آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 54 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 2,632 |
| تعداد مقالات | 37,269 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 18,051,352 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,235,101 |
An Examination of Lexical Coherence in Three English Translations of Complementary Oppositions in Surah Al-An'aam | ||
| International Journal of Textual and Translation Analysis in Islamic Studies | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 2، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 6، تیر 2024، صفحه 172-187 اصل مقاله (470.03 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Research | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22081/ttais.2025.70251.1043 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Maliheh Taghavi Baghan؛ Mohammad Yazdani* ؛ Omid Akbari | ||
| Department of English Language, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 21 آبان 1403، تاریخ بازنگری: 21 بهمن 1403، تاریخ پذیرش: 21 اسفند 1403 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study investigates whether complementary oppositions (COs) in the Glorious Qur’ān have been accurately translated from Arabic into English. The research is based on Halliday and Hasan's (1976) theory of lexical cohesion, focusing on lexical cohesive devices in three selected translations of COs in Surah Al-An'aam. COs are defined as paired semantic opposites, where the negation of one reinforces the meaning of the other. This qualitative study employs an analytical-documentary method to evaluate the translations. Translators often face challenges, particularly with collocations, as they strive to preserve both meaning and form. The selected theoretical framework by Halliday and Hasan (1976) examines lexical cohesive devices such as repetition, collocations, and sense relations. The primary objective is to assess the lexical coherence of the selected translations and analyze the lexical relationships between English CO equivalents, which function as key cohesive devices. The study uses Arabic CO examples from Seyyedi and Baghojary (2020) alongside their English translations by Arberry (1955), Pickthall (1930), and Qaraa'i (2005), sourced from the online Tanzil Qur’ān Navigator. Findings indicate that Arberry’s translation demonstrates the highest lexical coherence due to its alignment with the Qur’ānic style and frequent use of collocations and contrasting repetition. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| al-An’aam؛ the Glorious Qur'an Translation؛ Complementary Opposition (CO)؛ Lexical Coherence | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Afrashi, A. (2002). Thoughts in semantics. Explore Culture.
Amery, M., & Hosseini, M. (2016). Review of English translations of the Qur'an by Arberry and Shakir and the recitation of the selected verses of Surah al-Ra'ad. Quarterly Research on the Interpretation and Language of the Qur’an, 8, 7–24.
Eghbali, A., Sayadinezhad, R., & Fazeli, M. H. (2017). Analysis of lexical coherence in Surah al-Ankabout. Journal of Interpretation and Language of Qur’an, 11, 91–110. https://doi.org/10.30473/Qur'an.2017.4711
Fasasi, K. A. (2020). Beyond semantic opposition: Contextual opposites in Osun dare's The Eye of The Earth. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 11(5), 48–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.11n.5p.48 (Note: Expanded "ALLS" to full journal name if possible.)
Ghazvini, M. N., & Eshani, T. (2015). Comparison of the use of cohesion factors in Surah Al-An'aam and its translation by Saffaarzadeh. Journal of Qur'anic Researches, 74(1), 120–145.
González, M. G. (2010). Lexical cohesion in multiparty conversations. Language Sciences, 33, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.08.002
Hassanein, H. (2020). Identical twins, different wombs: A literature review on ittibaaq in Arabic and antonymy in English. *International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 20*(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.20.2.1 (Note: Added journal title if available.)
Kenari, M. K., & Rahbar, N. (2022). Saussure according to Derrida: Writing as a usurper as ab order. Basic Western Studies, 26(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.30465/os.2023.40016.1803
Khammyseh, D. (2015). The problems in translating Islamic expressions in religious occasions. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35), 103–109.
Khazaeifar, A. (2018). Translator style. The Translator, 26(63), 3–12.
Kherghani, H. (2020). Synonyms in Surah Al-An'aam and its role in coherence. Qur'anic Researches and Tradition, 52(2), 285–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.22059/jqst.2020.294696.669433
Larson, M. L. (2011). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). University Press of America. (Note: Added edition if applicable.)
Lehrer, A. (1987). Markedness and antonymy. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670001032X
McGee, L. (2009). Traversing the lexical cohesion minefield. ELT Journal, 63(3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn040 (Note: Expanded "Oxford University Press" to journal name.)
Mirzapour, F., & Ahmadi, M. (2011). A study on lexical cohesion in English and Persian research articles: A comparative study. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 245–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p245
Naghib, S. M., Sazjini, M., & Mosavi, S. M. (2019). A comparative analytical study of Bahrampour's and Safavi's translations of the Qur'an: A case study of Surah al-Naazi'aat based on the coherence model of Halliday and Hassan. Qur'anic Studies and Islamic Culture, 2(4), 121–143.
Navidi, A. (2023). Lexical coherence in Surah al-Sajdah. *Journal of Literary-Qur’anic Researches, 1*(11), 32–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/paq.2023.708861
Oraki, G. H., & Visi, A. (2016). Examining the application of elements of textual coherence in Surah al-mubarakeh al-Naas and its Persian translation based on the theory of textual coherence by Halliday and Hassan. Qur'anic Sciences and Interpretation, 3(1), 129–146.
Seyyedi, M., & Baghojary, A. (2020). An attitude on the stylistic features of the Holy Qur'an in collocations. Astaan Quds Razavi. (Note: Italicized as a book.)
Shahpari, A., Mahdavinia, M., & Samavati, A. (2017). The role of cohesive factors in English translations of the Qur’an. Serajeh Monir, 8(2), 7–42.
Siddiek, A. G. (2018). Review of some orientalists’ approaches used in the translation of the Holy Qur'an. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 6(4), 38–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0604005
Sojudi, F. (2003). Applied semiotics. Ghesseh. (Note: Removed "Tehran" per APA 7th unless needed for retrieval.)
Taleghani, H. A. (n.d.). Lexical cohesion and its role in translation. Translator, 32, 64–75. (Note: Removed parentheses around issue number.)
Vaezian, H. (2013). Linguistic corpora and translation. Ghatreh.
Valiei, Y., Ahosaini, M. M., & Farhadi, M. (2016). Factors of textual coherence in Surah al-Nuh. Linguistic Research of the Qur'an, 9(1), 69–86.
Winiharti, M. (2010). Sense relations in language learning. Humanora, 1(1), 100–106. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 216 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 249 |
||