Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation: Stylistic ...

Babel 49:3 203-228 © Fédération des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel
Idiomaticity Between Evasion
and Invasion in Translation:
Stylistic, Aesthetic and Connotative Considerations
Hasan Ghazala
Introduction
One of the most intricate topics in the field of translation is idioms. Although
the difficulty of translating idioms is underlined by translators in the course of
translating a text of some type, it has been neglected in translation studies and
writing, especially from English into Arabic. Apart from hints and minor points
raised here and there in passing by a few writers on translation (but see Baker
1992: ch.3; and Ghazala 1995: ch.2), the literature on the subject has been
mainly confined to lexicology and applied linguistics(see for example, Carter,
1987; Cowie 1981; and Richards 1970). In translation studies, the concentration
has been on the translation of Metaphor and metaphorical language, especially
literary language. But idioms as they are traditionally known and classified
have yet to receive the due attention.
This paper is an attempt to bridge the gap to some extent in the translation
of idioms and idiomaticity illustrated with examples of translation of English
Language idioms into Arabic. It investigates the main problems and difficulties
encountered and the extent to which idiomaticity is retained, distorted or lost,
and why; and what solutions and procedures may be available to keep losses to
a minimum, and become creative in translation. The translator’s task here ranges
from evasion to invasion in his or her attempts to transfer the idiomaticity
of the SL into the TL to achieve equivalent sense, implications, connotations,
cultural aspects and effects.
The dictionary meaning of an idiom, to start with, is “a phrase, construction
or expression that is recognized as a unit in the usage of a given language
and either differs from the usual syntactic patterns or has a meaning that differs
from the literal meaning of its parts taken together” (Webster’s New World Dictionary,
670, sense 3); “a group of words whose meanings cannot be predicted

204 Hasan Ghazala
from the meanings of the constituent words” (Collins English Dictionary, 760,
sense1); “... metaphorical rather than literal ... also more or less invariable and
fixed in form or order ...” (Longman Dictionary of English Idioms, viii); “...
the sense of the whole cannot be arrived at from a prior understanding of the
parts” (Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, vol. 2, x); and to “...
understand every individual word in a text and still fail to grasp what the text
is all about” (A Dictionary of American Idioms, iv). Five points are common
among these definitions:
1. Idioms are all in all metaphorical and cannot be understood directly.
2. They should not be taken literally; in the sense that their meanings are not
the outcome of the individual meanings of their constituent words taken
collectively.
3. Their syntactic form is usually fixed and cannot be changed or described as
ungrammatical. Moreover, no word can be added, deleted or replaced(see
also Baker 1992: 63).
4. Their meanings are also invariable.
5. (Not included in those definitions) They are mainly cultural and informal
(see also Longman Dictionary of English Idioms, op. cit.).
Thus, idioms are special, metaphorical, fixed phrases whose meanings and
forms are not negotiable. Their most special and essential component is idiomaticity,
namely, their metaphorical aspect. Hence its crucial importance in
translation, to the extent that the success of a translation of an idiom stands and
falls with the degree to which idiomaticity is retained or distorted.
Types of Idioms
Idioms are of different types. They are also classified differently by writers
and standard reference books. In the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic
English, for example, the types of idioms are based on a certain understanding
of idiomaticity: “A view of idiomaticity which does full justice to the rich
diversity of word combinations in English must recognize that the meaning of
a combination may be related to those of its components in a variety of ways,
and must take account also of the possibility of internal variation, or substitution
of part for part.” According to this bilateral view, idioms are categorized
into four main types: (a) Pure idioms: full, perfect idioms that are established
through constant re-use, then undergo figurative extension and finally petrify

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 205
(aptly used of various types of meaning-development) or congeal (no longer
undergo change / become fixed and well-established in language): e.g. ‘kick the
bucket’. (b) Figurative idioms: The idioms of this category hardly accept variation
and pronoun substitution. They are purely figurative idioms and their literal
senses do not stand side by side with their figurative ones in normal, everyday
use of language. In this sense, this type is not dissimilar to the previous one:
e.g. ‘burn one’s boat’. (c) Restricted collocations: These are also categorized as
‘semi-idioms’. They are usually two word combinations, in which one has a figurative
sense, while the other has a literal and familiar sense: e.g. ‘jog one’s
memory’ (‘jog’ is figurative, whereas ‘memory’ is not). (d) Open collocations:
These are more specific, normal and flexible combinations of words (Adj.-N,
V-N; N-N, etc. See Newmark 1988, 212; Ghazala 1993, 1995 and 2001; Cowie
1981, Carter 1987, Ch.3; Baker 1992, 47-9, Morton Benson et al. 1986; Hill
et al. 1997; and others) rather than fixed idioms of invariable form and sense:
e.g. ‘fill the sink’.
Another clearer, more specified, extensive, but looser categorization of idioms
is introduced by Longman’s Dictionary of English Idioms(op.cit.). Twelve
types are distinguished:
(a) Traditional idioms: are the well-known, most popular idioms, that are almost
full sentences, only a subject to be provided: e.g. ‘spill the beans’.
(b) Idioms in which actions stand for emotions or feelings: Cultural idioms
of actions in appearance, but emotions or feelings by cultural implication;
e.g. ‘throw up one’s arms / hands’ (culturally, the action here is a sign of annoyance,
not of happiness).
(c) Pairs of words: idioms in which two words are joined by and / or, many of
which cannot be reversed: e.g. ‘cats and dogs’; ‘spick and span’, ‘hammer
and tongs’, etc.
(d) Allusions: words or phrases of special cultural significance and reference:
e.g. ‘Westminster’ (the British Parliament and Government); ‘catch 22’.
(e) Sayings: informal popular sayings and metaphorical proverbs in complete
sentences: e.g. ‘There’s always (a) next time’; ‘A rolling stone gathers no
moss’.
(f) Typical conversational phrases: fixed conversational phrases whose
meanings are not literal: ‘How do you do?’; ‘Now you’re talking!’.
(g) Similes: these are popular and cultural phrases with ‘as ... as’ structure, or
the use of like: e.g. ‘as quick as a flash’; ‘work like a horse’.

206 Hasan Ghazala
(h) Archaisms: old phrases that are not in frequent use now: e.g. ‘to and fro’;
‘kith and kin’.
(i) Jargon: phrases or words confined to special and technical use: e.g. ‘paraphernalia’
(i.e. procedure).
(j) Foreign phrases: French or other foreign idiomatic phrases that are in popular
use: e.g. the French phrase ‘bête noire’ (black beast), used to describe
a bad person.
(k) Common phrases and terms: phrases that are common in use but do not
present a metaphorical problem: e.g. ‘on strike’; ‘fish and chips’; etc.
(l) Phrasal verbs: Combinations of verbs and one or two adverbial particles
or prepositions that cannot be understood literally: e.g. ‘look up’; ‘read
through’; ‘watch out’; etc.
Carter (1987: 60), on the other hand, labels different categories of idioms under
types of fixed expressions as follows:
(a) Idioms:
1. irreversible binomials / compound idioms: e.g. ‘huff and puff’; ‘spick
and span’; etc.
2. full idioms: e.g. ‘fit the bill’; ‘smell a rat’; ‘to be in the doghouse’; etc.
3. semi-idioms: e.g. ‘glassy stare’; ‘fat salary’; ‘dead drunk’; etc.
(b) Proverbs: e.g. ‘to add insult to injury’; ‘a watched pot never boils’; etc.
(c) Stock phrases: e.g. ‘a vicious circle’; ‘a recipe for disaster’; etc.
(d) Catchphrases: ‘is it cold up there?’; ‘the name of the game’; ‘get lost’; etc.
(e) Allusions / quotations: e.g. ‘we are not amused’; etc.
(f) Idiomatic similes: e.g. ‘as ... as’ constructions.
(g) Discoursal expressions:
1. social formulae / clichés: e.g. ‘how do you do’; ‘long time’; etc.
2. connectives; structuring devices: e.g. ‘once upon a time’; ‘in sum’;
etc.
3. conversational gambits: e.g. ‘guess what’; ‘forgive my curiosity’; etc.
4. stylistic formulae: e.g. ‘ladies and gentlemen’; ‘looking forward to
hearing from you’; etc.
5. stereotypes: e.g. ‘we’re just good friends’; ‘I thought you’d never ask’;
etc.
A final, slightly different but more consistent categorization of idioms is proposed
in the introduction to A Dictionary of American Idioms (1984: iv-viii):

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 207
(a) Lexemic idioms: idioms which correlate with the familiar parts of speech
(i.e. verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc.): e.g.
1. bear the brunt; pull one’s socks up; pass away; write off; get away
with; etc. (i.e. phrasal verbs) (verbal)
2. cold feet; rat race; change of heart; etc. (nominal)
3. pepper and salt; alive and kicking, spick and span; etc. (adjectival)
4. like blazes; heart and soul; hammer and tongs; etc. (adverbial)
(b) Phraseological idioms: invariable longer idioms and entire phrases that do
not correlate with a certain grammatical part of speech: e.g. bear the brunt,
kick the bucket; be up in the cheek; etc.
(c) Well-established proverbs and sayings: e.g. boys will be boys; on pins and
needles; bats in one’s belfry; etc.
(d) Set phrases: e.g. just in case; how about a drink?, just to be on the safe
side; etc.
(e) One-word idioms: individual words used with surprisingly different meanings:
e.g. bottleneck (overcrowded traffic / big crisis; in a difficult situation;
dig (like); dog (disappointing date, or tough exam); etc.
Comments on these Categorizations:
The following comments can be made on the previous four categorizations of
idioms:
1. They reflect the diversity and complexity of English(British or American)
idioms.
2. They have some types in common, like full/pure idioms, semi-idioms, idiomatic
similes, and proverbs.
3. They all recognize idioms as fixed, invariable and metaphorical (Oxford’s
‘open collocations’ is an exception).
4. They lack systematicity and consistency of classification, especially the
first two categorizations which confuse grammar and semantics.
5. They are vague and confusing in terms of the criteria of labeling idioms.
That is, the same phrases are randomly classified under different categories
(c.f. ‘vicious circle’: a stock phrase to Carter, but a traditional idiom to
Longman’s; ‘we’re just good friends’ is to Carter a stereotype, whereas in
Partridge’s Dictionary of Catchphrases (1985), it is a catch phrase; and so
forth).

