A Corpus-Driven Study of Maleki and Saffarzadeh’s Translations of Fa as a Qur’anic Discourse Marker

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Languages, Arak University, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Discourse markers play a crucial role in textual cohesion and coherence. By identifying patterns of discourse marker usage, valuable insights can be gained into the underlying communicative strategies employed by text producers. Qur’anic discourse markers are of particular significance for several reasons, making their translation a critical area of study. Accordingly, this article aims to examine the second most frequent, complex, ambiguous, and multifaceted Qur’anic discourse marker, fa, in a Persian and English Qur’anic parallel corpus from a pragmatic perspective. To this end, six ajzā (parts) of the Holy Qur’an were randomly selected as the research sample and served as the source text of the corpus. The Persian translation by Ali Maleki and the English translation by Tahereh Saffarzadeh were chosen as the target texts through purposive sampling. The bilingual parallel corpus was designed to facilitate the investigation of variations and trends across the two languages, thereby providing a more in-depth understanding of the translation process. The analysis of this corpus revealed that translators rendered this Qur’anic meta-discursive component figuratively, communicatively, and dynamically by employing four different types and 81 unique discourse markers to establish various logical relationships between discourse units. These discourse markers conveyed discursive functions of contrast, elaboration, inference, and temporality. This figurative and communicative system, adopted and adapted in the construction of discourse, is substantiated through different theoretical perspectives in discourse analysis and pragmatics. Beyond its contribution to discourse analysis by highlighting the complexities of language use and the interpretation of sacred texts across languages, the study’s findings offer valuable insights for translators in general, and for Qur’an translators in particular, by shedding light on the intricate yet subtle process of discourse construction and its crucial role in facilitating more effective communication.

Keywords

References

Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins Publishers. Anderson, G. (1998). The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In A. A. Jucker (Ed.), Discourse markers (pp. 147-171). John Benjamins Publishers.
Becker, M., & Egetenmeyer, J. (2018). A prominence-based account of temporal discourse structure. Lingua, 214(23), 28-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.08.002
Cartoni, L., & Zufferey, N. (2013). Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives: The translationspotting. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(8), 65-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5087/dad.2013.204                                                         
Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory (Rev. ed.). John  Benjamins Publishers. 
Crible, L., Abuczki, A., Burkšaitienė, N., Furkó Furkó, P., Nedoluzhko. A., Rackevičienė, S., ValūnaitėOleškevičienė, G., & Zikánová, Š. (2019). Functions and translations of discourse markers inTED talks. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(142), 139-155.
             https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012
Cummins, C. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(7), 22-43. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01779                                                                                                                    
 Dupont, M., & Zufferey, S. (2017). Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora: A case study of English and French concessive connectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 270-297.     
Egg, M., & Redeker, G. (2008). Underspecified discourse representation. In A. Benz, & P. Kühnlein (Eds.), Constraints in Discourse (pp. 117-138). (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series; No. 172). John Benjamins Publishers.
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-%20818X.2008.00104.x
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(4), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-%20818X.2008.00104.x                                                                                                      
Furkó, P. (2014). Perspectives on the translation of discourse markers. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 6(2), 181-196. http://doi.org/10.1515/ausp-2015-0013
Gholami, M., & Moosavi Fard, S. A. (2017). Strategies applied by native and non-native translators totransfer polysyndeton: A case study on the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(57), 23-38.                                                                                                                                   
House, J. (2018). Translation studies and pragmatics. In C. Ilie & N. R. Norrick (Eds.). Pragmatics andits interfaces (pp. 143-162). John Benjamins. The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers in English and Arabic. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. NewcastleUniversity.                                                                                                                 
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culturemeet. Longman.  
  Jiang, Z., & Tao, Y. (2017). Translation universals of discourse markers in Russian-to-Chinese. Zeitschrift fur Slawistik, 62(4), 583-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/slaw-2017-0037
Jones, R. H. (2012). Discourse analysis: A resource book for students. Routledge.                                                                                                                                                        Maleki, A. (2017). The Holy Qur’an: A gripping translation of the Qur’an using an interpretative and communicative method for adolescents and young adults. Qur’an Institute of Bahar-e Del. 
Mohammadi, A. M. (2021). An analysis of the underspecifications of “AND”: A case study in simultaneous translation in Iranian context. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 11(1),           67-80. http://doi.org/10.22059/JFLR.2021.321993
Mohammadi, A. M. (2022). A pragmatic analysis of the Qur’anic temporal discourse markers.            Translation Studies Quarterly, 20(78), 43-60.                                                                       
                 https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.17350212.1401.20.2.11.2  
Mohammadi, A. M. (2023). A pragmatic analysis of the Qur’anic discourse marker fa in parallel corpora: A study of two Persian translations of the Holy Qur’an. Translation Studies Quarterly, 21(81), 24-41. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.17350212.1402.21.1.5.1
Mohammadi, A. M., & Hemmati, A. (2023). A Pragmatic Analysis of the Translation of the Qur’anic Discourse Marker Thumma in Kurdish and Persian Parallel Corpora. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 15(1), 121-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2023.45545.2353
Mohammadi, A. M., Nejadansari, D., & Yuhanaee, M. (2015). The index of pragmatic uses and functions of well in university EFL classroom discourse: A case study in Iran. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 12(2), 86-116.
 Saffarzadeh, T. (2015). Translation of the Quran Al -Hakim (5th ed.). Oswah. Taghipour Bazargani, D. (2010). A comparative study on two translations of the Holy Qur’an‏:‏‎ A critical discourse analysis approach. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 49-64.
Taktabar Firouzjaei, H. (2016). The Holy Qur’an translated by Tahereh Saffarzadeh, a communicativetranslation into Persian. Modares Quranic and Hadith Researches, 2(3), 27-47.
Vaezi, M., Rasuli Ravandi, M. R., & Moseli, M. (2018). Translation analysis of emphasis devices of Qasr by negative (Lā) and exception (Illā) in some English translations of the Holy Qur’ān: A case study of Shakir, al-Hilālī-Muhsin Khān, and Irving Translations. Translation Studies Quarterly, 15(60), 50-71.                                                                                          
Yalsharzeh, R., & Monsefi, R. (2022). Ali Maleki’s audience-centered translation: A new approach to Qur’an translation. Language and Translation Studies (LTS), 54(4), 181-207. https://doi.org/10.22067/lts.v54i4.87769                                                                      
Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2015). The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes, 53(7), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
Zufferey, S. (2017). Discourse connectives across languages. Languages in Contrast,16(2), 264-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf
Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies
Volume 17, Issue 1
March 2025
Pages 155-174

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics