Whereas structural mismatches concern Arabic phrasal structures that are not permissible in English, functional mismatches have to do with Arabic phrasal constructions with English equivalents that are used differently. For example, some English prepositional phrases are used as adverbial modi-fiers, such as with care, with love, and by hand. Arabic, conversely, allows more prepositional phrases to be used as adverbial modifiers, such as
ءطبب
lit. with slowness and
ةعرسب
lit. with speed in (4), but such morpheme- by- morpheme translation candidates are not acceptable in English. Because we are interested in the function of the Arabic prepositional phrases rather than their structure, we can translate them using English phrases of different types as long as they have the same function. The Arabic source phrases areused as manner modifiers; therefore, we can use the manner adverbs fast and slowly as English functional equivalents.
.41176 ددعلا ،1999 ربمتبس 1 ،)رصم( مارهلأا ةديرج )
4( . ةعرسب ملكتت اهنأ تظحلا اهبطخو اهثيداحلأ تلايجست ىلإ تعمتسا امدنع .حوضوو ءطبب ملكتت تحارف
When she listened to recordings of her own interviews and speeches, she realized that she speaks fast, and as a result, she started speaking slowly and clearly.
Functional equivalence does not need to involve phrases with the same grammatical structure. In other words, we do not need to translate all Arabic adverbial prepositional phrases as adverbs. In fact, there are many cases in which we cannot find suitable adverbs, as in the case of
ةرثكب
lit. with plen-tifulness in (5)..2458 ددعلا ،2008 سرام 10 ،)ةيدوعسلا( ظاكع ةديرج )
5( .ةرثكب تومرضح يف موجن ةسمخ قدانف انيدل سيل هنأب مكربخأ نأ دوأ
I would like to inform you that we do not have many five- star hotels in Hadramawt.
In this particular sentence, the prepositional phrase
ةرثكب
is used to mod-ify having five- star hotels in terms of quantity. Therefore, we can substitute it with a quantifier, such as a lot of or many. There is no one way to trans-lateةرثكب
, given that it can be functionally equivalent to a lot, much, quite, plentiful, often, frequently, in large quantities, and in abundance, among several other possibilities. The choice of the optimal translation candidate always depends on the context rather than the grammatical structure of the source phrase.We saw in the previous chapter that many Arabic adverbs are derived from nouns by adding the tanween suffix, as in
احابص
andانايحأ
, which can be translated, respectively, as in the morning and sometimes. Some adverbs can be repeated to form new adverbial constructions, as inامسا امسا
in (6) andنينثا نينثا
in (7). Obviously, we cannot translate these phrases as name name and two two because English does not allow this kind of repetition.Besides, the English adverb derived from name is namely, which has a very different meaning and function from its Arabic counterpart. Also, there is no English adverb lexically derived from two. Thus it is very important for
us to understand the function of this construction, not just the meaning of the repeated words, before attempting to translate it. This adverbial con-struction describes an event as a repeated action, but the problem is that the repeated action can be interpreted differently depending on the context.
The sentence in (6) describes a situation in which the action of examining one name was repeated until all the names were examined. The repeated adverb construction here suggests that the examination is meticulous and thorough. Note that we cannot apply reconstruction and translate
صحفتس امسا امسا ءانجسلا ءامسأ
as it will reexamine the names of the prisoners because the prefix re- suggests that all the names were already examined; this is a different kind of repetition. In (7), conversely, the repetition expresses a different kind of event individuation; each addition involves two eggs. This means that repeated adverbs cannot be translated in a uniform way, even though they have the same structure..1998 ربمسيد 11 ،)تيوكلا( انوك ةيتيوكلا ءابنلأا ةلاكو )
6( صحفتس ةنجللا نإ هلوق تاقيرع روتكدلا نع ةينيطسلفلا ةعاذلإا تلقنو .امسا امسا ءانجسلا ءامسأ
The Palestinian Broadcasting Service quoted Dr. Uraiqat as saying that the committee will examine each and every one of the prisoners’ names.
.2006 وينوي 8 ،)ةيدوعسلا( نطولا لك ةديرج )
7( نينثا ضيبلا فاضي كلذ دعبو ،امامت دربي ىتح رخآ ءانإ يف ىوتحملا عضوي .رمتسملا بيلقتلا عم نينثا
Put the mixed ingredients in a different bowl until they cool completely. Then, add the eggs, two at a time, while stirring constantly.
Unlike the idiosyncratic nature of the functional mismatches associated with adverbial uses of prepositional phrases, there are systematic ways of translating repeated adverbs. First, we need to identify the commu-nicative function of the Arabic adverbial construction, and then we need to look for an English construction that achieves the same function. The repeated adverb construction is a verb phrase manner modifier that speci-fies succession or thoroughness. The English constructions at the time and each and every are functionally equivalent to the Arabic repeated adverb construction. The Arabic repeated adverb construction has two
communicative functions that correspond to two different constructions in English. We can generalize this pattern, and whenever we run into a repeated adverb within a verb phrase, we can use the one that is a true functional equivalent.
Another pattern of functional mismatches involves the cognate object constructions, in which a verb takes an event nominal derived from the same root as an object, often with an adjective, such as
اعيرذ لاشف لشف
in (8). The function of this construction is to provide a grammatical context in which an adjective can indirectly modify the verb by modifying its cog-nate object. English cogcog-nate objects, as in to die a horrible death and to laugh a bitter laugh, are relatively few and nonproductive. In other words, we cannot generate new cognate objects, as in failed a miserable failure, to translateاعيرذ لاشف لشف
. Cognate object phrases need to be reconstructed as phrases with the same functions, regardless of their grammatical struc-ture. Because cognate object phrases function indirectly as modifiers, most of them can be translated using adverbs—for example, failed miserably..1939 ددعلا ،2006 ربوتكأ 8 ،)ةيدوعسلا( ظاكع ةديرج )
8( ضعب يف اعيرذ لاشف لشف دقو تقولاب ةكراشملا ماظنل لاصأ ةجاحب نكن مل .ةرواجملا نادلبلا
We had no need for the time- share system to start with, and it failed miserably in some neighboring countries.
Arabic also allows unmodified cognate objects, as in
اريمدت اهرمد
lit. de-stroyed it a destruction in (9), where we do not have an adjective that would qualify the destruction. These unmodified cognate objects have a different function: They add emphasis. The cognate object inاريمدت اهرمد
stresses that the destruction would have been complete. To make sure that the emphasis is not lost, we can add the adverb completely, as in would have destroyed it completely. We can also substitute the whole phrase with a verb that lexi-cally encodes the emphasis, such as devastate or ruin..2008 ليربأ 7 ،)قارعلا( رابخلأا ةديرج )
9( .انه اهظفحو راثلآا هذه لقنب اوماق نامللأا نييرثلأا نأ قارعلا ظح نسح نم .اريمدت اهرمد دق لامهلإا ناكل قارعلا يف تيقب ول
Fortunately for Iraq, the German archeologists brought those artifacts over for preservation. If they had stayed in Iraq, they would have been ruined by negligence.
The problems posed by phrase- level functional mismatches are in fact very similar to those we saw at the word level in chapter 1. Both types of problems have to do with source language forms that are used differently from their counterparts in the target language. They are also very similar in the ways we deal with them, as we can use different target language forms that have the same functions. The big picture that emerges here is that we are more concerned with the functions of the source language phrases than their structure. Our ultimate goal is a translation that achieves the same communicative functions as the source text.