Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And

Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi

Interdependent Relationship
Between Contrastive Analysis
And Translation
Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
Department of Translation - College of Arts
Al-Mustansiriyah University

Abstract
Contrastive studies play an important role in the field of language
teaching and translation. Since the former is beyond the study of this paper,
the present study focuses on the relationship between contrastive analysis
(henceforth CA) and translation, i.e., how CA can serve translation and
how translation can serve CA.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to find the areas in which CA can
take benefit from translation and vice versa because this use is of a great
help for both fields.
The area whereby translation can make use of CA is the bilingual
grammars and bilingual dictionaries which can help translators to perform
the process of translation.
On the other hand, translation can serve CA by providing
contrastivists with the closest translation equivalences that meet their needs
in the two areas they are interested with, viz, comparison and
contrastiveness, i.e., arriving at similarities or constants and differences
between two or more languages respectively.
1. CA: Definitions and Aims
CA is a branch of linguistics "concerned with the comparison of two
or more languages in order to determine both the differences and
similarities between them" (Fisiac et al, 1978 as in Fisiak, 1981:1). The
writers, in this definition, refer to the similarities and differences which CA
is concerned with.
James (1980:3), on the other hand, maintains that CA deals with the
differences rather than similarities between languages by pointing out that
"CA is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e., contrastive
not comparative) two-valued typologies…and founded on the assumption

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬57 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
that languages can be compared". James, in this definition, differentiates
between "contrastive" and "comparative" since the former refers to the
differences and the latter to similarities.
Els et al (1984:38) say that CA is a "systematic comparison of
specific linguistic characteristics of two or more languages". It is of
concern to the present paper that CA contributes to translation theory by
showing, among other things, translational equivalence holding between a
sentence in one language and a sentence in another if each item of them is
an optimal translation of the other in a given context (ibid:40f).
Furthermore, CA provides insights into what is called language universals
and language specific characteristics. CA advocates (like Fries, 1945;
Lado, 1957; etc.) have claimed that CAs of all levels of structure will
enable specialists (e.g. teachers, textbook producers and translators) to
predict the areas of difficulty between the source language (SL) and the
target language (TL). This is, in turn, grants them the opportunity as how
to handle the thorny areas in teaching, textbook-designing and translation
(Schachter and Celce-Murica, 1980:120).
To carry out a contrastive study, one is required to adopt a certain
model for his/her analysis (i.e., traditional, structural, transformational or
functional). However, it is possible to execute a CA by putting the
description of the SL and that of the TL in juxtaposition. This is due to the
fact that the models already mentioned suffer from shortcomings. Thus,
James (1980:64) speaks of the possibility to describe Language 1 and
Language 2 independently… and then translate these two descriptions into
a form which is model-neutral.
Generally speaking, in CA, there should be at least two languages
involved, viz, L1 and L2 in the case of learning and SL and TL in case of
translation (ibid: 4).
2. Translation: Definitions and Concepts
The notion of "translation" has widely been the interest of many
scholars and linguists who do not unanimously agree on the definitions and
the types of what it refers to.
According to Catford (1965: 20), translation is defined as: the
replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual
material in another language (TL). Catford here emphasizes the concept of
equivalence in translation since it constitutes its cornerstone.
Nida and Taber (1969:12) believe that translation is concerned with
reproducing in the TL the closest natural equivalence of the SL, first in
terms of meaning and second in terms of style.
‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬58 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬
3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi

The above definition of translation is similar to that given by Savory

(1957: 34) who understands translation as a process which involves
transference of meaning and style of the SL text into TL text.
On his part, Newmark (1993:162) defines a good translation as typically a
translation where the meaning given to a text by its author is conveyed
appropriately and as accurately as possible.
Therefore, the purpose of translation consists in preserving the
element of "meaning" across two languages, but sometimes the process of
transferring meaning involves a certain amount of loss and gain. Newmark
(1982:7-8) maintains that the loss of meaning stems from many factors: the
first is cultural dissimilarities between SL and TL. Second, the SL and TL,
in context, have different lexical and grammatical structures as well as
pragmatic norms and segment many objects and concepts differently.
Third, the difference between the source author's style and that of the
translator. Lastly, the translator and the source author do not have the same
theories of meaning neither do they hold the same values which affect the
translator's interpretation of the text and then his translation.
On the other hand, Nida (1964:174) believes that the gain results
from the fact that if the message is to be meaningful, a certain number of
semantic elements must be added to provide the message with a relatively
equivalent "communication load", i.e., some redundant elements must be
built into message.
As a corollary, the most important thing in translation is to establish
equivalence in the TL, the absence of which may result in a kind of
paraphrase and not a translation at all.
3. CA and Translation
Since translation is one of the domains that CA is concerned with, it
seems quite relevant to give a clear account on the relation that holds
between the two approaches, especially when this relation is
interdependent.
3.1 How Can CA Serve Translation?
A translator can make use of CA to perform his/her work. To this
fact, Weise (1988: 189) confirms that "the data collected along the more
conventional, system oriented lines of research codified in bilingual
dictionaries and grammar books of various types, is of a great help to the
translator".

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬59 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
Weise here refers to two important sources upon which translator
rely in their translation: bilingual dictionaries and grammar books. On this
base the researcher will depend to show that these two sources are very
useful to the translator.
As a matter of fact, grammar consists of two main branches, viz,
morphology and syntax, and since morphology is related to words, the
researcher will deal with morphology and lexical items as one level, i.e.,
lexical level and the syntactic level will be dealt with as one separate
heading.
3.1.1 Lexical Level
Lexical level deals with words in isolation. The significance of
words comes from the fact that people's concern, when learning a foreign
language, is to learn words in order to be able to refer to things, ideas,
events. qualities and so on (Krzeszowski, 1981: 133).
Each language has its own systems of word formation that are
different from other languages. Thus, "lexical equivalence across
languages may display a large range of differences with respect to
particular means employed in the formation of words" (ibid: 137)… since,
for example, "a one morpheme word in one language may respond to a
compound word in another language or a complex word may correspond to
a simple word and so on, in all possible combinations (ibid).
Krzeszowski (ibid: 136-7) discusses some of the formal and semantic
properties of lexical units which can be the object of contrastive analysis
across languages. He (ibid) distinguishes five headings for these properties:
 One-morpheme words (simple words).
 Word formation.
 Phrase logical fusions, unities and collocations.
 Semantic relations.
 Emotive and stylistic charge.
Since it is difficult to deal with all of these properties in this paper, it
sounds relevant to deal with two of them, viz, word formation and one type
of semantic relation, which is polysemy, in order to show how they can
help the translator.
Word formation "involves derivation by means of affixation, back
formation, word composition, shortening, acronymy and such minor types
as sound interchange, distinctive stress and sound imitation" (Krzeszowski,
1981: 137).