208 Hasan Ghazala
6. While Oxford’s categorization is the shortest and most opaque, Longman’s
is the loosest and least accurate.
7. Carter’s classification surprisingly ignores phrasal verbs completely. Moreover,
it is true that perhaps it is more transparent than the other three, yet
it is quite confusing. Is, for instance, ‘once upon a time’ not a cliché too?
And ‘ladies and gentlemen’ a collocation rather than a stylistic formula?.
Carter himself admits as much in his commentary on these categories, describing
his classification as tentative, and necessarily involving structural
overlap. Nevertheless, I agree with him that it “might, however, give an
idea of the range of fixed expressions in the modern English lexicon...” (p.
59).
8. The fourth classification in the Dictionary of American Idioms, short as it
may be, is the simplest and most transparent of all in terms of the criteria
of categorization — which is grammatical — and simplification.
Having said that, and to simplify such complex categorizations, we can redefine
idioms as ‘those phrases and expressions which are primarily fixed, and invariable
in form, and cannot be understood literally, only metaphorically’ (see
also Ghazala 1995:131). Thus, they can be re-categorized into the following
main types:
1. Full/pure idioms;
2. Semi-idioms;
3. Proverbs, popular sayings and semi-proverbial expressions;
4. Phrasal verbs;
5. Metaphorical catchphrases and popular expressions
The question which begs an urgent answer now is: To what use can these categorizations
be put in the translation of English idioms into Arabic? These categorizations
show the richness and abundance of idiomatic expressions in language
that the translator must be aware of and keen to understand properly so
that he can translate properly. Also, idiomaticity is not confined only to those
expressions which are traditionally identified and classified as idioms. Therefore,
translators should trace it at a wider range of types of expressions. Furthermore,
such categorization helps translators distinguish the metaphorical
part(s) of an idiom which is only partly idiomatic(e.g. semi-idioms, and catchphrases).
In other words, it helps them locate idiomaticity, the heart of the matter
of any idiomatic expression, and the focal point of this paper.

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 209
Having debated some categorizations of idioms and, hence, established
the theoretical background for the whole paper, it is high time now to introduce
the argument for the claim I make about the translation of the idiomaticity
of idioms.
I argue that two major procedures are overwhelmingly dominant in the
translation of idioms, or more precisely, idiomaticity, the gist of any idiomatic
phrase. That is, its translation ranges between evasion and invasion: evasion of
translating idiomaticity altogether by way of eliminating it for reasons of the
translator’s incompetence or simplification of the message for the TL readers;
or invasion of idiomaticity by translating it unabashedly in a challenging spirit
in an attempt not only to match it but also sometimes to supercede it. Both,
I argue, are valid procedures on the right occasion for the right reason(s). Yet,
generally, I strongly go for the latter as more creative, convincing and faithful
procedure than the former which is at worst an escape from translating properly,
and at best an inclination to practicality.
Evasion of Idiomaticity
By evasion I mean the elimination of the idiomaticity of the SL idiom when
translating it into the TL with no compensation of any kind. This elimination
allegedly has its justifications that can be elaborated by two main sub-procedures:
1. Dissuasion from idiomaticity: owing to the following reasons:
(a) The translator’s incompetence:
Some translators are not competent to tackle idioms, which they consider untranslatable,
but which in reality are not so. Examples include:
To leave no stone unturned: Unable to find an equivalent idiom in Arabic, and
unsure about the validity of literal translation, an incompetent translator might
resort to translations like «ﻪﻌﺳو ﻲﻓ ﺎﻣ ﻞﻛ ﻞﻌﻔﻳ» (to do one’s best); \هﺪﻬﺟ ىرﺎﺼﻗ لﺬﺒﻳ»
«ًاﺪﻬﺟ لﺄﻳ ﻻ (to exert extreme efforts); «ﻞﻴﺤﺘﺴﻤﻟا ﻞﻌﻔﻳ» (to do the impossible); However
satisfactory such translations may be as regards sense, they fail to match or
reflect the idiomaticity of the original. Therefore, a better idiomatic version is
«باﻮﺑﻷا ﻞﻛ قﺮﻄﻳ» (lit.: to knock at all doors / to leave no door unnocked). Although
the image here is that of doors while in the original it is of stones, equivalent
sense, effect and idiomaticity are perfectly achieved. Besides, an SL full idiom

210 Hasan Ghazala
is translated into a TL full idiom, which means that a maximum degree of equivalence
is being attained, and all stylistic and semantic effects and implications
retained.
To jump the gun: Fascinated by standard collocations like ءﺎﻴﺷﻷا \ رﻮﻣﻷا ﻞﺠﻌﺘﻳ»
ناوﻷا ﻞﺒﻗ ﻞﺠﻌﺘﻳ»; (to be in a hurry / to be hasty) or favourable words like \ ﻞﺠﻌﺘﻣ»
«عﺮﺴﺘﻣ \ ﻞﺠﻌﺘﺴﻣ (hasty), a translator might ignore any other idiomatic translation
such as «ﺮﺒﺼﻟﺎﺑ ﻪﻟ ﺔﻗﺎﻃ ﻻ» (no way to be patient), or «ﻖﻴﺿ ﻖﻠﺧ ﻮﺑأ \ ﻖﻴﺿ ﻪﻘﻠﺧ ; ﺔﻘﻴﺿ ﻪﺘﺼﻤﺣ»
(lit.: to be of narrow mood(quite impatient)). Although the last three versions are
colloquial, and the former is religious and literary, they are as fully idiomatic and
influential as the original, regardless of the difference between the image of the
English ‘jumping the gun’ and the Arabic ‘ill-temper / impatience’.
To call a spade a spade: Not knowing, or perhaps unwilling to translate into an
idiomatic Arabic version, a translator would prefer the good popular expression
««ﺎﻬﺋﺎﻤﺳﺄﺑ ءﺎﻴﺷﻷا ﻲﻤﺴﻳ (lit.: to call things by their names), which is not bad at all.
Yet, we still have a better, purely idiomatic, more popular and effective expression
that translates the English original more precisely and agreeably, although
rather informally: «ﻪﻨﻴﻌﺑ رﻮﻋأ رﻮﻋﻸﻟ لﻮﻘﻳ» (lit.: to tell a one-eyed man one-eyed in
the face).
I’ll eat my hat (if you do so and so): Failing to find a formal idiomatic equivalence,
a translator might go for a simple version like ﻮﻟ ﺪﻳﺮﺗ ﺎﻣ ﻚﻴﻄﻋأ \ ﻞﻌﻓأ فﻮﺳ»
«اﺬﻛو اﺬﻛ ﺖﻠﻌﻓ (I’ll do / give you whatever you like ...). However, the retention of
idiomaticity and reflection of effective exaggeration of the SL text, an idiomatic
translation like «... ﻲﻋارذ \ يﺪﻳ ﻊﻄﻗأ» (lit.: I’ll cut my hand/arm ...) in Arabic would
be rather advisable. Not only idiomaticity and effect are reflected here, but also
the same stylistic implications of hypothesis, overexaggeration and impossibility
are indicated by ‘cut my arm’ which is as unimaginable as ‘eat my hat’, and no
one is expected to say or take either phrase literally and seriously. Both are used
as a strong assertion of the impossibility of something to be done by somebody.
At the same time, they can be sometimes charged with the speaker’s implied challenge
for the listener to have the will and courage to do something.
A wild goose chase: Reluctant maybe to chase an idiomatic equivalent in Arabic,
a hasty translator opts for such translations as (ﻰﺟﺮﺗ) ةﺪﺋﺎﻓ ﻻ \ ﻪﻨﻣ ﻞﺋﺎﻃ ﻻ ﺮﻣأ»
«ﻪﻨﻣ سوﺆﻴﻣ \ﻪﻨﻣ (to no avail / to no use / hopeless); «لوﺎﺤﺗ ًﺎﺜﺒﻋ» (you try in vain); ﺐﻌﺘﻳ»
«(ﺎﻋ)ﻲﺿﺎﻔﻟا ﻰﻠﻋ ﻪﺴﻔﻧ (lit.: you exert yourself for nothing (col.)); «باﺮﺳ ءارو يﺮﺠﻳ» (lit.:
to run after a mirage), etc. Although sense is perfectly retained by these translations,
idiomaticity is not present strongly in them as in the original and, therefore,
falls short of its expressivity, effectiveness and aestheticity. A matching version
is, however, available in Arabic: «ﺔﻨﺠﻟﺎﺑ ﺲﻴﻠﺑإ ﻞﻣأ» (lit.: the hope of the Satan
in Paradise). It is of a religious origin, based on God’s expulsion of the disobedient
devil from Paradise forever. Thus, it has the connotation of no hope, despair
and absurdity, which is exactly what the original connotes by a hopeless chase
of wild goose.

