How Three Different Translators of The Holy Qur’an Render Anthroponyms from Arabic into English

IF 0.9 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
M. Afrouz
{"title":"How Three Different Translators of The Holy Qur’an Render Anthroponyms from Arabic into English","authors":"M. Afrouz","doi":"10.5195/names.2021.2255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper examines anthroponyms in the Holy Qur'an in three different English translations to shed light on how procedures used by translators can help target-language (TL) readers understand the implied meaning of anthroponyms. In order to conduct the research, the anthroponyms in the Holy Qur'an were isolated and English equivalents were identified. Then Vermes’s (2003) model was applied to the collected data to find answers to the following research questions: (1) What strategies are used most frequently by the translators examined to render the Qur’anic anthroponyms into the target-language (TL)?; (2)  How consistent are the translators in using particular strategies when translating the anthroponyms?; (3) Does the type of translator affect their choice of translation strategy?; (4) Does the model suggested by Vermes (2003) cover all of the strategies employed by the three translators?; and (5) Which procedures are source-language-oriented, TL-oriented, or deep-reader oriented? Overall, the findings indicated that the procedures most frequently used by the translators were “substitution” and “transference.” It was found that the native speaker of neither Arabic nor English foreignized 96.80% of the Qur’anic anthroponyms by using “transference,” while the native translators of either the target-language or the source-language domesticated 71.00% of the anthroponyms by using “substitution.” “Substitution” was used when an exact Biblical equivalent for the Qur’anic anthroponym existed. Otherwise, “transference” was used along with notes to transport the meaning and form while remaining faithful to the intended meaning of the sacred text.","PeriodicalId":44254,"journal":{"name":"Names-A Journal of Onomastics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Names-A Journal of Onomastics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/names.2021.2255","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The present paper examines anthroponyms in the Holy Qur'an in three different English translations to shed light on how procedures used by translators can help target-language (TL) readers understand the implied meaning of anthroponyms. In order to conduct the research, the anthroponyms in the Holy Qur'an were isolated and English equivalents were identified. Then Vermes’s (2003) model was applied to the collected data to find answers to the following research questions: (1) What strategies are used most frequently by the translators examined to render the Qur’anic anthroponyms into the target-language (TL)?; (2)  How consistent are the translators in using particular strategies when translating the anthroponyms?; (3) Does the type of translator affect their choice of translation strategy?; (4) Does the model suggested by Vermes (2003) cover all of the strategies employed by the three translators?; and (5) Which procedures are source-language-oriented, TL-oriented, or deep-reader oriented? Overall, the findings indicated that the procedures most frequently used by the translators were “substitution” and “transference.” It was found that the native speaker of neither Arabic nor English foreignized 96.80% of the Qur’anic anthroponyms by using “transference,” while the native translators of either the target-language or the source-language domesticated 71.00% of the anthroponyms by using “substitution.” “Substitution” was used when an exact Biblical equivalent for the Qur’anic anthroponym existed. Otherwise, “transference” was used along with notes to transport the meaning and form while remaining faithful to the intended meaning of the sacred text.
三种不同的《古兰经》译者如何将阿拉伯语的拟人词翻译成英语
本文考察了《古兰经》中三种不同英文译本的拟人词,以揭示译者使用的程序如何帮助译语读者理解拟人词的隐含意义。为了进行研究,对《古兰经》中的拟人词进行了分离,并确定了英语中的对应词。然后将Vermes(2003)的模型应用于所收集的数据,以找到以下研究问题的答案:(1)被调查的译者在将《古兰经》拟人词翻译成目的语时最常用的策略是什么?(2)译者在翻译拟人词时使用的特定策略是否一致?(3)译者的类型是否会影响他们对翻译策略的选择?(4) Vermes(2003)提出的模型是否涵盖了三位译者使用的所有策略?(5)哪些程序是面向源语言的,面向语言的,还是面向深度阅读器的?总体而言,研究结果表明,译者最常用的翻译程序是“替代”和“移情”。研究发现,母语为阿拉伯语和英语的人通过“移情”将96.80%的古兰经拟人词异化,而目的语和源语的母语译者通过“代入”将71.00%的古兰经拟人词驯化。当《圣经》中存在与《古兰经》拟人词完全对应的词时,就使用了“替代”一词。否则,“移情”与注释一起使用,以传递意义和形式,同时保持对神圣文本的预期意义的忠实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Names, the journal of the American Name Society, is one of the world"s leading journals in the study of onomastics. Since the first issue in 1952, this quarterly journal has published hundreds of articles, reviews, and notes, seeking to find out what really is in a name, and to investigate cultural insights, settlement history, and linguistic characteristics revealed in names. Individuals subscribing to Names automatically become members of the American Name Society and receive the journal as part of their membership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信