English past progressive aspect in Arabic translation: Theoretical and textual considerations

: This paper deals with the translation of the English past progressive into Arabic by examining both theoretical and textual considerations. First, it shows how the English aspect formally corresponds to the auxiliary verb ﻛﺎن ‘was’ plus the simple present (SP) form or the active participle (AP) form. Second, it is argued that the choice between the SP and the AP is subject to several grammatical and semantic constraints on Arabic verbs: [+/- transitive], [+/- telic], [+/- completed], and [+/- manner of motion]. Third, the textual data (70 examples) drawn from two existing Arabic translations of Leonardo DaVinci by Walter Isaacs (2017) and Hard Choices by Hillary Clinton (2014) indicates that several translation procedures are employed to render the English past progressive, mainly including the past simple (48.57%), present simple (22.85%), formal correspondence (18.57%), and lexicalizing (7.14%). Finally, the qualitative analysis reveals that the progressiveness, emphasis, and dramatization that the English past progressive aspect may communicate are seriously compromised in Arabic translation. While there may be cases where some mismatches between English and Arabic verbs exist in terms of progressiveness which may call for the use of past simple or lexicalizing, the formal correspondence procedure is claimed to be the most valid and appropriate for capturing the functions of the English past progressive.


Introduction
Tense is understood to be an indicator of time reference or what Comrie (1985, p. 6) calls "the gammaticalization of location in time".Aspect, by contrast, is taken to be an indicator of the type of temporal duration within a certain tense or "different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation" (Comrie, 1976, p. 3).Both tense and aspect play an important role in English and Arabic grammars.In reference to tense, both grammars have two types of distinction: a three-way distinction involving present, past and future or, more economically, a two-way distinction involving past and non-past acts (Comrie, 1985;Dahl, 1985).As for Aspect, the issue becomes more complicated because one-to-one correspondence may not be available (for more details on Tense and Aspect, see (Wright, 1967;Radwan, 1975;Shamma, 1978;Dahl, 1985;Eisele, 1990;Gadalla, 2006aGadalla, & 2006b;;Mansour, 2011;Obeidat, 2014;Comrie, 1976Comrie, & 1985;;Fleischman, 1990;Jarvie, 1993;Kerstens, Ruys & Zwarts, 2001;Declerck, 2006;Michaelis, 2006).
To explain, in few cases, English marks an aspect formally by means of a grammatical marker, whereas Arabic does this contextually.In such cases, a level shift (Catford 1965) or an instance of transposition (Newmark 1988) is called for.For example, the English present progressive 'Mary is studying in her room' is marked formally for this aspect (i.e., the auxiliary 'be' plus the '-ing' on  [study Mary in her room] is contextually marked to indicate this aspect, that is, the reader has to examine the context of the utterance in order to see whether the reference is to the present habitual aspect or the present progressive aspect.In this way, a formal shift from the present progressive aspect in English to the present habitual aspect in Arabic is made, a shift that leaves it to the immediate context of utterance to distinguish between the two aspects in Arabic, which may include lexicalizing the Arabic progressive aspect by adding ‫ا‬ ‫ﻵ‬ ‫ن‬ 'now ', viz [study Mary in her room now] 'Mary is studying in her room now' (for more details, see Ghazala 2012;Al-Khawalda and Al-Oliemat, 2014).
In other few cases, an aspect that exists in English may completely be missing in Arabic.For example, English distinguishes between the simple past and the present perfect which both denote past acts mainly to indicate whether the act occurs at a specific time in the past (e.g., Mary insulted the manager two days ago) or is left unspecified (Mary has insulted the manager many times).Arabic, on the other hand, merges these two aspects by referring to the past activity using the simple past with ‫ﻗ‬ ‫ﺪ‬ qad (a discourse marker that is prefixed with the particles la-, fa-, and wa-in connected discourse, e.g.[insulted Mary to the-manager before two days] 'Mary insulted the manager two days ago'.Farghal (2019) shows that the choice between Arabic simple past aspect with qad and without qad is discursively governed, i.e. the choice is motivated by the flow of discourse rather than by grammar (aspect) or semantics.That is, the author/translator's decision on this is solely guided by securing smoothness/ cohesiveness of discourse rather than any other factors.
In some cases, however, we find formal (grammatical) correspondence between an English aspect and an Arabic aspect, among which the past progressive is a clear example (For more details, see Fayyad (1997, cited in Gadalla 2006and Farghal's (2019) critique of both of them).Both languages grammaticalize the aspect in which some activity was in progress in the past.English uses a past form of the auxiliary 'be' plus '-ing' on the main verb (e.g., Mary was studying in her room), while Arabic employs a past form of the copula, e.g.[was John sit in the-garden/was john sitting in the-garden] 'John was sitting in the garden'.Section 2 below addresses the constraints involved in choosing between the simple present form and the active participle form for expressing the Arabic past progressive aspect from a grammatical as well as a translational perspective at sentence level.

