10 Mohammad A.T. SarairehBabel 47:1 1021 Fdration Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel

Inconsistency in Technical Terminology:A Problem for Standardization in Arabic

Mohammad A. T. Saraireh

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate a phenomenon that relates to theconfusion created by some translators between stylistic variation and incon-sistency with regard to lexical items in English-Arabic translation.

To be able to establish the source of the problem, it is necessary toidentify classes of lexical items as they pertain to translation. Al-Najjar, 1984(as well as Saraireh, 1990) argues that there are three classes of lexical itemswith regard to English-Arabic translation. Class One includes lexical items ofthe source language (hereafter, SL) which have equivalents in the targetlanguage (hereafter, TL). Class Two includes lexical items of the SL whichhave partial equivalents in the TL (i.e., there are some conceptual differencesbetween certain SL lexical items and their meanings in the TL). And ClassThree includes lexical items of the SL which do not have equivalents in theTL. In this case the translator has to resort to one of the techniques ofborrowing to establish a kind of concept-signifier correspondence for techni-cal items. Here we have one of the sources of the many problems forstandardization in Arabic, the numerous suggestions by different institutionsand practitioners in the field. Sometimes variation by using many synonymsis meant to be stylistic, and thus is deliberate. This problem may be labelledas inconsistency rather than stylistic variation in technical texts.

In the practice of English-Arabic translation, inconsistency is due toseveral factors: First, the lagging behind of Arabic institutions in Arabicizingthe ever-incoming terms, and, if dealt with, the poor circulation of the Arabicequivalents in proper time and ways (such as textbooks for students atdifferent levels). Second, the lack of coordination among Arabic LanguageAcademies in their efforts in dealing with foreign terminology. In reality,

Inconsistency in Technical Terminology 11

having many such academies contributes to making the problem even worse,because there is a tendency to legalize inconsistency for users throughout theArab World. Third, the wide gap between language planners and languageusers. There are many terms approved of by many different language institu-tions which are rejected by the users simply because language planners do notconsult with the targeted users for acceptability and accuracy of those terms.In many cases, users come up with better Arabic terms than those suggestedby the so-called language specialists.

Inconsistency may be noticed in a given one work of a certain translatoras well as across many works of several translators and lexicographers. In thefollowing paragraphs, the phenomenon of inconsistency and how it affectsthe process of standardization of Arabic technical terminology is discussed.

It is well known in the field of translation that when a borrowed concept(Class Three as suggested by Al-Najjar (1984) and Saraireh (1990)) is assigneda certain signifier in the TL, that kind of association must be emphasized by theuse of that signifier to represent that concept so that the concept-signifiercorrespondence is established in that language. Consistency, here, plays a veryimportant role in establishing and emphasizing that kind of concept-signifierrelationship in the active1 vocabulary of the TL users.

In a survey and analysis of some published English-Arabic translations astextbooks and other sources (mainly dictionaries), the present researcher hasfound evidence that there are many instances in which stylistic variation andinconsistency in using technical terms are confused. The problem arises andbecomes serious when inconsistency is mistakenly considered as stylisticvariation. Stylistic variation is a very well known literary device to make textsbetter by employing synonyms rather than just repeating the same word overand over in the same sentence or paragraph. Stylistic variation as a rhetoricaldevice requires the use of different terms for the same referent and it alsoinvolves purposeful verbal avoidance (De Waard & Nida 1986: 94). It,therefore, bears on synonymy as The lexical items whose senses are identicalin respect of central semantic traits, but differ, if at all, only in respect of whatwe may provisionally describe as minor or peripheral traits. (De Waard &Nida 1986: 94). For Nida (1964: 73) synonymy occurs when there are wordswhich share several (but not all) essential components and thus can be used tosubstitute for one another in some (not all) contexts, e.g. love and like. Alongthe same lines, Ulmann (1972: 62) describes synonyms as one sense withseveral names. Synonymous terms may pose a problem for translators when

12 Mohammad A.T. Saraireh

one-to-one correspondence is not possible especially for a newly establishedconcept-signifier relationship. Illyas (1989:50) argues that

Abundance of synonyms in a language does help the translator in someways, for he will have more freedom in selecting the equivalent, yet it cangive him much pain if he is not aware of the slight and acute denotationaland connotational differences between certain synonyms.

However, besides the well-known fact that lexical ambiguity results frommultiplicity of meaning of some lexical items in any text, another source thatthis paper sets out to identify stems from using synonyms to signify oneborrowed concept. But the second type of ambiguity is limited to technicaltexts. So ambiguity could be a source for writers of literary works and inpolitical discourse, but it is a problem in technical texts. Therefore, stylisticvariation in technical texts could cause a problem for the recipients to a greatextent, as will be illustrated in the subsequent sections of this paper.

