Transcreating the Bard: A Deconstructive Approach to the Arabic Translation of Shakespeare

Prepared by the researche : Munir Ahmed Al-Aghberi – Albaydha University, Al Bayda, Yemen

Democratic Arabic Center

Arabic journal for Translation studies : Eighth Issue – July 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/2024/07/%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%AB%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B2-%E2%80%93-%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88-2024.pdf

1. Introduction

My experience of teaching the courses of English literature and Literary Translation to Arab native speakers has given me a deep insight into the catch-22 dilemma afflicting the students. In order to comprehend and feel the literary text they study, the students need first to master a language. Nevertheless, mastering the language necessitates being exposed to lots of variable literary texts. As such, I encounter many difficulties in my attempt to convince students about the excellence and charm of the literary language of the prescribed English texts, Shakespeare in particular. On the one hand, their level of English proficiency hardly qualifies them to feel the great language used by him. On the other hand, the existing Arab translations or the students’ immediate mental transfer into their native language render the source text weak and banal. In a few cases, where an excellent Arabic free translation is available the students’ response to the text is positive provided that they have the chance to feel the aesthetics that otherwise might be absent. Based on this accumulative experience, I have found it imperative to search for a quite innovative approach for literary translation taking into account the latter’s particularity.

• Hypothesis

The present enquiry embarks from the hypothesis that a literary text is an independent experience in which the writer, the reader, the culture, and the aesthetic aspects of language are all engaged. Besides, the literary text is essentially composed in a figurative language that depends on tropes which have characteristics of communicating notions as well as performative acts beyond the referential use of language and pose a great deal of challenge in translation. Hence, translating literary texts entails creating a similar performative experience in the target language where the above elements interrelate in a freeplay. It is only then that the source literary experience can be said to have been transcreated with the four elements recreated since the absence of any might undermine the quality of translation.

• Objectives

With the following theoretical and methodological framework taken into consideration, the present study is committed to fulfilling certain objectives. First, it explores the deconstruction concepts of relevance to literary translation in order to lay the foundation for a sufficient approach. It also benchmarks the existing Arabic translations of Shakespeare’s Hamlet against the above deconstructive concepts. Finally, the study intends to come up with some methods by which the translation of literary texts can be more adequate and practically apply them.

• Theoretical Framework

The early ideas for the present project owe much to Kathleen Davis’ book Deconstruction and Translation (2001) in which translation is viewed from the deconstructive perspective of Derrida’s theory. To start with, Derrida’s definition of translation might be insightful that, “Translation is writing; that is, it is not translation only in the sense of transcription. It is a productive writing called forth by the original text” (Derrida, 1985, p. 153). Revolting against the established theories of translation, deconstruction upsets the leading position occupied by equivalence amid the translation approaches. From the perspective of deconstruction, the purpose of translation should go beyond the mere equivalence to find the complex set of relations between the two texts, without claiming the ability to gauge the exact meaning beneath the surface structure of the source text or to encode it in the surface structure of the target text. Derrida’s (1967/1978) concept of différance severs some of the bonds restricting the translators’ work as it represents an attempt to break the logocentric myth of the original and accords a due importance upon the “Other” translated text. The freeplay of traces creates an open and free space whereby translation can be more independent.

Apart from the obvious implications of différance, Derrida’a contribution to the translation theory emerges from his emphasis on the play of the trace. Calling translation “a productive writing” imbues it with the power to bridge the possible gaps and activate hidden traces. Translation, like reading in deconstructive terms, must allow aspects other than the surface structure of a text to be activated in a way similar to the writing or rewriting of the text. In Derrida’s reading of Romeo and Juliet, he discusses the stability of meaning in a broad historical context. Reading any of Shakespeare’s plays make it accessible, “because traces (which are not inherently meaningful, but evoke meaning ‘effects’ through the play of differences) are always repeatable or iterable” (Davis, 2001, p. 30). If repetition creates stable sets of relations and meaning effects in one language, transferring the structures into another language must evoke similar sets of relations and meaning effects for the target text to be intelligible and natural. Hence, Derrida’s such deconstructive terms are of a great use for such an approach as they confirm both the autonomy of the translating text as well as its diverging nature. It grows out of the original, yet it assumes the role of freeplay and multiple possibilities of signification.

