Rendering Emphatic Skopos in the English Qur’an translation: The Case of Surat Yusuf

Prepared by the researche  : Walaa A. Alkulaib Almoghirah – Jubail Industrial College Royal Commission, Jubail Industrial City, Saudi Arabia

Democratic Arabic Center

Arabic journal for Translation studies : Ninth Issue – October 2024

A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin

:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link

https://democraticac.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B9-%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84-%E2%80%93-%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1-2024.pdf

Abstract

Emphasis is a distinguished linguistic feature of Qur’anic Arabic that serves to bring out the function of the verses of the Holy Qur’an. Emphatic devices derive their significance from the context of the situation, which, in turn, is influenced by the recipient’s mindset. Difficulties in finding equivalents in English for Qur’anic emphatic devices, or failing to recognize their function can pose major challenges in Qur’an translation. In exploring the translation of emphasizers in English translations of the Qur’an, this paper adopted a descriptive functional approach, building its theoretical framework upon Hans Vermeer’s (2012) Skopos Theory, which underscores the translator’s purpose, the coherence of the translation, and loyalty to the original text, as necessary conditions for the success of the translation. The paper focused on exploring the translation of emphasized structures in Surat Yusuf, with the aim of revealing whether the skopos of the original emphatic devices have been conveyed in the translation. Samples of study (i.e., emphatic devices in Surat Yusuf) were collected from three Qur’an translations produced by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934) (TT1), Taqi-ud-Din Hilali and Mohsin Khan (1924) (TT2), and Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall (1930) (TT3). Qualitative data analysis revealed that the three translators mostly succeeded in rendering the main function(s) of the emphatic devices through literal translation, addition and compensation. Loss of emphatic skopos generally resulted from omission of the emphatic devices due to misunderstanding of the skopos. Moreover, it was found that despite applying different strategies, all three translators usually achieved loyalty to original emphatic style and maintained coherence between the source and target text skopos.

Introduction

Translation of holy texts was always recognized as indispensable for bridging gaps between different cultures and religions along time. Translating the Holy Qur’an in particular has presented significant challenges to English translators due to the linguistic and cultural disparities between Arabic and English, as well as the intricate and idiosyncratic nature of the rhetorical and linguistic devices of the Qur’anic language (Abdul-Raof, 2006, p.108). Vermeer (2012) defined translation as producing a target text for a specific purpose, for a specific reader, under specific circumstances (p.191). Such definitions of translation, however, fall short of describing the purpose and the methods of translating the Qur’an, the message of which is addressed to all people in all times.

The Qur’an is regarded by Muslims as the sacred text of Islam, and the divine revelation of God to Prophet Muhammad in unique classical Arabic language. Its universal message and miraculous rhetorical language are among the reasons for which Arab linguists have never stopped to explore the intricacies of the linguistic nuances of the Qur’an. These linguistic and rhetorical nuances have always posed major difficulties and challenges for the translators of the Qur’an across ages. Recognizing the paramount importance of the Holy Qur’an as the fundamental source of God’s revelation for Muslims, Qur’an translators have been involved in an ongoing scholarly pursuit to devise and refine techniques that promise the utmost accuracy in the translation of the Qur’an. They experimented with different approaches, aiming to bridge the gap between Arabic and English while preserving the sacred essence of the original holy text.

Classical Arabic, which is the language of the Holy Qur’an, places strong emphasis on semantic content, lexical precision, and tools that enhance word order. The structure and style in this context serve to reinforce meaning rather than rely on repetitive statements (Al-Jurjani, 1984). Emphasis in classical Arabic, particularly in the context of the Qur’an, operates as a linguistic device with profound implications. It transcends mere clarification of meaning, to delve into the realms of conviction and assurance.

The careful orchestration of emphasis within the linguistic tapestry of classical Arabic is a testament to the nuanced and sophisticated nature of expression found in the Qur’an. It reflects a deliberate and artful use of language to convey not just information, but a deep sense of certainty and spiritual resonance. This multifaceted approach not only reinforces the content, but also establishes a profound connection between the speaker and the listener based on context and purpose. For example, when doubt or denial is perceived, the speaker in the Qur’anic dialogues (be it God Himself, His Prophets, or others) strategically employs verbal emphasis to highlight the meaning, or deploys specific emphatic particles to fortify the message.

Emphasis, thus, plays a crucial role in communication by reinforcing the intended meaning (skopos) and dispelling any potential doubts or suspicions that the recipient may harbor regarding the message or content. According to Muhammed (2014), individuals adept in language use strategically emphasize their statements when they perceive that the recipient is skeptical or resistant to the conveyed information. The contextual framework significantly influences how information is presented to the recipient, with linguistic encoding varying based on the circumstances surrounding the addressee (p.936).

In scenarios where the recipient grasps the message without hesitation, the speaker may forego the use of emphatic devices. However, when uncertainty prevails, and the addressee questions the accuracy of the information, it becomes advisable for the speaker to employ emphasis in order to underscore the message and purpose of their speech. Accordingly, when the speaker seeks to persuade the addressee, a diverse range of emphasis-creating devices is often employed, particularly when faced with overt rejection or denial of the presented information. In such instances, the strategic application of emphasis becomes pivotal in ensuring clarity and conviction, thereby enhancing the overall impact and effectiveness of the communicated message (Edris, 2019, p.36).

