From Figurative Sense to Target Meaning: An Integrative Framework for Arabic–Malay Translation

Arabic–Malay translation of figurative language presents persistent challenges due to differences in rhetorical conventions, cultural imagery, and semantic structures. While existing studies emphasise figurative competence and cultural adaptation, they rarely specify how figurative meaning is systematically transformed into target-language representation. Addressing this gap, the present study proposes a process-oriented analytical framework that explicates the decision pathways linking figurative interpretation to translation strategy selection. The study examines the interpretive characteristics of tashbih, istiʿarah, and kinayah, identifies evaluative criteria guiding translation decisions, and clarifies the role of Arabic rhetorical analysis in shaping target-language outcomes. The study adopts an explanatory, library-based approach. Data were collected through structured literature searches and purposive selection of authoritative sources, including classical and contemporary balaghah texts, Arabic–Malay translation studies, linguistic theory, translation models, and peer-reviewed publications indexed in major databases. Analysis was conducted through thematic synthesis, comparative rhetorical analysis, and theory-informed interpretation guided by functionalist translation perspectives and semantic equivalence frameworks. Particular attention was given to mapping Arabic figurative structures to Malay target-language realisations in order to identify recurring analytical procedures and strategy patterns.The findings indicate that effective figurative translation is shaped by structured interpretive processes rather than intuitive lexical substitution. Translation decisions are guided by three evaluative criteria: cultural transferability of figurative imagery, preservation of rhetorical function, and target-language acceptability. These criteria inform strategic choices such as sense-based rendering, metaphor modulation, paraphrase, and controlled explicitation. While such strategies support the transfer of figurative intent, challenges remain in handling culture-bound imagery, maintaining stylistic force, and ensuring consistent application of translation procedures. From an Arabic rhetorical perspective, figurative expressions may be considered transferable provided their communicative purpose and semantic coherence are preserved in the target language. The study therefore positions the integration of rhetorical analysis with structured translation procedures as a conceptual model for analysing figurative transfer rather than a prescriptive solution. Its contribution is primarily methodological, offering an analytical framework that clarifies translator decision-making and provides a basis for further empirical investigation into Arabic–Malay figurative translation.

Arabic Malay Translation; Figurative Language; Translation Strategies; functionalist

