Reconciliation for Refining the Quality of Arabic Translations of English Literary Texts: A Discourse-Oriented Approach

الموائمة لتحسين نوعية الترجمات العربية للأعمال الأدبية الإنكليزية بالاعتماد على النهج الخطابي

 عمار احمد محمود الحريثي ¹        عبد الرحمن احمد القزاز²    

¹ قسم الترجمة، كلية الآداب، جامعة الموصل، الموصل، العراق، ² قسم اللغة الانكليزية، كلية التربية الأساسية، جامعة الموصل، الموصل، العراق

 الخلاصة

يُقدِّم هذا البحث مفهوم الموائمة لغرض تحسين نوعية الترجمات العربية لروائع الأدب الإنكليزي. تعني الموائمة التي ترمي الى الوصول الى ترجمة مثلى احلال التوازن بين الاختلافات الثقافية واللغوية الموجودة بين النصوص الأم والنصوص الهدف. فمن بين الصعوبات التي يواجهها الشخص الذي يقوم بالموائمة هي الحاجة الماسة للموازنة بين أهمية السياق التاريخي والاجتماعي والثقافي للنص الأصلي مع الطلب المتزايد للغة والثقافة المستهدفة مع الإخلاص للغة الأصل. يفترض البحث وجود ضرورة لتحسين جودة الترجمات العربية للنصوص الأدبية الإنكليزية، وهو ما يمكن تحقيقه من خلال خطة الموائمة بين الترجمات. يعتمد تحليل البيانات على القصة القصيرة "برميل الأمونتيلادو" لإدغار آلان بو. يُجرى التحليل من خلال عرض نص من اللغة المصدر وتقييم ترجمتيه اللتين ترجمهما مترجمان محترفان، وذلك من خلال استخدام وظائف هاليداي لإزالة أي تناقضات في الترجمة. تكشف النتائج أن المترجمين قد يفشلون في تقديم ترجمات مناسبة اعتمادا وظائف هاليداي.

الكلمات المفتاحية: وظائف هاليداي ,الإعمال الأدبية , تحسين الجودة , تصميم الموائمة.

Introduction

Translation is a complex process in which intuition plays a substantial role in interpreting the SL writer's intentions. Languages vary in their lexical connotations, sentence structures, and rhetorical strategies, which are the only tangible tools for assessment. Therefore, it is not reasonable to talk about the adequacy of a translation rather than the degree of equivalence. Quality is relative, and the absoluteness of accuracy ceases where the end user imposes their own subjective style preferences in TT. Thus, quality standardization is fuzzy. For instance, should a poor ST be reproduced as a poor TT? Is it professional for a translator to act as a filter or an advocate for ST?

This question is examined by House (2001, pp. 243) (1): How can we tell when a translation is accurate? All the issues surrounding translation criticism center on this straightforward question. Furthermore, when evaluating the effectiveness of any translation theory, it is important to consider the nature of translation itself—that is, the nature of the relationship that exists between a source text and its translation. Different ideas of translation evaluation result from the fact that translation is fundamentally a process in which the meaning of linguistic units is to be maintained equivalent across languages.

It would be possible to give Arab readers the choice to select high-quality productions, as they are currently making desperate mistakes, with the great majority of poor translations on display. Some new salient renderings presented by competent translators are badly needed. The fact that previous studies are a trustworthy source of academic and professional scholarly guidance for literary translators and translation students should not be underestimated. Nonetheless, a professional adaptation process ought to significantly enhance existing practices by providing a framework for incorporating novel methodologies. The development of national versions necessitated identifying a streamlined process to meet the growing demand for professional translational products. OECD (2009, p. 89) (2) suggested resorting to double translation and reconciliation with prominent and distinguished source materials when one intends to refresh and develop their TT national versions.

1. Concept of Reconciliation

Reconciliation has not received the proper attention it deserves, as it is an important means of improving the quality of translations. Right at the very beginning, one needs to establish a fact. There are many terms used interchangeably with reconciliation by scholars. In this regard, Koller et al. (2012, p. 190) (3) affirm that the term ‘reconciliation’ can sometimes be used interchangeably with other terms like “‘agree,’ ‘resolve,’ ‘review,’ ‘harmonization,’ ‘consensus,’ ‘arbitrate or resolve discrepancies and differences,’ ‘synthesis,’ and ‘consult.’ Wild et al. (2005, p. 97) (4) define reconciliation as the comparison and merging of multiple forward translations into a single version. Tyupa (2011, p. 36) ( 5) employed the term ‘forward translation reconciliation,’ whereby the new version results from comparing the forward translations produced by two independent translators and merging them into a single version, either by one of the forward translators or by an independent translator.

