See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285494045

The Perils of Translating English Modals

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 354

1 author:

Mohammed Farghal
Applied Science Private University
154 PUBLICATIONS 1,090 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Farghal on 02 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ~ jJ ~ : 201 2.06.30
~ AI ~: 2012.07.17-07.29
~A~~~~ : 2012.07.30

An anqlysis of into-Arabic translations of

Eng1ish models in Shakespeare's MacbetH. The
perils of translating English models by zero
equivalents

Mohammed Farghal and Alban Beqiri

J8-~~~~T
J:il16t! 3.2.
; ~~£1 :ifOi Cll ~ill.
:·. ~· ~ ~ ~ ~ =r ~
,r.,·•'-•
 ~ j] ~ : 2012.06.30
~ At ~ : 201207.17--{)7.29
~AI!I~S: · 2012 07.30

An analysis of into-Arabic translations of EngHsh

modals in Shakespeare's MacbetH. The pen1s of
translating EngHsh modals by zero equivalents

Mohammed Farghal and Alban Beqiri*

Contents

1. English and Arabic Modals

2. Corpus and Procedure
3. Results
4. Analysis and DiscussiOn
4.1 . shall
4.2. must
4.3. should
4.4. would
4.5. can
4.6. Will
4.7. could and mighi
5. ConduSion

<ABSTRACT>

• Kuwait University
 o~ ~~ !!!~: CS<>i t':IIuAI~ x~£ lPI ~~~ ~~~i !~~£. h!eqxeli7g ax1
Tronialion ShKies 16(3). 289-308
~ ~=te ~Oi ~f.%AI~ o1~ ~Ql AI~~~ ~7H~~l ~~~AI%!!.~ III ~{!1~1
e ~o1~ x1o11 S!OI~e ~i :::1 ~F~£~ ~ct. Al~~=t~ ~t!U~OII AI%~ ~OJ~
f.~Al! J!nj~~ =jl~~' Olf ~~~ct. ~t!II~OI ~~ 1667~~ ~f.~Al ~397ft
(23.5%)E Of~ ~Ql~OIAi 6t~£1~ct. Cl¥~~ ~5? 7ro~21 .21DPI lt~.21 ~DI
~ 7IAIII £IE~ ~Oj f.%Al.21 ~DI! qa~£1~£01 OIC!~ ~~ ~~g a~ ~Oi f.
~AIOI1Ai 4Et42;t;f!IE ~R~ lfl~~~ qa~AJ7IE ~2tl !i!l~ct. ~ ~=tE ~OJ
~ ~~~ ~~ Aj~~2tE Cfi2j OlitOIE z5Al1i~OI ct~~ Olf Al%~101 ~Oj ~
f.aAI:Jf ;t;jt.j2 ~E DIR~ ~DI£1 xfOI~ ~11~£~ 11!11 ~ ~cte ~e~ Lilt! ct.
:JC!£~ ~QlAte ~OJOIIAi ot~~ ~Ql~ III ~f-a AI ~QlOIIll'~~~ ~~51101 ~101 .
{!!~ ~~g ~~~ ~DII ~ ~~~~ tt.~~l;t;l ~ate ~.!f71 [!Jete ~6li 7IJ:IOI~ct.

9~01: ~01 ~~. OIWOI ~~. ~~~~~ ~Ql. All~ ~7K~~

Key W()(ct; ~ rnodaity, Arali: modafity, Macreth. trarS!tJon. zero eq,Mient

1. English and Arabic Modals

The verb constitutes the most important element in a sentence because its
main function is to relate the arguments in the sentence together in order to
produce meaningful propositions, which are considered the backbone of
discourse. While lexical verbs do this function quite straightforwardly, auxiliary
verbs, including modals, are employed in verb groups to add nuances of
meaning which relate to the entire state of affairs in the sentence. Thus, the task
of rendering the meaning of sentences involving auxiliary verbs becomes more
challenging to the translator. This challenge is most manifested when rendering
English modals because these modals introduce a subjective parameter to the
referential meaning whereby the speaker/writer includes his/her own attitude
regarding the proposition in terms certainty and/or necessity. Halliday
 An analySis of into-Arabic translations of English modals in Shakespecre's Macbe/11291