For example, if any of the synonyms (X1, X2, or X3, etc.) of a givensignifier (X) which is assigned to signify a borrowed concept (Y) is usedinstead of that signifier (i.e., X), a kind of ambiguity may be created, espe-cially when the signifier (X) and that synonym (X1, X2, or X3, etc.) arealternately employed in a given translation. In this case, when the translatoruses a synonym (X1, X2, or X3, etc.) to signify the same concept (Y) ratherthan the newly assigned lexical item (X), the reader could be confused andmay not be able to follow the progress of the text assuming that there aredifferent meanings for each synonym. Or the text may communicate a mis-conception (i.e. the reader gets an idea other than that suggested by the authorof the original text). Therefore, it is difficult to establish any kind of standard-ization under this kind of synonymy. While the constant use of the signifier(X) to signify the concept (Y) results in: first, maintaining an unconfusingtranslation; and second, reinforcing the relationship between a newly intro-duced concept and its signifier so that they become established in the lan-guage at a relatively short time. Only here does it become possible not only toachieve standardization but to maintain it in communicative form as well.

The investigation of some translated textbooks and dictionaries indicatesthat standardization in Arabic technical texts can be affected by three types ofinconsistency, at least. The distinction between these types is based on thesource of the lexical items employed as illustrated below.

In Type One inconsistency, Arabic synonyms are employed to referalternately to a concept that has been introduced in Arabic although that

Inconsistency in Technical Terminology 13

concept has been exclusively assigned a certain Arabic signifier but not anyof its (i.e., the signifiers) synonyms. Consider these examples:English Items Arabic Items1. heavenly bodies a. ?ajra:m ulwiyya

bodies highb. ?ajr:am sama:wiyya

bodies heavenlyc. jism sama:wiyy

body heavenlyd. jirm falakiyy 2

body astronomical2. serum a. liqa

b. masl3. vaccination a. talqi:

b. tati:m4. radiator3 a.1 mia

radiatora.2 mia:

radiatorb. mubarrida

coolerc. daffa:ya

heater5. syringe a.1 miqana

a.2 miqana.3 a:qinab. ?ibra

needle (Al-Assal, 1998)

As can be seen in the above examples, there is an alternation in the use ofulwiyy high, sama:wiyy heavenly, and falakiyy4 astronomical al-though the term sama:wiyy is established in the language. The same alsoapplies to the two Arabic words for body/bodies, which are ?ajra:m (pluralof jirm) and jism (singular of ?ajsa:m) although the term jirm body and?ajra:m bodies are established as referring to space natural objects, such asplanets and stars.

With regard to serum, the word masl (lit. serum) is established in Arabic.Therefore, there is no need for another one such as liqa:h (lit. pollen/sperm),especially when the two words are used alternately in the same text toindicate the same concept. The problem extends beyond this point: The wordliqa:h refers exclusively to pollen or sperm, i.e., it has a sexual reference.

14 Mohammad A.T. Saraireh

The use of liqa:h in this sense could be considered as a metaphor, which isemployed in technical texts to fill in lexical gaps in the target language. Thisproblem is also manifested in the Arabic signifier for the English wordvaccine as shown in the following paragraph.

For vaccination the problem is even worse. The word talqi:h is basicallyemployed to mean pollination and impregnation but not vaccination, forwhich the word tati:m is designated. Therefore, the translator, even thougha professional one, is not only giving an inaccurate rendering when he usestati:m and talqi:h as synonyms to signify the concept of vaccination, buthe is conveying a misconception as well. In other words, the translator ismisleading the reader.

Examples from other different sources can also be given to illustrate thediffusion of this problem in Arabic.English Items Arabic Items1. tocology a. ilmu l-wila:da

science the-deliveryb. ilmu l-qiba:la

science the-tocologyc. sina:atu t-tawli:d

craft the-delivery2. injection a. ?ibra

needleb. uqna

injectionc. zurqa

mutation3. spray a. baxxa:x

sprayerb. raa:

drizzlerc. raa:

sprinkler4. extraction a. ?istixra:j

b. ?istixla:sc. ?istinza:d. xal

5. bandage a. isa:bab. dima:dc. riba:td. lifa:fa

(Al-Assal, 1998)

Inconsistency in Technical Terminology 15

6. drift a. ?inira:fb. ayada:n

7. grooves a. ?axa:di:db. taja:wi:f

8. harness a. mirbatb. taqmut-tawzi:

set the-distribution (distribution set)(Al-Smadi, 1997)

