Translating Routine Phrases from Arabic into English: Between Functional Translation and Cultural Specificity

ABSTRACT

Phraseological units are essential components of any language or culture. Recognizing and appropriately interpreting these units reveals that the entire expression or work of art has been translated correctly. The translation of phraseological units is a current topic in translatology. Several studies have been carried out to investigate the translation of phraseological units from Arabic into English. However, the study of routine phrases has received insufficient attention in the Arabic and English academic communities. Routine phrases are phraseological units that lack textual independence and integrate specific communicative contexts with vital psychological and social functions. Therefore, two key differences set the current study apart from the previous studies. First, it sheds light on the challenges that translators experience in rendering routine phrases. Second, it explores translators’ coping strategies in translating complex, local, and popular phrases from Arabic into English when adopting darija “vernacular” and fusha “standard” language simultaneously in the same literary work. Addressing these areas would shed light on the extent of challenges that translators experience in translating routine phrases, particularly within the context of the Arabic vernacular language. This knowledge would also be valuable in revising the typology of functional translation and cultural specificity strategies.

摘要

短语单位是任何语言或文化的重要组成部分。这些单位的认识和阐释对翻译艺术表达或作品至关重要。短语单位的翻译是翻译学的一个热门话题。目前已有已经不少研究来探讨从阿拉伯语到英语的短语翻译。然而，阿拉伯语和英语学术界对日常短语的研究关注不足。常规短语是缺乏语篇独立性的短语单位，它将特定的交际语境与重要的心理和社会功能结合在一起。因此，两个关键的差异使当前的研究与以前的研究不同。首先，它揭示了译者在表达日常短语时所面临的挑战。其次，探讨了在同一文学作品中同时采用darija“白话”和fusha“标准”语言时，译者在将复杂、地方和流行短语从阿拉伯语翻译成英语时的应对策略。因此，解决这些领域将有助于了解翻译人员在翻译日常短语方面所面临的挑战的程度，特别是在阿拉伯语的背景下。这些知识对于调整功能翻译的类型学和文化特异性策略也很有价值。

KEYWORDS:

• Phraseology
• Phraseological units
• Routine phrases
• Functional translation
• Cultural specificity

1. Introduction

Routine phrases are part of a more general discipline of phraseology, that investigates constant expressions in languages, which the speaker uses in an almost automatic way. By employing them, the speaker is not just becoming unproductive but is merely repeating phrases that have a high degree of social and cultural compatibility and contribute to promoting emotional bonds, identity, and the interrelationship between members of the linguistic community, in addition to the suspensive and exclusive nature of some of these expressions in the context of a specific culture. Despite this cultural specificity, which may seem at first glance an intractable barrier to translating this type of text phrases and their transfer from one cultural and social context to another, the comparative scientific study of the examples found in many translated works of literature offers great detail and scrutiny. Some examples show that the translator tries to use what is termed functional translation which takes into account the context and the function performed by these phrases. Although this method represents an acceptable compromise, in some cases it becomes difficult depending on the degree of the cultural specificity of a particular phrase. Furthermore, the study of a group of literary works translated from Arabic into English indicates that the adoption of the vernacular language, besides standard Arabic, by writers in some of the dialogs presents some phrases with a very complex, local, and popular nature when trying to translate them from one language to another, which will be addressed in much detail in the present work.

2. Phraseology

Phraseology¹ is a group of linguistic units that share a fundamental feature (Gries, 2008). These units are not composed or arranged by the speaker; rather, they are ready-made components that he is expected to repeat. It is what Bally (1951) refers to as “repetitive discourse,” but there are many forms, degrees, and types of phraseological expressions, and we should suffice with recounting the most essential general qualities, which can be described in two characteristics.

1. Stability: It is a structural and morphological feature that relates to the total or partial “freezing” of the phraseological unit’s components, and it can be absolute or relative depending on the context, e.g., neither rhyme nor reason (stability of use), to tread/walk on air− “to be delighted” (lexico-semantic stability), play a lone hand− “to act alone” (morphological stability), break the ice–“do or say sth. to remove or reduce social awkwardness or tension” (syntactic stability).