A translator or group of translators reviews the TT versions in the reconciliation design to identify any mistakes that could cause the two versions to convey different meanings. At this stage, the translator or translators would focus on the quality of the translation. This review can be completed individually, in a group setting, or by a mix of group and individual work, as Geisinger (1994, p. 306) ( 6) proposes. The best approach, according to Geisinger (1994, pp. 306-7) (6), is to have the translators examine the items and respond in writing first, then have the people exchange comments, resolve any disagreements, and make any necessary adjustments to the original and/or modified language versions. Koller, et al. (2012, p. 189) (3), who do stress the fact that relatively little attention has been given to specifying the characteristics of this process in full detail, believe that reconciliation is the process by means of which one single translation is composed, depending on the merger of two or more independent forward translations.

To sum up, reconciliation, in principle, is a translation quality assessment tool used to test the validity of previously presented translations. Reconciliation is part of a complex translation process that varies considerably depending on the research field and the aims of the translation project, so it cannot be used as a stand-alone tool. It is simply retranslating the source text into the target language to remove any remaining divergences from the first two translations. Therefore, because reconciliation is regarded by some scholars as a component of a complex translation process that varies by field of study and the objective of the translation project, it is of utmost significance to note that it should not be used as a stand-alone tool. However, it is an integral component. On this basis, the following definitions from some scholars are worth noting. In this regard, Wild et al. (2005, pp. 96-7) (4) referred in detail to the concept of reconciliation as a step in the translation process. Tyupa (2011, p. 39) (5), as well, tagged reconciliation as a step. Koller et al. (2012, p. 194) (3), who are on the same line, define reconciliation as an essential step in the translation process, seeing that it is difficult to formalize and also prone to subtle group and influence processes.

2. Reconciliation as a Cross-Cultural Activity

Reconciliation involves opting to realize equivalence in languages through a third independent translation of the exact SL text. For example, in experiments involving cross-cultural comparisons, reconciliation can help improve the validity and reliability of the TL text. The first two translations are compared to each other to determine how identical these two different TL versions are, to spot places where there are differences in the two different TL versions, and to try and clarify or remove ambiguities in case there are spotted divergences. Reconciliation ensures that the quality of a translated material is verified by an independent translator, who will translate it again into the very TL language.

The translator would present the reconciled version of the test after making the necessary judgments about whether the two TTs are identical to the ST. Wherever nonequivalence is spotted, changes in the reconciled version are considered. The idea is that the more effective the reconciliation process has been, the more the reconciled version should look pretty much like the ST in content, form, and effect.

When tackling culture, Newmark (1988, p. 94) (7) divides words into two significant categories: universal and cultural. He claims that cultural terms are the underlying cause of translation issues. Cultural terms cannot be translated literally if there is no cultural overlap between the source and target languages. Nida (1997, p. 189) (8) makes it crystal clear how essential it is to take cultural differences into account when he announces that "knowledge of the source culture often proves more important than linguistic expertise." According to Nida (1997, p. 189) 8, most grief translation errors result from insufficient knowledge about and sensitivity to cultural diversity. Muhammed & Al-Qazaz (2024, p. 84) (9) similarly argue that the potential shift in the message's intended meaning is caused by cultural specificity.

Beaton et al. (2000, p. 3186) (10) propose a process called ‘cross-cultural adaptation’ in which reconciliation is termed ‘synthesis of the translations.’ This process aims to achieve equivalence between the source and target texts, based on their content.

Consequently, the designation of translators as cultural mediators is influenced by their cultural competence. The translator does seem to be a channel of mediation that facilitates understanding between speakers of widely different languages and cultural beliefs. Hatim & Mason's (1990, p. 223) (11) viewpoint endorses the idea that the translator serves as a mediator and points out that, in the absence of the translator, communication between the parties involved may be incredibly difficult.