Simple present (SP) vs. active participle (AP)
The choice between SP and AP as a formal (grammatical) correspondent in expressing the past progressive aspect in Arabic seems to be an intriguing question, which is relevant from both a grammatical and a translational perspective.From a grammatical perspective, it is interesting to find out when the swap between the two forms is possible and when it is not.From a translational perspective, this is an interesting case.When the swap is possible, we have two Arabic grammatical forms that formally correspond to one English grammatical form.The way the English past progressive is handled in Arabic translation is textually investigated in Section 3.
The most noticeable factor in the switch between the two forms is that of transitivity, that is, whether the main verb is [+ transitive], i.e. it requires an object or [-transitive], i.e. it cannot take an object.To explain, if the verb is intransitive, the switch is permitted, while if it is transitive, the switch is blocked.The examples in 1 -4 below are illustrative (Gloss translation for the Arabic examples is provided between square brackets): Transitivity seems to be a strong factor in the choice between an SP and AP form for expressing the past progressive in Arabic.The examples in 1-4 above show that if the main verb is transitive, the verbal AP is blocked 3 and 4, whereas if the verb is intransitive the AP is sanctioned.However, the degree of transitivity seems to be a relevant factor when choosing between the SP and the AP.'Ali was playing chess in the garden when I saw him'.
As can be observed in 5 and 6, the [+ intransitive, -strong] verbs block the AP, unlike the [+ intransitive, + strong] verbs in 1 and 2. By the same token, the [+ transitive, -strong] verbs in 5 and 6 block the AP.In this way, the degree of transitivity in transitive verbs may relax the transitivity constraint.Put differently, while strong transitive verbs like ‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﻘ‬ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ 'kill' block the AP unlike strong intransitive verbs like ‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﺠ‬ ‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﺲ‬ 'sit', transitively ambiguous verbs, i.e. verbs that may be used transitively and intransitively like ‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻌ‬ ‫ﺐ‬ 'play', loosen the transitivity constraint by blocking the AP, despite the fact that they are employed intransitively 5 and 6 above.
In addition, some transitive verbs whose derived AP denotes a completed act [+ completed], which is construed as an adjectival AP (e.g., being drunk or being nude) rather than an act in progress [-completed Unpredictably, as can be observed, the strong transitive verbs ‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻛ‬ ‫ﺐ‬ 'ride' and ‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﺨ‬ ‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻊ‬ 'take off' allow the option of the AP unlike the strong transitive verbs in 3 and 4 above.That is why we need the [+/-completed] constraint on transitive verbs.To explain, if the transitive verb sanctions an adjectival form denoting a [+ completed] act in addition to the SP denoting [-completed] act, then the AP form is allowed with a difference in meaning.By way of illustration, the act of taking clothes in 11 was in progress [-completed], but it was already finished [+ completed] in 12. Hence, 11 and 12 receive different English translations.Under this constraint, therefore, the AP is formally permitted but with a semantically different meaning.
To sum up, firstly we have to distinguish between transitive verbs marked as [+ transitive, + strong], e.g.‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﻘ‬ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ 'kill', on the one hand, and transitive verbs marked as [+ transitive, -strong], e.g.‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻌ‬ ‫ﺐ‬ , on the other.While the former may allow the SP and block the AP only transitively, the latter may also sanction the AP intransitively.On the other hand, transitive verbs marked as [+ transitive, + strong] need to be distinguished in terms of [+ completed] act and [-completed] act as embodied in an AP.While a [+ completed] act verb, e.g.‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﺨ‬ ‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻊ‬ 'take off' sanctions the SP like other transitive verbs, yet it also allows the AP formally with a different meaning.Transitivity, therefore, should only be generally viewed as a strong factor when it comes to blocking the AP.
The situation is no less complex when considering intransitivity as a predictor in the choice between the SP and AP forms.Most relevantly, the main verb's feature [+/-telic] (Xiao and McEnery, 2004)  'travel' are marked as [+ telic, -manner of motion].Thus, this semantic constraint determines the choice between the SP and the AP for telic verbs.
The employment of the Arabic AP in the past progressive, as can be noted above, is subject to both syntactic and semantic constraints.This may be due to the fluid nature of the AP because it can function as verbal, nominal, or adjectival depending on the features of the lexical verb in question (for different views on the AP, see Hasan, 1990;Radwan, 1981;Gadalla, 2017, among others).By way of illustration, note how the AP occurs as a verbal, a nominal, and an adjectival in (19)(20)(21) In fact, all accounts of the AP emphasize its eventivity and agentivity.Gadalla (2017, p. 62), for example, defines it as "a morphological form derived from a verb to refer to the person or animate being that performs the action denoted by the verb".By contrast, Radwan (1981) views the AP as an adjective denoting an action, its incidence and its agent.In sum, the multivalency of the AP causes its ambiguous nature in Arabic grammar.