2. Idiomatic: It is of a semantic nature and is expressed in the broad meaning of the sentence with a set lexical construction and grammatical structure, yet its meaning is ubiquitous and figurative and cannot be inferred from the meanings of the phraseological units, e.g., to be on the rocks, beat about the bush, bright as a new pin, a big fish in a little pond, etc. This is referred to as the metaphorical character of the units. However, this trait does not apply to all phraseological units.

This may represent the difference between the phraseological units in terms of the extent to which the two criteria are realized, either independently or concurrently (Fiedler 2012; Granger & Meunier, 2008; Gelbrecht, 2013; Naciscione, 2010). This discrepancy has caused disagreement among scholars over the classification of phraseological units and their types. In this sense, there are two alternatives:

1. The narrow view: The majority of scholars at the Eastern School hold it, and they prefer the “Nuclear” organization for phraseological units. Only units that match the two aforementioned criteria, particularly the so-called “phrases” or “locutions” are approved (e.g., keep back, a little while, no longer lost).

2. The broad view: it is prevalent in both the classic European school and the present time. This view accepts all forms of phraseological units, such as collocations (e.g., Fast food, the elephant in the room), phrases (e.g., I waited for a while), and phraseological sentences (which are further separated into two primary groups: proverbs and sayings (e.g., too many cooks spoil the broth), and routine phrases (e.g., the pleasure was mine, don’t mention it, so long).

Decoding phraseology in the source language (SL) is difficult for translators and interpreters, especially because they are not native speakers of that language. Developing a natural expression in the target language (TL) while avoiding translationese demands a thorough understanding of the TL phraseology. Even skilled translators may overlook the permanent nature of the SL structure, particularly when translating routine phrases. In the following lines, we will focus on the phraseological unit, particularly routine phrases, as they are the subject matter of our investigation.

3. Phraseological units

A phraseological unit, stable association, is composed of two or more words that are semantically interrelated to one another or identical to a sentence and are employed figuratively as a unit that is not separated (Gries, 2008). Unlike syntactic structures, phraseological units do not emerge by randomly selecting and substituting words in speech, but rather as pre-prepared information with a connotation and precise lexico-grammatical content; that is, no portion of the phrase structure could be eliminated or left out. They have historical usage standards and techniques, and their meanings are reinforced in a specific discourse process (Kushmanov, 2023; Muftah, 2022a & b).

The translation of phraseological units is an area of interest in modern translation studies. As a result, translatologists are debating this topic. The debate focuses on two points: first, the belief that the translator should render the meaning of the entire unit or collection of words, and second, the belief that the translator’s primary task during the translation process is to establish a productive counterpart for acceptable translation of a specific phraseological unit (Muftah, 2022c; Subbotina, 2013). The translator must clarify the translation methods and convey the connotative and evaluative functions of the entire statement (Munday, 2016). Baker (1992) contends that most translators dealing with a foreign language context would never achieve the same level of specificity as native speakers of the same language. Therefore, many well-known and distinguished translatologists argue that phraseologic units are “translators” false friends” because they display some phraseological units of the SL that partially or totally coincide with the TL phraseological units. Identifying these phraseological units may lead to incorrect associations throughout the translation process because of their resemblance with unrestricted collocations. Komissarov and Koralova (1999) assert that some phraseological units could be “translators” false friends” since they have identical forms, causing difficulty to find an effective counterpart in the other language.

Ghazala (2003) points out that most phraseological units are spontaneous and culturally idiosyncratic. He suggests that translators adopt several essential criteria to accurately translate from SL to TL. This includes reviewing the standard and then informal TL equivalents, finding the TL phrase with the same connotations as the SL phrase, and so on. Al-Azzam et al. (2015) and Dweik and Suleiman (2013) have attributed translation complications to cultural expressions. Challenges retained in the translation process of culture-bound phrases (between Arabic and English) are marginally relevant to figurative language translation, which is widely regarded as among the most prevalent problems in text translation. Teilanyo (2007), for instance, considers cultural expressions to be the major contributor to translation challenges. Similarly, Al-Shawi and Mahadi (2012) examine the obtained sources for potential translation challenges and propose solutions to help address those challenges. The results reveal that there are four primary translation strategies: (1) employing parallelism with the exact meaning as the SL; (2) using comparable meaning but different in form; (3) paraphrasing the target phrase(s); and (4) asking informants for assistance.

