M0 1 PÔ*{0Â + öPøPçP¶PÉPÌH¢jaits.jpn.org/home/kaishi2014/14_008-haggag.pdf · But in the...
18
䠘ㄽ䠚 JAITS ᐀ᩍゝㄒ僔⩻ヂ⬟ᛶ僸僧傶僉僌 䯍 儓兏儆兠兗僑傰傷僱充儣儹儅兠僸ཧ↷傽僌 䯍 儳儐儔兟免儮 ꈑ 㸦ᶫᏛᏛ㝔ゝㄒ♫◊✲⛉༤ኈㄢ⛬㸧 This article deals with the problem of translatability of religious language, taking examples of figurative expressions in the Qur’anic discourse. In the traditional Western rhetoric, metaphor was a species of the figure of word, and was considered as the substitution of proper word into figurative one which has only esthetic effect. But, in the Arabic rhetoric, metaphors are not esthetic but cognitive, and lead to the clarification of the meaning of text. If metaphors come from the substitution of words, in translating it is only necessary to translate the proper meaning which lies behind its figurative meaning. But in the case of cognitive metaphors, translation may become hard task, because those metaphors directly participate in the process of the making-sense of discourse itself. It can be said we are in front of the limit of the translation, and are obliged to devise various ways of translation strategies. 1. ⩻ヂ⌮ㄽ᐀ࡓᩍゝㄒࢫすὒ ⩻ヂ⌮ㄽࡢࡊ࠸ࡋⓎᒎࡗ࡞ࡉࠊࡊࢺࢫࢡࢸ࡞ࢱᛂࡓࡌ⩻ヂࡢጇ ᙜᛶࡢၥ㢟ࡀ㆟ㄽࡉ࠸ࠋ⩻ヂ⌮ㄽ࡞␗ࠊࡣ⫼ᬒࡘゝㄒࡔ࠸࠶ࡢ⏕ࡌ ពࡢ㌿⛣⪃ᐹࡢ㔜せ࡞ᑐ㇟ࡍ␗ࠋゝㄒ㛫ࡢពࡢ㌿⛣࠸࠾▱ࠊࡣⓗព 1 ௨እ ࡢⓗព 2 ㇟ᚩⓗ 3 ពࡀ࡞ࡁၥ㢟ࡗ࡞ᾋࡧࡀ࡞ࡐ࡞ࠋ ࠊⓗព ㇟ᚩⓗពࡦࠊࡣࡢࡘゝㄒࡢෆ㒊࠸࠾ࡋࡗࡅ⩏ⓗࡢࡑࠊࡃ࡞ࡣከ⩏ᛶ␗ ࡞ゝㄒ⛣ࡇࡍࠊࡣᚲ↛ⓗ࡞ࡁᅔ㞴ࡀࡉࡩࡕࡓࡀ࠶ࡇࡢࡑࠋࠊࡣẚ႘ ㇟ᚩࡀ㔜せ࡞ᙺᯝ᐀ࡍࡓᩍゝㄒ⩻ヂࡍ㝿࡞ࡁၥ㢟࡞ࡢࡇࠋㄽ┠ࡢⓗ ࠊࡣࢫࡢ⪷࠶ࢡᑐ㇟ࡋ᐀ࠊᩍゝㄒࡢ⩻ヂ⬟ᛶ࠸ࡘ⪃ᐹࡍ ࡇ࠶ࠋࡃ᐀ࠊᩍゝㄒ࠸࠾⏝࠸࣓ࢱ࡞ࡢẚ႘ⓗ⾲⌧╔┠ࡋ ⪃ᐹ㐍ࡋࠋࡢࡑࠊࡋ㆟ㄽධ๓ࠊ᐀ࡎᩍゝㄒࡢ≉㉁࠸ࡘ⪃ᐹࡍᚲせ ࡀ࠶ࡓࠊᮏㄽࡢ๓᐀ࡣᩍゝㄒࡅ࠾ẚ႘ࡢၥ㢟࠸ࡘㄽࡌ ࠋ᐀ᩍゝㄒ࠸࠾ࠊࡣẚ႘㇟ᚩࡀ㔜せ࡞ᙺᯝࡋࡓ࠸ࠋゝㄒࡢ⌮ⓗពࡀ ࢪHAGGAG Rana, “On the translatability of religious language ---- with the reference to metaphors in Qur’an,” Interpreting and Translation Studies, No.14, 2014. pages 139-155. © by the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies. 139
Transcript of M0 1 PÔ*{0Â + öPøPçP¶PÉPÌH¢jaits.jpn.org/home/kaishi2014/14_008-haggag.pdf · But in the...
