الفهرس 
PREFACEOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 309 |  |  |
| | | from | 309 | | |
Abstract
Translation Studies has long been polarized by two main approaches to translating: domestication and foreignization. Both methods lend themselves to the translator’s vision of how the translation is purported to represent the original. The translator either chooses to attune the translation to the target culture and language: domestication; or opts for flavouring the target text, the translation, with the culture and language of the source text, foreignization.
Domestication and foreignization, as strategies of translating, have triggered controversy. Domestication is advocated as much as it is opposed: hailed for representing transparency, thus aiding seamless glide from source language and culture to target language and culture, whilst opposed for suspicion of infidelity: whitewashing the linguistic and cultural differences between source text and target text. Same applies to foreignization. While supporters view it as a form of resistance, allowing for more linguistic and cultural invigoration, opponents discard it as alienating, thus far-distancing cultural gaps and hindering communication.
Furthermore, in domestication, translators are always viewed as passive players, acting invisibly in order to convince target readers that the text at hand is transparent and even original, never translated. In contrast, translators may take liberties so that target readers can feel the difference that translation makes. In this context, a significant question surfaces: how far can liberties be tolerated in translation, i.e. how (in) visible should the translator be?
The present thesis attempts an exploration of both strategies, with special reference to Enani’s and Abu-Deeb’s translations of Said’s Orientalism. Each text represents one of the translation strategies in question. The thesis adopts a multi-layered contrastive analysis of both translations. The analysis focuses on areas including: lexis, phraseology and syntax. The study is supposed to analyze both translations with a view to probing how far the two strategies have influenced the reception of Said’s work and how they provide two representations, interpretations of the same text. The thesis also attempts an examination of how the choice of a certain method of translation by each translator is conditioned by their own perception of Said’s work in addition to their respective, different purposes of translating the source text.
This thesis presents two versions of Said’s Orientalism in Arabic, one following the domestication method and the other, foreignization. Both translators have expressed their respective purposes and views of how the translation of Said’s Orientalism should be. Enani believes that domestication is the sole valid strategy in translating specialized intellectual texts since these embrace sophisticated philosophical ideas that may be hard to understand by the average-cultured reader, necessitating a re-reading. He also adds that translation is as effortful as writing: the translator has to do his best in order to make it easy and lucid for the reader. Enani’s statements stem out of belief in the role of the translator as an interpreter, mediating meaning in the way his contemporaries understand (Enani, 2006). On the other hand, Abu-Deeb (1995) argues that the ambition of translating, at present, should be representing, as much as possible, the structure of the author’s thinking, firstly, and contributing to the broadening of the structure of the target language, secondly. He further contends that it is not feasible to squeeze everything into the existing structure, via explanations, simplifications or interpretations, rather, the expansion should be harnessed to making the language richer and more flexible.
In view of the above, it is evident that both translators have examined Orientalism from two different angles: one focusing on interpretation, in order to get to the average-cultured Arab reader, whilst the other concentrating on the future of translation and the ambitions of invigorating the Arabic language.
The aim of the present thesis is to provide a contrastive, multi-layered analysis of both translations with a view to evaluating each strategy of translating, examining the validity of views on domestication and foreignization, assessing how far both translators were committed to their methods and finally probing the two different angles through which Said is represented