This paper endeavors to explore the nuanced deployment of emphasis in the Holy Qur’an within its original Arabic context and its subsequent rendition in English translations. The focal point of investigation lies in evaluating the efficacy of emphasis transference from Arabic to English, through comparing the intended function of the emphatic devices in Qur’an and the three selected translations: Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934), Hilali and Mohsin (1924), and Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall (1930) of Surat Yusuf (Surah Number 12), which will be referred to in the data analysis as TT1, TT2, and TT3 respectively. The primary goal of the paper is to determine the accuracy of these translations and the loyalty of the translators in preserving the purpose of emphasis inherent in the original Arabic Qur’anic verses. The analytical framework for this examination is derived from Vermeer’s (2012) Skopos Theory, which provides a methodological framework to assess the congruence of emphasis in the English translations with the source text in Arabic.

1– Emphasis in Arabic

Emphasis “al-tawkīd” is incorporated in Arabic through various forms, with the principal types being “al-Tawkīd al-lafẓī” (literal emphasis) and “al-tawkīd al-ma‘nawī” (semantic emphasis). In Arabic semantics, sentences are primarily categorized into two types. The first type is “al-insha’” (literally meaning origination/performative), encompassing sentences like commands, interrogatives, vocatives, prohibitions, and optative styles, where the truth or falsehood cannot be proven because the action occurs after uttering the speech. The second type is “al-khabar” (literally, information), representing sentences that can be proven as true or false. The introduction of information “al-khabar” carries multifaceted implications, including exclamation, imperativeness, warning, glorification, expression of mercy, weakness, regret, praise, happiness, and mockery, with specific meanings unfolding based on the contextual nuances (Hāshimī 2000, p. 55-58). The use of this type of sentence “al-khabar” serves two primary purposes: “fā’idat al-khabar (information provided by a statement)” which is linked to the addressee’s initial exposure to the information, and “lāzim al-fā’idah (what it implies)” associated with the speaker’s desire to demonstrate awareness of what he/she knows.

In this sentence type, the speaker’s presentation of information “al-khabar” to the addressee significantly depends on the context. Simply put, the way the speech is presented varies based on the addressee’s stance of the speaker’s message or presented information. If the addressee unhesitatingly receives the information, which is known as “khabar ibtidā’ī” (initial information), there is no need for the speaker to employ any emphasis. However, if the addressee seems uncertain about the information’s truthfulness, it is advisable for the speaker to employ emphasis and reinforce their speech, a practice known as “khabar ṭalabī (requestive statement)” (Al-‘Akbarī , 1995). Furthermore, in cases where the addressee outright denies or rejects the information, it is more effective for the speaker to employ one or more forms of emphasis, referred to as “khabar inkārī (denial statement)”.

Noteworthy tools for emphasizing information “al-khabar” include particles like “إنّ; /inna/” and “أنّا; /anna/”, the letter “لام; /lām/ al-ibtidā’,” oath words (“alqasam” lit., swearing), and repetition (“al-tikrār” lit., repetition). The strategic use of these particles allows for emphasis without undue repetition, concurrently streamlining the sentence. Additionally, when the particle “إنّ; /inna/” is employed, and the particle ” لام; /lām/ ” is added to its “khabar,” these particles compensate for the need for triple sentence repetition (Ibn-Hishām, 1995).

1.2- Emphasis in the Qur’an

The Holy Qur’an frequently employs linguistic emphasis, utilizing various rhetorical, semantic, syntactic, and grammatical particles or semantic emphasizers to achieve this effect. Classical Arabic possesses a unique capacity for emphasizing content and information – a complexity not paralleled in English. Consequently, the translation of emphatic patterns from the source language (Arabic) to the target language (English) inevitably results in significant losses. These losses stem from inherent differences between language systems, with translators also playing a minor role in contributing to these challenges.

Notably, the main losses encountered in translating Qur’anic emphasis in the selected translations arise from inaccuracy or lack of transferring the skopos of the linguistic emphasizers mentioned earlier. For instance, grammatical emphasis is represented by the utilization of emphatic particles as “‘الباء,’ ‘لمّا,’ and ‘ان,’ /lamma, baa, and inna/” rather than capturing rhetorical emphasis, which involves elements like rhetorical questions, special constructions, or repetition. Despite the absence of direct English equivalents to such grammatical Arabic emphasizers, translators can still attempt to convey the emphatic effect or skopos (purpose) of the emphatic particle by employing specific English-language emphasizers (Alsharou, 2016, p. 16).

Grammatical, semantic, and syntactic emphasis holds immense importance in Arabic, constituting a vast and crucial subject. Consequently, the following section focuses on fundamental and widespread methods employed to create emphasis in the Holy Qur’an whether they are grammatical, semantic, or syntactic emphasizers.

The particle “إنّ, /inna/” (grammatical level)

The particle “إنّ; /inna/” serves as a linguistic tool that highlights and intensifies the meaning of a sentence. Its role involves strengthening the relationship between different elements within the sentence and ensuring clarity for the listener or reader. This emphatic particle is utilized in nominal sentences that comprise a topic and a comment. The inclusion of “إنّ, /inna/” serves to elevate the neutral proposition of the sentence, transforming it into a more intensified statement. (Muhammed, 2013, p.937).

The particle “لام, /lam/” (grammatical level)

The particle “لام; /lam/” is linked to the predicate of the particle “إن; /inna/”. It can also be placed at the beginning of a nominal sentence without “إن; /inna/”. Additionally, it can be added to a verb or used by someone in a conversation to make a statement more forceful, especially when ‘قد; /qaad/’ is already used for emphasis. The emphatic particle “لام; /lam/” can be connected to a verb, particularly emphasizing denial in cases like ‘لم يكن’ with “لام; /lam/” preceding the verbs. Another way this emphatic particle is employed is by attaching it to the pronoun that indicates separation (Alsharou, 2016, p.25).

