Journal of King Saud University Languages and Translation (2011) 23, 4757

King Saud University

Journal of King Saud University

Languages and Translation
www.ksu.edu.sa
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence

vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English
Amira D. Kashgary
Department of English, College of Arts and Humanities, King Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Received 5 February 2008; accepted 31 March 2010
Available online 15 December 2010

KEYWORDS
Translation;
Equivalence;
Non-equivalence;
Translatability;
Untranslatability;
Arabic culture;
Culture-specic terms

Abstract The concept of equivalence is believed to be a central issue in translation although its
denition, relevance, and applicability within the eld of translation theory have caused heated controversies. Several theories on the concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this eld in
the past fty years. For example, Vinay and Darbelnet (1995), Jakobson (1959), Nida and Taber
(1982), Catford (1965), House (1977), and Baker (1992). Indeed, Equivalence has provided a useful theoretical and pragmatic foundation for translation processes. However, the notion of equivalence has also been criticized as asymmetric, directional, subject-less, unfashionable imprecise
and ill-dened (Bolanos, 2005; Snell-Hornby, 1988; Nord, 1997).
This paper argues that if equivalence is the essence of translation, non-equivalence constitutes an
equally legitimate concept in the translation process. The rationale for this position is that languages articulate or organize the world differently because languages do not simply name existing
categories, they articulate their own (Culler, 1976, p. 21). Further, non-equivalence in translation
is discussed and substantiated by evidence and examples in the process of translating from Arabic
into English, a point that has not been adequately discussed in researches dealing with equivalence.
Many researchers have discussed equivalence in translating mainly from English into Arabic
(Ghazala, 2004). These two languages belong to two different cultures and hence, provide good
evidence for the possibility of translating what is sometimes referred to as untranslatable due
to non-equivalence or lack of equivalence. For example, Arabic is rich in culture-specic terms
and concepts that have no equivalents in English. Yet, these terms can be translated into English
using one of the strategies suggested for translating non-equivalence to convey their conceptual
and cultural meanings to the English speaking readers (Baker, 1992).

E-mail address: Akashgary@gmail.com

2210-8319 2010 King Saud University. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
doi:10.1016/j.jksult.2010.03.001

Production and hosting by Elsevier

48

A.D. Kashgary
In such cases, I argue that equivalence or translating using equivalence is not necessarily the best
strategy, i.e., it does not produce a meaningful rendering of the source term [ST] into the target term
[TT]. Rather, purposefully using non-equivalence results in a better translation. Non-equivalence
becomes more relevant than equivalence. In other words, non-equivalence becomes more equivalent than equivalence. It is a better strategy in these cases. Hence, it is quite legitimate to discuss
non-equivalence and its applicability in translating culture-specic terms and concepts including idioms, metaphors and proverbs.
2010 King Saud University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The phrase translating the untranslatable, which I used as a
part of the title for this paper, brings together two contradictory terms. Juxtaposing these two in this popular and
extensively researched phrase leads to the possibility of
deconstructing the second. The basic premise which this phrase
entails, i.e., the idea that untranslatables can be translated,
leads logically to the negation of the idea of untranslatability. It is possible to translate what is believed to be untranslatable due to incompatibilities between languages (either
individual phrases or entire texts). Therefore, the notion of
untranslatability is open to dismissal because translation
between languages is still possible.
Untranslatability may occur at the word level due to lack of
equivalence between languages at this level. This kind of
untranslatability is circumvented by abandoning equivalence
at the word level in favor of non-equivalent terms in order
to achieve an acceptable degree of equivalence at the text level.
Starting with this premise, the discussion naturally leads to a
notion closely associated with translatability and its requirements; i.e., the notion of equivalence. Is equivalence a basic
and necessary condition for translatability? Can we translate
in the absence of equivalence? Why do we have to chase the
illusive concept of equivalence in translation knowing, as
Schopenhauer said, that there is no exact equivalence between
two languages in terms of lexical items and concepts? The
question of the feasibility of the equivalence model in translation raises some concerns: is it suitable to look at equivalence
as a central issue in translation?
Theoretically, and in practice, equivalence has been a controversial issue in translation studies and translation theories.
Equivalence has been viewed as a basic and central concept
and a requirement in translating (Catford, 1965; Nida, 1964;
Newmark, 1988). Nevertheless, throughout the long history
of translation research and studies, Equivalence has been challenged by many translation theorists from different perspectives. Snell-Hornby (1988, p. 22) criticized equivalence as
imprecise, ill-dened, and as representing an illusion of symmetry between languages. It has also been criticized as having
seven drawbacks (Nord, 1997, p. 44): lacking consistency,
losing intrinsic interrelationship between situational and linguistic factors of communicative interaction, excluding target
language texts which do not satisfy the criterion of equivalence
from translation proper, not accounting for culture-specic
differences, ignoring cultural aspects, treating source texts
as the only standard, to which the translator has to subordinate any decision and perpetuating low social prestige of
translators.
Recognizing these shortcomings, Xiabin (2005) posed the
challenging question can we throw equivalence out of the