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 211
(b) Zero Language equivalence in TL:
Sometimes the translator is not to blame for non-idiomatic translation of the
SL expression, as there is no such thing in the TL. In this case he has to provide
a satisfactory version of sense, with idiomaticity dropped unwillingly, in
which case a considerable amount of loss will take place with a little chance
to compensate for it(see however ‘enforced idiomaticity’ later). There are many
English idioms, including the majority of phrasal verbs, that have no idiomatic
equivalence in Arabic. For example:
Spick and span: This idiom is taken from ship industry in English, where in
a newly built ship spick stands for ‘nail’ and span for ‘a piece of wood’. Thus, it
connotes a description of something as clean, neat, tidy and new. This idiomatic
image is unmatchable in Arabic. Therefore the translator has to concede this
and look for a good translation of sense like «ﻖﻴﻧأو ﺐﺗﺮﻣ» (neat and tidy); ﻒﻴﻈﻧ»
«ًاﺪﺟ (very clean); and perhaps preferably «ﺔﻠ ُﺣ ﻰﻬﺑأ ﻲﻓ» (in perfect dress/shape/
appearance). All of these translations render sense satisfactorily, with the last one
being the better version for it compensates considerably for the loss of the idiomaticity
of the original by means of the metaphorical word (ﺔﻠﺣ) “dress”.
Second hand (car, etc.): There is no such idiom in Arabic, not even a metaphorical
sense of any kind. Only one non-idiomatic, insensible version of sense is
available, namely, «ﺔﻠﻤﻌﺘﺴﻣ ةرﺎﻴﺳ» (used car). A total loss of idiomaticity has taken
place by this translation.
Bite the dust: This is an excellent idiomatic image of men killed in battle who
fall to the ground with their faces in the dust. A compatible idiom does not exist
in Arabic. However, a powerful standard collocation can be a perfect equivalent
to the English original: «ًﺎﻌﻳﺮﺻ ﺮﺨﻳ» (to collapse dead), which is non-idiomatic yet
quite an expressive image of the way a man who gets killed falls down, exactly as
in the SL. Another good, well-established collocation that may translate this idiom
is «ًﻼﻴﺘﻗ ىدﺮُﻳ» (get killed), which is equally accurate, effective and expressive.
A busman’s holiday: A bus driver works over weekends and national, religious
and bank holidays. In other words, he enjoys no holiday at all. This also applies
to Arab bus drivers, yet the idiom is not known in Arabic; only its sense can be
transmitted as «ﻞﻤﻋ ةزﺎﺟإ» (lit.: job/business holiday), which is paradoxical for no
one can be working and on a holiday. Nonetheless, it reflects the intended meaning
of the original, and this rhetorical figure of paradox is a compensation of
some kind for the absence of idiomaticity in the TL.
As the crow flies: The connotation of the crow is confined to bad tidings in Arabic
and ‘in a straight line’ is not included. Therefore, the translator has no option
when translating this English idiom into Arabic, except to use a literal sense: ﻲﻓ»
«ﻢﻴﻘﺘﺴﻣ ﻂﺧ (in a straight line). A literal translation into «باﺮﻐﻟا ﺮﻴﻄﻳ ﺎﻤﻛ», is complete-

212 Hasan Ghazala
ly incomprehensible in Arabic, and, hence, should be avoided despite its idiomaticity
for in such case it is the second best right after sense.
Hammer and tongs: «ﻂﻘﻠﻤﻟاو ﺔﻗﺮﻄﻤﻟا» are not used in Arabic to connote violence,
only in English. The only way out in translating this idiom into Arabic, then, is to
translate it as a one-word adverbial phrase like: «ﻒﻨﻌﺑ \ ةﺪﺸﺑ» (violently) (the prepositional
phrase in Arabic functions here as an adverb of manner). An artificial
version like «ﻒﻨﻋو ةﺪﺸﺑ» (tensely and violently) which might be taken as a grammatical
and stylistic parallel to the original, is unacceptable for it is unnecessarily
tautological, unrecognized collocation in Arabic, and reflects the translator’s
total misunderstanding of the whole English idiom as two separate words. Rather,
it should be taken in its totality and idiomaticity to mean just one word in Arabic,
as the first suggested version confirms.
To be given the sack: ‘Sack’ is probably a reference to the workman’s tools bag
that he used to bring with him when he was given a job. If dismissed from work,
he would be given it on his leave. It still holds strongly in everyday English use.
However, this tradition is not a part of any kind of employment in Arabic. Hence,
to be understood well, the English idiom has to be translated into a non-idiom:
«ﻞﻤﻌﻟا ﻦﻣ ﻞﺼﻔُﻳ\د َﺮﻄُﻳ» (to be fired/dismissed from work).
Kick the bucket: This is a humorous idiomatic phrase used to mean ‘died’. Over
one hundred expressions are listed in El-Yaziji (1970, vol.1:189-96) to mean ‘die’,
but ‘bucket kicking’ is not among them. Therefore, any one would be justified in
translating this idiomatic expression on the condition that it is equally humorous
and informal like: «ﺢﱠﻳرو حﺎﺗرا \ عّدو» (lit. he said farewell / he rested and let others
rest). Still formal versions of normal emotional and religious charge such as
«ﻞﺣر \ ﻰﻀﻗ \ ﻲﻓﻮﺗ \ تﺎﻣ» (died / passed away / departed), can be fairly good.
As snug as a bug in a rug: Certainly there is no such idiomatic simile in Arabic,
for ‘a bug in the rug’ is quite alien to its native speakers as ‘bug’ has negative, unpleasant
connotations only. The only alternative then is to give the proper sense
of ‘comfortable’ in an as sensible version as possible. For example: حﺎﺗﺮﻣ \ ًاﺪﺟ ﺢﻳﺮﻣ»
«(ﺎﻋ)ﺮ ِ ﺧﻵا ﻰﻠﻋ حﺎﺗﺮﻣ \ ًﺎﻣﺎﻤﺗ (quite comfortable). These translations have one thing in
common, namely, exaggeration about the state of comfort. The third is colloquial,
yet, perhaps the best. An improvement on all these versions, and in a desperate attempt
to bring about some idiomaticity in the TL to match at least a part of that of
the original, is: «مﺎﻌﻧ ﺶﻳر ﻰﻠﻋ ﻪﻧﺄﻛ» (lit.: as if one is on ostrich plumage), which connotes
smoothness and perfect comfort. Nonetheless, it is still short of the English
idiom, phonologically (absence of rhyme), grammatically (no ‘as... as’ structure
and adjectival phrase construction), stylistically (lack of rhythm and crisply
short, one-syllable words, which produce a stylistic effect of as light and comfortable
movement as that of a tiny, light bug), and connotatively (bugs do not
have the same connotation as ostrich feathers).
Phrasal verbs: Thousands of English phrasal verbs (verb+prep. / adv. with common
meaning of verbs changed), which are all idiomatic and informal, have no

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 213
straightforward, literal equivalents in Arabic. Nevertheless, they all can be translated
comfortably into their precise literal sense, provided the translator understands
them properly in their English contexts before translating them into Arabic.
This means that they are prone to misunderstanding otherwise, especially if
confused with prepositional verbs (verbs+prep. with common meaning of verbs
retained) which, unlike the former, can be understood and translated literally and
directly. In fact the translation of phrasal verbs can be extremely difficult. Longman
Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (1983) is a good dictionary of phrasal verbs
in English language. It lists thousands of these verbs and tens of thousands of
their meanings. Some common verbs like break, come, get, go, look, run, take,
etc. have tens of phrasal combinations and, hence hundreds of meanings. A case
in point is the verb take, selected randomly: it enters into over fifty five phrasal
combinations (i.e. main entries), and over three hundred meanings for these
combinations. Some of these combinations have a great number of meanings
(e.g. take of (21), take off (36); take out (19), take to (24), take up (28)) (See pp.
642-58) not to mention the combinations of come, get, go, and run in particular.
These quick statistics are good evidence for the complexity of English phrasal
verbs, which may naturally make the task of translation extremely difficult so
that a non- idiomatic translation is often chosen in translation into Arabic, where
such phrasal combinations are infrequent.
(c) Avoidance of taboos:
Standard Arabic monolingual and bilingual dictionaries usually have no entries
for taboo words for sociocultural and religious reasons. In the same way, some
translators evade rendering the idiomaticity of an English idiom for it is taboo
(i.e.socially and culturally bad, obscene, anti-religious or even apolitical) either
in meaning or implication. Sometimes, this can be a justification for them to
concede idiomaticity altogether for the reader’s sake. Here are examples:
To go to the bar to bury one’s sorrows: This idiom has the cultural connotations
of regarding the pub as a normal place to go to and have an alcoholic drink, and
wine as a source of comfort and a peace of mind to a miserable man. Both connotations
are categorically unacceptable to a Muslim-Arabic culture, for trading
with wine is emphatically prohibited in Islam, let alone drinking it or going to a
pub. An Arab reader would be stunned by a faithful literal translation of this sense
here. To him, resorting to God, by praying, supplicating or going to His House,
the mosque, to find peace of mind with his Lord. Therefore many translators will
opt for evading not only idiomaticity, but also sense altogether. Indeed, in such a
case they are to be pitied for they are between the devil and the deep blue sea, as
it were, conscious at the same time of their responsibility and faithfulness to the
SL text and culture in its original context, and their responsibility towards their
Arab readers. Usually, and for personal, religious and social reasons they might