(1970:335) maintains that modality is "a form of participation by the speaker in

the speech event. Through modality the speaker associates with the thesis an
indication of its status and validity in his own judgment, be intrudes and takes
up a position", In this way, the speaker/writer becomes an evaluator of the
transmitted information in the process of communication.
Essentially, most authors (Halliday 1970; Lyons 1977; Perkins 1983; Coates
1983; and Palmer 1986, among others) divide English modals into two basic
categories: epistemic and deontic modals. On the one band, epistemic modality
involves the speaker's/writer's judgment of the proposition he is putting forward
in terms of certainty, which ranges between factuality (e.g. The flight leaves at
midnight) and possibility (e.g. The flight may leave at midnight). On the other
hand, deontic modality views the proposition at hand in terms of necessity,
which ranges between strong obligation (e.g. John must leave now) and
permission (e.g. John may leave now). Thus, while epistemic modality looks at
language as "information", deontic modality views language as "action"
(Palmer 1986).
In addition, the above authors usually address the issue of indeterminacy in
English modals. This indeterminacy is so clear when dealing with
decontextualized sentences but often disappears when locating utterances within
their relevant contexts. For example, the individual sentence The road may be
closed' may trigger an epistemic or deontic interpretation. The context of the
utterance, however, would indicate which reading is intended.
Moreover, the interpretation of English modals is largely affected by the
grammatical category of time reference, which adds to the degree of their
indeterminacy. For example, the modal may denotes permission when used
deontically (as in 'He may turn the TV on'). However, the same modal will have
an epistemic reading when the time reference is past (as in 'He may have turned
the TV on'). The same is true for the modal must, which denotes obligation
when used deontically (as in ' He must do his assignment'), whereas it takes an
epistemic reading when the time reference is past (as in 'He must have done his
assignment'). In contrast with the modals may and must, the modal should
maintains the same nuance of meaning when the time reference is changed to
past For example, the deontic interpretation is preserved in the sentences 'He
should do his assignment' and 'He should have done his assignment'.
Accounts of English modality overwhelmingly focus on grammatical rather
than lexical modality. This is reasonably justified by the fact that English bas a
fixed system of English modal verbs which manage to grammaticalize meaning
in an efficient manner. However, this does not mean that English lacks lexical
modal resources: it just means that the grammatical category of modals is more
efficient and handier than the lexical counterpart In fact, one may find a lexical
counterpart for every modal auxiliary. Examples may include 1 can do it vs. I'm
able to do it', 'I have to go vs. I'm obligated to go', 'John may come in now vs.
John is allowed to come in now', etc. Therefore, the notion of modality in
English can be said to be predominantly grammatical in terms of usage.
Unlike English, Modality in Arabic involves a mixed bag of modal
expressions rather that a fixed category of modal auxiliary verbs. This bag
includes modal verbs such as yajibu ~ 'must', yumkinu Lr-4nay/might', and
yanbayii ~ 'should', particles/prepositions such as qad .l.....Jmay/might', Ia <alia

JaJ 'may/might' and <alaa ~ 'must', prepositional phrases min-1-mumkini LJ--o

~ 'may/might' and min-1-waajibi ~_,ll ~hould', lexical verbs such as
yuntamalu ~'be possible' and yastalzimu r.fo..-...:lrequire'. This elaborate
array and mixed bag of Arabic modal expressions may have been the reason
why modality had not been a subject of grammatical analysis in the otherwise
comprehensive medieval Arabic grammar (for more details, see El-Hassan
1990).
 M analysis of into-Arabic translations of English modals In Shakespeare's Macbeth 293

