Interpretation in Language and Translation

TEXT CONSTRUCTS A Hermeneutic Approach Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab TEXT CONSTRUCTS TEXT CONSTRUCTS A Hermeneutic Approach by Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab Title: Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Author: Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab Copyright © Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the author, who is the only copyright owner and holder. First edition 2017 Qalam Al-Abayan Publishing albayanlib@gmail.com for Translation and Publication E-mail: Qalamtl@gmail.com Mobile: +966 595278021 +2 01013860566 Text Constructs is catalogued in the National Library and Archives of Egypt, Cairo. BN: 26811/2017 ISBN: 978-977-5239-96-9 Classification: Academic To All those who have made this work possible Non est ad astra mollis e terris via. (Lucius Annaeus Seneca) There is no easy way to the stars from earth. .‫ال يوجد طريق ممهدة في الرحلة من األرض إلى النجوم‬ )‫(لوشيوس سينكا‬ Text Constructs: Contents Acknowledgement Preface Acronyms used in the book Chapter 1 Interpretation in Language and Translation Preliminaries Equivalence Difference in Translational Data The Interpretive Frame The Scope and Latitude of Interpretation Linguistic Relativity Interpretive Latitude and Writing Perspectives Exemplified Chapter 2 Construction and Interpretation of Corpus-Based English Poetry Vocabulary Profile 1 Introduction 2 Related Literature 3 Corpus and Methodology 4 Vocabulary Profile: Results and Discussion 5 Conclusion Appendix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chapter 3 Text Variants and First Person Domain in Author Identification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Background Variety Features and Text Variants Author Identity: Pedagogical Implications Author Attribution Author Identification Experiment Author Profile XI XII XV 1 1 2 3 4 6 11 13 17 17 20 22 29 47 49 81 81 83 87 89 94 101 105 8 9 Text-Type Profile: Vocabulary, Readability, Grammatical Depth and Textual Markers Discussion and Conclusion Appendix Chapter 4 Self-Attribution: Author Identity and Text Integrity in Academic Discourse 1 2 3 4 Background Self-Attribution and Text Integrity (TI) Standards of TI Text Integrity, Text Attribution (TA) and Interpretation 5 Academic Editorial Practices Exemplified 6 Editorial Practices: Implications 7 Text Integrity and Author Identity Profile Chapter 5 First Person Domain: Threshold Mental Lexicon and Arab Learners of English 1 background 2 ML: English Language Learners and the Size of the ML 3 First Person Domain and the ML 4 Methodological Considerations 5 ML: Monolingual Word Association Retrieval and Interpretation 6 ML: Bilingual Word Retrieval, coverage and Interpretation 7 Discussion 9 Finale Appendix One: A Copy of Tasks Appendix Two: Results of Various Tasks Chapter 6 Translating With Difference: Textual Constructs at Work 1 2 3 4 Preamble Courses in Arabic-English Translation Theoretical Background The Situation 112 114 117 123 123 126 132 137 140 158 160 169 169 170 173 174 175 181 191 195 196 199 227 227 228 231 234 5 6 7 The Hermeneutic Approach Constructs Applied Concluding Remarks Appendix Bibliography Arabic References 234 239 246 249 257 271 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am thankful to all those who assisted me while carrying out my research, and they are many. I start with thanking colleagues at different universities for their generous assistance and patience. I thank friends and students with whom I shared some ideas and discussions, while I was working on these research works at the Department of Foreign Languages and Department of English Language, King Faisal University. Indebtedness is also due to the journals, conference proceedings and referees who assisted in publishing early versions of the chapters in the book, except Chapter 4 and Chapter 6. To my colleagues at the Department of English Language, College of Arts, King Faisal University, I say a big thank you. They encouraged and supported me in every possible way. To my companion and wife Farida Baka I must also express my gratitude and indebtedness, for allowing me to re-write the article we published earlier (Chapter 3) as co-authors. She witnessed the progress of my ideas through discussions and tiring debates that helped me refine my core notions. My daughter and son offer wonderful support with their varied conversations, their novel look at academy, and their sustained effort to uphold common sense values and justice. They are uniquely inspiring. Any shortcoming in my work is my own responsibility, as the originator and writer of the text. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia 17 December 2016. Preface Linguistic behaviour rests on three main pillars: a human agent, a verbal code and a message. Interpretation operates at all levels of language, enabling human agents to use the code to assign meaning to the messages they produce or receive. In this fundamental sense, both code and message operate primarily by activating the user’s experience, identity and hermeneutic paradigm. A de-constructivist stance would make sense only if it applies the hermeneutics of the constructivist who has made the text, which the de-constructivist is supposed to de-construct. As linguistic designates, text constructs are initiated, processed, and deployed in use, thanks to the hermeneutic act of interpreting what we hear and read. Much of what we say and hear means by conventional interpretation; but a great deal remains open to interpretation and re-interpretation, if we can find reasons to approach our texts with a fresh look. Interpretation lies at the root of linguistic behaviour. It explicates an approach to assigning meaning to utterances; but it does not predetermine the result. In this sense, interpretation enacts a position based on experience, knowledge and freedom, by contextualizing linguistic reading, which works within the First Person Domain, accommodating the requirements of creativity and conventions on the one hand, and textuality and communication on the other. Interpretation is either free interpretation spontaneously practised by the layman in everyday life, or elaborate interpretation deliberately assigned by specialized individuals working from a set of topics and rules in a given discipline or field of expertise. The constructs tackled in the current work belong to the second type, elaborate interpretation. Text constructs are linguistic units and entities that enable a text to carry out the functions of informing, maintaining communication, and upholding textual unity. Since not all users understand the utterances they initiate or receive in the same way, it is natural that they arrive at different meanings, by construing different interpretations when dealing with the same utterance or text. This linguistic phenomenon is so common that it goes unnoticed, except XIV Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach when meaning is either vague or is being disputed. Hermeneutics in its widest sense offers a basis for building a linguistic theory of meaning, which can transform naturally occurring verbal behaviour to an academic pursuit. Text Constructs is a humble attempt to elucidate the role of interpretation in making and maintaining text in human communication. In translation, the translator is obliged to deal with various aspects of interpretation in order to assign meaning to the Source Text and even to his/her own text in the pre-formulation stage. Translators cross language boundary and actualize the linguistic potential in the course of this crossing, which fuses the journey, the means of transportation, and the cognate knowledge involved within the translator’s experience. Surely, translators and their readers should not take the special prerogative and the responsibility of the translator lightly, since these stand to shed light on interpretation and the interpreter. In Text Constructs, the study of interpretation is pursued with the double aim of examining the role of interpretation in the initiation, processing and reception of text constructs, and exploring constructs such as self-attribution, vocabulary profile, text integrity, author identity, and readability scales at work in actual discourse. The social, environmental, cultural and individual dimensions of linguistic constructs come together in interpretation within the text. In constructing meaning through pre-textual processing, we balance self-attribution and external attribution, two aspects that post-production readers highlight or dispute. Translation is one of the few phenomena in which the language user must undertake postproduction and pre-production processing; and to this extent, inter alia, translation is a good candidate for studying the relevance of interpretation to text constructs. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 4 December 2017. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab Acronyms used in the book: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 AA: AD: AI: CML: EPs: ET: FPD: IF: IML: IS: ML: MT: LT: ST: SL: TC: TA: TI: TL: TT: VP: VPr: Author Attribution Academic Discourse Author Identity or Author Identification Communal Mental Lexicon Editorial Practices Edited Text First Person Domain Interpretive Frame Individual Mental Lexicon Interpretive Stretch Mental Lexicon Matrix Text Language of Translation Source Text Source Language Translation Culture Text Attribution Text Integrity Target Language Translated Text Vocabulary profile Vocabulary profiler XV XVI Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Symbols used in transliteration of Arabic consonants and vowels b =‫ب‬ t =‫ت‬ th = ‫ث‬ j =‫ج‬ H=‫ح‬ kh = ‫خ‬ d =‫د‬ dt = ‫ذ‬ r = ‫ر‬ z = ‫ز‬ s =‫س‬ sh = ‫ش‬ S =‫ص‬ Dh = ‫ض‬ T= ‫ط‬ zh = ‫ظ‬ ، = ‫ع‬ gh = ‫غ‬ f =‫ف‬ q =‫ق‬ k =‫ك‬ a = َ (short a) ā = ‫( ا‬long a) i = ِ (short i) ī = ‫( يـ‬long i) u = َ (short u) ū = ‫( و‬long u) l= ‫ل‬ m = ‫م‬ n=‫ن‬ h = ‫هـ‬ w=‫و‬ y=‫ي‬ '= ‫ء‬ Note Arabic texts in Chapters 1, 4, 5 & 6: Broad transliteration is used, and hence basic knowledge of Arabic would help, but it is not essential. The two criteria used in deciding on the symbols are simplicity of reading, and ease of computer processing. Chapter 1 _____________________________ INTERPRETATION IN LANGUAGE AND TRANSLATION1 The twilight of linguistic creativity is a vision in the making which looms in the horizon, a vision in which language realization verges on the tapestry of the infinite. From Omar A. S. Al-Shabab, From Necessity to Infinity 1. Preliminaries The demystification of interpretation is both possible and desirable. The space between transcendental revelations and automatic responses is wide and rich. This chapter argues that linguistic interpretation identifies the spot where language fuses human rationality and human experience. The Interpretive Frame2 proposed here operates on a cline which stretches from linguistic necessity to linguistic infinity. Linguistic interpretation hinges on the Interpretive Stretch, a theoretical designate that acts as a pivot which anchors the meaning of the text. As such, the hermeneutic perspective endows language with the power to pin down the infinite. Hence, interpretation is the search for infinity in the definitive experiences which occupy the semantic potential of human experience. We understand language in our own way and claim to express this understanding in speech and writing. We think that we understand each other and we emphasize this "fact" in public, and 1 First published in Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning. Helsinki (Finland), Helsinki University Press, (2006), pp. 153-166. 2 See Al-Shabab, (2017a). 2 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach more importantly, in our inner self. The present book demonstrates that interpretation subsumes understanding, reducing this latter concept to a fallacy. Each human individual uses his/her own language in such a way that s/he assimilates any linguistic contribution, and through interpretation merges experience and identity in language. The position adopted in this chapter and the theoretical apparatus suggested in it, aim at expounding the hermeneutic and re-claiming translation from the vagaries of art to make the interpretive act in translation both explicit and dynamic, allowing for explaining "difference" "conventions' and "creativity" in translation. Hence, within the linguistic phenomenon of translation, regularity and conventions need not clash with creativity, since the scope of interpretation covers a wide area. The translational options available to the translator should be probed, and the theoretical designates that help anchor translational data need to be further explored. The interpretive act shows how the interpretive potential is transformed and manipulated in actual performance, i.e. in formulating and realizing the Translated Text (TT). 2. Equivalence Catford's A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965) brought translation to the forefront in Linguistics and Language Studies. This significant contribution attempted to formalize the transition from the Source Language (SL) to the Target Language (TL) via the notion of "equivalence". This is testified in the definition of translation as "the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL)".3 Catford adds "the central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence".4 Catford's "textual material" introduces a step forward in translation theory by incorporating Hallidayian discourse parameters and Firthian "context of situation".5 3 Catford (1965), p. 20. Catford (1965), p. 20. 5 Halliday (1978). 4 Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 3 But no matter how attractive equivalence can be, it can be argued that it is not tenable. In fact, with the exception of the "truth value logic" used in the truth of statements6 and semantic primitives used in case grammar,7 equivalence has no place in translation. Nida (1965) suggested that "equivalence" should be dynamic and should account for different manipulations observed in translation, while Baker (1991) maintains equivalence at the level of "pragmatics".8 The autonomy of Translation Studies expounded by Bassnett Maguire (1982) and the sociolinguistic and cultural dimensions of translation illustrated by Hewson and Martin (1991) and SnellHornby (1988) show that in the interpretive dynamics of translation there is no place for formal equivalence or configurations of pragmatic conditions to obtain it. The interpretive act is both hermeneutic and existentialist par excellence. In translational data interpretation is attested in the presence of difference and textual manipulations at a variety of levels. 3. Difference in Translational Data Indeed, regardless of the translator and the text being translated, translation produces "difference", and this underlines the need for a translation-specific level of analysis which cannot be captured by core linguistic theories. Difference, which is found in all translations, is produced by interpretation. Al-Shabab defines translation as "the interpretation of a linguistic/verbal text in a language different from its own".9 This has led to a hypothesis which states that the language of translation is different from the SL and the TL. Translation works at a hermeneutic level, but the description of translational data works at a linguistic level. The theoretical model of elements and processes suggested in Al-Shabab (1996) operates at a linguistic level. Translation is seen as an interlanguage. Six elements of translation are hypothesized: 1. Source language 6 Halliday (1978). Filmore, (1986). 8 Although she thought that equivelance is used “for the sake of convenience… rather than because it has any theoretical status” (Baker, (1991/2), pp. 5-6) 9 Al-Shabab, (1996), p. 8. 7 4 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach (SL) 2. Source text (ST) 3. Translator (Tor) 4. Translated text (TT) 5. Language of translation (LT) 6. Target language (TL) The process of translation works through five stages: (1) Editing the ST (2) Interpreting the ST (3) Interpreting in a new language (4) Formulation of interpretation (5) Editing the TT. Linguistically, the process of translation yields three types of translation: (1) Predictionary translation, (2) Formulation translation, (3) Consecutive translation. But this leaves interpretation unexplained. Interpretation can be addressed only at a hermeneutic level, which can show how the existential prerogative of the translator works. However, a comprehensive discussion of interpretation in translation requires rigorous methodological and theoretical apparatus, which should explicitly explain the relationship between language, including theoretical models, and reality, including knowledge and experience. 4. The Interpretive Frame The Interpretive Frame (IF) is the theoretical designate through which interpretation takes place. It has seven essential elements, including the user, the most vital one.10 These elements are: 1- Being 2- Environment (including social context, language and culture) 3- Understanding 4- Experience (including practical experience and theoretical knowledge) 5- Assertion 6- Identity 7- User and product The user of the IF is embodied in three functional roles: 1- Writer 2- Interpreter 3- Translator The user of the IF produces three linguistic products which, respectively, match the above three roles. 10 Al-Shabab, (2008a). 5 Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 1- Language: The Writer/Speaker produces language as a text or as an utterance in a text. The basic unit of interpretation is an individual utterance in a text or on its own called the "interpretive stretch". 2- Interpretation: The interpreter as a Reader/Hearer applies the IF to a text or a part of it to produce an interpretation (spoken or written). 3- Translation: The translator applies the IF first to produce an interpretation, and then to produce a translation based on the interpretation. The translator’s IF includes elements from both the Source Language and the Target Language. 1. Being 2. Environment context, language 3. Understanding 4. Experience and 7. User and Product Knowledge 5. Assertion 6. Identity Figure (1): the Elements of the IF, and their relation to the user. The focal element in the Interpretive Frame (IF) is the user. In fact, with the exception of the second element, environment, all the elements of the IF are internalized and realized by the user, who has different functional roles. The centrality of the user in the IF is illustrated in Figure (1), which shows how all the elements are connected through the user who realizes them all, and who carries out the interpretive act to adapt to the environment and who produces language. Although the above six elements of the IF have been discussed as separate and independent entities, they show great deal of interaction and a fair amount of overlap. The relationship between some elements or areas may be tenuous as in the 6 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach relationship between understanding and assertion, since the second is basically mental. The IF works as one apparatus. Still the “user” is taken here to be the central and most important element. 