The Characteristics of Translating Arabic dramatic texts into Persian based on Structure, Context, and Language Varieties

زبان و ادبیات عربی

Article 4, Volume 10, Issue 18, February 2019, Pages 97-118   

Document Type: research article

DOI: 10.22067/jall.v10i18.45768

Author

Hussein Shamsabadi^*

Hakim Sabzevari University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

The issue of translating Arabic dramatic texts into Persian has been sparsely treated among critics. For instance, little is known about the basic strategies required to translate such texts. The differences in the syntactic structures of languages deter the adoption and application of suitable criteria and modules while transferring these structures, even after the proper and suitable lexical items have been selected. Sometimes the structure of the source language is not correctly reflected according to its expected use in the target language and is not properly arranged. Making mistakes at verb-tense level is one example where the simple tense is used instead of simple continuous or when statements are used instead of other sentence types. Since the structures of the source and target languages are different, it is natural that the translation should be based on the structure of the target language. On the other hand, paying attention to the style and eloquence of the source text is one of the constraints imposed on the translator while choosing equivalents in the target text, and the same applies to treating the differences between historical, romantic, and intimate texts.
Therefore, the current research has attempted to come up with the possible solutions a translator of dramatic texts can resort to in dealing with: 1) structure (the value of the message in the structure of the source language, the translation of the structure into structure, intertextuality, and misunderstanding of the message); 2) texture (textual coherence and its governing factors, punctuation marks, and the factors influencing the meaning); and 3) language varieties (differences in style or manner of expression), which  examines the practical examples in four selective plays, and provide and recommend a translation for each sentence under study.
The results of the survey indicate that there are various methods in the translation of dramatic texts, such as giving direct attention to the construction, texture, and style of the sentence, and the translation of wrong language selection.

Theoretical Framework

The reason for the complexity and difficulty of translating dramatic works is related to the performativity of these literary works and the fundamental role of dialogue. One of the issues that always engages the minds of these translators is the strategy that should be followed?
In general, the fundamental difficulties involved in translating a play are the vocabulary and structure of the sentences that the protagonists of the plays choose to express their thoughts and feelings. In fiction, we usually encounter a lucid language where the writer adheres to syntactic and structural principles. But in drama, although utterances are produced by the authors, they may suppress the words of a particular character in a specific play. This is  because the translators  may not be familiar with the protagonists' dialects and may not find their words in any glossaries.

Method

The current research attempts to answer the following questions. What are the translation-related solutions in translating dramatic texts? How can the language as one of the interconnected parts of the text convey the perspective of identity?
The present researcher intends to find a suitable answer to the above questions through a descriptive-analytical method along with their individual knowledge and concludes that the translator should translate the text of the play into a literary text. Therefore, the translator should pay attention to the expressions or the structures of the Persian language used while translating Arabic sentences in order to decide what structure, texture or style is more appropriate to reflect the intended interpretation.
Accordingly, by studying plays such as Isis (translated by Abdulmohammad Ayati), Taht Al-Mizalah (translated by Mahdi Shahrokh), As-Sit Huda (translated by Zeynab Khademi Haetan), Wal Shaytan Y‘aiz (translated by Muhammad Javaher Kalam), the various applications and adaptations of the structure, context and language varieties have been examined, while their observance in translating dramatic texts  from Arabic into Persian has also been analyzed to compare the proposed translations with other possible equivalents in order to measure the accuracy or proximity of these translations to the original texts.

Results and Discussion

All in all, paying attention to the style and eloquence of the source text is one of the constraints imposed on the translator while choosing equivalents in the target text, and the same applies to treating the differences between historical, romantic, and intimate texts.
Since the structures of the source and target languages are different, it is natural that the translation should be based on the structure of the target language. But the problems of translating dramatic texts are not limited to lexical and grammatical issues; finding semantics equivalents is more difficult than arriving at lexical-grammatical equivalence. In fact achieving equivalence in all these areas is perhaps so crucial and valuable as the context of performance goes far beyond the structure to the issue of understanding the text and reaching the exact meaning. This extends the visibility of the reader to the point where it is safe to say that texture also incorporates effective phonetic elements in the formation of speech, beyond the comprehension of the surface of the text.
Since texture-equivalence, especially in dramatic texts, explores the exact meaning of the text through the semantic link between sentences besides other structures such as words, the reader may sometimes have to take into account the linguistic context and the link between two or more texts and styles.