3. The Reconciliation Design

  The reconciliation design compares two separate translators' versions of one SL text to a reconciliation translation from a third translator. This means that the prerequisites for the reconciliation design are two separate forward translations by two different translators and a reconciliation by a third party (OECD, 2009, p. 87)(2). Similarly, EORTC Quality of Life Group (2017, p. 6)  (12) states that a reconciled translation is done based on the two forward translations. This entails that the third party, i.e., the reconciler, reviews and tests the two translations to produce the best possible version, either by selecting one of the two forward translations or by combining them based on their appropriateness. EORTC Quality of Life Group. (2017, p. 7) (12) states that the reconciler’s job is integrated within the responsibilities of what he tagged as ‘translation coordinator.’ The translation coordinator, however, is responsible for organizing the whole translation process, which includes checking the forward translations, reconciling them by him/herself or by a third party, preparing reports, answering inquiries, performing pilot testing, and sending updates to the translation unit, which is responsible for monitoring the whole translation process.

The reconciliation design, or what is sometimes called a double translation design, offers, as OECD (2009, p. 87) (2) suggests, two significant advantages over the well-known back translation design:  

1. As far as the double translation design is concerned, three distinct individuals, two translators and a reconciler, who separately work on the source and target versions, are employed to achieve equivalence between the two. In contrast, only the first translator uses both the source and target versions simultaneously in a back-translation design.

2. Discrepancies are noted directly in the target language rather than in the source language, as in a back translation design.

For Koller et al. (2012, p. 189) (3), reconciliation is prone to specific group processes that could affect the translation results, as it may involve two or more translators. As for Wild et al. (2005, pp. 97-98) (4), the manpower incurred for carrying out the reconciliation design is as follows:

1. Forward translators: They are the forward translators who are responsible for carrying out and developing the TT versions. Professional translators who are fluent in the source language, typically English, and are native speakers of the target language are ideal choices. Forward translators with experience translating patient-reported outcome measures and who live in the target nation are preferred and recommended.(Wild et al.2005, p.97 ) (4)

2. Independent translator: A translator who may be employed to wrap up the reconciliation process. In addition to being proficient in the source language and a native speaker of the target language, he or she should also live in the target country and have extensive experience translating patient-reported outcome measures.

According to Koller et al. (2012, p. 194) (3), there are five approaches to reconciliation, emphasizing the lack of consensus among current guidelines on how to manipulate and implement the reconciliation of forward versions and how to reconcile forward translations. The exact distinctions among the five approaches are difficult to draw. However, they are as follows:

1. Third-party resolves discrepancies: This approach is adopted in this study. A third independent party handles the entire reconciliation.

2. Discussion: According to this approach, translators and/or members of the third party meet together, assess translations, and agree on a single forward translation through discussion or collaborative translation.

3. Consultation among translators: This approach is used when two translators draft forward translations and then collaborate to create a single forward version.

4. Combined approach: A third party settles disagreements and discussions. This approach combines the first and second approaches. To arrive at a reconciled forward translation, this entails having a third-party linguist resolve any disparities and engaging in discussions with the project manager, reconciliation linguist, and original translating linguists.

5. Mixed stepwise approach: Small discrepancies are arbitrated among the translators, the local project coordinator, and the translation coordinator. A third translator or a new translation may be needed if differences persist or cannot be resolved.

Wild et al. (2005, p. 99) (4) maintain that there are three approaches to reconciliation, highlighting that there is very little agreement among existing guidelines on how forward translations should be reconciled and how the reconciliation of forward versions should be carried out.

1.a translation panel made up of the project manager, the forward translators, and the primary in-country translator;

1. an impartial native speaker of the target language who did not participate in any of the forward translations; and

2.An appointed in-country investigator who has been appointed to conduct pilot testing and cognitive debriefing and who might have prepared one of the forward translations.

The reconciliation design, by Beaton et al. (2000, p. 3188 10), is termed ‘synthesis of the translations.’ It is regarded as a stage in an overall process aiming at completing a cross-cultural adaptation process that is being recommended by the outcomes committee of the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), so as to coordinate the translations of various components. In this regard, Beaton et al. maintain that the two translators and a recording observer cooperate together in synthesizing the overall outcomes of the two forward translations in question. The first translator’s version, T1, and the second translator’s version, T2, are merged and resynthesized to produce a single common translation, T-12; this synthesis is accompanied by a written report documenting the process. For EORTC Quality of Life Group (2017, p. 9) (12), reconciliation is the process by which the translation coordinator or a third translator combines the two forward translations into a single translation. Finding the best translation for each item from the two forward translations is the primary objective of the reconciliation process.

One last point is that reconciliation is the area with the greatest variation, as there are different ways to carry it out. Presenting all of the divergent views made it obvious that it was appropriate in light of the guidelines, which was the strategy used in this instance to rectify the gap. We tried to be as inclusive as possible in offering choices for how the different processes can be completed, given the consensus-building process. The specifics of how to complete each part were less important than ensuring that every step was addressed, so long as consensus was reached on the broader steps necessary to create a high-quality, linguistically accurate translation.