214 Hasan Ghazala
go for the latter option, and provide a translation of sense in as euphemized and
neutralized a version as possible, thus avoiding slipping into a distorted translation,
transmogrifying the bar or the pub into a mosque, and wine into supplication,
or deleting the whole expression. Here is one suggestion: «ﻰﺴﻨﻴﻟ بﺮﺸﻳ» (he
drinks to forget), where ‘drink’ is made to look ambiguous to some readers at
least not so much to betray them as to avoid insulting them and show respect to
their feelings.
Hell knows: This idiom is used to mean in an angry mood that nobody knows
what is going to happen next. This is outrageous and blasphemous to Arab readers
for it is only God/Allah — not hell or even Christ or the prophet Muhammad
(peace be on them both) — Who knows future events. Therefore, only ‘God
knows’ is acceptable in the TL in this context, and the translator’s options are
narrowed down to one of these synonymous versions only: ﷲا \ ﻲﺑر ﺪﻨﻋ ﺎﻬﻤْﻠﻋ»
«ﷲا ﺪﻨﻋ ﻢﻠﻌﻟا \ ﻢﻠﻋأ ( Its knowledge is with my Lord (only) / God knows / knowledge
is with God, successively). Similar to this is swearing by Christ, George,
heaven and thunder in English to imply the speaker’s emphasis on his honesty. In
Arabic, however, religiously it is not allowed to swear by anything or anybody;
we swear by God only. Therefore, translators may ignore such phrases, or change
them into ‘I swear by God’, «ﺦﻟإ ؛ﷲا ﻢﻳأو ؛ ِ ﷲاو ؛(ﻢﻴﻈﻌﻟا) ﷲﺎﺑ ﻒﻠﺣأ \ ﻢﺴﻗأ» (I swear by God
/ by God / by God, consecutively), or just ‘I swear’, (ﻢﺴﻗأ), leaving it to the reader
to understand it the way he likes, although the Arabic ‘I swear’ (ﻢﺴﻗُأ) implies
‘by God’ only, anyway.
When the shit hits the fan: This taboo idiom means ‘when the expected misfortune
actually takes place’. Its bad language is expressive of the unpleasant disposition
of the speaker for the misfortune that befell him. Yet, this type of language
is dismissed by translators as well as Arab readers as inept and, therefore, should
be disregarded and replaced by more decent language such as: نﺎﻛ ﺎﻣ ﻞﺼﺤﻳ ﺎﻤﻨﻴﺣ»
«نﺎﺒﺴﺤﻟا ﻲﻓ نﺎﻛ ﺎﻣ ثﺪﺤﻳ ﺎﻣﺪﻨﻋ \ ًﺎﻌﻗﻮﺘﻣ (when the expected misfortune happens). Similar
to this are three more idioms ‘tough shit’ (bad luck), ‘shoot the shit’ (to speak
of oneself), and ‘shit hot’ (very good). They would be euphemized (i.e. made polite),
normalized, or neutralized when translated into Arabic, as illustrated by the
following versions: «(ﺮﺛﺎﻋ) ﺲﻌﺗ ﻆﺣ», «ﻪﺴﻔﻧ حﺪﻤﻳ», and «ًاﺪﺟ ﺪﻴﺟ» consecutively. These
translations confirm that taboo idiomaticity is sacrificed for the sake of decency
and politeness of language for the reasons just pointed to.
To treat someone like dirt: This is another example of the taboo idioms that
should be evaded when translating into Arabic for the same reasons mentioned in
the previous paragraph. Normal language is the better solution for an Arab readership.
Hence the following versions: ﻦﻴﻬﻳ \ (رﺎﻘﺘﺣﺎﺑ \ ةﻮﺴﻘﺑ) ﺔﺌﻴﺳ ﺔﻠﻣﺎﻌﻣ ﻢﻫﺪﺣأ ﻞﻣﺎﻌﻳ»
«ﻢﻫﺪﺣأ رﺪﻗ ﻦﻣ ﺺﻘﻨُﻳ \ (ﺮﻘﺤﻳ) ﺮﻘﺘﺤﻳ \ (لﺬُﻳ) (to maltreat / humiliate / despise / disparage
somebody)
Dirty dog / dirty rat / son of a bitch: Such swear words are as bad as bad can be if
translated into Arabic as such. Hence, they have to be eliminated altogether or,

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 215
at best, euphemized, but never translated into equivalent Arabic swear words, or
else the translator’s career and the whole translated text, short or long, and of any
type, would be at stake. Here are one or two suggestions: ﻻ \ ﻪﻬﺟو ﷲا دﻮﺳ \ ﷲا ﻪﺤﺒﻗ»
«ﻪﺑ ﷲا كرﺎﺑ (Lit.: may God disfigure him; may God blacken his face; may God not
bless him! in a row). I go with such euphemizations rather than with total deletion.
As smooth as a baby’s bottom: Taboo language here is not as serious as that of
the examples above. Rather, it is amusing. Still it is not advisable to translate literally
into Arabic to avoid any embarrassment to translators as well as readers.
After all, no such simile for smoothness is available in Arabic. So translators
have to find a suitable equivalent simile that is cultural, natural and decent: e.g.
«ﻒﻜﻟا ﺔﺣار ﻦﻣ ﻢﻌﻧأ \ ىﺮﻃأ \ ﺲﻠﻣأ» (as smooth/soft as the palm). This is an idiomatic,
standard, euphemized version whose implications and connotations are different
from those of the original, yet sense is rendered perfectly.
When roses are red; if they’re big enough they’re old enough; I don’t care if I do
go blind: These idiomatic catchphrases(in Partridge 1985) have obscene sexual
insinuations in English. Translators should be extra careful with them as well as
with terms with any kind of sexual overtones when translating into Arabic, for
Arab readers are extremely sensitive to the topic of sex in general, whether obscene
or not. The safest strategy for the translator to adopt is to dispose of such
expressions regardless of their idiomatic value — if any — either by omission
or euphemization. The latter is the better resort I believe because it is a compromise
procedure by which the translator strikes a balance between faithfulness
to the original and consideration for the TL readers and his personal biases.
Euphemization here takes the shape of literal translation of sense and complete
disregard of taboo insinuations. Thus, such phrases can be translated as literally
as possible with concentration on rendering an uninsulting sense, as the following
versions demonstrate: «(ﺮﻫﺰﻟا) درﻮﻟا ﺢﱢﺘﻔُﻳ ﺎﻤﻨﻴﺣ»; «تﺎﺠﺿﺎﻧ ﱠﻦﻜﻳ تاﺮﻴﺒﻛ ﱠﻦﻛ اذإ»; and
«ﻚﻟذ ءاﺮﺟ ﻦﻣ ﻰﻤﻌﻟﺎﺑ ﻰﺘﺣ \ ﺖﻴﻤﻋ ﻮﻟ ﻰﺘﺣ ﻲﻟﺎﺑأ ﻻ» in a row. Obviously these translations
are left vague and insinuative on purpose so that taboo language is evaded. On
the other hand, the idiomaticity of the first is not so much intended to match that
of the original as to hide obscene insinuations.
2. Preference of insensible sense:
Evasion of idiomaticity could be due to the translator’s intentional reluctance
to translate it — whether available in TL or not — in favour of sense whether
sensible or not, for reasons of simplification and easiness of TL translation. His
argument could be based on the general readers’ inability to grasp idiomaticity
in such a straightforward way, and on the false assumption that idiomaticity is
untranslatable. This would inevitably result in awkward, tedious and insensible