Phraseological unity should be expressed as figuratively as possible, and should thereafter be communicated mostly through the entire transformative reception (Fotima, 2023). According to Vlakhov and Florin (1986), the capability of achieving an effective dictionary translation of a phraseological unit is dependent on proportions between units of SL and TL: (1) If Phraseological units are analogous in both SL and Tl, with identical semantic value and connotations, they are translated by equivalence; (2) if the phraseological unit of SL and the TL are relatively equivalent, they are translated by alternative (analog), with some exclusions from an acceptable translation; (3) if the phraseological unit has no equivalent in TL and is untranslatable in dictionaries, it is translated by other non-phraseological approaches.

The translator should reflect the phraseological units’ imagery without losing sight of their stylistic function (Gao, 2022). He should also look for approximate equivalents that do not impair the content or meaning of the SL units if the TL lacks a comprehensive equivalent (Odincova & Chmyh, 2018). Gaber (2005) has provided several strategies for interpreting culture-bound phrases. One of these strategies includes cultural analogies, in which cultural expressions are transferred into TL culture-specific phrases. An indication of this is found by translating “charity begins at home” into its Arabic counterpart “الأقربون أولى بالمعروف”(relatives are the closest to be favored). Another viable method suggested by Gaber (2005) is functional translation, which entails the translator utilizing a TL term or phrase with the identical ST purpose and characteristics, such as “hungry bellies have no ears” into “الجوع كافر”(hunger is as an infidel). Graber’s third essential method includes paraphrasing the phrase. This happens when the translator expresses the meaning of a phrase or term in the SL, as in “A man can do no more than he can” into “لا يكلف الله نفسا إلا وسعها” (God does not burden any soul beyond its capacity).

In a broad context, translation, as an instance of inter-language communication, is also regarded as a form of cultural interaction of languages. A phraseological unit is a linguistic unit that emerges as the outcome of the cognitive process of a broad range of reality occurrences (natural, social, cultural, spiritual, and ideological) by members of a specific community. The translation of phraseological units, particularly routine phrases, is often problematic, primarily when these fixed phrases appear in literary works.

4. Routine phrases

Routine phrases are phraseological units that lack textual independence and integrate specific communicative contexts with vital psychological and social functions. However, the study of routine phrases has received insufficient attention in the English and Arabic academic communities. These phrases are forms of normal, stereotypical social interaction that accomplish specific tasks in expected social contexts and are frequently ritualistic. Wells (1990) divides these tasks into repetition, reliance on a specific situation, anticipation, single function, collective construction, and the ability to maintain social harmony.

Based on the effect these phraseological units produce, they contribute to the economy of the language through grammatical social communication. These units are often associated with a specific context of communication (for example, we cannot say “طابت ليلتكم, good night” in the morning at the beginning of the conversation). They can also evolve due to historical and social factors. Furthermore, a large part of these phraseological units are determined by the nature of hierarchical social relations, for example, in the common phrase “الله يرضى عليك, may Allah be pleased with you” the mother or father says to his daughter or son, with the impossibility of the opposite since the phonetic dimension and the obsolete phrases are strongly present in these phrases

In terms of semantics, these phraseological units are not figurative. Their primary function is to achieve smooth and effective social communication, such as in the case of a military salute. These units, on the other hand, may have comedic or satirical connotations depending on the situation.

Gläser (1994) divides these phrases semantically into two parts:

• Daily phrases: Contribute to smooth social communication through daily greetings and goodbyes (e.g., Bye! Have a nice day!), questions about health (e.g., how are you doing?), and conditions that indicate the presence of solidarity and social engagement (e.g., I’m pleased to meet you), or expressions of good elimination or attracting attention (e.g. do you have a minute?), among other things.

• Psychological and social phrases: These are phrases that indicate the interlocutors’ psychological and social state in the linguistic interaction, such as “لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله, there is no might and no power except by Allah” or “لله الحمد, thank Allah” or “لا قدر الله, Allah forbid/heaven forbid” or current and specified condolence expressions

At the end of this part, it should be highlighted that the Arabic language, which is a bilingualism between fusha “standard” and darija “vernacular,” has numerous nuances that are difficult to convey in translation. Furthermore, domestic scholars pay special attention to the challenges that arise and how they could be resolved in colloquial translation. Li (2022) believes that the translator’s retention and change of culture-loaded words and cultural images can reflect translation strategies and his translation views. Therefore, we take the translator’s translation of culturally specific items or image discourse of the original text as the object of study to identify translation strategies.