Aims of the study
The present study aims to respond to the following two research questions: 1. How does formal correspondence between English and Arabic past progressive show up in translating connected discourse?2. What other Arabic translation procedures are used to render English past progressive in connected discourse and how successful are they as translation equivalents?

Data
The textual data in this study consists of 70 instances of the English past progressive aspect which are juxtaposed with their Arabic translation counterparts.They are equally drawn from Leonardo DaVinci (Isaacs, 2017) and Hard Choices (Clinton, 2014) (Yunis, 2018).The choice of the two books was motivated by their importance in the Anglo-Saxon culture in particular and in the world at large, in general.

Procedure
The translation corpus is closely examined to lay hand on Arabic translation procedures in rendering the English past progressive textually in connected discourse.Sufficient context is provided for each example in the data to insure the soundness of the critical analysis.The quantitative part presents the frequency and percentages of each procedure, while the qualitative part assesses each procedure in terms of its adequacy as a translation equivalent.

Analysis and discussion
The close examination of the textual corpus has revealed many translation procedures for rendering the English past progressive into Arabic.Table 1 below names each procedure, its frequency (out of 70 instances), and its percentage (The procedures are ordered in terms of frequency):  1 above shows that the grammatically established formal correspondence between the English past progressive and the Arabic past progressive lags largely behind the past simple procedure (18.57% vs. 48.57%)and slightly behind the present simple procedure (18.57% vs. 22.4385%).At face value, this finding implies that formal correspondence in aspect involves grammatical rather than textual relevance.That is, what happens in rendering aspect in connected discourse is largely different from rendering it at sentence level.The justification may be that the translation of aspect at sentence level is structure based, while it is semantics based in connected discourse.The following discussion provides a qualitative assessment of each procedure supported by authentic examples from the corpus.Let us start with formal correspondence, which has been discussed in detail in Section 2 above.