216 Hasan Ghazala
translations of otherwise overwhelmingly fascinating and richly expressive idiomatic
language. Here are examples:
(Still) wet behind the ears: This idiom implies a criticism of a person who is still
inexperienced, or has little experience of life. An advocate of literal sense might
supply such non-idiomatic translations as: «ةﺮﺒﺨﻟا (ﻢﻳﺪﻋ) ﻞﻴﻠﻗ \ (ﺔﻓﺮﻌﻤﻟا) ةﺮﺒﺨﻟا هزﻮﻌﺗ»
(inexperienced / with little experience), where the effect of idiomaticity is lessened.
Better, competent idiomatic versions are: ّﺖﻓ ﻰﻟإ ﺔﺟﺎﺤﺑ لاز ﺎﻣ \ ﺪﻬﻤﻟا ﻲﻓ لاز ﺎﻣ»
«ًﻼﻳﻮﻃ ﻪﻣﺎﻣأ راﻮﺸﻤﻟا لاز ﺎﻣ \ ﺮﻴﺜﻛ ﺰﺒﺧ (lit.: (still) in the cradle; in need of much bread (to
be prepared for him); a long way to go (in life)). Readers of all types can understand
these expressions easily.
Still waters run deep: A lifeless, destructive translation of this expressive English
idiom might be something like: «ﻦﻴﺋدﺎﻬﻟا ﻦﻣ ًارﺬﺣ ﻦﻛ» (beware of cool people).
Compare well-known and highly agreeable idiomatic versions like: ﺖﺤﺗ (ﺎﻣ ﺎﻳ)»
«(ﺎﻋ) هﺎﺸﻋ ﻞﻛﺎﻴﺑ ﻂﻘﻟا \ ةﺪﻛاﺮﻟا هﺎﻴﻤﻟا ﻦﻣ ﻻإ ﻒﺨﺗ ﻻ \ ﻲﻫاود ﻲﻫاﻮﺴﻟا (many cool-looking people
can be wicked inside; fear nothing more than stagnant water; the cat eats his
dinner). Although they are rather colloquial, they translate and match the original
perfectly and effectively.
Take a sledgehammer to crack a walnut: This proverbial idiom is indicative
of wasting a long time doing something unimportant that does not require but
a very short time to do otherwise. It also implies exaggeration and foolishness
on the part of the person in question. A translator might understand these implications
and try his or her best to convey them in as literally as possible: Here are
two suggestions: «ﺮﻳﺪﻘﺘﻟا ءﺎﺳأ \ فﺮﺼﺘﻟا ﻦﺴﺤﻳ ﻢﻟ» (to misjudge things). Yet idiomatic
versions can be favourable, attractive and equally comprehensible. How about,
for instance: «؟(ﺎﻋ) رﺎﻄﻨﻗ نﻮﻨﺠﻤﻟا ﺔﻜﻠﻋ \ رﺎﻓ ﺖﻴﻤﻟاو ةﺮﻴﺒﻛ ةزﺎﻨﺠﻟا \ ءﺎﻜﺒﻟا اﺬﻫ يوﺎﺴﻳ ﻻ ﺖﻴﻤﻟا اﺬﻫ»
(lit.: this dead man does not deserve all this crying; a big funeral and the dead
is a mouse; The madman’s chewing gum is a quintal). Worse than the translation
of literal sense is the dull literal translation of the words of the English idiom as
such into Arabic as: «زﻮﺟ ﺔﺒﺣ ﺮﺴﻜﻴﻟ ﺔﻗﺮﻄﻣ مﺪﺨﺘﺴﻳ» (see A Dictionary of English Idioms:
English-Arabic 1989:272). We have nothing like this in Arabic. This simply
marks the translator’s weakness and hasty resort to word-for-word literal translation
of the original, regrettably ignoring the Arabic lexicon and culture. This kind
of translation is naturally not acceptable.
On pins and needles: This expression is used to describe a person’s psychological
condition of nervousness in an investigation, an interview, etc. A superficial
translator would prefer avoiding idiomatic transmission into Arabic to go for
sense as follows: «ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﺪﺴﺤُﻳ ﻻ ﻊﺿو ﻲﻓ \ ﺎﻬﻟ ﻰﺛﺮﻳ ﺔﻟﺎﺣ ﻲﻓ \ ﺔﺒﻴﺼﻋ ﺔﻴﺴﻔﻧ ﺔﻟﺎﺣ ﻲﻓ \ ًاﺪﺟ ﻖﻠﻗ» (in
suspense / so worried (anxious); in a critical physical condition; in a miserable
condition; in a very difficult situation). They are not too bad, but idiomaticity is
left out. Translations like: «(ﺎﻋ) ﻪﻘﻳر ﻒﺸﻧ \ رﺎﻨﻟا ﻦﻣ ﺮﻤﺟ ﻰﻠﻋ (ﺐﻠﻘﺘﻳ) \ ﺮﻤﺠﻟا ﻦﻣ ﺮﺣأ ﻰﻠﻋ» (to
be on tenderhooks; to fiddle restlessly) as though on firebrand; to get one’s sa-

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 217
liva dried up (col.) are more expressive and convincing than the previous ones,
I believe.
Many hands make light work: The simple words and grammatical structure of this
idiom can tempt translators to hasten to provide a superficial, literal version of
sense, such as: «ﻞﻤﻌﻟا ءﺐﻋ ﻦﻣ ﻒﻔﺨﻳ نوﺎﻌﺘﻟا» (cooperation makes the burden of work
lighter). Nevertheless, it is not so attractive a version, and dispelling idiomaticity
in the TL is distressing here as an extremely religious popular and well-known
idiomatic translation is at hand, i.e.: «ﺔﻋﺎﻤﺠﻟا ﻊﻣ ﷲا ﺪﻳ» (the Hand of God is with the
group/community).
In fine, apart from (b) and some examples of (c) above, evasion of idiomaticity
in the translation of English idioms into Arabic has no justification. It leads
to a loss of interest in the cultural connotations and stylistic functions and implications
of the original by failing to make use of its idiomaticity in the TL
text. To me, such translation procedure of evasion is an escape for superficial,
hasty translators. An alternative, more creative, solid, courageous, accurate,
and reliable procedure is ‘invasion of idiomaticity’. It is the procedure which
makes justice to both English and Arabic idioms, as the following discussion
will suggest.
Invasion of Idiomaticity
By invasion I mean a translator’s deliberate use in the TL of an idiom that
matches, if not supersedes, the original. Its main goal is to retain idiomaticity,
the essence of any idiom,which makes it the appropriate creative procedure
for the translation of idioms, though with variation in the degree of acceptability,
creativity and translatability, as the following three types of invasion demonstrate
.
1. Equivalent idiomaticity:
The first thing a translator can do when translating idioms is to try to find idiomatic
equivalence in the TL, especially if available in the TL lexicon. It is not surprising
to find that despite major cultural, social, religious and political differences
between English and Arabic, many English idioms have perfect or nearly
perfect equivalents in Arabic, as these sample examples demonstrate (for more
examples see Ghazala 1995: 2.5):
Lock the stable door after the horse has bolted: This well-known proverb means

218 Hasan Ghazala
simply it is too late to do something. The normal context of the proverb is that of
regret on the part of the speaker who wishes in vain that the clock would be put
back for him to do something differently. Arabic, has more than one equivalent
proverb that can be used in a similar context. Although horse terminology is as
rich in Arabic culture since antiquity as it is in English, the image used is not the
same. Here are two famous equivalent proverbs: اذإ قﺎﻳﺮﺘﻟا ﻊﻔﻨﻳ ﻻ \ لﺬﻌﻟا ﻒﻴﺴﻟا ﻖﺒﺳ»
«ﻲﻗاﺮﺘﻟا حوﺮﻟا ﺖﻐﻠﺑ (roughly ‘the sword preceded the blame’; ‘any cure is no use at
death rattle’). The first version is based on the sword as a part of traditional Arabic
culture, and derived from a real anecdote in classical literature of a famous
person who killed the killer of his brother in the Holy Mosque of Makkah with
his sword, not giving him the chance to defend himself, and when he was blamed
for that, he said that expression, admitting and regretting his mistake, implying
that it was too late to do anything and bring the dead man back. As to the latter,
it is derived from three short verses in the Holy Qur’an (Chapter of ‘The Doomsday’:
26-28) that imply the uselessness of any medical treatment if a man is on his
deathbed. Thus, a difference of cultural background does not necessarily obstruct
a perfectly equivalent translation, both of sense and idiomaticity.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: This proverb connotes the right of a
person to treat another in the same way he treats him, usually in a context of reacting
and retaliating. Exactly the same proverb in grammatical structure, sense,
connotations and wording is well-established in Arabic: «ﻦﺴﻟﺎﺑ ﻦﺴﻟاو ﻦﻴﻌﻟﺎﺑ ﻦﻴﻌﻟا».
Maybe the origin of the proverb in both languages is an aspect of religious culture
shared by Islam and Christianity. So no better translation could be suggested
for it in Arabic. Another contextually similar proverb in both languages is: ‘do
as you would be done by’ «(كﻮﻠﻣﺎﻌﻳ نأ ﺐﺤﺗ ﺎﻤﻛ سﺎﻨﻟا ﻞﻣﺎﻋ \ ﻞﺜﻤﻟﺎﺑ سﺎﻨﻟا ﻞﻣﺎﻋ)» (lit. treat
people in the same way they treat you). One difference between the two is that
while the latter is used in context of urging people to be positive and good by
way of giving advice, the former is used as a way of justifying a retaliatory or reactionary
action, at the same time blaming the other party however indirectly by
holding him responsible.
Cleanliness is next to Godliness: This idiom is a strong religious invitation to be
clean all the time for cleanliness is God’s epithet. The same applies to the religionbased
popular adage: «نﺎﻤﻳﻹا ﻦﻣ ﺔﻓﺎﻈﻨﻟا» (cleanliness is a part and parcel of faith).
Also, it is derived from a tradition by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be to him),
a part of which means: «ﺔﻓﺎﻈﻨﻠﻟ ﺐﺤﻣ ﻒﻴﻈﻧ ... ﷲا نإ» (God is ... clean and loves cleanliness).
This is again a part of the common grounds between Islam and Christianity,
that the translator should be aware of in translation so that he can transfer not
only the message but also idiomaticity and religious implications.
Man proposes and God disposes: Like the previous statement, this one has a religious
origin and connotations that require it to be rendered faithfully and accurately
into the TL. This is made possible in Arabic where an identical religious expression
is available: «ﺮﻴﺑﺪﺘﻟا ﻲﻓ بﺮﻟاو ﺮﻴﻜﻔﺘﻟا ﻲﻓ ﺪﺒﻌﻟا» (man thinks and the Lord works
it out). Both connote inciting man to take action and do something, and then, on-

