APPENDIX 2

Problems in translation normally fall into two types: linguistic and cultural. This
appendix treats linguistic problems.
Linguistic Problems in Translation (Syntactic and Semantic Problems)
A Checkist:
1 Lexical and Morphological Problems
1.1 lexical Ambiguity: Polysemy and Homonymy
1.2 Lexical Gaps: Culturally Bound Terms and Loanwords
1.3 Cognates
1.4 Collocations
1.5 Scientific and Technical Terms
1.6 Affixes
2. Syntactic Problems
2.1 Phrase Structure
2.2 Number and Gender
2.3 Word Order and Emphasis
2.4 Structural Ambiguity
2.5 Time Reference
3 Phonological Problems
3.1 Transliteration
4 Semantic Problems
4.1 Denotative vs. Connotative Meaning
4.2 General vs. Specific (Technical) Meaning
4.3. Modality
Following the four levels of linguistic analysis, I will classify the linguistic
problems into four types: lexical, syntactic, phonological and semantic problems.
1 Lexical and Morphological Problems
In general, just as a writer faces the problem of the choice of proper words, the
problem is doubled for a translator because the latter operates with two linguistic
systems. Problems generated by the lexical system of a language in translation are
numerous. I shall deal with four such problems, which I think are particularly
important: lexical ambiguity (polysemy and homonymy), collocations, scientific and

technical terms, loanwords and culturally bound terms (in the SL), lexical gaps (in the
TL) and cognates.
1.1 Lexical Ambiguity: Polysemy and Homonymy
Lexical ambiguity stems from two related phenomena: a word that is
polysemous in the SL or that is a homonym. A polysemous word is one that has more
than one meaning. Words like "eye", "hand", "head" (parts of the human body),
"stand", "sleep", "rise" (postures) are likely to be polysemous in many languages. , i.e.
they are almost bound to possess both literal and figurative meanings. But there may
be no correspondences between languages. In English hand may denote all of the
following: part of the arm; power, possession; influence; a hired labourer; a round of
applause; physical assistanceTherefore, give me a hand is ambiguous. A
homonym is a word that is pronounced or spelled the same way as another but has a
different meaning. For example, in the sentence As she stood on the tip of the windy
cape, she wrapped her cape more closely around her the two words cape are
homonyms. The word bank and consequently the sentence Ive just come from a
bank is ambiguous. Obviously, polysemy and homonymy (the latter is also known as
shared exponence in Catford (1965 94) terms) constitute a problem for translators.
Nida (1969: 63) diminishes the problem of polysemy claiming that the different
meanings of a single word are rarely in competition, for they not only have relatively
well-defined markers which help to differentiate the meanings, but so often are so
diverse as not to compete with one another for the same semantic domain. It is true,
that the context frequently helps in a text but not always. This problem of ambiguity is
doubled when it is deliberate (or, again to use Catfords, 1965: 94 terms when it is
functionally relevant) in the ST as when either polysemy or homonymy are meant
for some rhetorical purpose (pun, alliteration, etc.) in a literary or poetical work and
there is no corresponding equivalent in the TL.

1.2 Lexical Gaps: Culturally Bound Terms and Loanwords

Since cultures differ in significant ways, culturally bound terms may have no
equivalents in the TL. Words referring to religious practices such as ,
( ablution), ,, to cultural practices such Saint Valentine's Day ,
Thanksgiving day, thanksgiving, etc. may have no exact equivalents in other

languages. In this case they can either be translated by the nearest equivalent, by
substituting the term with a definition or transferred into the TL. In this latter case,
which is the only procedure that preserves the exactness and specificity of the original
words, they become loanwords. By subsequent use they may become adopted and
adapted to the TL phonological and syntactic rules and considered standard.
Sometimes loanwords occur in the SL for a specific stylistic effect. A character
in a novel, for example, may use loanwords for the prestige value they give him. In
this latter case they are simply transferred as a whole, i.e. preserved in the TT if they
achieve the same effect. Very frequently, however, a loan word in the SL is better
rendered by a loanword from another language in the TT. In Morocco, for example, it
is primarily French terms and sometimes English terms which give the speaker a
prestige. German loanwords are simply not known in Morocco.
Another source of lexical gaps in a language is the non-congruity of
morphological systems of languages and the subsequent non-congruity of produced
words or terms. A feature that is systematically encoded in language, let us say the
inchoative (e.g. , be / become / get cut) or causative in Arabic, or the infinite
meanings associated with affixes in English may not be encoded in another.
Nevertheless, whatever idea is encoded in one language can also be expressed in
another; if not so elegantly at least by a paraphrase or explanation. Therefore lexical
gaps do not raise an insurmountable problem for translators.
1.3 Cognates
Sometimes, students translating a text easily fall into the trap of a cognate. A
word is cognate with another if both derive from the same word in an ancestral
language (WordWeb Thesaurus). Now the problem is that seemingly identical words
in two different languages do not necessarily convey the same meaning. These are
called false friends, or faux amis in French. By way of illustration, nervous in
English, which means anxious, afraid is different in meaning from French nerveux,
which means angry. Similarly, English sympathetic, which means showing or
feeling sympathy and compassion, is different from French sympathique, which
means nice, agreeable and likable.
1.4 Collocations

Collocations might engender various problems in the process of translation.

