The Translation of Topic and Comment from English into Arabic

Misbah M. D. Al-Sulaimaan, Dhuha A. F. AL-Taa'ee

Abstract


Topic and comment cannot be defined on the basis of syntactic structure or semantic relation, but also on the basis of pragmatic and information relations. Generally speaking, topic means “announcing something and then saying something about it”.

The present study, mainly, aims at (1) setting or selecting some tests for identifying and determining topic – comment structures , (2) translating the specified structures and patterns to show how they are realized in Arabic , (3) showing the type of translation that has been used by subjects , and (4) choosing the most appropriate rendering or proposing a new rendering in case the given renderings are ineffective . To achieve the above mentioned aims , the study , mainly , hypothesizes that : (1) translation of topic and comment from English into Arabic poses a problem since English and Arabic are genetically different languages and belong to different families , (2) giving ineffective renderings is due to subjects ignorance of markedness theory and the process of fronting or topicalizing , (3) topic and comment in English are governed by a variety  of factors such as prosodic , semantic , pragmatic and / or informational , while in Arabic , they are governed , mainly , by word order , (4) there is no one- to-one formal correspondence between topic-comment structure in English and Arabic because of the divergency between the basic patterns of the phenomenon in question and their realizations in Arabic , and (5) those who adopt a communicative translation are more successful than those who adopt a semantic translation.

To test the validity of the above mentioned hypotheses , the study , mainly , uses the following procedure :

(1) twelve different patterns of topic – comment structures from different references of pragmatics were selected , (2) the identified patterns under investigation were given to eight subjects for rendering them , (3) a thorough discussion of the SLTs and their realizations in the TLTs were given , and findings of the practical chapter were analyzed and discussed.

The basic conclusions the study arrives at are :

(1) some subjects are unaware of the importance of word order in English and Arabic since they are after the natural structure neglecting the intention of the SL writer when he deviates from the norm for achieving stylistic functions, and (2) There is no one-to-one formal correspondence between topic and comment structures in English and Arabic. This can be attributed to the multiplicity of factors that affect the structures of the phenomenon in both languages.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Chafe, W. L. (1970): Meaning and the structure of language ,Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chafe, W.L. (1970): “Givenness , Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subject, Topics and Point of View”, In: Li, Charles N.,(ed.) Subject and Topic, pp. 27-55.

Firbas, J.(1964): “On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis,” Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, Vol. 1,No.4 pp.267-280.

Gundel, J. K. (1974) : The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory.(Ph.D. Dissertation), University of Texas at Austin. Published by Garland, (1989).

Halliday, M.A.K. (1967a):”Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English”. Parts 2 and 3. Journal of Linguistics , Vol.3, No. (2), pp.199-244.

Heim, I. (1983): “File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness”, In: File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp.164-190.

Hockett, C. (1958a): A Course in Modren Linguistics, New York: Macmillan.

Jacobs, J. (1996): “Bemerkungen zur I-Topikalisierung”,Sprache und Pragmatik,pp.41, 1-48 (English Version).

Jakobson, R. (1966): “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” .In Reuben A.B.(ed.) On Translation , pp.232-239.

Koller, W. (1992): “Equivalence in Translation Theory” Translated by Chesterman,A. ,In: Chesterman, A. (ed.) Readings in Translation Theory, pp.99-104.

Kuroda, S. Y. (1972): “The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese Syntax”. Foundations of Language, Vol.9, pp.153-185.

Lambrecht, K. (1994):”Information Structure and Sentence Form Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-52. (E. mail Contact).

Mathesius, V.(1928): “On linguistic Characterology with Illustrations from Modern English”. Actes du Premier Congres International de Linguistesa La Haye, pp.56-63.

Molnar, V. (1998): “Topic in focus”, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol.45, pp.89-166.

Newmark, P. (1988a): A Textbook of Translation , Hemel Hempstead : Prentice Hall.

Park, T.K. (1994): “Toward a Theory of User-Based Relevance: a Call for a New Paradigm of Inquiry”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol.45, No.(3), pp.135-141.

Portner, P. & Yabushite, K. (1998): “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Topic Phrases”, Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol.21, No.2 pp.117-157.

Reinhart, T. (1982):”Pragmatics and linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics”. In: Indiana University Linguistics Club, Indiana: Blommington, pp.10-25.

Reinhart, T. (1981): “Pragmatics and linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topic.” In: Philosoplica, Vol.27, No.1, pp.53-94.

Sandmann, M. (1954):”Subject and Predicate: Contribution to the Theory of Syntax”, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Strawson, P.F. (1950): “On Referring “Mind 59, pp.109-154.

Strawson, P.F. (1964): “Identifying Reference and Truth Values”.Theoria, 3.pp.96-118.

Vallduvi, E. and Engdahl, E. (1996): “The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging.” Linguistics, Vol.34, pp.459-510.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Based on a work at http://www.ijssh.ielas.org