Jan. 2009, Volume 7, No.1 (Serial No.64) US-China Foreign Language, ISSN1539-8080, USA

1

An assessment of coherence in the translation of

a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

Yasmin Hikmat Abdul-Hameed (Department of Translation Studies, College of Humanities and Social Science, U.A.E. University, Al-Ain 17771, U.A.E.)

Abstract: In general, next in importance to the glorious Qur’ān as a source of Muslim belief and practice comes the corpus of traditions (i.e., prophetic traditions or Hadīth). In this study, the emphasis has been placed on coherence as the most crucial property of text. Thus, coherence in the source text has been examined first and then compared with the target text. The analysis is mainly based on the suitable analytical framework of coherence introduced by Beaugrande (1980) as it is the most comprehensive and applicable among other models in exploring and describing the various aspects of coherence in different types of texts and their realization in translation. This model has been tried out in the present study to arrive at a better understanding and appreciation of the translation of the text under analysis. The translation chosen for the purpose of evaluation is Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies’ (1977). The model has been applied to the translation of Hadīth No. 36 to assess the quality of the translation of the ST’s aspects of coherence. By doing so, good renderings or misrenderings of these aspects have been pointed out and discussed. The semantic relations between the ST (Source Text) and TT (Target Text) have been observed and compared.

Key words: quality assessment; prophetic tradition; coherence; textual analysis

1. Introduction

In general, next in importance to the glorious Qur’ān as a source of Muslim belief and practice comes the corpus of traditions (i.e., prophetic traditions or Hadīth). In fact, there are many matters where guidance for practical living is necessary but about which the Qur’ān says nothing. Till presently, there was in existence a more or less well-known body of traditions which represent the word of the prophet—upon whom be Allah’s blessing and peace—as supplement to the word of Allah.

Islamic religious non-Qur’ānic texts including Hadīth are texts that deal with all aspects of the religion of Islam expressed in the human composition of the prophet, his companions, or the Muslim religious scholars after them. It should also be noticed that religious translation is said to be the most complicated and difficult kind of translation (Sirriyya, 1998, p. 1).

Here, the emphasis will be placed on coherence as the most crucial property of text. A number of views on coherence will be examined in an effort to choose a valid analytical framework that can best be used for the requirements of this study. Thus, coherence in the Source Text (ST) will be examined first, and then compared with the Target Text (TT). Therefore, this paper is an attempt to analyze and describe various aspects of “coherence” prevailing in the sample of the present paper (i.e., the thirty-sixth tradition) as a religious

Yasmin Hikmat Abdul-Hameed, Ph.D. in linguistics & translation, assistant professor of Department of Translation Studies, College of Humanities and Social Science, U.A.E. University; research fields: translation theory and assessment, text linguistics, machine translation and evaluation of MT systems, translation & intercultural studies.

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

2

non-Qur’ānic content-focused text (Reiss, 2000, pp. 27-31). It aims at investigating the effective exploration of the various aspects of “coherence” in the TT as compared with the ST. The analysis is mainly based on the suitable analytical framework of coherence introduced by Beaugrande (1980) as it is the most comprehensive and applicable among other models in exploring and describing the various aspects of coherence in different types of texts and their realization in translation.

This model, then, will be tried out in the present study to arrive at a better understanding and appreciation of the translation of the text under analysis. The translation chosen for the purpose of evaluation is Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies’ (1977). The model will be applied to the translation of Hadīth No. 36 to assess the quality of the translation of the ST’s aspects of coherence. By doing so, good renderings or misrenderings of these aspects will be pointed out and discussed. The semantic relations between the ST and TT will be observed and compared to see whether it is a matter of impossibility or translator’s error or carelessness and whether the translator has used different words or meanings. In other words, examples of distortion of meaning, if any, will be investigated for judgment of good or bad translation.

Finally conclusions are drawn regarding the assessment of the overall quality of the translation and the extent to which it matches the ST with respect to the invariance in the transfer of its content to meet the requirements of the Target Language (TL). It is worth mentioning that in the case of content-focused text which is TL-oriented, the critic should ascertain that the form of the translation should be essentially oriented to the usage of the TL. Besides, the second criterion for evaluating such a text is the thoroughness of its orientation to the TL, i.e., the TL must be dominant because in this type of text the informational content is the most important and the reader of the translation needs to have it presented in a familiar linguistic form (Reiss, 2000, pp. 30-31).

1.1 Religious text: Hadīth The field of religious discourse is heterogeneous, i.e., it deals with a variety of subjects, material, spiritual,

ritual, legal, social, etc. It shows the recurrence of words like “Allah”, “God”, “Prophet”, “Messenger”, “belief”, “disbelief”, “sin”, “Paradise”, “Heaven”, “Hell”, etc. There are even certain collocations that are frequently used in this field, e.g., القرآن الكريم The Glorious Qur’ān, رسول اهللا the Messenger of Allah, أرآان اإلسالم the Pillars of Islam, آلمة الشهادة Profession of Faith, صلى اهللا عليه وسلم May the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him (P.B.U.H.) (Sirriyya, 1998, p. 9).

Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies (1977, p. 7) maintain that there are two main sources for an understanding of Islam: (a) the Glorious Qur’ān and (b) the collections of the recorded words, actions and sanctions of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) which make up the “Sunna” and which are normally referred to as Hadīth.

Thus, the “Sunna” in the form of Hadīth, is complementary to the Glorious Qur’ān itself: it helps to explain and clarify the Glorious Qur’ān and to present practical applications of its teachings. In fact, without a study of Hadīth, a Muslim’s knowledge of his faith remains incomplete, and without it the non-Muslim is unable to form a true picture of the Islamic faith and its fundamental spiritual, moral, legislative and cultural principles (Ibrahim & Johnson-Davies, 1977; Jeffery, 1962, pp. 79-80).

1.1.1 Previous translations of Hadīth into English According to Sirriyya (1998, p. vii) , religious texts are peculiar in that in addition to their having a sacred, as

well as legal nature, they address the minds together with the hearts of their audience. While many attempts have been made to render the meanings of the Glorious Qur’ān into English, much less

attention has been given to the Hadīth of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.). Only rarely has this body of literature been considered by Muslims or non-Muslims for translation into modern Western languages (Daud,

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

3

1963, p. 60). However, Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies (1977, p. 8) confirm that important attempts of Hadīth translation

have appeared in English translation in various parts of the Islamic world, notably in Pakistan and India. They indicate that while these translations go some way towards providing satisfactory renderings in English of the prophet’s Sunna, they do inevitably contain the occasional shortcomings both in the proper understanding of the Arabic text and in providing an English rendering that is faithful to the original and linguistically acceptable.

1.1.2 Method of translation Ibrahim and Jonson-Davies (1977, p. 8) confirm that the translation is at best a difficult task, especially from

languages as different in grammar, syntax and cultural background as Arabic and English. The difficulties are further increased when the task to hand is that of rendering into English a religious work such as the present one.

Generally speaking, in translating the Hadīth of the prophet (P.B.U.H.), it is clearly necessary that the translator be possessed of such a breadth and depth of knowledge of the Arabic and English languages together with the full understanding of the Islamic faith in all its aspects.

Accordingly, the translators (1977, p. 9) believe that the above-mentioned requirements are most unlikely to be found in a single person. Recognizing this fact, it was felt that the obvious solution was for such translations to be undertaken by two persons working in close collaboration; two persons whose academic backgrounds would both overlap and complement each other.