5. Functionalist approach to translation

Functionalist approaches to translation have resulted in a considerable shift in translation from a linguistic to a functional or socio-cultural perspective. Functionalism considers translation to be a function-oriented communicative act (Baker & Saldanha, 2009). The term “function” refers to the target language text (TLT) function, the source language text (SLT) function, or the phrase function (Schaffner, 1998). The SLT’s function relates to the function of its language. These theories terminate the SLT’s dominance, and sometimes a translation process can proceed in its absence (Nord, 2005). As a result, translation is widely viewed as a means of intercultural communication, with the outcome being a text that can function effectively in a variety of cultures and contexts (Schaffner, 1998). In translation research, there are various functional theories. These theories consider a wide variety of textual genres, not merely literary or religious texts. One of these is the skopos theory, which serves as the cornerstone of this research.

6. Skopos theory

The theory of Skopos has been founded on the premise that purposefulness is the fundamental predictor of a translator’s competence in the process of translation, and that the purpose of translation is fully reliant on the depth of awareness, anticipations, and norms of the target audience (Vermeer, 1989). It is a new approach to the theory of translation based on human psychology that views translation as a process of cross-cultural interaction with specific goals and motivations (Reiss & Vermeer, 2014).

Based on the Skopos theory, the process of translation is defined by the function of the output. In this sense, the objective is to create a user-friendly translation for the intended audience, as opposed to linguistic theories that attempt for a reflective surface of the SL without considering language differences (Jabir, 2006). The meaning of the text is considered by the receiver. Another term associated with Skopos is intention, which is described as a goal-oriented strategy of action taken by both the sender and the receiver (Zhang, 2014).

Translation of vernacular terminology entails not only the articulation of connotations included in the original language but also a creative activity to alter the material with ideological and cultural dimensions. Because the relationship between phrases in two different languages is not completely comparable, certain elements (such as linguistic, cultural, or formal elements) are either missing or hard to maintain in translation (Pan & Yang, 2019). It is critical to define the target audience before deciding on a translation technique (Wang, 2018). In the construction of translating phrases with Arabic properties and manner, the target audience’s cognitive pattern and communication preferences should be thoroughly accounted for, and the implementation of the Skopos theory could achieve functional equivalence outcomes.

Three rules govern the Skopos theory. The fundamental rule is the Skopos rule, which is usually presented as the creator of the translation that established the Skopos (Reiss & Vermeer, 2014). The other two are the coherence rule and the accuracy rule. The accuracy rule is applied differently depending on the Skopos of translation. When the Skopos involves a translation that is as close to the SLT as possible, the translator will do everything possible to reflect the features, language style, and contents of the source text. Meanwhile, Eco-translatology shares a comparable concept in translation, which is a different sort of assistance in evaluating translator behaviors.

In adopting the Skopos theory, the Skopos is a vital aspect since it sets translation standards and guidelines. According to the Skopos rule, the initiator will provide the content, which includes the origin of the translation, the communicative Skopos, the receiver of the text, the medium, and the objectives of receiving the text. Likewise, the translator can assist in establishing the goal by debating with the initiator, rather than simply acknowledging it, especially if the latter lacks professional experience or does not understand the purpose for some reason.

This indicates a suitable method of creating or comprehending the text. Greater knowledge of the SLT by the translator is essential for the development of the particular TLT. In this sense, the theory seeks to dethrone the SLT and prioritize the target reader’s curiosity. This is accomplished by highlighting the translator’s responsibility as a producer of the TLT and emphasizing the intention of producing it. Nord (1991) posits the distinction between intention and function. This difference is crucial in the area of translation since the sender and recipient typically have distinct cultural and situational backgrounds (Nord, 1991). Therefore, intention and function can thus be examined from two perspectives. The former is seen through the eyes of the sender, whereas the latter is seen through the eyes of the receiver. Translation, in line with the Skopos theory, does not require concentrating on the counterpart. Priority should be given to attaining its goal. This theory also considers translation as a form of activity with its own goals as opposed to the goals of the source text.

