).

Table 2. Inclusion of the English collocations tested and their Arabic equivalents in sample monolingual and bilingual dictionaries (page numbers)

English collocation BBI Longman Al-Mawrid Elias

1 broken English 118 1274 130 1062 (a) bleak prospect 258 632 NF NF3 towering palm trees NF 614 NF NF4 the sterner sex NF NF 841 6875 to make an appointment 15 64 NF NF6 domino effect 114 NF NF NF7 project rationale NF 1063 NF NF8 rate capping NF NF NF NF9 to make (a) noise 223 1267 NF NF

10 duly authorized NF NF NF 22911 to make up an excuse 123 1084 NF NF12 (I) badly need (you) 221 1319 83 NF13 (I) devoutly hope NF 1104 NF NF14 To comply with the law 71 915 NF 15615 virtually dead NF 35 NF NF

Note: S.N. = Serial number; NF = not found; BBI = BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations(1997); Longman = Longman Language Activator (1993); AlgMawrid = Al-Mawrid English–Arabic Dic--tionary (2000); Elias = Elias Modern English–Arabic Dictionary (1992)

Table 1. The informants’ scores in the test

Translator No. of correct renditions of English sentences into Arabic (15)

No. of correct renditions of Arabic sentences into English (15)

Total (30)

Translator (1) 5 6 11Translator (2) 4 2 6Translator (3) 7 2 9Translator (4) 5 5 10


Likewise, most of the Arabic collocations investigated are not included in the entries of such reputed Arabic–English dictionaries as Wehr’s Dictionary of Modmmern Written Arabic (1976) and AlmMawrid Arabic–English Dictionary (1993) while their English equivalents are found in several monolingual dictionaries (Table 3).

Tables 2 and 3 provide sufficient evidence that, as far as collocations are conggcerned, bilingual dictionaries are lagging behind monolingual dictionaries. It is worth mentioning at this point that in the few cases where the collocations testgged appear in bilingual dictionaries, some of the informants did not seem to have consulted those dictionaries. Instead, they attempted their own renditions, which turned out to be incorrect. Further, it is almost certain that in their rendering of the English collocations under study, none of the informants consulted such monolingual dictionaries as the BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations and Longman Language Activator. Had they done so, they could have arrived at some of their correct Arabic equivalents. It is commonplace that many Arab translators tend to look up a bilingual dictionary when they are stuck on a difficult English word or phrase and few of them bother to consult a monolingual dictionary at all. This state of affairs may be traced to the improper training students usually have at many Arab universities in handling unfamiliar English lexical items.

A further possible cause of the informants’ poor performance in the test lies in the obvious lack of training on rendering collocations in the translation courses they attended at university. This is evidenced in the renditions given ‘out of context’ or even the mere copying of meanings from bilingual dictionaries.

Table 3. Inclusion of the Arabic collocations tested and their English equivalents in sample monolingual and bilingual dictionaries

Arabic collocation BBI Longman Al-Mawrid Wehr

1 اجليل الصاعد NF NF NF 9642 اسنان اصطناعية 346 67 NF NF3 اخللفاء الراشدون NF NF 570 3414 صناعات ناشئة 174 333 NF NF5 مساٍع محيدة 228 NF 49 NF6 جو خانق)يف الغرفة) 20 30 NF NF7 أدوات زراعية NF 1433 NF NF8 جمموعة من األشجار 351 578 NF 1369 قطعة أرض 190 NF NF 776

10 أطراف اصطناعية 197 67 NF NF11 حيدث سابقة )يف العالقات العربية) 251 NF NF NF12 وابل من االسئلة NF NF 654 NF13 سيل من املعلومات NF NF NF NF14 جيري مباحثات 102 1370 NF NF15 أواين الطبخ 362 1433 63 32

Note : Wehr = Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (1976)


(Examples: a bleak prospect: domino effect ; موقع مكشوف .(تأثري القناعAnother aspect that needs to be discussed concerns the types of collocations,

which are particularly problematic for the translator. In Table 4, the collocations tested are indicated against the number of informants who provided incorrect renditions.