If the text gains its meaning from a system of signifiers that acquire “through fairly regulated repetition . . . in a general code, certain instituted meaning effects” (Davis, 2001, p. 23, emphasis in the original) within the language system rather than a signified that exists outside language, translation cannot isolate a single ST from that system and render it into the TL adequately. In translating literature, it is not only the signifier that should be translated but sound effects, figurative aspects, cultural modes, emotional experience, and even silences. Neither free translation nor dynamic equivalence can effectively render the above elements in literary translation. Translation, therefore, should embark from the transformative method by which the “instituted meaning effects” of the signifiers in the TT have to be adequately activated. No equivalence per se can allow that smooth freeplay unless the translator lives and rewrites the experience in the TL. The source literary text is a product of spontaneous feelings, so it gained its meaning from a network of interrelated effects. Consequently, no TT can be adequate without re-enacting the whole process.

• Previous Studies

While many have attempted to probe the issue of translating Shakespeare into Arabic from different perspective, almost none has applied the deconstructive theory to approach the existing translations. The present study, however, is deep rooted in many practical endeavors by the researcher to come up with adequate Arabic translations of Shakespeare’s unique language. It contributes to the corpus comprising many studies that tried to figure out the efficiency of the Arabic translations of Shakespeare. To begin with, the collection of essays edited by Hennessey and Litvin and titled Shakespeare and the Arab World provides a rich resource to some of the recent studies on the topic of translating Shakespeare into Arabic. Another valuable collection is titled Translating Shakespeare for the Twenty-First Century (Homem and Hoenselaars, 2004). In addition, there are many recent journal articles that border on the issue raised here such as: “Appropriating Hamlet in Arabic: Youths, Revolutions and Socio-cultural Criticism” (Hanane & Abu Amrieh, 2022); “Challenges in Translating Puns in Some Selections of Arabic Poetry into English” (Mehawesh et. al 2023); “Shakespeare in Arabic Translations and Adaptations: The Search for Dramatic Canon” (Alghaberi, 2018); “King Lear on the Arabic Stage: Linguistic, Social and Cultural Considerations” (Muhaidat, 2013); “The issue of translating metaphor in theatrical text, Othello play “of Shakespeare” as a sample” (Boucetta et. al, 2021). Ismael L. Omar, moreover, has two recent studies on translating Shakespeare into Arabic, “The Stylistic Amplification of Conceptual Metaphors in Translating Shakespeare into Arabic by Mohamed Enani” (2023) and “Translating Macbeth’s Colour Metaphors into Arabic: A Revised CMT Approach to Shakespeare’s Creative Metaphors” (2020). Moreover, Hassoon’s study “The Domestication and Arabization of the Bard: Towards the Reception of Shakespeare in the Arab World” (2021) focuses on how the process of adaptations of some plays repositions Shakespeare in a different cultural space. Some recent studies investigate the Arabic versions of Hamlet from linguistic perspectives such as Al-Harahsheh’s “Cohesion and coherence shift in Jabra’s translation of Hamlet” (2022). Furthermore, many studies that tackle the intersections between translation and deconstruction have been consulted. To name but a few, Alsager’s “The role of deconstructing as a part of translation process in literary text” (2023) and Pagliawan’s “Translation as Deconstruction: Infidelity in the Translation Process” (2017).

• Scope & Methodology

As for its scope, the study is delimited to comparing the Arabic translations of figurative tropes in select Shakespearian dramatic and poetic texts, namely Hamlet as a typical Shakespearean play imbued with figurative language. The data of the study consists of different extracts selected from different parts of the Arabic translations of Hamlet by three translators: Jabra (1960), Niazi (2008), and Enani (2006). An alternative Arabic translation is added by the researcher to benchmark the above three translations against the deconstructive approach. Jabra’s translation is referred to as (TT1), Niazi’s as (TT2), Enani’s as (TT3), and the researcher’s alternative translation as (AT). To analyze the three Arabic translations of Hamlet and weighing them against the alternative deconstructive translation, the study applies Newmark’s (1988) four levels at which the process of translation operates, namely: textual level, referential level, cohesive level, and level of naturalness. All in all, Newmark’s levels seek to measure the target language naturalness which, if reached, notes that the process of deconstructive translation is at work.