Before discussing these problems it is first necessary to define and illustrate the notion
of collocation. The latter refers to the likelihood of (potential or habitual) cooccurrence between words (i.e. their collocability). In other words it refers to the
restrictions on how words can be used together (Jack Richards, et al., 1985). Some
words (core words, e.g. determiners) readily collocate with a wide range of words
(e.g. the postman, the letter, a boy, etc.). Others have a restricted distribution: they
collocate with only some words. For example, some prepositions are used with
particular verbs (V +P), some adjectives with particular nouns (Adj. + N) and some
verbs with particular nouns (V + O). These are analyzed as idioms, phrasal verbs and
clichs.
Collocations are, then, a type of syntagmatic lexical relation. Lexical items
which are collocated are said to be collocates of each other; the potential of items to
collocate is known as their collocability or collocational range. Collocational
restrictions are analogous to the notion of selectional restrictions in generative
grammar (Crystal, 1985).
For example, in English, to eke is bound to occur with out as in to eke out
ones livelihood (= to live from day to day, as with some hardship, a phrasal verb).
We also say to perform an operation but we say to hold or to have a discussion.
Therefore, to perform is said to collocate (i.e. is used) with operation and hold or
have with discussion (V+O). Again, in all likelihood, blond(e) will occur with
hair. It is unlikely that it will occur with car or pencil. Blond and hair are said to
collocate (Adj. + N). Similarly, we say arms folded, legs crossed, hands clasped,
although it is basically the same gesture.
As to the problems engendered by collocations, these are similar to those
engendered by idioms in general. In particular, the patterns of collocations may be
different in the SL and TL and thus cause the translator to run into the pitfalls of
misinterpreting or mis-rendering the source collocations. For example, to pay a visit
can be translated into Arabic as or not ( which is the literal
translation), and into French as rendre une visite. In Arabic or
are acceptable collocations. In English, on the other hand, the acceptable
corresponding collocations are violating or breaking the law (not contradicting the
law). Translators are advised to be aware of problems of interference form the SL
(especially the mother tongue) and, unless there is a good reason for doing it, not to

carry over from the SL collocational patterns which are untypical of or unacceptable
in the TL.
Another problem with collocations has to do with the non-availability of a
corresponding natural and accurate (exact) collocation or term in the TL, i.e. a natural
TL collocation that preserves the original meaning. Here a possible solution is the
choice of a typical (Mona Baker,

) even though not necessarily exact

translational equivalent. Mona Baker (check

provides the following example.

check The English collocation hard drinks has as its equivalent in Arabic alcoholic
drinks. Hard drink refers to spirits, namely whisky, gin, and brandy; whereas the
Arabic collocation refers to any alcoholic drink including beer, lager, sherry, as well as
spirits. Therefore, the meanings of the two collocations do not map completely. In
fact, they do not have the same reference. Consequently there is a loss of exactness.
Sometimes a collocation in the SL is better translated by an explanatory
definition or paraphrase. The English collocation a heavy smoker might be translated
as , not without some loss of meaning.
Another problem with the translation of collocations concerns what Mona Baker
(1

: ) calls marked collocations in the ST. She? (

) defines them as unusual

combinations of words, ones that challenge our expectations as hearers and readers,
involve deliberate confusion of collocational range to create new images. This is
often used in fiction. She (

) provides the following example Canada has

chosen to entrench its dual cultural heritage in its institutions. The marked
collocation here is to entrench heritage, which creates an unusual image. The
problem, then, is to first recognize the collocation in the SL as marked or unusual and,
second, to ideally render it in the TL by a similarly marked collocation. A French
translator rendered the previous example as Canada a choisi denchsser le mot
est hlas ! la mode- son double hritage (Mona Baker,

: ). In Arabic one

might have said . The translator fins

himself in a dilemma: the constraints of the TL on the one hand and the specificity of
the SL collocation on the other hand.
1.5 Scientific and Technical Terms
Some languages belonging to technologically underdeveloped countries have a
shortage of scientific and technical terms. This varies in degree from language to
language. Arabic, for example, suffers from this problem, but to a lesser extent

compared with Berber and to a larger extent compared with French. The shortage of
scientific and technical terms in some languages is due to the differences in the word
formation processes in languages. Affixes, for example, play a major role in the
production of terms in the Indo-European languages. Not so in Arabic. This issue will
be discussed at length in terminological problems in Unit

Sometimes even seemingly ordinary words have no equivalents in other

languages. Arabic distinguishes between and , on the one hand, and and ,
on the other hand. French and English use a single word (oncle, in French, uncle, in
English) to refer to both and and single word (tante, in French, aunt, in English)
to refer to both and . English distinguishes between finger and toe. French and
Arabic use a single word to refer to both. Berber uses one term to refer to green and
blue. In most cases translation is not affected by such minor problems unless of course
the very words are at the source of some word game or stylistic effect. The translator
has, nevertheless, to be aware of the issue and opt for the most convenient solution
(e.g. by modifying a word in the TL by the use of an adjective or a adjectival phrase,
etc.). If a lexical item (e.g. days of the week, months of the year, numbers, and the
sun, the moon, the earth, etc.) are proved to have exact equivalents (i.e. isomorphous
units) in all or most known languages they may be considered as lexical universals
(Newmark,

).