In fact, the translation offered by Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies (1977) of the prophet’s forty Hadīth has been undertaken by a procedure of work in which each translator has his own particular role and at the same time as a check on the other.

Since the type of the text under analysis is identified as a content-focused text (maybe characterized as concerned primarily if not exclusively with communicating information), in translating such texts the effective communication and accuracy of information, i.e., the topic and its discussion must be fully represented in a translation for the translation be considered satisfactory (Reiss, 2000, pp. 28-30).

Hence, it is hoped that through examining the translated text in this paper and comparing it with the original text in the SL, the results will meet the requirements of the above-mentioned method of translation (i.e., fidelity on the level of content).

2. The concept of coherence

2.1 Preliminaries Both world knowledge and cohesion, and to a large extent the more basic and wide-ranging notion of

coherence are necessary criteria when tackling translation task. According to Bental (1997, p. 1), Crystal (1985, p. 53) and Yule (1996, p. 141), coherence involves the study

of such factors as the language user’s knowledge of the world, the inferences they make and the assumptions they hold, and in particular the way in which communication is mediated through the use of speech acts.

Brown and Yule (1988, pp. 223-224) state that in our understanding of a linguistic message, we need socio-cultural information in addition to our knowledge of syntactic structures. This point is related to coherence which is crucial for the interpretation of that message. Coherence produces a particular interpretation of the message with or without the existence of overt linguistic connection.

Several theorists in the fields of text linguistics and discourse analysis distinguish between “cohesion” and

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

4

“coherence”. They limit cohesion to explicit mechanisms in the text, both the types of cohesive ties that Halliday and Hasan (1976) describe and other elements that bind texts such as parallelism, consistency of verb tense, and what literary scholars have called “point of view”. Coherence conditions, on the other hand, allow a text to be understood in a real-world setting (Brumfil & Johnson, 1979, p. 47; Widdowson, 1978, pp. 24-29; Morgan & Sellner, 1980 in Carroll, 1982, pp. 482-483; Freebody & Anderson, 1981 in Carroll, 1982, 485; Steffensen, 1981 in Carroll, 1982; Witte & Faigley, 1981, pp. 199-202; Harris, 1988, p. 53; Mosenthal & Tierney, 1984, p. 241) and Hoey (1991) in Baker (1992, p. 218). For the limits of space, no further discussion is given in this respect.

In short, coherence is a property of text which is related to its content organization, the semantic relations among the sentences and the connectivity that obtains among various text components.

2.2 Cohesion and coherence in translation Campbell (1998, p. 159) recognizes the importance of coherence (in the sense of Beaugrande & Dressler,

1981) as it establishes continuity relationships that correspond to cognitive processes taking place in the mind that produces texts and possibly in that which receives them. In addition, text coherence is a multi-level and inter-level procedural phenomenon that constructs the texture of any text. It is, therefore, clear that it is a primary requirement to observe in translation.

According to Hatim and Mason (1990, p. 196), coherence can be defined, following Beaugrande (1980) as the procedures which ensure conceptual connectivity including: (a) logical relations, (b) organization of events, objects and situations and (c) continuity in human experience. Basic relations such as “cause-effect”, “problem-solution”, “temporal sequence” and so on are universally fundamental to meaning and the way it is structured within a text. In the processing of written discourse, the translator responds to signals in the ST in an attempt to maintain the same logical relations between propositions in the TT. Yet, whereas translators seek to preserve the same coherent interpretation by relying a universal binary value (such as cause-effect, condition-consequence, etc.), they will be aware of a difference in the range of cohesive devices available in the Source Language (SL) and Target Language (TL) for signaling that value (Hatim & Mason, 1990, p. 207).

Moreover, Blum-Kulka (1986, pp. 17-33) points out to the shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. She emphasizes that shifts of cohesion in translation require the examination of the effects of the use of cohesive features in translation on the TL text’s level of explicitness and on the TL text’s overt meaning(s), as compared to the SL text. Concerning the shift in coherence in translation, what is needed is to distinguish between reader-based shifts (which occur as a result of a text being read by culturally different audiences) and text-based shifts (which result from the translation process per se). In both cases, such shifts affect the text’s meaning potential.

Regardless of whether meaning is a property of text or situation, coherence is not a feature of text, but rather of the judgment made by a reader on a text. As far as translation is concerned, this indicates that the range and type of difficulties encountered will not so much depend on the ST itself as “on the significance of the translated text for its readers as members of a certain culture, or of a sub-group within that culture with the constellation of knowledge, judgment and perception they have developed from it (Baker, 1992, p. 222).

Like any writer, a translator has to take into consideration the range of knowledge available to his target readers and of the expectations they are likely to have about things like (a) the organization of the world, (b) the organization of language in general, (c) the organization and conventions of particular text types, (d) the structure of social relations, and (e) the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain kinds of linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour among other things (Baker, 1992, p. 222).

Finally, in order to preserve intended meaning, a translator has to consider cohesion in the light of what

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

5

constitutes assumed knowledge for ST readers and TT readers alike. 2.3 Models of coherence After a close scrutiny of the theoretical identifications and discussions relevant to the concept of coherence

advocated by different modern theorists involved in the fields of text linguistics and discourse analysis, this section aims at presenting some analytical models of coherence in translation, naming the framework that is expected to suit the requirements of this study.

It has been stressed that translation, as a complex use of language, is a textual phenomenon which presupposes a careful analysis of the functions of the SL (Catford, 1965). In this study, translation involves the replacement of a coherent SL text, i.e., a sample representing Hadīth No. 36 by an equivalent coherent text in the TL.

Such cause of the notion of equivalence presupposes that there are coherence aspects which can be made further explicit when given an appropriate analytical tool. Therefore, it is assumed that the ST coherence aspects should be kept equivalent if translation is to be successful.

2.3.1 Beaugrande (1980)/Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) Beaugrande and Dressler (1981, pp. 3-4) indicate that for a text to be defined as a “communicative

occurrence”, it must meet several standards of textuality. If any of these standards is not considered to have been satisfied, the text will not be communicative. Hence, non-communicative texts are treated as non-texts. One of these standards is “coherence” which concerns the ways in which the components of the textual world, i.e., the configuration of “concepts” and “relations”, which underlie the surface text, are mutually accessible and relevant. A “concept” is definable as a configuration of knowledge (cognitive content) which can be recovered or activated with more or less unity and consistency in the mind. “Relations” are the links between concepts which appear together in a textual world. Each link would bear a designation of the concept it connects to. They (1981, pp. 85-90) add that “coherence” is clearly not a mere feature of texts, but rather the outcome of cognitive processes among text users. Moreover, a text does not make sense by itself, but rather by the interaction of “text-presented knowledge” with people’s “stored knowledge of the world”. A “senseless” text is one in which text receivers can discover no continuity (the foundation of coherence), usually because there is a serious mismatch between the configuration of concepts and relations expressed and the receiver’s prior knowledge of the world.

According to them (1981, pp. 94-99), coherence will be envisioned as the outcome of combining concepts and relations into a network composed of knowledge spaces centered around main topics. The surface text is parsed onto a configuration of “grammatical dependencies”, which the surface expressions are taken as cues to activate concepts. The concepts are treated as steps in the construction of a “continuity of sense”, and the extent of processing expended will vary according to whatever is required and useful for the task. Attention would be directed particularly toward the discovery of “control centres”, i.e., points from which accessing and processing can be strategically done.

The model of textual analysis includes the primary concepts, which are the usual control centres for building textual world, i.e., the points of orientation from which a processor sets up relationships to the secondary concepts (objects, situations, events and actions), and the secondary concepts (such as state, agent affected entity, relation, attribute, location, time, motion, instrument, form, part, substance, containment, cause enablement, reason, purpose, etc.) (see Appendix 1). In addition, a more elaborate justification for these is offered in Beaugrande (1980, pp. 79-102).

Beaugrande and Dressler (1981, p. 97) confirm that this typology is not “exhaustive” or “superior” to other

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

6

proposed before. It is “merely useful for labeling the links among concepts and through various combinations we can capture the notions of other typologies we have examined so far”. Although one might easily work with other typologies having greater or lesser detail than theirs, the writer of this paper finds Beaugrande and Dressler’s model as clear, comprehensive and applicable for the requirements of the present work.

In addition to a typology of concepts for labeling links, a set of “operators” might be needed which further specify the status of linkage. These operators are concerned with: (a) beginnings and endings, (b) fuzziness, (c) counter factuality, and (d) strength of linkage. These operators are: (a) initiation, (b) termination, (c) entry, (d) exit, (e) proximity, (f) projection, (g) determinateness, and (h) typicalness (Beaugrande, 1980, p. 86).

2.3.2 Brown and Yule (1983) Brown and Yule (1983, p. 224) state that the assumption of coherence will only produce one particular

interpretation in which the elements of the message are seen to be connected, with or without overt linguistic connections between those elements.

To them, the most important thing is the reader’s or hearer’s effort to arrive at the writer’s (or speaker’s) intended meaning in producing a linguistic message. There are aspects of discourse which the reader can use in his interpretation of a particular discourse fragment. Yet, the reader also has more knowledge than knowledge of discourse. This is a form of conventional socio-cultural knowledge.

Generally speaking, in their discussion of coherence, they point out that utterances must be treated as “actions” of different types and they review the theoretical and descriptive frameworks developed in support of this approach. They refer to Labov (1970) who argues that there are rules of interpretation which relate what is said to what is done and it is on the basis of such social, but not linguistic, rules that we interpret some conversational sequences as “coherent” and others as “non-coherent”. They also emphasize the importance of the wide range of possible “inferences” made by readers and their roles in interpreting utterances and the connections between utterances. However, they indicate that it is not always easy to determine which were intended by the text-producer and which were not.

2.3.3 Baker (1992) The coherence of a text is a result of the interaction between knowledge presented in the text and the reader’s

own knowledge and experience in the world. Therefore, a text which coheres for one reader may not cohere for another (Baker, 1992, p. 219).

In recent years, the notion of “implicature” has emerged in text studies referring to the question of how it is that we came to understand more than is actually said. Baker (Baker, 1992, p. 228) introduces a number of factors suggested by Grice which are relevant to the success or failure in working out implicature. These include: (1) the conventional meaning of the words and structures (i.e., a mastery of a language system) together with the identity of any references that may be involved; (2) the Co-operative Principle and its maxims; (3) the context, linguistic or otherwise, of the utterance; (4) other items of background knowledge; and (5) the fact (or supposed fact) that all relevant items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be the case.

Grice has suggested them as “data” on which “the hearer will reply” in working out whether a particular conventional implicature is present. Baker believes they also provide a good basis for exploring the question of “coherence” in general and to common problems and strategies in translation (Baker, 1992). Thus, she (Baker, 1992, pp. 229-254) discusses these factors in relation to “coherence” and “translation” arriving at the following conclusions:

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

7

(1) Coherence is a very problematic and elusive notion because of the diversity of factors, linguistic and non-linguistic, which can affect it, and the varying degrees of importance which a particular factor can assume in a given context.

(2) It is impossible to itemize the various factors which can contribute to or detract from coherence of a text. The variables involved and the processes of interpretation to be employed in trying to make sense of a text are far too numerous and often too elusive to be pinned down and described.

(3) The fact that many of these factors are language and culture-specific adds to the complexity of the problem.

(4) Most of the examples relevant to this matter suggested that in order to maintain coherence, translators often have to minimize discrepancies between the model of the world presented in the source text and that with which the target reader is likely to be familiar with. The final analysis depends on two factors:

(a) The translator’s ability to assess the knowledge and expectations of the target reader (which is so difficult).

(b) The translator’s own view of his role and of the whole question of where his loyalties ought to lie (i.e., whether they ought to lie with the ST or with the TT).

In this study, among the models of coherence presented above, Beaugrande’s (1980), also mentioned in Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), is to be adopted as an analytical model that serves the requirements of the present work for the reasons referred to in the introduction of this paper. The assessment of the translation of Hadīth No. 36, as well as, of the ST regarding the extent to which the translated text matches the ST in the aspects of coherence will take place through the application of this model (as a translation quality assessment tool).

3. Translation quality assessment

Adequate translation can be regarded as the optimum (or maximum) reconstruction of all the ST elements possessing textual functions. Such elements (linguistic and extra-linguistic elements) will be termed “textemes”. The comparison of a TT with its ST moves through three stages:

(1) A textemic analysis of the ST, may lead to the formulation of the adequate translation, viz., the specifications of the ST in terms of textemes.

(2) A comparison of the TT elements corresponding to these textemes, taking into accounts the various shifts (or deviations) with respect to the ST.

(3) A general description of the differences between the actual TT/ST equivalence and the adequate translation, on the basis of the comparison of the textemes. This description will state the factual degree or type of equivalence between TT and ST (Broeck, 1985, pp. 57-58).

In the following section, the model suggested by Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) will be applied for the analysis of some aspects of coherence merely of Hadīth No. 36 in the SL and the TL. One translation of this Hadīth will be analyzed and compared with the ST within the framework of this model taking into account the above-mentioned stages. As it has been mentioned earlier in this paper, the TT represents Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies’ (1977). The aim of this is to investigate the coherence of the ST and the extent to which the corresponding TT matches with the original in this respect, i.e., the evaluation involves examining the degree to which the TT realizes the various concepts and relations of coherence and semantic equivalents of the ST (as one of the basic requirements of any translation is the achievement of adequate textual equivalents).

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

8

However, any mismatch in textual features will be identified and a better alternative, when possible, will be suggested in an attempt to improve the quality of the translation.

3.1 Textual coherence: Analysis and assessment It should be noticed that there is another translation to the text under investigation in this paper offered by

Jeffery (1962) and which is not chosen as the one dealt with by Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies (1977) is more recent and translated by two translators (one an Arab Muslim and the other is not) whose backgrounds both overlap and complement each other.

The writer of the present paper intends to take each sentence in the ST and analyze it separately with respect to the primary and secondary concepts of the coherence model. Then, it will be compared and commented on in relation with the corresponding sentences in the TT.

Sentence 1: ."من نفس عن مؤمن آربة من آرب الدنيا، نفس اهللا عنه آربة من آرب يوم القيامة: " قال ρعن النبي

Whosoever “removes a worldly” grief from a believer, Allah will remove from him one of the grieves of the Day of judgment.

Beaugrande (1980, p. 87) and Beaugrande & Dressler (1981, p. 99) point out to how a grammatical dependency network can serve a useful indicator of the control centres for a given stretch of text. The preference strategy would be to postulate that the heads of “grammatical macro-states”. i.e., a noun in a Noun Phrase (NP) or Prepositional Phrase (PP); verb in Verb Phrases (VP) or participial phrases are expressions of “primary concepts”. Thus, this view will be taken into account in the analyses of sentences.