The particle “باء, /baa/” (grammatical level)

The emphatic particle ‘باء; /baa/’ is frequently used in both positive and negative sentences to intensify the expression of idea. It can be attached to the subject, object, or topic of the sentence. (Muhammed, 2013, p. 940).

The particle “قد, /qaad/” (grammatical level)

The particle ‘قد; /qaad/’ serves to provide a form of emphasis, highlighting the occurrence of an event. The use of ‘قد; /qaad/’ with the past tense serves to assert that the action has indeed occurred. In English, ‘قد; /qaad/’ is equivalent to ‘did’ – a particle that signifies the factual completion of a situation. (Ryding, 2005, p. 450)

The particle “نَ, /na/” (grammatical level)

This emphatic particle plays a dual role when affixed to a verb in Arabic. On the one hand, it intensifies the meaning of the verb, placing emphasis on its significance. On the other hand, it serves as an indicator of futurity, suggesting that the action denoted by the verb is anticipated or expected in the future. (Muhammed, 2013, p.938)

Separating with a Topic Pronoungrammatical level)

The placement of a pronoun that refers to the topic between a topic and its corresponding comment is intentional, aiming to avert any chance of misunderstanding. This strategic insertion acts as a safeguard against the misinterpretation of the comment as an opposition to the topic. The meticulous use of this pronoun enhances clarity in the structure of the sentence, maintaining a clear distinction between the topic and the ensuing comment. (Iben Yaeash, p.333)

The Particles “إلا, /illa/” and “إنما, /inama/” in Exceptional Negation Style and Restrictions 

The particles “إلا; /illa/ lit., except” and “إنما; /inama/ lit., merely” are also employed for restrictions to show exceptions. In this type of style, “إلا; /illa/ lit., except” precedes negation particles (ما، ليس، لا، إن; /inna/, /la/, /laisa/, /ma/). It is a technique employed by speakers to introduce a negative assertion followed by a thoughtful exception (Alsharou, 2016, p. 22).

Use of (واو, تـ, بـ,ل; ba, ta, , waw, la) in Swearing

Employing emphatic devices for swearing is often seen as the most powerful way to emphasize a point in Arabic. In many instances, employing this form of expression puts the listener in a position where his/her denial is commonly countered. Swearing is usually performed in classical Arabic by using (واو, تـ, بـ,ل; /ba/, /ta/, /waw/, /la/). (Al-Hilali & Khan, 2007, p.439)

Repetition (semantic and syntactic levels)

Repetition is a semantic emphasizer that involves using the same word, phrase, or sentence multiple times to clarify or emphasize a specific idea. In Arabic, repetition serves as a prevalent linguistic technique aimed at eliminating ambiguity, ensuring that the recipient fully comprehends the information being conveyed. This strategic use of repetition enhances clarity and emphasizes key points within the communication process (Al Ameedi, 2011).

1.3- Emphasis in English

To compare and evaluate the loyalty in delivering the purpose of the original Qur’anic emphatic devices with their English translations in the three target texts, it is first necessary to understand the types of emphatic devices usually used in English and explain their functional and contextual use. Frodeson & Eyring (2000) differentiate between various types of emphasizers at grammatical, semantic, and syntactic levels.

Using an auxiliary verb (grammatical level)

Enhancing the emphasis in a sentence involves strategically emphasizing the auxiliary verb or the “be” verb. This type of emphasis can be achieved through variations in pitch, tone, or volume, drawing attention to the specific verb in question and intensifying the impact of the statement. It is a vocal technique employed to highlight the importance or significance of the chosen verbs within the context of the sentence (Frodeson & Eyring, 2000, p. 402).

The Emphatic ‘do’ (grammatical level)

The emphatic auxiliary verb “do” functions as a linguistic tool to provide heightened emphasis to an entire sentence. This type of emphasis is achieved by incorporating the auxiliary verb “do” in a sentence, usually in the affirmative form. The emphatic “do” contributes to a more forceful and impactful expression, signaling the speaker’s intention to underscore the significance or urgency of the statement. (Ibid)

The Passive Voice (grammatical level)

The passive voice is employed when the focus is on the person or thing affected by a particular action. Typically, a greater sense of emphasis is placed at the beginning of the structure. By using a passive construction, the emphasis is shifted to indicating what happens to someone or something rather than specifying who or what is performing the action (Ferreira, 2021).

Using “No + Noun” (grammatical level)

In this case, the word “no” is employed to introduce negation with the specific purpose of emphasizing the subsequent noun, essentially replacing the structure “not + verb” in the sentence. (Frodeson & Eyring, 2000, pp.406-408)

Emphatic Adverbs (semantic level)

Emphatic adverbs play a distinctive role in language by contributing an additional layer of emphasis or reservation to a sentence. These adverbs are chosen for their ability to intensify the tone or modify the meaning of the statement. They are often employed to convey a stronger sense of certainty, doubt, or caution, depending on the context such as usually, certainly, never, etc). (Gleason, 1965, p.132)

Cleft Sentences (syntactic level)

A cleft sentence is a method of syntactic emphasis used to highlight an important or new information, effectively dividing it into two parts. Through this construction, the speaker guides the interlocutor’s attention to the specific details requiring emphasis, informing them about the information that demands consideration. Cleft sentences serve as a practical tool for accentuating key points within a sentence, facilitating clear and effective communication. (Frodeson & Eyring, 2000, p.434)

Fronting (syntactic level)

In English, emphasizing a point can be achieved by shifting words or phrases from their usual position in a sentence to the front. This linguistic maneuver is known as fronting, and the structures that result from this rearrangement are identified as fronted structures. (Quirk et al., 1985, p.1377)

The data analysis in the study illustrates how the translators succeeded or failed to avoid losses in the functions achieved by the original Arabic grammatical, semantic, and syntactic emphatic devices through selecting appropriate English emphatic devices and/or structures that deliver an equivalent function, message and coherent structure in the target text. This comparative analysis is conducted on the basis of Vermeer’s (2012) theory of skopos.