1.6 Affixes
2. Syntactic or Grammatical Problems
Grammar is a umbrella term that refers in the opinions of most linguists to
syntax (the structure of phrases, clauses and sentences) and morphology (the structure
of words). Some of the morphological problems have already been dealt with in the
first section. As to the syntactic problems obviously The syntactic structure of a
language [or text]) imposes certain restrictions on the way messages may be organized
in that language (Newmark, 1

: ) or (Mona Baker, 1992: ) and ultimately

determine meaning.
2.1 Phrase Structure
Not all syntactic problems have to do with word order. Some errors have to do
with what one considers as the key word in the phrase. In the English phrase with

modest means means is the key word of the phrase not modest, which is an
adjective. As such, the proper translation into Arabic is not but .
2.2 Number and Gender
The grammatical categories of number and gender may also raise problems in
translation since they are either missing in some languages or they are by no means
identical. To start with the grammatical category of number, or countability, Arabic,
on the one hand, and French and English, on the other hand, view the notion in
different ways. Arabic uses a threesome system distinguishing between the singular
(one), the dual (two) and the plural (i.e. more than two) not only to mark nouns but
also verbs. The differences are lexicalized in Arabic. It is possible in Arabic to say
( i.e.

literally, came the accused and the witnesses two).

Since the Arabic sentence explicitly refers to two eyewitnesses it is not difficult
to encode the notion in English by using a numeral (namely by using the word two).
But it is not always this easy. In the Arabic verse ( literally,
halt you two, and let us weep for the memory of a beloved and a home), where the
imperative verb is used in the dual, the translator will be in a dilemma. He can either
try and find some device for rendering the notion of the dual or simply ignore it as
irrelevant and unnatural in the TL. Another problem arises when translating from
English into Arabic. Here a translator has to lexically and grammatically encode
differences in number which in the source text are only conveyed by the context.,
hence the importance of context.
As to gender, the engendered problems in translation are more serious. True,
gender studies have progressed enormously in the last two decades and have given
rise to some of the most interesting ideas. So what is gender after all? Gender refers a
grammatical distinction according to which a noun or pronoun is classified as either
masculine or feminine in some languages (Mona Baker,

: ) with the further

agreement of subject (which is a noun or pronoun) and verb, or adjective and noun, in
terms of this grammatical category in inflected languages. As with number, languages
differ since they may not have gender systems at all or may not have identical ones.
In some languages gender is quite arbitrary but in some others it is usually based
on sex or animateness or both. Both French and Arabic classify not only pronouns (as
in English) but also nouns into either masculine or feminine usually depending on sex.
But they sometimes differ in what they consider as feminine or masculine. If a car is

feminine in both, the moon is feminine in French and masculine in Arabic, the sun
is masculine in French and feminine in Arabic,..English recognizes gender only in
referring to the third person singular: he (masculine), she (feminine), it (inanimate).
Arabic applies gender distinctions to the second and third singular and plural personal
pronouns. Thus an English you has five Arabic corresponding pronouns depending
on the context: , , , ,. This illustrates the type of difficulty that the
gender system raises in translating from English into Arabic if the context does not
help. .
A more serious problem results from a new ideological stance brought by
feminism (a movement aimed at equal rights for women). The linguistic facts are that
in most languages which have a gender system, the masculine form constitutes the
dominant or unmarked from in the language. Thus ( they declared),
(have a taste of your punishment), ( every writer) are forms that include men but
do not exclude women. Feminists have a different opinion. They say this constitutes a
sex prejudice. In particular, feminists want the equality of the sexes to be explicitly
shown. Thus rather than saying he they suggest s/he or him/her (or maybe
her/him (!).
This attitude is difficult to transfer into Arabic in which gender distinctions
pervade the grammatical system (check Bona Baker, ). In Arabic gender distinctions
do not only affect nouns and pronouns but also adjectives and verbs through the
phenomenon of concord or agreement. Therefore any attempt to reproduce this new
stance in Arabic will result in an awkward and cumbersome TT. Mona Baker (

: )

remarks with all the god will in the world, an Arab writer or translator cannot side
with this enlightened approach to gender without sacrificing the readability of the
TT. Thus an Arab translator is caught in a dilemma: either to sacrifice the readability
and fluency of his translation or to ignore this ideological and feminist stance as
inappropriate and irrelevant.
In addition to this, English gender distinctions in inanimate objects (such as
cars, planes and ships) and pets (such as dogs and cats) raise problems when translated
into Arabic. The English say the cat is lovely, she (or it) is .. The first choice
conveys an associative and marked meaning, which is definitely lost when translated
into Arabic.
2.3 Word Order and Emphasis