The control centres for the first part of this sentence in the ST are clearly the head nouns and verbs within their phrases. The Arabic relative pronoun من (which is pronominally used here) is an object concept (primary concept) and we can infer that it refers to “a believer” who removes…from a believer. So, “removes” نفس is an action concept, and the relation (secondary concept), “agent of” obtains, because من is the agent of this action. The noun آربة is a situation (of the believer) and is the “state of” in this relation. The PP من آرب الدنيا can be an attribute to آربة which is at the same time an “instance of” آرب الدنيا. The noun الدنيا is an object concept. In Arabic, it refers to time or location. The PP عن مؤمن contains as its complement the noun head مؤمن which can also refer to an object concept. It is the indirect object that receives the effect of the action نفس آربة عن مؤمن. It is also the affected entity conceptually.

In the second part of this sentence, i.e., نفس اهللا عنه آربة من آرب يوم القيامة, we can see corresponding concepts and relations. The same grammatical functions of the elements occur too. In this part of the sentence, اهللا is the object concept and the action concept is also نفس. In terms of relations اهللا is the agent of this action where آربة is the state of (the direct object). In the PP عنه, the pronoun can refer to مؤمن representing an object concept (being the complement of a preposition). Consequently, it is also an affected entity, since it is the indirect object. The noun آربةis an object concept. It refers to a relation of “instance of” آرب يوم القيامة. In the PP من آرب يوم القيامة the object concepts are يوم، آرب and القيامة respectively. يوم القيامة indicates time.

It is worth noting that the whole sentence coheres in terms of “causal relations,” i.e., the first event من نفس عن since it creates the necessary conditions for it. In this sentence, we can نفس اهللا عنه is the cause of the second مؤمنalso see a relation of recurrence represented by من نفس and نفس اهللا; and آربة followed by رب الدنيامن آ and آربةfollowed by من آرب القيامة and the noun آرب in both. There is a relation of “opposed to” as الدنيا is the converse relation to يوم القيامة. . There may also be a relation of volition represented by من نفس (has the will to do) and نفسيوم القيامة/آربة من آرب الدنيا A relation of instance of could be between .اهللا .

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

9

Concerning the operators which specify the relations in this sentence, we can see that نفس represents termination (i.e., the relation is ended by the agentنفس آربة عن مؤمن). This can also be said in the case of نفس اهللا indicating termination operator.

Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies’ translation of sentence 1: Whosoever “removes a worldly” grief from a believer, Allah will remove from him one of the grieves of the

Day of Judgment. In this sentence, the control centers can be mainly represented by the heads of the phrases. In the first part,

we have the relative pronoun “whosoever” (also can refer to “a believer”) which is the object concept, whereas the verb “removes” is the action concept (an event intentionally brought about by the agent). The relation “agent of” obtains, because “whosoever” is the agent of this action. The noun “grief” can be an object concept. Since it is the direct object grammatically speaking, it is the “state of” in this relation. In this NP “a worldly grief” as “grief” is the noun head word, we can consider “worldly” as an attribute to this noun. In the PP “from a believer” which is an adverbial by function in this sentence, “a believer” is the complement of preposition and it is an object concept. The whole PP could be “attribute-to-action” as it grammatically modifies the verb “remove”. Conceptually, it is the affected entity by the action. The second part of this sentence nearly corresponds to the first with respect to the primary and secondary concepts. So, Allah is the object concept and “removes” an action concept. The relations “agent of” and “modality” obtains because “Allah” is the agent of the action and “will” modality of (indicating prediction-Allah will). The PP “from him” is attributed to the action, since its grammatical function is adverbial. At the same time, it is conceptually the affected entity too. Concerning “one of the grieves”, the noun grief is the head in this NP; it is an object concept at the same time. The modifier determines “one of” labels the link between the entity “grieves” and a concept of number, i.e., it refers to a relation of “quantity of” signaling “quantity-to-object”. It should be noticed that the whole NP is the direct object and it represents the relation “state of”. The PP “of the day of judgment” is a post-modifier (attribute) to “grieves”, grammatically speaking, i.e., it is part of this NP. The PP “of judgment” is at the same time post-modifier (attribute) to “day”. Both “day” and “judgment” can be “object” concepts. This NP “the day of judgment” indicates “time of” relation and could refer to an event.

It is also clear that corresponding to the original text in the SL, and the first event “whosoever removes…” is the cause of the second “Allah will remove….” i.e., the whole sentence coheres in terms of causal relations. In addition, we can notice other relations (secondary concepts) in this sentence, such as “relation of”—“Allah” and “believer”/God of; “volition of”—“whosoever removes” and “Allah will remove”; “opposed to”—“a worldly grief” is opposed to “one of the grieves of the day of judgment”—and relation of recurrence of in “grief-grief”; “removes-will-remove”, but “co-referential-with” between “whosoever” and the perform “him”. A relation of “instance of” refers to “one of the grieves of the day of judgment”. Regarding the operators signaling the relations in this sentence, they correspond to these in the Arabic ST indicating “termination”/“remove” and “will remove” respectively signaling the early end of the relation by the agent.

Sentence 2: .ومن يسر عن معسر، يسر اهللا عليه في الدنيا واآلخرة Whosoever alleviates [the lot of] a needy person, Allah will alleviate [his lot] in this world and the next.

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

10

ST TT is the يسر is the object concept (a believer) and من .1action concept. The relation “agent of” obtains; where

من/مؤمن is the agent and يسر is the action.

1. “Whosoever” is the object concept and “alleviates” the action concept. The relation “agent of” obtains; where “whosoever” is the agent and the verb is the action.

is the noun معسر is a PP; where عن معسر .2head/complement of preposition. It is the object concept (the situation of the object مؤمن is معسر. By function, this phrase is an adverbial. In Arabic grammar it can be the direct object. So, we can consider it an affected entity in this relation. The action could also be realized as an event concept changing the situation of معسر.

2. “[The lot of] a needy person”. “Person” is the object concept, “needy” attribute to “person”. It is the direct object (NP) considered as the affected entity in this relation.

3. In the second part, we can see that اهللا is the object concept “agent”; يسر the action concept changing the situation of the object concept هو- مؤمن within the PP in this relation representing a direct object “affected entity.

3. In the second part, the object concept is “Allah” as the agent, where the action concept is “will alleviate”. “[His lot]” is a NP corresponding the PP عليه in the ST is the direct object NP realized here as an object concept referring to an affected entity in this relation.

4. The PP في الدنيا واآلخرة as a whole indicates time or location. It is mostly a time relation as an attribute to the action يسر. The nouns نياد and آخرة which are complements of the preposition (head nouns) are object concepts.

4. The PP “in this world and the next” includes the complements of preposition/NP “world” and “next” as subject concepts indicating location and time respectively (comparative with Arabic where both can refer to either).

5. Event 1, in the first part of the sentence coheres with event 2 in a causal relation.

5. Like the Arabic original sentence, the parts of this sentence cohere in terms of causal relation (E1 is the cause of E2); (E = event).

6. The action يسر could be considered as “volition of”. 6. Also, “volition of” is noticed here in “Allah/whosoever will alleviate/alleviates” modality “will”.

7. The relation of “opposed to” is represented in the nouns .اآلخرة and الدنيا

7. The relation of “opposed to” is indicated by “this world and the next”.

8. We also notice the relation of “recurrence of” in يسر and and the من The relation of co-referential with between .يسرpronoun هو within the PP عليه used as a perform.