In summary, Skopos’ goal is to communicate the message from the SLT to the TLT as clearly and accurately as possible. The translators have to justify their decision regarding Skopos in a specific translational context. For a specific translation endeavor, a “free” or “faithful” translation may be required. Kangarioo (2004) contends that there are other aspects to consider, including target readers, translator bias, and the aim and function of translations. What is crucial is that there is a correlation between the SLT and the TLT. Nord (1997) referred to this correlation as “inter-textual coherence or fidelity” (p.27). In general, Skopos theory and functionalism provide the translator with more flexibility and accountability in the translation process. In this case, the translator is the TLT creator, free of any limitations and restrictions caused by elements of devotion to the original text (Schaffner, 1998).

This theory has also been criticized for allowing the end to justify the means. As a result, adopting this approach would be improper for translating texts that are heavily influenced by the author’s intention. Nord (1997) supports Skopos theory by responding to these arguments. The first argument is that not all actions are driven by a specific goal or intention. Consequently, the core of action-based translation theories is called into doubt. Second, it is asserted that not all translations may be viewed as purposeful. Additionally, the translator may not generally have a particular purpose in mind when interpreting the SLT. Establishing such a purpose would restrict the potential translation techniques and, as a result, the readings of the TLT. Third, the originality of the Skopos theory has been questioned as it is founded on the notion that human actions are led by their intentions, which is evident.

In response to the critique of Skopos theory, Nord argued, “this is a misinterpretation of the theory” (Nord 1997:117). To overcome this misunderstanding, Nord proposed her “loyalty” concept as a response to this argument. In this sense, loyalty refers to the duty that translators have for their translation partners. This offers the Skopos theory an ethical dimension, which restricts the limitless spectrum of Skopos that could be applied (Nord, 2005:33). The central concept of Skopos theory can be summarized as the translation purpose that validates the translation techniques (Jabir, 2006). The purpose must be consistent with the communicative intentions of the SL author. Therefore, issues relating to the original text are critical. We cannot adopt the original text since it will have a detrimental impact on the translation process. Additionally, due to a lack of empirical evidence, the Skopos theory cannot be classified as a universal theory.

The Skopos theory addresses how the translated text functions in the context of the target text readers. Given that idioms and fixed phrases should always be interpreted with the interests of the target audience in mind, using phrases that function in the target language, the Skopos theory is undeniably significant in this respect. The TL language of the current study is English. This theory is important in this study since it is the target audience’s interests that the translated expressions should ultimately fulfill. Since routine phrases in the SL (i.e., Arabic) are hardly employed in another language, they should be translated so that they are comprehensible and understandable to the TL audience. The theory stresses the involvement of the TL audience and translator during the translation process, but it occasionally ignores the cultural specificity of the TL.

In short, concerning functionalism’s theoretical foundations, opponents have debated the notions of intentionality, translation purpose, receiver-orientation, and culture-specificity (Nord, 2014). The applicability of functionalism has sparked debate over the translator’s position, the validity of the original, the nature of adaptation in functional translation, and the concept’s viability for literary translation. In the following section, we will look at the translation of routine phrases from Arabic into English to uncover the discrepancy between the functional translation and cultural specificity

7. Translation of routine phrases

Through our extensive scholarly work on translating various forms of phraseological units from a semiotic and rhetorical perspective, we may argue that routine phrases often contain multiple challenges and difficulties. These challenges typically fluctuate between two extremes in the context of the interpretation mediation between two speakers of different languages (Hatem & Maysoon, 2005). The translator faces two difficulties: first, the social literary themes that vary depending on the language; and second, the time spent translating the phrase’s overall meaning would overlook some of the subtleties that emerge through conversational exchanges, participatory techniques for avoiding conflict, or intensity changes that would make communication coarser than desired.

In addition to the linguistic constraints and cultural specificity, which are structural elements in translation, that would complicate the translation process, the communicative dimension’s attempt to glean the textual context would broaden the scope of the study and evaluate the translator’s performance. Therefore, we selected a sample for analysis that included excerpts from a translation of the novel “Diary of a Deputy in the Countryside” by Tawfiq Al-Hakim (1987), a famous Egyptian writer. The novel, which is regarded as one of Al-Hakim’s well-known works, was also translated into English by the scholar of Arabic and Hebrew languages, Abba Eban (1989).

