When we look at a phrase such as John’s old house, we find that every morpheme contributes to the meaning of the phrase as a whole. In fact, the meaning of this phrase is the sum total of the meanings of its parts—that is, the meaning of this phrase is fully compositional. This is the case with most phrases, but some phrasal types do not follow this generalization,
such as frozen expressions, collocations, compounds, and idioms. These are phrases whose meanings cannot always be understood by looking at their constituents; therefore, we cannot translate them simply by using their ref-erential counterparts. Semantically noncompositional phrases require a dif-ferent approach to translation, as we try to find target language phrases or expressions that have the same discourse functions as the source phrases, regardless of whether their constituents are referentially equivalent.
2.1 Frozen Expressions
Frozen expressions are fixed phrases, such as so be it, fair and square, by and large, and every now and then. We can see from the way frozen ex-pressions are used that they do not allow any change to their structure.
We cannot switch the order of conjuncts, as in the odd expressions square and fair and by crook or by hook, and we cannot change their inflectional morphology, say, by making them plural, as in so be they. Some frozen ex-pressions are not even grammatical, such as by and large, where two words that belong to different parts of speech are conjoined. Frozen expressions are usually relics from earlier stages of the language that have become lexi-calized over time; therefore, they should be treated the same way we treat individual words.
Arabic, like any other language, has its share of frozen expressions.
Sometimes we can guess their meanings from their constituent words, even though they are not strictly compositional. For example, the words that make up the phrase
ءدب يذ ءىداب
suggest that this expression has to do with getting started. However, this does not help us understand what the phrase as a whole means or how it is used. In other cases, the meaning of a frozen expression is opaque, as inدعب امأ
. We know thatامأ
means as for andدعب
means after, but this does not tell us what they mean when used together.
Also, in some instances the words that make up a frozen expression are so archaic that most native speakers do not know what they mean by them-selves, as in the case of
ارج ملهو
.When translating frozen expressions, we need to use target language functional equivalents, because we cannot rely on the meanings of their con-stituent parts. We actually need to start the translation process by identify-ing the communicative functions associated with these expressions. Then, we need to look for target language expressions that are conventionally used to achieve these same functions. By “functional equivalents,” I mean ex-pressions from different languages that are used in the same contexts. For
instance, English fairy tales typically start with once upon a time, whereas Arabic fairy tales start with
ناك ام اي ناك
; therefore, we can consider these two frozen expressions as functionally equivalent, even though they have very different grammatical structures and lexical contents. The frozen ex-pressionارج ملهو
can be translated as and so on and so forth, and so on, or etcetera. All we need to know is that it is an expression used at the end of a list to indicate that there are other items of the same category with which the readers are assumed to be familiar. With the expressionءدب يذ ءىداب
, we need to recognize that it is used at the beginning of a discourse to describe something as being of primary importance in comparison with other, simi-lar items; therefore, we can translate it as first and foremost. Unfortunately, only a few Arabic frozen expressions are functionally equivalent to English frozen expressions, but we do not need to translate Arabic frozen expres-sions as English frozen expresexpres-sions.Translating frozen expressions becomes challenging when the target lan-guage does not have true functional equivalents. For example, the expres-sion
دعب امأ
is used to mark the transition from introductory discourse to the core content of a text. Typically, it is used in official letters and formal speeches after greetings and introductory remarks. The only English expres-sions that have similar functions are anyhow and anyway, or the more direct expression let’s get down to business. However, these expressions are not ap-propriate in formal discourse, and they cannot be considered true functional equivalents ofدعب امأ
. We can simply omitدعب امأ
from the translation because its discourse function is usually unmarked in English discourse. Instead, we can achieve the same communicative goal by starting a new paragraph.Finally, some frozen expressions have culture- specific discourse func-tions, as in the case of
ملعأ للهاو
lit. and God knows best in (14). This phrase is used as a formulaic expression at the ends of texts in which writers issue religious edicts or give academic opinions. The purpose of using this expres-sion in these particular contexts is to show humility, as writers try not to sound as if they know everything or that they have the final say. It is part of the religion- based cultural etiquette of academic pursuit, which stems from the view that human knowledge is inherently limited compared with divine knowledge. Using the English word- for- word translation God knows best would be quite odd, whereas God only knows does not achieve the same communicative function. Because the communicative function ofملعأ للهاو
is language specific, we can leave it out. After all, it is part of the discourse’s form rather than its content..593 ددعلا ،2008 سطسغأ 2 ،)رصم( يبرعلا مارهلأا ةديرج )
14( ، حاحصلا ثيداحلأا يف لاو ،نآرقلا يف همساب حرصمب سيلف توملا كلم امأو . ملعأ للهاو ، ليئارزعب راثلآا ضعب يف هتيمست تءاج دقو
As for the Angel of Death, his name is not mentioned anywhere in the Qur’an or the verified sayings of Prophet Muhammad, but the name Ezrael occurs in some classical texts.
