Identifying Subject in “Heart of Darkness” and Their Arabic Equivalents: A Systemic perspective

تحري الفاعل في رواية (قلب الظلام) وما يكافئه في اللغة العربية من منظور نظامي

رهف قحطان العطار  احمد سالم البزاز  ، احمد هاشم محمد  

الجامعة التقنية الشمالية / موصل، العراق

المستخلص

    يعد هذا البحث محاولة لدراسة تحري الفعل من منظور وظيفي نظامي باللغتين الإنكليزية والعربية، ويعطي نظرة عامة حول (الفاعل) في اللغة العربية وتجسيده باللغة الإنجليزية. كما يقدم شرحاً عاماً لنهج النحو الوظيفي النظامي، وخاصة نموذج هاليداي. يهدف هذا البحث إلى استكشاف الفاعل باللغة الإنجليزية وترجمته باللغة العربية، كما تحدد (الفاعل) في رواية "قلب الظلام" وتقيّم الطرق المستخدمة من قبل المترجمين لمعرفة ما إذا كانوا قد نجحوا أم فشلوا في ترجمة الفاعل باللغة العربية. النموذج المعتمد هو نموذج هاليداي (1985، و1994) فضلاً عن نموذج هاليداي وميثيسن (2004، و2014). أما فيما يتعلق بالترجمة، فتُعتمد تصنيفات نيو مارك (1988) للترجمة التي تتضمن الترجمة الدلالية مقابل الترجمة التواصلية. تخلص البحث إلى أن الموضوع في كل من اللغة الإنكليزية والعربية تتم ترجمته ضمن نظام ال (عمدة). كما يتم تسليط الضوء على بعض نقاط التشابه والاختلاف. ويميل المترجمون إلى تبني الترجمة الدلالية بدلاً من الترجمة التواصلية عند نقل الموضوع إلى النصوص العربية.

الكلمات المفتاحية:

النحو الوظيفي النظامي، نظرية هاليدي في النحو، الترجمة الدلالية والتواصلية.

1.Introduction

    Halliday’s theory of grammar, known as systemic functional theory, originated from J.R. Firth’s system-structure theory and was influenced by Prague School Functionalism and American anthropological linguistics.The first major descriptive effort was Halliday’s work on Chinese and this was a natural part of Firth’s emphasis on engagement with many different languages. Halliday’s theory was developed at the same time as Chomsky was working in the American context, and it is thus not a reaction to Chomskyan generativism nor Bloomfieldian structuralism, but in Hegelian terms could be described as their antithesis. Systemic theory holds that a clause is a linguistic unit that realizes several levels of meaning.Three metafunctions play a crucial role in the classification of these levels. Metafunction is the term used to describe how language is arranged into ideational, interpersonal, and textual meaning modes.

    Human understanding of reality is shaped by ideational meaning. Both ideational modes are described as follows: "In the logical mode, experience is modeled as a sequence, and in the experiential mode, experience is modeled as a configuration" (Matthiessen 2002a: 59). The experiential mode of expression is segmental, focusing on the constituents of the clause as the discourse progresses, in contrast to the logical mode of expression, which is rather serial and requires the reader to follow the development of the input through clauses that form interdependent chains(e.g. Senser Process: mental – Phenomenon).

    Interpersonal meaning enacts social roles and relations between people involved in verbal exchanges. In addition to construing the way in which people experience the world, language is also used as a means to exchange “information, goods-&-services(1). In Arabic, like in English, the interpersonal mode of expression is prosodic.It relies on certain intonation patterns which vary depending on whether the speaker is making a proposal or a proposition.

Textual language follows a periodic pattern. Information is arranged on the basis of prominence at clause rank that is constructed on newsworthiness, which is established by theme/rheme structures and what is new and what is old. On other hand Arabic text analysis, the Theme notion has even more implications because the clause could be either VSO or SVO, providing the writer/speaker with more possibilities and subtle differences to take into account.

    Concisely,the metafunctional principle of organization can be broken down into three interconnected layers or modes of meaning, which essentially represent three distinct perspectives on the same clause. These three levels, or meaning modes, are textual, interpersonal, and ideational. Particulate, prosodic, and periodic are their three distinct structural ways of expression (2).

