On Two Style Markers of Modern Arabic-Hebrew Prose Translations

Lea Sarig

Abstract

Following Enkvist's method for establishing style markers, one 'positive' and one 'negative' marker of modern Arabic-Hebrew prose translations are constituted through a comparison of the translations with their respective original texts. A complementary intra-language study of original Hebrew prose fiction, which revealed the same style markers, shows that the findings are not translation-specific, but rather a language-bound phenomenon. Although the findings for Hebrew translations from English and German concerning the 'negative' style marker do not concur with the findings in the translations from Arabic, they nonetheless indirectly support the conclusion that it is language-bound.

Table of contents

One way suggested by Enkvist (1978) to establish style markers of a text is by comparing it with a certain 'norm', represented by another text. One condition that the text and the 'norm' have to fulfil, says Enkvist, is "a contextually significant relationship" (1978: 174), i.e., they must belong to the same genre, represent the same period, etc. The term 'norm' is thus [ p. 210 ]"shorn of its evaluative connotations" (p. 175) and made to serve as a mere basis for comparison. This leads Enkvist to the following working definition of style markers:

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

[ p. 221 ]References

1. Primary Sources

’Idrīs, Yūsuf
n.d. “ḥāditat šaraf”. hāditat šaraf. Beirut. [Arabic]
1971 “še'ela šel kavod”, tr. Tuvia Šamoš. šex ‘ali me’ayem: sipurim micriyim. Hakibutz Hameuchad 1971 161–176. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
1971 “ḥammāl al-karāsiyy”. bayt min al-laḥm. Cairo. [Arabic]Google Scholar
1979 “ma’ase be-sabal”, tr. Sasson Somekh. ’Iton 77 16–17 (September-October), pp. 16–17. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
1976 “al-‘amaliyya al-kubrā”. dunyā Yūsuf ‘Idrīs. Tel Aviv: dār al-našr al-‘arabī. [Arabie]Google Scholar
1979 “ha-nitu’ax ha-gadol”, tr. Sasson Somekh. taxāt ha-sxaxa: antologya micrit, ed. Sasson Somekh. Tel Aviv: Yariv-Hadar 1979 108–132. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
n.d. “al-naddāha”. al-naddāha. Beirut. [Arabie]
Idrīs, Yūsuf
1989 “al-nadaha”, tr. Yitzhak Shneyboym. me‘ever la-’ofek ha-karov: sipurim ‘arviyim bney yameynu, ed. Ami Elad. Jerusalem: Keter 1989 45–65. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
al-Šarqāwī, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān
n.d. “’aḥlām ṣagīra”. ’aḥlām sagīra. dār al-jumhūriyya. [Arabie]
1979 “xalomot ze‘irim”, tr. Sasson Somekh. taxāt hasxaxa: antologya micrit, ed. Sasson Somekh. Tel Aviv: Yariv-Hadar 1979 178–185. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
al-Ṭayyib, Ṣālih
1970mawsim al-hijra ’ilā al-šimāl. Beirut: dār al-‘awda. [Arabic]Google Scholar
1973‘onat ha-nedida ’el ha-cafon, tr. Tuvia Šamoš. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
‘Awwād, Tawfīq Yūsuf
1972ṭawāḥīn bayrūt. Beirut: dār al-’ādāb. [Arabie]Google Scholar
1983mavet be-beyrut. Mifras. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Fatḥī, Gānim
1959al-jabal. Cairo: dār rūz al-yūsuf. [Arabie]Google Scholar
Fatḥī, Ġānim
1988ha-har, tr. Ami Elad. Jerusalem: Keter. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Kanafānī, Ġasān
1976‘ā’id ‘ilā ḥayfā. Jerusalem: manšūrāt ṣalāḥ al-dīn. [Arabie]Google Scholar
1983 “ha-xozer le-xeyfa—perek mitox roman”, tr. Fortuna Shapiro and Hannah Amit-Kochavi. Moznayim 57, 5-6 (November-December), 12–14. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Maḥfūẓ, Najīb
n.d. bayn al-qaṣrayn. Cairo: dār miṣr lil-tibā‘a. [Arabic]
1981bayit be-kahir, tr. Sami Michael. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
1972 “zuqāq al-midaq”. Sāsūn Sùmīx, dunyā najīb maḥfūz. Tel Aviv: dār al-našr al-'arabī. [Arabie]Google Scholar
1969simta be-kahir, tr.Yitzhak Shreiber. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
[ p. 222 ]
Maḥfūẓ, Najíb
1983 “al-fa’r al-nurwījī”. al-’anba’, July 22. [Arabic]Google Scholar
Maḥfūẓ, Najīb
1983 “ha-‘axbar ha-norvegi”, tr. Sasson Somekh. Moznayim 57:3 (August). 37–39. [Hebrew]Google Scholar

2. Secondary Sources

Enkvist, Nils Erik
1978 “Stylistics and Text Linguistics”. Wolfgang Dressier, ed. Current Trends in Text Linguistics. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter 1978 174–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeston, A.F.L.
1970The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Drory, Rina
1980The Poetics of Classical Arabic Rhyme. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Landau, Rachel
1988The Rhetoric of Parliamentary Speeches in Israel. Tel Aviv: Eked. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Levenston, E.A.
1976 “Towards a Comparative Stylistics of English and Hebrew”. Ben-Zion Fischler and Raphael Nir, eds. Ki-l’shon ’ammo—Chaim Rabin Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem: Council on the Teaching of Hebrew 1976 59–67. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph
et al. eds. 1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sarig, Lea
1987Linguistic Problems of Modern Arabic-Hebrew Prose Translation. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hebrew]Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Yitzhak
1985Linguostylistic Studies of Commentaries in Modern Hebrew Newspapers. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hebrew]Google Scholar
Somekh, Sasson
1981 Review of Toury 1977 . Ha-sifrut 30–31. 209–211. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1977Translational Norms and Literary Translation into Hebrew, 1930–1945. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
1985 “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm 1985 16–41.Google Scholar
Weissbrod, Rachel
1989Trends in the Translation of Prose Fiction from English into Hebrew, 1958–1980. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hebrew]Google Scholar