Note, however, that the same expression has other communicative func-tions in other discourse genres. In (15),
ملعأ للهاو
is used to express the author’s doubts about the statement that follows; hence, it is translated as who knows..2174 ددعلا ،2007 ويام 31 ،)ةيدوعسلا( ظاكع ةديرج )
15( دق ..نتوين سأر ىلع تطقس يتلا ةحافتلاك تراكيد ةبابذ نوكت دقف ملعأ للهاو .صصق درجم نوكت
Who knows? Perhaps Descartes’s fly is just like the apple that fell on Newton’s head, only a story.
We find many frozen expressions in religious discourse, such as
للها ىلص ملسو هيلع
lit. May God bless him and grant him peace,ملاسلا هيلع
lit. Peace be upon him,هنع للها يضر
lit. May God be pleased with him, and many others.These are used after mentioning the names of prophets and prominent reli-gious figures (e.g.,
ملسو هيلع للها ىلص دمحم
,ملاسلا هيلع ىسيع
, andيضر ركب وبأ هنع للها
). These formulaic expressions tend to be used with reference to par-ticular individuals, depending on their status within the religious tradition:Prophet Muhammad takes
ملسو هيلع للها ىلص
, other prophets takeملاسلا هيلع
, and early prominent figures in Islam takeهنع للها يضر
. These expressions can be difficult to deal with because English does not have functionally equiva-lent terms. The good news is that some of these terms have been around for a long time, and thus other translators have had to deal with them. Many such terms have even developed standardized translations that are specific to re-ligious discourse, such as Peace be upon him, or PBUH, forملسو هيلع للها ىلص
.2.2 Collocations
Collocations are phrasal combinations of words that tend to occur together, such as a flock of birds, commit a crime, and a heavy accent. The defining characteristic of collocations is that though they allow grammatical modifi-cation, their lexical constituents are fixed. For example, we can say a flock
of birds and filthy rich, but not a herd of birds, a flock of cows, dirty rich, or filthy poor. They are so fixed that we cannot use close synonyms to replace their lexical constituents; thus we can say strike a balance but not hit a balance, even though hit and strike are very similar in meaning. The inflec-tional morphology of collocations, conversely, is rather flexible; because they occur in passive constructions (e.g., a crime was committed), they can be pluralized (e.g., flocks of birds), and they allow modifiers (e.g., a very heavy Scottish accent). The meanings of collocations are not always transparent, as they are not strictly compositional. For example, when we pay someone a visit, we do not give money, and when we strike a balance, nothing gets hit.
Although collocations allow grammatical alternations, they need to be dealt with on a case- by- case basis, just like other semantically noncompositional expressions.
Arabic collocations vary considerably in their restrictiveness. Some col-locations are open in the sense that they have one word fixed, whereas another word is semantically and/or grammatically specified but lexically variable. For example, the collocation
ةعرسلا ىهتنم
lit. the end of speed has the wordىهتنم
end fully fixed; butةعرسلا
speed can be substituted by any singular definite attributive noun, as inبحلا ىهتنم
,ةداعسلا ىهتنم
, andىهتنم لامجلا
. Other collocations are partially constrained in terms of their lexical content, as one word is fixed, whereas the other word can be any of a limited set of words. For example, the verbفرتقا
commit collocates withبنذ
sin andةميرج
crime, but not withراحتنلاا
suicide, even though suicide is considered both a crime and a sin in Arab cultures. The fact that the collocationفرتقا اراحتنا
commit suicide is inadmissible in Arabic testifies to the arbitrary na-ture of collocations. Most Arabic collocations, however, have fully specified lexical content, and we cannot change any of their constituent words, as inىلع ضبقلا ىقلأ
arrest andةبطخ ىقلأ
give/deliver a speech, where we cannot substituteىقلأ
throw withىمر
throw orفذق
throw, even though they are all synonyms.Some Arabic collocations have direct English equivalents, such as