This being the case, most recent studies of Arabic modality (Zayed 1984; EI-
Hassan 1990; Farghal and Shunnaq 1999/2011 ; Abdel-Fattah 2005; Al-Qinai
2008; Wided 20 I 0) take the system of English modals as a point of departure
when approaching Arabic modality from a linguistic and/or translational
perspective. Basically employing concocted individual sentences, the general
conclusion of these studies is that Arabic lacks a highly gramrnaticalized system
of modals although it possesses the lexico-grammatical means to capture all
modal nuances in discourse. The authors usually engage in listing English
modal verbs and their possible Arabic counterparts (e.g. See Abdel-Fattah 2005
and Al-Qinai 2008) in terms of epistemic and deontic modality.
A more holistic approach (Zayed 1984) reduces the epistemic parameter in
English and Arabic to may vs. must and rubamaa ~ys. faa budda •~ ';i

respectively, and the deontic parameter to may vs. must and yumkinu ~s.

yajibu ~respectively. De Haan (1997: 50) rightly improves on zayed's

typology by presenting each two items on separate continua, thus making it

visible that the two types of modality exist in different degrees from weak to
strong, as can be seen below:

a. Epistemic modality
Weak - -- -- -- - Strong
~.) ~ 'J

b. Deontic modality

We~ --------------~trong

Clearly, this approach is based on modalistic generalizations without going

into the details. For example, yajibu ~s taken to be exclusively deontic,

"
whereas loa budda •~ 'is viewed as exclusively epistemic. While this is tme in
the former case, it is not in the latter case, because loa budda can function both
epistemically and deontically (compare loa budda 'anna-hu majnuun-un ~ .l! ':i

u~ 'He must be crazy' with lao budda 'an 'adrusa-1-yawma r~ I.Y'YI J •.l! ':i
'I must study today' (for more details, see Farghal 2012: 102-104)).
To conclude this section, and regardless of the way we approach modality,
we must realize the fact that modal expressions inject our utterances with a
personal perspective that incorporates context-dependent nuances of the
notions of certainty and necessity. Therefore, the addition or deletion of a modal
expression in an utterance will most likely result in marring the intended
meaning in translation activity. Further, the shift from one modal in one
category to another modal in a different category in translation usually distorts
the nuance of meaning in an utterance (Badran 200 l ). This does not mean that
we cannot use more than one modal expression for the same purpose; on the
contrary, it is the case that multiple modal expressions sharing the same nuance
(whether epistemic or deontic) may replace each other both intralingually
(within the same language) or interlingually (across two languages). For
example, the English modal may in the sentence John may be at home may be
rendered by many Arabic modal expressions, including yumkinu, qad, Ia '<lla,
min-al-mumkini, etc.

2. Corpus and Procedure

The present paper is a case study of the rendition of English modals in

Macbeth into Arabic by zero equivalents. The choice of Macbeth has been
motivated by the length of the play (being the shortest of Shakespeare's plays),
 kl analysis of into-Arabic translations of English modals in Shakespecre's Mac/Je/11295

the intensive use of modals, ease of reference (the translation being bilingual)
and the relative recency of the publication. The study will confine itself to the
English modals that have been lost in Arabic translation. In this way, it does not
aim to examine the accuracy of rendering English modals by Arabic modal
expressions in this play. Therefore, there are two research questions: (1) Does
the deletion of an English modal affect the Arabic rendition? and (2) Can we
remedy the discrepancy created, if any, when overlooking an English modal in
an Arabic rendition? The Arabic translation under study was made by
Abdurrazak Al-Khaffaji (2008) by Dar Al-Bihar, Beirut, Lebanon. It was
published along with the English text where the Arabic translation is given on
the opposite pages of the English original.

