Translator Trainees’ Performance on Arabic–English Promotional Materials

Theoretical Framework

Throughout its development, the domain of translation studies has seen changes in terms of theoretical approaches which have generally depended on “the dominant philosophy of the time and/or the underlying conceptions of the nature of translation and the intended use of the translated text” (Schäffner 5). Among the approaches that have influenced the development of translation studies are “linguistic approaches” (Jakobson, 233; Nida 30), “text linguistic approaches” (Reiss 48–88), and “functional approaches” (Reiss and Vermeer 1; Nord 25). Linguistic theories predominantly emphasize the structured interconnections among linguistic units within language systems, often disregarding the practical implementation of these units in particular contexts (Schäffner 5). Therefore, translation scholars shift to text linguistic and functional approaches which focus on text types (Reiss 48–88), and propose of the translation (Nord 25; Reiss and Vermeer 1).

In the field of tourism translation, there is a need for theories that help to address the challenges and complexities of translating tourism-related content. The linguistic approach proposes “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence,” which could assist translators at a syntactic and lexical level, but do not consider the textual level, which is crucial in tourism translation. Text-linguistic approaches offer insights into tourism translation via Reiss’ classification of text types (Reiss 48–88) according to their main function (i.e., informative, expressive, and operative texts). Reiss’ s model is based on the intra-linguistic and extra-linguistic features of the text (1971/2000). The intra-linguistic features include semantic equivalence, lexical equivalence, and grammatical and stylistic features, while extra-linguistic factors include the context, subject field or domain time, place, culture, receiver, sender, and affective implications.

As an extension of text-linguistic approaches, functionalist approaches (Nord 25; Reiss and Vermeer 1) focus on the functions and purposes of translated texts (Oyali 52). In tourism translation, this approach considers the various functions that tourism texts serve: providing information, persuading the readers, or promoting a product. Translators should adapt their translation strategies accordingly to achieve the desired communicative functions in the TL. Functionalist advocates generally believe that the function of a text in the target culture determines the method of translation (Oyali 52). The Skopos theory, a functional approach developed by Vermeer, emphasizes the importance of the purpose or “skopos” of translation (Reiss and Vermeer 1). According to this theory, the translator’s primary focus should be on the target audience and the specific communicative function the translation serves. Translators should meet the expectations and needs of the target audience by taking cultural appropriateness and linguistic conventions into consideration. In the context of tourism translation, the “skopos” may be to inform, persuade, or entertain. The translator’s task is to select the translation strategies that are most likely to achieve the purpose of the translation. The theory proposes that the intended function or purpose of the target text (TT) is determined by the communicative needs of the clients (Karoubi 253). This approach is appropriate to tourism translation in that it considers the various functions that tourism texts serve, such as providing information, persuading, or promoting.

Baker (254) raises the issue of culture in translation, addressing translation “as a tool of language mediation across cultures.” Accordingly, the translator should be aware of the cultural differences between the source and target cultures, and use the language that is appropriate for the target audience. In tourism translation, translators must be linguistic mediators between languages and cultural mediators between different cultures, which requires both comprehensive linguistic knowledge and broad knowledge of cultures (Muñoz 42).

Due to the interdisciplinarity of tourism translation, researchers and translation practitioners should draw on theories from the marketing and tourism domains. The tourist communication theory examines the characteristics of communication in the tourism context. It emphasizes the importance of clear and accessible language to effectively communicate with tourists. Translators should use strategies such as simplification, using plain language, and providing relevant information to facilitate comprehension and meet the needs of tourists (Fennell 1). The politeness theory, proposed by Brown and Levinson (1), examines the role of politeness in communication (Baker 254). In tourism translation, maintaining a positive and respectful tone is crucial for the creation of a welcoming and hospitable impression. Translators should consider cultural norms and use strategies to ensure that the translated text aligns with the politeness conventions of the target culture (Baker 254). By including these theoretical principles in tourism translation courses and training, translator trainees can navigate the complexities of tourism translation and effectively convey to target audiences the intended messages, cultural nuances, and experiences, enhancing the overall tourism experience for visitors. Several studies have investigated the issue of tourism translation from various perspectives (translation strategies, cultural challenges, design of teaching a course on tourism translation, and tourism knowledge translation framework). (Sulaiman 503, 1054) and Sulaiman and Wilson (503, 1054) focused on the cultural issues of tourism translation and proposed a translation model for the translation of tourism that focuses on the global vision of the TT and fosters favorable destination images in the minds of potential tourists. Hurtado Albir and Pavani (27) created a tourism translation teaching unit for a group of Italian students enrolled in a Spanish-to-Italian general translation course. They provided information on the acquisition of various translation sub-competences as well as the effectiveness of the assessment rubrics. Fennell (1) conducted a conceptual study on developing the tourism knowledge translation framework, offering a possible solution to the absence of integrated theoretical account of tourism translation. He proposed two main domains (knowledge creation and action cycle) which are applied to the current over-tourism situation in Corsica.