window proposing that equivalence, in spite of all the challenges raised against it, is absolutely necessary, but not in
its absolute mathematical sense. The justications that Xiabin gave for this claim include:
1. Equivalence does not mean the source text is the only signicant factor. However, equivalence does distinguish
translation from writing.
2. Equivalence to a text in another language entails more
obstacles, linguistic, temporal and cultural, and therefore
more challenges than monolingual interpretation.
3. Sameness to the source texts is neither possible nor even
desired.
4. Text type is an important factor in deciding how much a
translation should be equivalent as well as other factors
such as translation purposes, demands of the clients and
expectations of the target readers.
5. Equivalence is never a static term, but is similar to that of
value in economics.
6. Equivalence and the techniques to achieve it cannot be dismissed all together because they represent a translation
reality.
Xiabin concludes that equivalence will remain central to
the practice of translation . . . even if it is marginalized by
translation studies and translation theorists (Xiabin, 2005,
p. 19).
This paper carries the process forward by introducing and
employing the counterpart, yet complementary concept to
equivalence, i.e. the concept of non-equivalence. Particularly, the paper attempts to introduce non-equivalence as a
legitimate issue in dealing with cases where translation problems arise especially where cultural aspects are crucial in translating texts. The paper argues specically that if equivalence is
an important factor in translation, the nature of equivalence
should be understood and dealt with according to its multifaceted dimensions: formal, dynamic, situational and contextual.
A part of understanding equivalence is our ability to build
on it by promoting the concept of non-equivalence as a complementary concept which focuses on cases of translation
problems encountered by translators working on English
Arabic and ArabicEnglish texts. Since these two languages
embody different cultures, non-equivalence issues in translating
texts and even phrases between them gure out prominently.
Examples and evidence are examined by analyzing linguistic
data encountered by the researcher in her own attempts in
translating and in already existing translated texts in the two
languages. The fact that these texts and phrases are translated
and recognized as acceptable translations is the empirical
evidence to the legitimacy of non-equivalence in translation,
a claim made by this paper.

The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English

49

List of the phonemic symbols used in this study

Consonants
b
voiced bilabial stop
t
voiceless dental stop
T
voiceless (emphatic) dental stop
d
voiced dental stop
dz
voiced (emphatic) dental stop
k
voiceless velar stop
q
voiceless uvular stop
/
glottal stop
Z
voiced palatal affricate
?
voiced pharyngeal fricative
G
voiced velar fricative
f
voiceless labio-dental fricative

o
voiceless inter-dental fricative

voiced inter-dental fricative

voiced (emphatic) inter-dental fricative

s
voiceless dental fricative
S
voiceless (emphatic) dental fricative
z
voiced dental fricative

2. The concept of equivalence in translation studies

The concept of equivalence has been considered as the essence
of the translation process. Almost all denitions of translation
advanced by various theorists employ one form or another of
this concept. Catford denes translation as the replacement of
textual material in one language by equivalent textual material
in another language (1965, p. 20). Catford looks at equivalence as a formal or textual property of the process of translation. In other words, equivalence is related to the ability of the
translator to maintain at least some of the same features of
substance indicated in the original text. The translators task,
then, is to ensure that all the relevant features of the source
language (SL) message are reected in the target language
(TL) text. Consequently, Catford distinguishes between two
types of equivalence: formal equivalence, which is the occupation of the same place as in the SL text; and textual equivalence, which can give a probable indication of meaning. The
instances where no corresponding formal features or cultural
elements occur, Catford groups them under the types of
untranslatability. They are instances where the translator
should only transfer but not translate.
In contrast to Catfords formal-textual equivalence, Nida
advocates dynamic equivalence. He denes translation as
reproducing in the receptors language the closest natural
equivalent of the message of the SL, rst in terms of meaning
and second in terms of style (1975, p. 95). The concept closest natural equivalent is explained by Nida (1964, p. 166) as
follows:
1. Equivalent, which points toward the source language
message;
2. Natural, which points toward the receptor language;
3. Closest, which binds the two orientations together on the
basis of the highest degree of approximation.
Two points are emphasized in this denition: rst, the quest
for meaning in translation; and second, the strong orientation

S
x
h

h
r
l
m
n
w
y

voiceless palatal fricative

voiceless uvular fricative
voiceless pharyngeal fricative
voiceless laryngeal fricative
voiced dental trill
voiced lateral dental
voiced bilabial nasal
voiced dental nasal
voiced bilabial glide
voiced palatal glide

Vowels
i
i:
a

u
u:

short high front unrounded vowel

long high front unrounded vowel
short central unrounded vowel
long low central unrounded vowel
short high back rounded vowel
long high back rounded vowel

toward the receptors responses which is exemplied in his

quest for style. Therefore, the best translation does not sound
like a translation but more like an original text. It achieves that
originality because it abides by the rules of dynamic equivalence and aims at a higher degree of decodability by receptors.
It does so while maintaining an approximation of the SL linguistic forms into the TL domains. A successful translation
for Nida is that which caters for the response of the audience
for which it is designed. Dynamic equivalence tackles difculties in decoding through newness of forms-new ways in rendering old truths, new insights into traditional interpretation,
and new words in fresh combinations (1964, p. 144). Because
dynamic equivalence depends on both function and meaning,
it is susceptible to change according to socio-cultural norms
of the receptor in a process that unfolds at the moment of
transfer and restructuring.
Newmark (1981, 1988) emphasizes situational equivalence
(S-E). He argues that synonymy, paraphrase and grammatical variation all of which might do the job in a given situation,
but would be inaccurate (1988, p. 198). He asserts that
equivalent effect or what Nida calls D-E is not worth exerting the effort; rather, equivalence should be done intuitively
(49). However, he agrees that he seeks situational equivalents
that are neither mere semantics nor conditional as advocated by Nida and Catford. For Newmark, the situational
equivalence includes all the opposing forces involved in the
translation process. In his denition of translation, Newmark
draws the analogy of a particle attracted by many opposing
forces, each one is pulling it towards its sphere in an electric
eld (1981, p. 20). These forces include cultures, the SL writer
and the TL readers, the norms of each language, their settings
and traditions, and the prejudices of the translator. Balance is
the key element which determines equivalence. According to
Newmark, translation is a science where there is one correct
or one objectively superior rendering of a word or a phrase,
and an art where there are more than one equally adequate
rendering (136).