4.  Methodology

Translator and discourse and the relation between the two are the notions that will be thoroughly investigated in a proper manner that will be distinct from that of earlier translation studies. By drawing on findings from semiotics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and discourse studies, researchers investigate the processes and outcomes of translation within their own social contexts. The paper emphasizes the importance of translators as discoursal mediators. 

In translation studies, discourse analysis has become increasingly prevalent. It examines how language conveys meaning and looks into the effects of power dynamics and social interactions. Munday (2001, p. 89) 13 thinks that the primary model that impacted the writings of well-known linguists like Basil Hatim & Mason's ‘Discourse and the Translator’ (1990) (11) and ‘The Translator as Communicator’ (1997), as well as House's (1997) ‘Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited’ and Mona Baker's (1992)  (14)‘In Other Words,’ was Halliday's systemic functional approach.

In other words, Halliday's approach to language has influenced his discourse analysis model, which is founded on systemic functional grammar. The study of language as a means of communication is its main objective. He observes a relationship between the sociocultural framework and the surface-level realizations of linguistic functions that significantly impacts the translation process (Munday, 2001, p. 90).(13)

Having explained all that in full detail, a review of Halliday's theory of meta-function must be presented first. This theory will be adopted as a methodology to assist in the Arabic translation of the English literary text.

Three macro-functions of language are involved, according to the Hallidayan approach: the ideational function, the interpersonal function, and the textual function.

From Halliday's perspective, language is a combination of action and reflection as well as interpersonal and experiential metafunctions. He claims that every time someone writes or speaks in their daily activities, they enact a form of interpersonal force and form a particular aspect of experience (Halliday, 2007, p. 375) (15).

Halliday, generally speaking, regards the interpersonal and the textual metafunctions to be as important as the ideational meta-function.

 When one talks about grammar as a theory of human experience, one is, obviously, focusing on the ideational meta-function; and since this is the aspect of grammar that is almost always given greatest prominence, I want to reject, explicitly, the suggestion that it has some kind of priority. Neither historically nor functionally is ideational meaning more basic or more potent than the other components of human semiosis. To say this is not simply to give value to the interpersonal and textual domains. (Halliday, 2007, pp. 50-51) (15).

This model combines levels and functions. Halliday & Hasan (1976) (16) identified three goal-related functions of language, which are as follows:

1. The interpersonal function is using language as a personal medium to convey the author's identity, opinions, attitudes, etc., during the text-creation process. It is the means by which the speaker and the hearer establish communication. The interpersonal function concerns how language expresses attitudes and emotions, how people respond to each other, and how it can be used to assert or question power, status, and authority in social interaction. The interpersonal function is defined by Halliday & Hasan (1976)  (16) as follows:

 The social, expressive, and conative functions of language, with expressing the speaker's/writer's "angle": his attitudes and judgments, his encoding of the role relationships in the situation, and his motive in saying anything at all… the interpersonal component represents the speaker in his role as an intruder. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp.26-27) (16)

As far as the interpersonal function is concerned, language, as a means of social interaction, serves to enact, establish, create, negotiate, and maintain social relationships with others. It upholds social roles and identities, and enables people to perform social roles and helps them position themselves in relation to others. It also facilitates social interactions, such as conversations, discussions, and negotiations. This function, operating at the discourse level, concerns how communication between the writer and the reader is established. Thus, this function is fulfilled by the writer through his/her way of using language, which determines the text’s characteristic features and its effect on the reader.

2. According to the ideational function, people's experiences, viewpoints, and comprehensions of the world are represented and reflected through language. The ideational function, which makes people conceptualize the world around them, is integral to the text's information and contents. It is the manner in which the data is presented. It conveys the speaker's point of view. The ideational function is about how language represents and reflects our understanding of the world, enabling people to share knowledge, create meaning, and make sense of their experiences. There are two components to this function:

  the experiential and the logical, the former being more directly concerned with the representation of experience, of the 'context of culture' in Malinowski's terms, while the latter expresses the abstract logical relations which derive only indirectly from experience. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 26)(16).

The ideational function is concerned with the semantic choices expressing the image which the writer wants to create in his/her reader’s mind. The ideational function is also concerned with how language represents objects, people, places, and/or animals, describes events and processes, and conveys ideas and concepts. Mainly, language does this by employing various linguistic resources, such as lexis, grammar, and semantics.

3. The textual function focuses on the texture of the text. This function concerns the writer's capacity to turn writings and utterances into texts. It refers to the linguistic organization and structure of the material. In Halliday's words, or the arrangement and structure of the text:

 There is a third component, the textual, which is the text-forming component in the linguistic system. This comprises the resources that language has for creating text, in the same sense in which we have been using the term all along: for being operationally relevant, and cohering within itself and with the context of the situation. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 27) (16)

The textual function, on the discourse level, is determined by the syntactic ordering of the text. The syntactic ordering is based on the two principles: segmentation and cohesion. Segmentation is the way in which the information is divided into sentences, clauses, and phrases; cohesion is the way in which these parts are linked. The textual function concerns how language creates texture, using various cohesive devices, such as pronouns, conjunctions, and ellipses, that link words, phrases, and clauses to uphold a cohesive and coherent text. The textual function establishes thematic structure by organizing information logically. It utilizes transition words and phrases, like ‘however’, ‘in addition’, and ‘meanwhile’, that synchronize ideas, signal shifts in the text, and manage information flow by controlling and tracking it.

These three functions are interrelated, interconnected, and operative in every linguistic expression. However, because its performance dictates how the other two operate, the interpersonal function is the most crucial.

Having taken the above methodology into account, one would easily see that presenting an appropriate translation and eliciting the same reactions to the text are prerequisites for advancement in the translation profession. However, it is far from easy to determine an appropriate equivalence when translating English literary masterpieces. As a result, when the recipient of the TT does not respond to the text in a manner comparable to that perceived by recipients of the SL text, translation problems arise. Consequently, when Arabic readers read a work of English literature in Arabic, they may not always feel and perceive the same things that typical English readers do when they are given the original SL text.

5. Data Analysis

The present section investigates the appropriateness of the translations of “The Cask of Amontillado,” written by Edgar Allan Poe. In summary, in Edgar Allan Poe's short story "The Cask of Amontillado," a man named Montresor vows to seek revenge on a fellow named Fortunato for insulting him. After seeing Fortunato at a carnival, he entices him into his home's catacombs and buries him alive. The two translations selected are authentic and published versions translated by two prominent, competent, and well-known translators, namely, Akawi, Rihab (2009) and Al-Halwani, Ghada (2015). ‘The Cask of Amontillado’ holds great literary significance due to its profound human reflections and thoughts, as well as the linguistic implications it conveys. Edgar Allan Poe demonstrates the disintegration of civilization under the force of the raw and untamed nature of human beings in his short stories, displaying vivid realism and a captivating imagination. The incongruities of the enigmatic atmospheres that dominated his life have always fascinated him, and they eventually surfaced as intricate symbols in his later works.

The discussion focuses on the potential discrepancies between the SL text and the TL texts. Such potential discrepancies result from failing to capture the message's intended meaning, the thing that is caused by different specificities, which could ultimately result in putting forth inappropriate renderings. After explaining the errors and/or mistakes found in the selected English sentences, according to Halliday & Hasan’s methodology (1976) (16), which comprises the corpus of the paper, full interpretation and data analysis are conducted to justify the reason why the translations were not that appropriate and did not come up with some refined, reconciled version that evades the pitfalls that the translators couldn't overcome. If the translators skip something or present somewhat erroneous renderings of the chosen sentences, a new reconciled version is provided to put things right in light of the adopted methodology.

St. (1)

Table (1)

Interpretation:

The SL text reflects the intention of the speaker to convey his tolerance of Fortunato's previous wrongdoings, and his decision to seek revenge in retaliation for being insulted. The SL text utilizes a complex sentence structure containing subordinate clauses endeavouring to create a sense of nuance and subtlety. The writer uses a formal and somewhat archaic style, with phrases such as "The thousand injuries of Fortunato" and "I vowed revenge" so as to mirror an air of gravity and solemnity. The speaker's use of the phrase "I had borne as I best could" emphasizes his personal tolerance.

Discussion:

Here's a discussion of the given translations based on the Hallidayan metafunctions of ideational, textual, and interpersonal:

On the ideational level, in TL text 1, the use of “انزل بي فورتوناتو القدر الكبير من الاذى” has nothing to do with ‘the thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne.’ There is not the least illusion to the ‘injuries borne.’ the phrase ‘القدر الكبير من الأذى’ is not the best translation of ‘thousand injuries’. TL text 2 uses “الاف الجروح”, when the SL text clearly says ‘thousand.’ The use of “الجروح” is somewhat confusing.