The novel’s popularity stems from its literary relevance as an innovative form of an autobiography of a literary figure as well as the authenticity and purity of the language. Al-Hakim introduced “Diary Literature” as part of Arabic literature for the first time with the publication of this novel. The novel examines rural Egyptian society and keeps a diary-style record of its observations. It further contrasts the Egyptian countryside and European cities in subtle ways. Despite the succession of its events taking place in a rural setting that is immersed in conservatism, extreme poverty, insecurity, and the dominance of a culture of revenge, the overall context of the novel indicates that it is written in a distinctly comic spirit. This spirit is highlighted by the protagonist and narrator simultaneously, who perceive this reality from the perspective of a person integrating between education and legal training by profession, with a profound social and human sense that predominates throughout the novel. In addition to the overall tone, which elaborates on the village’s traditions and regularly employs colloquial language and expressions, especially in exchanges that highlighted the humorous nature of the events. For instance,

ومثل أول المخالفين أمام القاضي الغارق في الأوراق فرفع القاضي رأسه ووضع منظاره السميك على أنفه، وقال للماثل-

- :بين يديه

.انت يا رجل خالفت لائحة السلخانات بأن أجريت ذبح خروف خارج السلخانة-

.يا سيدي القاضي، الخروف ….، ذبحناه ولا مؤاخذة، في ليلة حظ “عقبال عندك” بمناسبة طهور الولد-

(p.39) …غرامة عشرين “قرش”، غيره-

-The first defendant took his place. The judge, who had plunged into his papers, now raised his head, adjusted a pair of thick spectacles on his nose, and said to the man before him,

-You have contravened the Slaughter of Animals Regulations by killing a sheep outside the slaughter-house.

-Your honor, we slaughtered the sheep — saving your presence — on a very special evening (may you be granted one like it) —it was the circumcision of our little son and…

-Twenty piasters fine! Next case! (34)

In the first example, it is important to emphasize that the deputy portrays the role of a judge he refers to as the “quick judge.” In the novel’s extraordinary scenario, the judge is required to adjudicate all cases before the departure time of the train that will take him back to Cairo. This typically explains the nature of his impulsive ready-made decisions and reactions, which frequently led to humorous situations with the unassuming simple villagers present in front of him.

In the case of the first phraseological unit, “ولا مؤاخذة” which is a routine psychosocial phrase used when the content of the sentence is in contradiction with the situation itself or the nature of individuals present, the translator chose an equivalent phrase in English, “saving your presence,” which is employed in a completely comparable context. However, the second phraseological unit, “عقبال عندك” is used similarly throughout the Arab world and implies the meaning of wishing that the addressee is in a moment of celebration similar to that of the speaker. The interpreter preferred to translate it literally into English “may you be granted one like it” since there is no other instance or supporting indication for this phrase’s meaning. Thus, the reader is supposed to comprehend its meaning without perceiving it as a routine expression. It is comparable to a routine Arabic phrase, “نعيما” or “naima” which is used in a variety of forms after taking a bath or shaving but does not have an English equivalent.

-:والتفت الي يستنجدني، فنظرت إلى الرجل سائلا …

سين، يا رجل لماذا لا تشتغل؟-

جيم، يا حضرة البك، هات لي الشغل وعيب علي إن كنت أتأخر، لكن الفقري منا يوما يلقى، وعشرة مايلقي غير الجوع-

أنت في نظر القانون متهم بالسرقة-

القانون يا جناب البك على عيننا وعلى راسنا، لكن برده القانون عنده نظر ويعرف أنني لحم ودم ومطلوب لي آكل-

لك ضامن يضمنك؟-

أنا واحد على باب الله-

تدفع كفاله-

كنت أكلت بيها-

.إذا دفعت يارجل خمسين قرشا ضمان مالي يفرج عنك فورا

(p. 63–64) .خمسين قرش! وحياة راسك أنا ما وقعت عيني على صنف النقدية من مدة شهرين-

- … He turned to me, imploringly. I looked at the prisoner and asked:

- Why don’t you work, my man?

