Furthermore, this distinction is useful in so far as it is conjoined to possible leading factors for a theory of scientific translation because most of the literature on translation has given extensive consideration to literary texts ending with specific rules and theories and establishing relevant terminology of literary translation. The word deviation for instance, expresses one of the frequent concepts in the description of literary texts where deviation rarely occurs in scientific ones. By this we mean the deviation from the linguistic norms flourishing in poetry and prose, the quality which scientific texts often lack. However, certain rules which are applicable to theories of literary translation can be safely applied to scientific translation in general and to English-Arabic scientific translation in particular.

      In this respect, we have to mention that Arabic, despite its adherence to prescriptive and conventional rules, can - in certain cases- provide for English word-for-word equivalence by different ways such as coinage, borrowing and transliteration by forcing into its paradigmatic moulds English words such as the substantive; so words like ‘faylasuf’ for philosopher; ‘jiyulujiya’ for geology; ‘istatiki’ for static……etc found their way uninterrupted into Arabic.  Beeston (1970: 115) says to this effect:

      The need for a large new vocabulary dealing with technological and scientific matters is, however, the least interesting feature of the new lexical development; more fascinating, though more elusive, is the evolution of new words for intellectual concepts.

      However, a part from the cultural gap, the problem of scientific translation from English into Arabic remains mostly a matter of understanding and representing the techniques, the processes, and the details which science and technology involve. In this regard, Farghal and Shunnaq (1999:210) state that “the major problem facing translators at present is terminology standardization and dissemination in the sphere of science and technology”. “When it comes to Arabic”, they continue, “scientific discourse is a translation activity, as Arabic is usually a target language, and creation and reasoning are done in another language”.

      The above-mentioned requirements for competence in scientific translation can be further expanded and detailed  by the following model of the processes involved in this type of translation:

3. A Suggested Model for Scientific Translation

      As far as English-Arabic scientific translation is concerned, the procedures mentioned in the suggested model (the model itself can be obtained from the Author – note by TranslationDirectory.com) can be used to analyze the code of English scientific texts.  They mainly depend on the successful handling of the linguistic elements of both English and Arabic including grammar, lexicon, and field-related registers.  They also harbor translating competence, which includes structurization, contextualization, mastery over programs of expression in both English and Arabic, and knowledge of the alternative standards of equivalence.  Moreover, the model necessitates the ability to transfer linguistic and translating competencies to areas reserved for comparison and imagination.  Subsequently, corresponding structural and lexical elements are identified and assigned functions in the sorting process within compensatory strategies resulting in an almost perfect mental representation which, when textualized and normalized, ends up in an accurately-translated Arabic product.  We also have to emphasize that in scientific texts there will be no motive on the translator’s side to create additional impressionistic or aesthetic effects beyond that of simple information transmission.

        The above description necessitates the identification of the characteristics of the scientific register on which this model operates. These  characteristics are briefly discussed in the following section.

4. Scientific Register

        Generally speaking, the technical use of language manifests itself in several ways.  The most obvious one is non-deviation from ordinary grammar, logically and argumentative progression.  This may entail the adherence to items that are conventionally used.  There is no insertion, substitution, or permutation (cf. van Dijk, 1976; Bell,1991; Ghassib,1996). There is no blocking or stopping to the automatic processing.  In contrast to their literary counterparts, scientific texts underline the information content without bothering about features that are characteristic of poetic texts, such as rhyme, and connotative or symbolic meaning.  Let alone other aesthetically features, which Schmidt (1971: 59) has defined as “polyfunctionality.”

        We also notice that most of the elements in scientific texts are not unexpected.   One might even define the meaning of these texts according to the actual use of items to refer to things in the real world or to the “extension” as contrasted to the potential meaning of things as they are perceived, conceived, or represented in terms other than their actual appearance and/or function by the perceiving man, or to the ‘intention’ of their producers (Weinrich, 1976: 14).