On the interpersonal level, no comment is worthwhile, except for the following. TL text 1 uses a more formal and poetic tone, with phrases to create a sense of grandeur and emphasis. However, the use of "أنزل بي" instead of "تحملت" changes the nuance of the sentence, making it sound more passive. TL text 2 uses a more literal and less formal style to create a sense of directness and simplicity. The use of "تحملت" makes the sentence sound more personal.

On the textual level, TL text 2 could have been more successful if “باقصى ما استطيع” was used instead of “باقصى ما بوسعي”. The first sounds more Arabic. TL text 2 employs a corresponding sentence structure, with the cohesive device ‘لكنه’ to show contrast.

Readers lose some of the original text's intricate details given that TL text 1 adopts a more formal and less literal tone. The full details and subtleties of the original language are not fully conveyed by the translation given by TL text 2, which is a little more literal. It utilizes a more straightforward sentence construction.

Reconciled Translation and Justification:

The original text's meaning, including the subtleties of the phrase "thousand injuries" and the premise that Fortunato's insult was the very last straw, is appropriately conveyed in this translation. Depth, and accuracy are all well-balanced in this translation. This translation appropriately shows the intention of the speaker, using phrases such as ‘ تحملت ألف اساءه’  to emphasize the extent of Fortunato's wrongdoings. Although the language used is simpler, the speaker's intention is still imparted. It makes greater use of coordination and exhibits a simpler sentence structure. It uses a formal style, with phrases such as ‘اقسمت ان انتقم منه حين تجرا على اهانتي’ to create a sense of seriousness and importance. HE  employs the same formal way, which simultaneously conveys an air of formality and intimacy with the listener . IN SO DOING , THE TRANSLATOR C0NVEYS  the speaker's intention by demonstrating his tolerance of Fortunato's past wrongdoings, but his decision to seek revenge upon being insulted. It additionally utilizes language to create a formal and serious air. All things considered, it is the most precise and insightful translation. It uses a more conversational style, with phrases such as "ألف اساءه" to create a sense of closeness.

Given this, the reconciled translation most appropriately conveys the meaning of the SL text, by employing the singular form "ألف إساءة" to translate "thousand injuries". Additionally, the translation retains the original text's subtleties, expressing the speaker's tolerance of Fortunato's previous offenses and his will to take revenge after being insulted.

ST(2):

Tabel 2

Interpretation:

The SL text represents the speaker's intention to clarify his statement and reassure the listener that he did not intend to threaten. It uses a complex sentence structure with subordinate clauses to create a sense of nuance and subtlety. It uses a polite and courteous way to establish a sense of intimacy and shared understanding.

Discussion:

On the ideational level, TL text 1 wasn't successful in choosing “اكتفيت بالتهديد” because ‘will not suppose’ in the SL text denies any utterance of a threat. TL text 1 translated the second person pronoun ‘you’ into the third person implied pronoun “هو” in “ولن يتصور من يعرف”. TL text 2 may have added “مع قسمي” for  connective reasons. The word ‘however’ is ignored by both translators.

On the interpersonal level, the use of “صرحت” by TL text 2, is too loud a choice for the hush hush ‘gave utterance.’ TL text 1, mistakenly, chooses the third person ‘من يعرف طباعي’ instead of the more social intimacy which can be deduced from the second person ‘you’. As such , TL text 2 adds some extra words and phrases that are not present in the ST, which changes the emphasis of the message. TL text  1 uses a more direct and blunt style, which loses some of the politeness and courtesy of the ST. TL text 2 uses a more emotive and dramatic tone, with added phrases such as ‘مع قسمي’ as he endeavours to create a sense of intensity and passion.

On the textual level, both translators were incapable of mirroring the word ‘however’ in their TTs. TL text 1 uses a simpler sentence structure, which loses some of the subtlety of the ST. TL text 2 uses a more complex sentence structure, but adds some extra words and phrases that disrupt the cohesion of the text.

