Data translation

Crystal (1991) defined translation as a process where:

“The meaning and expression in one language (source) is tuned with the meaning of another (target) whether the medium is spoken, written or signed” (1991, p. 346).

The purpose of data translation is “to achieve equivalence of meanings between two different languages” (Regmi et al. 2010, p. 20). Data translation is a crucial stage, if needed, in a research. It involves “subtle issues of connotation and meaning”

(Marshall and Rossman 2006, p. 111). Esposito (2001) noted that translation is:

“the transfer of meaning from a source language *…+ to the target language [and that the translator is] actually an interpreter who *…+

processes the vocabulary and grammatical structure of the words while considering the individual situation and the overall culture context.” (2001, p. 570).

Concerning by whom translation should be done, Temple and Young (2004) stated that translating data can be carried out by the researcher as a translator or by a

167 professional translator. However, because translation entails the construction of meanings, Marshall and Rossman (2006) asserted that “more issues of meanings and interpretation arise when someone other than the researcher translates spoken or written words” (2006, p. 112). Some academics (e.g. Temple and Young 2004;

Marshall and Rossman 2006) asserted that researchers need to do this process by themselves or, at least, demonstrate how this process is done. Along the same line, and concurring with the above extract of Esposito (2001), Xian (2008), suggested translation is a making exercise and it is a part of the analysis stage. This sense-making process brings the translator‘s knowledge; social background; and personal experience into play. Hence, the focus on generating accurate and meaningful data through translation processes is vital (Marshall and Rossman 2006) and can have implications for the quality of the research data. In this respect, Regmi et al. (2010) suggested that accuracy in translation can be enhanced when the process of translation different researchers are employed to check recording tapes and transcripts.

In order to assure accuracy and subtlety of the translated data, the researcher consulted two other experienced professional academic. The process of translation ran as follows: the researcher and a professional translator concurrently translated the Arabic texts. Beforehand, the researcher discussed with the translator certain issues, based on Gee’s approach, that need to be considered during translation. The following is a part of an e-mail to the professional translator:

“If you cannot find the exact English equivalent for an Arabic word or idiom, you can put the nearest meaning between “---”. This is because what I am seeking here is getting the readers understand and capture the sense which such words and idioms bear in Arabic. Another thing is to kindly write the meaning between *…] if such emotions like laugh, surprise, extra, [...] are expressed. The reason why I would like you to do so is that I may wish to check if you got the same sense of the conversation as I did.

Thus, the way you interpret the conversations really matters” (A part of the e-mail sent by the researcher to the professional translator 2010).

168 Then, the translated texts of both the researcher and the translator were further discussed with another Arabian colleague who has good experience in teaching and doing research in both languages. He had also worked in the field of translation. We compared the two translations, discussed the differences and their implications, and saw whether and why there is any disagreement between the two translations. This is in order to grasp the closest possible meaning (Twinn 1998; Regmi et al. 2010).

Reviewing the literature has indicated that researchers may face difficulties caused by linguistic and socio-cultural differences between the source and the target languages while translating qualitative data (Twinn 1998; Temple and Young 2004; Xian 2008). In some cases, the literal translation of an expression used in a conversation may not give the same sense of it and might become meaningless to readers who do not understand the cultural background of the speakers. To overcome such possible problems during cross-culture translation in research, the researcher applied the suggestions of researchers such as Regmi et al. (2010), Xian (2008), Marshall and Rossman, (2006) and Temple and Young (2004). For example Regmi et al. (2010) argued that researchers in the process of meaning-making need to engage with meanings and discourses to come up with accurate and valid translations rather than applying literal translation. Asserting the same view, Xian (2008) proposed a contextualized approach of translation in which the focus is on contextual consistency rather than on verbal consistency between languages. In other words, the translated data needs to be considered according to the meanings embedded in the interviews so as to reflect the feeling, views and experiences of participants. In a similar way, Simon (1996) argued:

“The solutions to many of the translator’s dilemmas are not to be found in dictionaries, but rather in an understanding of the way language is tied to local realities, to literary forms and to changing identities. Translators must constantly make decisions about the cultural meanings which language carries, and evaluate the degree to which the two different worlds they inhibit are ‘the same’. These are not technical difficulties; they are not the domain of specialists in obscure or quaint vocabularies *…+ In fact the process of meaning transfer has less to do with finding the

169 cultural inscription of a term than in reconstructing its value.” (1996, p.

138).