For a further discussion of this type, let us consider the following renderingsof the word computer:English Arabic Itemscomputer 1.a a:su:b

calculating device1.b a:sib

calculating device2.a rata:ba

regularity/routine2.b nia:ma

organizer

It is evident here that the different Arabic renderings are due to differentsource languages as an influencing factor for this kind of variation. When thesource language is English, it has at least two renderings: a:sib or a:su:b(which are derivations from the Arabic root sb to calculate); when thesource language is French, it also has two renderings: rata:ba or nia:ma(which are derived from the French concept organizer). The first pair isused in the eastern part of the Arab World, which is mainly influenced by theEnglish language (the word computer) as a result of the British mandate inthe region; the second pair, in the western part, influenced by the Frenchlanguage (the word ordinateur) because of the French mandate there. Whatmakes the problem even worse is not only that there are two different sourcesresulting in two tracks of rendition but the formation of more than one lexicalitem in each case.

Type Two inconsistency occurs when the translator employs Arabic andnon-Arabic items in the translation (i.e. loan forms and their Arabic equiva-lents are alternately used) to refer to the same borrowed concept whether inthe same text or in different texts. This type is illustrated by the followingexamples:

16 Mohammad A.T. Saraireh

English Arabic Loan formsWords Words1. telephone ha:tif tilifo:n2. radio miya: ra:dyu3. toxins sumu:m to:ksi:na:t4. camera ?a:lat taswi:r kamira:5. microscope mijhar maikrusko:b

[English text] (Bloom, 1971)[Arabic text] (Mufti, 1983)

Other examples are like the following:English Arabic Loan formsWords Words1. capsule bira:ma kabsu:la2. zinc xa:rsi:n zink3. chlorophyll yaxdu:r klo:rofi:l54. siphon miab si:fo:n5. hygrometer mirta:b haigro:mi:tar6. dosimeter mijra: do:simi:tar

(Al-Assal, 1998)

Again, the reader of the translated text may become too sensitive to the use ofsynonyms alternately, and he may look for a different meaning for eachsynonym in the translation although such sensitivity is not justified in the SLtext. In such a case, the translator employs loan forms and the correspondingArabic signifiers to refer to the same concept. The point, here, is that since theTL has equivalents already established to signify foreign concepts such asthose listed above then, what is the role of loan forms in the translation, andeventually in the process of standardization? The only justified employmentof a loan form and its native correspondence is when the relationship betweenthe foreign concept and the native signifier is new to the reader of the TL text.We should bear in mind that such foreign terms do not exist in bilingualdictionaries that the reader may consult. This method can also be used whenusers of the TL text have been using loan forms for concepts that nativesignifiers are newly assigned. For example, and assuming that the Englishword microscope has been only recently assigned the native lexical itemmijhar or users in Arabic have been using the loan form mikrosko:b, thetranslator can use the loan form when he introduces the item mijhar. How-ever, this practice should stop once the native signifier-concept is establishedin the TL and users do not have a problem in assigning the correct relation-ship between them. But the translator is not justified in alternating the use of

Inconsistency in Technical Terminology 17

the native signifier and the loan form because this practice could be damagingto the process of standardization in the TL.

In Type Three inconsistency, different derivations of the same Arabicword are alternately employed in the TL to refer to the same concept in theSL, as illustrated in the following examples:English Items Arabic Items1. chemical 6 a. ki:ma:wiyy

b. ki:miyyc. ki:mya:?iyy

[English text] (Bloom, 1971)[Arabic text] )Mufti, 1983)

2. chelation a. ra:bita kulla:biyyabond claw-like

b. ra:bita taka:lubiyyabond avidity

(Baalbaki, 1967)3. evaporator a. mibxar

b. mibxa:r4. radiator a. mia

b. mia:5. sedimentation a. tarassub

b. tarsi:bc. rusu:b

6. filtration a. tari:b. ?rtia:c. tarau

7. syringe a. miqanab. miqanc. a:qina

(Al-Assal, 1998)

In an attempt to test the accuracy of such translations (i.e., with inconsis-tency), the reverse translation method was used.7 Some students who were ina translation course were divided into two groups. One group was asked totranslate into English selected parts with the Arabic items for filtration(Item 7 in Type Three above). Some students assumed that there weredifferences between the four Arabic signifiers; others were puzzled about thealteration and, trying to maintain differences by giving different Englishwords and phrases, they provided awkward translations. The other group wasgiven the same texts but with one Arabic lexical item, namely tari:h, only tosignify the English word filtration. No students gave different English

18 Mohammad A.T. Saraireh

words for the Arabic word tari:h, nor did any of them get puzzled about themeaning. This simple, though effective, test shows that synonymy in techni-cal translation is synonymous to inconsistency and, thus, proves harmful.Without much effort, we can imagine what happens to the reader of suchconfusing, though stylistic, texts. This matter is at issue when the readers ofthe TL text are learners in their early stages, when they have a tendency totake the translated text for granted.