Since syntactic structures convey meanings, changes in the structures ultimately

lead to changes in meaning. If a SL text consists of short sentences, the translator is
expected to translate them by short sentences and again if it consists of long sentences
the translator is expected to render them by long ones unless short and long sentences
function differently, i.e. have different communicative functions, in the two languages.
Compared with English, which is a SVO language with a markedly fixed word order
(meaning that the word order is essential to the meaning of the sentence), Arabic is a
VSO language with a relatively free word order.
One the most common errors made by students is substituting an unmarked
structure in the SL by a marked one in the TL, thus failing to observe the differences
in the grammatical structures between languages and accidentally changing the focus
or even the meaning of the message. In order to appreciate this fact we must make a
distinction between what is given and what is new in a message. A sentence normally
consists of two components: one conveys information which is already known to the
hearer (i.e. the theme) and the other conveys new information that the speaker wishes
to convey (i.e. the rheme). In a basic sentence structure the subject of a sentence is
almost the theme and the predicate the rheme.
There are structures, however, where a subject provides the new rather than the
given information. Failing to observe this fact results in inaccurate translations. In the
example It is translation that I like most, translation is presented as the new piece of
information and it is a structures that is difficult to translate into Arabic. it is not
accurate to say in Arabic or for the English sentence is a
cleft one. For the lack of an exact translation one might say at least ,
which at least focuses on the fact that it is translation and not anything else that I like..
2.4 Structural Ambiguity
Ambiguity is of two types: lexical and grammatical (or structural). Having
discussed lexical ambiguity in 1.1, it is now convenient to define grammatical
ambiguity. Duff (

: ) defines it as follows Grammatical ambiguities arise when the

point of stress in a clause or when relationships between words, groups or clauses in a

longer unit are not clear, i.e. on does not know what goes with what. The last
sentence in the quotation above is particularly enlightening. It implies that structural
ambiguity is bound to raise problems for the translator.

The first problem with ambiguity is caused by what Catford (1965: 94) calls
shared exponence, by which he means those cases where two or more distinct
grammatical (or lexical) items are expounded in one and the same phonological or
graphological form. His example is Time flies., which taken as it is out of context
can either mean: How quickly time passes or Make observations on the speed of
flies. The ambiguity is triggered by the fact that s can either mark the plural or the
third person singular present. Similarly, in the famous sentence suggested by
Chomsky Flying palanes can be dangerous, there are two interpretations: either it
can be dangerous to fly planes or Planes that are flying can be dangerous. One can
list endless such sentences. If provided, however, the context will usually show what
interpretation is meant unless, of course, the very ambiguity is deliberate.
A second case of ambiguity is caused by reference: the fact that it is possible for
a pronoun to refer equally to two subjects or objects. This problem is aggravated by
the fact that English is not language that is rich in case or gender endings. Duff (

:)

provides the following example In connection with any contract to be financed by

the bank, it (the bank) does not permit a borrower to... It is normally understood
as referring to
A third case of ambiguity is related to compounds. There is first the problem that
languages differ in the maximum length of a compound. German is, for instance,
known to be capable of long compounds, but English is less so and Arabic, if one
might talk about compounds, even less. There is the further problem that compounds
are potentially ambiguous. The difficulty does not only lie in that a body guard
guards the body and a mud guard guards against the mud (Duff?
a liquid crystal display has three readings.

Check

), but also that

The first refers to a display of

liquid crystals, the second to a liquid display of crystals and the third to a display that
is liquid and crystal. In this case only knowledge of the topic makes it possible for a
reader or translator to decide on one reading from these three as the most relevant
one.
2.5 Time Reference
Another major difficulty in translation has to do with the way each language
marks or not relations in time and differences of aspect. Time relations have to do
with locating an event in time. The usual distinction is between past, present and
future (Mona Baker, 1992: 98). Aspectual differences have to do with the temporal

distribution of an event, for instance, its completion or non-completion, continuation

or momentariness (Mona Baker, 1992: 98). The fact that languages never mark time
and aspect in the same say is emphasized by Alan Duff (1981: 76) who says the three
main tense blocks-past, present and future- is never quite the same in any two
languages; each language has its own proper mechanisms for marking duration,
continuity, possibility (check).
If languages differ in that respect, then, the translators job is to find the best
way to render a specific notion from one language into another.
3. Phonological Problems
The most prominent problem as far as the phonological level is concerned has to
do with transliteration, which concerns primarily proper nouns (see Unit 8 and 11 in
Translation I).
4. Semantic Problems
The semantic level constitutes the core of all linguistic levels since the ultimate
aim of the translator (or language, indeed) is the expression and transfer of meaning.
This is the level where all the previous problems are present: equivalence (synonymy)
of words, equivalence of expressions, equivalence of collocations and idioms, lexical
ambiguity, structural ambiguity, etc...
First, what are the inherent problems of a definition of equivalence? The
phenomenon of equivalence in translation is similar to that of synonymy in one
specific language. For two words or expressions to be synonymous or equivalent they
do not need to have the same range of meanings, unless, of course, what is meant is
absolute or complete synonymy or equivalence (see Unit
4.1 Denotative and Connotative Meaning
See Cultural Problems of Translation
4.2 General and Specific (Technical) Meanings
4.3 Modality

).