3. Results

The play contains 166 English modal verbs. The number of Arabic zero
equivalents for English modals is 39 (23.5%) in the corpus. The following
Table shows the frequency and distribution of English modals and Arabic zero
equivalents:

English Modal Frequency % Zero Equivalent %

shall 35 21% 7 17.95%
must 28 16.8% 7 17.95%
should 25 15% 6 15.38%
would 20 12% 7 17.95%
can 20 12% 6 15.38%
will 14 8.4% 2 5.12%
may II 6.6% 0 00/o
OOJid 9 5.4% 2 5.12%
might 4 2.4% 2 5.12%
Total 166 39
 4. Analysis and Discussion

The above table shows that the modal verbs shall, must, and should are the
most frequent in the play accounting for almost 53% of the total number. They
are followed by would and can which account for 24% of the total. The rest of
the occurrences are claimed by will, may, could and might, which account for
almost 23%, with will being in the lead and might the least occurring. In tenus
of translation, shall, must and would (which register a high frequency of
occurrence in the data) account for a little more than 50% of the number of
Arabic zero equivalents. The following discussion will examine some examples
of zero equivalents of English modal verbs to see the discrepancy, if any,
between the English utterances and their corresponding Arabic renditions. The
main concern will be on the study items (i.e. English modal verbs and their
Arabic renditions) and other segments in the translation will be relevant only if
they relate to the rendering of modal verbs, which are highlighted in boldface.

4.1. shall

The modal verb shall displays a high degree of certainty that comes very
close to factuality. That is why the translator can readily omit it and have the
Present Simple form replace the English verb group without seriously affecting
the translation in Arabic. This can explain the translator's option for the Arabic
zero equivalents (7/35) for this epistemically strong English modal. It should be
noted that the use of the Arabic Present Simple form shows a negligible
epistemic extra strength than the English counterpart, as can be illustrated
below:

But I shall crave your pardon; that which are my thoughts cannot transpose;
 An analysis of into-Arabic translatioos of English modals in Shakespecre'sMa:IJel/1 297

angels are still bright, though the brightest fell . . . (p. 219 I Malcolm to
Macdufi).

J ~.J ,'J.-'J Jl.; t.. ~ •c;.JlS.!I._;iij u! "-:!lc. ul t.. :' ljlc ~I~
•• • 1..5 .JA ~ lt-}1

Thus, the English segment 'But I shall crave your pardon' is rendered as

laakinni ,astamiil1uka •uoran 'ljl-.c ~~ cflut J crave your pardon'. This

rendering sounds as natural as laakinni sa-'astamii11uka •uoran .~1, 2·! .\..... ~

'I~But r shall crave your pardon', and the loss in epistemic modality is

negligible.

4.2. must

The modal must is the second most frequent in the play (16.8%) and is
translated by Arabic zero equivalents seven times (7/28). The deletion of this
modal in Arabic translation seriously distorts the meaning. In the following
example, the deontic modaJity exhibited by the modaJ must is erroneously
omitted in the Arabic rendition, as can be seen below (Back translations are
square-bracketed):

If charnel-houses and our graves must send those that we bury back, our
monuments shall be the maws of kites. (p.163)

.ui.l>JI J.-1 ~ y.·

. _! \.r.:.. y·-I ~"J
. · ~
,~ U" -
.• .4 u..u1
\j.)..r.-J - -"· J y.I
[If our charnel-houses and our graves bring back those that we buried, our
monuments shall become in the maws ofkites]

In this example, Macbeth (addressing the ghost of Banquo) embeds deontic

modality that involves strong obligation in a conditional clause. The translator
opts for omitting the nuance added by the embedded deontic modality within
the hypothetical conditional clause while keeping the clause itself. Thus, the
sense of obligation is completely lost, which changes the nuance of meaning.
To capture the combination of hypothetical conditionaUty and obligation, the
translator should employ either the deontic Arabic yajibu ~or laa budda •~ "'i
in the hypothetical condition, as can be seen below:

[If our charnel-houses and our graves had to bring back those we buried, ... ]

.d.l:l..ll J.,...l ~ ~ 1.:i::=..~ ~'J ,l.:4l 0-- b.:L:.) \.j..J.,.SJ U.......Jyl •.l:l 'i «JS J
[If our charnel-houses and our graves had to bring back those we buried, ... ]

4.3. should

This modal claims 25 occurrences in the play (15%), 6 of which are

translated by Arabic zero equivalents. Consider the following example which
includes a subtle use of should:

[Aside] Were I from Dunsinane away and clear, profit again should hardly
draw me here. (p. 271)
 All analysis ol lnto-Atablc translations of English modals in Shakes~e·s Mac/Je/11299

1 '-~-r.~
':"'-:"'1. -
U. 11 . ~ ~ •
u": ....---- . (...)'"
W (I
- . ..::.iaS y.t
..r ·b-..
.·.t....-., ·
~J u-::--

[[Aside] Were I from Duninane away and free, no profit brings me back here
again]

The above example involves a subtle interaction between the modal verb
should and the negative adverb hardly in order to signal a hypothetical state of
affairs which is less definitive than a negated proposition without should. The
translator, however, opts for a definitive, negated proposition which can be
back-translated into [no profit brings me back here]. As can be seen, the
modality in the translation amounts to factuality (the highest degree of epistemic
modality). This contrasts with the less assertive degree of modality in the source
text (ST). To capture this nuance by Macbeth, the clitie Arabic particle Ia along
with the rendition of the negative adverb hardly can be employed as below:

.~ \,.j.\
-
II. ~
u": ....------
J ~
.
!.. ~ ,•1
c.s- . ·J,. ·'' · •1.uu..::.i6
~J U'"':""""' ..r -. y
.I

[Were I from Duninane away and free, hardly should any profit bring me
back here again]

The hypothetical proposition in this translation parallels the degree of

assertiveness in the source text. It would leave some room, albeit very little, for
Macbeth to be tempted by profit, whereas this room is completely eliminated in
Kbaffaji's translation, i.e. profit would not tempt Macbeth to come back. Hence,
the accompanying nuance is rendered adequately.

4.4. would

The modal verb would occurs 20 times in the play (12%) and claims 7 zero
equivalents out of the 39 instances (I 7.95%). Taidng its frequency in the play
into consideration, it emerges as the modal that undergoes deletion more than
any other modal (7/39) if we exclude might, which only occurs 4 times in the
play, of which two' receive zero equivalents. The frequent deletion of would
may be explained by the fact that it occupies a weak position on the scale of
epistemic modality. However, it does nuance the import of a proposition by
significantly lowering the degree of certainty. Therefore, the deletion of this
modal will seriously distort the intended message, as can be witnessed in the
Arabic rendition ofMalcolm's statement below:

Though all things foul would wear the brows of the grace, yet grace must still
look so. (p. 221 I Malcolm to Macduff)

.~
0
'1 J 1•..;·.
.......-
Jl;.j ~.II
...)"
J JF-· ,~.but.......,
...)" 0 ~
.t':-: ~ 1.....!.~1 J
- ~-
.
~.)

[Though the foul things wear the brows of grace, yet grace remains intact and
does not change]

Unjustifiably, the Arabic translation changes the weak degree of epistemic

modality introduced by would into factuality introduced by the Simple Present
fonn (tatalabbasu u-'.,J:i1wear') instead of the nuanced (qad tatalabbasu U:~ iS
'may wear'), thus marring the modality in the text. The modal would in this
context allows some room for the non-realization of the proposition in
unspecified circumstances, meaning that there might be a situation where 'some
foul things do not wear the brows of grace'. A logical reason for such a thing to
happen would be that such foul things have grown so powerful and influential
that they fear nothing and no one. Consequently, they do not need to wear the
brows of grace because grace would become what they say or do. Below is a
 An analySis of into-Arabic translations of English modals in Shakespeare's Macbet/J 301

suggested translation where the modality of would, as well as the modality of

must (which is not the study item here) is captured:

·~uk.l:.t~J .4....:..)1 ·~~•.4....:...) ~v:~~ ~ ~~~' J ri-.J

[Though the foul things may wear the brows of grace, yet grace must remain
preserve itself] I
A simple comparison between Khafajji's rendition and the one suggested
here can clearly show the translation loss caused by rendering English modal
verbs by zero equivalents.