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 219
ly then will God help him, and vice versa. Also, man is required to work and do
his best, and leave the rest to his Lord Who will not disappoint him. No other Arabic
idiomatic version can retain these connotations and be as close to the English
original as the one suggested.
To play with fire: (رﺎﻨﻟﺎﺑ ﺐﻌﻠﻳ) It is one of many common English idioms that have
absolutely correspondent counterparts in Arabic in form, sense, idiomaticity
and connotations. It is used to describe someone who takes risks unnecessarily
in both languages. Usually it is used in the form of advice or warning to refrain
from taking risks, especially in Arabic: ‘don’t play with fire’ «(رﺎﻨﻟﺎﺑ ﺐﻌﻠﺗ ﻻ)».
However, it is quite feasible to use it in a declarative mood to say that someone
is playing with fire.
To take the bread out of someone’s mouth: (ﻢﻔﻟا ﻦﻣ ﺔﻤﻘﻠﻟا (عﺰﺘﻨﻳ)): In both languages
this means to prevent someone from eating by withholding his due, or disallowing
him to earn money. It also connotes injustice towards somebody, indicated
emphatically by the use of ‘take out’ in English and «عﺰﺘﻨﻳ» (take out / snatch out)
in Arabic. The use of the core word, ‘bread’ is connotative of the basic of the basics
of life for man to live on earth. Therefore, if someone is denied bread, there
is nothing else left for him for survival, and it is the harshest treatment that a man
can suffer from. Idiomaticity here is so expressive and accurate to the extent that
any other translation which ignores it will not be hard to accept.
A little bird told me: (ﻲﻟ ﺖﻟﺎﻗ ةرﻮﻔﺼﻌﻟا \ ةرﻮﻔﺼﻌﻟا ﻲﻟ ﺖﻟﺎﻗ): This idiom is obviously a
light lie used to hide the source of information about something in both cultures,
though with a slight difference. Although in English it can be used seriously and
humorously by adults, it is used humorously in Arabic for children exclusively,
since they might believe the speaker, or at least may not care much about the real
source, whereas adults will not believe him and will be curious to know it.
As proud as a peacock: Many English idiomatic similes like this one have identical
or similar equivalents in Arabic, especially those of animals, birds and nature.
As it is in English, Arabic has the same idiomatic image of pride, haughtiness
and snobbishness derived from the peacock whose gait while enlarging
itself has the same negative implications in both cultures. We say in Arabic: ﻰﻫزأ»
«سووﺎﻃ ﻦﻣ. The only difference between the two versions is that the Arabic one is
in the comparative form to imply more exaggeration and emphasis. In colloquial
Arabic, plenty of pejorative idiomatic expressions are in use everyday: ﺶﻓﺎﻧ»
«يﺪﻗ اﺪﺣ ﺎﻣ يﺪﺘﺷا ضرأ ﺎﻳ \ ﺮﻴﺜﻛ ﻪﻟﺎﺣ ﻒﻳﺎﺷ \ ﻪﻟﺎﺣ ﺦﻓﺎﻧ \ ﻪﺸﻳر (all express snobbishness, and
all are colloquial).
Hundreds of examples are available in both languages. They provide strong evidence
for the translatability of idioms between the two languages, with the possibility
of striking perfect or close equivalence. The next translation procedure
for idiomaticity is another attempt to find a solution for another group of idioms
that are not directly available in TL.

220 Hasan Ghazala
2. Enforced idiomaticity:
This translation procedure is an attempt by the translator to translate idiomatic
English into idiomatic Arabic with special reference to those idioms which
have no straightforward, recognized equivalent in Arabic. This can lead to an
enforced, artificial idiomaticity in the TL. The terminology used (i.e. enforced
and artificial) here may sound negative, but considered from another angle, it is
a reference to the translator’s determination and courageous attempt to strike an
idiomatic translation of some kind in the TL, to match and compensate for the
original’s idiomaticity to some extent at least. In this sense it is not a negative
procedure, but a creative procedure that poses challenge to translators, and at
the same time marks a contribution to the solutions to the problem of translating
idiomatic expressions in language in general. The following examples will
illustrate the application of this procedure:
(To collapse) like a house of cards: This idiom is expressive of something or
someone that collapses suddenly and completely from inside and/or outside. It is
derived from a game of building a house out of playing cards, which is so fragile
that it falls down easily and quickly. If a translator fails to translate this highly
effective image into Arabic, a major part of meaning and expressivity would be
lost. There is no direct equivalent in Arabic, for playing cards are not traditionally
known to Arab people, but imported only recently from foreign cultures. However,
the translator can resort to terms for material that is as fragile as cards, which
can be used to express the same sense in an idiomatic piece of language, with imitation
of the grammatical and stylistic structure of the original: e.g. ﺖﻴﺒﻛ (رﺎﻬﻨﻳ)»
«ﺶﻳﺮﻟا ﻦﻣ \ ﺶﻘﻟا ﻦﻣ (to collapse like a house of hay/feathers). In this way, idiomaticity
can be retained, albeit with a difference of image.
Little knowledge is dangerous: Apart from the unconvincing version: ﻢﻠﻌﻟا ﻒﺼﻧ»
«ﻞﻬﺠﻟا ﻦﻣ ﺮﻄﺧأ, to my knowledge this expressive proverb has no one-to-one equivalent
in Arabic. Translating it into normal Arabic may cause serious distortion,
whereas the following expression would reflect the expressivity of the original
with a touch of idiomaticity: «قﺪﺤﻣ \ ﻢﻴﺴﺟ ﺮﻄﺧ ﻞﻴﻠﻘﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﻟا» (little knowledge is an
imminent/grave danger). The little touch of idiomaticity lies particularly in the
use of either adjective, ‘imminent’ and ‘grave’, where the Arabic words are more
idiomatic than these English near synonyms. Another equally semantically, rhetorically
and idiomatically valid version is: «ىﺮﺒﻛ ﺔّﻣﺎﻃ ﻢﻠﻌﻟا ﺔﻠﻗ» (little knowledge is
catastrophic), where the word, ‘catastrophic’ is both idiomatic and emphatic, referring
to the volume of the danger befalling a man of little knowledge.
To pull one’s socks: Socks are not pulled in Arabic, only in English. However,
spirit and energy can be pulled in Arabic, instead, namely: «ﺔﻤﻬﻟا ﺪﺸﻳ». Better than
this is a well-established idiom: «ﺪﺠﻟا ﺪﻋﺎﺳ ﻦﻋ \ ﻪﻳﺪﻋﺎﺳ ﻦﻋ ﺮﻤﺸُﻳ» which is usually

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 221
identified with another standard English idiom: ‘roll up one’s sleeves’, but which
translates this example equally well.
To cast one’s pearls before a swine: this idiom refers to something quite invaluable
done or given to someone who does not deserve or appreciate it. It is based
on an idiomatic sharp contrast between precious ‘pearls’ and mean ‘swine’, to
achieve among other things a considerable stylistic effect on readers. And this
can be the starting point for a search looking for an idiomatic equivalent in a TL
that does not seem to have a ready-made one in its standard reservoir. Another
source of creativity in such cases is to invest parts of other standardized idioms
or collocational combinations to translate a part of a problematic idiom. The version
proposed for the translation of this idiom here: «ﺺﻴﺧﺮﻠﻟ ﺲﻴﻔﻨﻟا لﺬﺒﻳ» (roughly:
to give the precious to the cheap) combines both points: the sharp contrast between
‘precious’ and ‘cheap’, and the borrowing of the first part(give the precious)
from another well-known saying which has two versions: ﻲﻟﺎﻐﻟا \ ﺲﻴﻔﻨﻟاو ﻲﻟﺎﻐﻟا لﺬﺒﻳ»
«ﻦﻃﻮﻟا ﻞﻴﺒﺳ ﻲﻓ ﺺﻴﺧﺮﻟاو (lit.: give the dear and the precious / the dear and the cheap
for the sake of one’s homeland). A third supportive feature is the rhyming sequence
of ‘precious and cheap’ in Arabic (i.e. ‘nafees and rakhees’). Of course
other literal or less idiomatic versions are available in the TL (e.g. ﻻ ﻦﻣ ﻰﻠﻋ ﻖﻔﻨﻳ»
«ﻖﺤﺘﺴﻳ ﻻ ﻦﻤﻟ ءﺎﻄﻌﻟا لﺰﺠُﻳ \ ﻖﺤﺘﺴﻳ) (to spend one’s money on / give a lot of money to
someone who does not deserve it). One more version taken from traditional Arabic
is: «ﻪﻠﻫأ ﺮﻴﻏ ﻲﻓ فوﺮﻌﻤﻟا ﻊﻨﺼﻳ» (make good to those who do not deserve it).
Monkey business: this refers to an illegal, tricky, unclean, boisterous, mischievous,
fraudulent or meddlesome kind of business, action or behaviour. ‘Monkey’
is probably connotative of the two meanings, funny and tricky. Tracing standard
Arabic idioms or semi-idioms in good reference books for a straightforward
equivalent would not solve the problem of translating this idiom. Neither the
monkey nor any other animal is used in such a context in Arabic. However, an
idiomatic version of some kind can be devised by translators. This version should
be based on the accurate sense of the original. Take for example the following
two versions: «ﻒﻴﻈﻧ ﺮﻴﻏ ﻞﻤﻋ» (‘unclean business’, where unclean is idiomatic for
it is usually used with a metaphorical implication of mischief and deception);
«تﺎﻬﺒﺸﻟا \ كﻮﻜﺸﻟا ﻪﻟﻮﺣ مﻮﺤﺗ ﻞﻤﻋ \ ﺮﻣأ» (‘to cast doubts about something’, where ‘cast’
is metaphorical, used in the sense of ‘hovering around’). Next to these is a good
literal translation like: «(ﻚﺸﻟا) ﺔﺒﻳﺮﻟا ﺮﻴﺜﺗ \ ﺔﺒﻳﺮﻣ ءﺎﻴﺷأ» (suspicious things).
Enforced idiomaticity is, therefore, a creative procedure of invasion that has to
be handled especially carefully by translators. It is by no means a haphazard,
whimsical or personal procedure subject to the translator’s fluctuations of opinion.
Rather, certain criteria have to be applied by the translator systematically,
but with extra care and a good proportion of flexibility.