Reconciled Translation and Justification:

This translation accurately conveys the meaning of the SL text, including the nuances of the phrase ‘You, who so well know the nature of my soul’ and the idea that the speaker is clarifying that he did not explicitly threaten someone. The reconciled translation uses the phrase ‘انكم’ which is as formal and conversational as the ST. It is the most suitable choice because it successfully strikes a good balance between style, and appropriateness. It accurately conveys the meaning of the ST, and the phrase "يا من تعرفون طبيعتي حق المعرفة" is a nuanced translation of "You, who so well know the nature of my soul". It is more appropriate since it expresses the speaker's intention to reassure the listener and provide clarification on his prior statement. It incorporates a complex sentence structure identical to the ST such as "غير انكم" to create a sense of contrast. Similar to the ST, it fosters a sense of social intimacy and mutual understanding by using an appealing and respectful way.

Overall, the most appropriate translation is the reconciled one, which expresses the speaker's intention to comfort the listener and provide clarification on his earlier statement. It additionally utilizes language to establish a sense of intimacy and mutual understanding, as well as to create a courteous and polite translation.

ST(3):

                                           Table (3)

Interpretation:

The SL text effectively balances the ideational, textual, and interpersonal aspects to convey a sense of determination, calculation, and caution. The complex structure and formal style contribute to a nuanced portrayal of the speaker's mindset and approach to revenge.

On the Ideational Meta-function, the text conveys the idea of determination for revenge, a settled decision made after some time ‘At length’, and the careful consideration of risk emphasizing that this issue was unquestionably resolved. The speaker has resolved to avenge themselves but in a way that precludes risk, indicating a calculated approach, nevertheless the certainty of the resolution eliminated the least possibility of danger.

On the Textual Meta-function, the structure is complex, with two clauses connected by a semicolon. The first clause ‘At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely settled’ establishes the determination, while the second clause ‘but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved, precluded the idea of risk’ adds a layer of calculation and caution. The use of the adversative ‘but’ indicates a contrast between the determination and the cautious approach.

On the Interpersonal Meta-function, the style is formal, determined, and calculating. The speaker's voice conveys a sense of resolve and careful planning. The use of words like ‘definitely settled’ and ‘precluded’ adds to the formal and deliberate way, suggesting a speaker who is in control and thoughtful in their actions.

Discussion:

On the ideational level, rendering 1 conveys the idea of determination for revenge while avoiding punishment. However, it slightly deviates from the original's implication of a calculated decision made over time ‘At length I would be avenged’. TL text 1 is concise and clear but might not fully capture the nuance of the original text regarding the timing and calculation of the revenge

On the textual level, the structure is concise, effectively conveying the speaker's intent. For the sake of economy, any rendering should be as concise as possible taking into consideration not to ignore the SL details

On the interpersonal level,  the tone is assertive and determined. It seems to slightly amplify the certainty and desire for revenge without punishment compared to the original.

TL text 1 seems to prioritize clarity and directness in conveying the determination for revenge while avoiding punishment. The directness of the message is prioritized over stylistic fidelity to the original. It is concise but might not fully capture the nuance of "At length I would be avenged" and the risk aspect.

On the ideational level, the first part in TL text 2 ‘ففي النهاية سوف أنتقم لنفسي، هذه نقطة حسمتها بوضوح، غير أن الوضوح ذاته الذي اتخذت به قراري حال دون فكرة الخطر’ effectively conveys the idea of determination and calculated risk. The second part ‘سوف انتقم لنفسي بعد طول انتظار’ adds a sense of delayed action but feels somewhat disconnected from the first part.

On the textual level, the structure is somewhat disjointed because of the combination of two different translations. This affects the overall coherence. TL text 2 effectively conveys the determination and calculation but suffers from structural disjointedness, making it less cohesive.

On the interpersonal level,  the tone is determined and assertive, but the disjointedness might affect the overall impact.

This rendering is a bit wordy and longer than the original. This translation is clear and maintains the essence of the message but might slightly differ in emphasis compared to the original.

Reconciled Translation and Justification:

There is a need for a more effective rendering might balance the clarity and conciseness of the first rendering with the nuanced capture of determination and calculation from the second, while maintaining coherence and cohesion.

On the ideational level, this rendering effectively conveys the idea of determination and calculated risk. The phrase ‘كان هذا أمرآ محسوما ومقضيا’ conveys the sense of resolve, while ‘كان محسوما الى الحد الذي جعلني استبعد فكره التعرض للخطر’ highlights the careful consideration and calculation of risk. This rendering effectively captures the essence of the original text. It's a good balance between brevity and fidelity to the original

On the textual level, it is well-structured and coherent, with a clear logical connection between them. The use of ‘كان محسوما’ in both cases creates a sense of continuity and emphasizes the definitiveness of the decision. It maintains coherence and cohesion, with a clear structure that mirrors the original's logic.