2. Analysis and Discussion

Adopting Kathleen Davis’ (2001) insights, the research comes up with a deconstructive approach with which the translation of Shakespeare into Arabic can be more adequate. The following sections probe the possible phases of the deconstructive translation illustrated with textual examples, analysis, and commentaries.

• Multiplicity of Meaning

At its broader level, deconstruction comes to emphasize the multiplicity and fluidity of meanings. Taking into account the views that challenge the idea of fixed meanings in language (Hermans, 2014) and stress the inherent ambiguity and instability of language (Munday, 2012), the deconstructive approach to translation embarks from the linguistic and referential possibilities inherent in the SL to find multiple interpretations in the TL. In Baker’s words, Deconstruction challenges traditional translation norms by exposing the inherent ambiguities, instabilities, and multiplicity of meanings in both source and target languages (Baker, 1992).

A translator has to conduct a close reading of Hamlet to experience those inherent ambiguities, and instabilities of multiple meanings. For, no English text can exceed the Shakespearean one in the creative use of language, namely puns and wordplay. To recreate the same effect in the target language, translators have first to grasp the source text’s playfulness and polysemous nature. The next step is more difficult as they are burdened with finding the linguistic matchings that can recreate the same multiple functions. The difficulty, however, goes beyond the linguistic to the referential and other levels. The system of references, allusions, or echoes in the source text is quite different from that of the target text. The translator’s job is to find that system (traces) in the TL which would help achieve naturalness.

The following texts display some witty repartees including wordplay that none of the three translations could capture their multiple meanings. The result is distorted TT versions that render the form and miss the soul of the conversations which tell more about Hamlet-Claudius relationship.

Table 1.1. Extract 1 (act 1, scene 2, lines 62-67)

Such a witty conversation is full of intimations and puns. The Arabic reader must understand Hamlet’s repartee and feel its effect very well. One interpretation of the expression “less than kind” is that Hamlet plays with the meanings of the word ‘kind’; his uncle is not as kind as a father and he is not the type of his father. Such punning could be recreated in the AT. The pun is carried forth by the Arabic word (مقام) and Hamlet’s aside reply (قد تكون في مقام الوالد لكن لست ابد بمقامه) (backtranslation: you might be in my father’s place but not in his dignity) renders a considerable part of the source’s linguistic, referential, and aesthetic elements.

Another pun can be traced in Hamlet’s reply “I am too much in the sun” that is imbued with irony by which Hamlet justifies his standing and ridicules his uncle’s. Hamlet’s ironic reply includes many possible interpretations: unlike his uncle his action and motivation are clear; he stands also at the bright side of history; the word “sun” is homonymous with “son” which describes Hamlet’s depression as a natural reaction by a son who has lost a dear father. Any translator cannot find an equivalent expression that might include such a Shakespearean witty repartee unless some additional techniques are employed (paraphrasing, addition, ideational equivalence, etc). This function can be served well by the added phrase in AT (ويرى العالم كله ما انا عليه) (backtranslation: and the whole world can see what I am doing) which compensates for the loss of meaning ensued by singularity.

In addition to their failure to capture the puns and irony, the three translations fall short at the referential level. The literal translation of “spend” (انفق، اصرف) does not collocate well with “time” in Arabic. The word (اقض) is a good alternative. In addition, the metaphor of “clouds” is better conveyed via the Arabic (غيوم) rather than (سحب). At the linguistic and cohesive levels, the phrase “thy best graces” has been confused by translators who insist to translate it in connection to the way the time has to be spent when deletion can make the Arabic statement more acceptable.

• Capturing Absences

In his definition of Différance, Derrida observes, “every concept is inscribed in a chain or in a system within which it refers to the other, to other concepts, by means of the
systematic play of differences” (Davis, 2001, p.  13). Accordingly, meaning is created by double absences; the absence of the signified as a presence in and of itself and that of the other signifiers to which the term has a relation of differences. The latter is referred to as ‘the trace’ which Davis defines as a linguistic mechanism by which the present item gains its meaning from the absence of other items, “Neither pure presence nor pure absence, the trace marks the weave, or textile, of differences” (p. 16). This understanding is made further relevant to translations strategies by Baker who highlights how understanding “the difference in the structure of semantic fields in the source and target languages allows a translator to assess the value of a given item in a lexical set” (1992, p. 19). This, in Baker’s words, enables a translator to appreciates the significance of the writer’s or speaker’s choice, “You can understand not only what something is, but also what it is not.” (1992, p. 19).