1.4- Skopos Theory

The term “skopos” denotes “aim” or “purpose” (Vermeer, 2012, p.191). Operationally, it serves as a specialized designation for the objective or intent behind a translation. This theory places paramount emphasis on the intended purpose of the translation, guiding the selection of translation methods and strategies to attain a functionally adequate outcome. Vermeer (2012) conceptualizes it as a transformation from an “offer of information” in the source text to a comparable “offer of information” tailored for the target audience. The aim of the theory is to embrace a more functional and socio-cultural understanding of translation, positioning the translation process as a distinct form of human action (Vermeer, pp.191-192).

Vermeer (2012) diligently endeavored to explain the process of translation with a focus on the perspective of the target language. His theory places strong emphasis on the interactive and pragmatic aspects of translation, contending that the form of the target text plays a crucial role in determining the purpose of a translation. Within the framework of Skopos Theory, the function of a translation is tied to the knowledge, cultural background, historical values, and norms of the target readers, all of which are shaped by the social context in which they exist. These factors influence whether the function of the source text or specific passages within it can be maintained, modified, or even altered during the translation process (Vermeer, 2012).

According to Reiß and Vermeer (2014), there are primary purposes in translation: (a) the communicative purpose, such as providing information; (b) the strategic purpose, which involves choosing a specific approach, like literal or free translation. These purposes align with the concept that ‘the end justifies the means’ in translation, which indicates that the translation strategy is determined by the intended function of the target text, which may differ from that of the source text. As a “cross-cultural event,” the target text, referred to as a “translatum,” may hold distinct sociolinguistic and pragmatic significance in a different sociocultural context.

Vermeer (2012) emphasizes that translation is a multifaceted action involving the provision of information on a text in a new situation, under changed functional, cultural, and linguistic conditions. In this sense, translation is purpose (i.e., skopos)-driven, and this purpose guides the process. Furthermore, Vermeer’s concept implies that meaning is not fixed or static in its linguistic manifestation, as it depends on negotiated and oppositional interpretations by receivers. Different receivers, or even the same receiver at different times, may attribute varying meanings to the same source text.

Skopos Theory also asserts that translation is a specific form of human behavior driven by a distinct purpose. It underscores the target-oriented nature of translation, emphasizing the importance of the translation situation in determining the appropriate methods to be employed. To gain a comprehensive understanding of this theory, the subsequent section provides an in-depth exploration of the three rules inherent in Skopos Theory. Vermeer (2012) introduces three potential types of purposes: the overarching purpose sought by the translator during the translation process, the communicative purpose intended for the target text within the target situation, and the purpose directed by specific translation methods or procedures. In essence, skopos refers to the intended purpose of the target text (Vermeer, 2014, p.28). Vermeer’s (2012) Skopos Theory, presents three rules which are: the skopos rule, coherence rule, and fidelity rule.

The Skopos Rule

The “skopos rule”, considered the paramount principle in translation, entails the belief that “the end justifies the means,” as defined by Reiß and Vermeer (2014, p.90). Reiß and Vermeer (2014) contends that every text is created with a specific purpose and should serve that purpose. The rule dictates that translation, interpretation, speech, or writing should align with the intended function of the text in the situation and context in which it is used, catering to the preferences of the audience (p.29). Vermeer (2008) opposes the notion that translation is solely a linguistic matter, asserting that it involves cross-cultural transfer. He views translation primarily as a form of action. Due to cultural differences, thinking patterns, and expression methods, the translator must consider the purpose of the translation. (p. 38)

The skopos rule determines translation strategies based on the anticipated purpose from the perspective of the target readers. As the cornerstone of Skopos Theory, this rule emphasizes that translation actions should be determined by their intended purpose, settling debates over free or faithful translation, dynamic or formal equivalence, and domestication or foreignization. Thus, different translation methods can be employed based on the purpose of the specific translation task.Gong, 2020, p.1155)

The Coherence Rule

Moreover, to produce an accurate translation, translators should ensure the provision of a coherent text. The coherence rule asserts that the target text “must be interpretable as coherent with the target text receiver’s situation” (Reiß and Vermeer, 2014, p.113). In essence, the target text should be translated in a way that makes sense within the communicative situation in which it is received, ensuring full understanding by the target audience, considering their social situation, culture, and knowledge (Vermeer, 2008, p. 45-46). Coherence rule, also known as intra-textual coherence, dictates that the target text should seamlessly fit into the target receiver’s circumstances. The translator selects terminology that aligns with the target readers’ expectations and is easily accepted in their context. Guided by the coherence rule, the source text serves as only part of the translator’s guidance, providing information that informs decisions on which parts are meaningful and acceptable to the receiver’s situation. (Reiß and Vermeer, 2014)

The Fidelity Rule

Nevertheless, since translation aims to provide information, a precise relationship between the information in the target text and the corresponding source text is expected. This relationship “inter-textual coherence” or “fidelity,” signifies that the target language text or translated text should faithfully represent the source language text. The level of faithfulness depends on the text’s purpose and the translator’s understanding of the source text (Nord, 1997, p. 27). The fidelity rule, introduced by Reiß and Vermeer 2014, emphasizes coherence between the translated version and the source text. It is considered a subordinate rule to both the coherence rule and the skopos rule (Reiß and Vermeer, 2014).