Regarding English–Arabic translation, Alangari (83), Al-Fahad (1), and Qassem et al. (1) investigated tourism translation from different perspectives (cultural mediation, cultural and stylistic differences between English and Arabic, and translation quality in English–Arabic–English translation). Using a descriptive approach, Alangari (83) examined the interventionist role of translators as cultural mediators in the Arabic–English translation of culture-specific items in Saudi-related tourism articles. She found that exoticization and explanation strategies can render culture-specific items in tourism texts, namely in regard to traditions and food. Al-Fahad (1) investigated the cultural and stylistic differences between English and Arabic travel brochures. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, the researcher discovered significant differences in the distribution of vocabulary in English and Arabic. He found that Arabic texts use complex structures and frequently contain more coordinated sentences than texts in English. Qassem et al. (1) investigated the quality of translations in English–Arabic–English translations of tourist texts, reporting poor translation quality, which was attributed to the students’ incorrect utilization of translation procedures, including omission, transliteration, and literal translation. A review of the empirical literature on tourism translation revealed very few studies on the topic, especially in terms of Arabic–English translation. Accordingly, drawing on the conceptual and empirical literature mentioned earlier, this study attempts to offer an integrated account on translator trainees’ performance and knowledge in the translation of TPMs, as well as their perception of the difficulty of the translation task.

TPMs

Printed TPMs were the most common means of targeting tourists. However, the rapid development of promotional tourism websites has replaced the printed materials (Sulaiman and Wilson 633). Tourism websites have become the preferred source of information for tourists due to their easy accessibility, rich content, and various services (Sulaiman and Wilson 633; Sulaiman and Wilson 49–66). Online TPMs can be delivered and accessed by potential tourists instantly with the click of a button (Fotiadis et al. 210). The Web has become the virtual world for most people, so the language of the Web greatly influences our preferences and decisions (Franklin 277). A tourism website is defined as a multi-semiotic entity consisting of interactive resources, both verbal utterances and non-verbal signs, to fulfill a set of communicative functions (Skibitska 735). This study focuses on verbal utterances since they are the main focus of translation training. The function of promotional translation materials (PTMs) is to introduce readers to picturesque locations, provide them with information about those locations, and urge them to visit such places. According to Newmark (41–52), PTMs provide vocative, expressive, and informative functions; hence, the translator should consider the accuracy of the information, the language style, and the degree of interactivity. He and Su (508) argue that one of the distinctive features of a tourism website is the use of multiple verbal and non-verbal elements to convey information better and achieve communicative purposes.

English vs Arabic Tourist Texts

English and Arabic belong to different families of languages in the sense that Arabic belongs to the Semitic family while English belongs to the Indo-European family. Anglophone societies and Arabs live in areas that differ in terms of ecology, geography, social traditions, and religion, contributing to differences between Arabic and English (Qassem and Vijayasarathi 57). Since English culture is individualistic, communication tends to be direct and explicit, with a low-context communication style. (Alexander et al. 351). Most of the information in a low-context culture is explicit. On the other hand, Arabic culture is collective and has a high-context style since most of the information is conveyed implicitly, so communication is characterized by implicit and indirect verbal expressions (Al-Fahad 1). In the Anglophone culture, emphasis is given to the content of communication rather than the way the message is conveyed (Sulaiman 503). In contrast, in Arabic culture, great attention is paid to the way that the message is delivered. In writing, Arabic writers are expected to follow conventions of Arabic politeness. Furthermore, orality is a prominent feature of English tourism texts, manifested in a dialogic oral style characterized by the imperative voice, interpersonal reference, interjections, and an informal tone (He and Su 508; Gandin 325). However, Arabic PTMs contain formal, literal expressions, coordinated sentences, figurative language, complex structures, and long sentences (Dickins et al. 277; Al-Fahad 1; Qassem et al. 1). In Arabic, the main focus is on the history, architecture, art, and history of a place, whereas English tourism texts tend to contain more practical information (Dickins et al. 277; Qassem et al. 1). The notion of personal indulgence is a prominent feature of the English individualist culture and is evident in PTMs. Conversely, the Arabic culture is collectivist, meaning that one’s desires and pleasures should align with societal norms and religious dogma.

