Salim al Dawudi and the beginnings of translation into Arabic of Modern Hebrew Literature

Target ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Kayyal

This article deals with the beginnings of the translation of Modern Hebrew literature into Arabic, and at the same time with the beginnings of Arabic literary writing by Jewish intellectuals. We will focus on Salim al-Dawudi’s translation of the first Hebrew novel, Avraham Mapu’s Ahavat Tsiyon [The love of Zion] (1853), one of the most important texts to advocate the renewal of ties between Jews and Palestine. Al-Dawudi’s translation was published in Egypt in two non-identical editions in 1899 and 1921–1922, and is probably the first Arabic translation of Modern Hebrew literature. When he declared that his translation was designed to remind his people that Hebrew was a living language, al-Dawudi accorded his translation Jewish national aspirations, which is perhaps the reason for the mixed aims of his translation’s policy. On the one hand, there are phenomena that illustrate his desire to be accepted in the target culture, such as neglect of the integrity of the text, raising its stylistic register, preserving the ethical norms of the source text and even a tendency to paraphrase. On the other hand, there are places that display over-consideration of the source language and text, such as numerous deviations from the standard linguistic, syntactical and grammatical rules of Arabic, preservation of elements unique to Jewish culture and a multitude of Hebrew interferences in the Arabic translation. This unsystematic behavior apparently reflects a lack of literary skills, deep admiration of the source text (and language), and the fact that the translation was addressed mainly to a Jewish audience.

Babel ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-98
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Kayyal

The present paper discusses Anton Shammas’s translations of Modern Hebrew literature into Arabic and of Modern Arabic literature into Hebrew. The discussion focuses on the connection between hegemony and translation, particularly in light of the fact that these translations were carried out in the shadow of the political, social and economic hegemony of the Jewish majority over the Arab-Palestinian minority in Israel. Shammas began his translation activities with a series of translations from Hebrew into Arabic, but after establishing his status in Hebrew literature and journalism, he began to translate from Arabic into Hebrew as well. Evidently, this transition entailed a significant change in his translation paradigm and in his attitude toward the culture of the hegemonic majority.<p>His translations from Hebrew into Arabic aimed to preserve and reinforce that hegemony, not only through the direct or indirect involvement of bodies from the source culture and bodies identified with the establishment, but also in the multiple interferences of the Hebrew source language in the Arabic target language, and his disregard for the accepted linguistic, stylistic and ethical norms of the Arab target culture. By contrast, Shammas’s translations from Arabic into Hebrew aimed to challenge the discourse of the hegemonic culture through his meticulous selection of works that represent the oppressed narrative of the Palestinian people and adopting translation policies to enhance acceptability in the target culture, such as non-preservation of the integrity of the source text in the translation, elevation of linguistic and stylistic register in the translated text, and an inclination toward paraphrase.<p>


Target ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Kayyal

Contacts between Arabic and Israeli Hebrew cultures have taken place in the shadow of a prolonged and violent political conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. The intercultural dialogue between them has, therefore, been antagonistic, polemical, and fraught with stereotypes and prejudices. This antagonistic dialogue is also reflected in Hebrew–Arabic translation activity, since the elements involved in this activity and the considerations which guided them both before and in the course of the translation were, first and foremost, political. The translations themselves were not accepted as literary creations, but rather as documents reflecting the culture of the other. Neither the presence of an ethnic Arab minority in Israel nor the peace agreements between Israel and certain Arab states brought about any significant change in the nature of translation activity. Clearly, therefore, in a state of violent national conflict translation activity will produce translations whose purpose is ideological rather than literary.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPHER VIALS

American studies has developed excellent critiques of post-1945 imperial modes that are grounded in human rights and Enlightenment liberalism. But to fully gauge US violence in the twenty-first century, we also need to more closely consider antiliberal cultural logics. This essay traces an emergent mode of white nationalist militarism that it calls Identitarian war. It consists, on the one hand, of a formal ideology informed by Identitarian ethno-pluralism and Carl Schmitt, and, on the other, an openly violent white male “structure of feeling” embodied by the film and graphic novel 300, a key source text for the transatlantic far right.


2016 ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Reginaldo Francisco

http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1980-4237.2014n16p91O teórico e crítico de tradução francês Antoine Berman afirma que as traduções literárias em suas formas tradicionais e dominantes representam um ato culturalmente etnocêntrico, isto é, que traz tudo à sua própria cultura, às suas normas e valores, buscando fazer com que se esqueça que se trata de uma tradução. Para se opor a essa prática dominante, o autor propõe uma tradução que não esconda o elemento estrangeiro na obra traduzida, e que para isso seja fiel à “letra” (lettre) do original. Essa oposição é muito conhecida também nos termos utilizados pelo teórico norte-americano Lawrence Venuti, que fala em “domesticação” (domestication) e “estrangeirização” (foreignization) para se referir respectivamente às práticas tradutórias que ocultam as diferenças culturais, adaptando tudo à cultura de chegada, e àquelas que mantêm a estranheza do texto original e da cultura de partida. Interpretações mais radicais das ideias desses autores podem levar a pensar a tradução como dividida nessas duas possibilidades, e muitas vezes à escolha de uma delas como ideal e a outra como condenável. Entretanto, assim como com dicotomias mais antigas (literal x livre, equivalência formal x equivalência dinâmica, etc.), também estas não são duas categorias estanques, podendo haver diferentes combinações de ambas na tradução de um mesmo texto, além de estratégias híbridas ou soluções que não representam nem uma nem outra posição. Neste trabalho discuto a problematização dessa dicotomia, incluindo exemplos de minha tradução do italiano para o português do livro infantojuvenil O diário de Gian Burrasca, de Luigi Bertelli (Vamba).ABSTRACTFrench translation theorist and critic Antoine Berman states that in their traditional and dominant forms literary translations represent a culturally ethnocentric act, which adapts everything to its own culture, standards and values, seeking to make readers forget that they are reading a translation. To oppose this dominant practice, the author suggests a kind of translation that would not hide the foreign element in the translated work, one that is faithful to the “letter” (lettre) of the original text. A similar opposition to that / to Berman’s is also well-known through the terms “domestication” and “foreignization” as defined by American theorist Lawrence Venuti, who uses them to refer to translation practices that on one hand conceal cultural differences, adapting everything to the target culture, and on the other keep the strangeness of both source text and culture in the translation. Radical interpretations of these authors’ ideas may lead to the misconception that translation is divided into those two possibilities, and often to the judgement that one of them is ideal and the other condemnable. Nevertheless, as with other older dichotomies (literal vs. free translation, formal vs. dynamic equivalence, etc.), these are not clearly distinguishable and opposed categories. There may be different combinations of them in the translation of a text, as well as hybrid strategies or solutions that do not represent either one of them. In this paper I discuss the problems of such dichotomy, drawing examples from my translation of Luigi Bertelli’s book Il giornalino di Gian Burrasca from Italian to Portuguese.Keywords: foreignization; domestication; dichotomy.


Author(s):  
Soufiane Laachiri

The present article attempts to present a succinct and circumspect comparison between two different translations for Mourice Blanchot’s book « L’écriture du désastre ».The first translation was performed by Ann Smock in 1995 and was from French into English, while the other translation was skillfully produced by Azzedine Chentouf from French into Arabic in 2018. The contrast in attitudes and translational fertilization has provided us with ample opportunities to study, reflect on, and rethink the nexus of  Blanchot’s philosophy from different linguistic perspectives. However, in our attempt to formulate our judgments on the English and Arabic versions of the book, we can judge by an escapable logic and with analytical evidence that the English translation entitled « The writing of the disaster » has intensified the hold of a literal translation that makes the chances of being close to the original meaning of the source text depressingly small. Chentouf’s translation, on the other hand, remains profoundly meaningful; it is capable of going down into the marrow of  Blanchot’s thought to assert understanding of his intellectual complexities. In brief, despite the triviality of the advanced examples, we are certain that Azzedine Chentouf, through his Arabic translation, knows the hard philosophical portrait of Mourice Blanchot in its inclusiveness. Therefore, it is no surprise that every choice he makes in this translation explains his tremendous efforts as a philosopher first before being ranked as a translator.


2021 ◽  
pp. 238-256
Author(s):  
Amal Arrame

Translation is not simple transpositions operations or transcoding processes from one language to another, it involves complex mental processes where linguistics alone cannot be sufficient. It is a communication situation between two languages, Arabic and French in this case, where the objective of the translator is the transmission of his final product in a clear way, respecting the meaning and the author intention of the original version. Translation of phrases is a real dilemma for translators; however, it turns out that it is a necessity in order to discover the other, and to try to keep the same effect as the source text by giving it a stylistic touch typical to the target language. To this end, we have carefully chosen the corpus that we have translated. A corpus that reflects the originality of the Arabic language and the possibility of reducing the linguistic, cultural and discursive gaps between Arabic and French through translation. The translation processes we have chosen, take into account the target language, French in this case, its idioms, phrases and proverbs inventory, its particularity and, finally, its ability to comprehend the idea contained in the idioms of the source language.


2021 ◽  
pp. 150-152
Author(s):  
David Evans

In this chapter I compare settings of Verlaine’s ‘La Lune blanche’ (‘The White Moon’) by composers of different nationalities (Delius, Webern, Sorabji, Loomis, Nevin, Loeffler, Hennessy, Poldowski, McEwen, Szulc, Stravinsky) in order to show how different ideas of French song – and of art song itself – emerge through the multiple dialogues of its transnational crossings. Two opposing approaches become clear: on the one hand, songs which maintain a reverence towards the source text as a symbol of the cultural cachet which French mélodie has enjoyed since its 1880-1930 heyday; and on the other, songs which offer a curiously unplaceable musical material, staking a claim for music as an mode of articulation which functions independently from language and, indeed, from national identities which are always in danger of falling into repetition, cliché, and pastiche. This latter mode, I suggest, comes closest to the real heart of mélodie as understood by its foremost French purveyors, Fauré and Debussy, and which composers like Stravinsky draw out of Verlaine’s text: a conception of song as an art form uniquely placed to offer a critique of fixed national paradigms and stable interpretative systems, by constantly calling into question, through their formal complexities, the very processes by which meaning itself is produced.