2. 2. Clause as Exchange In Arabic:

    With regard to verbal exchanges, interpersonal meaning depicts the social roles and relationships of those involved. Language not only shapes people's perception of the world but also facilitates the exchange of "information, goods-&-services" (1).Similar to English, Arabic makes use of prosody in the interpersonal mode of expression, employing specific intonation patterns that differ based on whether the speaker is proposing or making a statement.

1.Where Muhammed has gone?

أين ذهب محمدٌ؟                                       

Table (1): An Interrogative Clause

    The expression of interpersonal meaning in Arabic is achieved through the use of declarative, interrogative, and imperative clause forms. A declarative clause in Arabic can be either nominal or verbal. A nominal clause does not contain a verb, whereas a verbal clause includes a verb (3).

2  Muhammed studied

 درسَ محمد

Table (2):  A Verbal Clause in Arabic

3. 3. Omer is adoctor                 عمرُ طبيبٌ

Table (3): A Nominal Clause in Arabic

   In Arabic,there is no grammatical differentiation between lexical and auxiliary verbs To form a negative clause, certain particles like ُلا, لم, and لن are employed. These particles are utilized for negating declarative clauses (4).

4. 4. I don’t know the question أنا لا اعرفُ السؤال

Table (4): Negative Clause Uses  لاParticle

5. 5. Layla will not go to the hospital

 لنْ تذهبَ ليلى الى المستشفى

Table (5): Negative Clause Uses لن Particle

.6 Sara didn’t say the truth                                                            لم تقل سارة الحقيقة

Table (6): Negative Clause Uses لم Particle

3. 3. Clause as Exchange in English

    The meaning between the speaker and the hearer is explained by the interpersonal metafunction, which is conveyed through the options of declarative, imperative, and interrogative moods. The mood systems involve choices made by the speaker for both themselves and their listener (5).

Each type of mood is closely linked to an illocutionary act: the declarative mood is used for making statements, the interrogative mood for asking questions, the imperative mood for giving commands, and the exclamatory mood for expressing strong feelings. The interpersonal metafunction focuses on the interaction between the speaker and the listener.Mood and Residue are the two divisions of a clause in the interpersonal metafunction. The mood element separates the subject and limited mood elements (6). The predicator, complement, and adjunct make up the residue element. Whether the subject is present or absent, as well as the sequence in which the subject and finite occur in relation to one another, determines the declarative, imperative, and interrogative structures.

Table (7): A Declarative Clause

Table (8): An Imperative Clause

    In the preceding examples,the declarative and interrogative phrase structures represent the presence of the subject, whereas the imperative clause form shows its lack.

4. 4. Translation definitions

   according to Jacobson (1962) translation is defined as (7) “the repetitive speaking process of receiving and transmitting a message in a source language into a target language. For  Ray (8), translation is defined as the process of transferring meaning from one language to another. Translating text into an equivalent text in a different language (TL) is what Catford (1965) defines as translation. Savory (9) conceives translation as "a craft that attempts to replace a written message and/or statement in another language".

4.1 Newmark Translation Theories

    Translation can be done in two ways, according to theory: communicative translation and semantic translation. The two approaches differ greatly from one another. A communicative translation would simply address the second reader, who would demand a liberal infusion of foreign materials into his own language and culture as needed, with no impediments or obscurities.  Newmark (1982) (10). However,because the original language text is the only source material for the translator's work, he must respect and work with its form in this case. Only when the reader is made aware of connotations that are integral to the text's main human (non-ethnic) message can semantic translation remain faithful to the original culture. Communicative translation aims to elicit from readers as near an impact as feasible.Newmark ((1982) (10)

4.2 Data analysis and discussion

Table (9)

     This is an example that elucidates that the subject in the TLT1 has an equivalent which is the hidden pronoun within the verb (احتمل)  (he /هو), since in the Arabic language there is  something called (hidden pronouns). Whereas the similar thing occur in the TLT2 and TLT3 In which the subject is the pronoun (he /هو) Identified as a hidden pronoun within the verb (حمل) for the same reason .It is found that all the translators use semantic translation for the subject, but in different form (hidden).

Table (10)

   In the TLT1, the translator uses semantic translation by translating the subject (The river) into (النهر) keeping its position in the sentence as a subject.And although the translator uses different Arabic form in translating (the river) into (النهر), in the TLT2 but it is also semantic translation because (Topic) in the TLT is considered as a subject in the SLT.Whereas the third one uutilizes se communicative translation by translating the subject into different Arabic form (Isim Kana).