50
The identication of equivalents, according to Newmark, is
involved in the process of transference. The more the text is
difcult, the more it is hard to identify them. But even then,
they should never reach the exact meaning of the SL text because a good translation is deft, neat, and closely shadowing
its original (1983, p. 18).
Wolfram Wilss (1982, p. 134) states that the concept of
TE (translation equivalence) has been an essential issue not
only in translation theory over the last 2000 years, but also
in modern translation studies and that there is hardly any
other concept in translation theory which has produced as
many contradictory statements and has set off as many attempts at an adequate, comprehensive denition as the concept
of TE between SLT (source language text) and TLT (target
language text). In his denition, translation is a transfer process which aims at the transformation of a written SL text into
an optimally equivalent TL text, and which requires the syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic understanding and analytical processing of the SL text (1982, p. 3).
The concept of equivalence has also been discussed in the
context of various dichotomies such as formal vs. dynamic
equivalence (Nida), semantic vs. communicative translation
(Newmark) and semantic vs. functional equivalence (Bell).
According to Bell, for example, the translator has the option
of focusing on nding formal equivalents which preserve the
context-free semantic sense of the text at the expense of its context-sensitive communicative value, or nding functional
equivalents which preserve the context-sensitive communicative value of the text at the expense of its context-free semantic
sense (1991, p. 7).
Bolanos (2005), in a paper entitled Equivalence Revisited:
A Key Concept in Modern Translation Theory, discusses the
two conicting approaches to translation, the linguistic/text
oriented theories (TOT) and the non-linguistic/context oriented theories (COT). These approaches, according to the
author, are two complementary perspectives to deal with translation. He argued for the text linguistic approach supported by
the concepts of equivalence. Arguments for and against the
concept of equivalence within the TOT and the COT were also
discussed in detail. The author nally opted for the concept of
equivalence within the framework of the Dynamic Translation
Model (DTM) as a basis for translation. In this model,
translation should be understood within the framework of a
communicative process. Three main components are distinguished in this model of translation:
1. Participants (client, sender, translator, receiver);
2. Conditions and determinants (participants competence
and socio-psychological characterizations, context);
3. Text (linguistic realization of the communicative purposes
of the sender in L1).
The last component (text) is seen at ve levels: syntactic,
lexical, semantic, pragmatic and semiotic. The main task of
the translator in this model is the establishment of equivalence
in a continuous and dynamic problem-solving process. Equivalence, therefore, is the relation that holds between a SL text
and a TL text and is activated (textualized) in the translation
process as a communicative event in the ve text levels identied in the model.
In conclusion, we can say that translation equivalence is a
troubled notion. There are so many types and levels of equiv-

A.D. Kashgary
alence, and the term equivalent itself is a standard polysemous English word, with the result that the precise sense in
which translation equivalence is understood varies from writer
to writer (Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1999, p. 49). Equivalence
is not a set of criteria which translations have to live up to, but
is rather a group of features which characterizes the relationships linking the TT with its ST.

3. Non-equivalence in translation
The concept of Equivalence has had its share of criticism and
challenges. If equivalence is considered the essence of translation, the next question is what about cases of non-equivalence
in translation? As Baker (1992) puts it, the difculty and problem in translating from one language into another is posed by
the concept of non-equivalence, or lack of equivalence. This
problem appears at all language levels starting from the word
level up till the textual level.
Baker discusses various equivalence problems and their
possible solutions at word, above word, grammatical, textual,
and pragmatic levels. She takes a bottom-up approach for
pedagogical reasons. Baker proceeds with her equivalence
discussion from word to further upward levels. She claims
translators must not underestimate the cumulative effect of
thematic choices on the way we interpret text (ibid: 129).
Baker also acknowledges the fact that there are translation
problems caused by non-equivalence. She identies common
problems of non-equivalence and suggests appropriate strategies in dealing with such cases.
Snell-Hornby (1988) criticized the concept of equivalence
by comparing the meaning of the word equivalence in English and German, which she considered as non-equivalent.
The meaning of this term, she claimed oscillates in the fuzziness of common language between two things: of similar signicance or virtually the same thing. She stated that on the
one hand the term aquivalenz (in German)
as a scientically xed constant for a given goal - is too
static and one-dimensional, and on the other hand equivalence has been watered down up to the loss of its meaning.
Equivalence itself is not equivalent, although the similarity
fakes: the borrowing from the exact sciences has turned out
to be an illusion (15)
In a paper by Varadi T. and Kiss G., under the title Equivalence and Non-equivalence in Parallel Corpora, the authors
discussed how an aligned parallel corpus can be used to investigate the consistency of translation equivalence across the two
languages in a parallel corpus. The particular issues addressed
are the bi-directionality of translation equivalence, the coverage of multi-word units, and the amount of implicit knowledge
presupposed on the part of the user in interpreting the data.
Non-equivalence is a fact among languages. Although we
are constantly engaged in translating between Arabic and
English using certain words that we assume to be equivalent,
we might be surprised to nd that we are in fact using nonequivalents.
Let me rst start with a rather innocently simple example.
Consider the Arabic word [hill] which most of us would readily translate into crescent. The issue seems to be resolved at
that. A rather accurate equivalent is found that appears to be
readily useable even for machine translation.

The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English

Figure 1

51

The phases of the moon in the Arabic and English.