- Your honor, give me work and then tell me off if I don’t jump at it. Poor chaps like us, one day we find something and the next 10 days we find only starvation.

- In the eyes of the law you are charged with theft.

- Your honor, we have every respect for the law. But the law can see what goes on and must know that I’m flesh and blood and must have something to eat.

- Have you anyone to stand bail for you?

- I am all alone in the world.

- Can you pay a guarantee?

- If I had the money, I’d use it to get some food.

- If you pay 50 piasters bail, you can be released at once.

- Fifty piastres? Heavens alive, sir, I haven’t seen what money looks like for two months! (57)

In this example, it is feasible to talk about a unified approach to translating the three phraseological units “القانون يا جناب البك على عيننا وعلى راسنا” “أنا واحد على باب الله” and “وحياة راسك” where the translator transferred the phrases literally as “have every respect for the law,” “I am all alone in the world,” and “Heavens alive, sir” respectively. This entails sacrificing the functional dimension and the social connotations that these phrases carry when used in context. Moreover, the translator’s choice of a literal translation does not assist the reader in understanding the routine phrases in their semiotic and functional dimensions. However, we believe that if the translator had concentrated more on the communicative function of these phrases, he would not have had trouble coming up with solutions and alternatives.

:فقاطعه القاضي مستغفرا مستعيذ-

.أخزاه الله. أنا لا أطيق الصبر على الكفر والجهل-

:والتفت القاضي إلي وقال-

تصور يا سيدي البك أن هذا الأفندي مدرس جغرافيا في المدرسة الثانوية، ألقى فيها محاضرة علنية عن عالم نصراني-

…اسمه “شنتون” عرف بالضبط وزن األرض والسماء… أستغفر الله العظيم

(…)-

!فقلت للقاضي في شيء من االهتمام: وحضرت المحاضرة يا فضيلة الشيخ-

.حضرت والأمر لله من قبل ومن بعد-

وماذا حصل؟-

حصل يا سيدي أن قام وقال في حضرة الباشا المدير وكبار الموظفين والأعيان، أتى بما لم يأت به الأوائل واالأواخر-

فأسكتني الحاضرون ولولا هذا ما سكت ورب الكعبة، واستمر هذا الأفندي في الكلام لا هو بالمعقول ولا (…)

(…) بالمنقول، إلى أن قال

أجب أيها المدرس الأفاك، ههنا الحاصل والجوهر-

(…)

(103–104) !وتكاثروا علي، فاعتذرت وأمري لله-

- The qadi interrupted him with pious imprecations:

- God put him to shame! I cannot endure ignorance and blasphemy.

- Just imagine – and here he turned to me in appeal

- Imagine this young man, a teacher of geography in a secondary school, giving a public lecture about some Christian scientist called Shentoon, who claims he knows the exact weight of the heavens and the earth. I seek forgiveness of mighty Allah…’ (91)

(…)

- Were you at the lecture, sir?’ I asked, with considerable interest.

- I was there. Allah is supreme over past and future!’

- And what happened?’ ‘What happened, my friend, is that this teacher got up in the presence of the governor, the senior officials and the notables, and said that this infidel scientist had discovered what nobody in modern or ancient times had ever discovered before (…) The audience ordered me to be silent and I obeyed in deference to the governor’s presence. Otherwise, by the Lord of the Holy Rock, I should not have held my peace. The speaker went on talking nonsense for a time, and eventually said (…)

- Answer me, my dear mendacious schoolteacher! This is the point and essence of the matter.

(…)

- They all thronged round me, demanding that I apologize, which I did. God be praised! (92–93)

In this excerpt, we can discuss a specific type of challenge provided by translating routine phrases as well as the inconsistent attitude of the translator when faced with these challenges. These challenges include the context of the conversation and the nature of the interlocutors who are the Sharia judge, the town’s imam, and the public prosecutor. Although the examples above have varied religious expressions and connotations, they may all be classified as religiosity. However, this example includes routine phrases that reflect religious formation concerning the judge and the imam. Although they are used colloquially, they are powerful and eloquent phrases.