Table (11)

     The previous example represents the various types of the semantic translations. In the first one, the subject is hidden within the verb (مضى) (time / وقت), in the second sentence the subject is (نحوُ), and the third one is just like the first one, the subject is hidden (hidden pronoun) within the verb

 (أقتربُ) (me / أنا).

Table (12)

    This example reveals the various forms of translating subject either as subject or as complement besides in all cases it takes the form of (pronoun). The first translator translates the subject as a (pronoun) which is (تُ) within the verb (أصبْتُ), in TLT2 and the TLT3 also translates it the same translation within the verbs (شعَرْتُ) and (صُعقتُ), but the TLT1 one and the TLT3 used passive voice. The pronoun (تُ) is considered as a subject in the TLT2 but in both TLT1 and TLT3 sentences are considered as complement.Therefore,the sentence in TLT2 is semantic, but in TLT1 and TLT3 the sentences are communicative.

Table (13)

    The example presented above shows that it all the translators realize the subject and translate it as a pronoun – which is (تُ) - in all the three sentences within the verbs (فقلتُ), (قلتُ), (أجبتُ), and all of them considered as a subject in the TLT.So, the translation in each case is regarded semantic.

Table (14)

    The translator in TLT1 and TLT3 translates the subject into a (bound pronouns) which is (ي) within (إني) and (إنني), and the translator in TLT2 translates it as  (freestanding pronouns) which is (أنا).The translation of all sentences is semantic one.

Table (15)

    In the aforementioned example,all the translations are semantic since all the translators translate the SLT subject into a (hidden pronoun) within the verbs: (ظهرَ) in TLT1, (جاءَ) in TLT2, and (أتى) in TLT3.

Table (16)

     In this example, the translator in TLT1 and TLT3 translates the subject into (حركةُ), and the second one translates it into (ألمرورُ), and all of their translations are semantic because they translate the STL subject in the same form of the TLT.

Table (17)

    In the example shown up, the first translator in TLT1 translates the subject into, (الغابات) he uses the semantic translation whereas the translators in TLT2 and TLT3 translate it into (الأحراشُ), both of them use the communicative translation in their translation.

Table (18)

    The translator in TLT1 and TLT3 translates the subject in the SLT into a (hidden pronoun) within the verbs (يقولُ) and (قالَ) which is TLT equivalent, so, their translations are semantic. But in TLT2, the translator ignores the subject and the verb in the SLT, and the subject has no translation in the TLT.Therefore,the translation, here, is communicative.

5. 5. Conclusions
6. 1. Interpersonal metafunctions with its subject can be realized in English and Arabic texts.
7. 2. The translators adopt the semantic translation rather than communicative in rendering the subject in the Arabic texts.The translator in the TL1 uses the semantic model in translation (90%) of the subject in the ST, the translator in the TL2 uses the semantic in translation (70%) of subject in ST, and the translator in the TL3 manipulates the semantic in translation (70%) of subject in ST.
8. 3. The grammar of both English and Arabic can be represented as a very large network of systems, an arrangement of options.
9. 4. In the Arabic language, the subject can be a name as in (الغاباتُ) in example 9, or a pronoun (within the verb) as in (قلتُ), the pronoun (تُ) is the subject.
10. 5. In some cases, the Arabic subject is (hidden) within the verb- and this is not possible in the English language - as in (ظهرَ), the subject is hidden and realized as (he / هو).

References

1.Halliday  M. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Sydney: Edward Arnold Ltd.1994.

2.Halliday M. A. K.  System and Function in Language: Selected Papers, ed. Kress G. London: Oxford University Press.1979.

3.Wright W.  A Grammar of Arabic Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1971,

4.Najim H K.  A Systemic Approach to the Study of The Clause as Exchange in Imperative and Exclamative Clauses in English and Arabic. Buhuth Mustaqbaliya.2008.

5.Berry  M.  An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics: Structures and Systems, Vol.2. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd. 1975.

6.Halliday M. and Matthiessen  M. Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. 2014.

7.Jakobson  R.   On Linguistic Aspect of Translation‖ In R.A. Brower: On translation, Cambridge. 1959.

8.Ray PS. A philosophy of translation‖ In: Babel, Vol. VIII, NO.4, pp.34. 1962.

9.Savory  T.   The Art of Translation. London: Jonathon Cape Ltd. 1968.

10.Newmark  P.   Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. 1982.