The Translation of Qur’an-Bound Terms in the Qur’an: an Analytical Study of Twelve English Translations of Surat an-Nisa’

Qur’anic terms are very important for understanding the meaning of the Qur’an. These terms are highly specific, i.e. bound to the place and time of the revelation of the text. Understanding Qur’an-bound terms (QBTs) depends on understanding the context, and this can be particularly complex when translating cultural elements between two different cultures. This study examines the translation of QBTs, which give rise to problems when translated into English. Twelve translations of QBTs in sËrat an-NisÉ’ are chosen to investigate the semantic and cultural challenges for the translator and to assess which translation procedures were chosen based on the model of Dickins (2012). The analysis shows that QBTs do not retain all their original features and meaning when translated into English due to their dependence on context and culture. Even if the SL and TL words share some components, analysis shows that no Arabic QBT has a one-to-one equivalent in the English language/culture. In the translation of polysemous QBTs, some translators consider the context and convey the intended secondary sense of the QBTs, while others inappropriately translate the primary sense of them when a secondary sense is intended. Concerning the translation of autohyponymous and figurative QBTs, some translators choose a literal translation of the basic sense when a secondary meaning is intended. This means they fail to convey the ST sense in the context. Figurative sense is a feature of polysemous terms with secondary senses. The figurative components are analysed based on Dickins’ (2005) model for metaphor analysis, which can be extended to the analysis of other figures of speech, such as metonymy and synecdoche. The ST analysis of the figurative QBTs shows that all are lexicalised, and the translation analysis shows that the translators typically use non-figurative equivalents. Regarding the translation procedures employed to render figurative Qur’anic QBTs, the results demonstrate that, as in the translation of autohyponymous terms, translators who opt for a basic-sense literal translation procedure fail to convey the ST figurative sense in the context. While those who opt for an explanation of the figurative sense achieve to some extent to convey this sense. This signifies that those who employ explanation procedure were aware of both the contextual meaning and figurative components – although they do not manage to produce a similar figurative image in TT.