Formal correspondence
Despite the fact that the formal correspondence procedure comes third after the past simple and the present simple in rendering the English past progressive aspect into Arabic, it remains to be the most valid procedure to capture this aspect, other things being equal (see discussion below).The following examples are illustrative (Henceforth, the study items are highlighted in boldface and the discussion is exclusively focused on them): 22.
…, it might not have been convenient or appropriate to have a pregnant and then a breastfeeding peasant woman living in the crowded DaVinci family home, especially as Sir Piero was negotiating a dowry from the prominent family whose daughter he was planning to marry.(Isaacs, 2017, p. 13 (Bani Saeed, 2020, p. 25) [on despite from reasons indicate to that-it may not appropriate that live farmer pregnant then breast-feeder in home family DaVinci especially that Sir Piero was negotiate on dowry with the-family the-reputed which plan(he) to-marrying from daughter-it] 23.
Twenty years later, Accattabriga was working in a kiln that was rented by Piero, … (Isaacs, 2017, p. 14 I expressed what I was feeling at the time: 'I am happy being a Senator from New York.(Clinton, 2014, p. 14 (Yunis, 2018, p. 31) [expressed(I) what was feeling(I) of-it then: "I happy being Senator from New York"] 25.
People were hurting and needed a champion to fight for them.(Clinton, 2014, p. 15 (Yunis, 2018, p. 32) [was the-people paining and-needs to hero struggle from sake-it] In 22-24, the translators have succeeded in capturing the progressiveness of the activities for an unspecified period in the past by formally rendering them into the past progressive in Arabic by the SP, which performs the same function in Arabic.However, while replacing the past progressive with the past simple in ST and TT in 22 would destroy the progressiveness and naturalness of the flow of discourse intended by the writer/translator in a subordinate clause, the replacement of the past progressive in 23 and 24 with past simple would be tolerated in both ST and TT as it mainly affects progressives intended for emphasis.Consider 23 and 24 repeated in 26 and 27 below, using the past simple in ST and TT.This may explain why both translators have frequently resorted to this translation procedure when rendering the English past progressive into Arabic (Section 4.2 below).
As for 25 above, it is the only case in the corpus where the translator has opted for the AP instead of the SP in rendering the English past progressive.Apart from the constraints involved in this choice (Section 2 above), it is clear that when it comes to formal correspondence, the SP is given priority over the AP as a translation equivalent, if both of them work.Apparently, the SP is less marked than the AP when the choice between them is possible; hence it is more frequently used than the AP.Note that the translator could have used the AP in 24 and the SP in 25 above, as can illustrated in 28 and 29 below, respectively: To conclude this section, other things being equal (see discussion below), formal correspondence employing the SP and/or the AP as appropriate in rendering the English past progressive is the most valid and accurate translation procedure for capturing the progressiveness in the English past progressive, regardless whether it is used for grammatical and/or emphatic reasons in connected discourse.That is why translators between English and Arabic need to be sensitized to this aspect in the two grammars, in order to perfect their translation activity.The translational picture of this aspect in connected discourse is far from adhering to this principle as the following sections clearly demonstrate.

Shift (to past simple)
Rendering the English past progressive as past simple takes the lion's share in the textual corpus.Almost half of the cases (48.57%) show this translation procedure, To conclude, translators, whether they be students or practitioners, need to be sensitized to the importance of aspect in translation practice.This study has clearly indicated a serious lack of awareness in this area.To overcome problems in this area, it is important for translators to be familiar with the symmetries and asymmetries between the tense and aspect systems in any given pair of languages, as well as the relevant textual options available when a mismatch occurs.It is shocking that the bulk of the data in this case study shows that the most frequent translation procedures employed to render the English past progressive aspect into Arabic are inappropriate.
Mary to the-manager before two days] 'Mary insulted the manager two days ago' or the simple past without qad, e.g.
+ strong] can allow both the SP and the AP 1 and 2 above.In no way such intransitive verbs can be used transitively in Arabic.By contrast, there are some Arabic transitive verbs such as cognitively-retrieved object, i.e. an object that is not phonetically realized.Such verbs, which are marked as [+ intransitive, -strong], may also block the AP option, unlike the intransitive verbs in 1 and 2, which are marked as[intransitive, + strong].Below are some illustrative examples: *writing letter in the-garden when saw-him(I)] 'Ali was writing a letter in the garden when I saw him'.
] (e.g., climbing a tree or taking off clothes) may allow an AP, but with a difference in meaning.The examples below illustrate this point: seems to be a strong factor.This feature refers to whether the act denoted by the verb has an endpoint or not; if it has an endpoint, it is [+ telic], if not, it is[-telic].By examining Arabic intransitive verbs, it can be clearly observed that [+ telic] verbs allow the verbal AP, while they block the SP.By contrast, [-telic] verbs sanction both the SP and AP.Following are some illustrative examples: Therefore, the SP is blocked in the former, while both the SP and AP are allowed in the latter.However, if the [+ telic] Arabic verb semantically specifies the manner of motion, it will sanction both the SP and the AP.This semantic constraint [+ manner of motion] can be seen in 17 and 18 below, whose main verbs

Table 1 :
Frequency and percentage of translation procedures in corpus.
One should note that the reader of both ST and TT in 26 and 27 would not be sensitive to swapping the past progressive with the past simple, but, in contrast, would feel shocked by replacing 'was negotiating' ( -people paining and-need to hero struggle from sake-it]