In some cases, namely semantic extension, the new meaning (i.e., theforeign concept) becomes part of the designative meaning of the word that ischosen (according to some semantic linking) to signify that concept in theTL. For example, the Arabic word mawja wave is used to signify electro-magnetic motion (mawja kahromina:ti:siyya) besides its earlier meanings(e.g. motion of water surface). The point, here, is that the translator shouldmake sure which meaning is intended in the SL text, that the matter shouldnot be left to the readers deduction, as long as this is not aimed at in the SLtext. This caution is emphasized when the text itself is not self-explanatory, inthe sense that which meaning is intended cannot be understood from thecontext.

Conclusion

Employing synonyms of any of the three given types in Arabic translation oftechnical texts, is harmful because of ambiguity and inconsistency in con-cept-signifier correspondence. Moreover, such inconsistency goes against theprocess of standardization which is vital for creating communicative vocabu-lary for technical vocabulary in the Arab World.

The text may become ambiguous and, thus, confusing to the readeralthough the original one is not. When the translated text becomes ambigu-ous, it is not only useless but misleading as well. Therefore, the text becomesunreliable, which could be extended to the translator himself. Moreover, suchpractices may lead to psychological noise, a case which may cause thereceptors of the message to reject it altogether.

Under inconsistency the establishment of concept-signifier relationshipin the TL is very much affected. That is, when the reader fails to make aconcept-signifier correspondence, he finds it difficult to follow the progressof the text. The employment of synonyms forces him to assume wrongly thatthere is a different meaning for each synonym. Therefore, the reader cannot

Inconsistency in Technical Terminology 19

make a one-to-one correspondence between the concept and its signifier inthe TL. In the field of translation (or in semantics in general), there are nocompletely synonymous expressions (De Waard & Nida, 1986: 140). Eachone of a set of synonyms (especially native ones, and not loan forms),although related to the same semantic domain, signifies a concept with somedegree of difference from any of the other synonyms in the same set. In otherwords, a synonym describes an object or a concept using features which aredistinct from those understood when another synonym is used. Therefore,when different synonyms are employed to refer to one concept, the readersattention is transferred to a different concept each time he encounters asynonym. This is because the reader is aware that one hundred percentsynonymy does not exist.

The role of the translator is to maintain a factual translation, not astylistic one, especially when style is at the cost of the message, thus giving adistorted, confusing message. I think that the reader is better off with a boring(by repetition) but accurate text rather than dealing with a stylistic butconfusing translation. Therefore, the translator should aim at a rendering ofthe message that is as clear to the receptors in the TL as is the original one tothe readers of the SL text. I would recommend a test to make sure that thetranslation is not misleading to the reader.

It could be concluded that inconsistency is not only a pointless varietyof style (Turner, 1976: 76) but can be a harmful one as well. Also, stylisticvariation is a form of inconsistency in scientific text, and therefore it shouldbe avoided.

Notes

1. As opposed to inactive words which exist in the lexicon of the language but are not usedby users because they are not acceptable.

2. This example is from Wehr (1976).3. The designation of the items mubarrida and dafa:ya actually depends on whether the

English item radiator is part of a cooling system (thus, mubarrida (cooler)) or part ofa heating system (thus, dafa:ya (heater)). So the rendering depends on the function ofthe English item. Therefore, it is not as bad as is the case with the other items as long asthe association does not cause a mistranslation.

4. This word collocates with taqwi:m (i.e., taqwi:m falakiyy) meaning astronomicalcalendar.

20 Mohammad A.T. Saraireh

5. This word, as well as other words such as tra:m tram and stu:diyu studio, indicatephonological language change in the syllable structure of Arabic. It is known thatArabic does not allow other than word-final consonant clusters (two consonants maxi-mum).

6. What makes it even worse is that the item in (c) is also used to mean a specialist inchemistry (It does not mean chemist for which the word saydaliyy (pharmacist) isused).