As the table shows, culturegbound collocations present special difficulty for the translator to render. For example, all the informants failed to correctly render rate capping. As for the other ‘cultural’ collocation investigated viz. الراشدون , اخللفاء it was rendered by one informant (as ‘orthodox caliphs’). Such a rendition (apparggently copied from Al-Mawrid Arabic–English Dictionary or Wehr’s Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic), is not precise since it does not convey the connotations of the Islamic word (Shunnaq 1992). A better rendition would add a descriptive statement indicating that الراشدون is the title given to the first four calgg اخللفاء iphs in Islam (Ezzidin and Denys 1967). A word of caution is perhaps necessary to mention here. The special difficulty faced by all the informants in the rendition of the two cultural terms included in the test does not mean, as some readers might infer, that cultural terms are the ‘most difficult’ to render. A categorical statement of this kind needs to be substantiated by specific studies involving an extensive corpus of cultural and nongcultural terms. Of the nine registergspecific collocaggtions tested, four (44%) were incorrectly rendered by all the informants. By conggtrast, the informants were unable to render only two (10%) of the general collocaggtions (totalled 19).

Table 4. Number of translators providing incorrect renditions of the collocations tested

English collocation Into Arabic Arabic collocation Into English

1 rate capping 4 1 صناعات ناشئة 42 domino effect 4 2 مساٍع محيدة 43 duly authorized 4 3 وابل من االسئلة 44 project rationale 3 4 سيل من املعلومات 45 to comply with the law 3 5 اخللفاء الراشدون 36 (a) bleak prospect 3 6 حيدث سابقة )يف)

العالقات العربية3

7 to make an appointment 3 7 جيري مباحثات 38 virtually dead 3 8 أدوات زراعية 39 to make up an excuse 3 9 جمموعة من األشجار 3

10 towering palm trees 2 10 أواين الطبخ 311 the sterner sex 2 11 اجليل الصاعد 212 to make (a) noise 2 12 اسنان اصطناعية 213 (I) badly need (you) 2 13 جو خانق )يف الغرفة) 214 broken English 2 14 قطعة أرض 115 (I) devoutly hope 0 15 اطراف اصطناعية 1

Note : Total number of translators participating in the study: 4


Along the literal-metaphorical dimension, the test results have shown that metaphorically used collocations are much more difficult to render than those which have a literal meaning. All the informants failed to correctly render over a third of the metaphorically used collocations included in the test (totalled 21). Meanwhile, all the nine ‘literal’ collocations tested were correctly rendered by most of the informants.

Table 5. Procedures employed by the informants in rendering English–Arabic collocations

English collocation

Using a synonym/ near-synonym

Giving the meaning of the collocation

Literal translation

Avoidance

1 broken English – إنجليزية غري سليمة إنجليزية مكرسة -2 (a) bleak

prospect– مستقبل غامض مشاهد كئيبة/مواقع

مكشوفة/توقعاتمحقاء

-

3 towering palm trees

أشجار نخيل شاهقة(2(

– – –

4 the sterner sex اجلنس األقوى/األقسى

– – –

5 to make an appointment

– )يعطي ميعادًا )2يرتب ميعادًا

– –

6 domino effect – – تأثري القناع/تأثريتنكري

Avoidance

7 project rationale – األساس املنطقي للمرشوع/عرض املرشوع

– Avoidance

8 rate capping – – الغطاء النقدي/ )2)رفع املعدل

–

9 to make (a) noise

– يزعج/يتحدث بصوت عال – –

10 duly authorized – خمول/مفوض رسميًا/مزود بسلطة عىل نحو واف /وكيل

مناسب

– Avoidance

11 to make up an excuse

يقدم/ينتحل عذرًا يعتذر – –

12 (I) badly need (you)

– أحتاج إليك بشدة/إين فعاًلأحتاج إليك

– Avoidance

13 (I) devoutly hope

– – – –

14 to comply with the law

– يترصف طبقًا لالصول/ يسلك وفقًا للوائح/حسب

اللوائح

– –

15 virtually dead – مات بالفعل/ ميت فعاًل/حقًا

– –


A further point to be investigated relates to the procedures employed by the informants in rendering the collocations whose targetglanguage equivalents are unknown to them. A close examination of the informants’ responses reveals that when they are unfamiliar with the exact English equivalent of a certain Arabic colgglocation or vice versa, they resort to one of these procedures: (a) using a synonym or a neargsynonym, (b) giving the meaning of the collocation, (c) attempting a litggeral translation of the collocation or one of its constituents, and (d) avoiding the rendering of the collocation altogether. Table (5) presents the informants’ incorggrect renditions of the English collocations into Arabic and the procedure used in each case. It can be seen that giving the meaning of the English collocation in Araggbic is the most frequent procedure employed by the informants whenever they are unable to produce the equivalent Arabic collocation. This periphrastic route has been followed in 48% of the responses attempted by the informants. The second commonest procedure is the provision of a synonym or a neargsynonym (22%). ‘Giving a literal Arabic rendering’ of the English collocation (20%) comes third followed by ‘avoidance’ (10%).

With regard to the informants’ Arabic renderings of the English collocations with which they are unfamiliar, it has been noticed that they tend to employ the same procedures with some variation in terms of extent of usage of such proceggdures as shown on Table (6). Table 6 indicates that the procedure of ‘giving the meaning of the Arabic collocation in English’ ranks first (40%) followed by the procedure of ‘providing a synonym or a near synonym’ (32.5%). In the third rank comes the procedure of ‘attempting a literal rendering of the collocations’ (25%) followed by ‘avoidance’ (2.5%).

Some points need to be made regarding the above techniques, which were used by the informants in rendering collocations whose TL equivalents were unggknown to them.

First, the tendency to give the meaning of the collocation is perhaps the most accepted procedure provided that the meaning attempted is correct. Renditions such as انجليزية غري سليمة (broken English), and (duly authorized) مزود بسلطة عىل نحو وافso many questions وابل من االسئلة should be encouraged since they convey the propgger meanings of the collocations in question. Second, the use of the procedure of ‘giving a synonym or a neargsynonym’ of the collocating items indicates the inggformants’ failure to understand one of the main features of a collocation i.e. its elggements cannot be substituted by lexical items that have the same meaning. This is quite evident in such incorrect renditions as *artificial teeth, *growing industries,and *اشجار نخيل شاهقة. Third, the use of a literal rendition of the collocation (e.g. domino effect *تأثري القناع; جيري مباحثات *run a discussion ) is perhaps the ‘worst’ progg


cedure because it ignores the context in which the collocation is used. Fourth, in the very few cases where the informants do not seem to have even the slightest idea of the meaning of the collocation and where the use of a synonym or a literggal rendition will not be of much help, they opted for avoiding the rendition of the entire collocation (e.g. rate capping) or one of its elements (e.g. اخللفاء الراشدون *The Khalifas).

Table 6. Procedures employed by the informants in rendering Arabic–English collocations

Arabic collocation

Using a syno-nym/near-synonym

Giving the meaning of the collocation

Literal translation Avoidance

1 اجليل الصاعد growing generation

new generation – –

2 اسنان اصطناعية artificial teeth (2)

– – –

3 اخللفاء الراشدون – – the guiding caliphs/Rashidun caliphates/the Khalfas

Avoidance

4 صناعات ناشئة growing industries (2)

new industries (2) – –

5 مساٍع محيدة – good efforts (2) thankworthy efforts; laudable endeavours

– –

6 )جو خانق)يف الغرفة – – strangling atmosphere; asphyxiated air

–

7 أدوات زراعية agricultural tools (3)

– – –

8 جمموعة من األشجار – – a group of trees (3) –9 قطعة أرض – area of land – –

10 أطراف اصطناعية false limbs – – –11 حيدث سابقة )يف

)العالقات العربيةstart a precedent

initiate a tradition; no previous record

– –

12 وابل من االسئلة – so many questions – –13 سيل من املعلومات flow/a

multitude of information

so much information

flood of information

–

14 جيري مباحثات – he is negotiating; under discussion

run a discussion –

15 أواين الطبخ cooking tools cooking pots; cookeries

– –


7. Findings

This study has arrived at the following results:7.1 There is an obvious lack of a precise specification of what constitutes a colgg

location in English lexical studies. Many writers on the subject have tended to emggploy divergent criteria and set up different typologies of collocations.

