Revisiting Domestication and Foreignisation Methods: Translating the Quran by the Hybrid Approach
Authors: Aladdin Al-Tarawneh
The Quran, as it is the sacred book of Islam and considered the literal word of God (Allah) in Arabic, is highly translated into many languages; however, the foreignising or the literal approach excessively stains the quality and discredits the final product in the eyes of its receptors. Such an approach fails to capture the intended meaning of the Quran and to communicate it in any language. Therefore, this study is conducted to propose a different approach that seeks involving other ones according to a hybrid model. Indeed, this study challenges the binary adherence that is highly used in Translation Studies (TS) in general and in the translation of the Quran in particular. Drawing on the genuine fact that the Quran can be communicated in any language in terms of meaning, and the translation is not sacred; this paper approaches the translation of the Quran by blending different methods like domestication or foreignisation in a systematic way, avoiding the binary choice made by many translators. To reach this aim, the paper has a conceptual part that seeks to elucidate and clarify the main methods employed in TS, and criticise and modify them to propose the new hybrid approach (the hybrid model) for translating the Quran – that is, the deductive method. To support and validate the outcome of the previous part, a comparative model is employed in order to highlight the differences between the suggested translation and other widely used ones – that is, the inductive method. By applying this methodology, the paper proves that there is a deficiency of communicating the original meaning of the Quran in light of the foreignising approach. In conclusion, the paper suggests producing a Quran translation has to take into account the adoption of many techniques to express the meaning of the Quran as understood in the original, and to offer this understanding in English in the most native-like manner to serve the intended target readers.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2022019Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 787
 Abdel Haleem, M, The Qur’an, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
 Abdul-Raof, H, Qur’an Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis (London: Routledge, 2010).
 Åsman, T. P., & Pedersen, J, ʻHow Bert Got into Ned's head: domestication in the Translation of Literature for Young Readersʼ, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 21:2 (2013), pp. 143-155.
 Blight, R. C. (2005). Footnotes for meaningful translations of the New Testament. Journal of Translation, I (I), 7-46.
 Collins, J. (2010). ʻTranscribing Colonial Australi: Startegies of Translation in the Work of Rosa Campbell Praed and Daisy Batesʼ in P. Wittke-Rüdiger, & K. Gross (eds.), Translation of Cultures. (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi 2010), pp. 113-132.
 Cronin, M. ʻThe Cracked Looking-Glass of Servants: Translation and Minority Languages in a Global Ageʼ in M. Baker (ed.), Critical Readings in Translation Studies. (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 249-262.
 Dickins, J., Hervey, S., & Higgins, I, Thinking Arabic Translation: A Course in Translation Method: Arabic to English. (London and New York: Routledge, 2002).
 Dukes, K, English Translation, The Quranic Arabic Corpus, (2001), retrieved from http://corpus.quran.com/ (accessed November 2017).
 Engineer, A. Trivedi, Muslim Minority, Continuity and Change, (New Delhi: Gyan Pub, 2008).
 Goddard, C, Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
 Hatim, B., & Munday, J, Translation an Advanced Resource Book, (London: Routledge, 2004).
 Hudson, R. (1981). Some issues on which linguists can agree. Journal of Linguistics, 17(2), 333-343.
 Kenny, D, ʻEquivalenceʼ in M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, (London: Routledge, 2011).
 Koskinen, K, ʻDomestication, Foreignization and the Modulation of Affectʼ in H. Kemppanen, M. Jänis, & A. Belikova (eds.), Domestication and Foreignization in Trasnslation Sstudies (Berlin: Frank & Timme, Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur, 2012), pp. 13-32.
 McMichael, R. N, Eucharist: A Guide for the Perplexed (London and New York: Continuum/T & T Clark, 2010).
 Nida, E. A, Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000).
 Nida, E., & de Waard, J, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986).
 Pym, A. (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. London; New York: Routledge.
 Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
 Seruya & Moniz Abu-Layla, M, The Quran and the Gospel: A Comparative Study (Cairo: El-Falah for Translation, Publishing and Distribution, 1997).
 Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M, Dictionary of Translation Studies (London and New York: Routledge, 2014).
 Thakur, H. K, Gandhi, Nehru and Globalization, (New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 2010).
 Trivedi, H, ʻTranslating culture and cultural translationʼ in P. St.-Pierre, & P. Kar (eds), Translation: Reflections, Refractions, Transformations (Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co, 2007), pp. 277-317.
 Vermeer, H. J, ʻSkopos and commission in translational actionʼ in L. Venuti (ed), The Translation Studies Reader (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 191-202.
 Venuti, L, The Translator’s Invisibility, (London: Routledge, 2008). Retrieved from www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203553190.
 u, L. M., Uspensky, B. A., & Mihaychuk, G, ʻOn the Semiotic Mechanism of Cultureʼ, New Literary History, 9:2 (1978), pp. 211-232.