8. “Recurrence of” in “alleviates, will “alleviate, the lot of, his lot” and co-“referential with” “whosoever” and the pronoun “his” perform.

9. The operators signaling relations in this sentence indicate “termination” showing the end of the relation by the agents’ .يسر اهللا and من يسر

9. The operators observed indicate “termination” represented by the verbs “alleviates” and “will alleviate” respectively.

It is worth noticing that Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies when translating the word معسر has added “the lot of” enclosed in square brackets preceding “a needy person”. Their aim is to ensure the accuracy of the translation where a literal translation sounds unacceptable (Ibrahim & Johnson-Davies, 1977, p. 10). According to Hornby (1985, s.v. lot) the word “lot” has the meaning “a person’s fortune or destiny”. Sirriyya (1998, p. 79) discusses brevity, i.e., decreasing the number of words and increasing the number of meanings. Thus, in the ST, the word could refer to difficulties of all kinds, i.e., the meaning is broad and general. Jeffery (1962, p. 157) has معسرtranslated it into “someone who is in difficulties”. The writer of this paper thinks it is more appropriate corresponding the meaning intended in the ST. By restricting themselves to “the lot of” only “a needy person”, the translators (Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies) have narrowed the scope of the meaning of the ST as “needy” includes only “very poor people” (Hornby, 1985, s.v. need 2).

Sentence 3: .ومن ستر مسلما، ستره اهللا في الدنيا واآلخرة Whosoever shields a Muslim, Allah will shield him in this world and the next.

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

11

ST TT 1. The part of من ستر مسلما of this sentence represents the control centers are (object-action-object) respectively representing the relations (agent-action-affected).

1. In the first part of the sentence, the control centers are (whosoever/object; shields/action and a Muslim/object) indicating the relations of (agent-action and affected entity) respectively).

2. In the second part of this sentence, the control centers are (object ه action and the pronoun ستر—object اهللا)representing the relations of (agent-action-affected) successively. Also, in this part, the PP في الدنيا واآلخرة is adverbial elements modifying the action-attribute-to-action, where الدنيا and اآلخرة are object concepts indicating time/location relations.

2. In part two, the same thing can be said as it parallels the structure of the first part. So, the control centers are (“Allah”/object; “will shield”/action and “him” the object) representing the relations of agent-action and affected entity) respectively. “Modality of” is indicated by “will”.

3. As in the previous sentences, E1 is the cause of E2. 3. In this part, the PP “in this world and the next” includes object concepts realized by the noun head words “world” and “next” showing location and time relations successively. The whole PP is attribute-to-action (as an adverbial by function).

4. Other relations to be noticed are: “relation of”—اهللا and opposed of ;ستر and اهللا—من—”volition of“ ;(God of) مسلم and the مسلم—”co-referential with“ ;اآلخرة and الدنياpronoun ه; and “recurrence of”— .ستره and س

4. Here, E1 also indicates a causal relation with E2 providing the necessary condition for it.

5. The operators signaling relations in this sentence are these of termination ستر مسلما and ستره اهللا.

5. Other relations in this sentence are these of: “relation of” —“Allah” and “Muslim” (God of); “volition of’ in both “whosoever” and “Allah—shield/will shield”; “opposed of”—“this world and the next”; “co-referential with”—“whosoever” and “him”; and “recurrence of”—“shield/will shield”.

6. The operators signaling relations are these of termination “shield a Muslim” and “Allah will shield him”.

Generally speaking, having analyzed the three previous sentences, one can say that the cohesive ties and grammatical structures are nearly the same in each of the ST and the TT indicating continuity. These grammatical and cohesive relations presuppose textual coherence which has been achieved successfully in each one of these texts in terms of causal relations. Thus, the textual and conceptual coherence in terms of the primary/secondary concepts, relations and operators of the translated text match these of the source text adequately.

There are some other relations that can be identified which bring up coherence among these sentences especially of equivalents such as in the Arabic ST between معسر ,مؤمن and مسلم and in the TT between “believer”, “a needy person and Muslim”. These words have other equivalents in the following sentences of each text such as عبد and أخيه (a believer is the brother in religion of another believer) in the ST and servant of Allah and his brother. Other equivalents to be noticed are: يوم القيامة and اآلخرة in the ST and “The day of judgment” and “the next”. The recurrence of the words من ,اهللا and الدين in the ST and their equivalents in the TT: “Allah, whosoever”, “and worldly/this world” in each of the three sentences also indicates textual and conceptual coherence of these texts.

Sentence 4: .واهللا في عون العبد، ما آان العبد في عون أخيه Allah will aid a servant [of His] so long as the servant aids his brother.

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

12

ST TT 1. The control centers of the first part of this sentence are a situation في عون العبد as the object concept and اهللاconcept where العبد is an object-concept as the relation object-affected options. It is a nominal clause in Arabic of the type Subject-Adverbial (SA).

1. The control centres in this first part of the sentence are “Allah, aid and servant” as “object-action-object” concepts respectively entering into a relation of “agent-action” and “affected entity.” “Will” in “will aid” indicates “modality of.” This can be understood as realizing a relation of “volition” too.

2. The particle ما introducing the second part of this sentence indicating “condition.” Here, we can also consider a situation في عون أخيه as an object concept and العبدconcept as أخيه is the affected entity. It is the object concept.

2. The second part of the sentence represents an adverbial clause of condition indicated by the conditional conjunction “so long as” with the meaning “on condition that” (see Quirk, et al., 1973, p. 324). The control centres observed here are (“servant”/object; “aids”/action and “his brother”/object) concepts respectively. These represent the relation of (agent-action-to affected entity).

3. So, we can consider the second situation in this sentence is the necessary condition of the first, i.e., ما آان العبد في عون In other words, the second situation is the .أعانه اهللا ,أخيهcause of the first.

3. The addition of “[of his]” by the translators is just to emphasize the relation between “Allah” and “his servant”, i.e., relation of.

4. Other relations observed in this sentence are: “relation of” اهللا and عبد (God of); عبد and أخيه (in religion); recurrence of في عون-في عون ;العبد-العبد.

4. We can also say that the situation realized by the conditional clause in the second part of the sentence is the cause of the second situation introduced in the first part of this sentence, conceptually speaking.

5. Regarding the operators: we notice these of projected entry into a relation signaling that a relation is possible and under consideration ي عون العبد، ما آان العبد في عون أخيهاهللا ف .

5. Other relation noticed in this sentence are” relation of as mentioned in (3) above and between “a servant”, “his brother” [two believers]; the relation of recurrence occurs to “will aid”, “aid”, “a servant” and “his servant”.

6. The operators signal projected entry “Allah will aid as long as the servant aids”.

Sentence 5: .ومن سلك طريقا يلتمس فيه علما، سهل اهللا له به طريقا إلى الجنة Whosoever follows a path to seek knowledge therein, Allah will make easy for him a path to Paradise.

ST TT 1. The first part of this sentence, i.e., ومن سلك طريقا يلتمس فيه ,is a complex sentence of purpose in Arabic (Aziz علما1989, p. 225). The control centres are: (object من; action representing the relation the relation (طريقا and object سلكof (agent-action-affected entity) respectively. In the adverbial clause of purpose يلتمس فيه علما the subject هو is implicit. The control centres are يلتمس and object علما (affected entity). The prepositional phrase is adverbial by function referring to طريق indicating a relation of location. So we can say that the adverbial clause يلتمس فيه علما is purpose of the action سلك.