1. Abdelkarim, M. B. A., Alhaj, A. A. M., & Hakami, A. H. (2025). Faithfulness in the Translation of the Qur’anic Arabic Homographic Word Kataba (كَتَبَ) into English: Revisiting the Equivalence Theory. World Journal of English Language, 16(1), 248. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n1p248 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abdul-Latif, E. (2023). Verifying the Terminology of Arabic Rhetorical Tradition: The Case of ʾIltifāt. Lexikos, 33. https://doi.org/10.5788/33-1-1831 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What You See Is What You Get? Enhancing Methodological Transparency in Management Research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Al Farisi, M. (2020). The Impact of Using Foreignization and Domestication on the Translation Accuracy of the Quranic Metaphor (Kinayah) Verses. Humanities and Management Sciences - Scientific Journal of King Faisal University, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.37575/h/rel/1966 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ali Mohammed Ali, E., Jamoussi, R., & Al Zahran, A. (2025). Cohesion Shifts and Strategies in Handling Elliptical Structures in English-Arabic Translation among Younger Scholars of Translation. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 31(4), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2025-3104-20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Al-Khattab, E. R., Kadir, K. B. A., & Yusof, C. M. Z. Bin. (2025). The impact of cultural and environmental factors on meaning loss in the translation of implied metaphors in the Muallaqa of Antarah. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 7(11), 2025513. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2025513 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Alós, J. (2016). Discourse relation recognition in translation: a relevance-theory perspective. Perspectives, 24(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1042391 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Alsalem, N. K. (2020). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Saudi Arabic Television Commercials. Language and Semiotic Studies, 6(3), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2020-060303 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Alsharif, B., Khasawneh, R., & Alzghoul, M. (2025). Strategies of Rendering Metaphor from Arabic into English: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Matecat. World Journal of English Language, 16(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n1p45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Atabik, A. (2021). Al-Naẓm Stylistic Discourse in I’jāz al-Qur’ān Based on Al-Jurjānī’s Perspective: Analysis of Arabic Literature Criticism on the Qur’an Studies. Ulumuna, 25(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.20414/ujis.v25i1.425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Azuma, M. (2012). Chapter 9. English native speakers’ interpretations of culture-bound Japanese figurative expressions (pp. 195–216). https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.38.15azu [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Baker, M., & Maier, C. (2011). Ethics in Interpreter & Translator Training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10798809 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Balogh, D. (2019). The Role of Genres and Text Selection in Legal Translator Training. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 58(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2019-0015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Banou, Z., El Filali, S., Habib Benlahmar, E., Eljiani, L., & Alaoui, F.-Z. (2025). Developing a Multi-Layer Ontology Construction Framework for Arabic Language Processing: Focus on Figurative Language Potential. IEEE Access, 13, 138535–138550. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3596130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Brown, V. A., Fox, N. P., & Strand, J. F. (2022). “Where are the . . . Fixations?”: Grammatical number cues guide anticipatory fixations to upcoming referents and reduce lexical competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(5), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Denroche, C. (2023). Translating figurative language. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22011.den [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. González, K., Frumkin, R., & Montgomery, J. (2014). Self-Inquiry and Group Dynamics (pp. 178–196). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5816-5.ch008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hercig, T., & Lenc, L. (2017). The Impact of Figurative Language on Sentiment Analysis. RANLP 2017 - Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing Meet Deep Learning, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-049-6_041 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hussin, M., Alaqad, M., Rifain, S. R. @ M., & Yoyo. (2025). Figures of Speech in the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad: An Analysis of Tashbīh, Isti’ārah, and Kināyah. Southeastern Philippines Journal of Research and Development, 30(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.53899/spjrd.v30i1.862 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ibrahim, M., Gervás, P., & Méndez, G. (2025). MM-GTA: Morphological Modeling via Graph-based Text Adaptation for Arabic Dialect Transfer. Proceedings of the Knowledge Capture Conference 2025, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1145/3731443.3771368 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kuźniak, M., Rozwadowska, B., & Szawerna, M. (Eds.). (2016). From Motion to Emotion. Peter Lang D. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05360-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mohameed Alsemeiri, I., & Nordin, M. Z. F. (2023). Kenāyah Intersection with Other English Figures of Speech and Its Translational Equivalence into English. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 23(4), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2304-06 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nasimah, A. (2017). Inaccuracies in the Translation of the Quranic Metonymy into the Malay Language. Global Journal Al Thaqafah, 7(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.7187/GJAT13220170701 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Obeidat, M. M. (2023). Translating Culture in the Jordanian T.V. Comedy Series “al jar gabl al dar” (My American Neighbor) Into English. Sage Open, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231197011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Saed, H., Haider, A. S., Albarakati, M., Tair, S. A., & Alqatawna, M. (2025). Translating conversational implicatures in English movies and series into Arabic: can floutings be captured? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04187-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Sharmini, A., Mahmood, M. B., Jamalludin, K. H., Ridzuan, A. H., Abdul Halim, M. Z., & Fital, S. N. J. (2018). Figurative Language in Malay to English Translation: An Analysis of the 2015 UniMAP VC’s Keynote Speech. MATEC Web of Conferences, 150, 05028. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815005028 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Sosnin, A. V., Balakina, J. V., & Kashikhin, A. N. (2022). Interdependence of expert categories and automated metrics applied to evaluate translation quality. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 19(1), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2022.107 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Spinolo, N. (2018). Studying Figurative Language in Simultaneous Interpreting: The IMITES (Interpretación de la Metáfora Entre ITaliano y ESpañol) Corpus (pp. 133–155). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Troscianko, E. T. (2013). Reading imaginatively: The imagination in cognitive science and cognitive literary studies. Jlse, 42(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2013-0009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wang, F. (2013). Cognitive Mechanism for Metaphor Translation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12). https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.12.2327-2332 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Wilk, P. (2015). Some Implications for Developing Learners’ Figurative Language Competence Across Modalities: Metaphor, Metonymy and Blending in the Picture Modality (pp. 169–187). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07686-7_10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Yang, Z., & Li, D. (2021). Translation Competence Revisited: Toward a Pedagogical Model of Translation Competence (pp. 109–138). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2070-6_6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Zeleny, M. (2008). The KM-MCDM interface in decision design: tradeoffs-free conflict dissolution. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 1(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJADS.2008.017951 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar