Acceptability and Adequacy in English Translations of the Scientific Implications of Qur'an Verses Based on an Eclectic Model of Translation Shift (The Case Study of Arberry, Irving, Yusuf ali and Saffarzadeh’s Translations)

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
R. Eslamieh 1
M. Mokhtari 2
1 Department of English Language, Parand Branch, Islamic Azad University, Parand, Iran.
2 Islamic Azad University, Parand-Robat Karim Branch
Abstract
In the Holy Qur'an, there are verses which implicitly refer to the scientific subjects and scientific facts. Although the scientific aspects of these verses were unknown at the time of Revelation, the problem now and at this time is that the improper translation cannot reflect the scientific implications and references of the verses- their I’jaz or miraculous nature. The purpose of the present research is to study the English translations of the scientific verses to find if there is a meaningful relation between adequate/ acceptable and explanatory/ non-explanatory translations. To fulfill such end, first the scientific verses were selected based on four authentic exegeses. Next, four translations- Arberry, Irving, Yusuf ali and Saffarzadeh’s English translations- were selected. The aforementioned English translations were analyzed based on Toury’s initial norm of acceptibility and adequacy and an eclectic model of shift (Chesterman and Zahedi). The quality of translating the scientific implications were comparatively assessed in the four selected translations. The results show that Saffarzadeh has used more number of shifts and Yusuf ali, Irving and Arberry stand at the second, third and fourth positions. Based on Toury’s model, Saffarzadeh, Yusuf ali and Irving's translations are acceptable. These translations with more number of shifts, have translated the scientific implications in more number of verses than Arberry who has a more adequate translation. The more acceptable translations of the scientific verses are explanatory and transfer the scientific implications, qualitatively and quantitatively, more precisely and more properly.

Keywords

Subjects

۱. آقایانی چاوشی، اکبر. «روش شناسی تفسیر آیات طبی قرآن»، مجله قرآن و طب، شماره ۴ ، صص ۱۳۲-۱۳۶، (۱۳۹۱ ش).

۲. ابراهیمی، مهدی . فاضل، علیرضا . «نگاهی نو به پدیده جنین شناسی در تفسیر علمی آیات قرآن»، فصلنامه اندیشه دینی دانشگاه شیراز، شماره ۴۲ ، صص ۷۵-۹۶، ( ۱۳۹۱ ش).
۳. بیستونی محمد. تفسیر مجمع البیان جوان (برگرفته از تفسیر مجمع البیان طبرسی). جلد۱-۱۰. قم: بیان جوان، مشهد: آستان قدس رضوی، شرکت به نشر، ( ۱۳۹۰ ش).
۴. حسینی طهرانی، سید محمد حسین. مهر تابان: یادنامه و مصاحبات تلمیذ و علامه (عالم ربانی علامه سید محمدحسین طباطبایی تبریزی). مشهد: انتشارات علامه طباطبائی، ( ۱۳۹۲ ش).
۵. رستمی، محمدحسن. شاهین پور، معصومه. « بررسی لغزش‌های مترجمان در دو آیه مربوط به شکل‌گیری ابر، باران و تگرگ»، مجله تحقیقات علوم قرآن و حدیث، دوره ۱۲, شماره ۱, صص ۵۳-۷۴, ( ۱۳۹۴ ش).
۶. شاهین پور، معصومه. «بررسی چگونگی ترجمه آیات علمی قرآن کریم در ترجمه های فارسی معاصر قرآن کریم». (پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد). مشهد. دانشکده الهیات دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ( ۱۳۸۹ ش).
۷. شایسته نژاد، علی‌اکبر. طبرسی و مجمع البیان، ج۲. تهران: خانه کتاب ایران، (۱۳۹۰ ش).
۸.. طباطبایی، محمد حسین. المیزان فی تفسیرالقرآن. ترجمه محمد باقر موسوی همدانی. جلد۱-۲۰. قم: دارالعلم، ( ۱۳۹۳ ش).
۹. قرائتی، محسن. تفسیر نور۱۰، جلدی. جلد۱-۱۰، تهران: نشر مرکز فرهنگی درسهایی از قرآن، (۱۳۷۴ ش).
۱۰. مروتی، سهراب. «بررسی موضوع ترجمه قرآن کریم»، مجله دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه تهران، صص ۸۳-،۹۸، ( ۱۳۸۲ ش).
۱۱. مکارم شیرازی، ناصر با همکاری جمعی از نویسندگان. تفسیر نمونه. جلد ۱-۲۷. تهران: دارالکتب الاسلامیه، (۱۳۸۷ ش).
۱۲. مودب، سید رضا. «نقد و بررسی ترجمه ناپذیری قرآن» . مجله تحقیقات علوم قرآن و حدیث، شماره ۴، صص ۱۴۷- ۱۶۶، ( ۱۳۸۶ ش).