7.2 The few studies conducted by Arab researchers on collocation in translaggtion have employed the theoretical framework developed in English lexical studies on the subject. No attempt has been made, as far as I could ascertain, to dig up the notion of collocation embodied in the early works of Arab philologists.

7.3 Collocations present a great difficulty to render from English into Araggbic and vice versa even for qualified and experienced translators. The difficulty stems from, among other things, the considerable variation in collocability of lexiggcal items in the two languages.

7.4 For translators whose mother tongue is Arabic, the rendering of Arabic collocations into English has been found to be more difficult than that in the opggposite direction. The translators’ competence in Arabic (SL) and, more specifically, their knowledge of Arabic collocations are relatively greater than that of English (TL).

7.5 Of the various types of collocations, culturegbound ones are particularly problematic for the translator.

7.6 Registergspecific collocations are much more difficult to render than those of the general type.

7.7 Collocations that have literal meanings are relatively easier to render than those, which are used in a metaphorical sense.

7.8 In the event of the translator’s unfamiliarity with the equivalent TL colloggcation, s/he tends to employ the following procedures in the order given:

i. Giving the meaning of the collocation.ii. Using a synonym or a neargsynonym of the collocating elements.iii. Attempting a literal rendition of the collocation or one of its parts.iv. Avoiding the rendition of the collocation altogether.7.9 Monolingual (English) dictionaries especially those of collocations progg

vide valuable help for the translator in tracking down many English collocations. However, the presence of collocations in current general bilingual (English–Araggbic/Arabic–English) is extremely limited. No collocational Arabic or Arabic–Enggglish dictionary has been produced so far although some commendable work has been done in this area.

7.10 In their rendering of English collocations, some Arab translators rely heavily on bilingual (English–Arabic) dictionaries. Meanwhile, they seem to rarely


consult monolingual (English) dictionaries thus depriving themselves of an enorggmous source of help.

7.11 The translation courses offered to students in some Arab universities seem to provide little training or, at best, rather insufficient training on rendering collocations despite their great importance in language.

8. Conclusion

This study is perhaps the first of its kind to examine empirically the actual process of rendering English–Arabic/Arabic–English collocations in particular cultural, metaphorical and registergspecific ones . It has clearly shown that even relatively competent translators may stumble over the rendition of these types of collocaggtion. Two major causes have been identified for this state of affairs, namely, the lack of proper training in handling collocations at translator training institutions in the Arab region and the nongexistence of Arabic–English collocational dictionggaries. It would, therefore, be justified to call upon Arab institutes and colleges of translation to include in their study plan a compulsory course on collocations. In such a course, students should be acquainted with the concept of collocation as well as the definitions, features and categories of collocations. More importantly, this course should devote special attention to the rather intricate problems of renggdering English collocations into Arabic and vice versa. There is also a dire need for Arab scholars to pool their resources to fill the lexicographic gap in this importggant area of lexis.

References

AbugSsaydeh, A. 1995. “An Arabic–English collocational dictionary”. Babel 41/1:12–23.AbugSsaydeh, A. 2001. “Synonymy, collocation and the translator”. Turjuman 10/2:53–71.Ba’albaki, M. 2000. Qa:mu:s al-Mawrid, Injili:zi-‘arabi (Al-Mawrid: A Modern English–Arabic

Dictionary). Beirut: Dar ElgIlm Lilmalayin, 1118 pp.Ba’albaki, R. 1988. Qa:mu:s al-Mawrid, ‘Arabi-Injili:zi (Al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic–English

Dictionary). Beirut: Dar ElgIlm Lilmalayin, 1255 pp.Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A.K. and Robins, R.H. (eds.) 1966. In Memory of J. R.