222 Hasan Ghazala
3. Abortive idiomaticity:
The last translation procedure of invasion to be discussed here is ‘abortion’.
This is the least creative of all procedures for it is based on copying the English
idiom literally in Arabic, regardless of differences of cultural connotations
between English and Arabic. Having said that, and due to the powerful influence
of English language worldwide on the one hand, and the absence of another
better alternative in Arabic for several reasons concerning the development
of Modern Arabic linguistics and lexicology, on the other, such idioms
are now recognized in many Arab countries, and therefore, cannot be written
off completely. In fact they abort idiomaticity which has to be either a constituent
part of the original Arabic lexicon, or else creative from within Arabic
language itself. The following discussion of illustrative examples may demonstrate
the point.
(i) To put the cart before the horse: «نﺎﺼﺤﻟا مﺎﻣأ ﺔﺑﺮﻌﻟا ﻊﻀﻳ»
(ii) Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones: جﺎﺟز ﻦﻣ ﻪﺘﻴﺑ نﺎﻛ ﻦﻣ»
«ةرﺎﺠﺤﻟﺎﺑ سﺎﻨﻟا ﻖﺷﺮﻳ ﻼﻓ
(iii) All roads lead to Rome: «ﺎﻣور ﻰﻟإ يدﺆﺗ قﺮﻄﻟا ﻞﻛ»
(iv) Too many cooks spoil the broth: «ﺔﺨﺒﻄﻟا ﺪﺴﻔﺗ ﻦﻴﺧﺎﺒﻄﻟا ةﺮﺜﻛ»
(v) Bottleneck: «ﺔﺟﺎﺟﺰﻟا ﻖﻨﻋ»
These examples are among a handsome number of idiomatic expressions that
have recently invaded Arabic to become standardized as adapted expressions.
Yet, they have aborted idiomaticity, which turns out to be fake and alien, for it
does not fit in Arabic language and culture quite properly, not so much because
it is borrowed from a foreign language and culture but because it is left unused.
The first example, to start with, is a word-for-word copying from English. It is
a part of English tradition and culture, yet it is perfectly understood in Arabic.
The point is that there are more than one proverbial saying in classical as well
as modern standard Arabic (MSA). For example: أﺪﺒﻳ \ ﺐﻘﻋ ﻰﻠﻋ ًﺎﺳأر رﻮﻣﻷا ﺐﻠﻘﻳ»
«ءﺎﻴﺷﻷا ﺲﻜﻌﻳ \ سأﺮﻟا ﻞﺒﻗ ﺐﻧﺬﻟﺎﺑ (lit.: turn something head over heels (upside down)
/ start with tale rather than head / reverse things). The first two are semi-proverbial
and idiomatic. Either one can translate the English original better than the
adapted version above. The third translation, on the other hand, is literal, ordinary
language, and next in preference.

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 223
The second example is also translated abortively into Arabic as a replica of the
English original. Albeit understood idiomatically and properly by Arab readers,
it is incompatible with classical versions like:
\ ﻪﻨﻴﻋ ﻲﻓ عﺬﺠﻟا ىﺮﻳ ﻻو ﻪﻴﺧأ ﻦﻴﻋ ﻲﻓ ىﺬﻘﻟا ىﺮﻳ ءﺮﻤﻟا نإ»
\ ﻦﻴﻋأ سﺎﻨﻠﻟو تارﻮﻋ ﻚﻠﻜﻓ ﻪﻠﺜﻣ ﻲﺗﺄﺗو ﻖﻠﺧ ﻦﻋ ﻪﻨﺗ ﻻ
ﻪﺘﺒﻗر ﺖﻓﺮﻘﻧاو ﺮﺴﻜﻧﻻ ﻪﺘﺑﺪﺣ ﻞﻤﺠﻟا فﺎﺷ ﻮﻟ
(Roughly: man can see the mote in someone’s eye, but cannot see the trunk in his /
do not criticize others for something at the time you yourself do it / you are all
defective and people have eyes to see you / had the camel seen its hump it would
have had a broken leg and neck).
All these are full idioms and more expressive and strongly emotive than the
borrowed translation mentioned above. It remains to point out that the first version
is a Prophetic tradition, the next two are parts of two lines of classical poetry,
and the last is colloquial.
As to the third example, again it is translated blindly into Arabic literally into a
dull, estranged version that many Arab readers find it difficult to understand and
accept. The reason is quite simple: more popular, standard and hence convincing
versions are widely available and plausible, namely: ﻞﻛ \ ﺎﻬﺑﺎﻌﺸﺑ ىردأ ﺔﻜﻣ ﻞﻫأ»
«نﻮﺣﺎﻄﻟا ﻰﻠﻋ بورﺪﻟا (roughly: the natives of (the city of) Makkah are the best who
know about its defiles / all roads lead to the mill). The first version is standard,
formal, well-known and wide-spread among Arab readers of all ages, whereas
the second is rather informal. So what is the logic behind ignoring such versions,
especially the first, and go for an abortive, word-for-word translation that
is alien in culture, sense and idiomaticity?
The fourth example is a famous proverb taken literally from English, with the
same idiomatic image of cooks. Perfectly and accurately put and understood
as it may be in both languages, still the standard Arabic version is preferred in
this context: «ﺔﻨﻴﻔﺴﻟا ﺖﻗﺮﻏ ﻦﻴﺣﻼﻤﻟا ةﺮﺜﻛ ﻦﻣ» (the sailors were many, therefore the
ship sunk in). The difference between the two versions is purely cultural, that
is, while the latter is a part of Arabic culture of navigation, the former is from
an aspect of English culture not known in traditional Arabic. Above all, idiomaticity
is creative when the original version of the TL is brought in to match
the SL proverb so that two different versions are juxtaposed.

224 Hasan Ghazala
The fifth Arabic version is a dull literal translation of the English idiom. Although
we have this expression in the literal use of Arabic to refer to the neck
of a bottle of any kind, no idiomatic exploitation of it is available. Therefore,
the translator has to look for a more respectable standard, expressive and idiomatic
translation. Here are some suggestions: ﻞﺋﺎﻫ ﻢﻛاﺮﺗ \ ﺔﻘﻧﺎﺧ ﺔﻣزأ \ ﺺﻴﺑ ﺺﻴﺣ»
«ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﺪﺴﺤﻳ ﻻ ﻊﺿو \ جﺮﺣ ﻒﻗﻮﻣ \ ﺔﻘﺋﺎﺿ \ (ﻖﻧﺎﺧ) (get into a fix / terrible crisis / huge
accumulation / impasse / Catch 22 / embarrassing situation / desperate (tragic / difficult)
situation). More good versions can be found in the TL, depending on
the context of the idiom in the SL. For instance, if it is a bottleneck in traffic
rush hours, it would be (ﺔﻘﻧﺎﺧ روﺮﻣ ﺔﻣزأ); in postal services, on the other hand, it
is ((ﻞﺋﺎﺳﺮﻠﻟ (ﻞﺋﺎﻫ ﻢﻛاﺮﺗ); and so forth. Again with the existence of a host of idiomatic
equivalents already available in the TL, a literal, unfamiliar translation like
the one above is a complete abortion of idiomaticity.
This translation procedure of invasion is, then, inadvisable for it looses the idiomaticity
of an idiom in the TL which may not accommodate it conveniently
as a part of its lexical repertoire, for cultural, semantic and linguistic reasons.
The obvious examples that illustrate such procedure are those translated literally,
albeit sometimes cultural-specific and/or vague. However, when an English
idiom has a conventional, already recognized counterpart in Arabic, it will be
the preferable version of translation, as argued above under ‘equivalent idiomaticity’.
Also, in case the SL idiom has no direct equivalent of any kind in the
TL, it can be acceptable to translate literally with a presupposition that it may
gain momentum in TL. But prefereable to this is a devised, creative idiomatic
version found in Arabic by the translator according to the steps and criteria put
forward in the previous section on ‘enforced idiomaticity’.
Admittedly, all the translation procedures of evasion and invasion of idiomaticity
discussed in this paper are in practical use by translators. Yet, they are not of
equal importance and degree of acceptability, as we have seen. Evasion procedures,
that is, are less creative, enthusiastic and acceptable than those of invasion.
On the other hand, among the procedures of invasion, ‘enforced idiomaticity’
stands out as the most creative, original and zealous. The first procedure
of ‘equivalent idiomaticity’ is the most popular and recurrent in practical terms,
while the last one of abortion of idiomaticity is the least creative but the easiest
and the fastest to use and adopt. All in all, invasion procedures are preferable
to their evasion counterparts, for creativity should be the core of any trans-