5. The Scope and Latitude of Interpretation The scope of translation extends from linguistic necessity to linguistic infinity. The term "latitude" is used here to refer to the full range of options available to the interpreter on the dimension of possibilities of the systems of a given language and culture. Therefore, latitude does not focus on one text or its context as such. Rather, it is pitched up or brought down depending on the interpreter’s concern and the level of departure from the context. Thus, the level of departure from text and context is crucial for the study of interpretation. That level of departure, i.e. latitude, is a matter of the writer's, interpreter's, orientation and knowledge. It plays a significant role in the interpretive process. The choice of latitude does not work on the paradigmatic dimension. This is mainly because “paradigmatic” choices, possible replacements, are system-bound and /or context bound, and hence predetermined. The latitude of interpretation is open-ended, infinite, and thus there is no end of searching for and providing new interpretations. The Scope of interpretation is also independent from the systematic relation, since any utterance in a text can play the role of the interpretive stretch, depending on the interpreter, who identifies the scope of the stretch and not with the text per se. In the context of the present argument, the latitude of interpretation ranges from the limits of linguistic necessity to the openness of linguistic infinity. Thus, any linguistic production, be it a primary text, an interpretation or a translation, falls on a point between necessity and infinity, and thus is necessarily “relative”. The study of linguistic necessity is concerned with the use of language in a definitive way to maximize accuracy of reference and specificity of meaning. The study of linguistic infinity on the other hand is concerned with the use of possible linguistic combinations in writing, interpreting and translating, in a creative way not known or not attempted before. Ultimately, the latitude of interpretation is a matter of potential meaning and power of language to embody new experiences. Halliday uses the term “meaning potential” to refer to Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 7 the total network of possible discourse combinations in relation to parameters of text-making and varieties in a language.11 Chomsky, on the other hand, was concerned with the generation of “infinitely many sentences” by using “a finite number of phonemes (or letters of alphabet) and each sentence is presentable as a finite sequence of these phonemes”.12 In the present context, latitude is a matter of embodying the “specific” out of the “infinite”. Interpretation in this sense encompasses understanding the extra-linguistic determinates and the necessary and the infinite in language, in meaning, and in human experience. These limits need not be conceived of in a cyclic manner or a circular radius, since the movement of human experience to new unknown dimensions and territories is multidimensional and multi-facet. Human experience and its embodiment in language ensure opening up, and eventually breaking any boundaries standing in its way. The latitude of interpretation on the other hand, has no limit and no sensor except human experience as it can be expressed in human language. Linguistically, necessity is best approached from the vintage point of definiteness it has been designated in the linguistic system and in language use. It is motivated by the obvious need to be exact in meaning and reference. Thus what is necessarily signifying or referring is also definitive. The linguistic realization of definiteness can be seen in the linguistic notions of a) proper names, b) pronouns, c) definite article(s) and nouns, d) deixis, e) demonstratives, f) technical terms, g) numbers and quantifiers.13 Since necessity has been considered as a determinate of reference and hence linguistic meaning, it is natural to consider the opposite dimension of necessity, namely linguistic infinity. Linguistic infinity is attested in the infinite dynamic creativity realized in human language. Linguistic events are among the most recurrent behaviour manifested by human beings, and linguistic creativity swirls infinitely in the language of children, market traders, officials, scholars, artists, philosophers, sophists, people in all walks of life at all stages of their lives. Clegg shows that infinity “gives us the 11 Halliday (1978). Chomsky, (1957), p. 13. 13 See Rosenberg, (1994). 12 8 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach opportunity to think beyond our everyday concern" because "it is both practical and mystical".14 This distinction between infinity and its realization is best glimpsed in the difference between potential interpretations of a text, which work by virtue of reference to the infinite potential, and the writing of the text itself, which is a definitive commitment in a given situation. The translator’s interpretive perspectives can be labeled: (1) ST interpretive perspective, (2) conventional interpretive perspective, and (3) creative interpretive perspective. The translator’s three interpretive perspectives trace the translator’s interpretation in a new language. The translator’s interpretation in a new language is seen in the three above interpretive perspectives involving optional effort. This optional range is a hermeneutic prerogative the translator enjoys as manifested in the translator’s choice of a degree of closeness to the ST. This attests the degree of freedom in working out new idiolectal readings of the ST.15 The translator’s writing perspectives can be labeled: (1) parallel writing perspective, (2) conventional writing perspective, and (3) creative writing perspective. A given translation may show a creative interpretive perspective and a parallel writing perspective. The two sets of perspectives are independent. In my Interpretation and the Language of Translation, I suggested that linguistically any translation is either formulation translation, translation by conventions, or pre-dictionary translation, the writer’s own (creative) translation. The three writing perspectives provided above spell out this distinction and recognize a case where the translator is shadowing the ST even with no knowledge or training in the production of the language variety s/he is translating. If the three interpretive perspectives and the three writing perspectives are merged, three typically compound perspectives emerge. Each of the compound perspectives aims at certain latitude in translation, i.e. each occupies a certain scope of interpretation. Typically, the first interpretive perspective goes with the first writing perspective, the second with the second, and the third with the third. Where a translator adopts an untypical approach, his work 14 15 Clegg, (2003), p. 2. See Rosenberg, (1994). Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 9 deserves special attention, as in the case when a translator combines the creative interpretive perspective with the parallel writing perspective, i.e. the translator is creative as an interpreter and traditional (parallel to the TL) as a writer. The three compound writing perspectives can be described as follows: 1. The translator keeps close to the ST in his move to the new language (ST interpretive perspectives) and maintains parallel writing perspective in producing the TT. 2. The translator adopts a middle range freedom in interpreting in new language (conventional interpretive perspective) and maintains normative standardized (conventional writing perspective) forms of writing the TT. 3. The translator takes absolute freedom in the movement to the TL (creative interpretive perspective) and maintains a high level of creativity (creative writing perspective) in producing the TT. 5.1 Low Latitude: interpreting in new language and parallel Writing up of the TT The Translated Text (TT) reveals that there is little engagement in the process of moving to the TL system and culture to reach the interpretation and activate the required elements in the TL and culture. The translator may lack training or experience in the TL and culture. S/he may lack proper acquaintance with a specific variety of the SL or TL into which s/he is interpreting. All in all, the translation suffers from obvious gaps due to the translator's knowledge and a sense of “betrayal” of the ST and the profession. In the low translation latitude, the translator may overuse the dictionary and tend to use the TL system casually and inappropriately. The writing up of the TT in this low translationlatitude shows departure from TL practices and adherence to formulating the elements of the ST as they are realized in the ST. 5.2 Middle Latitude: interpreting in new language and Conventional normative writing up of the TT Characteristically the translator who attempts this latitude has proper engagement and appropriate consideration of the ST and TL system. S/he makes great effort to reach an approximation in the TL system of the translator’s interpretation of the ST. The result of the translator’s abilities and efforts are clear in his/her ability to establish acceptable forms and pre-contextualized language. The translator attempts to use the infinite potential to fulfill his well- 10 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach established objective and professional standard. The writing up is communal in terms of technical and semi-technical terms, and collocations are normal and standard. The dictionary and other references are used to maintain a standard in the TL. The potential of the grammatical system is fully utilized and the TT reads as comparable standard text in the TL. The translator’s background knowledge and experience are evident in the TT. The writer’s effort and work to read the best formulation is also clear. At the same time the cultural context of the TL is maintained. This may be found in translating texts from science, journalism and academic works. 