Russian Journal of Linguistics (Sep 2022)

Double or half reading, double or full meaning: Amphibological and anacoluthic syntax through the lens of Qur’an translators

  • Hamada Hassanein

DOI
https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-26692
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 26, no. 3
pp. 668 – 700

Abstract

Read online

The Qur’an abounds in multifaceted ambiguous and elliptical structures which sometimes attest its idiosyncratic rhetorical style and challenging formal correspondence and dynamic/functional equivalence between Arabic and English. Although previous translation studies on Qur’anic ambiguity and ellipsis are manifold, there is a paucity of past literature on amphibol(og)y and a dearth of previous research on anacoluthon in the Qur’an in particular. Therefore, the need for this study arises from the necessity to examine these two understudied syntactic phenomena, technically al-labs an-nahwi: (‘amphibology’) and fuqda:n at-tata:buc (‘anacoluthon’), through the lens of Qur’an translators and to assess the translational quality of transposing meaning duplicity and interpretive multiplicity from Qur’anic Arabic (in)to English. The specific objectives are to investigate how Qur’an translators resolved amphibolies while rendering verses superscripted by the interchangeable pause sign (∴ ∴) and to explore how they sequentialised anacolutha when translating anacoluthic verses marked by the elliptical sign (…). The study employs the qualitative contrastive method for a contrastive translational analysis of a typologically limited number of amphibolous and anacoluthic verses retrieved from the Qur’anic Arabic Corpus (QAC). Findings show that amphibology and anacoluthon are so challenging to Qur’an translators that there are remarkable variations in ambiguity resolution and anacoluthon sequentialisation. Qur’an translators act occasionally as explicitators, implicitators and neutralisers of its message and epitomise heterosubjectivity and asymmetricity in interpretative choices. The implications of these findings for Qur’an Translation Studies (QTS) highlight the importance of paratexts and epitexts for amphibological and anacoluthic syntax in translation. According to Genette (1997), paratexts and epitexts are thresholds of interpretation that add haunting subtexts to texts in translation. Subtexts are necessary to provide essential information or commentary on the translation of the original text.

Keywords