To elaborate, it can be stated that the interpretation of the various phrases included in the text varies. In the first instance, “أخزاه الله” was translated through a parallel phrase “God put him to shame” with a religious connotation; however, it is employed in popular contexts that disregard the added value of the Arabic phrase, which denotes a specific religious formation. As for the following examples, coping with them was distinguished by the predominance of craftsmanship, even though the outcomes were satisfactory. In general, oath phrases such as “ورب الكعبة, by the Lord of the Holy Rock” severely contradict the suggestive value of the communicative expressions of phrases such as “,والأمر لله من قبل ومن بعدAllah is supreme over past and future” and “وأمري لله, God be praised”

،فسألت عن المأمور-

.فقالوا: إنهم لم يروه وإنهم يعجبون لغيابه عن النادي حتى هذه الساعة-

،فلما علموا مني أنه خرج من الصباح مع المعاون في “البوكس” ولم يعد-

:صاحوا جميعا من فم واحد-

!لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله-

:وصاح صوت من بينهم-

(p. 69) !ضعنا وضاعت فلوسنا والعوض على الله-

- I asked about the ma’mur.

- And was told that they had not seen him and were surprised that he had not appeared at the club before.

- When they heard from me that he had gone out with the inspector that morning in the Ford and had not come back,

- They all shouted with one voice,

- ()

- We’re lost and our money’s lost – God alone can save (61)

… .

،وشرفك يا سيدنا البك ما أعرف إن كانت مخنوقة أو محروقة-

حضرة حكيم الصحة أمر بالدفن كالمعتاد-

بدون توقيع كشف؟-

(…)

الجاري عليه ياسعادة البك أن حلاقين الصحة في الجلهات تبلغ الدكتور المفتش بالتليفون، وحضرته قاعد على كتبه-

:هناما عليه إلا أنه يسأل في كل حالة عن سبب الوفاة نرد عليه في التليفون

..ماتت يا دكتور موتة ربها، يقوم يقول: ادفن، ادفن، ادفن-

(p. 100) !ما شاء الله، ما شاء الله ، ما شاء الله-

- By your honor, sir, I don’t know if she was strangled or mangled.

- The doctor ordered her to be buried in the ordinary way.

- Without signing an examination certificate?

(…)

- The usual practice, sir, is for the barbers in the districts to inform the medical inspector by phone. He sits in his office and asks in every case for the cause of death. We answer on the phone,

- Doctor, she died as the Lord hath willed.

He says, Bury her then, bury her, bury her

-() (87)

The examples above also highlight an additional problematic aspect of routine phrase translation, which include dealing with phrasemes or religious routine phrases. Aside from identifying the proper phrases, translators who deal with specific texts must determine the many types of phrases contained in the source text, comprehend their connotations and intended perlocutionary effects, and make sound translation decisions. Phrases such as “لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله, There is no might and no power except by Allah” and “ما شاء الله, Masha’Allah” were overlooked in both excerpts. Muslims use the first expression when confronted with a tragedy or in a condition beyond their control, such as when persecuted or forced to endure, while the second is employed to convey admiration or beauty about a recent event or person. Although these phrases have less textual relevance, failing to translate them may impair overall readability and undercut the intended communicative functions of the source text.

8. Conclusion

In conclusion, we would like to highlight that the translation of routine phrases from Arabic into English, from the perspective of translation studies, cannot be subject to inferences, absolute instructions, or even assessments of the translator’s work, such as right and wrong; rather, it requires a descriptive analysis of the various options available in terms of semiotic or functional premises. From a more specific perspective, the dilemmas of the translation of the Arabic language could be summed up in two points: (1) the existence of culturally unique and unparalleled phrases in European languages, and (2) the problematic situation of the Arabic language, namely darija “vernacular” versus fusha “standard” language. Therefore, finding a thesaurus match for each constituent of a phraseological unit is not an effective technique for translating routine phrases. Second, a translator’s incompatibility with the phraseology of the SL leads to a direct translation, which results in a false representation of content and misunderstanding of SLT by the target audience. Third, even if the TL has an analogous phraseological unit, the translator should consider other alternatives to convey value to the text because this phraseological unit is irrelevant to the context.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. This science is expressed in English as “phraseology” and in similar forms in the rest of the European languages, and we have chosen to name the science of phraseology because it is closer to the scientific nomenclature than the “idioms” that resulted from labels such as “idioms” or “idiomatic expressions”