Cover not available
Article published In:
FORUM
Vol. 8:1 (2010) ► pp.73–101

Domesticating Pragmatics and Culture in Translation

| Department of English Kuwait University
| Department of English Kuwait University

La relation qui existe entre le Texte Source (TS) et le Texte Cible (TC) en traduction retient depuis longtemps l’attention des théoriciens de la traduction. Certains spécialistes, comme Nida (1964), Catford (1965), Newmark (1988), et De Waard et Nida (1986), perçoivent le TS comme un “original sacré” dans sa forme, dans sa fonction, ou dans les deux. D’autres théoriciens, tels que Vermeer (1989), Venuti (1995), Behl (2002), et Muhawi (2007), soutiennent, au contraire, que le traducteur doit devenir un participant actif dans la communication interlinguale s’il vise à offrir un TC naturel. Le présent article montre qu’il est essentiel de maîtriser le TC aux niveaux pragmatiques et culturels lorsque l’on traduit entre l’arabe et l’anglais. Il est proposé que le traducteur doit être sensible aux différences de force illocutoire, de normes de politesse, et des implicatures conversationnelles entre les deux langues. Cet article documente certains difficultés provenant des domaines sociaux, politiques ou religieux. L’authenticité des exemples cités est assurée par une sélection faîte, dans la plupart des cas, à partir de traductions publiées.

Keywords: foreignization, domestication, Translation, pragmatics, culture
Published online: 1 April 2010
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.8.1.04far
References
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Aziz, Yowell Y.
(1999) Cross-Cultural Translation and Ideological Shifts. International Journal of Translation, 2(1–2), 29–84.Google Scholar
Hatim, B. & I. Mason.
(1990) Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Behl, A.
(2002) Premodern Negotiations: Translating between Persian and Hindavi. In Rukmini, B.N. (ed.), Translation, Text and theory: The paradigm of India.New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 89–100.Google Scholar
Berofsky, B.
(1971) Determinism. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casagrande, J.
(1954) The Ends of Translation. International Journal of American Linguistics, 201, 335–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C.
(1965) A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Elyas, A. E.
(1987) The Thief and the Dogs (An English Translation of Najeeb Mahfouz’s al-liSSu wa al-kilaab, 1973, Beirut Dar Al-qalam).Jeddah: Dar Al-Shorouq.Google Scholar
Farghal, M.
(1992) Colloquial Jordanian Arabic Tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1), 223–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) Arab Fatalism and Translation from Arabic into English. Target, 51, 43–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Ideational Equivalence in Translation. In Beaugrande, Robert de, Shunnaq, A. and Heliel, M. (eds.) Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) The Pragmatics of 'inšaallah in Jordanian Arabic. Multilingua, 14 (3), 253–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Situational and Discoursal Social Honorifics in Jordan: An Empirical Study. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1581, 163–181.Google Scholar
(2003) Schemata and Lexis in Translation (2003) Perspectives: Studies in Translatolgy, 11(2), 125–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farghal, M. & Borini, A.
(1996) Pragmalinguistic Failure and the Translatability of Arabic Politeness Formulas into English: A Case Study of Mahfouz’s ’awlaadu ħaaratinaa. INTERFACE:Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
(1997) Pragmareligious Failure in Translating Arabic Politeness Formulas into English: Evidence from ’awlaadu ħaaratinaa. Multilingua, 16(1), 77–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farghal, M. & Shakir, A.
(1994) Kin Terms and Titles of Address as Relational Social Honorifics in Jordanian Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics 36(2):240–378.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and Conversation. InCole, P. and J. L. Morgan, Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: New York Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, E.
(1991) Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
Language as Social Semiotic. London and New York: Arnold.
Hickey, Leo
(ed.) (1998) The pragmatics of translation. GB: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
House, J.
(1977) A model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(1997) Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jacobson, R.
(1960) Closing Statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. Seboek (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Presspp. 350–377.Google Scholar
Jäger, G.
(1975) Translation and Translationslinguistik. Halle: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Y.
(1982) "Toward Defining the Notion ‘Equivalence’ in Contrastive Analysis". TESL, 51, 82–98.Google Scholar
Krazeszowki, T.
(1971) Equivalence, Congruence and Deep Structure. In G. Nickel (ed.), Papers in Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–48.Google Scholar
Lacey, A. R.
(1986) A dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Le Gassick, T.
(1975) Midaq Alley (An English translation of Najib Mahfouz’s novel ziqaaqu al-madaqqi 1947) London: Educational International.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahfouz, N.
(1959) Awlad Haritna. Beirut: Dar Al-Adab.Google Scholar
Muhawi, I.
(2007) Toward a Folkloristic Theory of Translation. In Theo Hermans (ed.), Translating Others. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Munday, J.
(2001) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Londan and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munif, A.
(1992) mudin-il-malh: taqaasiim-il-layl wan-n-nahaar (Cities of Salt; Variations on Day and Night). Beirut: Arab Corporation for Studies and Publishing.Google Scholar
Newmark, P.
(1988) A textbook of translation. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, E.
(1964) Toward a science of translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, E. & Reyburn, W. D.
(1981) Meaning across Culture. New York: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.
(1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stewart, P.
(1981) Children of Gebelawi (translation of Mahfouz’s Awlad Haritna). London: Heineman.Google Scholar
Strawson, G.
(1986) Freedom and belief. Oxford: Clarendon. Google Scholar
Theroux, P.
(1993) Cities of salt Variations on night and day (trans.). Beirut: Cape Cod Scriveners.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.
(1995) Meaning in interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Venuti, L.
(1995) The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J. & Darbelnet, J.
(1958) Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: Methode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Vermeer, H. J.
(1989) Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader 2000, pp. 221–231, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Waard, J. & Nida, E.
(1986) From one language to another: Functional equivalence in Bible translating. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1987) Boys Will Be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics’. Language, 63(1), 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar