Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation Spaces
Vol. 10:2 (2021) ► pp.278–305

A methodology for Qur’anic lexical translation

Synergizing semantic preference, discourse prosody, and para/intertextuality

ORCID logo | Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University | Kafr El-Sheikh University
The present study propounds a methodology for the translation of Qur’anic lexis in a way that synergizes semantic preference, discourse prosody, and para/intertextuality. Towards the validation of this methodology, the Qur’anic lexical item آيـة (āyah) is investigated at two levels: (a) the intertextual level of the semantic preferences emerging in the various co-texts of āyah inside the Qurʼan and (b) the paratextual level of the overall discourse prosody underlying these semantic preferences in the exegetical contexts of āyah. The research finds firstly that there are four semantic preferences associated with āyah, viz. cosmological phenomena, miraculous tokens, conclusive evidence, and divine revelations/communications. Second, the discourse prosody underlying the Qurʼanic usages of āyah is divine visibility, which motivates the word’s generic English translation as “sign.” Third, in rendering the lexical item آيـة (āyah) into English, the well-known Qur’an translators in the Qurʼanic Arabic Corpus have opted either for “sign,” to maintain the positive discourse prosody associated with the Qur’anic usages of the item, or “token,” “portent,” “miracle(s),” or “verse/revelations/communications,” with a view to observing the semantic preferences associated with them.
Keywords: āyah (آيــة), discourse prosody, exegetical contexts, intertextuality, methodology for Qur’anic lexical translation, paratextuality, semantic preference, the Qurʼan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical synergies
  • 3.Qur’anic corpus translation studies and the case of (āyah)
  • 4.Qurʼanic lexical translation: A methodology
    • 4.1Qurʼanic lexical translation: A methodological synergy
    • 4.2Data and procedure
  • 5.Translations of the Qurʼanic lexical item (āyah)
    • 5.1Intertextual semantic preferences across the co-texts of āyah
    • 5.2Paratextual discourse prosody underlying the exegetical contexts of (āyah)
  • 6.Conclusion: Findings and implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.20042.sal
References (57)
References
Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2001. Qurʼan Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2012. Theological Approaches to Qurʼanic Exegesis: A Practical Comparative-Contrastive Analysis. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Text Linguistics of Qurʼanic Discourse: An Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ali, Yusuf. 1934/1983. The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Maryland: Amana Corp.Google Scholar
Allen, Graham. 2000. Intertextuality. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-ʼAlūsi, Shihabuldin M. bin Abdullah (n.d.). Rūh Al-Ma‛āni. 1–151 Volumes. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-llmiyyah.
Arberry, Arthur J. 1980. The Koran Interpreted. 1–21 Volumes. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications.” Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, Translated andedited by C. Emerson. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis MN. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1970. S/Z: An Essay. Translated by R. Miller, 1974. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Dukes, Kais. 2012. The Quranic Arabic Corpus, School of Computing, University of Leeds. Accessed 20 September, 2020. [URL]
Genette, Gérard. 1997a. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
. 1997b. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Haywood, John A. and H. M. Nahmad. 1965. A New Arabic Grammar of the Written Language (2nd ed.). London: Lund HumphriesGoogle Scholar
Hood, Susan. 2006. “The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (1): 37–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ibn Kathīr, Imad AI-Din abu Al-Fidaʼ Isma‛īl bin Amr. 1999. Tafsīr Al-Qurʼān Al-‛aẓīm. 1–81 Volumes. Riadh: Dar Ṭaybah.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 2001. Lexis and Creativity. A Corpus-based Study. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Khan, Mohsin. 1996. The Noble Qur’an in the English Language. Madinah: King Fahd Printing Complex.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1969. Semeiotike: Recherches pour une Sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Kübler, Natalie and Alexandra Volanschi. 2012. “Semantic prosody and specialised translation, or how a lexicogrammatical theory of language can help with specialised translation.” Corpus-Informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications, edited by Alex Boulton, Shirley Carter-Thomas and Elizabeth Rowley-Jolivet, 103–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kübler, Natalie and Pierre-Yves Foucou. 2007. “Teaching English verbs with bilingual corpora: Examples in the field of computer science.” Corpus-Based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, edited by Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, 185–206. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Bruce B. 2017. The Koran in English: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Xiaohong and Naixing Wei. 2020. “Exploring the Roles of Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference for Achieving Cross-Language Equivalence: A Corpus-based Contrastive Analysis of Translation Pairs in English and Chinese.” In Corpus-Based Translation and Interpreting Studies in Chinese Contexts: Present and Future, edited by Kaibao Hu and Kyung H. Kim, 115–154. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louw, Bill. 1993. “Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies.” Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 157–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makarem, S. N. 1995. Tafsīr Nemuneh. Tehran: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Islamiyyah.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2011. “Looming large: A cross-linguistic analysis of semantic prosodies in Comparable Corpora.” Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications, edited by Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach and Jeremy Munday, 169–186. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Nelson, Mike. 2006. “Semantic associations in business English: A corpus-based analysis.” English for Specific Purposes 25 (2): 217–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nkoonam, Ja‛afar and Fatemeh (Fatima) Sarvi. 2016. “On the interpretation of the demonstrative pronouns in the opening verses of Qurʼanic Sūras.” The Social Sciences 11 (5): 7080–7087.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Dilworth B. 2012. arabiCorpus, Brigham Young University. Accessed 20 September, 2020. [URL]
Partington, Allan. 1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickthall, Muhammad M. 1930/1969. The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: An Explanatory Translation. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Al-Qurtubi, abi Abdullāh M. 2006. Al-Jami‛ Li-ʼaḥkām Al-Qurʼān. 1–241 Volumes. Beirut: Al-Resālah.Google Scholar
Al-Rāzi, M. bin Umar Al-Husayn Fakhruldīn. 1981. Mafātīh Al-Ghayb. 1–321 Volumes. Beirut: Dar Al-Fikr.Google Scholar
Sahih International (ed). 1997. The Qur’an: Arabic Text with Corresponding English Meanings. Almunatada Alislami, Abul Qasim Publishing House.Google Scholar
Sakellariou, Panagiotis. 2014. “The appropriation of the concept of intertextuality for translation-theoretic purposes.” Translation Studies 8 (1): 35–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sardinha, Berber T. 2000. “Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: A contrastive study.” Cuadernos de Filologìa Inglesa (University of Murcia, Spain) 9 (1): 93–110.Google Scholar
Sarwar, Muhammad. 2001. The Holy Quran. Islamic Seminary, Inc., NJ.Google Scholar
Shakir, M. Habib. 1926/1992. The Quran: Arabic Text and English Translation. New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’anGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1996. “The search for units of meaning.” Textus 91: 75–106.Google Scholar
. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Sofi, Kholood, Marlyna Maros and Kaseh Abu Bakr. 2014. “Semantic prosody in the Qur’an.” International Journal of Linguistics 6 (2): 120–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stahlberg, Lesleigh Cushing. 2008. Sustaining Fiction: Intertextuality, Midrash, Translation, and the Literary Afterlife of the Bible. New York: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dominic. 2009. “Safeguarding the lexicogrammatical environment: Translating semantic prosody.” Corpus Use and Translating: Corpus Use for Learning to Translate and Learning Corpus Use to Translate, edited by Allison Beeby, Patricia Rodriguez Inés and Pilar Sánchez-Gijón, 29–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2009. “The search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics.” Applied Linguistics 30 (1): 115–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Functionally complete units of meaning across English and Italian: Towards a corpus-driven approach.” Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-Based Approaches, edited by Bengt Altenberg and Sylviane Granger, 73–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. 1980. “The semantics and pragmatics of functional coherence in discourse.” Speech Act Theory: Ten Years Later, edited by Alessandro Ferrara, 49–65. Milano, Italy: Versus.Google Scholar
Wright, William. 1896. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Vol. 21. (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard and Tony McEnery. 2006. “Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective.” Applied Linguistics 27 (1): 103–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Younis, Nagwa. 2019. “Semantic prosody as a tool for translating prepositions in the holy Qurʾan: A corpus-based analysis.” Arabic Corpus Linguistics, edited by Tony McEnery, Andrew Hardie and Nagwa Younis, 120–142. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yüksel, Edip, Layth S. al-Shaiban and Martha Schulte-Nafeh. 2007. Quran: A Reformist Translation. USA: Brainbow Press.Google Scholar
Al-Zamakhshari, abi Al-Qāsim. 1998. Al-Kashshāf. 1–61 Volumes. Riadh: Maktabat Al-‛ubaykān.Google Scholar
Al-Zarkashi, Badruldin Muhammad. 1988. Al-Burhān fi Ulūm Al-Qurʼan. 1–41 Volumes. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hassanein, Hamada
2022. Double or half reading, double or full meaning: Amphibological and anacoluthic syntax through the lens of Qur’an translators. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26:3 ► pp. 668 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.