Conclusion

In the translation of a dramatic text, one comes across the close interconnection and working of various textual elements such as grammatical links and sentence structures (i.e. the arrangement of words, tense, verbs, etc.), and most importantly, textual and inter-sentence links (i.e. pronouns and referents, semantic links between sentences, paralinguistic elements, punctuation, stress and intonation, underlining) and the all emphasize part(s) of the message in the text and convey the message to the audience. Disregarding any of the aforementioned elements would confirm that translating literary and dramatic texts in particular, is a very difficult, if not an impossible task.
 

Keywords

translation; drama; Characters; Structure; context; lingual verayeti

References

1. أبوالوی، ممدوح. (2008). خصوصیة ترجمة الأجناس الأدبیة، مجلة الموقف الأدبی. مجلة أدبیة شهریة تصدر عن اتحاد الکتاب العرب بدمشق.

2. ترکاشوند، فرشید؛ ناگهی، نسرین. (1392). تحلیل مقایسه‌ای ساز و کار قرینه و بافت زبانی در فهم متن، دوره 3، شماره 9، صفحه 70-55.

3. ترِوِر، ویلیام. (1387). بینامتنیت در رمان تورگنیف ویلیام ترِوِر. ترجمه: الهه دهنوی. ناقد: سعید سبزیان.کتاب ماه ادبیات. (20). پیاپی 134. 50-44

4. جواهر کلام، محمد. (1371). شرارت شیطان (چاپ نخست). انتشارات سکه.

5. الحکیم، توفیق. (1387). ایزیس. ترجمه: عبدالمحمد آیتی (چاپ نخست). تهران: نشر پژواک کیوان.

6. خادمی سکنه، زهرا. (1388). بررسی فکاهه و انواع آن در ترجمه نمایشنامه "الست هدی". پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد. سبزوار. دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری.

7. خزاعی‌فر، علی. (1388). ترجمه متون ادبی. انتشارات سمت. تهران: مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.

8. شوقی، أحمد. (1984). الست هدی. الأعمال الکاملة (المسرحیات). الهیئة المصریة العامة للکتاب.

9. صفوی، کوروش. (1390). هفت گفتار درباره ترجمه. چاپ دهم. نشر مرکز.

10. عطائی، روح الله. (1388). «تحلیل سیاق کلام. روشی برای ارزشیابی کیفیت ترجمه». فصلنامه علمی، فرهنگی، خبری، درباره ترجمه. 4 (6) .

11. عقیلی آشتیانی، علی اکبر. (1382). ترجمه متون ادبی. تهران: رهنما.

12. غلامی،حسین؛ سعیدی، علی. (1388). «نقد ترجمه داستان "درس‌های فرانسه" از دیدگاه نظریه سخن‌کاوی (سبک، لحن، نشانه‌های سجاوندی)». مجله پژوهش زبان‌های خارجی. (52). تابستان . 96-85.

13. غنیمی هلال، محمد. (1997). النقد الأدبی الحدیث، الثقافة المصریة للطباعة و النشر و التوزیع.

14. لطفی‌پور ساعدی، کاظم. (1371). درآمدی به روش و اصول ترجمه. تهران: نشر دانشگاهی.

15. محفوظ، نجیب. ( 1994). الشیطان یعظ (ط1). المؤلفات الکاملة. المجلد الخامس. القاهرة: مکتبة لبنان ناشرون.

16. ــــــــ. )1995). المؤلفات الکاملة (ط1). ایزیس. مکتبة لبنان ناشرون. المجلد الثانی.

17. ـــــــ. (1371). مترجم: محمد جواهر کلام. شرارت شیطان چاپ نخست. تهران: انتشارات سکه.

18. ــــــــ. (1391). زیر سایبان (چاپ نخست). ترجمه: مهدی شاهرخ؛ حسین شمس‌آبادی. تهران: روزگار.

19. ـــــــــ. (1974). تحت المظلة (ط1). القاهرة: دار مصر للطباعة.

20. مدنی، محمد. (2011). النقد و ترجمة النص المسرحی، دراسة فی تأثیر المنهج النقدی علی ترجمة المسرح العالمی. بیروت: دار الهدی للنشر و التوزیع .

21. میرصادقی، جمال. (1376). عناصر داستان (چاپ سوم). تهران: انتشارت علمی.

22. ناظمیان، رضا. (1391). عوامل برون متنی در ترجمه از عربی به فارسی. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی.

23. Robinson, Douglas. )2003). becoming a translator, 2003, USA, Rout ledge, 2e.

24. www.awu-dam.net