But, is this the full story? Lets consider the precise meaning
of [hill] in the Arabic language. It refers to the phase of the
moon in the rst three nights of the lunar month and denotes
the birth of the new lunar month. In English, however, the
word crescent is derived from the geometric shape and refers
to the phase of the moon both in the rst quarter (i.e., 7 nights)
and the last quarter of the lunar month. The Arabic term
[hill] is derived from the Arabic root [halla], and therefore
it is semantically associated with the emergence of the month,
whereas the term crescent is semantically associated with a
geometric shape. Clearly, the two terms are not fully equivalent or universally interchangeable. There is no inherent
equivalence between these two presumably equivalent terms
in English and Arabic (see Fig. 1).
Although the above example illustrates an extremely subtle
case of translating using non-equivalence, translators are constantly faced by countless cases of more straightforward and
clearer examples of non-equivalence in translation. In such
cases, they manage to translate and not only to transfer as
Catford suggested when he grouped such cases under the types
of untransaltability. A more adequate approach to deal with
cases of non-equivalence would be to use a combination of
translation strategies to provide solutions.
4. Translation and untranslatability
Under the title translating the untranslatable, one can nd a
vast amount of internet-based material, as a Google search
would readily reveal. This material ranges from articles on
translating the Quran and literary texts to books and dissertations dealing with the concept and theories of translation and
their applicability when put to practice. Notably, Bond, 2005
book entitled Translating the Untranslatable is to be mentioned. It describes a way for a machine translation system
to generate words and inections that are obligatory in the target language, but not in the source language. The specic case
he looks at is the translation of articles (a, the) and number
(singular and plural), going from Japanese to English.
The question of whether particular words are untranslatable is often debated, with lists of untranslatable words
being produced from time to time. In his book In Other
Words Christopher Moore lists a group of words which he
describes as the most intriguing words around the world
for which there are no equivalents. In Arabic, he cites words
such as djinn, hall, haj, baraka, bukra and
taradhin as words that are difcult to translate into English.
He considers Arabic as a language that must surely come at
the summit of the worlds untranslatable tongues (2004,

p. 68). This claim is refutable just by the same argument

Moore makes about the reality of these words as they entered
the English language dictionary. Some of these words will be
discussed in this paper as items belonging to categories of
non-equivalence, together with suggested solutions to translate
them. The fact that these words do not have English equivalents does not mean they are untranslatable.
The issue of untranslatability has been one of the major
concern for many translators particularly translators dealing
with religious and creative texts. This issue has gured out
even in articles related to machine translation. Most of these
books and articles have come to the following conclusions:
1. Untranslatability is a common problem in translation.
2. The problem of untranslatability is related to the nature of
language and to mans understanding of the nature of language, meaning and translation.
3. Untranslatable words and phrases are dominantly related
to cultural constraints and linguistic barriers.
4. Translators have managed to nd solutions and therefore
come up with strategies to deal with this problem.
5. The real problem words are those which assume an awareness of a certain culture or convey a certain emotion/judgment (register). To someone not familiar with English
culture, for example, why should anyone name unwanted,
unsolicited email after a proprietary tinned meat product
is unfathomable. (Spam)?
Ping discusses untranslatability issues from the sociosemiotic point of view. He states that untranslatables are fundamentally cases of language use wherein the three categories
of socio-semiotic meaning carried by a source expression do
not coincide with those of a comparable expression in the target language. Three types of untranslatability, referential,
pragmatic, and intra-lingual may be the carrier of the message.
He concludes that since translation is a communicative event
involving the use of verbal signs, the chance of untranslatability in practical translating tasks may be minimized if the communicative situation is taken into account (1999). In a larger
sense, Ping claims that the problem of translatability is one of
degrees: the higher the linguistic levels the source language
signs carry meaning(s) at, the higher the degree of translatability these signs may display, and the lower the levels at which
they carry meaning(s) the lower the degree of translatability
they may register.
The researcher advocates an opposite argument which
claims that the higher the linguistic level at which language
signs carry meaning, the more difcult these items to translate.

52

A.D. Kashgary

For example, the Arabic word, which is now translated into

English using the procedure of transliteration/transcription
as intifadhah, is difcult to translate by giving its English
dictionary equivalent uprising or revolt. Part of the reason for this untranslatability problem lies in the fact that
this word carries meaning not only at the referential level
but also at the pragmatic and intralingual level. Therefore,
translating it solely depending on its referential equivalent will
not capture its full range of meaning. The deliberate shift in
translating the same term using it in its SL form (borrowing
and transcription) and ignoring its translation equivalents is
done because equivalents, in this case, fail to carry the full
and complete nuances of meaning of the SL term.
In practice, one can cite examples where using equivalence
as a sole base in translating texts produces TTs that are not
equivalent to the STs. The proposition, which I put forth then,
is the following: if equivalence in translation can produce nonequivalent TT, then we could perhaps produce an equivalent
text based on non-equivalence as a translation strategy.
For a more delightful example, consider the stanza from a
Lebanese popular song:
(al bawwabah abdain . . .. . .. . . allail wa Anter bin
Shaddad)
A literal translation of this line is: On the gate, there are two
slaves: the night and Anter Bin Shaddad (who was a slave and
a brave warrior of black decent).
Equivalence, in its static dimension would cause several
problems in translating this text. We will have to follow Nida
and move to a more dynamic equivalence to approximate the
imagery in this text. In effect, we end up with totally nonequivalent terms if we were to successfully convey the imagery
laden in terms such as [abdain] which means two slaves and
[Anter Bin Shaddad] ". The term [abdain] progresses in meaning from
Two slaves
Two black slaves
tough black slave guards