Firth. London:Longman, 430 pp.Benson, M. 1985. “Collocations and idioms”. In R. Ilson (ed.) Dictionaries, Lexicography and

Language Learning. London:Pergamon Press, pp. 61–68 [135 pp.]Benson, M., E. Benson and R. Ilson. 1997. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English: A Guide

to Word Combinations (Revised edition). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, xl + 386 pp.

Carter, R. 1998. Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Routledge, 288 pp.


Carter, R. and M. J. McCarthy. 1988. Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman, 242 pp.

Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. 1993. Collins, 1703 pp.Cowie, A.P. and R. Mackin. 1979. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, Vol 1. Oxford:

OUP, 516 pp.Cowie, A. P., R. Mackin and I. R. McCaig. 1983. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English,

Vol 2. Oxford: OUP.Crystal, D. and D. Davy. 1969. Investigating English Style. London:Longman, 253 pp.Elias, A. 1992. Qa:mu:s Ilya:s al-‘Asri, Injili:zi-‘Arabi (Elias Modern Dictionary, English–Arabic).

Beirut: Dar ElgIlm Lilmalayin, 911 pp.Ezzedin, I. and J. D. Denys. 1967. Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith. Damascaus: The Holy Quran Pubgg

lishing House, 131 pp.Firth, J. R. 1957. “The techniques of semantics”. Papers in Linguistics 1934–51, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Ghazala, H. 1993. “Tarjamat algMutalazima:t algLafziyya, ‘ArabigInjili:zi” (“The translation of

collocations” Arabic–English). Turjuman 2/1:1–33.Ghazala, H. 1993. “Tarjamat algMutalazima:t algLafziyya, Injili:zig‘Arabi” (“The translation of

collocations English–Arabic)”. Turjuman 2/1:7–44.Greenbaum, S. 1970. Verb-Intensifier Collocations in English. The Hague: Mouton, 96 pp.Halliday, M. 1966. “Lexis as a linguistic level”. In Bazell, C. et al. (eds), pp. 148–62.Halliday, M. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 374 pp.ElgHannach, M. 1995. “alg‘Iba:ra:t algMasku:ka filgLugha alg’Arabiyya” (Set phrases in Arabic).

Al-Lisan al-ArabiHatim, B. and I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London and NewYork:Longman,

xiv + 258 pp.Heliel, M.H. 1989. “algMutala:zima:t algLafziyya watgtarjama” (“Collocations and translation”),

Turjuman 4/2:7–19.Hill, J. 2000. “Revising priorities:From grammatical failure to collocational success”. In M.Lewis

(ed.) Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. London:LTP, 245 pp.

Hill, J. and M. Lewis. 1991. LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations, 288 pp.Husam ElgDin, K. 1985. at-Tabi:r al-Istila:hi (Idiomatic Expressions). Cairo, 303 pp.Kjellemer, G. 1994. A Dictionary of English Collocations. Clarendon Press, 2304 pp.Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach. London: LTP 200 pp.Longman Language Activator. 1993. London: Longman, 1587 pp.Mackin, P. 1978. “On collocations:Words shall be known by the company they keep”. In P.

Strevens (ed.), pp. 149–65.McCarthy, M. J. 1990. Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 184 pp.Mitchel, T.F. 1971. “Linguistic ‘goingsgon’: Collocation and other lexical matters on the syntaggg

matic record”. Archivum Linguisticum 2:33–69.Nattinger, J. R. and J. C. Decarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford:Oxford

University Press, 218 pp.Newmark, P. 1985. Approaches to Translation. London and NewYork: Prentice Hall, x + 200 pp.Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. London and NewYork: Prentice Hall, xii +

292 pp.Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English. 2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

897 pp.


Shunnaq, A. 1992. Monitoring and Managing in the Language of Broadcasting with reference to Problems in English–Arabic Translation. Irbid (Jordan):Dar Al-Amal, 154 pp.