4.5. can

The modal verb can shows the same frequency as would in the play (20
occurrences) and lags only by one instance in the number of zero equivalents
(6/39). This modal is often ambiguous between a deontic ability/permission
reading and an epistemic possibility reading in which the context plays a key
role in preferring one reading to the other. Arabic also manifests the same kind
of ambiguity in the use of the modal verbs yumkinu and, to a lesser extent,
yasta[ii •u 'can/may' and their kin modal expressions. ln negative sentences, both
English and Arabic employ can and yumkinu respectively to indicate
prohibition (deontic modality) and impossibility (epistemic modality). Thus, the
nuances added to the import of propositions by this modal should be maintained
in translation. Witness how the nuance of impossibility introduced by the modal
can in Macduff's utterance is erroneously discarded in the Arabic translation
below:
 Not in the legions of horrid hell can come a devil more damn'd in evils to top
Macbeth. ( p.223)

[Not in the legions of horrid hell exists a devil damned in evils more than
Macbeth)

While Macduff conveys the message that the state of affairs in his utterance
is impossible to take place, the Arabic translation neutralizes the message by
asserting that the state of affairs simply does not exist. In this way, the Arabic
rendering dampens the argumentative tone in Macduff's utterance as a result of
deleting the modal can. To capture the proper tone, the translator should relay
the modality in the ST, as can be seen in the renderings below:

Both renderings can be back-translated as [Not even in the legions of horrid

hell can appear a devil that swpasses Macbeth in his evils). This back-
translation reflects the modality-nuanced tone in the ST, which is completely
l
I
missed in Khaffajji's translation above.

4.6. Will

The modal verb will is comparable to shall in its epistemic strength. It occurs
14 times in the play and receives zero equivalents only in two cases, in which
the Present Simple form or the Present Participle form is employed. Both forms
 An analysis of into-Arabic translations of English modals in Shakespeare's Macbeth 303

can functionally replace this modal with a negligible difference in the degree of
epistemic modality. Following is an illustrative example:

What will you do? (p. 115 I Malcolm to Donalbain)

f~\i..:..J I~L.

[What you doing?]

The use of the present participle formfaati/un •~~oing' nearly captures

the use of will in the ST's utterance, which alternatively translates into maaoaa
sa-taftalu ~ l~t will you do?' Both renderings capture the intended
meaning of the utterance. fn this way, will (just like shalf) may be replaced with
other forms (i.e. the present simple and the present participle) that exhibit a
slightly higher degree of epistemic modality.

4.7. could and might

The modals could and might have 9 and 4 occurrences respectively in the
play and both undergo deletion two times. In the subjunctive mood, could
usually carries a combination of ability and possibility reading, whereas might
normally takes a possibility reading alone. Both modals significantly shade the
propositions in which they are employed, each in its own way, and, therefore,
should be rendered in Arabic translation. The following extract includes both
modals, which receive zero equivalents in the Arabic rendering:

... if the assassination could trammel up the consequence, and catch with his
surcease success; that this blow might be the be-all and end-all here ... (p. 67 I
monologue by Macbeth)

J-Sll ~ ~~~ .~ 01)J •c4-ll' ~ ~_, .4;ull.lS).! ~)11 J£ J

... ,\,;.\ JSII u-k ~\.i!IJ
[... if the assassination trammels up the consequence, and reap with his
surcease success; and if this blow is the be-ali and the end-all here ... ]

It is unfortunate that the ability/possibility reading of could in the English

conditional clause is lost in the Arabic rendering. Therefore, the hypothetical
condition is rendered as a real condition in Arabic, thus allowing room for its
realization in the future, which can be back-translated as [If the assassination
trammels up the consequence]. To capture the hypothetical condition, the modal
could should be rendered in Arabic as: ... L.,...,iilll .lS).! d ~~ ,:;\S J [if
the assassination could trammel the consequence]. Notably, the Arabic modal
encapsulates a combination of ability and possibility reading just like the
English modal could.
For its turn, might in the above extract carries a possibility reading which is
completely lost in the Arabic translation; it has been changed into a factuality

reading, thus moving from slight possibility to complete certainty. The nuance
introduced by might can be relayed by a variety of Arabic modal expressions,
as can be seen below, which can all be back-translated as [and if the blow might
be the be-ali and end-all here]:

,\,;.\ ~ u-k ~\.i!IJ ~ ~ ufo J.i ~y.:.JI .~ u\ )J

,\,;.\ JSll u-k ~\.i!IJ JSll ~ ~y.:.JI.~ l.Jfo ,:;1 ~ Uo* A,.jl )J

.t.\ JSll u-k ~\.i!IJ JSll ~ ~y.:.Jl .~ l.Jfo u\ ~ A,.jl )J

 An analysis of into-Arabic translations of English modals in Shakespeare's Macbe/11305

The availability of many Arabic modal expressions that can render the slight
possibility in the English segment leaves no reason for the translator to translate
it by zero equivalent whereby the degree of epistemic modality is seriously
distorted.
Interestingly, the modal may, the twin member of might, which occurs 7
times more than might (i.e. II occurrences) in the play does not receive any
zero equivalents. It could be that the translator felt that the epistemic degree of
may was higher than that of might, hence it must be preserved in Arabic. While
it is true that the location of might is lower than that of may on the epistemic
English scale, this fact does not justify the deletion of might in Arabic. As a
matter of fact, Arabic does not distinguish between may and might in
translation: they both indicate slight possibility

5. Conclusion

Despite the fact that Arabic modality is not as systematically

grammaticalized as English modality, Arabic proves to possess a myriad of
modal expressions which enhance stylistic variation in translating from English
into Arabic. This fact, however, is of minimal value if the translator fails to
properly understand the English modal system and the fine distinctions that
each modal displays in context. The data analyzed in this study shows clearly
how damaging the nuances of English modality can be when the translator
overlooks them in Arabic translation. In this way, the zero equivalent strategy,
which is employed in 39 instances (23.5%) in the play, proves seriously
inadequate in most cases when put under close scrutiny. The only exceptions
are the epistemic English modals will and shall, which may be replaced by the
Arabic Present Simple or Present Participle fonns without affecting modalistic
realties.
It must be noted that the translation of modals between English and Arabic
remains a challenging issue. The present paper offers only a small taste of this
problematic area by looking at some instances where the English modal
receives a zero equivalent in Arabic translation. Further investigation of
authentic translation data taken from different text types is needed in future
research as most of the existing literature (See section 1) deals with the
translation of modality at the level of concocted individual sentences. One must
note that context and co-text play a key role in the interpretation and rendering
of modals across languages. The translator's inability to be sensitive to the
nuances introduced by modal verbs/expressions will definitely mar the
adequacy of his/her translation as the small data presented in this clearly shows.
 All analysis of into-Arabic translations of English modals 10 Shakespecre'sMacbefll 307

References

Abdel-Fattah, M. M. (2005). On the Translation ofModals from English into

Arabic and Vice Versa: The Case ofDeontic Modality, Babel, 51(1), 31-48.
AI-Qinai, J. (2008). On Translating Modals. Translation and Interpreting
Studies, 3(1&2), 30-67.
Badran, D. (2001 ). Modality and Tdeology in Translated Political Texts.
Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 16, 47-61.
Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries, London: Croom
Helm.
DeHaan, F. ( 1997). The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A Typological
Study, New York: Garland Publishing.
EI-Hassan, S. (1990). Expressing Modality in English and Standard Arabic.
Journal King Saudi University, 2 (2), 149-166.
Farghal, M. (20 12). Advanced Issues in Arabic-English Translation Studies.
Kuwait: Academic Publication Council, Kuwait University.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a
Consideration of Modality and Mood in English. Foundation of
Language, 6, 322-361.
Lyons, J. ( 1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Perkins, M. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.
Wided, B. (20 I0). Modality in English, French and Arabic Biomedical
Discourse: A Contrastive Study of Drug Infonnat:ion Leaflets. M.A.
Dissertation. Mentouri University, Constantine.
Zayed, S.H. ( 1984). A Pragmatic Approach to Modality and the Modals: with

View publication stats