These fundamental rules (i.e., skopos, coherence, and fidelity) guide the translator throughout the translation process, with the source text offering information that informs the translator’s decisions based on the purpose of translation and understanding of the source text (Reiß and Vermeer, 2014).

2- Method and tools

This section provides a comparative descriptive analysis of the three selected translators’ methods of dealing with emphatic devices, in the light of the three fundamental rules suggested in the Skopos Theory. Representative samples of translations of emphatic devices from Surat Yusuf are selected, explored and analyzed for the purpose of revealing whether the chosen translation methods strategies in the three translations have led to similar or different production of the meaning and function(s) of emphasis in the different Qur’an translations into English. The emphatic devices are underlined for purpose of clarity.

3- Results and their discussion

Example 1

إِنَّآ أَنزَلۡنَٰهُ قُرۡءَٰنًا عَرَبِيّٗا لَّعَلَّكُمۡ تَعۡقِلُونَ (Yusuf, 2)

TT1: “We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.” (2)

TT2: “Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’ân in order that you may understand.” (2)

TT3: “Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand.” (2)

This verse was revealed on the occasion of Mecca’s infidels’ dispute about the truth of Mohammed’s prophecy. The function (skopos) of the verse is mainly to defend the truth of Mohammed’s [PBUH] prophecy by using rational evidence relating to the perfect language of the Qur’an. This act of stating evidence of the truth of the revelation of the Qur’an is emphasized in the verse by the use of the grammatical emphasizer (إنَّأ, /inna/ ([Emphatic]We). By placing the emphatic particle in the opening of the verse in Yusuf (Surah), God emphasizes the truth that the revelation of the Qur’an is from Him, in order to deny what the infidels’ false claims, and direct the people [who read the Qur’an] to use their reason to see the truth. Thus, the function (skopos) of the emphatic particle (إنَّأ, /inna/) is to remove any suspicion or doubt about the Qur’an being revealed by God, which, based on the Skops Theory, should be coherent with the function the TT. Loyalty to the ST and fidelity in conveying the original skopos required maintaining the role and purpose of the emphatic device in the verse.

However, it can be observed that the three TTs rendered the skopos differently. In TT1, the translator did not use any word that shows emphasis. In other words, TT1 used omission of the empathic particle, which led to loss of the emphatic function of the verse and part of its message to provide evidence, and draw attention to the truth by reminding the listeners that the Qur’an is revealed in perfect Arabic. This omission also affected the coherence in the TT negatively. TT2 used “verily” which means ‘certainly’ to compensate for the lexical gap between the SL and TL, and maintain loyalty to the function of disclaiming the infidels’ false argument by providing evidence. It can be argued that coherence is also achieved in the TT since the function of the emphatic article in drawing attention to the truth of the prophecy is maintained. TT3 used “Lo!” which is according to Merriam Webster (n.d.) is used to call attention or to express wonder. The choice of this exclamation particle reveals the purpose of its use by the translator in this context to show the importance of the information that will follow.

Therefore, by omitting the emphatic device, TT1 did not achieve the skopos of translation, which is proving the truthfulness of Mohammed’s [PBUH] prophecy by emphasizing that the Qur’an was revealed in perfect Arabic. In comparison, TT2 and TT3 succeeded in rendering the function of the Arabic emphatic device ” إنَّأ, /inna/” through using the English fronting emphatic style, by opening the TT verses with the emphatic words “verily and Lo! “which adds similar skopos to that of the original the emphasis.

Example 2

إِذۡ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لِأَبِيهِ يَٰٓأَبَتِ إِنِّي رَأَيۡتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوۡكَبٗا وَٱلشَّمۡسَ وَٱلۡقَمَرَ رَأَيۡتُهُمۡ لِي سَٰجِدِينَ (Yusuf, 4)

TT1: Behold! Joseph said to his father: “O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!”

TT2: (Remember) when Yûsuf (Joseph) said to his father: “O my father! Verily, I saw (in a dream) eleven stars and the sun and the moon – I saw them prostrating themselves to me.”

TT3: When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.

In this verse, Yusuf tells his father, Ya^cqub (Jacob), about a dream he saw. He repeats the word ‘رأيت’ twice in the same verse; thus, employing repetition as an emphatic form. His aim is to ensure that his father understands the certainty of the dream, avoiding any misconception that it might be a confused dream.

All three translators literally employed repetition in rendering ‘رأيت, saw’. However, each translator added a distinct element to their translation. In TT1, the translator added the auxiliary verb ‘did’ to amplify the statement. In TT2, a semantic adverb ‘verily’ was used, while in TT3, the translator employed the emphatic particle, ‘Lo!’. Therefore, the three TTs effectively and faithfully maintained the skopos of ST, preserving coherence with the ST emphatic style in the TT. The TTs also supplemented repetition with semantic adverbs that highlight the emphasis in the TT. Consequently, the emphatic function of ST was upheld in all three translations

Example 3

إِذۡ قَالُواْ لَيُوسُفُ وَأَخُوهُ أَحَبُّ إِلَىٰٓ أَبِينَا مِنَّا وَنَحۡنُ عُصۡبَةٌ إِنَّ أَبَانَا لَفِي ضَلَٰلٖ مُّبِينٍ  (Yusuf, 8)

TT1: They said: “Truly Joseph and his brother are loved more by our father than we: But we are a goodly body! really our father is obviously wandering (in his mind)!

TT2: When they said: “Truly, Yûsuf (Joseph) and his brother (Benjamin) are dearer to our father than we, while we are a strong group. Really, our father is in a plain error.

TT3: When they said: Verily Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than we are, many though we be. Lo! our father is in plain aberration.

The verse shows that Yusuf’s brothers were certain that he and his brother were more beloved to their father than them. So, in their dialogue here they use three emphatic devices, the first of which is (لَ; /la/) in لَيوسُف /laYusuf/ – which is known as لام الابتداء (the initiating letter, /lam/) that is added to a noun to emphasize a point in the speech as in the case of this verse. Then Yusuf’s brothers moved on to confirm their statement by using two emphatic devices, namely, ( إنّ; /inna/( an  the initiating empathic (لَ; /la/) in connection with (لفي; /lafi/ lit., in). The brothers had no doubts about their father’s love for Yusuf, but they used these emphatic devices to prepare the scene for justifying the evil proposal that they will make, which is getting rid of Yusuf. The skopos underlying the use of these emphatic devices is to make their proposal sound reasonable and justified. They are trying to convince themselves that their plan is justifiable.

The three TTs render the original skopos similarly. All three translations used the fronting style by opening the TT verses with emphatic words. However, both TT1 and TT2 used similar emphatic words, translating the (لَ; /la/) in لَيوسُف /laYusuf/ into ‘truly’ and (إنّ; /inna/, and the لام; /lam/ in لفي) into ‘really’ – (which are all semantic additions). TT3 added the adverb ‘verily’ and exclamatory particle ‘Lo!’ to add emphasis to the speech and preserve the function of the SL. Thus, it could be concluded that by using addition of emphatic English devices, all three translations were loyal to original skopos and coherent with the original forms in regard to preserving the functions of the emphatic devices.

Example 4

قَالَتۡ فَذَٰلِكُنَّ ٱلَّذِي لُمۡتُنَّنِي فِيهِۖ وَلَقَدۡ رَٰوَدتُّهُۥ عَن نَّفۡسِهِ ۦ(Yusuf, 32)

TT1: “There before you is the man about whom ye did blame me! I did seek to seduce him from his (true) self but he did firmly save himself guiltless!”

TT2: “This is he (the young man) about whom you did blame me, and I did seek to seduce him, but he refused.

TT3: This is he on whose account ye blamed me. I asked of him an evil act, but he proved continent. “

In this scene, the king’s wife, who has been captivated by Yusuf’s beauty and attempted to seduce him into committing adultery, is justifying her deed to her female guests who blamed her. As rumors of her action spread, women in the town criticized her for trying to seduce Yusuf, whom she had raised as a son. The king’s wife eventually admits her actions by using the grammatical emphatic verb, ‘لقد’ /laqd/ (Indeed [in the past]). Here, she justifies her seduction attempt by pointing out that the other women are convinced of Yusuf’s extraordinary beauty, which she sees as a valid reason to justify her behavior.

To maintain the effect of the emphatic Arabic word ‘لقد’ /laqd/ (Indeed), TT1 and TT2 added the auxiliary ‘did’ to emphasize the king’s wife confession, which affirms her attempt to seduce Yusuf in the TT. The original emphatic skopos is thus achieved in TT1 and TT2 by using the auxiliary verb ‘did’ in an affirmative sentence. Therefore, both TT1 and TT2 diligently maintained coherence with the ST skopos, ensuring faithful adherence to its intended meaning as well as structure. On the other hand, TT3 did not use any word that conveys emphasis. Instead, TT3 omitted the emphatic particles, resulting in loss of the verse’s emphatic function.

To conclude, TT3 failed to achieve the skopos of the translation which is the king’s wife affirmation of her confession of her seduction deed. In comparison, TT1 and TT2 preserved the function of the emphatic particle ‘لقد’ by using ‘did’ for emphasis to avoid loss of the intended meaning (i.e., skopos) in ST.

Example 5

 فَٱسۡتَعۡصَمَۖ وَلَئِن لَّمۡ يَفۡعَلۡ مَآ ءَامُرُهُۥ لَيُسۡجَنَنَّ وَلَيَكُونٗا مِّنَ ٱلصَّٰغِرِينَ (Yusuf, 32)

TT1: and now, if he doth not my bidding, he shall certainly be cast into prison, and (what is more) be of the company of the vilest!”

TT2: And now if he refuses to obey my order, he shall certainly be cast into prison, and will be one of those who are disgraced.

TT3: but if he do not my behest he verily shall be imprisoned, and verily shall be of those brought low.

In this verse, the king’s wife threatens Yusuf, stating that if he does not comply with her demands, she will ensure his imprisonment. The function and effect of her threatening words are highlighted by Arabic emphatic devices. The attachment of the emphatic initiating particle ‘لام’ /lam/ to the particle ‘إنْ’ /inna/ indicates an implied oath, setting the stage for the king’s wife subsequent statement. Then she emphasizes her words with the particle ‘لام’ /lam/ and the emphatic ending letter ‘nūn’ in ‘لَيُسۡجَنَنَّ’ (lit., he will be imprisoned), which implies oath, to intensify her message and emphasize her intention to imprison Yusuf in the future.