Sinclair, J. M. 1966. “Beginning the study of lexis”. In C. Bazell et al. (eds.) (1966), pp. 410–30.Sinclair, J. M. and S. Jones. 1974. “English lexical collocations”. Cahiers de Lexicologie 24:15–61.Strevens, P. (ed.). 1978. In Memory of A. S. Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wehr, H. 1976. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (3rd ed.). NewYork:Spoken Language

Services Inc., 1110 pp.Wouden, T. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London and

NewYork:Routledge, 248 pp.

Appendix

Table A. The English sentences included in the test and their Arabic equivalents

English sentence Translation into Arabic

1 This tourist speaks broken English. يتحدث هذا السائح بلغة انجليزية ركيكة2 The report presented a bleak prospect for

the country’s economy in the next decade.م التقرير توقعات قامتة القتصاد البلد يف العقد القادم قدَّ

3 The palace is surrounded by towering palm trees.

حتيط بالقرص أشجار النخيل الباسقة

4 Men are described as ‘the sterner sex’. يوصف الرجال باهنم “اجلنس اخلشن”5 The lady said to the patient, “I’ll make

an appointment for you to see the eye specialist”.

قالت السيدة للمريض” سأحدد لك موعدًا ملقابلة اخصائيأمراض العيون

6 The collapse of the Soviet Union had a domino effect on the communist regimes in Eastern Europe.

أدى اهنيار االحتاد السوفيتي إىل السقوط التدرجيي املتتابعلألنظمة الشيوعية يف أوربا الرشقية

7 I am not totally convinced of the project rationale.

بحيثيات املرشوع كليًا لست مقتنعًا

8 Mrs Thatcher’s policy of rate capping gained some support.

حظيت سياسة السيدة ثاترش بتحديد سقف أعىل للرضائبالسنوية التي جتب عىل املجالس املحلية حتصيلها ببعض التأييد

9 These three pupils often make noise in the class.

هوالء التالميذ الثالثة غالبًا ما يثريون االزعاج يف حجرةالدراسة

10 The manager is duly authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the company.

املدير مستويف التفويض بالتوقيع عىل العقد نيابة عن الرشكة

11 He often makes excuses for coming late to the class.

غالبًا ما خيتلق عذرًا ملجيئه متأخرًا إىل الصف

12 I badly need you. أنا يف حاجة ماسة إليك13 I devoutly hope that you get selected for that

job. آمل من كل قلبي أن يتم اختيارك لتلك الوظيفة

14 Every citizen should comply with the law. ينبغي عىل كل مواطن االمتثال للقانون15 When we arrived at the site of the crime, the

boy was virtually dead.عندما وصلنا إىل موقع اجلريمة ، كان الصبي يف حكم امليت


Table B. The Arabic sentences included in the test and their English equivalents

Arabic sentence Translation into English

1 اجليل الصاعد أمل االمة يف بناء مستقبل سعيد. The rising generation is the nation’s hope for building a happy future.

2 سيقوم طبيب االسنان برتكيب اسنان اصطناعية يل. The dentist will fix false teeth for me.3 ينبغي عىل كل مسلم دراسة حياة اخللفاء الراشدين. Every Muslim should study the lives of the

first four caliphs in Islam.4 صناعة األدوية احدى الصناعات الناشئة يف بالدنا. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the

infant industries in our country.5 يقوم وزير اخلارجية بمساٍع محيدة حلل اخلالف بني

البلدين.The foreign minister is making good offices to settle the dispute between the two countries.

6 كان اجلو خانقًا يف الغرفة. It was a stifling atmosphere in there.7 الفأس من أهم االدوات الزراعية. The axe is one of the most important

agricultural implements.8 حتيط بمنزيل جمموعة من األشجار. My house is surrounded by a clump of trees.9 اشرتيت قطعة أرض العام املايض. I bought a plot of land last year.

10 أصبح تركيب األطراف االصطناعية ممكنًا يف الوقت احلارض.

Fixing artificial limbs has now become possible.

11 بلجوء قطر و البحرين إىل حمكمة العدل الدولية حلل خالفهام احلدودي ، فإهنام أحدثتا سابقة يف العالقات

العربية.