        For the purpose of more vivid characterization of these texts, we shall mention some major ones of these features by referring to Bakr-Serex (1997: 54-7):

        First, this register is characterized by the logical order of utterances with clear indication of their interrelations and interdependence.

        Second, it flourishes the use of terms specific to each given branch of science; in modern science; however, there is a tendency to exchange terms between various branches of science.

        Third, another characteristic feature of this register is the frequent use of specific sentence-patterns, usually the Postulatory, the Argumentative and the Formulative patterns. The impersonality of this type of writing can be revealed in the frequent use of passive voice constructions with which scientific experiments are generally described.

        Fourth, one more observable feature of the scientific register is the use quotations, references, and foot-notes in accord with the main requirement of this register, i.e. the logical coherence of the ideas expressed.

        Finally, science does not have its own syntax only, but also its own terminology. And we have already hinted at the importance of the familiarity with this terminology resting on a solid foundation of previously acquired knowledge on behalf of the translator. Therefore, it is not the language itself which is special, but certain words or their symbols.

        Having these characteristic features of the scientific register in mind, we feel that we are in a good position to identify the areas of contrast between scientific texts and other types of texts.

5. Scientific versus Literary Contexts 

       By setting off scientific against the literary translation, their characteristics and the problems that are likely to be encountered in each, become more salient as illustrated below.

        In scientific texts we have an end in view and the means necessarily remains within the general conceptual framework within which the end is defined.  That is, the scientific context has a content which is concerned with the horizontal structure of the world while the literary context has a content which is concerned with the vertical structure of the world.

        Thus, on the one hand, we shall have a vertical relation between height and depth while, on the other hand, we shall have a horizontal relation between width and breadth. The first relation testifies to the relative merits of artists and poets, whereas the second one signifies the merits of scientists and technologists.  The product of poets is essentially a product of height and depth which has either been brought down or lifted up so as to fit into the width and breadth of life itself, that is acquiring a horizontal dimension; while the product of scientists lacks the intuitive complexity and wealth of experience characteristic of poets.    This product is therefore, essentially conceived as a horizontal line corresponding to a photographic representation of the    world (Blankenburg, 1982: 35-47).

        Scientists speak within the familiar and concrete realities of everyday life.  If they are to move, their movement is almost always towards the accomplishment of a new horizon or new perspectives that always remain within the horizontal structure of the concrete, tangible and objective reality.
      
        Another point intrudes itself here: it is important to stress that these dimensions, whether vertical or horizontal, are intrinsically dependent on the perceiving man, that is both self-relationship and world-relationship are unified through the symbolic system of identification generally known as language.  However, this is not the same as saying that these dimensions can be spanned during a given culture’s or individual’s life-time.  The relation of these dimensions seems as one of opponents while their unity seems as a harmony of opposites.  To span them, therefore, seems impossibility that even a highly-sophisticated computer technology cannot bring off.

        These demarcation lines between vertical and horizontal dimensions suggest another area of investigation and comparisons. We can now expand the previous columns (p.3) of differences between science and literature so as to include more important language details:

        Close examination of the items included in the literary texts column will suggest that these items are clearly descriptive by Arabic, while the items contained in the opposite column testify to the characteristics that are relevant to English usage.

        Setting off these differences against more linguistic differences that exist between English and Arabic will confirm the latter’s tendency to allegory and provide guide lines for translating English scientific texts into Arabic. See below:

        Since scientific texts rarely contain idiomatic or culture-bound expressions, the type of equivalence most common in their translation is the formal equivalence which focuses attention on the message content itself rather than its form. Nida (1964: 223) highlights this aspect of scientific translation as follows:

        This level of language, experientially is lifeless, is linguistically very manipulatable. For to the extent that language can be separated from the unique qualities of experience and can be made a kind of linguistic mathematics, its units can easily be arranged and re-arranged with little interference from the cultural context.