On the interpersonal level, the style is formal and determined, conveying a sense of resolve and calculation. The language is objective and assertive, which suits the context of the original text. The style and formality are consistent with the original, conveying a sense of determination and apprehended risk.

6. Results

After thoroughly analyzing the translations of three sentences by two distinguished translators from ‘The Cask of Amontillado’, it is found that there are many inappropriate renderings, which reflect an unawareness of all the Hallidayan metafunctions on the part of the translators. Justifications for furnishing reconciled versions are also provided in case the reader is unaware of why the changes occur at all and why the reconciled versions are needed.

7. Discussion

Since translation is essentially a procedure in which the meaning of linguistic units is to be preserved equally across languages, many concepts of translation evaluation arise. Potential disparities arise from a failure to convey the intended meaning of the message, resulting from varying levels of specificity and ultimately leading to inappropriate renderings.

8. Conclusion

The following conclusions and findings are anticipated to be quite beneficial in the future.

 This paper, which has assessed the Arabic translations of English literary texts aiming at improving the quality of the translations in general, comes out with the conclusion that working on presenting reconciled versions for the already-translated distinguished or classic literary works is reckoned to be a must. The present paper, which has explored the successfulness of translators when translating English literary texts into Arabic from different perspectives in a feverish quest to figure out the main and core reasons that led to putting forth inappropriate renderings, finds out that the two TL versions do not carry the same effects on the readers of the TL as that effect that the SL text has on the readers of the TL.

The paper concludes that translators of English literary texts into Arabic, besides requiring a good grasp of both languages, need a good account of familiarity with and an extensive understanding of the Hallidayan metafunctions in order to come up with an appropriate equivalent in the TL that can fully express the content and intention of the SL. Additionally, it concludes that it is extremely difficult to meet all aspects of the Hallidayan metafunctions; this is why translators occasionally sacrifice one aspect for the sake of another.

Acknowledgements

I sincerely thank the Postgraduates’ Affairs Division at the University of Mosul, Iraq for their invaluable support and encouragement to start this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the publication and/or funding of this manuscript.

References  

1. House J. Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description    Versus Social Evaluation. Meta. 2001;46(2):243-325.
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.7202/003141ar CopiedAn error has occ

   2.OECD. Translation and Cultural Appropriateness of the Test and    

     Survey Material. PISA. 2006 Technical Report. 2009;85-104.

     https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/   

3.Koller M, Kantzer V, Mear I, Zarzar K, Martin M, Greimel E,

     Bottomley A, Arnott M, Kuliš D. The process of reconcile-ation  

     in translating quality of life questionnaires: Evaluation of existing

     translation guidelines and a set of recommendations. Expert

     Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research.   2012; 12 

    (2) :189–197.DOI:10.1586/erp.11.102.

4.Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-

   Lorenz A& Erikson P. Principles of Good Practice for the Trans-lation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in Health. 2005;8(2):94-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.

5.Tyupa S  A.  Theoretical Framework for Back-Translation as a   

   Quality Assessment Tool. New Voices in Translation Studies. 2011;

   7:35-46

6.Geisinger K F. Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation  

  and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of  

  assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment. 1994; 6(4) : 304 –312.DOI:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304.

7.Newmark P. A Text-Book of Translation. Prentice Hall. 1988.

8.Nida  E. Translators Confrontations with False Ideas about Language. Journal of Terminology and Translation. 1997 ; 2:185-189.

9.Muhammed E & Al-Qazaz A. Translation Assessment of

  Quranic & Prophetic Intertextuality with Reference to

  Maḥfūẓ's Cairo Trilogy. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature.

  2024;30(1):79-90.DOI: 10.36473/ujhss.v62i1.1927.

10.Beaton  D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F & Ferraz, M. Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. SPINE. 2000;25(24):3186-3191.https:// doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

11.Hatim  B. & Mason I. Discourse and the Translator. Longman. 1990.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313606442_EORTC_Translation_Manual_2017

     12.EORTC Quality of Life Group. Translation Procedure Manual (4th ed.). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. 2017.

13.Munday  J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. Routledge. 2001.

  14.Baker M. In Other Words - A Course Book on Translation. Routledge. 1992.

  15.Halliday, M. A. K. Language and Education. In J. J.Webster  

     (Ed.), The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol. 9.   

      Continuum. 2007.

    16.Halliday  MAK. & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English.      

         Longman. 1976.