The above deconstruction insights lead us to a translation approach by which we need to translate not only what is said, but also what is not, especially when absence signifiers underpin the message partially or wholly. Some rhetorical devices, for instance, challenge the translator to search for some hidden meanings in order to replicate or recreate them in the target language. Translating such devices as metaphor, irony, paradox, hyperbole is expected to capture the linguistic and semantics nuances on the one hand, and to maintain the intended tone on the other.

In Hamlet, Shakespeare relies heavily on irony and ironic undertones to communicate the characters’ feelings and relationships. The translator requires a maximum degree of attentiveness to spot, analyze and translate Shakespeare’s disguised irony and even innuendos that are remarkable for what is omitted rather than what is mentioned. The following examples illustrate how the failure to recognize irony results in distorting the central point of the ST.

Table 2.1. Extract 1 (act 3, scene 2, lines 100-103)

Likening himself to the chameleon includes a double irony. In order to survive in a dangerous environment, Hamlet needs to borrow the chameleon’s camouflage by which his real intentions are invisible. He further pushes the irony forward maintaining that he, unlike “capons,” will never trade sublime goals for earthly pleasures. To transcreate the message, a structural, semantic, and stylistic adaptation should be made in the Arabic text. None of the translations transfers the message with the above composite elements. The deconstructive AT, however, tries to weighs what Hamlet is, a chameleon living on hope (اقتات الامل كالحرباء), against what he is not, a capon whose ultimate goal is getting food (اعبد الطعام كالدواجن).

Table 2.2. Extract 2 (act 4, scene 3, lines 17-24)

The seemingly incoherence between Claudius’ questions and Hamlet’s answers underlies the presumably madness feigned by Hamlet. His words, however, are imbued with irony and convey certain messages to his greedy uncle that: the king’s power will never protect him against death; life is turn and turnabout; no matter how strong one might be, his defeat could come from the unexpected enemy. Irony is brought forth by such expressions as “politic worms”, “your worm is your only emperor”, and “two dishes, but to one table”. The same tone should be rendered in Arabic taking into account the stylistic differences.

The Shakespearean metaphor is sometimes too complex to render into Arabic. Instead of appearing as an aesthetic element as it is in the ST, it appears silly in the TT ensuing an unwitting confusion, distortion, and even redundancy in the character’s argument. A good example is “Your worm is your only emperor for diet” in which “emperor” is translated literally as (امبراطور/ سطان). The translators’ attempt to literally copy the metaphor traps them in senselessness. Simply, the metaphor can be reworked as in alternative translation (فالديدان هي من تسود في الاخير) (backtranslation: worms prevail in the end).

The same applies to the irony embedded in the other metaphor, “to show you how a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar” as follows.

Table 2.3. Extract 3 (act 4, scene 3, lines 32-34)

Although the three translations succeed to capture the irony, none renders it adequately. This is caused by the inability to free the image in “go a progress” from its authorial voice, thus translating it as (يقوم بجولة/ يسلك طريق). The ironic tone is made natural in the Alternative Translation (جلالة الملك قد يتنهي به المطاف في احشاء احد المتسولين) which ironically comments that (a glorious king may end up in the guts of a beggar).

• Abusive Fidelity

Broadly speaking, any approach to a creative translation that deconstructs the source has to embark from going so far from the literal and semantic transference. The double bind nature of a deconstructive translation arises from abusing the source in order to render its core and effect in the target. This approach is of a great use for the translation of metaphoric language which can be transferred at the level of formal, functional, and ideational equivalences. Not all metaphors, however, can be translated as metaphors; what can be an aesthetic element in ST may become a weakness in TT. The abusive fidelity becomes an imperative in such cases. The term “abusive fidelity” is first introduced by Philip E. Lewis to the approach that “values experimentation, tampers with usage, seeks to match the polyvalencies or plurivocities or expressive stresses of the original by producing its own” (1985, p. 41). The principal goal of this approach is to avoid the reductive resolution of a ‘restricted economy’ and respect the standard usage practice of the target language and culture so as to familiarize and domesticate the message (ibid, p. 40-41).

Hence, in translating literary metaphors, it is not enough to render the communicative message apart from its creative paradigm since the aesthetic value is equal in importance to the semantic content. The following examples showcase some challenges of translating the metaphorical expressions in Hamlet into Arabic.