         It emerges from the above-mentioned comparison between English and Arabic, which drastically lack scientific and technical terminology, suffers an irreversible process of disintegration through diglossia, and harbors scanty abbreviations, acronyms, formulae and registers.  But since science and technology create situational features which involve new concepts, techniques, and processes that can be imitated and imagined, it is binding for Arab translators to coin equivalent terminology and develop corresponding programs of expression which Arabic morphology and flexible word order can provide. However, theoretical possibilities may in many cases fall short of practical application and this is very much the case with English technical translating into Modern Standard Arabic today.


6. Conclusions:

-           It becomes obvious from the discussion we presented so far that the act of scientific translation is sometimes guided by certain strategies.  One of these strategies accounts for the systematic differences between the two languages concerned. Another depends on the type of language used in any individual text.  Both these strategies are applicable in translating English scientific texts into Arabic.

-           Another point is that Arabic, in its current situation, does gravely lack a frame-of-reference in the scientific and literature, and what is available of translated literature to this effect in Arabic is rather scanty and harbours gaps that are likely to multiply since initiative has not been taken by the Arabs to adopt and sustain a large-scale translating process in this particular.
 
-           In English, which expresses a highly sophisticated technological culture, both horizontal and vertical dimensions of human experience are dynamic and expanding.  Whereas in Arabic, which is the expression of poetic culture, only the vertical dimension of human experience is unevenly expanding.  Thus, translating English scientific texts into Arabic will inescapably involve a process of transferring dynamic and multidimensional human experience into a static and mono-dimensional one whose verbal system can hardly provide for such a transfer.
 
-           As the Arab culture is being profoundly modified and modern technology is being increasingly introduced, new technical terms are being adopted as well. But these terms are predominantly a mixture of transliterations and borrowing e.g. “banzinkhana” “petrol satation” is compounded from the English word “benzine” and the Turco-Persian word “khana” “station”. However, these terms, regardless of their readiness to catch up with Arabic paradigmatic moulds, can by no means encompass the whole body of English technical and scientific literature.

-           Finally, in this situation which is rather difficult if not entirely hopeless, it seems imperative for the Arabs to start a serious and large scale process of Arabization.  Yet, this process cannot be affected overnight.  It necessitates an exceptionally high energy, good-will and objective thinking on the Arabs’, part to span and assimilate what the west has spanned and assimilated since the Renaissance.

References

Adams, Hazard. (1967) The Interests of Criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace and World Inc.

Barkr-Serex, M. (1997) On Language Varieties and Translation. Cairo.

Beeston, A. F. L. (1970) The Arabic Language Today.  London: Hutchinson University Library.

Bell, R. T. (1991) Translation and Translating. London and New York: Longman.

Blankenburg, D. W. (1982) “A Dialectical Conception of Anthropological Proportions”, In Phenomenology and Psychiatry. London: De Konning, Academic Press.

 Gasagrade, J. (1954) “The Ends of Translation”, International Journal of American Linguistics”, Vol. 20, pp. 335-40.

Ghassib,H. (1996) “The Importance of Syntax: A Look at Prose in Translation of Scientific Texts.” In the Proceeding of The Thirteenth International Conference on Language, Linguistics, Literature and Translation. Jordan: Yarmouk University.

 Giles, D. (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Farghal, M. and Shunnaq, A. (1999) Translation with Reference to English and Arabic. Irbid: Dar Al-Hilal for Translation.

Ilyas, A (1989)Theories of Translation: Theoretical Issues and Practical Implications. Mosul: University of Mosul.

Lotfipour-Saedi, K. (1996) “Translation Principles vs. Translator Strategies”. Meta, 41- 3,pp. 389-392.

Nida, E. A.(1964) Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Schmidt, S. J. (1971) “1^st ‘Fiktionalitat’ eine Linguistische oder eine text theoretische Kaategorie?” In Culich and Raible (eds.), pp. 59-71.

van Dijk, T. A. (1976) “Macro-Structures and Congition”, Paper Contributed to the 12^th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Pittsburg, May 12-14, 1976, University of Amsterdam.

Weinrich, H. (1976) “Kommun Ikation, Instruktion, Text”, In Weinrich (ed.), pp. 11-20.