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 225
lation procedure of idiomaticity, if it is to be faithfully retained in the TL at all,
which is what invasion procedures are all about.
Conclusion
In conclusion, here is a summary of the two major translation procedures of idiomaticity,
evasion and invasion:
Evasion:
1. Dissuasion from idiomaticity:
(a) Translator’s incompetence;
(b) Zero language equivalence;
(c) Avoidance of taboos.
2. Preference for insensible sense.
Invasion:
1. Equivalent idiomaticity;
2. Enforced idiomaticity;
3. Abortive idiomaticity.
These procedures are set out below in a table together with the types of TL idiomatic
equivalence with which it is recommended that they be used in translating
SL idioms. When the two procedures can translate the idiom, preference
is always given to invasion:
Type of TL Equivalence Evasion Invasion
1. Direct equivalence:
(i) standard equiv.
(ii) Adapted equiv.
2. Indirect equivalence:
(i) literal equiv.
(ii) cultural equiv.
3. Non-equivalence:
(i) zero equiv.
(ii) creative equiv.
4. Taboo equivalence:
(i) euphemized equiv.
(ii) dropped equiv.
5. Insensible sense
XXX
XXX
Dissuasion (1a/1b)
Dissuasion (1a/1b)
Dissuasion (1b)
XXX
Dissuasion (1c)
Dissuasion (1c)
Preference for sense(2)
Equivalent idiom.
Abortive idiom.
Enforced idiom.
Equiv./enforced idiom.
Enforced idiom.
Enforced idiom.
XXX
XXX
XXX

226 Hasan Ghazala
Finally, criteria for translating idioms and tracing idiomaticity in the TL can
be suggested here. These criteria are recommended steps for translators to approach
the translation of an SL idiom into a TL idiomatic equivalent of some
kind, especially when a straightforward equivalence is at the translator’s immediate
disposal for one reason or another. They are put down in order of preference:
1 Check direct standard and then informal/colloquial idiomatic TL equivalent
(see especially equivalent idiomaticity above).
2 Check a name, an animal, or an object (as specified in the idiom) of identical
connotations in the TL (see for example pp. 210 and 216: (iv)).
3 Check (a) similar expression(s) in a similar TL context (see preference of
insensible sense).
4 Borrow a part of a similar expression(a word or a collocation) and continue
in a similar structure and sense (see pp. 221: (i) and 218: (iii) in particular).
5 Suggest an own idiom in imitation of the structure and style of that of the
SL (see p. 211: (i)).
6 Look for correct literal sense, using standard collocation, or any other kind
of expression in the TL (see p. 211: (iii) in particular).
7 Avoid a hasty, dull, word-for-word deceptive TL translation of the SL idiom
(see abortive idiomaticity, especially p. 224: 1st paragraph).
8 Do not despair. There is always a possibility of finding a good version in
the TL.
9 Be eager to match the SL idiomaticity in the TL. It is the core part of any
idiom, and if marginalized in translation, there is not much left in it.
Bibliography
Al-Munjid. 1986. Al-Munjid fi-L-lughati wal-A’laam (A Dictionary of Arabic Language),
Beirut: Dar Al-Mashreq. 1804pp.
Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London and New York: Routledge.
vii+304pp.
Benson, M. Benson, E. and Ilson, R. 1986. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English: A
Guide to Word Combinations, John Benjamins: Ansterdam/Philadelphia. 286pp.
Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives, London: Allen & Unwin.
249pp.
Collins 1979. Collins English Dictionary (2nd ed.), London & Glasgow. 1771pp.
Cowie, A.P. 1981. “The Treatment of Collocations and Idioms in Learner Dictionaries”, Applied
Linguistics, vol. 2, no. 3, 223-35.

Idiomaticity Between Evasion and Invasion in Translation 227
Elyaziji, I. 1970. An Arabic Dictionary of Synonyms and Collocations, Beirut: Library of
Lebanon. 236pp.
Ghazala, H.S. 2002. “Allegory in Arabic Expressions of Speech and Silence: A Translational-Stylistic
Perspective”, Internet Translation Journal, Accurapid Translation Services,
Poughkeepsie, USA, April 2002, Vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1-47.
Ghazala, H.S. 1995. Translation as Problems and Solutions: A Coursebook for University
Students and Trainee Translators (fifth ed. 2003), Aleppo and Beirut: Dar Al-Hilal.
368pp.
Ghazala, H.S. 1993. “The Translation of Collocations: English-Arabic”, Turjuman, vol. 2,
no. 2, pp. 7-33.
Hill, J. and Lewis (ed.) 1997. Dictionary of Selected Collocations (2nd. ed. 1999) London:
LTP Language.288pp.
Longman 1977. Longman Dictionary of English Idioms (fourth imp. 1992), London: Longman.
388pp.
Longman 1982. Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (fourth imp. 1992), London: Longman.
734pp.
Makkai, A. (ed.) 1984. Barron’s Handbook of Commonly used American Idioms, New York,
London, Toronto, Sydney: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. 296pp.
Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation, Prentice Hall: New York & London. xii
+ 292pp.
Oxford 1983. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, Vol. 2, OUP. 685pp.
Partridge, E. (ed.) 1977. A Dictionary of Catch Phrases (2nd ed.1985), Routledge. 384pp.
Richards, J.C. 1970. “A Psycholinguistic Measure of Vocabulary Selection”, IRAL, vol. 8,
pp. 87-102.
Team of teachers 1985. A Dictionary of English Idioms: English-Arabic (2nd imp. 1989),
Beirut: Library of Lebanon. 345pp.
Webster 1991. Webster’s New World Dictionary (3rd ed.), New York, London, Toronto, Sydney,
Tokyo, Singapore: Prentice Hall. 1574pp.
About the Author
Dr. HASAN GHAZALA is an Associate Professor of Translation and Stylistics in the Department
of English, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah Al-Mukarramah, Saudi Arabia. He
has been teaching the two subjects continuously since 1988 in a number of Arab Universities.
In addition to articles on translation and stylistics, published in refereed journals, he
has a number of publications in the two areas including: Al-Jame’ fi-Ttarjamah (a translation
of Newmark’s A Textbook of Translation, into Arabic 1992; Varieties of English Simplified:
A Textbook on Stylistics, 1994; Translation as Problems and Solutions: A Coursebook,
1995; A Dictionary of Stylistics and Rhetoric (Eng-Arabic / Arabic-Eng.), 1996; Stylistics,
Interpretation and Teaching (in Arabic), 1998; Easy English: A three part series of teaching
English for foreigners, 1997-1998-2000; and A Dictionary of Collocations (Eng / Arabic),
(over 1500 pages: forthcoming, 2004). He is a member of several associations of Translation
and Style.
Address: Dept. of English, College of Social Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, P.O. Box
715, Makkah Al-Mukarramah, Saudi Arabia

228 Hasan Ghazala
Abstract
One of the most complicated issues in translation is idioms. Although there are thousands of
them and occur in all types of texts and contexts, their translation from English into Arabic
has only received cursory attention. This paper is an attempt to fill the gap to some extent in
the translation of idioms (English-Arabic). It studies the main problems of translating idiomaticity
and the extent to which it is retained or distorted and why.
Two major translation procedures, evasion and invasion, are suggested. They are alleged
to be a framework through which translators can translate idiomaticity, in their desperate
endeavour to transfer it into the TL to achieve the maximum possible degree of equivalent
sense, aestheticity, connotations and effects. Therefore, two main evasion procedures
are suggested: (1) dissuaison from idiomaticity (due to (i) the translator’s incompetence,
(ii) zero language equivalence, or (iii) avoidance of taboos); and (2) preference of insensible
sense.
Also, three invasion procedures are proposed: (1) equivalent idiomaticity; (2) enforced
idiomaticity; and (3) abortive idiomaticity. It is claimed that the latter group of procedures,
especially (2) is creative and does justice to both texts, the SL and the TL in translation. The
article concludes with a summary of translation procedures of idiomaticity, and criteria for
tracing its equivalence in the TL.
Résumé
L’un des aspects les plus compliqués en traduction se réfère aux tournures idiomatiques.
Bien qu’il en existe des milliers et qu’elles se répètent dans tous les types de textes et de
contextes, leur traduction de l’anglais vers l’arabe n’a pas suscité beaucoup d’attention, sauf
superficiellement. Cet article tente jusqu’à un certain point de combler l’écart de la traduisibilité
des tournures idiomatiques, composant essentiel des idiomes (anglais-arabe). Il étudie
les principaux problèmes de la traduction des tournures idiomatiques et la mesure dans laquelle
ce composant est retenu et déformé, et pourquoi.
Deux procédures majeures en traduction, l’évasion et l’invasion, sont suggérées. Elles
sont supposées former la structure à travers laquelle les traducteurs peuvent traduire les
tournures idiomatiques dans leur effort désespéré de transfert vers la langue cible pour atteindre
le niveau le plus haut possible d’équivalences de signification, d’esthétique, de connotations
et d’éffets.
Dès lors, deux règles esentielles d’évasion sont suggérées: (1) l’éloignement par rapport
aux tournures idiomatiques dû à : (i) l’incompétence du traducteur, (ii) l’équivalence linguistique
zéro, ou, (iii) l’évitement des tabous et (2) la préférence du sense neutre.
Trois règles d’invasion sont aussi proposées: (1) tournures idiomatiques équivalentes;
(2) tournures idiomatiques imposées; et (3) tournures idiomatiques manquées. Il est argué
que le dernier groupe de règles, notamment (2), est source de création et rend justice
aux duex textes, celui da langue source et celui de la langue cible en traduction. Cet article
ce termine par un résumé des règles de traduction de tournures idiomatiques et des critères
destinés à trouver leurs équivalences dans la langue cible.