Translation Procedures and Processes

Translation procedures should prioritize a macro level of language, encompassing aspects such as theme, medium, formality, text type, and the overall function of communication, among others. This approach goes beyond mere lexical, semantic, and syntactic equivalence in tourism translation. In other words, the translator should consider the context, subject field, location, culture, as well as the affective implications for both the sender and receiver of the message (Reiss 48–88). When translating tourist materials, adopting a macro top-down prospective approach is appropriate as it focuses on the vocative function of the promotional texts (i.e., persuading readers to visit a particular place). This approach places less emphasis on micro-linguistic elements such as lexical, semantic, and syntactic units (Sulaiman and Wilson 633).

The translation’s objective is to persuade a new audience that the destination can meet their needs, wants, and expectations; this is done by using the original material as a springboard rather than finding linguistic equivalents for the source text (ST) in the TL. According to the language of tourism is intended to persuade, charm, woo, and seduce millions of people, converting them from potential to actual clientele (ibid., p. 2). Many researchers suggest that translators should adhere to the conventions of PTMs in the TL to ensure a successful message reception. Specifically, the stylistic conventions of TPTs in the TL should prevail in the translation of tourist ST to guarantee the success of communication (Kelly 33–42).

The procedure the translator needs to follow during the translation process involves bottom-up text analysis (examining and coding the ST), contrastive analysis (comparing linguistic and cultural elements), reformulation (materializing the TT), and re-editing (correcting and revising the TT) (Federici 17–44). The translation process has three main stages: reading, drafting, and revision. In the reading stage, the translator grasps the main idea of the text and the intra-linguistic and extra-linguistic features of the ST, identifying the differences and similarities between ST and TT. In the drafting process, the author formulates the TT taking into consideration the ST analysis (Nord 25). During the revision process, the author revises the content and style of the text to ensure that the communicative function of the TT is achieved.

Translator Prerequisites

To effectively translate PTMs, translators should possess declarative knowledge (know what) and procedural expertise (know-how) (Qassem and Vijayasarathi 57). Translators need three kinds of knowledge: knowledge of the audience, knowledge of genre conventions, and knowledge of the product being promoted. As mentioned, translations for the tourism industry should consider the target audience’s culture, goals, needs, and expectations, and how that culture views tourism (Sulaiman and Wilson 633). Understanding the differences between the TT audience and the ST audience is also necessary. The application of good translation strategies requires an understanding of the differences between the two audiences (Sulaiman and Wilson 633). The second type of genre knowledge is knowledge of the language’s linguistic processes and norms. Translation strategies are effective only when the translator knows the target audience and how they differ from the ST audience (Sulaiman and Wilson 633). The second type of knowledge concerns genre conventions. It is essential for the translator to know the strategies and conventions of the language of tourism promotion in the TL. A good command and understanding of the terminology used for this particular genre differentiate the “specialist” from the “general practitioner.” This type of knowledge can be called procedural knowledge. Knowledge of the strategies and conventions can be explored by studying the TPMs produced originally in the TL for the target culture (parallel texts). Parallel texts expose translators to the macro-linguistic and micro-linguistic features of the ST and TT. By comparing parallel texts, translators may be able to render a more effective translation. The third type of knowledge relates to the translator’s comprehensive knowledge of the product being promoted (i.e., tourism destination, product, attraction, or experience), enabling the translator to promote the said product in ways that appeal to the target audience. This type of declarative and procedural knowledge ensures that the PTM draws attention, maintains interest, sparks a desire for the product, and results in a positive action on the part of the consumer. In other words, the objectives of PTMs can be achieved by adhering to the AIDA principles of advertising: Attention, Interest, Desire, and Action (Sulaiman and Wilson 49–66).

Quality of Tourism Translations

The quality of tourist genre translation has received criticism in several studies (Qassem et al. 1; Hurtado Albir and Pavani 25; Sulaiman and Wilson 503, 1054, 633; Skibitska 735; Napu 46). Linguistic and cultural differences between the SL and TL significantly impede the achievement of a quality rendition. Sumberg (329) suggests that the inadequate quality of translated TPMs may be due to an approach that prioritizes linguistic characteristics. The language of tourism is different in that it reflects all levels of language. This is due to the interdisciplinary nature of tourism which comprises geography, history, economics, marketing, and other domains (Agorni 253). Accordingly, the assessment of translation quality should take into account the interdisciplinary nature of translation, including an appropriate use of language and style for the TT audience, culture, register and sentence structure, industry jargon, and clarity (see details in Appendix 1). Within this context, the aim of this study is to evaluate the translator trainees’ performance in translating an Arabic PTM into English. The quality of the translations will be assessed using three performance indicators: accuracy, style, and clarity (Sulaiman 2020; Qassem 1). These indicators are appropriate for the translation assessment of tourist texts because they gauge the marco and micro linguistic levels of tourist texts. This issue has received little research attention both locally and internationally.

Students’ Performance

The first question was “To what extent were postgraduates able to translate tourism texts from Arabic into English in terms of accuracy, style, and clarity?” It was found that the trainees’ performance was low, evidenced by the mean and median scores manifested in the mean score (M = 6.2130, SD = 1.13871) and median scores (Mdn = 6.2500). The authors also measured the median as it represents the center of the data (Mellinger and Hanson 163) (Table 4).

Students’ Perception of the Level of Difficulty

The translator trainees’ rating of the level of the difficulty of text translation was Mdn = 3, N-27, indicating that the students perceived the text translation to be difficult “to some extent” (i.e., somewhat difficult), which may show the participants’ lack of awareness of the difficulty of the text and what is required from a tourism text with a communicative function (i.e., to attract the TT readership and convince tourists to visit the place). The participants’ mean performance score was six out of ten, although they saw the text as being only “somewhat difficult” (Table 5).

Correlation Between Translator Trainees’ Perceptions and their Performance

Due to the skewness of the data, the researchers used Spearman’s p to calculate the correlation between translator trainees’ performance and their perception (Mellinger and Hanson 163), but found no correlation (r = 0.220, P = ≤ 0.270, N = 22), as shown in Table 6.

Translator Trainees’ Knowledge of PTM Translation

The trainees’ responses to the questionnaire revealed some awareness of the requirements of translating tourism texts, but four statements revealed the participants’ lack of awareness of the translation of promotional materials (4, 5, 7, 8). The trainees’ responses to the fourth statement indicated their neutrality (Mdn = 3, N = 27). Their responses to the fourth statement “The foreignization strategy (making the text conform to the ST) is the right strategy for translating PTMs” were neutral, which contradicted their responses to the third statement where they agreed on the effectiveness of a domestication strategy. Their responses to the fifth statement “Translators of tourism texts should first consider the equivalents among languages” showed their agreement (Mdn = 4, N-27), indicating their lack of knowledge of what tourism translation requires.

The students’ responses to the seventh statement “In English culture, the emphasis is given to the content of communication rather than to the way the message is conveyed” showed a lack of awareness of the content-focused feature of the English culture (Mdn = 3, N = 27), since they chose the neutral option. Similarly, the trainees’ responses indicated their lack of awareness of the Arabic culture that focuses on the way that a message is conveyed, rather than on the content of the communication (Mdn = 3, N = 27). The remaining responses to the rest of the statements (1, 2, 6, 9, 10) showed agreement with the statement, indicating awareness of some features and requirements of tourism translation (i.e., purpose of tourism translation, some peculiar feature of tourism translation, interdisciplinary feature of tourism translation, function of tourism translation). Table 7 shows the statistical results for the trainees’ level of knowledge.

Use of Translation Resources

According to the findings, the trainees used search engines more than bilingual and monolingual dictionaries, sometimes consulting online memory dictionaries, encyclopedia, forums, etc. to check the accuracy of their translation. The monolingual dictionary is the least-used resource, possibly due to its limitations in translating Arabic to English. Search engines can help the students with translations if they are used correctly, especially when translating lexical and phraseological items such as collocations and metaphors. Table 8 lists the online resources used by students.

Translation of the Title

The trainees’ translation of the title was literal. Twenty-six participants translated the title literally without any attempt to make changes to adhere to the style of English tourist text. The postgraduates’ use of literal translation might not receive a response or reaction from the TT readers. For example, the participants did not consider the TT collocation in translating the title “Start discovering Abha with your five senses” since “explore or discover” do not collocate with “senses,” as shown in Table 10.

Translation of Metaphorical Expressions

When translating metaphorical expressions, the translator trainees applied a literal translation, which may decrease the stylistic effect of the TT on TL readers. The translations maintained the style of the ST metaphor in the TT without any attempt to consider the stylistic differences between English and Arabic. Moreover, some trainees deleted the metaphor and, instead, paraphrased its meaning when rendering the TT. Some examples of the trainees’ translations are given in Table 11.

Use of Coordinate and Subordinate Clauses

In the ST, coordinate clauses occur frequently, using “wa” in the sentence, which is a distinctive feature of Arabic writing. The trainees rendered these coordinate clauses literally as they are in the TT. In regard to subordinate clauses, the trainees did not attempt to simplify the complex structures of the ST, but rendered them literally. In some cases, they deleted some part of the subordinate clauses, resulting in translation loss. Several examples of coordinate and subordinate clauses are shown in Tables 12 and 13.