Table 3.1. Extract 1 (act 3, scene 3, lines 412-416)

The above statement is rich with metonymies: “words” stand for speech; “soul” for nature; “bosom” for heart. All translations make use of the formal equivalence (روح نيرون) to render “soul” when it can be rendered adequately by means of the functional equivalence (وحشية نيرون) that is (Nero’s brutality). “Let me be cruel, not unnatural” was mistranslated by all who stick to the literal sense of the word “unnatural”. Hamlet plans to be cruel but not to the degree of going wild which the alternative translation renders well (ساكون قاسٍ معها لكن ليس لحد الوحشية). This is further illustrated by the next metaphor “I will speak daggers to her, but use none.” All translators resort to the formal equivalence which copy verbatim the source image and sense. The precise and terse Arabic equivalent, however, can be best rendered through the AT’s functional equivalence (ساجرحها باللسان لا بالسنان). The same applies to the metaphor “My tongue and soul be hypocrites” meaning that none represents the other. To avoid ambiguity, the ideational equivalence is preferable as in TT2, TT3 and AT. The latter is back-translated (I will never mean what I say; my words should not reflect my real feelings).

• Characters vs. Authorial Intention

A great deal of the character’s traits and role are given through his/her speech. The problem arises when the translator maintains the subject’s presence in the character’s words which may not be rendered well in the TT causing a flawed character and message as well. The deconstructive translator has to detach the characters in the TL from the SL authorial ‘intention’ following Derrida’s principle that, “The ‘subject’ of writing does not exist if we mean by that some sovereign solitude of the author. The subject of writing is a system of relations between strata” (Derrida, 1967/1978, pp. 226-27). In Davis’ words, “Just as meaning does not exist outside context, so too authors do not function as ahistorical, isolated identities” (2001, p. 4). Likewise, the subject’s exempted identity also involves the translator, who must allow a constitutive effect of the TT system to freeplay while formulating a translation.

The character of Claudius is an obvious case in point. Claudius is a capable statesman whose rhetorical words are chosen carefully to rationalize his hasty marriage. He is an epitome of a skillful politician whose persuasive speech presents the usurpation of the crown and marriage to the queen as though to be an act of a keen concern for the kingdom “a warlike state” which must not appear vulnerable to lurking enemies. Without showing that rhetorical words in the TL, a great deal of his characterization will be absent. The tables below map the translations of Claudius’ speech at the wedding ceremony in which he announces how and why he and The Queen are getting married. The Arabic reader of the three versions might conceive an image of Claudius quite different from that of the original text due to weaknesses at the textual, referential, cohesive, and naturalness levels.

Table 4.1. Extract 1 (act 1, scene 2, lines 1-2)

The literal translation of “memory be green” in TT1 and TT2 caused a distorted image since both terms ((ذكرى، خضراء do not collocate in Arabic. As for TT3, it looks more accurate, although its weakness arises somehow from its structure by trying to stick to the literal translation of “though yet” (على الرغم), and “our dear brother” (اخينا). Speaking in the AT, Claudius appears as a fluent orator which may help maintain his charisma to the Arabic reader.

Table 4.2. Extract 2 (act 1, scene 2, lines 2-4)

The metaphors of “bear our hearts in grief” and “whole kingdom to be contracted in one brow of woe” lose their figurative intention when rendered in a formal equivalence when ideational or functional equivalence (as it is the case in Alternative Translation) could show their connotations more adequately. Structurally, the three translations fail to link the statement up to the preceding one in order to achieve cohesion. The expressions (ولئن يكن خليقا بنا/ وانه من الصحيح لنا/ واننا جديرون ان) disrupt the natural flow of the discourse. By contrast, the expression (لا عتب) in the AT fits into the statement that begins with (في خضم الاسى), thus complying to the cohesive level.

Table 4.3. Extract 3 (act 1, scene 2, lines 5-7)

The weakness in the above Arabic versions arises when translators struggled to keep up the English sense of the expressions “discretion fought with nature”, “wisest sorrow”, and “with remembrance of ourselves.” TT3, however, presents a naturally Arabic style by virtue of decoding the ST semantic elements followed by finding the matching counterparts in TL. In this context, “nature” stands for (عاطفة) while “wisest sorrows” can be rendered (حزن حصيف) and “remembrance of ourselves” would look more natural if rendered (ينسينا تدبر شؤون واقعنا).