Two

We acquire these added meanings to the word [abdain]

from the subsequent terms [Allail] and [Anter Bin Shaddad].
[Anter] was not only a slave, but also black (like the night).
He was also a ferocious warrior and a man of love, passion
and trust. The mere mentioning of the name in English does
not carry the full sense it conveys in Arabic. Consequently, a
single English equivalent of the word [abdain] would not convey the shades of meaning associated with the Arabic term
which were suggested by mentioning the referent [Anter Bin
Shaddad].
In this regard it is worth referring to what Jakobson suggests as a translation solution. He acknowledges that whenever there is deciency, terminology may be qualied and
amplied by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or
semantic shifts, and nally, by circumlocutions (1959, p.
234). Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing
English and Russian language structures and explains that in
such cases where there is no literal equivalent for a particular
ST word or sentence, then it is left to the translators discretion
to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT.
Any idea of absolute translatability is dismissed because
there can be no exactness in translation in any but rare and
trivial cases . . . the notion of translatability therefore has to

be considered in relation to each instance of translation as a

concrete act of performance and must be linked with the text
type of ST, the purpose of translation and the translation principles being followed by the translator (Shuttleworth and
Cowie, 1999, p. 180).
5. Categories of non-equivalence between English and Arabic
In the following section a list of categories where non-equivalence between English and Arabic is dominant will be presented and analyzed. Solutions and translation strategies to
deal with these cases are presented throughout the analysis.
These categories are suggested by Baker (1992) in her discussion of non-equivalence at the word level. She dealt with the
problem of non-equivalence giving examples from different
languages including Arabic. However, the Arabic examples
she gave were minimal. It is hoped that a more extensive example list of Arabic terms will contribute to Arab translators
from and into English.
5.1. Culture-specic terms and concepts in the two languages
In this section, we will discuss Arabic culture related words
and concepts which have no direct English equivalents. This
category includes words and concepts related to Islam, Arabic
customs and social life.
5.1.1. Islamic terms and concepts
A list of common religion-specic terms is rst presented in the
following table.

Arabic term English equivalent

Commentary

Allah
Al Salat
Al Zakat
Al Shahadah
Al Sawm
Al Haj
Al Adhan
Al Haraam
Al Halal
Al Ethm
Al Jihad
Al Qiblah
Fatwa
Al Duaa
Al Fiqh
Al Barakah

English equivalents fall short

of delivering the full
meaning. Often, a strategy of
Borrowing the SL term (loan
word) + a short explanation
is deployed. English
equivalents are taken only as
approximation to the general
meaning of the terms.

God
Prayers
Charity
Martyrdom
Fasting
Pilgrimage
Call for Prayers
Forbidden
Permissible
Sin
Holy war
Prayer direction
Verdict
Invocation, supplication
Jurisprudence
Gods blessing

Religious terms are culture-specic par excellence. They represent a category of translation non-equivalence because they
cannot be appropriately translated by providing their dictionary equivalents. The dictionary equivalents of these terms
may be considered within the framework of Nidas approximation in translation where equivalents are given only to approximate the meaning in general terms and not the details because
the content of these terms is highly different from the content
of their equivalents. In a symposium on Translating the
Meanings of the Holy Quran held in Madina, Saudi Arabia
(2002), researchers discussed this issue extensively and suggested solutions to deal with the problem of translating Islamic

The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English

53

terms and concepts (Ghazala, Salih, Al-Khateeb). Ghazala

suggested using six types of equivalents to translate Islamic
Terms: functional equivalent, explanatory equivalent, cultural
equivalent, religious equivalent, referential equivalent, and
connotative equivalent.
All the above-mentioned Islamic terms and concepts can be
translated not by providing their English total equivalents
(one-to-one) but by providing a strategy for dealing with
non-equivalence. In this case, using a loan word or a loan word
plus a short explanation was judged to be more precise and
more accurate in rendering the full meaning of these terms.
For example, the word [zakat], can be translated by using its
one-word English equivalent charity or alms, as many
translators did in translating Quran. However, these equivalents do not give the complete meaning of the Arabic word
as it is used by Muslims. [zakat] can be more adequately
translated by explaining and describing its conditions to
approximate its full meaning through adding a qualier
obligatory or ordained to the English equivalent. So,
the more accurate translation would be obligatory or ordained charity. This solution is referred to as explanatory
equivalent by Ghazala (2002).
Similarly, the words halal and haraam have literal
equivalents in English as Permissible and forbidden.
However, these equivalents do not convey the extra levels of
social and religious meanings the Arabic terms denote. The
words halal and haraam in the Islamic culture refer to a
wide number of practices and customs that are permitted (or
not permitted) under Islamic law. In addition, they refer to
specic Islamic laws governing food and drinks. Translating
these words by giving their dictionary equivalents is yet again
not sufcient. Depending on the context where these words are
used, it is recommended to translate them as loan words followed by a short explanation and illustrating examples to convey their specic meaning.

These terms are related to certain aspects of Arab values, culture and religion. They cannot be translated using their English equivalents, provided these equivalents exist in English.
The word [Al Irdh] in Arabic is semantically complex. It refers
to a host of other concepts related to a males honor in protecting female members of his family, possessions, and other people he is responsible for. This concept has no equivalent in the
English culture, and therefore, can only be translated by using
a more neutral and less expressive term, e.g., dignity and
explaining its associative emotions and judgments.
Part of the difculty in translating such terms lies in the fact
that these words require an awareness of the Arabic culture
with all its social values and traditions. In addition, these
words represent concepts which do not exist in English. The
dictionary equivalents given for these terms are either long
explanations of the concepts or less expressive terms. It is recommended to translate these words by using the paraphrase
strategy where the words are explained based on modifying
the super-ordinate words and unpacking their meanings using
unrelated words. For example, sabee is the super-ordinate
word which refers to the seventh day of a newborn babys
celebration. It is translated by describing the occasion and
the customs that accompany it. Similarly, mahram is translated by modifying the super-ordinate someone as a male
chaperon, and adding some explanation to unpack the connotative meaning of this term in the Islamic culture.
Local cuisines present similar challenges to Equivalence. Of
specic interest is the Arabic phrase [fool and tames]. It refers
to a very popular dish that has a local avor in Saudi Arabia.
This term can be translated by giving its English equivalent as
beans and bread. However, this will neither capture the local
avor of this dish nor illustrate its peculiar features such as
when it is eaten, its low cost, the type of people who commonly
eat it, the presumed effect it has on slowing mental processes, etc.