1. In the first part of this sentence there is a non-finite clause (to seek knowledge therein) indicating purpose (coheres with the same structure in the ST). Such clauses of purpose are usually introduced by a non-finite forms (Aziz, 1989, p. 225). In this part, the control centres are the concepts: Object/“whosoever”, action/“follows” and Object/“a path” with the relations “agent-action-affected entity respectively. The sub-clause is adverbial by function representing attribute-to action. “Seek” is the action concept; knowledge is object concept; and therein is adverbial attribute indicating location.

2. The first event in this sentence is the cause of the second event in which we can identify the control centres as: اهللا the object; سهل the action; له (indirect object grammatically) also object concept; طريقا (direct object) object concept. The relation is that of “agent” سهل ;اهللا action; طريقا affected entity; له action-to-affected entity-entering into-location طريقا إلى الجنة (Beaugrande, 1980, p. 88) about the indirect object. The pronoun in him PP به coheres with the noun علم in the first part of the sentence. It is a perform indicating a relation of “co-referential with.” The PP الى الجنة is adverbial by function indicating location in which الجنةis an object concept.

2. In the second part of the sentence “Allah will make easy for him a path to paradise”, the control centres are: “Allah” as an object concept; “will make”/action; “a path” object concept (direct object, indicating the relation agent-action and affected entity) respectively. The word “easy” in “make easy” is an attribute (adverb = in an easy manner) to-action. “For he” is a PP/adverbial where “him” coheres with “whosoever” in a relation of co-referential with. The PP “to Paradise” is an adverbial attribute-to-action indicating “location” where “Paradise” is the object concept. It also coheres as an equivalent to other words in the previous sentences like: “the Day of Judgment and the nest”.

(to be continued)

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

13

3. Other relations are: relation of )من) مؤمن (God of) اهللا -—volition of—سهه and يلتمس علما; the word الجنة is also equivalent to other words (indicates coherence) in the previous sentences like: يوم القيامة ,اآلخرة; and recurrence of —”motion of“ ,طريقا-طريقا ك .

3. Other relations to be observed are: relation of “whosoever” (believer)—“Allah” (God of); volition—“Allah will make easy whosoever seeks knowledge” (also modality “will”); and recurrence of “a path—a path”. “Motion of” follows.

4. The operators represent relations in this sentence are: a. entry سلك; b. initiation يلتمس; c. termination سهل.

4. The operators indicate: a. entry “follow”; b. initiation “seek”; c. termination “make easy”.

In both the ST and the TT, the first event in the first part of the sentence is the cause of the second. So, they cohere in terms of causality.

Sentence 6: ن بيوت اهللا، يتلون آتاب اهللا ويتدارسونه بينهم إال نزلت عليهم السكينة، وغشيتهم الرحمة، وحفتهم المالئكة، وذآرهم وما اجتمع قوم في بيت م

.اهللا فيمن عنده No people gather together in one of the houses of Allah, reciting the book of Allah and studying it

among themselves, without tranquility descending upon them, mercy enveloping them, the angels surrounding them, and Allah making mention of them amongst those who are with him.

ST TT

1. In the first part of the sentence وما اجتمع قوم في بيت من بيوت ما grammatically speaking, we can notice the particle ,اهللاindicating negation (Aziz, 1989, p. 240) followed by إال indicating “exception” االستثناء (Aziz, 1989, p. 226). This is a complex sentence with subordinate clauses.

1. The situation of the first part of the sentence represents the following concepts and relations: “No” is a negative particle, “people”—object—(agent) concept; “gather”—action, “together” an adverb attribute to the action; the PP “in one of the houses of Allah” is attributing to action. In this phrase, “houses”, is the head word. It is an object concept. “One of” is a determiner indicating the relation of quantity to object. The relation “instance of” is realized here in one of the houses (=“a house of the houses of Allah”). “Allah” is the object concept in the PP “of Allah” which grammatically post modifies “houses”. Thus, it is an attribute-to-object.

2. In this situation, the control centres are: قوم as object concept; اجتمع action بيت and بيوت objects, اهللا object. The relation is that of “agent of-action-to-location” obtains. There is a relation f “part of” بيت من بيوت where بيوت at the same time signals a relation of “containment of”. The action اجتمع also indicates the relation “motion of”.

2. The non-finite compound clause “reciting the Book of Allah” and “studying it amongst themselves”; is attribute the action “gather” (as its function is adverbial). The non-finite VPs are action concepts “reciting” and “studying”. In “the Book of Allah”; “Book” is the noun head word pre-modified by the determiner the “which” is attribute-to-object (as book is an object concept; the PP following it “of Allah” is post modifier, i.e., attribute-to-object in which “Allah” is an object concept. The pronoun (perform) “it” following “studying” signals relation of co-referential with “Book”. The PP “amongst themselves” includes an object concept “themselves” as its complement/head of the NP. It has a relation of co-referential (as a perform) with the word “people”. The relation of “recurrence” is noticed here between “of” “Allah—of Allah”; “relation of.” “Allah” and “people” (God of); “location” in “gathers—one of the houses of Allah”. Also, “people—gather” indicates a relation of “motion of” and that of “communication of” in “studying”.

(to be continued)

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

14

3. There are purposes “purpose of” in this situation, i.e., اجتمع القوم in order to يتلون آتاب اهللا ويتدارسونه بينهم. Here, the control centres are: يتلون and يتدارسون are actions (the subject هم is implicit); the object concept is بينهم ;آتاب اهللا is an adverbial phrase (an adverb بين and its complement قومis the object concept (i.e., ) هم ,Here .(هم . There is a relation of “communication of” يتدارسون. In general, the relation of agent-action-affected entity obtains between

آتاب اهللا) هم(يتلون and يتدارسونه. The pronoun in يتدارسونه refers to آتاب اهللا indicating a relation of “co-referential with.” The relation of recurrence is also represented by

بيوت/بيت .آتاب اهللا in اهللا and (بيوت اهللا in) اهللا ;

3. The first part of the sentence starting with “No people…” and ending with “among themselves” is linked in terms or purpose relation, i.e., “people gather in order to recite and study the Book of Allah”. It is worth mentioning too that this part of the sentence is the cause of the subsequent events of the rest of the sentence providing the necessary condition to them.

4. In this situation, the event of اجتمع قوم… is the cause of the subsequent events in the rest of the sentence as it provides the necessary condition to them reflecting the coherence of the whole sentence.

4. Thus, the control centres of the second part of the sentence occur within the PP which is at the same time an attribute to the action “gather”/as it functions as an adverbial within the whole clause. “Tranquility”; “mercy” and “the angels” are object concepts (agents); “descending”; “enveloping” and “surrounding”—action concepts; and “them” also in the PP “upon them” is in all an object concept affected entity. At the same time, it is a perform signaling the relation of “co-referential” with “people” indicating cohesion bringing up coherence.

5. Consequently, in the second part of the sentence, the control centres are: السكينة/object concept; نزلت/action concept and هم in عليهم/object concept. They indicate the relations: “agent-action-affected entity.” The same concepts and relations can be seen with غشيتهم الرحمة where الرحمة is the object concept (agent); غشيت the action concept (action) and هم the object concept (affected entity). Also, in المالئكة ;حفتهم المالئكة—object concept (agent); object concept—هم action concept (action) and—حفت(affected entity). These parallel structures, concepts and relations indicate cohesion of the sentence bringing about coherence.