In rendering the (لام /lam/) in (لَئن /la’n/) the three translations maintained the intensity of statements and oaths of the King’s wife in the translation. To do so, TT1 and TT2 added the emphatic adverb ‘certainly’, while TT3 used ‘verily’. Thus, all three translations achieved faithfulness to ST intended message and function. However, in rending the particle ‘نَّ’ /nan/ in ‘لَيُسۡجَنَنّ’ (an oath indicating he will be imprisoned), the three TTs render the emphatic threatening skopos using different strategies. In TT1, the translator resorted to addition, using the cleft sentence, ‘what is more,’ to introduce additional in the TT, thereby, emphasizing the subsequent information. This strategy served the translator in TT1 to preserve fidelity and coherence with the ST skopos. In TT2, the translator used omission as he did not employ any emphatic style, rendering the ST as a straightforward future action which led to loss in the emphatic function of ST. In TT3, on the other hand, the translator added the adverb ‘verily’ to emphasize the statement, maintaining the emphatic function of ST. Therefore, TT1 and TT3 provided more loyal and coherent translation of the emphatic function in the verse than TT2.

Example 6

قَالَ إِنَّمَآ أَشۡكُواْ بَثِّي وَحُزۡنِيٓ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَأَعۡلَمُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعۡلَمُونَ (Yusuf, 86)

TT1: He said: “I only complain of my distraction and anguish to Allah, and I know from Allah that which ye know not…

TT2: He said: “I only complain of my grief and sorrow to Allâh, and I know from Allâh that which you know not.

TT3: He said: I expose my distress and anguish only unto Allah, and I know from Allah that which ye know not.

In verse 86, Yusuf’s father is assuring his children that he does not complain or show his deep grief except to Allah, Who revealed to him a truth they do not know, which probably refers to his confidence in the return of his son, Yusuf. To reveal his faith in Allah, to Whom he only entrusts with his complaints, Yacqub opens his statements with an emphatic particle indicating exclusion, namely, ‘إنَّما’ /innama/, which literally means (except or only). The purpose is to confirm his faith and trust only in Allah, using the excluding term ‘إنَّما’ as an emphatic device to indicate restricted exception.

The three translations used the word ‘only’ to render the emphatic term, ‘إنَّما’ literally. The emphatic word, ‘only’, according to Merriam Webster (n.d.), is used to restrict the meaning of a sentence to one point. It emphasizes that no other point is involved beyond what is mentioned. Therefore, the ST skopos was successfully achieved in all three translations by literally rendering ‘only’ through which the translators preserved the intended function and maintained fidelity and coherence between ST and TTs.

Example 7

قَالُوٓاْ أَءِنَّكَ لَأَنتَ يُوسُفُۖ قَالَ أَنَا۠ يُوسُفُ (Yusuf, 90)

TT1: They said: “Art thou indeed Joseph?” He said, “I am Joseph, and this is my brother:

TT2: They said: “Are you indeed Yûsuf (Joseph)?” He said: “I am Yûsuf (Joseph)

TT3: They said: Is it indeed thou who art Joseph? He said: I am Joseph and this is my brother.

Since their first encounter, Yusuf’s brothers had suspicions that the man in charge of the financial treasures was their brother Yusuf, but their minds denied it. In this verse, Yusuf’s brothers emphasized this truth, using the emphatic particles, ‘إن’ /inna/ and اللام  /lam/ in ‘لأنت’ /la anta/ (meaning, you are indeed). Another emphatic method used here is that of ‘Separating with a Topic which is أنت meaning ‘you’ and أنا meaning ‘I’Thus, they placed the pronoun (أنت /anta/, lit., you) between (إنك /inaka/ meaning ‘you’) that refers to the topic, and (Yusuf) which is the corresponding object, aiming to avoid any chance of misunderstanding. The same method is employed by Yusuf in his response to his brothers, in which he confirms that he is their abandoned brother using (أنا /ana/; lit., I) that refers to the speaker (Yousuf).

In the first part of the verse, the three translators literally translated the emphatic word through the close empathic English equivalent ‘indeed’ which, according to Merriam Webster (n.d.), means emphasizing a statement and confirming something as true. Thus, it could be concluded that in maintaining the emphasis found in verse 90, the three translators were loyal to ST skopos, achieving coherence between ST and TT text by using the emphatic ‘indeed’ to maintain the emphatic function. In the second part of the verse, the three translators used the auxiliary verb ‘am’ to render the emphatic tone in ‘أنا يوسف’ (lit., I am Yusuf). This addition of emphatic devices in the TTs helped to emphasize the functions of the original emphatic tone produced in the context of the dialogue.

Example 8

قَالُواْ تَٱللَّهِ لَقَدۡ ءَاثَرَكَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيۡنَا وَإِن كُنَّا لَخَٰطِـِٔينَ (Yusuf, 91)

TT1: They said: “By Allah! indeed has Allah preferred thee above us, and we certainly have been guilty of sin!”

TT2: They said: “By Allâh! Indeed, Allâh has preferred you above us, and we certainly have been sinners.”

TT3: They said: By Allah, verily Allah hath preferred thee above us, and we were indeed sinful.

In verse 91, Yusuf’s brothers swear that Allah has favored Yusuf over them, and acknowledge their own guilt, using the emphatic ‘تاء’ /taa’/ particle as a prefix in ‘تالله’ (Lit., By Allah). The oath form in this verse is performed by using the letter (تـَ /ta’/), which is one of swearing styles in the classical Arabic to intensify or emphasize a point. The brothers also confirmed their statement by using the particle (لقد /laqad/).