5.3 Maximum Latitude: interpreting in new language and Creative perspective in writing up the TT In the third latitude, the translator's engagement with the infinite potential of language is maximal. The translator’s background, gift and experience enable him to indulge in a thorough search for distinctive meaning and unique interpretation. The areas of the TL system are explored by the translator who may in this case engage the infinite in the realization of new creative texts not known before in the TL. The experience, effort and imagination of the translator are used to explore the potential of the TL and TL culture to the ultimate. Writing the new interpretation in a new language turns out to be a creative mode, novel and innovative, showing the translator’s gift and insight and at the same time breaking new ground in the TL. The TT does not only have an embodiment of the ST, it also has an aesthetic value in the TL, constituting a contribution to the TL Culture and a risk of a failed attempt to the translator whose enterprise as a writer and a creative individual is at stake. The TT embodies the translator’s experience, assertions and identity. Typically this high latitude and (textual) scope of interpretive potential and its realization are found in varieties of language such as literary texts, entertainment texts, jokes and irony, commercials and titles of newspapers, magazines and media, unique texts (religious texts), and text unique in style and effect. The intensive elaborate arrangement in re-writing should not be understood as a license for casual readings of the ST and an indulgence in writing of one’s own “innovative” text(s), which may bear mere resemblance to or just have the “ideas”, or “plot” or “schemata” of the ST. The level of involvement in interpreting in a Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 11 new language must reflect a thorough engagement with the ST and its interpretation in its own language, environment and culture. Thus, the appreciation of the ST is reflected in the process of reaching an interpretation in the new language and in the writing of the TT. The TT is the embodiment of the ST as well as a creative piece of TL texts, securing itself a place in the milieu of the TL cultural heritage. 6. Linguistic Relativity The present position vis-à-vis linguistic relativity should be understood in relation to the Interpretive Frame and its user and products suggested in this chapter. It takes a large scale evolutionary view of language. It places any linguistic product, interpretation or translation, on the linguistic continuum which stretches from necessity to infinity. The language product is taken to be a point on a scale of a language development. Relative paradigms lead to relative linguistic products from the user’s perspective and the language use perspective. In the same translated text, regularity and conventionality meet creativity. There are forces which support relative stability and forces which generate creative language. The creative orientation of an individual rests on an aggregate of stored experience, current consciousness, a sense of "being", and awareness of current topics that call for an assertion which potentially includes a signal to identity (Davidson's position on "assertion" and Hintikka's position on "belief" are most apt in this context). This creativity is mainly directed by the individual’s involvement with the linguistic continuum, the cline on which language and its manifestation are spread. It determines the engagement of an individual with creative words, expressions, statements and texts. The constellation of stored accumulation of factors, the current consciousness and the tendency to aim at a certain level of venturing into the new, all together constitute a "hermeneutic paradigm". The hermeneutic paradigm in the individual can be described as a large network of systems and processes which function by virtue of the presence of the stable base of initial traits, acquired experiences, scale of values, skills and the temporal awareness which brings about a conscious decision monitored by background knowledge. 12 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach It should not be concluded from the description of the individual hermeneutic paradigm and communal hermeneutic paradigm that the relative status of much of linguistic product makes it impossible to handle language product confidently and with certainty. The positions taken vis-à-vis translation illustrate the ability of language to respond to the needs of its users as shown by the stronghold of “normative” or “standard” practice in translation (Schäffner, (1999). The domain of normative use of language is wide enough to accommodate scientists, journalists, academics and many other professionals. The standard normative form presents a state of “truce” on the linguistic continuum, a set of relatively stable assumptions, terminology, and background topics and situations that enable professionals in different fields to debate current points on the continuum. Moreover, there is the dogmatic position which is adopted by some who adhere to an absolutist stance claiming that their text or language stretch is the only true form, their interpretation is the only possible interpretation, and their translation is the only possible translation. The dogmatic stance has its roots and prerogative in the absolute belief of the individual who adopts this position. Dogmatic writers, interpreters and translators do not recognize any possible view or option except the one they bring themselves to propagate. They are the enemies of the other, whoever that other may be. For any communal hermeneutic paradigm and for any individual hermeneutic paradigm, there are forces which are at work against relative stability and forces supporting relative stability. Certain socio-cultural conditions may prevail in a community – society – and support creativity and a full range of development of the individual paradigm. On the other hand, professional concerns, conversational formulae, everyday interaction help maintain normative and standard forms of language. The creative writer, interpreter or translator may end up as a lonely figure waiting for inspiration from within and understanding from others. Supporters of relative stability strive to maintain the configuration of linguistic continuum unchanged, and to ignore the linguistic potential awaiting to be used in new texts, new interpretations and new translations. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 13 7. Interpretive Latitude and Writing Perspective Exemplified This section discusses three examples of translations between Arabic and European languages. The first example is taken from translating a short poem by Emily Dickinson into Arabic. The poem is short and simple. It opens with the following stanza: I dwell in Possibility— A fairer House than Prose— More numerous of Windows— Superior— for Doors— (Emily Dickinson) The rest of the poem describes the house, its visitors and the owner's "occupation". After a careful reading of the poem, I came to a decision that the interpretive stretch which can give the poem an "optimal" reading is the second line "A fairer House than Prose". The Focus of the stretch is the word "Prose" capitalized by the poet. Now, first to be considered is the comparison in the first two lines between the dwelling of the poet and the less attractive alternative "Prose". If the dwelling place is fairer than "prose", then, what could this dwelling place be? The poet uses the word "Possibilities" to be the dwelling place. Now, the poet lives in a House, identified as "possibilities" and described as "fairer than Prose". This leaves us in a position to suggest "Poetry" as a plausible alternative to "Prose". Thus, according to this reading, the poet is comparing the world of "poetry" with that of "Prose". The last translation represents a high interpretive latitude. The four interpretations in four translations reveal that all three translators translated "prose" as "nathr", the word for prose in Arabic. The four translations are: First translation: Possibilities: potential Prose: “nathr” (prose) Second translation: possibilities: probable Prose: “nathr” (prose) Third translation: Possibilities: what is possible Prose: trivialities Fourth translation: Possibilities: poetry Prose: “nathr” (prose) The first translator, changed his mind later and translated prose as "triviality". In this second translation "in possibilities" is rendered into "[I live] in what is possible". In the first translation, the first line 14 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach is translated as "I live in the possible or potential", which elevates the utterance into the status of a metaphor, which is compared with "Prose" in the second line, and followed by the description of the house. In the third translation by a university teacher renders "in Possibilities" as "in the probable", which is followed by the comparison with "Prose" in the second line. Contrasting "Prose" with "the potential" and the "probable" in the first and third translations respectively, shows that the word "prose" is moved into Arabic without necessarily linking it to "poetry". Hence, the translated poem, like the ST, is open to the reader's own understanding and interpretation. The fourth translation (the writer’s translation) is based on accepting the second line as the key to the meaning of the whole text, i.e. accepting it as the interpretive stretch and accepting the full implications of considering the word "Prose and using a creative writing perspective. To recapitulate, the four interpretations in the four translations show that when the interpretive stretch is identified as the second line of the poem, then this can shed light on the meaning of the "Possibilities", which is understood as "poetry. The interpreter’s interpretive latitude and his creative writing perspective result in this rather daring translation. The second example is taken from translating one verse from the Muslims Holy Book, The Quran, into European languages. The verse “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful” is reported below from translations that are carried out at different times. 15 Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab Table 1: Translation of a verse from the Quran into some European Languages 16 Verse in Arabic: “Bismi Allah arrahman alrahīm.” (in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful) Translation year Translator 1143 Retenensis In nomine Die misericordis, 1543 and miseratoris Dalmati 2. In nomine Die misericordis, pij 3. In nomine Domini pij and misericordis. 1698 Marracci In nomine Dei Miseratoris, Misericordis. 1647 Du Ryer Au Nom de Dieu clement & misericordieux. 1783 Savary Au nom de Dieu clément & miséricordieux 1861 FatmaAu nom d’Allah clément et misericordieux, Zaida juste, bon et puissant! 1957 Blachère Au nom d’Allah, le Bienfaiteur (1980) miséricordieux. 1984 Kechrid Au nom de Dieu le Miséricordieux par essence et par excellence. 1649 Ross In the name of God, gracious and merciful. 1734 Sale In the name of the Most Merciful God. In the name of God, the Compassionate, the 1861 Rodwell Merciful. 1955 Arberry In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. 1979 Irving In the name of God, the Mercy-giving, the 1992 Merciful! 1623 SchweiIm Namen des barmherssigen gutigen ggern Gottes. 1772 Megerlin Im Nahmen Gottes des Barmherzigsten Liebhabers. 1888 Rückert Im Namen Gottes des Allbarmherzigen Erbarmers. 1. Im Namen des barmherzigen und gnädigen Gottes. In nome di Dio clemente e misericordioso. Nel nome di Dio, Misericordioso e compassionevole. En nombre de Dios clemente y misericordioso. 16 Language Latin Latin French French French French French English English English English English German German German 1983 Paret German 1847 1987 Calza Bonelli Italian Italian 1872 Puebla Spanish The translations in Table 1 are taken from a corpus used by the author over the last twenty-five years (see Al-Shabab 2001, 2003 & 2017). As far as possible, exact spelling is recorded. 16 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach En el nombre de Dios, el Clemente, el Misericordioso. NM Бoгa. 1980 Vernet (1993) 1878 Саблукова Spanish Russian If we examine the translations of the name of (the Muslim deity) in Tables (1) above, we find that the lexical roots in the early translations coincide with the three groups of European languages. Thus, the Romance group uses the lexical Latin root “Die”, the Germanic group uses the root “Gotte”, and the Slavonic uses the root “Бoгa”. The fourth trend of using the Arabic word “Allah” was initiated by Fatma Zaida’s French translation. Then this translation by “default” was used in other translations into different European languages. A translator aims at certain interpretive latitude and writing perspective, but these may be adhered to by later translators to become a kind of convention. Later, the process carries on with new interpretations and new conventions. In this case Fatma Zaida has taken the risk by adopting a high interpretive latitude and a creative writing perspective, and she set a new trend which is now admired and followed by those who adhere to narrow "apparent" meaning and insist on conveying it in the Target Language. In translation, the trends and norms of today are nothing but the daring risky interpretations of yesterday. Bibliography Abbas, B. (Translator). (ND). qublaya khan (Kubla Khan). http://www.adab.com/world/modules. from php?name=Sh3er&do What =shqas &qid=80830. AbuRisha, Y., Madi, H. and Hassani, A. (1986). Selected Passages for Translation. Aleppo, Aleppo University Press. Academic Integrity. From https://www.google.com.sa/search? biw=1307&bih=342&q=asu+academic+integrity+resource+ guide&oq =ASU+Academic+Integrity+Resource+Guide&gs_l=serp.1.0.35i39.15 784.19768.0.24396.12.8.0.0.0.0.263.1111.0j2j3.5.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.s erp..8.4.887.0.nXOemal80fo. Al-Braik, M. S. (2001). "Saudi Students' Motives to Learn English as a Foreign Language at King Faisal University. Saudi Arabia". Journal of Research in Education and Psychology in Minia University, Faculty of Education, Egypt, pp. (1-11). Al-Hilali, M. T. & Khan, M. H. (1993): The Noble Qur’an: in the English Language, Riyadh, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam. Alhuqbani, M. N. (2013). Genre-Based Analysis of Arabic Research Articles across Four Disciplines. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(3), pp371-382. Alhuqbani, M. N. (forthcoming). A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Analysis of Structure Moves in Arabic and English Police and Security Research Articles Abstracts. Journal of Social Sciences, Imam University, Saudi Arabia. Al-Mousa, S. (2009). Opening and Closing in British and Arab English Newspapers, Unpublished MA Dissertation, Girls College of Arts, Dammam University. Al-Otaibi, S. (2010). Structure and Function of Academic Abstracts in Humanities in British and Arab Academic Journals, Unpublished MA Dissertation, Girls College of Arts, Dammam University (Saudi Arabia). Al-Omaran, A. (2016). The Interaction between the Textual and the Visual in Magazines Advertising Luxury Products and Entertainment, Unpublished MA Dissertation, King Faisal University. Al-Saleh, F. K. (2012). Conversational Questions and Vocabulary in a Communicative-Based Language Textbook: An Evaluative Study. Unpublished MA Dissertation, King Faisal University. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (forthcoming): New Horizons in Linguistic Interpretation: Translating the Poetic Experience and Identity. Cairo, Dar Al-Qalam. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (2017a). Linguistic Interpretation: The Interpretive Frame and First Person Domain. Al-Ahsa, King Faisal University. 258 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Al-Shabab (2017b). “Construction and Interpretation of Corpus-Based English poetry Vocabulary Profile”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. 6, No5, pp. 51-65. URL: http://dx. doi.org/10.7575/ aiac.ijalel.v.6n.5, pp. 51-65. Al-Shabaab, O. A. S. & Baka, F. (2015). Text Variants and First Person Domain in Author Identification: Hermeneutic versus Computerized Methods, International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, Australian International Academic Centre, pp. 170-181. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (2012). First Person Domain: Threshold Mental Lexicon and Arab Learners of English, Proceedings of the Second Symposium on English Language Teaching in KSA: Realities and Challenges: Research Papers. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 9-11 April, 2012, pp. 141-208. Al-Shabab, Omar S. (2008a). From Necessity to Infinity: Interpretation in Language and Translation. London, Janus, forthcoming. Al- Shabab, O. A. S. (2008b). DawabeT anashir al’ilmi wataHkim atarqiya (Academic Publications, Refereeing and Promotion: Components, Objectives and Shortcomings), Proceedings of the Conference on Refereeing Academic Publication. 9-10/11/1428H 7-8 January 2008, Imam University, Deanship of Academic Research, PP. 417-464. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (1998). Translating with Difference: Theory and Practice. Damscus (Syria), Dibs. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (1997). “Interpretation and the Language of Translation: the Theoretical Dimensions of Type-Token Ratio in the Language of Translation”, Damascus University Journal, 13, 41-55. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (2006). “Interpretation in Language and Translation”, in Mikel Garant (Ed.): Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning. Helsinki (Finland), Helsinki University Press. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (1996). Interpretation and the Language of Translation: Creativity and Convention in Translation. London: Janus. Al-Shabab, O. A. S. & Bloor, T. (1996). “Attribution in Radio News Discourse”, in F. Baka & O. A. S. Al-Shabab, (1996). Discourse Structuring and Text Analysis of Three Varieties of English. London, Janus, pp. 87-101. Al- Shabab, Omar S. (1987). “Translating with Difference: Theory and Practice", in Al-Shabab, O. S. and Baka, F. (eds.) Linguistic Applications: Teaching English in Arabic Context. Damascus (Syria), Dibs. Al-Shabab, Omar A. S. (1987). Organizational and Textual Structuring of Radionews Discourse in English and Arabic. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Aston University, UK. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 259 Al- Shabab, O. A. S. and Swales, J. (1986). "Rhetorical Patterns in Arabic and English Newsbroadcasts", in Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 31-42. Al-Sheikh-Mubarak, G. (2009). Vocabulary Range and Frequency in First Intermediate Girls' English Textbook in Saudi Arabia: Learners' Achievement and Strategies. M.A. Thesis, King Faisal University. Al-Yasin, J. (1962). Ibn Sina: Kitab Al-Shifa, Book II, Part I, Maqala I: Critical Edition, with Notes and Partial Translation. Unpublished D. Phil. Thesis, Oxford University (UK). Appen Speech and Language Technology Inc. (2008a). Internet Safety Technical Task Force: Technology Submission – Text Attribution Tool. From http://www,appen.com.au Appen Speech and Language Technology Inc. (2008b). Internet Safety Technical Task Force Technology Submission – Data Stream Profiling Tool. From http://www.appen.com.au Al-Zubeidi, A. S. (ND). qublaya khan ˈaw vuˈyä fī manäm (Kubla Khan: or A Vision in a Dream). From http:// www.alnoor.se/article.asp?id=30961# sthash.ohOXBr24.dpuf. Arberry, A. J. (1955). The Koran Interpreted, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Aristotle (written (350 B.C.), Translated by S. H. Butcher). Poetics. From http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/ poetics.html Baka, F. (1989). The Discourse of Biology Lectures: Aspects of its Mode and Text Structure. Ph. D. thesis, Aston University in Birmingham, UK. Baka, F. & Al-Shabab, O. A. S. (1996). Discourse Structuring and Text Analysis of Three Varieties of English. London, Janus. Baka, F. H. (2014). The Mental Lexicon in Poetry Translation: Examples from Translating Auden’s In Memory of W. B. Yeats, Faculty of Languages and Translation Journal, Al Azhar University, No.7 Part2, pp. 188-216. Baker, M. (1991/2). In Other Words: A Coursebook for Translation. London and New York: Routledge. Bassnett, S. (1982). Translation Studies. London, Methuen. Bhatia, Vijay K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London and New York, Longman. Béjoint, H. (1989). Codedeness and Lexicography, Lexicographers and Their Works. Exeter, Exeter University Press. Brenzina, V. & Gablasova, D. (2015). Is There a Core General Vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List. From http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/25/applin.amt018 .full 260 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Blachère, R. (1957, 1980): Le Coran: (al-Qor’ân), Paris, G. P. Maisonneuve & Larose, Éditeurs. Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London and New York, Arnold. Bonelli, D. L. (1987): Il Corano: Nuova Versione Letterale Italiana, Milano, Ulrico Hoepli Editore Brenzina, V. & Gablasova, D. (2015). Is There a Core General Vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List. From http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/25/applin.amt018 .full Brown, C. H. (1999). Lexical Acculturation in Native American Language. USA, Oxford University press. Brown, S. W. 2008. Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Colorado Research in Linguistics, Vol. 21, pp. 1-12. Browne, C., Culligan, B. & Phillips, J. (2013). The New General Service List: A Core Vocabulary for EFL Students and Teachers, from https://www.google.com.sa/search?biw=1366&bih =667&q=The+new +general+service+list%3A+a+core+vocabulary+for+EFL+students+an d+teachers&oq=The+new+general+service+list%3A+a+core+vocabula ry+for+EFL+students+and+teachers&… Bruke, S. B. (2010). The Construction of Writer Identity in the Academic Writing of Korean ESL Students: A Qualitative Study of Korean Students in the US. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Indiana University Pennsylvania. Burkett, Theodore (2015). An Investigation of the Use of Frequency Vocabulary Lists in University Intensive English Programs, International Journal of Bilingual & Multilingual Teachers of English. 3, No2, pp. 71-79. Burrows, J. (1987). “Word-patterns and Story-shapes” The Statistical Analysis of Narrative Style”, Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 2, No 2, pp. 61-70. Burton, D. (1980). Dialogue and Discourse: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Modern Naturally Occurring Conversation. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Buttjes, D. and Byram, M. (eds.) (1990). Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education. Clevedon, Action Typesetting Ltd. Cahill, A. (1989). Word-frequency Dictionaries of Russian: The User of Perspective, Exeter, Exeter University Press. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 261 Calkins, M. W. (1912). “Henri Bergson: Personalist”, The Philosophical Review. Vol. 21, No. 6. Calza, V. (1847). Il Corano Versione Italiana del Cav…, Bastia, Della Typografia Di Cesare Fabiani. Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford and London: Oxford University Press. Саблукова, Гордія (1878). КОРАНЪ: ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬНАЯ КНИГА. КАЗАНЬ. Cicero, B. (1949) and 1976. De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica, (ed. and Translated by H. M. Hubbell, Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Chamcharatsri, P. B (2009). Negotiating Identity from Auto-ethnography: Second Language Writers’ Perspective. The Asian EFL Journal: Professional Teaching Articles, 38, 3-19. Chen, M. & Zechner, K (2011). “Computing and Evaluating Syntactic Complexity Features for Automated Scoring of Spontaneous Non-Native Speech”, in Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Portugal, June 19-24 2011, pp. 722-731. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Clegg, B. (2003). Infinity: The Quest to Think the Unthinkable. London: Robinson. Coxhead, A. (2000). “A New Academic Word List”, TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 213-238. Cobb, T. (2013). Frequency 2.0: Incorporating homoforms and multiword units in pedagogical frequency lists, L2 Vocabulary Acquisition, Knowledge and Use: New Perspectives on Assessment and corpus Analysis. (Eds: Carmilla Bardel, Christina Linduist and Batia Laufer), Eurosla Monograph (pp. 79-108). Cobb, T. (2010). Learning about language and learners from computer programs, Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 181-200. From http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/ April2010/ articles/cobb.pdf Copeland, R. (1991). Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages. Cambridge and New York, CUP. Cox, M. et. Al. (Eds.) (2010). Reinventing Identities in Second Language Writing. Urbana (USA), National Council of Teachers of English. Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English Style. London, Longman Group Danowski, Grzegorz (2002). Translation and the Problematics of Textual Integrity: A Comparative Analysis of Two English Renderings of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s ДНЕВНИК ПИСАТЕЛЯ. Unpublished MA Dissertation, The University of British Colombia. 262 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Davidson, Donald (2006 originally 1984). “First Person Authority”, in Davidson, D. (2006): The Essential Davidson. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 242-250. De Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W. (1981). An Introduction to Text Linguistics (digital 2002). London, Longman. De Vel, A. et al (2001). “Multi-topic e-Mail Authorship Attribution Forensics”, in the Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Security – Workshop on Data Mining for Security Application. From http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.19.9951&rep =rep1&type=pdf. Dickinson, E. (1993). Selected Poems of Emily Dickinson. New York: Tom Doherty Association. Dressler, W. V. (1978): Current Trends in Textlinguistics, Berlin & New York, Walter de Gruyter. Du Ryer (1647): L’Alcoran de Mahomet, Paris, Antoinne de Sammauille. DuBay, W. H. (Ed. 2006/ 1931). (Ed. DuBay) The Classic Readability Studies. Costa Mesa, impact Information, pp. 32-43. From http://www.ecy.wa.gov/quality/plaintalk/resources/classics.pdf. Ellis, J. (1965). Linguistic Sociology and Institutional Linguistics. Linguistics. 3, 19, 5–20. Elewa, A. (2011). Literary and Cultural Translation. Cairo, Qalam for Translation and Publication. English Poetry Corpus. From www.pomhunter & www.Poetry academy. Fatma-Zaida (1861): L’Alkoran: Le Livre par Excellence, Lisbonne, Imprimerie de la Société Typographique Franco-Portugaise. Feyerabend, P. (1977). “Changing Patterns of Reconstruction”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 28, 351382. Fillmore, C. J. (1968) “The case for case”, In: Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1─88. Fillmore, C. J. (1986). “Towards a Modern Theory of Case”, In Bornstein, D. D. (Ed.): Readings in the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge Massachusetts: Winthorp Publishers, pp. 252-288. Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics (1934–1951), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flesch, R (2006). Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula. From http://www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-reading-ease-readabilityformula.phpFlesch, R. (2006). A New Readability Yardstick. The Classic Readability Studies, Costa Mesa CA, Impact Information, 96111. From http://www.ecy.wa.gov/quality/plaintalk/ resources/classics.pdf Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 263 Flesh, R (1948). A New Readability Yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology. 32 (3), 221-223. from http://psycnet.apaorg/journals /apl/32/3/. Ghazala, H. S. (2015). Translaitng Culture: A Textbook. Jeddah, Konooz Al-Marifa. Glock, H. J. (1993). The Indispensability of Translation in Quine and Davidson, The Philosophical Quarterly. 45, 171, pp. 194-209. Glock, H. J. (2003). Quine and Davidson on Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Grieve, J. W. (2005). Quantitative Authorship Attribution: A History and an Evaluation of Techniques. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Simon Fraser University, USA. Gutt, E.-A.(1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford, Blackwell. Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching (Longmans’ Linguistic Library). London, Longman. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language As Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London, Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., Yallop, C. & Terubert W. (2004). Lexicography and Corpus Linguistics. London, Continuum. Hatem, B. and Mason, I. {1990). Discourse and the Translator. London, Longman. Hatem, B., Shunnaq, A. and Buckley, R. (1995). The Legal Translator at Work: A Practical Guide. Irbid, Jordan, Dar Al-Hilal. Heidegger, M. (2000). Elucidations of Hölderlin’s Poetry (Keith Hoeller Trans.). Amherst: New York: Humanity Books. Hewson, L. & Martin, J. (1991). Redefining Translation: The Variational Approach. London and New York: Routledge. Hickey, Thomas (1995/2005). History of Twentieth Century Philosophy of Science. T. J. Hickey, USA. Hill. T. (1958). Institutional Linguistics. Orbis, 7, 441-455. From http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fling.1965.3.issue19$002fling. 1965.3.19.5$002fling.1965.3.19.5.xml;jsessionid= 8E93A3F08AA99E4F5B5E 1BA367FE422B. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Holmes, D. (1994). “Authorship Attribution”, in Computers and the Humanities, 28, pp. 87-106 Hoover, D. L. (2003). Another Perspective on Vocabulary Richness. Computing in the Humanities, 37, 151-178 Kluwer Academic Publishers, 264 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Netherland. From http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A 1022673822140 Hoover, D. L. (2006). Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction. HRC ICI Method Network, Centre for Computing in the Humanities, Kay House, London, 1-8. Horace, (1926). Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica. (ed. and Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough, Loed Classical Library), Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Hornby, A. S. (7th edition 2005/1948). Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Husayn, A. al -D. A. (1984). The Application of Semantics to the Translation of pre-Islamic poetry, with Special Reference to the Mu’allaqa of Imru’il-Qays, Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, St. Andrews University, UK. Hyland, K. (2002a). “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identify in Academic Writing”, Journal of Pragmatics. 34 (2002) 1091–1112. From www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma. Hyland, K (2002b). “Options of Identity in Academic Writing”. Published as: Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal 56 (4): 351-358. From http://www2.caes.hku.hk/kenhyland /files/2012/08/Options-of-identity -in-academic-writing.pdf. Hymes, D. (1972). ‘Toward Ethnographies of Communication: The Analysis of Communicative Events’, in P. P. Giglioli (ed.) 1972. Language and Social Context, London, Penguin, pp. 21-44. Ilyas, A.I. (1982). Linguistic and Extra-Linguistic Problems in the Translation of the Holy Qur’an. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, St. Andrews University, (Scotland, UK). Ivanić, R. (1998) Writing and Identity. Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing, Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing. Irving, T. B. (1992): The Noble Qur’an: Arabic Text and English Translation, Brattleboro, Vermont USA, Amana Books. Kay, P. (1997). Words and the Grammar of Context. Stanford, California, CSLI Publishers. Kelly, L. G. (1979). The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and practice in the West. Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Kechrid, S. E. (1979,1984): al-Qur’an al-Karîm, Beyrouth, Dar El-Gharb El-Islami. Kešel, V. J. et. al. (2003). “N-Gram-Based Author Profiles for Authorship Attribution”. In Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 255-264. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 265 KFS (1990): Le Saint Coran: la Traduction en Langue Française du Sens de ses Versets, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, King Fahd Holy Qur-ān Printing Complex. Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). “A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators”, Journal of Writing Research. 2 (1), 1-46. From http://www.jowr.Org/articles/vol2_ 1/jowr_2010_ vol2_nr1_ klein_kirkpa trick. pdf. Kripke, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Kuhn, T. (1982). Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability, PSA: Proceeding of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 2, PP. 669-688. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Evolutions. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Leahy, P. (ND). N-Gram-Based Text Attribution. From http://cs229 .stanford.edu/ proj2009/Leahy.pdf. Leech, G. N. (1969). London, Towards a Semantic Description of English. Longman Group. Lipkowitz, I. (2011). Words to Eat Bye: Five Foods and the Culinary History of the English Language. Massachusetts, St. Martin’s Press. Longacre, R. E. (1983). The Grammar of Discourse. USA, Springer. Lu, X. (2010). “Automatic Analysis of Syntactic Complexity in Second Language Writing”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474-496. From http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/x/x/xxl13/papers/ Lu_inpress_ijcl.pdf Luyckx, K. and Daelemans, W. (2011). The Effect of Author Set Size a Data Size in Authorship Attribution. Literary and linguistic Computing, 26, (1), 35-55. Macnamara, J. (1971). “Parsimony and the Lexicon”, Language. Vol. 47, No. 2, Linguistic Society of America, pp. 359-374. Macquarie, J. (1967). God-Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd. Malyutov, M. B. (2005). “Authorship Attribution of Texts: A Review”, Marlowe 21, 45, pp. 1-26, Netherland, Kluwer Academic Publishing. Marracci, L. (1698): Refutatio Alcorani, 2 Volumes, Patavii, Typographia Seminarii. Mater, A. C. (1986). La Traduction Pratique. Beyrouth, Librairie Orientale. Megerlin, M. D. F. (1772): Die Türkische Bibel, Oder des Korans, Franckfurt am Mann, Ber Johann Gottlieb Garbe. Mirêlis, M. T-M (2004). Exploring the Adaptive Structure of the Mental Lexicon. PhD thesis, Edinburgh University, Scotland, UK. 266 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Mosteller, F. and Wallace, D. (1964). Inferred and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Moonwomon-Baird, B. (2002). “What do Lesbians do in the daytime?”, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, (3), 348-378. From onlinelibrary.wiley.com /doi/10.1111/1467-9481.00120 Morris, L. and Cobb, T. (2004). Vocabulary Profiles as Predictors of the Academic Performance of Teaching English as a Second Language Trainees, System, 32, pp. 75-87. From www.elsevir.com/locate/system. Nation, P., & Waring, R. (2004). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. From http://www. wordhacker.com Nation, P. (2004). “A Study of the Most Frequent Word Families in the British National Corpus", in Paul Bogaards and Bhatia Laufer (Eds) Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nazar, R. and Pol, M. S. (2006). “An Extremely Simple Authorship Attribution System”, in the Proceedings of the Second European IAFL Conference on Forensic Linguistics, Language and the Law, Barcelona (IULA's Technical corpus: http://bwananet.iula.upf.edu) Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden, E. J. Bill. Ogden, Charles K. (1930). Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar. From http://ogden.basic-english.org. Olshansky, D. (2002). “Foundation of Non-Classical Thinking” From http://www. philosophos.org/philosophy_article_16.html. Paret, V. R. (/1979/1983). Der Koran. Stutgart and Berlin, W. Kohlammer GmbH. Patchan, M. M., Charney, D. and Schunn, C. D. (2009). “A Validation Study of Students’ End Comments: Comparing Comments by Students, A Writing Instructor, and Content Instructor” Journal of Writing Research. 1 (2), 124-152. From http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/research /papers/Jo WR _2009_ vol1 _nr2_Patchan_et_al.pdf. Patty, W. W. and Painter, W. I. (2006 originally 1931). “A Technique for Measuring the Vocabulary Burden of Textbooks”, in (Ed. DuBay, W. H.) The Classic Readability Studies. Costa Mesa, impact Information, pp. 32-43. From http://www.ecy.wa.gov/quality/plaintalk/resources /classics.pdf. Popper, Karl R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Hutchinson. Popper, Karl R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Popper, K. R. (1976). Conjecture and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London, Routledge. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 267 Puebla, De la D. V. Ortiz (1872): El Coran Ó Biblia Mahometana Seguido de la Biografia de Mahoma: Primera Version Española Anotada y Coentada.., Barcelona, Juan Aleu, Editor, Calle De Tallers. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press. Quinn, A. A. (2010). 30 Years of Bad News: The Glasgow University Media Group and the Intellectual History of Media Cultural Studies, 1975-2005. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow (UK). Read, R. S. (2011). “The Negotiation of Writer Identity in Engineering Faculty – Writing Consultant Collaborations”, Journal of Writing Research, 3(2), pp. 93-117 Rener, F. M. (1989). Interpretation: Language and Translation from Cicero to Tytler. Amsterdam, Cip-Gegevens. Retenensis, R. and Dalmati, H. (translated 1143, published 1543): Machumetis Sarracenorum Principis Vita ac Doctrina Omnis, Quæ & … Alcoranum Dicitur, ex Arabica Lingua ante cccc Annos in Latinam Translata…, 3 Volumes, Basle. Richards, I. A., & Ogden, C. K. (1989/1923). The Meaning of Meaning. USA, Harcourt Jovanovich Inc. Robins, R. H. (1980). General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. London, Longman. Rodwell, J. M. (1861): The Koran: Translated from the Arabic, the Sura Arranged in Chronological Order, London and Edinburgh, Williams and Norgate. Rosenberg, J. F. (1994). Beyond Formalism: Naming and Necessity for Human Beings. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ross, A. (1649): The Alcoran of Mahomet, Translated out of Arabique into French, by the Sieur Du Ryer…And Newly Englished, for the Satisfaction of all that Desire to Look into Turkish Vanities, London. Rückert, F. (1888): Der Koran, Frankfurt am. Mann. Russell, C. (1999). Experimental Ethnography: The Work of Film in the Age of Video. Durham (NC), Duke University press. Sale, G. (1979 originally 1734). The Korân: Translated into English from The Original Arabic, London, Frederick Warne. Richards, I. A., & Ogden, C. K. (1989/1923). The Meaning of Meaning. USA, Harcourt Jovanovich Inc. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. From http://www.ugr.es/~fmanjon/Sapir,%20Edward%20-%20 Language,%20An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Study%20of%20 Speech.pdf.. Savary, M. (1783): Le Coran, 2 Volumes, Paris, Knapen and Fils. 268 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach Schmitt, Norbert (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Schweiggern, S. (1623). Alcoranus Mahometicus, das ist: der Türcken Alcoran, Nürnberg. Sinclair, J. McH. (1972). A Course in Spoken English: Grammar. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. M and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. M. (1981). “Planes of Discourse”, First Draft Monograph, Birmingham University. Published in Rizvi, S. N. A. 1983 (Ed.). The Twofold Voice: Essay in Honour of Rakesh Mohan. Saltzburg Studies in English Literature, University of Salzburg. , ???, ???. . Sinnemäki, K. (2006). “On Halliday’s Distinction between Embedded and Hypotactic Clauses”, in A Man Measure: Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlesson. Helsinki, from https://scholar.google.be/citations? user= 3iry42IAAAAJ&hl=en. Sin-Wan, C. (Ed.) (2015). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology. London and New York, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Sin-Wan, C. (2004). A Dictionary of Translation Technology. Hong Kong, The Chinese University. Press. Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1997). “The Mapping between the Mental and Public Lexicon”, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9. From C:\JohnFiles\Uclwpl\97papers\97ps\sperber. Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N. and Kokkinakis, G. (2001). “Automatic Text Categorization in Term of Genre and Author”, Association for Computational Linguistics, 26, (4), 471-495. From http://delivery. acm.org/10.1145/980000/971883/p471-stamatatos.pdf?ip=62.120.162. 148&id=971883&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702 B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&CF ID=502443111&CFTOKEN=45652212&__acm__=1429224979_d0e3 1cd59adbdabb650ad3f9bdef67f4 Stańczyk, U. and Cyran, K. A. (2007). “Machine Learning Approach to Authorship Attribution of Literary Texts”, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Informatics. 1, (4), 151-158. From http:// www. naun.org/ main/UPress/ami/ami-22.pdf Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab 269 Swales, John M. (1998). Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Szymańska, A. L. (2015). “The English Vocabulary Profile as a Benchmark for Assigning Levels to Learners corpus Data”, in Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment. (Ed. Marcus Callies and Sandra Götz), USA, John Benjamins Company. From https://www.researchgate. net/ publication /275021429. Thorndike, E. L. and Lorge, I. (1944). The Teacher’s Word Book of 30.000 Words. New York, Colombia University press. From http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/triley/The%20Complete%20Collection/ from %20The. Tonkin, E. (2008). “Orthography, Structure and Lexical Choice as Identity Markers in Social Tagging Environments”, IADIS International Conference on Web Based Communities, pp.63-69. From www.academia.edu/2545427/Orthography_Structure_and_ lexical_choice_as_identity_markers_in_social_tagging_ environ ments?auto=download. Topuzoglu, T. R. (1974). Kitab Adab Al-Muluk Al-Khwarazm-Shahi of Abu Mansur Abd Al-Malik b. Muhammad bin Ismail Ath-Thaalibi: A Critical Edition With Introduction and Translation. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Manchester University (UK). Ullman, M, T, (2006). “Is Broca’s Area Part of a Basal Ganglia Thalamocortical Circuit?”, Cortex, Vol. 42, pp. 480-485 Ullman, M. T. (2004). “Contributions of Memory Circuits to Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model”, Cognition. Vol. 92, pp. 231-270. Ullman, Michael T. (2001). “A Neurocognitive Perspective on Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model, Nature Reviews”, Neuroscience Vol. 2, pp. 717-727: Ullman, Michael T. (2001) “The Declarative/Procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar”, Journanl of Psycholinguistics Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 37-69. Ullman, Michael T. (2001). “The Neural Basis of Lexicon and Grammar in first and Second Language: the Declarative/Procedural Model”, Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, Vol 4. No. 2, Cambridge, CUP, pp. 105-122. Ure, J. and Ellis, J. (1977). “Register in Descriptive Linguistics and Linguistic Sociology”. Ed. by Oscar Uribe-Villegas. Issues in Sociolinguistics, The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers, 197243. Ure, J., Rodger, A. & Ellis, J. (1969). “Somm: Sleep: An Exercise in the Use of Descriptive Linguistic Techniques in Literary Translation: Part 270 Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach I”. Babel. XV (1), 1-14 Vel, O. de, Anderson, A., Corney, M. and Mohay, G. 2001. Mining E-Mail Content for Author Identification Forensics” http://dl.acm.org/citation .cfm?id=604272. Vernet, J. (1980, 1993). El Coran, Barcelona, Plaza & Janés Editores. West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words. London, Longman, Green. Wittgenstein, L. (translation by: P. M. Hacker & J. Schulte) (2009/ originally 1951). Philosophical Investigation. London, WileyBlackwell. Zhao, Y. and Zobel, J. (2006). “Searching with Style: Authorship Attribution in Classic Literature”, Twenty-Ninth Australian Computer Science Conference (ACSC), Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology (CRPIT). 48. V. Estivill-Castro and G. Dobbie, Eds. ‫‪Arabic References‬‬ ‫اين األهير‪ ،‬عز الدين الشيبانن (‪ )1965‬الكامل فن التاريخ‪ ،‬المجلد الثانن‪ ،‬دار‬ ‫صادر‪ ،‬ييروت‪.‬‬ ‫اين أين طالأ‪ ،‬علن (ت قيق وشرح الشيخ م مد عبدل) (‪ )1985‬نهج البالغة‪،‬‬ ‫دار البالغة‪ ،‬ييروت‪.‬‬ ‫إين رشد‪ ،‬أيو الوليد م مد (‪ )2011‬فصل المقا فن تقرير ما يين ال نمة‬ ‫والشريعة من االتصا ‪ .‬البصرة و يروت‪ ،‬مركز دراسات الوحدة العر ية‪.‬‬ ‫يونفقة‪ ،‬نادية (‪ )2011‬فلسفة إدموند هسر ‪ .‬الجزائر‪ ،‬ديوان المطبوعات الجامعية‪.‬‬ ‫تو وز اوغلن‪ ،‬توفيق كتاب الثعالبن (‪ )1974‬آداب الملوك الخوارزمشال‪،‬‬ ‫مخطوط عر ن من دراسة وترجمة لاللغة االنجليزية‪ ،‬رسالة دكتورال‪ ،‬جامعة‬ ‫مانشستر‪ ،‬انجلترا‪ ،‬يريطانن‪.‬‬ ‫الطبري‪ ،‬م مد ين جرير ( ت قيق م مد أيو الفضل إيراهيم ) (‪ )1968‬تاريخ‬ ‫الرسل والملوك‪ ،‬الجزء الثالث‪ ،‬دار سويدان‪ ،‬ييروت‪.‬‬ ‫الطماوي‪ ،‬سليمان م مد (‪ )1976‬عمر ين الخطاب وأصو السياسة واالدارة‬ ‫ال ديثة دراسة مقارنة‪ ،‬طبعة هانية‪ ،‬دار الفكر العر ن‪ ،‬مصر‪.‬‬ ‫اين عبد ر ه‪ ،‬أحمد ين م مد ( ت قيق مفيد م مد قميمة ) (‪ )1983‬العقد الفريد‪،‬‬ ‫الجزء األو ‪ ،‬دار الكتأ العلمية‪ ،‬ييروت‪.‬‬ ‫فاطمن‪ ،‬فت ية (‪ )2011‬التَّأويل عند فالسفة المسلمين اين رشد نموذجاً‪ .‬ييروت‪،‬‬ ‫جداو ‪.‬‬ ‫شيخ الشباب‪ ،‬عمر (‪ )2017‬من الضرورة إلى الالنهاية التأويل فن اللغة‬ ‫والترجمة‪ .‬القاهرة‪ ،‬دار القلم‪.‬‬ ‫شيخ الشباب ‪ ،‬عمر و سمير الناصر (‪ )2017‬روائن من الشعر اإلنجليزي قراءة‬ ‫فن التجر ة الشعرية‪ .‬األحساء‪ ،‬نادي األحساء األدين‪.‬‬ ‫شيخ الشباب ‪ ،‬عمر و سمير الناصر ( ‪ ) 2003‬فصو فن التأويل ولغة‬ ‫الترجمة االختالف وانعدام الكفاية فن الترجمة ‪ .‬دمشق ‪ ،‬دار ال صاد‪.‬‬ ‫‪Text Constructs: A Hermeneutic Approach‬‬ ‫‪272‬‬ ‫شيخ الشباب‪ ،‬عمر (‪ )2000/1990‬التَّأويل ولغة الترجمة ن و نظرية لغوية‬ ‫لدراسة اإليداع واالتباع فن الترجمة‪ .‬ييروت‪ ،‬دار الهجرة‪ ،‬ودمشق‪ ،‬العجلونن‪.‬‬ ‫شيخ الشباب‪ ،‬عمر (‪)1989‬‬ ‫((الدراسات اللغوية العر ية فن الجامعات‬ ‫البريطانية)) ‪ ،‬مجلة جامعة البعث ‪ ،‬سوريا‪.‬‬ ‫الياسين‪ ،‬ي (‪ )1962‬اين سينا‪ ،‬مخطوط كتاب الشفاء‪ ،‬الباب الثانن‪ ،‬الجزء‬ ‫األو ‪ ،‬المقالة األولى‪ ،‬رسالة دكتورال‪ ،‬جامعة اكسفورد‪ ،‬يريطانيا‪.‬‬ ‫ك يل‪ ،‬مصطفى (‪ )2011‬األنسنة والتَّأويل فن فكر م مد أركون‪ .‬الر اط‪ ،‬دار‬ ‫األمان‪ .‬والجزائر‪ ،‬منشورات االختالف‪ ،‬و يروت‪ ،‬دار العلوم العر ية‪.‬‬ TEXT CONSTRUCTS A Hermeneutic Approach Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab In this book, the study of interpretation is pursued with the double aim of examining the role of interpretation in initiating, processing and receiving text constructs, and exploring meta-textual constructs such as self-attribution, text integrity, author identity, and readability scales. Among other things, the author demonstrates how hermeneutic filtering enables academic discourse to maintain a delicate balance between self-attribution and external attribution, two constructs that post-production readers highlight or dispute. In translation, the translator undertakes post-production and preproduction processing; and to this extent, inter alia, translation is a viable candidate for studying the relevance of interpretation to text constructs. Hence, the book serves as a textbook and/or a reference for students and researchers in Text Linguistics, Corpus Studies and Translation Theory and Practice. Professor Omar A. Sheikh Al-Shabab is a Syrian academic, born in Damascus, Syria (1947). His career extends over forty years of teaching and research at various universities in Syria, UK, and Saudi Arabia. Since (2015) he is the supervisor of the Research Unit at King Abdullah Institute for Translation and Arabization, Al-Riyadh. Professor Al-Shabab is the author of Interpretation and the Language of Translation, From Necessity to Infinity, and Linguistic Interpretation. Text Constructs is the result of a research project carried out during the years (1997-2014) at the Department of English Language, College of Arts, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. ISBN: 978-977-5239-96-9 Classification: Academic Q