5. The above part of the sentence is coordinated by “and” with “Allah making mention of them amongst those who are with him”. Here, “Allah” is the object concept (agent); the action concept is “making mention”/the object concept “of them” the PP is attribute-to-action. The PP “amongst those who are with him” includes the primary concepts “those” as an object concept/complement of preposition (head noun). It is post-modified by the relative clause “who are with him”, in which “who” represents those having a relation of object-to-state” with the verb. The PP “with him” is attribute to-the-state referring to “those with Allah” in location. “Him” is the object concept in this relation.

6. The last part of the sentence ذآرهم اهللا فيمن عنده shows the concepts of object اهللا (agent)—action ذآر referring to a relation of “communicate of”—and هم object (affected entity). In the PP to follow, من in فيمن refers to persons (e.g., may be angels) indicating object concept. In the adverbial phrase عنده, the pronoun refers to “Allah” representing an object concept too. عنده means “with him” in English and it can signal location.

6. Other relations to be observed are: “motion of”: “descending, enveloping and surrounding”; “co-referential with”: “them, people, Allah, Him”; “relation of”: “Allah” and “people” (God of), “them”, “those”, “angels”. The relation of “emotion of” in “tranquility descending upon them” as used metaphorically (they feel tranquil/personification). This relation is also recognized in “mercy-enveloped” and “angels surrounding” (symbolic relations). The relation of “communication of” can also be observed in “Allah”, “making mention”. The relation of recurrence of is seen in “Allah-Allah”, “them-them”.

7. Other relations are these of: “motion of” in غشيتهم ,نزلت and حفتهم; co-referential with قوم-هم where the latter implicit or explicit inseparable in حفتهم ,غشيتهم ,عليهم ;بينهم and ذآرهم; a relation of “emotion of” could be observed in ,.as used metaphorically/personification (i.e نزلت عليه السكينةthey feel tranquil). The relation of signification of is also recognized in السكينة-نزلت الرحمة-غشيت ; and المالئكة-حفتهم (symbolic relations).

7. The operators in these relations indicate: a. entry—“gather”; b. initiation—“reciting and studying”; c. termination—“descending, enveloping, surrounding, making mention”.

8. The operators indicated here are: a. entry—اجتمع; b. initiation يتدارسون ,يتلون; c. termination—حفتهم ,غشيتهم ,نزلت and ذآرهم.

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

15

Sentence 7 .عمله لم يسرع به نسبهومن بطأ به

Whosoever is slowed down by his actions will not be hastened forward by his lineage.

ST TT 1. In Arabic grammar, the jussive is used after the particle .indicating negation that means “not” (Aziz, 1989:80) لمThe subjects are عمله and نسبه, i.e., من عمله بطأ به، نسبه لم is in a co-referential من The relative pronoun .يسرع بهrelation with the PP به where the pronoun ه, which is the complement of preposition, refers to من (used pronominally having the grammatical function of indirect object.

1. The control centres of this sentence are: “his actions” the object concept/having the relation “instrument of”; the action concept—“slowed down” and “whosoever” are the object concepts/affected entity.

2. In this sentence, E1 أ به عملهو من بط provides the necessary condition for E2 to happen, i.e., the two لم يسرع به نسبهevents cohere in terms of causal relation.

2. In addition, “his lineage” is the object concept/instrumental of “hastened” action concept “forward” adverbial/attribute to the action “wills” indicating “modality”. The object concept/affected entity are also “whosoever”.

3. The control centres in ومن بطأ به عمله are: عمله is the object concept indicating the relation “instrument of”; the action concept is بطأ and به representing من is the object concept/affected entity.

3. Other relations to be observed are: “motion of” “slow—hasten” which at the same time indicate the relation of “opposed to”; “signification action”—“slow down” and “lineage—hasten”; “recurrence of” the pronoun “his”.

4. The control centres in لم يسرع به نسبه are: the object concept نسب (having a conceptual meaning not referring to person’s أسالف or ذرية, eventually having the relation of “instrument of.” The action concept is يسرع and به/ من is the object concept (affected entity).

4. Like its Arabic counterpart, in this sentence, the first event coheres with the second in a causal relation, i.e., it provides the necessary conditions for the second.

5. Other relations to be identified in this sentence are: “motion of” in بطأ and يسرع; signification ;عمله بطبه نسبه بطأ-يسرع opposed to” between“ ;(symbolic relation) يسرع ; and recurrence of به-به .

5. The operators indicate termination of relations “slowed down” and “not hastened”.

6. The operators are these of: termination بطأ and يسرع indicating end of the relation.

The sentence has been translated by Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies into English using the passive construction which is a shift in structure that does not match that of the ST. It could have been translated as an active sentence as Jeffery (1962, p. 158) does:

He whose work detains him will not be hastened by his [noble] ancestry. The writer of the present paper thinks that Jefferey’s translation is more literal and Ibrahim and

Johnson-Davies intend to start with the relative pronoun “whosoever” in order to match the other sentences in their text indicating cohesion. However, they could have used “whosoever” replacing “He whose” in the above text.

Regarding the word “lineage”, it has the meanings نسب or ذرية (Ba’albki, 1981, s.v. lineage). The first is conceptual while the second is personal. Comparing it with its equivalent used in Jeffery’s translation he prefers the word “ancestry” which can also refer to either نسب or أسالف (Ba’albki, 1981, p. 46). According to the writer of this paper both fit, but the first meaning of each (the conceptual) is what the translators have considered to coincide completely with the meaning in the ST. If the other meanings, i.e., ذرية or أسالف are meant, then, the object concepts will have a relation of agentive rather than instrumental.

3.1.1 A Comparison between the two translations Regarding the semantic relations and equivalents, the writer of this paper finds it useful to compare Ibrahim

and Johnson-Davies’ TT with that of Jeffery’s in order to investigate to what extent the translators have used

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

16

appropriate or inappropriate words and meanings. This can be shown below: (1) In the first sentence, Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies have chosen the word remove to mean نفس whereas

Jeffery has suggested the word dispel. In Al-Mawrid (Ba’albaki, 1981, s.v. dispel) dispel is given only one meaning يبدد (could be to dispel fears) whereas the most appropriate meaning remove that fits this context is يزيل (Ba’albaki, 1981, s.v. remove). No great difference between the two and the writer of this paper thinks both fit.

(2) For يوم القيامة Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies have suggested the Day of Judgment; while Jeffery has given the Day of resurrection. In Al-Mawrid (Ba’albaki, 1981, s.v. judgment day), the former is given the meaning يومنشور- بعث while the latter is given the meaning الحساب (Ba’albaki, 1981, s.v. resurrection). The writer of this paper thinks both are used in religious texts with no great difference. There is another word Doomsday also given the meaning يوم الحساب in Al-Mawrid (Ba’albaki, 1981, s.v. doomsday).

(3) The translation of Jeffery seems more literal and word-for-word as it is preferable when translating religious texts (Newmark, 1988). He, i.e., Jeffery, even matches exactly the structure of the ST with respect to the verb forms and tenses. For instance, in his translation of واهللا في عون العبد ما دام العبد في عون أخيه where it indicates a relation of “state” in Arabic, he uses a “stative” verb, verb “be”, to match the ST as “Allah is ready to aid any servant so long as the servant is ready to aid his brother”. Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies translate the same sentence using a dynamic verb action as in “Allah will aid….”