In grammar, modality refers to a classification of propositions (statements)

based on an assessment of the necessity or probability (possibility or impossibility) of
what is said. It is to be distinguished from modulation (see Unit 9).
Modal verbs (a grammatical category) constitute the primary source for
expressing modality in English. There are marked differences between He can / may /
might / should / must go. Besides modal verbs, English can express modality through
non-verbal (lexical) categories namely adverbs (e.g. certainly, possibly) adjectives
(e.g. certain, possible) and nouns (e.g. certainty, possibility). Modality in Arabic is
achieved by various lexical items representing different word classes including a few
verbs (e.g. ,), adjectives, adverbs ( ,), nouns ( ) and particles ( ,).
Apart from the fact that modal verbs in English form a distinct grammatical category
with definite syntactic characteristics, Arabic and English are similar in many
respects.
See Halliday, 1970: 189
Turjuman, 1992, 1/1, pp. 101-115
Linguistic Problems / Barriers in Translation: Further Reading
Books
- Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan
Press, pp. 9-50 (how to compare two sound systems), pp51-74 (how to compare two
vocabulary systems), pp. 93-109 (how to compare two writing systems)
- Mounin, 1963, Les Problmes Thoriques de la Traduction. Ch. 1, 2 and 3, 15
(linguistic barriers)
- Catford, J. C., 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Ch. 13 (language varieties
in translation)
- Duff, 1981, The Third Language. Ch. 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
- Mouakket, Ahmed, 1988. Linguistics and Translation: Semantic Problems in ArabicEnglish Translation. Damascus: Dar Tlass for Studies, Translation and Publication, pp.
58-66 (semantic derivation and lexical gaps), pp. 67-70 (dictionary meaning vs.
contextual meaning), pp. 71-78 (polysemy), pp.78-83 (synonymy and lexical
translatability), pp. 83-101 (antonymy), pp. 199-210 (connotation),
- Hatim , Basil, and Ian Mason, 1990. Discourse and the translator. Longman, pp. 2526 (contrasts between language systems), 38-53 (registers, dialects, field of discourse,
mode of discourse, tenor of discourse)
- Yowell, Y. Aziz and Muftah S. Lataiwish, 1999-2000. Principles of Translation. Dar
Annahda Alarabiya, n.p., pp. 17-40 (translation and meaning; reference, denotation,
connotation), pp. 96-105 (gain and loss)
- Zahid, Abdelhamid, 2004. A Model for Metaphor Translation. Al Wataniya,
Marrakech-Morocco, pp. 42-43 (denotative and connotative meaning)
Articles

- Ziad Kebbe, M. and Ataf Youssef, 1991. Linguistic Problems in Translation

Theory. Linguistica Communicatio, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.
- Le Feal, K. Dejean, 1992. Linguistique et Traduction. Turjuman, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
- Ali, Salah Salim, 1997. Temporality and Temporal Dimension in Translation with
Reference to Batesons Translation of Pre-Islamic Odes. Al-Lissan Al-Arabi, No. 44,
pp. 8-18
- Muhammad Raji Zughloul and Hussein Salama Abdul Fattah, 1999. Temporal
Expession in English and Arabic: A Case Study in Contrastive lexical Semantics.
Languages and Linguistics, International Periodical of linguistics edited by Moha
Ennaji, No. 4, pp. 73-93
Web pages
(Language Ambiguity: a Curse and a Blessing: http://accurapid.com/)
(Why cant a Computer Translate More like a Person: http://www.ttt.org/)

APPENDIX 3
Cultural Problems in Translation
A Checklist:
2. 1. Denotation and Connotation or Types of Meaning (Theories of Meaning)
2. 2. Metaphors
2. 3. Idioms
2. 4. Politeness Formulas and Forms of Address
2. 5. The Gender of Inanimate Nouns
Irony
Situation, Relevance and the Cooperative Principle
Grices Conversational Maxims
Taboos
Power and Social Distance
Problems related to cultural differences constitute the second type of problem
that a translator faces in the course of translation. These cultural differences include
many extralinguistic features, such as religion, social backgrounds, unfamiliar
natural phenomena, and others (Mouakket, 1988: 180). We have already discussed
the relationship between culture and language in Unit 13 Language, Culture and
Translation. We have also discussed some of the cultural problems in Unit 8
Translation, Translatability and Untranslatability) and in Unit 9 Adaptation or

Cultural Equivalence in the First Coursebook in Translation. Cultural problems is an

umbrella term that includes various problems in the process of translation such as
problems arising from mixing between the denotative and connotative meanings of
words, forms of address, and the problems associated with idioms and metaphors. The
following quotation from Sandor Hervey and Ian Higgins(