From a relevant perspective, the random use of connectors throughout the above texts in Arabic (لئن/ ولو/ ولئن/ وانه/ فان) does not allow the smooth and natural flow of the discourse which is supposed to feature the character of Claudius as a tactful politician and an eloquent orator. By contrast, the AT gives a good example of how naturalness can be achieved when translation takes place at the four variable levels. Claudius, speaking in the alternative deconstructive translation, impresses with his eloquence and fluency, thus convincing the Arabic reader of his role and representation.

In this regard, about four Arabic adaptations of Hamlet constitute what can be called a deconstructive rework of the original tragedy in terms of its political rhetoric and sociopolitical contexts. The Arabic adaptations and appropriations of Hamlet provide solid evidence to the multiplicity rather than the uniqueness of a Shakespearean character and text. In Alghaberi’s words, “Arab Hamlet is seen as a historical, political, and sociological phenomenon, and thus adapters and appropriators invest in the construction of different ‘Hamlets’ rather than reproducing or fetishizing the original one” (2018, p. 10). Of course, the reconstruction of the character of Hamlet is actually meant to recompensate for the loss in the characters’ charisma resulting from the Arabic translations.

• Mimicking Stylistic Features

For a deconstructive translation to maintain the tone and style of the SL, mimicking (Sakai, 2006) is an efficient strategy that achieves naturalness through imitating some repeated words or sounds as well as the musical paradigms of rhyme and rhythm as per the TL standards though. By mirroring the source text’s stylistic and structural elements, translation becomes subversive since the aesthetic values of the SL are recreated according to the rules of the TL. The following conversation between Hamlet and his mother is a case in point.

Table 5.1. Extract 1 (act 3, scene 4, lines 8-12)

Some words are repeated by Hamlet to ironically mock his mother (go, go; come, come; much offended; idle tongue, wicked tongue). The same tone must be transcreated into Arabic. The repeated words “come, come” and “go, go” are either deleted or wrongly paraphrased by translators who neglected the mocking tone ensued by repetition. The words “idle tongue” and “wicked tongue” bring about Hamlet’s sarcasm only when the same order of words is followed in Alternative Translation (انك ترد باستهتار/ وانت تسالين باستخفاف).

Likewise, poetry falls within this category as it features the repetition of certain sound patterns that can never be appreciated in the target text unless they are reworked according to its prosody. In this light, translating poetry into poetry is deconstructive par excellence as it rebuilds a TL structure of a different design and style with the SL raw materials. The following excerpt taken from The Mousetrap highlights the importance of mimicking the source text’s rhyme and rhythm taking into account the poetic patterns acceptable to the target text’s reader.

Table 5.2. Extract 2 (act 3, scene 2, lines 185-192)

As a play within play, the discourse in The Mousetrap should feature a different reciting style. These are meant by Shakespeare to have a regular rhyme and rhythm. None of the three translations above pays attention to this significant aspect. Reading any of the three Arabic translations, presents a flawed and disrupting discourse, thus undermining Shakespeare’s eloquent and rhetorical style. By contrast, the AT’s poetic language allows the TL reader to experience an aesthetic and even semantic delight similar to that ensued by the original text.

3. Conclusion

Translation, in the sense of deconstruction, does not try to come up with “a final, authoritative interpretation.” It rather practices an “ongoing, integrated analysis of texts” (Davis, 2001, p. 25). Accordingly, it is not equivalence but matching sets of relations that a literary translator should seek to render based on the multiple choices available to him/her, personal experience of the two languages and cultures, and individual preferences as well. The above approach confirms that the process of translation should involve more than extracting a term and transferring it into another language. The ST term gains its significance from a freeplay of differences with other signifiers while the process of transference involves only transplanting it into a different body of differences and signifiers. It might be a success if the TL happens to have a similar framework and a failure if not. Translation, therefore, must test first the validity of the signifier within the TL signification system in order to make it acceptable.

