Translation of Qur’anic ‘heart’ phrases into English with particular reference to key linguistic featuresProfessor James Dickins

Abstract

Translating the Qur’an, the sacred Word of Allah, poses particular challenges, including linguistic-semantic ones, to the translator, and consequently are worthy of further study and research. This thesis examines three English recent translations (TTs) of the Qur’an – Khattab, Hussain and Bridges – in relation to phrases involving the word qalb ‘heart’ and its ‘associates’, i.e. words with similar senses, key aspects in these words: polysemy, (near-)synonymy, collocation, majāz, ellipsis, and taḍmīn. Qalb ‘heart’ and its ‘associates’ are chosen because of the rich and challenging nature of the data which they provide. The three translations were chosen because: (i) they are new and have not, to the best of my knowledge, been analysed before (unlike many older translations), (ii) given their newness the authors can be consulted over their translation decisions; and (iii) these translations are based on the wealth of previous translations. This study proposes a full model for Qur’an translation production/assessment. The model takes into consideration three elements: i. Different sources of data (authoritative modern tafāsīr which draw extensively on the Classical tradition, Classical Arabic dictionaries, and modern English dictionaries); ii. Different investigators (Qur’an translators, Qur’an translation researchers, and native English Speakers), based on the ‘triangulation’ method, suggested by Campbell and Fiske (1959) and Denzin ([1970] 1978), and; iii. Five linguistic levels (morphology, syntax, lexical-semantics, balāġah, and pragmatics), based on the theoretical principles of comparative stylistics, advanced by Vinay and Darbelnet (1995). Two research instruments are employed: (a) textual analysis, which is applied to the Qur’an as well as to the three TTs, using the three tafāsīr, and three Arabic and English dictionaries; and (b) two questionnaires ــــ 80 TTRs responded to the first questionnaire (designed to assess understandability) and 65 to the second (designed to assess appropriateness), while three QTs and three QTRs responded to the second questionnaire. The findings show that questionnaire respondents have a wide variety of opinions. Some prefer concise translations, while others prefer more explanatory ones. Most commonly, questionnaire respondents find all three translations similarly acceptable. However, there is a preference in many cases for Khattab’s translation over the other two. The addition of a contextual explanation with the second questionnaire typically makes respondents more confident about their responses. However, surprisingly, in some cases when explanations were provided, several participants were not sure which translation is the most appropriate, and could not suggest an appropriate translation, justifying this on the grounds that they were not sure. Given the general value of explanation, as identified by the respondents, explanation (a footnote or in-text square brackets) is recommended, to help bridge the gap between the differences in the six features between Arabic and English. Another major finding is that modern English links ‘heart’ to feelings, unlike the Qur’an, which frequently links it to ‘mind’. This should be reflected in the TT to avoid ambiguity. The research also shows that negative connotations (identified mainly by native English speakers, rather than dictionaries) are associated with some phrases in the TTs, and that these should be avoided given that they are not found in the Qur’anic ST.