5.1.2. Arabic customs, food and social life

A list of common culture-specic terms is presented in the following table.

5.2. Arabic terms which are not lexicalized in English

Arabic term
Al Irdh
Al Sharaf
Al Sabee

English equivalent

Good repute-dignity
Honor
Babys seventh-day
celebration
Al Dukhlah
Wedding night
Al Dhurrah
Co-wife; wife other than
the rst wife of a
polygamous marriage
Al Adeel
Brother-in-law
Al Silfah
Sister-in-law
Al Azaa
Funeral
Al Mahram
Unmarriageable;
guardian male chaperon
Al Thayyib
Previously married
woman
Al Bikr
Virgin
Aanis
Spinster
Beit Al Taah Obedience house;
husbands house
Fool & Tamees Beans and bread

In this section, a group of Arabic words which are not lexicalized in English are discussed. A list of such terms is given in the
following table.

Commentary
Use paraphrase strategy
where the words are
explained based on
modifying the superordinate words and
unpacking their
meanings using
unrelated words

Arabic term English equivalent

Yajtareh
Yatamaha
Yamtah
Yatawara

To
To
To
To

Commentary

commit sinful or evil deeds

be part of the essence of something
draw from a well
keep a low prole; to vanish; to hide

The above words express concepts which are known in English

but simply not lexicalized; that is not allocated English
words to express them. The Arabic verbs yajtareh, yatamaha,
yamtah represent concepts that are known in English; yet
they are not lexicalized. [yamtah] literally means to draw
from a well, but it has no equivalent to capture its true meaning as used in Arabic although the concept is very accessible
and readily understood. [yajtarih] literally means to commit
evil deeds using one of the organs of the body. This word
has a religious overtone which is not captured in one-to-one
word equivalent. It is worth referring to the use of this verb
in the Quranic verse (Surat: Al-Jathiah: 21).

54

A.D. Kashgary

The verse is translated by Al-Hilali and Khan as follows:

Or do those who earn evil deeds think that we shall hold them
equal with those who believe and do righteous good deeds in
their present life and their death? Worst is the judgment that
they make.
The Arabic verb [Yatamaha] is derived from the noun
[Mahiyyah] which means essential being, intrinsic qualities
or intrinsic values. The verb has no equivalent in English
although it too represents a concept which is easy to understand. The best solution here is to translate these terms retaining the stylistic tone so as to convey the meaning.
5.3. Arabic words that are semantically complex
In this section a sample of Arabic words which are semantically complex are discussed. These words are related to processes, religious concepts and social customs which are
important enough in the Arabic culture to lexicalize as single
words carrying complex meanings. A list of such terms is given
in the following table.

cleanliness, chastity, righteousness, virtue, virtuousness,

decency, chastity, chasteness and abstinence. It is a complex
concept which refers to the process of ablution washing with
water before prayers. It also means cleaning the body and the
clothes a person is wearing in addition to cleansing the heart
and the soul.
There are no English equivalents to capture the complex
concepts associated with these Arabic terms. The best strategy
in translating these terms is to use the loan word plus a short
explanation to describe the expressive, evoked and associative
meanings. A longer explanation may be used in a foot-note. In
some cases, for example [Hijab], the loan word is sufcient to
give the full meaning without any short or long explanations.
However, because this word represents a concept which is
important enough to be talked about in English, English has
developed a very concise form for referring to it, i.e., veil.
Still, the complex concept embedded in the Arabic hijab
may not be matched by the concepts associated with the English veil.
5.4. Arabic and English make different distinctions in meaning

Arabic term

English equivalent

Saram

Harvesting dates

Commentary

The process of gathering

dates when they are still hard
Al Ghusul
Washing/showering Symbolic washing of the
total body following
intercourse
Al Taharah Purity
State of cleanliness or purity
achieved after performing
the symbolic wash
Al Najasah
Impurity
Lack of cleanliness or purity
Al Wudhu
Ablution
Symbolic act of washing
face, hands and feet with
water prior to performing
prayers
Al Tayamum Washing with earth Symbolic washing by using
dust
earth dust; using dust as a
substitute if there is no water
Al Etikaf
Seclusion, prayer in Retiring into mosque for
seclusion;
worship, especially in the last
ten days of Ramadan
Al Tahajud
Late night prayers in A special prayer performed
Ramadan
in the last ten days of
Ramadan late at night
Akh Bir
Milk-brother/sister
Those who achieve the status
Ridhaah
of brother/sister by virtue of
nursing from the same
mother
Al Hijab
Veil
Is it the separator or the
cloth? Is it hijab or simply
veil?
Hadi Al Ees No equivalent
Singing for the Camel
caravan to gain speed

The words in this category are difcult to translate because

they refer to semantically complex concepts which are not
found in English. For example, the word [siram] in Arabic refers to a process of gathering dates from a palm tree when they
are still hard. This process represents a concept related to
Arabic culture which has palm trees in abundance and
indicates a way of life that belongs only to people who deal
with these trees. Similarly, the word [taharah] in Arabic
means many things such as virtue, purity, cleansing, cleanness,

A list of such terms is given in the following table.

Arabic term English equivalent

Degrees of
[brid]
[fatir]
[d]
[saxin]
[har]
[rade?]
[Tifel]]
[bliG]
[Sb]
[radzul]
[kahel]
[adzu:z]
[Saix]
[hilal]
[badr]
[mahaq]

Commentary

temperature
Cold- cool- warm- hotlukewarm

English and Arabic

make more or fewer
distinctions. Use context
to approximate the
intended meaning
Stages of human life
English and Arabic
Infant, baby, toddler, child, make more or fewer
adult, middle-aged, senior
distinctions. Use context
citizen (infancy, babyhood, to approximate the
childhood, adulthood,
intended meaning
Middle-age, old-age)

Stages of the moon

development

See Section 3 for detailed

explanation

In such cases, one language may have a more rened grading

than the other. English makes more distinctions to refer to
the degrees of temperature than Arabic. For example, the
two words cool and cold have one Arabic equivalent
[brid]. However, Arabic makes more distinctions in referring
to some stages of a human being life. For example, adulthood has two terms in Arabic siba and shabab, whereas
English has more distinctions for the concept of [Al Tufulah]
as infancy, babyhood and childhood.
English and Arabic make different distinctions in certain
words (see table above). This shows that each of these languages has its own way of lexicalizing concepts and meanings
depending on what it regards as relevant and important. Again
here, there are no absolute equivalence in translating between
English and Arabic and the English words referring to stages
of development is more based on popular culture, it is more
adapting to the new culture and events. For example, two
new words are newly added to the English vocabulary
describing some stages of growth; these words are: Tweens

The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English
which refers to a stage between childhood and teenage (1012
years old) and baby boomers which refers to persons who
were born between the years 1940 and 1960. Arabic, however,
still uses the old linguistic classication and has not added new
equivalent words for the English tween and baby boomer.
5.5. English lacks specic term (hyponym)
In this section we will address Arabic words which have several
hyponyms for which English lacks equivalents. A sample list of
such terms is given in the following table.
Arabic has many specic words (hyponyms) for words related
to the Arabic culture for which English has no equivalents.
For example, Arabic has many hyponyms to refer to the
times of the day. Most of these words are based on the
prayer times for which English has no equivalents, e.g.,
[alfadzer] [aluher] [a?sar] [almaGrib] and [aliSa]. Another
interesting example is the Arabic word [tamr] which has the
English equivalent dates. This word has many hyponyms

Arabic term English equivalent

Commentary

[alxalala]
[albisrah]
[alruteb]
[attamer]

In translating these
Stages in the
development of dates (no hyponyms into English, the
equivalents)
general word is used
supplemented by adding a
description to convey the
precise meaning.

[alhijen]
[alibel]
[alba?ir]
[al?ina]
[alasu:d]
[alqau:d]
[alnaqah]
[aldzamal}

Dierent characteristics
for Camels (no
equivalents)

[alfadzer]
[asabah]
[a uher]
[alsar]
[almaGrib]
[aliSa]
[allail]
[alsahar]
[alGasaq]

Times of the day and

prayers (no one-to-one
equivalents)

[hattn]
[wbil]
[Tal]
[dimah]

Types of rain (no exact

equivalents)

[alanu:d]
[alxulub]
[allhf]
[Gaim]
[muzn]

Types of clouds (no

exact equivalents)

[seb?]

[laio ]
[usamah]
[erGam]
[Gaanfer]

Names of lions (no exact

equivalents)

Arabic
term

English equivalent

[uqab]
[Shi:n]
[bz]
[baSiq]

Names of falcons (no

exact equivalents)

55

Commentary

[muhannad] Names of swords, by

[Sarim]
source, characteristic,
[yamani]
etc. (no equivalents)
[batt r]

which describe the stages through which dates ripen. These

stages are lexicalized in the following progressing terms:
khalalah then bisrah then rutabah and nally tamrah. Of course, we also have the term [hashafah] which is
used to refer to bad dates.
Rain in Arabic has several hyponyms which are not found
in English. For example, hattan means light rain, tal
means ne rain, wabil means heavy rain, or torrential rain,
and dimah means a long but quiet rain:
The same applies to the Arabic super-ordinate [sahab]
(cloud). Arabic lexicalizes many types of clouds as hyponyms
to describe different shapes and colors of clouds, which have
no equivalents in English. For example, muzen means a
white cloud, alanood means a rainy cloud and ghaim denotes a very heavy and dark cloud.
A very popular Arabic word with so many hyponyms is the
word [djamel] camel. Its hyponyms include the following
terms: naqah which means a she camel and jamel which
means a he-camel. Ibel is the Arabic plural for both male
and female camels. baeer is a singular word for both male
and female camels. higin is a plural form for race camels,
gaood is a young camel till the age of six, assod is a fat
or thin thirsty she-camel, and dhaina is a riding camel.
In translating these hyponyms into English, the general
word is used supplemented by adding a description to convey
the precise meaning.
5.6. Differences between Arabic and English in expressive
meaning
In this section Arabic words which have equivalent English
words but these words may have a different expressive meaning or may be neutral compared to Arabic. The difference is
important enough to pose a translation problem. A sample list
of such terms is given in the following table.
The word qalaq in Arabic may be translated by its English equivalent anxiety, but this equivalent carries only one
part of the meaning of the word in Arabic, i.e.m tension caused
by fear associated with the expectation of the unknown. The
other component of meaning of qalaq which is related to
uneasiness and worry represents an essential part of the
meaning of the Arabic word. This component is lost and
non existent in the English equivalent. Translators have to
add the evaluative element by means of a modier or adverb
as necessary, or by building it somewhere in the text.

