Over the past 30 years corpus-based investigations have witnessed unprecedented familiarity among the circles and trends of modern linguistic researchers. The research potentialities are limitless and rather confusing. The applications extremely proliferate every day ranging from language teaching, forensic linguistics, historical studies, psycholinguistics, cross-cultural studies to translational studies. This book chases one particular potentiality of corpus-based studies related to the process of translation within a sort of assessment context.
The challenges are quite many starting with the scarcity of serious corpus-based studies of Arabic and ending with the complex morphological variations between Arabic and English and the way these variations should be addressed within the context of a corpus-based assessment of the translation as a process. Knowing the criss cross nature of translation assessment, the researchers focused on one specific feature to be traced in the source text and the target text(s). This feature scores the rates of lexical loss in both ST and TT to reach a sort of calculation that might measure the size of the gap between the lexicon sizes of both texts.
With the aid of corpus linguistics and stylistics in respect to their meeting area corpus stylistics, the researchers measure the lexicons of three English translations (those of Yusuf, Pickthall and Muhammad) which have shown different degrees of lexical loss in comparison with the original Arabic Quranic text. These degrees go hand in hand with the size of the linguistic repertoire each translator utilizes in his translation to such an extent that it sounds rather promising to regard lexical loss measure as a trustworthy stylistic marker. That is, each translator has his own distinctive rate of lexical loss that might be an idiosyncratic marker of his translational style.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
Introduction
The Basic Argument, Aims and Values
Chapter Two
Corpus Linguistics, Stylistics & Translation
2.1 Corpus Linguistics (CL): What is it?
2.1.1 What Does 'Corpus' Mean?
2.1.2 The Aims of Corpus Linguistics
2.1.3 Characteristics of Corpus Linguistics
2.1.4 Corpora Typology
2.1.4.1 General Corpora
2.1.4.2 Specialized Corpora
2.1.4.3 Learner Corpora
2.1.4.4 Pedagogical Corpora
2.1.4.5 Opportunistic Corpora
2.1.4.6 Monitor Corpora
2.1.4.7 Parallel Corpora
2.1.4.8 Comparable Corpora
2.1.4.9 Virtual \ On-Line Corpora
2.1.4.10 Diachronic \ Historical Corpora
2.1.5 The Potentialities of Corpus-Based Methods
2.1.5.1 Concordances
2.1.5.2 Frequency Lists
2.1.5.3 Keyword Lists
2.1.5.4 Collocate Lists
2.1.5.5 Dispersion Plots
2.2 Stylistics and Style: Areas of Interest
2.2.1 Stylistics as an Advanced Level of Practicing Linguistics
2.2.2 The Need of Stylistics in Analyzing Texts
2.2.3 Stylistics and Aspects of Style
2.2.3.1 Style as Choice
2.2.3.2 Style as Deviation
2.2.3.3 Style as Recurrence
2.2.4 Corpus Stylistics
2.2.4.1 The Aims of Corpus Stylistics
2.2.4.3 The Scope of Corpus Stylistics
2.2.4.4 Corpus Linguistic Circle: Linguistic Description & Literary Appreciation
2.3 Translation: What is it?
2.3.1 Theories of Translation
2.3.1.1 Philological Theories of Translation
2.3.1.2 Linguistic Theories of Translation
2.3.1.3 Sociolinguistic Theories of Translation
2.3.2 Models of Translation
2.3.2.1 The Grammatical Model
2.3.2.2 The Cultural Model
2.3.2.3 The Interpretive Model
2.3.2.4 The Text Typological Model
2.3.3 Translation Assessment of the Models
2.3.4 Style and Translation
2.3.4.1 The Style of Translation
2.3.4.2 The Translation of Style
2.3.5 Stylistic Habits and Rhetorical Choices
2.3.5.1 Literary Relevance of Stylistic Habits
2.3.5.2 Stylistic Habits and Rhetorical Choices in Translation
Chapter Three
Lexical Loss as a Stylistic Marker
3.1 The Concept of Translation Loss
3.2 Lexical Translation Loss
3.3 Lexical Diversity Measures
3.3.1 TTR
3.3.2 GI
3.4 Measuring Style in Translation
3.5 Technical Difficulties in Measuring Style
3.6 Literature Review: Some Issues in Translating the Glorious Qur'an into English
3.6.1 Lexical Issues
3.6.2 Syntactic Issues
3.6.3 Semantic Issues
3.6.3.1 Metaphorical Issues
3.6.3.2 Elliptical Issues
3.6.3.3 Polysemic Issues
3.6.3.4 Metonymic Issues
Chapter Four
Corpus Design & Methodology
4.1 Accountability in Designing a Corpus
4.2 Designing the Corpus
4.3 Issues in Corpus Design
4.3.1 Static vs. Dynamic
4.3.2 Representativeness & Balance
4.3.3 Size
4.3.4 Morphological Typology
4.4 Sampling Methodology
4.5 Corpus Properties
4.6 Corpus Data
4.7 Methods Used in Corpus Analysis
4.7.1 WordSmith Tools
4.7.2 Microsoft Office Excel
4.7.3 WordCounter Tools
4.7.4 Farasa Tools
4.8 Corpus Analysis Procedures
Chapter Five
Analysis & Results
5.1 TTR Analysis
5.2 GI Analysis
5.3 TTR and GI Analyses of the Arabic Corpus
5.3.1 TTR Analysis of the Arabic Corpus (before and after using Farasa)
5.3.2 GI Analysis of the Arabic Corpus (before and after using Farasa)
5.4 TTR and GI Analyses of the English Corpus
5.4.1 TTR Analysis of the English Corpus
5.4.2 GI Analysis of the English Corpus
5.5 The Results
Chapter Six
Concluding Remarks
Research Objectives and Themes
This work aims to quantitatively measure "Lexical Translation Loss" in Arabic-English translation, specifically focusing on the translation of the Glorious Qur'an. By applying corpus-based techniques and stylistic analysis, the research investigates the relationship between the Source Text and its target translations to understand how lexical diversity gaps occur and how they can serve as indicators of translational quality.