(4) Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies have translated بيت من بيوت اهللاand آتاب اهللا as “one of the houses of Allah” and “the Book of Allah” respectively; while Jeffery has used the possessive (’s) instead, i.e., “one of Allah’s houses” and “Allah’s Book”. According to Aziz (1989, p. 127), the (’s) genitive is normally used to refer to “personal” while the “of-construction” is more common in inanimate nouns lower in the scale of gender. Since, Allah is the Eternal and “none is His peer”, the paper thinks to use the of-construction is more appropriate here, and not to refer to Him personally as the people in the Western World believe and do.

(5) The word envelope in Al-Mawrid (Ba’albaki, 1981, s.v. envelope) means يغلف، يحجب، يطوق and it has been chosen by Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies as equivalent to غشيهم; whereas Jeffery has given the word “cover”, in Al-Mawrid (Ba’albaki, 1981, s.v. cover) assigned the meaning يغطي، يكسو، يحجب. According to me, “envelope” fits better here as its meaning is more conceptual/symbolic.

4. Conclusion

In this section, some generalizations arrived at this work about the notion of “coherence” and its relevance to translation, the theoretical model adopted, and the assessment of the analysis of coherence aspects and semantic relations in the ST and TT will be given. The findings of the present paper can be summarized by the following points:

(1) Among the different standards of textuality, two have received special attention in various treatments, these are cohesion and coherence. Coherence is clearly not a mere feature of a text, but rather the outcome of cognitive processes among text users. As it has been recognized in the analyses of the texts in this work, we can say that the simple juxtaposition of events and situations in a text will activate operations which recover or create coherence relations. We can also conclude that although cohesion is an important standard of a text unity, it presupposes coherence. Coherence is the milestone and more important than cohesion. It consolidates the unity and cohesion of a text.

(2) In translation, translators should preserve the same coherent interpretation and maintain the same logical

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

17

relations between propositions in the TT. This achieves accuracy, fidelity and effectiveness of the TT. (3) Concerning the theoretical model of coherence analysis adopted in this study, it is the clearer and most

inclusive (including the various aspects of coherence) among the others as most of these seem to be primarily concerned with the analysis of conversational material. In short, Beaugrande’s model has approached coherence as a many-sided property of text. It is also applicable to all text types for quality assessment.

(4) With respect to the evaluation of the coherence aspects of the ST and their counterparts in the TT, the following points can be listed:

A. Generally speaking, it has been found that both the ST and its translated counterpart cohere in terms of causality, i.e., events and situations within and among the sentences in each are entirely linked by a group of relations subsumed under causality. Consequently, coherence in the ST and TT has been fully achieved and brought about by causal relations.

B. The sequence of coherence relations remains constant in the TT. The translation could be said to be accurate and adequate, i.e., the result of the analysis is positive and one can say that the translators have proved competent in doing this, in fact, the TT combines accuracy with readability.

C. However, the TT may have departed in small measure from the Arabic ST. The following points illustrate some of the aspects of evaluation:

a. The same layout of the ST in the SL has been maintained in the TT. b. Cohesion realizing coherence is indicated in both the ST and TT by various textual features and cohesive

ties such as most of the sentences in the Arabic text are linked by the coordinator . و In addition, the sentences in general represent parallel structures in both the ST and TT. Repetition of lexical items also maintains cohesion and coherence in both texts.

c. Most of the primary and secondary concepts, relations and operators indicating coherence coincide in the two texts (St and TT).

d. No instances of mistranslation, distortion of meaning, or carelessness in translation are observed. e. The grammatical structures have also been adequately translated to match those of the ST and the needs of

the TT reader. f. Since the text analyzed in this study is of a content-focused type, we can say that its content and

information has been fully and adequately represented in the TL. In addition, its form has been oriented to the usage of English, i.e., it is an appropriate readable text for the readers of English.

Finally, the analysis of the TT has shown that the translators have succeeded in producing a good readable translation of the ST. No instances of violation or gaps in the coherence of the TT have been observed.

Assessing the translation of the ST, in general, has revealed nearly full correspondence with the ST. Where there is any difference or addition, this is due to the requirements of the TL system.

In fact, Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies’s successful rendition of the ST aspects of coherence gives evidence to their awareness of the role of various devices that establish coherence in sustaining text unity. References: A. S. Hornby. 1985. Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arthur Jeffery. 1962. A reader on Islam. The Netherlandss, Mouton and Co. Publishers. B. Hatim & L. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. New York, Longman. C. J. Brumfil & K. Johnson. 1979. The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. David Crystal. 1985. To investigate a dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. New York, Basil Blackwell Ltd.

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

18

Ezzedin Ibrahim & Denys Johnson-Davies. 1977. An-Nawawī’s forty Hadith. By, imam Yahya bin Sharaf ad-Dīn An-Nawawī (d. AD 1277). Damascus, The Holy Koran Publishing House.

George Yule. 1996. The study of language. London: Longman. Gillian Brown & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. H. G. Widdowson. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. J. C. Catford. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katharina Reiss. 2000. Translation criticism: The potentials and limitations. Erroll F. Rhodes. Trans. Manchester, St. Jerome

Publishing. M. A. K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London, Longman. Mona Baker. 1992. In other words: A course book on translation. New York, Longman. Munir Ba’albaki. 1981. Al-Mawrid. Beirut, Dar El-Ilm Lil-Malayen. Patricia L. Carroll. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-487. Peter Newmark. 1988. A textbook of translation. Hertforshire, Prentice Hall. Rahbar Daud. 1963. Aspects of the Qur’ān translation. Babel, 4(1-2), 60-66. Raymond van den Broeck. 1985. Second thoughts on translation criticism. Studies in Literary Translation. Amsterdam, University of

Amsterdam. Robert de Beaugrande & Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. London, Longman. Robert de Beaugrande. 1980. Text, discourse and process. London, Longman. Robert Mosenthal & J. Tierney. 1984. Cohesion: Problems with talking about text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(XIX2), 24-244. Sawsan Saleh Abdullah Sirriyya. 1998. Translating Islamic non-Quranic religious texts into English. Unpublished M.A. thesis,

University of Al-Mustansiriya, Baghdad. Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 1986. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication.

Tübingen, Narr. Stephen Witte & P. Faigley. 1981. Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition, 32, 189-204. Harris, W. V. 1988. Interpretive acts in search of meaning. Oxford, Clarendon. W. Labov. 1970. The study of language in its social context. Stadium General, 23, 30-87. Yowell Y Aziz. 1989. A contrastive grammar of English and Arabic. Mosul, University of Mosul.

(Edited by Tina, Max and Sunny)

Appendix 1 Beaugrande’s model of textual analysis (1980)

. Primary conceptsⅠ

EVENTS

ACTIONS

OBJECTS

SITUATIONS

. Secondary conceptsⅡ

A. Defining events, actions, objects and situations

SYSTEM

AGENT

AFFCTED ENTITY

RELATION

LOCATION

TIME

MOTION

INSTRUMENT

An assessment of coherence in the translation of a prophetic tradition (Hadīth)

19

FORM

PART

SUBSTANCE

CONTAINMENT

CAUSE

ENABLEMENT

QUANTITY

B. Defining human experience

REASON

PURPOSE

APPERCEPTION

COGNITION

EMOTION

VOLITION

COMMUNICATION

POSSESSION

MODALITY

C. Defining class inclusion

INSTANCE

SPECIFCATION

SUPERCLASS

METACLASS

D. Defining relations

INITIATION

TERMINATION

ENTRY

PROXIMITY

PROJECTION

E. Defining contingencies of symbolic communication

SINGIFICANCE

VALUE

EQUIVALENCE

OPPOSITION

CO-REFRENCIALITY

RECURRENCE