The three translators literally rendered ‘تالله’ which is an oath form into Arabic as ‘by Allah’. According to Merriam Webster (n.d.), ‘by’ is used for swearing and sanctioning, which means that in regard to that oath form, the three translators preserved the intended skopos of the original emphatic style, hence achieving fidelity and maintaining coherence between the ST and TT swearing forms. Moreover, in rendering ‘لقد’ /laqad/, TT1 and TT2 added ‘indeed’, while TT3 used ‘verily to convey the function of emphasis and indicating certainty.

Thus, the three translations rendered the emphatic devices ‘تالله’ and ‘لقد’ successfully by using the fronting preposition, ‘by’ at the beginning of the sentence and adding adverbs (indeed and verily) to emphasize the statement. As a result, the emphatic function of the ST verse was maintained, and coherence with the ST skopos achieved in all TTs.

It could be concluded from the data analysis of the selected representative 8 samples that the translators were able to achieve loyalty to the ST intended meaning and reach coherence between the ST and TT skopos in regard to the skopos of emphatic devices by literally maintaining the original emphasis, or adding emphatic devices from English language that supplemented or compensated for the loss of the original or highlighted the ST skopos. Loss of the skopos in the selected verses from the translations of Surat Yuusf always resulted from omitting or not maintaining the original emphasis.

4- Conclusion

This study reached several conclusions, one of which is that the purpose of the target text dictates the methods and strategies used in translation. In this study, the text under analysis is a sacred text focusing on the translation of specific emphasized structures. The skopos of translation is to accurately convey the original emphatic devices and determine if these devices have been faithfully conveyed in the target texts. In this regard, the three translators were found to be almost similar in achieving the skopos. However, each translator tends to apply different translation strategies or employ different stylistic or sematic devices which result in similar functions, which ultimately leads to achieving coherence and conveying the intended meaning in the TT. As a result, employing variant strategies or styles in translation depends on the understanding and conveying the skopos effectively in the TT.

Moreover, in the light of the Skopos Theory, the translators rendered the original emphasis in a manner that aligns with the function of the text. Thus, it could be argued that the translation process relies heavily on the translators’ understanding of the skopos of the text. Failure to do so results in an inaccurate translation that affects the coherence of the text which causes loss in translation.

Finally, the Skopos Theory proved its effectiveness in rendering emphatic devices, especially within the context of sacred texts as the function of the text in ST is always similar to the target text and audience expects the translator to be loyal to original skopos.

Supplement

Appendix 1

The Arabic transliteration system used in this paper is that of the Library of Congress

ALA-LC Romanization Tables: Transliteration Schemes for Non-Roman Scripts. Randal K. Berry (ed.). Library of Congress, 1997.

(https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/arabic.pdf).

Bibliography List

• Abdul-Raof, H. (2006). Arabic rhetoric: A pragmatic analysis. Routledge
• Al-Akbarī, A (1995). The Core of the Issues of al-Binā’ (words which do not change the shape of their endings) and al-’I‘rāb (the inflection)]. Damascus, Syria: Dār alFikr.
• Al Ameedi, R. (2011). Repetition in English and Arabic: A Constructive Study. Journal of Human Science. University of Babylon.
• Al-Jurjani, A. Q (1984). Dala’il Al-ijaz. Cairo: Maktabat AI-Khanachi.
• Al-Hilālī, T., & Khān, M. (2007). The Noble Quran: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary. Saudi Arabia, Medina: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an.
• Edris, L. (2019). Assessment of Arberry’s Translation of Emphasis in Qur’anic Dialogue. Australian Journal of Islamic Studies, (4), 33-53.
• Ferreira, F. (2021). In defense of the passive voice. American Psychologist, 76(1), 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000620
• Frodesen, J., & Eyring, J. (2000). Grammar Dimension: Form, Meaning, and Use (4^th). Heinel & Henal, a division of Thomson learning.
• Gleason, H. A. (1965). Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Gong, Y. (2020). Translation Strategies of the Strange Days Under Skopos Theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies.
• Hatim, B., & Mason. I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
• Ibn-Hishām, J. (1995). Awḍaḥ al-Masalik ’Ilá ’Alfīyat ’Ibn Mālik [The Clearest Way to the Millennium of ’Ibn Mālik]. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr lil-ṭibā‘ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzī‘.
• Jamāl al-Dīn, I. (1995). Awḍaḥ al-Masalik ’Ilá ’Alfīyat ’Ibn Mālik [The Clearest Way to the Millennium of ’Ibn Mālik]. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr lil-ṭibā‘ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzī‘.
• Muhammed, J. M. (2014). A study of some emphatic Arabic particles in the Glorious Qur’an with reference to translation. College of Basic Education Researches Journal, 13(1), 935-948.
• Nida, E. A., & Charles R. T. (2003). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Netherlands: Brill.
• Nord, C. (1997). Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Translation Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jeromy Publishing.
• Quirk, R. S., Greenbaum, G. L., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
• Ryding, K. C. (2005). A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Reiß, K., & Vermeer, H. (2014). Towards a general theory of translational action: Skopos theory explained. (C. Nord, Trans.). New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1984).
• Vermeer, H. J. (2008). Is translation a linguistic or a cultural process. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, (28), 037-051.
• Vermeer, H. J. (2012). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. (L. Venuti. Trans.). In: The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd edition, London: Routledge (pp. 191-202) (Original work published 1989).