- Corpus Linguistics and the methodologies for analyzing language data.
- The application of Type/Token Ratio (TTR) and Guiraud’s Index (GI) for lexical diversity.
- Techniques for corpus design, including sampling and morphological processing using Farasa Tools.
- A comparative analysis of three English translations of the Glorious Qur'an.
- The role of lexical loss as a stylistic marker in translation assessment.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 The Concept of Translation Loss
Due to the contradictions between English and Arabic, one might see that the two languages belong to two different families. English, for example, belongs to Indo-European family; while Arabic belongs to Semitic family (see As-Safi, 2011: 83; Said, 2008: 165 & Levin, 2002: 253). From this perspective, one can tell that "loss in translation is very common, varied and sometimes inevitable vis-à-vis avertable loss" (As-Safi, 2011: 83). According to Hervey & Higgins (2002: 21), the term translation loss refers to "the inevitable loss of culturally relevant features … features which are specific to the SL and the source culture and which make the ST what it is". They (ibid) further add that:
The term 'translation loss' is intended to suggest that translators should not agonize over the loss, but should concentrate on 'reducing' it, i.e. controlling and channeling it …, translation loss is not a loss of translation, but a loss in the translation process. It is a loss of textual effects.
Trying to reduce the loss, the translator is unable to know how far s/he still goes on. So, it is puzzling to explain that the translator sometimes goes on boundlessly "translating the same text and never be completely satisfied" (ibid). Nevertheless, the asymmetrical nature of English and Arabic lies behind the linguistic/stylistic differences on certain levels such as phonological, syntactic, morphological, semantic, stylistic, textual and cultural (As-Safi, 2011: 84). Cultural variances, for example, lead to lexical gaps that are manifested in conflicting social, ideological and ecological terms with regard to very sensitive issues, such as politics and religion or those relating to nomenclature and institutions (ibid). Therefore, the translation process, which occurs between English and Arabic, is sometimes obstructed by linguistic, rhetorical and cultural barriers that generate inevitable losses with grave consequences, especially in dealing with a sacred text, such as the Glorious Qur'an (ibid).
Summary of Chapters
Chapter One: Introduces the research, defining the argument that lexical loss can be measured quantitatively and outlining the study's central aims regarding the analysis of the Glorious Qur'an.
Chapter Two: Provides a comprehensive theoretical framework, exploring the intersection of Corpus Linguistics, Stylistics, and Translation, and defines core concepts such as the "Corpus Stylistic Circle".
Chapter Three: Defines the concept of "Lexical Translation Loss" and explains why lexical diversity measures (TTR and GI) are appropriate tools for analyzing the style of translations.
Chapter Four: Details the methodology and corpus design, explaining the use of specific software like WordSmith Tools and Farasa to ensure morphological compatibility between Arabic and English.
Chapter Five: Presents the analysis and findings based on TTR and GI values, providing graphical representations of the lexical loss observed in the different translations.
Chapter Six: Summarizes the study’s findings, confirming the utility of statistical measures in assessing translation quality and suggesting directions for future research.
Keywords
Corpus Linguistics, Corpus Stylistics, Lexical Loss, Translation Assessment, Type/Token Ratio (TTR), Guiraud’s Index (GI), Arabic-English Translation, Glorious Qur'an, WordSmith Tools, Farasa, Stylistic Marker, Lexical Diversity, Translation Studies, Morphological Typology, Quantitative Analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
This book investigates the quantitative measurement of "Lexical Translation Loss" in Arabic-English translation, with a specific focus on different translations of the Glorious Qur'an.
What are the central thematic fields?
The research sits at the intersection of Corpus Linguistics, Stylistics, and Translation Studies, utilizing empirical methods to assess literary translations.
What is the core research objective?
The study aims to determine whether lexical loss can be used as a reliable stylistic marker to assess the accuracy and faithfulness of different English translations of the Qur'an.
What scientific methods are utilized?
The researchers use quantitative computational methods, specifically the Type/Token Ratio (TTR) and Guiraud’s Index (GI), supported by software such as WordSmith Tools and Farasa for morphological segmentation.
What is covered in the main body?
The book covers the theoretical background of corpus-based stylistics, the challenges of translating Arabic into English, the design of the research corpus, and a detailed statistical analysis of lexical loss.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Corpus Linguistics, Lexical Diversity, Translation Assessment, TTR, GI, and Lexical Loss.
Why is Farasa Tools essential for this analysis?
Farasa is used to segment the Arabic language morphologically, which is a synthetic language, into its basic constituents so that it can be compared on equal footing with English, which is an analytic language.
What is the conclusion regarding the translations analyzed?
The study concludes that Yusuf's translation shows the least degree of lexical loss compared to the original Qur'anic text, making it the most lexically accurate among the three translations studied.
- Citar trabajo
- Khalid Shakir Hussein (Autor), Abdul-Haq Abdul-Kareem Abdullah Al-Sahlani (Autor), 2019, Translation Assessment and Lexical Loss. A Corpus-Based Approach, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/462343