The above approach to literary translation falls back on a number of deconstructive principles. It takes for granted the linguistic and referential possibilities inherent in the SL leading to the multiple interpretations in the TL. The hidden meanings which might not be overtly stated in the SL stand for absences that must be recreated in the TL. Moreover, in translating a literary text, the source text has to be abused in order to render its core and effect in the target. Any approach to a creative translation must pay heed that the communicative message cannot be rendered in isolation from the aesthetic paradigm. As for representing characters in the TL, the deconstructive translator has to detach the characters from the SL authorial ‘intention’. Sometimes, the translator needs to mirror the source text’s stylistic and structural elements through imitating repeated sounds as well as the paradigms of rhyme and rhythm in order to replicate their aesthetic values. When such dimensions are considered, naturalness, as a sublime goal of translation, can be achieved to some extent.

Acknowledgements:

This research received grant no. (49/2023) from the Arab Observatory for Translation (an affiliate of ALESCO), which is supported by the Literature, Publishing & Translation Commission in Saudi Arabia.

Bibliography List

• Al-Harahsheh, A. M. (2022). Cohesion and coherence shift in Jabra’s translation of Hamlet. ONOMÁZEIN, 56, 122 – 143. https://doi.10.7764/onomazein.56.07
• Alghaberi, J. (2018). Shakespeare in Arabic translations and adaptations: The search for dramatic canon. Daath Voyage, 3(3), 8-18.
• Alsaqer, B. N. A. (2023). The role of deconstructing as a part of translation process in literary text. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 20(2), 960–968.
• Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Routledge.
• Boucetta, A. et. al. (2021). The issue of translating metaphor in theatrical text, Othello play “of Shakespeare” as a sample. Humanities Journal, 32(3), 551-561.
• Davis, K. (2001). Deconstruction and Translation. St. Jerome Publishing.
• Derrida, J. (1985). The ear of the other: otobiography, transference, translation: texts and discussions with Jacques Derrida. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Edited by Christie McDonald.
• Hanane, B. & Abu Amrieh, Y. (2022). Appropriating Hamlet in Arabic: Youths, Revolutions and Socio-cultural Criticism. Forum for World Literature Studies, 14(1).
• Hennessey, Katherine & Margaret Litvin (Ed.). (2019). Shakespeare and the Arab World. Berghahn.
• Homem, R. V. and Hoenselaars, T. (Ed). (2004). Translating Shakespeare for the Twenty-First Century. Rodopi B.V.
• Jabra, Jabra, translator. (1960). The Tragedy of Hamlet. By Shakespeare, W. Arabic Institute for Research and Publication,
• Kruger, J. L. (2004). Translating traces: Deconstruction and the practice of translation. Literator, 25(1), 47-71.
• Hassoon, M. N. (2021). The Domestication and Arabization of the Bard: Towards the Reception of Shakespeare in the Arab World.” Multicultural Shakespeare:
  Translation, Appropriation and Performance, 23(38), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.18778/2083-8530.23.03
• Hermans, T. (2014). The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. Routledge.
• Lewis, P. E. (1985) The Measure of Translation Effects, in J. Graham (ed), Difference in Translation, Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. 31-62.
• Mehawesh, M. M. et. al. (2023). Challenges in Translating Puns in Some Selections of Arabic Poetry into English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 14(4), 995-1004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1404.17
• Muhaidat, F. M. et. al. (2013). King Lear on the Arabic Stage: Linguistic, Social and Cultural Considerations. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 244-253.
• Munday, J. (2012). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge
• Omar, L. I. (2020). The Stylistic Amplification of Conceptual Metaphors in Translating Shakespeare into Arabic by Mohamed Enani. AWEJ for Translation & Literary Studies, 4(4), 58 -7. http://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awejtls/vol4no4.5
• Omar, L. I. (2022). Translating Macbeth’s Colour Metaphors Into Arabic: A Revised CMT Approach to Shakespeare’s Creative Metaphors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(10), 1995-2004. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1210.06
• Niazi, Sala, translator. (2008). The Tragedy of Hamlet. By Shakespeare, W. Al-Mada,
• Nida, E. (1964). Towards a science of translating. Brill.
• Pagliawan, D. L. (2017). Translation as Deconstruction: Infidelity in the Translation Process. International Journal of Comparative Literature & Translation Studies, 5(2), 19-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.5n.2p.19
• Sakai, N. (2006). Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2-3), 71-78.
• Shakespeare, W. (1899). The Tragedy of Hamlet. London: Methuen & Co.
• Syrotinski, M. (2018). Deconstruction and Philosophy in Translation: The Franco-German Connection. Oxford German Studies, 47(1), 70-83.