In its simplest definition, translation is conceived of as replacing textual material in a SL by equivalent textual material in a TL. Perhaps the simple fact that translation operates on SL-TL and on textual material indicates the complexity of this task. If ‘textualize’ means ‘to put into text: set down as concrete and unchanging’ (Merriam Webster), then the translator of a text will have to deal
with grammar, syntax, lexical items, idioms, idiosyncrasies, nuances of meaning, stylistics, etc., and beyond that with culture, norms, terminology, and the list goes on unfolding. Where do dictionaries lie in this intricate and labyrinthine map of translation? The map qualifies for the epithets ‘intricate’ and ‘labyrinthine’ if we agree that a dictionary does no more than listing the words of a language in alphabetical order and gives their meaning with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology. A bilingual dictionary does the same thing, but in the TL. For instance Al-Mawrid (English-Arabic) fulfils this in Arabic as a TL, but only in so far as meaning is concerned. It does not concern itself with pronunciation and etymology for instance; but lists equivalents and synonyms, but all this does not solve the formidable task of textualization, which involves much more than finding ‘equivalents’. It seems that equivalence is a hypothetical construct because no two languages have a one-to-one relationship. Even if a word satisfies the condition of equivalency, there remains such intricate and language-specific things like collocation, implication, denotation, connotation, symbolic dimension, relational associations, idioms and cultural specificity which are unique to every language.
Also, textualization has in its folds other tasks such as recreation, expansion of meaning, transference, transliteration and coining in the case of terminology. Moreover, there is the constant interplay between ‘metaphrase’ and ‘paraphrase’. If a translator fulfils all these tasks successfully, s/he will end up by producing his/her own discourse.
Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjāni “…maintains, in an unparalleled characterization of structure, meaning and translation, that: ‘If a translator takes the [Arabic] sentence ‘Zaid is brave’ and translates ‘brave’ into its translation equivalent in his language, this will be a translation of our speech. But if a translator takes the [Arabic] sentence ‘Zaid is a lion’ and understands that it means ‘Zaid is brave’ and translates ‘lion’ into the translation equivalent of ‘brave’ in his language, he will not be translating our speech. Rather, he will be establishing his own discourse, and creating his own unique utterance” (See quote from Abu Deeb below).
Newmark (1982) addresses two types of translation; semantic and communicative. While the former is ‘linguistic and encyclopedic’, the latter is ‘functional’. Newmark adheres to the linguistic approach to translation and maintains that translation theory is an interdisciplinary study deriving in no small measure from Comparative Linguistics. There is no denying the fact that translation is a comparative study in the best sense of the word since it invariably involves the entire range of culture represented by the two languages in question. However, he never wavers from the view that translation is a craft whose tools are comprehension, interpretation, formulation and recreation. Yet the act of translation is never entirely complete since the translator, in choosing to avoid literality, may resort to paraphrasing and end by, as mentioned above, creating his own discourse. This is especially so in literary translation where stylistic devices like metaphor, simile, parallels, analogues and allegory may result in fetching equivalents that are entirely devoid of the original sense of the
SL. This is evidenced by the symbolic dimension of a metaphor, the way native speakers use it and the particular way it relates to norms, social habits and vernaculars. As some words are culture-specific, other words are climate- specific, heritage-specific, class-specific, etc. For instance, the word ‘iridescence’ is difficult to translate into Arabic as it relates to a certain climatic zone where the rainbow is a habitual scene. It provides us with an example where a single word evokes a whole atmosphere. This evocative capacity is almost impossible to come across in translation.
How much does a bilingual dictionary like Al-Mawrid assist a translator in his/her task? How do we find equivalents to words like ‘statehood’, ‘individualize’, ‘schematize’, ‘dramatize’, ‘nuclearize’, ‘systematize’, to give only a few instances? If the answer is by finding equivalents in the TL, then it is a wrong answer. So much as translating is concerned,
…a translation that does not endeavour to be a new discourse, but desires to remain translation per se is one of the most complex and overlapping processes of intellectual assimilation and expression; one that presupposes strict controls. There seems to be a consensus on the fact that the foremost problem in this process is that of terms: critical, literary, social, political, scientific... ad infinitum (See Abu Deeb below).
Can a bilingual dictionary solve the problem of “the most complex and overlapping processes of intellectual assimilation and expression”. In translating from English into Arabic translation does become a new discourse via explanation and simplification.