13. Abdul-Raof, H. Pragmalinguistic forms in cross-cultural communication: contributions from Quran translation. Intercultural Communication Studies. 4(14), 115-130. (2005).
14. Arberry, A. J. The Koran Interpreted, A Translation by A. J. Arberry. Arthur's Classic Novels. Retrieved from: http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs. Jun, 2016. (2003).
15. Catford, J. C. A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press. (1965).
16. Chesterman, A. Memes of translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. (1997).
17. Dukate, A. Manipulation as a Specific Phenomenon in Translation and Interpreting. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Latvia, Latvia. (2007). Retrieved From: https://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/4984/6969. October, 2017.
18. Dkhissi, Y. The English translation of the Quranic text: the structural asymmetries (October 1, 2018). AWEJ for Translation & Literary Studies, Volume 2, Number 4. October 2018. (2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3276392 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3276392
19. Even-Zohar, I. An Introduction to a Theory of Literary Translation. (Doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel Avive. (1971).
20. Even-Zohar, I. Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. (1978).
21. Farghal, M. Bloushi, Shifts of coherence in Quran translation, Sayyab Translation Journal (STJ), Vol. (4), pp. 1-18, (2012).
22. Hajj Ahmad, Yusuf. Miracles of the Quran: the facts that can’t be denied by science. Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers. (2010)
23. Heidarinia, V. An analysis of shifts in English translations of some similes of the Holy Quran. (MA thesis in translation studies). Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran. (2014).
24. Hermans, T. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London/Sydney: Croom Helm. (1985).
25. Holmes, J. S. The name and nature of translation studies. In Lawrence Venuti. The Translation Studies Reader. 172-185. London/New York: Routledge. (2004).
26. Irving, T. B. The Quran: First American Version (second edition). Tehran: Sohrevardi. (2004).
27. Levy, J. The art of translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins (1963).
28. Martinez-sierra, JJ. Manipulation school. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation [online]. 8(1), 26-59. (2015).
29. Medadian, Gh. Non- obligatory shifts in translation: a normative Enterprise. An international journal of humanities and social sciences. 2(4), 668-695. (2015).
30. Molina, L. & Albir, A. Translation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach. Meta, 47(4), 498–512. (2002).
31. Munday, J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and applications. London & New York: Routledge. (2001).
32. Munday, J. Introducing translation studies: theories and applications. London & New York: Routledge. (2008).
33. Najjar I.I., Kwee S.B., Abu al-haj T.A. Mode in Arabic-English translation: with reference to the Quran. Russian Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 23. N. 2. pp. 509-522. (2019).
doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-2-509-522
34. Nida, E. Toward a science of translating: with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translation. E.J. Brill, Leiden: Netherlands. (1964).
35. Raisi, M. R. Quran and modern science, studying and comparing English translations of some related verses. (MA thesis in translation studies). Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran. (2017).
36. Rezvani, R and Nooraei, P. A comparative study of shifts in English translations of the Quran: a
case study on “Yusuf” chapter. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 1(2), 70-87. (2013).

32. Rosa, A. Descriptive translation studies – DTS (revised version). In Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 94-104). Ed. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (2016).
33. Saffarzadeh, T. The Holy Quran. Qom: Osveh. (2010).
34. Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing. (1997).
35. Toury, G. Translational norms and literary translation into Hebrew. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. (1977).
36. Toury, G. The nature and role of norms in translation. Translation studies reader (pp. 198-211). Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London and New York: Routledge. (1978).
37. Toury, G. In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. (1980).
38. Toury, G. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (1995).
39. Vinay, J. P, and Darbelnet, J. Comparative stylistics of French and English: a methodology for translation (Juan C. Sager & M.J. Hamel Tran.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (1995).
40. Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/2000). A Methodology for Translation. [An excerpt from Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation, trans. and eds. J. C. Sager & M.-J. Hamel, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995, first published in 1958 as Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction] In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 84–93). London: Routledge.
41. Weissbrod, R. Translation research in the framework of the Tel Aviv School of Poetics and Semiotics. Meta, 43(1), 35-45. (1998).
43. Yang, W. Brief study on domestication and foreignization in translation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 77-80. (2010).
44. Yusuf ali, A. The Holy Quran. Maddinah: King Fahd Holy Quran Printing Complex. (1987).
45. Zahedi, S. Native and non-native translators and the distribution of initial norm. (M.A. thesis in translation studies). Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran. (2013).
Quranic and Hadith Researches of Modares
Volume 7, Issue 14
March 2021
Pages 1-34