139
JAITS
This article deals with the problem of translatability of religious language, taking examples of
figurative expressions in the Qur’anic discourse. In the traditional Western rhetoric, metaphor was a
species of the figure of word, and was considered as the substitution of proper word into figurative one
which has only esthetic effect. But, in the Arabic rhetoric, metaphors are not esthetic but cognitive, and
lead to the clarification of the meaning of text. If metaphors come from the substitution of words, in
translating it is only necessary to translate the proper meaning which lies behind its figurative
meaning. But in the case of cognitive metaphors, translation may become hard task, because those
metaphors directly participate in the process of the making-sense of discourse itself. It can be said we
are in front of the limit of the translation, and are obliged to devise various ways of translation
strategies.
1.
1
2 3
HAGGAG Rana, “On the translatability of religious language ---- with the reference to metaphors in Qur’an,” Interpreting and Translation Studies, No.14, 2014. pages 139-155. © by the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies.
139
140
1979 2000
(1) (2)
(3)(4)
(5)
(6)1978:116-117
Abdul-Raof 2006
‘ilm Al-Bayan
1984 20
& 1980
140
141
2.
métaphore
pareil à semblable àcomme
A BB A A
2000:64
1995a:55
1997:28
141
142
Clair clear distinct(1) (2)
(1) Clair clear
1995b:41-2
intellectus
3.
1995b 71-73
1997:36
1997:36-38
1995b:14
142
143
(1) ——
(2) ——
(3) ——
4.
Lyons 1977:177ff. (2008)
referent reference (2013) Bedeutung Sinn
143
144
linguistic meaning referential
meaning emotive or connotative meaning
2009:60
2003:19
1978:116
144
145
1984:190
5.
4
11
al-Jurj n Dala’il al-I jaz
Asrar al-Balaghah
al-Jurj n 1954 al-Jurj n n.d.;
Badawi 1962 Larkin 1995
I‘jaz
Ilm al-bayan/figures of speech ‘Ilm ma‘ani/word
order
145
146
Asrar al-Balaghah
Ma‘ani ‘Aqliyya Ma‘ani Takhyiliyya
Ma‘ani ‘Aqliyya
al-Jurj n 1954:241
al-Jurj n 1954:241 Ma‘ani ‘Aqliyya
Ma‘ani
‘Aqliyya
Ma‘ani Takhyiliyya Ma‘ani
Takhyiliyya
Ma‘ani Takhyliyya
Takhyili
Ma‘ani Takhyliyya
Ma‘ani Takhyliyya
Ma‘ani Takhyliyya Ma‘ani ‘Aqliyya
Ma‘ani ‘Aqliyya
146
147
6.
1964
1982
al-Isti‘rah Abdul-Raof
2006 Ista‘rah—
I
”
“
74
74
147
148
II
“ ”
24
24
III
“ ”
69
69
148
149
1995b 62
…
…
6 19 1976 481
1977
Nazzar
7.
149
150
1984:212
Abdul-Raof 2001 El-Hadary 2009
IV
18
18
V:
“ ”
41
150
151
41
IV
V
Nida 1964:219
Nida
1964:220
Newmark 1981:90
cf. 1984
151
152
métaphore vive 1978:92-93
VI
10
10
152
153
153
154
……………………………………………
HAGGAG Rana
E-mail: [email protected]
……………………………………………
1. cf. Lyons
1976:174-176
2.
cf. Lyons 1976:175 3.
cf. 1970 1987 1987
1978:127 4.
5. discours
discourse
discours
1957
1982
(2003)
, C. & I. (2008)
1995a
1995b
1997
(1997)
, G. 1970
, T. 1987
, R. 1979
1976 11
154
155
, H. 1977
, A. 1987
, G. (2013)
, J. 2009
, P. 1978
, P. 1984
, G. & , M. 1980
, O. 2000
Abdul-Raof, H. (2006). Arabic Rhetoric: A pragmatic Analysis. London: Routledge.
Abdul-Raof, H. (2011). Qur’an Translation. Discourse, Texture and Exegesis. London: Routledge.
Badawi, Ahmed (1962). ’Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani Wa-Juhuduh Fil-Balagha al-Arabiyya. Cairo:A’lam
Al-‘Arab.
El-Hadary, T. (2009). Equivalence and Translatability of Qur’anic Discourse. VDM Verlag Dr.
Muller.
al-Jurj n , Abd-al-Qahir (1954). Asrar al-Balagha, Cairo:Maktabat al-Khanji.
al-Jurj n , Abd-al-Qahir (n.d.). Dala’il al-I’jaz. Beirut:Dar al-Kutub al-‘Illmeyah.
Larkin, M. (1995). The Theory of Meaning: A’bd al-Qahir al-Jurjani’s Theory of Discourse. New
Haven: American Oriental Society
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation, Oxford: Pergamon.
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a Science of Translation, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
155
156
156