: ) stresses just how

serious cultural problems are in translation: It is useful to discuss general cultural

differences as such, because they are sometimes bigger obstacles to successful
translation than linguistic ones.
2.1 Denotation and Connotation
The first problem to be discussed in this respect is the one associated with
denotation and connotation. As is well known, there are two main types of meaning:
denotation and connotation. Denotation refers to the literal, the referential, objective,
cognitive or scientific meaning of a word. In Newmarks (1981: 119) terms
Denotation is the direct specific meaning of a word, optionally shown ostensibly (i.e.
in photo and diagram or by printing) and described as far as possible in summary
observable terms (check). The denotative meaning is normally the dictionary
definition or first definition of a word in a dictionary. In Bells (1991: 98) terms it
is. the shared property of the speech community which uses the language of which
the word or sentence forms a part.
Connotation, on the other hand, refers to the metaphorical, emotive, poetic or
associative meaning of a word. Newmark (1981: 119) defines it as (check) that
aspect of meaning of a particular word or word-group which is based on the feelings
and moral ideas it rouses in the transmitter or receptor, in brief, the meaning conveyed
or suggested apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes. As a matter of fact,
connotative meanings stem from our experience, education, religion, culture, and
traditions. Whereas some words have only denotative meanings (i.e. neutral
meanings) in a given language or for (certain) people in a given society, others have
both denotative and connotative meanings again depending on the same variables. The
problem for translation is that connotations in a specific language and culture may not
be understood or may be strange to people of other cultures.
To further understand connotations and the problems they cause to the translator
I shall distinguish between six types of connotative meaning following Sandor Hervey
and Ian Higgins (

: ), which are the following: allusive meaning, attitudinal

meaning, associative meaning, collocative meaning, reflected meaning, and affective

meaning.
The first type of connotative meaning is allusive meaning. This latter occurs
whenTo fully understand this type, here is an example fromThe
problem, however, with this type of connotation is

Another type of connotative meaning is attitudinal meaning. Nida (1969: 91)

ascertain that we do not only understand the reference of words, but we also react to
them emotionally, sometimes negatively....this is that part of
meaning In the following utterances: Who is that girl? / who is that lass?
Who is that wench? Girl, lass and wench may be said to refer to a young human
female, i.e. the same referent. But whereas girl has a neutral meaning (no
associations, no expressed (favorable or unfavorable) attitudes about the referent),
lass has a positive poetical meaning and wench has negative and unpleasant
associations. Therefore the translator should be aware of ..
Sometimes an attitudinal meaning involves the deliberate misinterpretation or
manipulation of the meaning of a concept in order to save interests and maintain
power as done by interest groups in the mass media or in (pseudo-)intellectual
discussions. This can be also referred to as the ideological meaning of words. By way
of exemplification, the terms martyr(dom) and suicide bomber refer in fact to the
same act, which is causing the death of oneself and enemies. But from the point of
view of the committed, this is totally legitimate and the only way to achieve justice in
the light of the inequality of powers. From the point of view of the other side, this is
outrageous and is in no way justifiable. The facts, however, are that the same act is
given two labels or two names. Strictly speaking martyrdom and its closest Arabic
equivalent do not refer to the same concept. Martyrdom, in English is willingly
accepting death rather than renouncing ones religion. in Arabic is offering ones
life in the service of God; it is a form of defying death and injustice (life in the
hereafter). One can list innumerable binary oppositions (martyrdom - suicide
bombing, terrorism - self defence or struggle for independence, freedom of speech
racism or non respect for religious and cultural practices or interference), based on the
model good vs. evil. The labels are two sides of the same coin. In this respect,
disseminating a term is also disseminating an ideology, an attitude and a case.
The third type is associative meaning. This latter refers to that part
.A good example of a common noun with associative meaning is the term

 ayn

in Arabic. This term frequently refers to the organ of sight, i.e. an eye. The

Arabic term, however, refers also to a way of looking at a person which may cause
him harm (disease, failure, fall, etc). Whatever opinion we may have of this meaning
as a superstitious belief or as a fact, the point is that an English speaker is unlikely to
understand this associative meaning and the translator has to find ways of bringing the
association. Similarly words such as pig, dog and donkey have unpleasant negative
associations (connotations) in the Arab culture besides their denotative meanings,
associations which are not the same in other cultures. A

symbolizes wisdom in the

European culture but it is associated with bad luck and is considered a bad omen in
the Moroccan culture.
The four type of connotative meaning is collocative meaning, which is acquired
by a word or expression by virtue of its association or rather its collocation with
another word. ....The problem with this type of meaning arises from introducing
unwanted collocative clashes in the TT. To illustrate this, Sandor Hervey and Ian
Higgins (.) provide the following example: Elle nourrissait un serpent dans
son sein, literally rendered as She harboured a snake in her breast. The latter
translation introduces strange and unwanted collocative clashes in the TT, which are
avoided if the translation is She harboured a viper in her bosom.
Reflected meaning is the fifth type of connotative meaning. It is the meaning
given to an expression ..An example from Sandor Hervey and Ian
Higgins (

: ) is the following.. Just as it is necessary to try and

preserve a reflected meaning which is present in the SL, it is necessary to avoid the
creation of an inappropriate reflected meaning in the TT.
The last type of meaning is the affective one. It refers to ..(Sandor Hervey
and Ian Higgins,

). The problem with this type of meaning as was the case with

most of then previous types is introducing unwanted affective meanings into the TT.
Sandor Hervey and Ian Higgins (

: ) classification of meaning into seven

types is similar to that made by Leech (1974, 1981: 9-23), a semanticist, who also
recognizes seven types of meaning: conceptual meaning, connotative meaning, social
meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning, collocative meaning and thematic
meaning. Note however that the two taxonomies overlap but are not the same. This is
how they map into an overall picture.

