shifts

This comparative study aimed at finding out the types of grammatical shifts which have occurred in two English translations of the Quranic rhetorical questions, and the impact of such shifts on the said rhetorical questions. For these purposes, the study firstly analyzed the Arabic and English texts syntactically using the x-bar theory for Haegeman (2006) and then classified the grammatical shifts according to Catford’s (1965) kinds of shifts. The X theory has been applied as a tree diagram and liner structure. Where necessary “al-Gadwal fi i’arab al-Quran”/the Quran grammatical analysis” of Safi published in (1995) has been used. The two English translations used in the study were “the Koran Interpreted” by Arberry (1955) and “the Noble Quran: English translation of the meanings and commentary” (1996) by al-Hilali and Khan. According to the analysis, different types of grammatical shifts, e.g. class, unit, structural and level shifts have occurred in the two translations. Further, another kind of shift has appeared in the two translations. This refers to the syntactic shift where a question has been changed into a statement. With respect to the impact of such shifts on the meanings of the Quranic rhetorical questions, sometimes the entire meaning of the ST rhetorical questions is distorted like in al-Hilali and Khan’s translation. In addition, the intended reason of the function is changed like in Arberry’s translation. By and large, it can be argued that the shifts committed by Arberry affected the ST rhetorical questions more than those made by al-Hilali and Khan.

The current study explores the way the six Persian translators of Woolf’s two novels,<em> The Waves</em> (<em>TWS</em>) and <em>To the Lighthouse</em> (<em>TTL</em>), have translated the proper names (PNs). Also, how the PNs might be connected to the translators’ style through foreignizing/domesticating strategies that the translators have used through the optional shift. Also, how the translator shows his discursive presence may be related to how the translator may employ some recurring patterns for translating the PNs through some strategies. The procedure of ‘retention of the name’ is the nearest to foreignization and the farthest from domestication; the procedure of ‘replacement of the name by a TL name’ is the nearest to domestication and farthest from foreignization. Comparing the strategies, we can see that Najafipour has used the foreignizing and Ghebraei foreignizing and domesticating strategies differently. Also, Bejanyian tends to make the TL sound foreignized; Hosseini shows a pattern of domestication or normalization. Both Daryush and Keyhan have tried to keep the middle ground, though offering a tendency to use foreignizing strategies with a higher propensity. The final result shows that the six Persian translators have translated the PNs differently, whether using foreignizing or domesticating strategies.