Vignette: On Text Type
In Contrastive Textology, it is fairly well established that the norms of argumentation in a Western language such as English differ from those in such Eastern languages as Arabic or Farsi. Take, for example, the lexical token ‘Of course’. This is conventionally associated with text-initial ‘concession’ in English (Of course …. However ….) but its token-for-token equivalent in these other languages often introduces not a ‘concession’ to be countered (a ‘counter-argument’) but a case to be defended (‘argued through’). Thus, for the English-language reader, the element: "Of course this does not mean that we should defend all clergymen…," sets up an expectation that a counter-argument will follow, along the lines of ‘However, the majority of our 'ulamaa' are pious, God-fearing people and  should be defended…’. No such pattern is forthcoming in a Khomeini’s speech simply because what is involved in the Farsi source text is a ‘through-argument’, not a ‘counter-argument’. To illustrate the point, we use a speech by the Ayatullah of Iran translated into English by the BBC and published in The Guardian. The question now becomes, knowing that the requirements of 'counter-argument' are not met, why the translator nevertheless decided to keep the culprit item, thereby setting up an expectation the text is never intended to fulfil. But what could the translator have done differently? Can you suggest a way out of this impasse.