Author(s):  
Andika Wijaya ◽  
Gloria Christine Setiyowati

Song lyric translation is important because in these recent decades people can access songs worldwide. The aim of this research is to gain an understanding of the difference between singable translations made by an Indonesian translator and a foreign translator by investigating what translation procedures and methods occur in two translated songs from Indonesian to English using qualitative descriptive method. The result of this research indicates that the singable translation made by a foreign translator is more identical to the source language (SL) compared to the one made by an Indonesian translator. However, despite the differences, the two translated songs share something in common, for instance the singability and the length of lyrics. Taking the findings into consideration, it could be said that the foreign translator is more faithful to the source text (ST), while the Indonesian translator emphasizes the target language (TL) more.


2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lior Laks

AbstractThis paper examines the factors that play a role in blocking and non-blocking in verb formation in Modern Hebrew. Hebrew verbs are formed in prosodic templates (so-called binyanim) that consist of a vocalic template and affixes in some of them. I address the criteria for the selection of such templates with regard to verb innovation, relation between existing forms and variation of forms. I will show that the selection of a particular binyan is the result of an interaction between markedness and faithfulness constraints on the one hand and thematic-syntactic considerations on the other hand. While certain constraints block the formation of verbs in some binyanim, there are cases of non-crucial ranking of constraints that gives rise to free variation of existing forms.


Babel ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-132
Author(s):  
Laurence Wong

Abstract This paper discusses the relationship between syntax and translatability, particularly in respect of literary texts. By translatability is meant the degree of ease with which one language lends itself to translation into another language. Through practice in the translation between Chinese and some of the major European languages, such as English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Latin, and Greek, as well as between the European languages themselves, it can be found that translating between the European languages is much easier than translating between Chinese and any one of the European languages. Of all the factors that determine whether a language translates more readily or less readily into another language, syntactic differences constitute one of the most decisive. This is because the translator is, during the translation process, constantly dealing with syntax in two directions: the syntax of the source language on the one hand and the syntax of the target language on the other. As a result, problems arising from the syntactic differences between the two languages are bound to figure more prominently than those arising from the differences between individual lexical items and phrases or between cultures. In this paper, syntax will be studied and analysed with reference to Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Greek texts. Finally, it will be shown that, mainly because of syntactic differences, there is a higher degree of translatability between any two of the above European languages (which are members of the Indo-European family) than between Chinese (which is a member of the Sino-Tibetan family) and any one of these European languages, and that the syntax of any one of these European languages can cope comfortably with Chinese syntax, but not the other way round. Résumé Cet article traite de la relation entre la syntaxe et la traduisibilité, en particulier, en ce qui concerne les textes littéraires. On entend par traduisibilité le degré de facilité avec laquelle une langue se prête à la traduction dans une autre. Par la pratique de la traduction entre le chinois et quelques-unes des principales langues européennes, comme l’anglais, le français, l’italien, l’allemand, l’espagnol, le latin et le grec, ainsi qu’entre les langues européennes mêmes, on s’aperçoit qu’il est beaucoup plus facile de traduire entre les langues européennes qu’entre le chinois et n’importe quelle langue européenne. Parmi tous les facteurs qui déterminent si une langue se traduit plus ou moins aisément dans une autre, les différences syntactiques comptent parmi les plus décisifs. Ceci est dû au fait que le traducteur, pendant le processus de traduction, est constamment confronté à une syntaxe dans deux directions : la syntaxe de la langue source, d’une part, et la syntaxe de la langue cible, d’autre part. En conséquence, les problèmes dus à des différences syntactiques entre les deux langues doivent nécessairement apparaître de manière plus évidente que ceux provenant de différences entre les syntagmes et éléments lexicaux individuels ou entre les cultures. Dans cet article, la syntaxe sera étudiée et analysée en référence à des textes en chinois, anglais, français, allemand, italien, espagnol, latin et grec. Enfin, il montrera qu’en raison des différences syntactiques surtout, la traduisibilité est plus grande entre deux langues européennes précitées quelles qu’elles soient (qui appartiennent à la famille indo-européenne) qu’entre le chinois (qui appartient à la famille sino-tibétaine) et une quelconque de ces langues européennes. Il montrera que la syntaxe de toute langue européenne peut sans difficulté venir à bout de n’importe quelle syntaxe chinoise, mais que l’inverse n’est pas vrai.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document