A Study of Semantic and Communicative Losses in the English Translation of Ar-Raheeq-ul-Makhtoom by Safi-ur-Rehman Mubarakpuri
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55737/trt/v-v.288Keywords:
Institutional Support, Socio-Cultural, Psychological Challenges, Professional Growth, Well-Being of Women PoliceAbstract
ReadyCross culture communication is highly significant in today’s global village and translation plays a pivotal role in this regard. However, scholars mention various issues in the translation itself. This study investigates semantic and communicative losses in the translation of Ar-Raheeq-ul-Makhtoom from Urdu to English. The source text carries rich cultural and religious references, terms and phrases that pose a real challenge to the translator for accurate translation in the target language. Researchers have used Peter Newmark’s theory on semantic and communicative translation as a theoretical and analytical framework in the study. The analysis highlights that the translator most frequently adopts the communicative approach to make the text comprehensible and sometimes, he prefers semantic translation when the text is culturally and religiously rich. The findings of the study reveal that semantic faithfulness and communicative clarity may help convey the exact meanings of the source text up to greater extent.
References
Abdullah, M. (2019). A comparative study of pragmatic losses in English translations of the Holy Quran (Doctoral dissertation, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad).
Abdullah, M., & Asghar, J. (2017). Study of pragmatic losses in the English translations of SÅ «rah Al Ikhlas: A comparative pragmalinguistic analysis. Research Journal Al Basirah, 6(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.12816/0051335
Abdullah, M., & Sayyed, M. (2024). A study of narrative techniques in Surah Yusuf: Semantic and communicative perspectives. Global Social Sciences Review, 9(4), 51-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2024(IX-IV).06
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Hale, S., & Campbell, S. (2002). The interaction between text difficulty and translation accuracy. Babel, 48(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.48.1.02hal
Kundera, M. (1992). L’immortalité. Gallimard.
Laxen, J. & Lavaur, J.M. (2010). The role of semantics in translation recognition: Effects of a number of translations, dominance of translations, and semantic relatedness of multiple translations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 13(2), 157183. http://doi.org/:10.1017/S1366728909990472
Lui, G. L. (2004). On translation of Chinese ancient poetry through Newmark’s “semantic translation” and “communicative translation.” Journal of Shijiazhuang Teachers College, 6(4), 55–59
Newmark, P. (1976). The theory and the craft of translation. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 9(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800002913
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Newmark, P. (2001). Approaches to translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/jisem-15.2015.55
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Brill Archive.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. E. J. Brill.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. St. Jerome. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760506
Pym, A. (2001). Introduction: The return to ethics in translation studies. The Translator, 7(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799096
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 77–108). Sage Publications.
Sapir, E. (1958). Culture, language, and personality: Selected essays. University of California Press.
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 727–779. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2022.5.4.11
Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom (Vol. 2). J. Murray.
Waard, J. D., & Nida, E. A. (1986). From one language to another: Functional equivalence in Bible translating. Nelson.
Wendland, E. R. (2010). Framing the frames: A theoretical framework for the cognitive notion of “frames of reference.” Journal of Translation, 6(1), 27-50.
Zu, M., & Dong, Y. (2015). A brief analysis of communicative translation and semantic translation. Proceedings of the 2015 Joint International Social Science, Education, Language, Management and Business Conference. https://doi.org/10.2991/jisem-15.2015.55
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