56

A.D. Kashgary

Arabic term English Equivalent

Commentary

Hubb
Qalaq
Eshtiaq
Walah
Lawah
Wajd
Walaa
Hiyam
Eshq
Gharam
Sababah
Sabwah
Hawa

Dicult to establish a oneto-one equivalence between

various terms in the two
languages

Love
Anxiety
Longing
Enthrallment/adoration
Agony
Passion, ecstasy of love
Passionate love, craving
Passionate love
Passion, ardor of love
Infatuation
Fervent longing
Youthful passion
Love

In the lexical set of [hubb] love, Arabic has a vast repertoire

of terms. Rajaa Salamah, in her book titled Al Isheq wal Kitabah (Passion and Writing) enumerated 104 such terms. These
terms are not exact synonyms. Rather, they differ either in
scale and intensity of emotions or in the extent of physical
involvement.
The denitions ascribed to some of these terms are given in
the table above. We also see that each of these terms would require the combination of two or more procedures in the TL.
English, too, has many terms in this lexical set. Here are the
words for love in approximate descending order. All are nouns
except when otherwise noted. Please note that I have separated
them into two different categories: love between two people,
and one-sided love.
Requited love:
worship
idolatry (to idolize someone)
passion
adoration
cherish
reverence
venerate (v.)
dote [on] (v. to dote on someone : love that often involves
spoiling of other person)
love
To to fall for (v. phrase)
To to lose ones heart to (v. phrase)
like
preference
partiality
Unrequited love:
lust
yearning
desire
longing
crush
fancy (British verb similar to having a crush on someone) ex: he fancies her!
The difculty in translating these terms arises again due to
the lack of one-to-one equivalence between the words in the
two languages to a degree sufcient to make them equivalent.
There are two more categories stated by Baker as common
problems of non-equivalence. These are differences (between

English and Arabic) in form and differences in frequency

and purpose of using specic forms. For the sake of brevity,
no examples in these two categories are discussed in this
paper.
6. Conclusion
The concept of equivalence is central in translation although
its denition, relevance, and applicability within the eld of
translation theory have caused heated controversy. Indeed,
Equivalence has provided a useful theoretical and pragmatic
foundation for translation processes.
But if equivalence is the essence of translation, non-equivalence constitutes an equally legitimate concept in the translation process. The rationale for this position is that languages
articulate or organize the world differently. Equivalence at
the word level is often extremely difcult to achieve. Translation theorists had to move to the looser concept of dynamic
equivalence. Even the theorists who defend the concept of
equivalence, such as Wilss, based their argument on the merit
of its applicability at the text level. But this modied notion of
text-level equivalence has had to come through non-equivalence at the word level. Non-equivalence, then, is a legitimate
eld of translation theory.
Non-equivalence in translation can be evidenced through
numerous examples in the process of translating from Arabic
into English. Terms that lack equivalence due to markedly different cultural contexts are best translated into English using
one of the strategies suggested by Baker for translating nonequivalence to convey their conceptual and cultural meanings
to the English speaking readers.Some of these strategies are
summarized below:
 When English equivalents fall short of delivering the full
meaning, particularly in terms of religious nature, often a
strategy of Borrowing the SL term (loan word) + a short
explanation is deployed.
 In culture-specic terms that lack a corresponding point in
the target language reality, we could use a paraphrasing
strategy where the words are explained based on modifying
the super-ordinate words and unpacking their meanings
using unrelated words.
 Terms that have acquired a localized over-tones are translated retaining the acquired stylistic tone so as to convey
the intended meaning.
 For terms that are semantically complex, the best strategy is
to use the loan word plus a short explanation to describe the
expressive, evoked and associative meanings. A longer
explanation may be used in a foot-note.
 In translating hyponyms into English, the general word is
used supplemented by adding a description to convey the
precise meaning.
In nearly all such cases, equivalence or translating using
equivalence is not necessarily the best strategy, i.e., it does
not produce a meaningful rendering of the source term [ST]
into the target term [TT]. Rather, purposefully using nonequivalence results in a better translation. Non-equivalence
becomes more relevant than equivalence. In other words,
non-equivalence
becomes
more
equivalent
than
equivalence.

The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English
References
Baker, Mona (Ed.), 1992. Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation.
Routledge, London.
Bell, Roger, 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice.
Longman, London.
Bolanos, Cuellar Sergio 2005. Equivalence Revisited: A Key Concept
in Modern Translation Theory.
Bond, F., 2005 Translating the Untranslatable. A Solution to the
Problem of Generating English Determiners.
Catford, John C., 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay
on Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press, London.
Culler, J., 1976. Saussure. Collins, Glagow.
Ghazala, Hasan, 2002. Tarjamatul Mustalahatil Islamiati. A Paper
Presented in the Symposium on the Translation of the Holy Quran.
Al-Madinatul Munawwaratu: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ghazala, Hasan, 2004. Essays in Translation and Stylistics. Dar El-Ilm
Lilmalayin, Beirut.
House, Juliane, 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment.
Gunter Narr, Tubingen.
Jakobson, Roman, 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In:
Brower, R.A. (Ed.), On Translation. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 232239.
Moore, Christopher, 2005. Other Words. A Language Lovers Guide
to the Most Intriguing Words Around the Word. Fitzhenry and
Whiteside.

57

Newmark, Peter, 1981. Approaches to Translation. Pergamon,

Oxford.
Newmark, Peter, 1988. A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall,
London.
Nida, Eugene A., 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. E.J. Brill,
Leiden.
Nida, Eugene A., Taber, C.R., 1982. The Theory and Practice of
Translation. E. J. Brill, Leiden.
Nord, C., 1997. A functional typology of translations. In: Trosborg,
Anna. (Ed.), Text Typology and Translation. John Benjamin
Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Salama, R., 2003. Al Isheq wal Kitabah. Love and Writing. Al Kamel
Verlag, Germany.
Shuttleworth, Mark, Cowie, Moira, 1999. Dictionary of Translation
Studies. ST. Jerome Publishing, Manchester.
Snell-Hornby, Mary., 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated
Approach. John Benjamin Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Vinay, J.P., Darbelnet, J., 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and
English: a Methodology for Translation (J.C. Sager, M.J. Hamel,
Trans.). John Benjamins, Amsterdam /Philadelphia.
Wilss, W., 1982. The Science of Translation; problems and Methods.
Gunter Narr Verlag, Tubingen.
Xiabin, He, 2005. Can we throw equivalence out of the window?
Translating Today Magazine (4), 1819.