لخّصلي

Whether a translation conforms to the source-text patterns of cohesion or tries to approximate to target-language patterns will depend in the final analysis on the purpose of the translation and the amount of freedom the translator feels entitled to in rechunking information and/or altering signals of relations between chunks.The question then arises as to how one might translate Swift into Arabic when the hallmark of his style is a commonplace feature of Arabic prose.On the other hand, noticeable deviation from typical target-language pat- terns of chunking information and signalling relations is likely to result in the sort of text that can easily be identified as a translation because it sounds 'foreign'.For instance, Milic (1970) suggests that one of the most striking features of Jonathan Swift's style relates to the way he uses conjunction.

Whether a translation conforms to the source-text patterns of cohesion or tries to approximate to target-language patterns will depend in the final analysis on the purpose of the translation and the amount of freedom the translator feels entitled to in rechunking information and/or altering signals of relations between chunks. Whatever the translator decides to do, every option will have its advantages and disadvantages. Following source-language norms may involve minimal change in overall meaning (other factors excluded). On the
other hand, noticeable deviation from typical target-language pat- terns of chunking information and signalling relations is likely to result in the sort of text that can easily be identified as a translation because it sounds 'foreign'.
Apart from questions of naturalness, accuracy, and the 'logic' of a text, there are sometimes stylistic considerations which may make the translation of conjunctions particularly difficult. For instance, Milic (1970) suggests that one of the most striking features of Jonathan Swift's style relates to the way he uses conjunction. Swift's favourite conjunctions, according to Milic, are and, but, and for. He apparently makes 'unusually heavy use' of these items (Milic; 1970: 246). Moreover, he does not use them as precise logical connectives but only to indicate that 'one sentence is connected with another without reference to the nature of the connection' (ibid.: 247). In other words, Swift's use of conjunction is very similar to that of Arabic (see page 193). In both cases, two or three 'favourite' items are used very frequently in a semantically 'imprecise' way. The question then arises as to how one might translate Swift into Arabic when the hallmark of his style is a commonplace feature of Arabic prose.