7. This simple test was conducted by the present researcher himself while teaching an MAlevel course in translation Technical translation. There were sixteen students in thatclass. Each group consisted of eight students. The students did not know that the simpletest was experimental until it was over so as to take the matter seriously. However,inconsistency was one of the topics for class discussion that day, and the test itselfprovided a good illustrative part of our discussion.

References

Al-Assal, M. 1998. Acceptability and Diffusion of Some Borrowed and Native Terms inMedical and Engineering Sciences. Unpublished MA thesis, Yarmouk University:Irbid. xv + 158pp.

Baalbaki, M. 1967 (1995) AL-Mawrid: A Modern English-Arabic Dictionary. 29th ed.,Dar E-Im Lil-Malayen, Beirut. 1118 pp.

Bloom, B., et al. 1971. Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of StudentLearning. McGraw-Hill Book Company New, York. xiv + 583 pp.

Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xiv +310 pp.

De Waard, J. & E. Nida. 1986. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalencein Bible Translating. Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville, Camden, New York. vii +224 pp.

Illyas, A. 1989. Theories of Translation. Mousel: Mousel University. 166 pp.Mufti, et al. (translators) 1983. At-Taqwimu Tajmii wa t-Takwinini li-t-Taallum.

McGraw-Hill Book Company New York. xi + 646 pp.Al-Najjar, M. 1984. Translation as a Correlative of Meaning: Cultural and Linguistic

Transfer between Arabic and English, Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Indiana University,Bloomington. 318 pp.

Nida, E. 1964. Toward a Science of Translation with Special Reference to Principles andProcedures involved in Bible Translating. Leiden. x + 331 pp.

Saraireh, M. 1990. Some Lexical and Syntactic Problems in English-Arabic Translation.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Wisconsin-Madison. xii + 327 pp.

Al-Smadi, M. 1997. Language Planning and Arabicization of Military Terms. Unpub-lished MA thesis, Yarmouk University. vii + 86 pp.

Turner, 1976. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 4: Style. Edinborough: T. & T.Clark. pp. 65-81

Ullmann, S. 1972. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: BasilBlackwell. 278 pp.

Inconsistency in Technical Terminology 21

About the AuthorMOHAMMAD A. SARAIREH is a professor of linguistics and translation at YarmukUniversity, Irbid, Jordan. His interests include research on translation, phonology, syntax,applied linguistics and computational linguistics. He has published several papers in thesefields and co-edited two books on translation issues (one in Arabic and the second inEnglish). Now he is working on computerised Arabic phonology and processes thatimprove or distort the message in translation.

Address: P.O. Box 4645 Yarmouk University, Irbid -21163 JordanEmail:saraireh@yu.edu.jo

AbstractStandardization is one of the basic elements of technical translation for proper communi-cation among the users of the target language text. Consistency in signifier-signifiedcorrespondence is vital to maintain proper standardization. However, there are manyinstances (in translation) in which stylistic variation and inconsistency in using lexicalitems are confused. The problem arises and becomes serious when inconsistency ismistakenly considered as stylistic variation. Stylistic variation is a very well knownliterary device to avoid repetition in texts by employing synonyms. Inconsistency ariseswhen a signifier which has been employed in the target language to signify a new borrowedconcept is alternately used with any of its synonyms. The translator may create a kind ofconfusion when he uses a synonym to signify the same concept rather than the assignedlexical item. Therefore, the reader may not be able to follow the progress of the textassuming that there is a different meaning for each synonym. The purpose of this paper isto investigate the different types of this phenomenon in English-Arabic translation.

RsumLa standardisation est un des lments de base de la traduction technique pour quunecommunication adquate entre les utilisateurs du texte dans la langue cible soit assure.La cohrence dans la relation entre le signifiant et le signifi est essentielle pour permettreune standardisation correcte.

Il existe, cependant, plusieurs exemples (en traduction) dans lesquelles une confu-sion apparat entre la variation stylistique et lincohrence dans lusage de lexmes. Lavariation stylistique est un moyen littraire bien connu pour viter les rptitions dans lestextes en faisant appel aux synonymes. Lincohrence sinstalle lorsquun signifi qui at utilis dans la langue cible pour rendre le sens dun nouveau concept emprunt estutilise en alternative avec dautres de ces synonymes.

Le traducteur peut crer une certaine confusion lorsquil utilise un synonyme poursignifier le mme concept plutt que le lexme consacr. Ds lors le lecteur peut ne plustre en mesure de suivre la progression du texte, car il suppose quil existe une significa-tion diffrente pour chaque synonyme.

Lobjet de cet article est dexaminer les types diffrents de ce phnomne dans latraduction de la langue anglaise vers la langue arabe.