Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page229

andArberry(1955)areamongthosewhodonotfollowthispractice.

StyleandstrategiesofQur’ānictranslation

Qur’ānictranslationsadoptavarietyofstylesandstrategiesintermsofboth

formatandcontent.Asfarasformatisconcerned,manytranslationsareprinted

intheformofparalleltexts,withtheArabictextfacingthetranslation.Someare

printedonthesamepagewhileothereditionsprinttheparalleltextonopposite

pages.Pagesofsomeparalleltranslationsaresequencedtobereadfromleftto

right,othersfromrighttoleft(thelatterinrecognitionofthefactthatArabicis

writtenfromrighttoleft)(seeSCRIPT).Paralleltextsofthistypeservevarious

purposes,suchasconfirmingthesecondaryroleofthetranslationwhileensuring

thepresenceofimmediateanddirectmeansofcrossreferencingand

verification.Butperhapsthemostimportantmotivationforthisformat(of

paralleltexts)isthe1936fatwa referredtoearlier,whichstipulatedthat

‘translationsofthemeanings…shouldbeprintednexttothetext

concerned’(Mehanna1978:22).

Intermsofstyle,Arberry’s(1955)translationtriestoemulatethequalityofthe

original.Itdoessowithsomesuccessandseems,atleastpartially,tohave

influencedothertranslationsthataimedatthesameeffect,suchasthetranslation

byZidanandZidan(1991).Rodwell’s(1909)quasiversifiedtranslationtriesto

balanceaccuracywiththeneedtoreproduceasimilareffectonthetarget

reader.Pickthall(1930/1992)isconsideredparticularlysuccessful(see,for

example,Hitti1937/1970:127),showingeruditionandsensitivity.YusufAli’s

(1934)editionisanexampleofanapproachthatattemptstobeliteralattimes

whiletendingtoovertranslateatothers(Irving1992:xviiff.).

MosttranslationsoftheQur’ānaresourceoriented(seeSTRATEGIES);

accommodatingthetargetaudienceisnotgenerallyfavouredgiventhatthe

Qur’ānistheWordofGod,revealedinArabictotheProphetMuhammad.

Thismayexplaintheextensiveuseofnotesinmanytranslations,andthelengthy

introductionsthattendtoprecedethem.ItisalsointerestingtonotethatArabic

speakingpreacherswhonormallyuseformalArabicingeneral,andespeciallyin

Friday’scongregationalprayers,mayinterpretorrewordasuraorayain

colloquialorsimplifiedArabic.Thistypeofsimplificationisnotafeatureof

written‘translations’intootherlanguages.Nevertheless,atranslationinsimple

English‘tosuitthereadingandcomprehensionof6–16yearold

individuals’(Ahamed2003)hasbeenapprovedbyAlAzharandotherreligious

bodiesintheArabandMuslimworld.

EverytranslationoftheQur’ānhashadtoconfronttheissueofitsown

legitimacyatsomepoint,inadditiontotheusualquestionsofaccuracy,

relevanceandstylisticimpact.However,throughoutitslonghistory,ithasbeen

thequestionoftheveryTRANSLATABILITYoftheQur’ānthathasmostly

dominateddebatesoverthisuniquetextandparticulartranslationcontext.

Seealso:

ARABICTRADITION;BIBLE,JEWISHANDCHRISTIAN;LATIN

TRADITION;PERSIANTRADITION;TRANSLATABILITY;TURKISH

TRADITION.

Furtherreading

Pickthall1931;WattandBell1970;Mehanna1978;alBundaq1983;al

Zafzaf1984;Kidwai1987;FischerandAbedi1990;Ali1992;Watt1994;

Holes1999;Cook2000,AbdulRaof2001.

HASSANMUSTAPHA

Page230

Relay

Relaytranslationisthetranslationofatranslatedtext(eitherspokenorwritten)

intoathirdlanguage(forexample,fromChinesetoEnglish,thenfromEnglishto

French).ItissometimesconsideredasubsetofRETRANSLATION(see,for

example,Idema2003),althoughGambier(1994)moreusefullydistinguishesthe

twobydefiningretranslationasatranslationofanalreadytranslatedmessage

intothesamelanguage(e.g.ChinesetoEnglishandthenagainintoEnglish).

Dollerup(2000b)proposestofurtherdifferentiaterelaytranslationfrom

indirecttranslation(wheretheintermediarytranslationisnotintendedfor

publication,butonlyasasteppingstonetothesecondtranslation),andsupport

translation(wheretranslatorsconsultearliertranslationswhilepreparingtheir

ownnewone);thelatterwouldseemtobeatthelimitofretranslation.

Relaytranslationhasreceivedverylittleattentionbyeithercritics,theoreticians

orhistoriansoftranslation.Thisshouldcomeasnosurprise,giventheprivileging

oforiginaltextsovertranslationinmosttimesandplaces.Iftranslationisapoor

copy,thenwhydiscusspoorcopiesofpoorcopies?Informaldiscussions(for

example,amongpractitionersandtrainers)tendtostressthatmistakesmadein

theoriginaltranslationarepassedontotherelaytranslation,andmoremistakes

anddistortionsareaddedasonemovesfurtherawayfromtheoriginal.A

postingontheCharteredInstituteofLinguistsdiscussionforum,underthetopic

‘Europeanstandardintranslation’,istypicalinthisrespect:‘Ifindtheconcept

of“relay”translationappalling.IwondersometimeswhenItranslatea

documentintoEnglishanddiscoverthattheclientisaJapanesecompanyjust

howthe“Chinesewhisper”phenomenonwillaffecttheunderstandingofthefinal

result’(Dina2006).Relaytranslationisthusseen,atbest,asanecessaryevil,

andtheassumptionisthatitisalwayspreferabletotranslatefromtheoriginal,

justasitisalwayspreferabletoreadtheoriginalratherthanatranslation.The

perceptionisthatstudyingitwilladdnothingtothetotalsumofhuman

knowledge.

Interestingly,Benjamin(1968/1996)believedthattherewassomethingdifferent

involvedinthetwoprocesses–directandrelaytranslation.Hearguedthatthe

differencearisesfromthechangesthatoccurbetweenanoriginaltextandits

translation:thetranslation’srelationtotheworkofartislikearichrobedraped

aroundakernel;whereastheoriginallanguagefitstheworkofartliketheskin

ofafruit.Sincethefitbetweenthelanguageandtheworkofartisdifferentin

thetranslation,notranslationcanbeusedtocreateafurthertranslationofthe

workofart;thetranslatormustalwaysworkfromtheoriginal.Thedifference

betweentheoriginalandthetranslation,then,precludesrelaytranslation–

althoughitdoesnotprecluderetranslation,whichinfactBenjaminencouraged.

NooneseemstohavefolloweduponthisdiscussionbyBenjaminofrelay

translationanditspossibleimplications.

However,justastranslationhasalwaysbeenanimportanthumanactivity

despitethefactthatitisseenasderivative,relayhasalsobeenawidelyused

strategyinbothoralandwrittentranslation.Thefirstinsightthatrelaytranslation

affordsus,then,istheextenttowhichthedevaluationoftranslationhasbeen

internalizedwithinthetranslationcommunityitself,wherethedisdainand

mistrustoftranslationhasbeenreplicatedinadisdainandmistrustofrelay

translation.

Relaytranslationisoneofthefewareasoftranslationstudiesinwhich

interpretinghasprobablyenjoyedmorevisibilitythan