By resorting to the International Court of Justice to settle their dispute, Qatar and Bahrain have established a precedent in Arab relations.

12 واجه الرئيس وابل من االسئلة يف مؤمتره الصحفي حول استقالة وزير اخلارجية.

In his press conference, the President faced abarrage of questions on the resignation of the foreign minister.

13 توفر شبكة االنرتنت ملستخدميها سيل من املعلومات حول خمتلف املواضيع.

The Internet provides its users with a plethora of information on various subjects.

14 سيجري الوفدان االرسائييل و الفلسطيني مباحثات حول القدس و قضايا أخرى.

The Israeli and Palestinian delegations will hold discussions on Jerusalem and other issues.

15 يبيع هذا املحل التجاري أواين الطهي . This department store sells cooking utensils.

Note: The researcher’s rendition of some sentences is not the only correct one. There may be some other equally correct renditions.

Abstract

Collocation is considered one of the major ‘trouble spots’ for translators. This may be ascribed to the relative difficulty in predicting the constituent elements of a collocation, the consideraggble variation in collocability across languages and the lack of adequate resources on collocation. However, few empirical studies have been made so far on the types of collocations that are parggticularly problematic to the translator, the specific sources of the problem and the procedures that translators actually resort to in handling such collocations.

This paper investigates the areas just defined with special reference to collocation in English and Arabic. A translation test involving thirty sentencegcontextualized collocations of different


types was designed. The test was administered to four Arab university instructors who taught translation and did translation work for different periods of time. The participants’ performance in the test was considerably low. A detailed analysis of the problem was conducted and the findggings were then reported. It is hoped that a study of this kind would provide essential feedback for translation teachers and syllabus designers.

Résumé

La collocation est considérée comme un des principaux « points névralgiques » pour les traducggteurs. Cela peut s’expliquer par la difficulté relative qu’il y a à prévoir les éléments constitutifs d’une collocation, aux variations considérables de collocabilité entre langues et au manque de ressources adéquates en matière de collocation. Toutefois, peu d’études empiriques ont été efggfectuées jusqu’à présent en ce qui concerne les types de collocations qui s’avèrent particulièreggment problématiques pour le traducteur, les sources spécifiques du problème et les procédures auxquelles les traducteurs ont effectivement recours pour les traiter.

Cet article étudie les domaines que nous venons de définir et se réfère en particulier à la colgglocation en anglais et en arabe. Un test de traduction a été élaboré, comprenant trente collocaggtions de différents types, replacées dans un contexte de phrases. Nous avons fait passer ce test à quatre assistants d’université arabes qui enseignaient la traduction et effectuaient des travaux de traduction à différentes époques. Les résultats obtenus par les participants au test étaient exggtrêmement faibles. Une analyse détaillée du problème a été effectuée et les conclusions ont fait l’objet d’un rapport. Nous espérons qu’une étude de ce type fournira des informations essenggtielles aux professeurs de traduction et aux concepteurs de programmes d’ enseignement.

About the Author

Showqi Bahumaid, B.A. in English Language and Literature (Baghdad University, Iraq); M.A. (University of Wales, UK); M.Phil. (University of Leeds, UK); Ph.D. (University of Exeter, UK). He is an Associate Professor of Linguistics at the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Translation, Ajman University of Science and Technology (UAE). He translated many works from English into Arabic and has published several articles on various topics in ELT, linguistics and translaggtion, such as “Terminological Problems in Arabic” (in De Beaugrande et al. Language, Discourse, and Translation in the West and Middle East 1994, pp. 133–140), “On the Teaching of Translation at the University Level” Turjuman 4/2 (1995) pp. 95–104 and “Idiomphobia: The EFL Learner’s Syndrome” in The International Journal of Arabic–English Studies 1/2 (2000) pp. 331–340.Address: Faculty of Foreign Languages and Translation, Ajman Universty of Science and Techggnology, P.O. Box 3749, Ajman, United Arab Emirates. Egmail: [email protected]

Documents

Eng Arabic Collocations