Sandor Hervey and Ian Higgins

Denotative meaning,

Leech
Denotative, conceptual meaning,

Allusive meaning evokes a saying

or quotation..
Attitudinal meaning some
widespread attitude to the
referent
Associative meaning expectations
that are rightly or wrongly
associated with the referent
Collocative meaning,

Collocative meaning, What is

communicated through association
with words which tend to occur in the

Reflected meaning,

environment of another word

Reflected meaning, What is
communicated through association
with another sense of the same

Affective meaning,

expression
Affective meaning, What is
communicated of the feelings and
attitudes of the speaker/writer
Connotative meaning
Social meaning
Thematic meaning

It seems to me, that both taxonomies fail to take into account an

ideological meaning I referred to above. This meaning, as I said above,
involves the deliberate misinterpretation and manipulation of terms and
concepts to achieve specific ends.
2.2. Metaphors
The second problem which is associated with culture relates to metaphors. Here
are some dictionary definitions of a metaphor. A metaphor is

"a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it

does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity" (WordWeb Thesaurus)
a way of describing something by comparing it to something else that has
similar qualities, without using the words 'like' or 'as' (Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English)
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one
thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison" (The
American Heritage Dictionary of English).
a. the application of a name or descriptive term or phrase to an object or action
to which it is imaginatively but not literally applicable. b an instance of this (Concise
Oxford Dictionary).
A figure of speech in which a name or descriptive word or phrase is transferred
to an object or action different from, but analogous to, that to which it is literally
applicable; an instance of this, a metaphorical expression (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary).
From a translation point of view, metaphors might be defined as imaginative
thought processes. (Peter Newmark,

From the previous definitions we know that a metaphor has the following
characteristics:
- it is an expression, a word, or phrase which is used as a way of description,
- it is a figure of speech, i.e. it involves metaphorical, figurative (not literal)
meaning,
- it is an implicit comparison, and suggests description by focussing on
similarity.
- (culture bound
Like a simile, a metaphor is comparison but it is not direct, only implied. The
author does not say one thing is like another, he says it is another.
As to the possible problems raised by metaphors in the course of translation,
these are prominent for the reasons that metaphors are deeply rooted in a culture and
they involve creative or non-literal use of language. But before exemplifying and
discussing these problems it is necessary to recognize different types of metaphor.
Peter Newmark (

: ) distinguishes between six types of metaphors. In this

discussion, however, I shall limit myself to only two types: stock metaphors and
original metaphors.
A stock metaphor is (check) an established metaphor which in an informal
context is an efficient and concise method of covering a physical and/or a neutral
situation both referentially and pragmatically (Peter Newmark,

: ). (check)

Stock metaphors are the reverse of plain speaking about any controversial subject or
whatever is taboo in a particular culture. They cluster around death, sex, excretion,
war and unemployment; they are the hardiest means of disguising the truth or physical
facts. Therefore, stock metaphors are more culture bound (Peter Newmark,

).

The problem caused by with this type of metaphor in translation is that the translator
is tempted to reproduce a TL metaphor which is totally unnatural. For example, it
would be absurd to translate

as

. This is why, according to Peter Newmark (

: ) the reproduction of stock metaphors should be confined to one word metaphors as

they rarely cause such a problem,. An example is "a sea of troubles", which can be
translated as .
Because original metaphors are particularly frequent in literary texts, they are
especially relevant to students of the arts. An original metaphor, as Peter Newmark
(:

) says, is one that is created or quoted by the SL writer in authoritative and

expressive texts. It contains an important writers message, his personality, his

comment on life and may have a more or less cultural element. He adds there is no
question the more original and surprising it is (and therefore the more remote from the
national culture), the easier it will be to translate, since in its essence it will be remote
from common semantic as well as culture associations. As is clear from these two
quotations, the cultural element is less important in this type of metaphor, and
consequently they do not raise insurmountable problems for the translator. Still an
original metaphor frequently involve a word play or pun on a polysemous word in the
SL. In the absence of a corresponding TL word, the translator has to choose between
reproducing both senses or choosing one and losing the word play. For example, in a
glaring error, glaring means shining intensely and outrageously bad, a possible
translation into Arabic is . Very frequently, it is safer to attempt a literal
translation. To put one's cards on the table, is safely translated into Arabic as
.
2. 3 Idioms
Idioms constitute another source of cultural problems for translators. Here are
six selected dictionary definitions of an idiom.
a group of words established by usage and having a meaning not deducible
from those of the individual words (Concise Oxford Dictionary)

a group of words with a meaning of its own that is different from the meanings
of each separate word put together (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)
A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself
grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements
(The American Heritage Dictionary).
a form of expression, grammatical construction, phrase, etc. peculiar to a
person or language; a phrase, etc. which is understood by speakers of a particular
language despite its meanings not being predictable from that of the separate words
(The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).
a group of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of the
constituent words (Collins)
"an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the
words that make it up" (WordWeb Thesaurus).
From a translators point of view, Peter Newmark (1988?:

) defines it as

(check) a group of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of
their constituent words. Similarly, Mona Baker (

: ) states (check) Idioms are

frozen patterns of language which allow little or no variation in form, often carry
meanings which cannot be deduced from their individual constituents. Duff,
interestingly, (

) specifies that Idioms are cultural products carrying SL cultural

colouring. This emphasis on the culture specificity of idioms is what justifies their
inclusion within the cultural problems of translation.
As we can see from the previous definitions, an idiom has the following
characteristics:
- consists of more than one word, and is usually an expression or phrasal verb,
- the meaning of the idiom is not deducible from the meanings of the individual
words,
- idioms raise more problems for non-native speakers.
Therefore, An idiom is an expression (phrase or clause) whose meaning cannot
be derived from the sum of the meanings of its parts. In other words, the meaning of
an idiom cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up.
Something the previous definitions do not talk about is the relationship between
idioms and metaphors, which are discussed in the previous section. An idiom may
involve a metaphor as in its raining cats and dogs or see the light, but may also
involve phrasal verbs as in look into (investigate scientifically) and other fixed
expressions as in nice and cold (= nice because cold),
As to the problems triggered by idioms, I shall focus on two such problems. The
first one is that some idioms have a double meaning: a literal and a figurative one.

Mona Baker (

: ) provides the following example: to take someone for a ride may

be interpreted either as offering someone a ride or deceiving him. The point is that the
translator may miss the figurative meaning of an idiom and consequently miss the real
message. The second problem is that some idioms may have seemingly identical ones
in the TL, but the similarity may be only on the level of form whereas their respective
meanings may be different.

) provides the following example. To pull

someones leg, which means in English to kid, to tell somebody false information
for fun is said to be identical on the surface level with an Arabic idiom, namely
yishab rijlu (to pull his leg), which is found in some dialects of Arabic. The point is
that the latter idiom means something different, in particular it means is to trick
somebody into talking about something he would rather have kept secret (

). Alternatively, idioms in different languages, which have different forms may have
the same meaning. For example,

All in all cultural problems fall into three categories (Yowell Y. Azia and M. S.
Lataiwish (1999-2000: 11): geographical, religious and social. As an example of
geographical differences between the Source and the Target Cultures we have already
discussed the possible problems that Shakespeares sonnet in which he says Shall I
compare thee to a Summers day might raise to the student of translation in Unit 8.
The example above is also representative of the problems of the translation of
metaphors. We have also touched upon the role played by religion in shaping culture
and attitudes in our distinction between denotative and connotative meanings. As to
social aspects of culture it is enough to point out the differences of customs, beliefs
and habits in the two cultures, of which marriages, funerals and festivals are
manifestations. In the Arab culture, for instance, people usually live in a large family
with their parents, which by itself may be an unusual notion to a westerner. Similarly,
an owl is a sign of wisdom in the European culture but it is a bad omen in the Arab
culture. Other aspects of culture may relate to articles of dress, food, taste and
dwelling. Thus the translator is not only required to master the two languages but also
to be fully aware of the differences between the two cultures behind the languages and
make the appropriate choices or provide explanations for the benefit of the TL reader.
Cultural Problems / Barriers in Translation: Further Reading
Books

- Lado, R., 1957. Linguistics across Cultures, pp. 110-122 (How to Compare two
Cultures)
- Mounin, 1963. 1963, Les Problmes Thoriques de la Traduction. Ch. 4, 5, 12
(language and culture)
- Catford, J. C., 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Ch. 14
- Steiner, George, 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Culture. London:
Oxford University Press (Ch 6. typologies of Culture)
- Bassnett-McGuire, Susan 1980. Translation Studies. pp. 13-14 (language and
culture), pp. 30-31 (loss and gain)
- Duff, 1981, The Third Language. Ch. 1.6 (cultural differences and translation)
- Newmark, 1981. Approaches to Translation Ch. 2 , pp. 20-24 (cultural equivalence),
Ch. 3 and 5 (communicative and semantic translation)
- Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason, 1990. Discourse and the Translator. Longman, Ch. 2,
esp. pp. 32-33 (socio-cultural context), p. 169 (semiotic, communicative and
pragmatic dimension of context)
- Altwaijri, Abdulaziz Othman, 1998. The Arab Culture and Other Cultures, pp. 7-9
(Introduction about culture)
- Yowell, Y. Aziz and Muftah S. Lataiwish, 1999/ 2000. Principles of Translation. Dar
Annahda Alarabiya, n.p., pp. 106-109 (language , culture and translation), pp. 109-111
(relativity and culture), pp. 111-122 (cultural problems of EnglishArabic translation:
geographical culture, religious culture, social culture, material love, linguistic culture)
Encyclopedias
Articles
Thomas, Jenny,
. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Linguistics?, Vol. 1, No 2,
pp. 91-112
(politeness, taboos, )
Web pages
(Cultural Implications for translation: http://accurapid.com/)
(Cultural Elements in Translation: the Indian Perspective:
http://www.translationdirectory.com/
See also Linguistic and Cultural Problems in Translation file
See also TranslationanIntroductionandBibliography file