Statement of the Problem and Objective: The translation of scientific and classical texts, especially in the field of traditional medicine, has always been accompanied by challenges in structure, vocabulary, and the transfer of the communicative function of the text. Translation in this domain is not merely the transfer of words from one language to another; rather, it is a discursive endeavor aimed at the recreate of meaning within a new cultural and historical context. In the translation of Avicenna’s philosophical and medical works, this issue becomes even more prominent, since the specific language, structure, and worldview of the source text, along with the necessity of scientific accuracy and fidelity to content—while simultaneously ensuring comprehensibility for the contemporary reader—places a dual pressure on the translator. In Akbar Danaseresht’s translation of the “Psychology” section of al-Shifa, strict adherence to a convergent semantic system and literal fidelity to the structure of the Arabic text has led to the emergence of a kind of “discursive distance” between the target text and its reader; a distance which, instead of establishing semantic communication between the two languages, increases the gap between the semantic scope of the text and the reader’s sphere of reception. The main question of the present study is which discursive and methodological components compelled the translator toward such adherence, and what consequences this choice has had for the communicative and scientific function of the text. The aim of this research is to provide a critical analysis of Danaseresht’s translation based on discourse-oriented translation theories, with particular emphasis on Lawrence Venuti’s views on foreignization, the invisibility of the translator, and convergent semantic system. It also seeks to examine the examine the extent to which the informative and functional role of the scientific text of the al-Shifa has been realized in the Persian translation.
Methodology: The present research is descriptive–analytical in nature and is grounded in the theoretical framework of contemporary translation studies, particularly the discourse-oriented approach. First, key concepts such as “convergent and divergent semantic systems,” “fidelity,” “equivalence,” “foreignization,” “domestication,” and “the translation unit” are explained based on the views of Venuti, Nida, Manfredi, Reiss, Holmes, Even-Zohar, and other theorists. Subsequently, Danaseresht’s translation of selected sections of al-Shifa is examined, with reference to the Arabic text and numerous examples, from two perspectives: first, grammatical and structural analysis—namely, examining adequacy, adherence to the source-language structure, syntactic coherence, and the extent of modification or alteration; second, semantic and lexical analysis—namely, investigating lexical ambiguities, the selection of unfamiliar equivalents, literalist translations, and the degree of transfer of the text’s function. In addition, an attempt has been made to explain the cultural, historical, and semantic contexts influencing the translator’s choices, particularly the sacral approach toward the text and its author. In this way, by integrating linguistic analysis with discursive examination, the study seeks to reveal the causes of the discursive non-coexistence between the target text and the contemporary reader.
Discussion and Analysis: The findings indicate that Danaseresht’s translation relies heavily on a convergent semantic system instead of following a dynamic, function-oriented approach; that is, it transfers vocabulary, compounds, and structures of the Arabic text without the necessary adjustments for the target language. This model results in several major consequences. First; Structural and lexical ambiguity: in many sentences, the complex Arabic structure has been transferred verbatim into Persian, and expressions such as “ḥuṣūl al-shay’,” “muqārin li’l-infi‘āl,” “istiḥāla,” “lā tufāriq,” and “mabda’” have been employed without natural Persian equivalents. This not only complicates the reading process but also distanced the text from its informational function. The examined examples show that minimal changes in the translation unit could have brought the text closer to the target language without damaging its meaning. Second, the dominance of technical language and uncontrolled archaism: for instance, Venuti emphasizes that fluent translation should avoid unnecessary archaism and polysemy. Conversely, in this translation, technical and archaic language has been introduced into the text without discursive management, thereby producing an unintended form of foreignization for the reader. This foreignization is not of the type advocated by Venuti; rather, it is a form of calquing that disrupts the communicative function of the text. Third, rendering the reader invisible instead of the translator: whereas the idea of “translator invisibility” in fluent translation leads to the elimination of signs of translator intervention, in this case the translator has hidden himself so completely behind the structure of the Arabic text that, instead of producing transparency, the target text renders the reader invisible and prevents their participation in understanding text. Fourth, The role of sacral discourse in the translator’s choices: The study shows that the translator—consciously or unconsciously—has approached Avicenna’s text with a sacral attitude. The sanctity of the Arabic language, Avicenna’s scientific and philosophical status, and the classical nature of the text have exerted a discursive pressure on the translator to preserve the source structure as much as possible, as if preserving the form of the text were equivalent to preserving its scientific authority. As a result, the translation has remained faithful to the norms of the source language instead of following the norms of the target language and the needs of the reader; consequently, a significant discursive gap has emerged between the text and the contemporary reader.
Findings: The present study reveals several important results. First, excessive adherence to a convergent semantic system in translating scientific–historical texts may lead to the “de-textualization” of the target text; that is, despite lexical accuracy, the text loses its communicative role, and its scientific function becomes impaired. It also became clear that Danaseresht’s translation represents a misunderstanding of the concept of fidelity, since fidelity to the source text must be subordinated to three elements: the author’s intention, the target language, and the reader’s needs; however, excessive focus to the first element has led to the neglect of the other two. Moreover, the discursive factor of sanctity has played a crucial role in the translation style, and in an effort to preserve the scientific and sacred status of the text, the translator has transferred Arabic structures into the target language with almost no modification. Based on these results, an optimal translation of traditional medical texts requires establishing a balance between foreignization and domestication, in such a way that neither literal calquing nor excessive simplification is appropriate; for scientific translation must serve the transmission of knowledge and revitalization of scientific heritage.