PROBLEMS OF LEXICAL AND SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY IN ARABIC – ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION | ||||
| Faculty of Arts Journal, Arish University | ||||
| Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available Online from 26 April 2025 | ||||
| Document Type: Researches | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/faau.2025.361363.1001 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Walaa Alahtam  1; Mohamed M. Tohamy2; Hatem S. Salama3
| ||||
| 1Dept. English Language & Literature, Fac. Arts, Arish Univ., Egypt. | ||||
| 2Dept. English, Fac. Arts & Humanities, Suez Canal Univ., Egypt. | ||||
| 3Dept. English Language & Literature, Fac., Arish Univ., Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| The study aims to examine the problems of lexical and syntactic ambiguity in the translation of the selected arbitral document which is translated automatically via Google Translate and humanly from Arabic to English. At the lexical level, polysemy, collocation, and technical terms are analyzed. At the syntactic level, nominalization, passivation, and phrasal verbs are examined. The methodology of the study relies on the discourse analysis approach. Google translation is compared to human translation to evaluate their suitability for translating the documents of international commercial arbitration. The analysis of the data illustrates how legal translation is more challenging than other forms of translation. It suggests that Google Translate is often inaccurate, failing to grasp legal and contextual meanings, whereas human translators are better at preserving these meanings. However, human translators can also make errors, particularly when dealing with large workloads. Therefore, proofreading is essential to ensure accuracy, clarity, consistency, and quality. Using specialized legal dictionaries, working with arbitrators and legal experts, and applying the interpretative translation strategies are crucial for successful translations. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Google Translate; International Commercial Arbitration; Legal Translation; Lexical Ambiguity; Syntactic Ambiguity | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 58 |
||||
