Babel - Volume 49, Issue 3, 2003

This article discusses an old-and-new topic, retranslation. The author, by analyzing the different aspects of retranslation, draws the following conclusion. The direct retranslation of literary works should be encouraged because it is the incarnation of artistry and the significance of it is to surpass former translated version(s).The direct retranslation of the science books should be strictly limited because, quite different from the direct retranslation of literary works, it is only for the spreading of scientific truths, not for the readers’ appreciation. So it needs no competition in artistic approaches. But if the language and terms of the translated versions are not accurate or wrong or out of date, it is needed.Indirect re/translation, although it loses some of the information of the original, should be accepted because it is a good supplement to direct translation. It is decreasing, but it will never disappear.

One of the most complicated issues in translation is idioms. Although there are thousands of them and occur in all types of texts and contexts, their translation from English into Arabic has only received cursory attention. This paper is an attempt to fill the gap to some extent in the translation of idioms (English-Arabic). It studies the main problems of translating idiomaticity and the extent to which it is retained or distorted and why.Two major translation procedures, evasion and invasion, are suggested. They are alleged to be a framework through which translators can translate idiomaticity, in their desperate endeavour to transfer it into the TL to achieve the maximum possible degree of equivalent sense, aestheticity, connotations and effects. Therefore, two main evasion procedures are suggested: (1) dissuaison from idiomaticity (due to (i) the translator’s incompetence, (ii) zero language equivalence, or (iii) avoidance of taboos); and (2) preference of insensible sense.Also, three invasion procedures are proposed: (1) equivalent idiomaticity; (2) enforced idiomaticity; and (3) abortive idiomaticity. It is claimed that the latter group of procedures, especially (2) is creative and does justice to both texts, the SL and the TL in translation. The article concludes with a summary idiomaticity, and criteria for tracing its equivalence in the TL.

This paper examines the pragmatic and linguistic problems that come into play in the English translation of one of Naguib Mahfouz’s most famous novels The Thief and the Dogs(more than 20 editions in 10 languages). This novel, which was written in 1961, was translated into English in 1984 by Trevor Le Gassick and M.M Badawi.The paper presents evidence that the translators failed to appreciate the importance of context in determining the meaning of the Source Language Text. The paper also shows that the translators sometimes ignored such pragmatic concepts and principles as speech acts, the maxims of the Politeness Principle, conventional implicature, and presupposition. Moreover, some problems rise at the word level and phrase/clause level.Since Mahfouz is a Nobel-laureate whose works are demanded and consumed by avid readers everywhere, such translational problems may distort his works and reduce the enjoyment readers expect from them. The study can also be helpful to future translators in a such a way that they will be aware of the difficulties that await them.

The above essay embraces the modern phenomenon of Yiddish-Hebrew bilingualism in poetry through an examination both of its origins and its current form. It begins with Bialik and his writings in Yiddish, undertaken as a way of reaching the people, not in order to replace Hebrew with Yiddish. The former was, after all, the heart and soul of Bialik’s poetic career. It was, likewise, extremely important for Aaron Zeitlin, who was a translator of Bialik’s Yiddish work into Hebrew while remaining an influential Yiddish poet himself. Also, it was the lifeblood of Uri Zvi Greenberg, formerly an Expressionist Yiddish poet and finally a renewer of the Hebrew language. The article examines the literary motivations and linguistic and social environments of these three poets as “translators of themselves” — “autotranslators”— and renderers of their tradition.