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬60 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
As mentioned previously, the investigator may find a wide range of
differences concerning word formation in any pair of languages. For
example, the word 'foreign' in English is complex word (two morphemes)
whereas in Arabic it is a simple word (one morpheme) which is ‫أجىثي‬.
Polysemy, "the lexical item having more than one meaning" (Leech,
1974: 94), is one of the semantic relations. "The phenomenon of polysemy
is among the most crucial ones in lexical contrastive studies"
(Krzeszowski, 1981: 141). This is due to the fact that "polysemous items
constitute complicated networks of interconnections in any sizeable
bilingual dictionary: for every polysemous lexical item in L1, there exists a
set of equivalent items in L2, each such item having a set of equivalent
items in L1 (ibid). For example, the word "bank" in English has more than
three equivalent items in Arabic: ,‫ ضفح الىهر‬,‫ مىحذر مصرف‬etc.
As a result, the properties of lexical items are very important to the
translator in that these properties, when contrasted across languages, will
be of a great help to the translator.
3.1.2 Syntactic Level
This level is "concerned with the study of arrangement of words in
sentences and of the means by which relationships are shown (Hartman
and Stork, 1972: 231).Many contrastive studies have paid much attention
to this level, i.e., the elements of a sentence, especially to their form and
sometimes to their definition (Jakobsen and Oisen, 1988: 5).
Let us take some contrasted examples both in English and Arabic in
order to show how the work of CA is useful to the translator.
Passive voice, for instance, is of two kinds in English: agentive and
agentless whereas in Arabic, only one is recognized agentless (Aziz, 1989:
269).
When the translator comes up with the translation of passive voice,
for example, he will be quite aware of the kinds of passive voice of both
English and Arabic by consulting a bilingual grammar, e.g., English
1-The old man was helped by a young lady. (Agentive)
2- The letter will be posted tomorrow. (Agentless)
Arabic has no agentive passive; therefore, it is preferable to translate
the first English sentence into:
.‫ألرجل ألعجىز ساعذذه احذي الفرياخ‬
But not:
.‫ألرجل ألعجىز ذم مساعذذه مه قثل احذي الفرياخ‬
Sentence (2) is translated into:
‫سررسل الرسالح غذا‬
‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬61 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬
3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
The Arabic sentence here is agentless like the English one. It can be
noted that sentence (1), when translated into Arabic, becomes active not
passive.
Number, to take another example, in English distinguishes between
singular and plural whereas Arabic makes a three-way distinction: singular,
dual and plural (Aziz, 1989: 118), for example:
Book: books (SL) - (TL) ‫ كراتان و كرة‬:‫كراب‬
He (ibid) affirms that, in English, there is number agreement between
the subject and the verb: a singular subject takes a singular verb; a plural
subject takes a plural verb as in the following example:
The boy is reading.
The boys are reading.
But there is no such agreement between the noun head and the
modifying adjective:
The clever boy.
The clever boys.
He points out that number agreement is more complicated in Arabic
by saying that the verb is used in the singular if it precedes the subject:
‫االوالد‬/‫الىلذان‬/ ‫رهة الىلذ‬
But there is number agreement if the verb follows:
‫ الىلذ رهة‬/ ‫ الىلذان رهثا‬/ ‫االوالد رهثىا‬
There is also such agreement between the noun head and the
modifying adjective (ibid):
‫الىلذ العاقل‬/ ‫الفراج العاقلح‬
Thus, the translator can make use of such bilingual grammars and
bilingual dictionaries provided by contrastivists to do his/her work in the
field of translation. All these sources and data, altogether with the
translator's skill and intelligence, can make translation a complete and
successful work.
3.2 How Can Translation Serve CA?
Since CA is concerned with both similarities and differences
between languages (Fisiac et al, 1978 as in Fisiak, 1981: 1), it seems better
to consider on what criteria CA depends in these similarities and
differences. James (1980: 169) calls the former "constants" and the latter
"variables", confirming that in the theory of CA, the constant has been
known as the 'tertium comparationis' (ibid).
3.2.1 Criteria of Comparison
Three criteria of comparison have been proposed (ibid):

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬62 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
3.2.1.1 Surface Structure
Surface structure is "the relation which exists between elements of an
actually produced sentence as a result of the linear sequencing of these
elements" (Hartman and Stork, 1972: 227). Stockwell et al (1965: 2 as in
James, 1980: 169) mentions four such elements or devices:
 Word order.
 Intonation.
 Function words.
 Affixation.
James (ibid) points out that the scope of surface structure is limited if
these four were the only grammatical categories. He (ibid: 171) confirms
that "the main objection to using surface structure as the TC is that it leads
to interlingual equations that are superficial and insignificant". Therefore,
surface structure is an unsatisfactory TC.
3.2.1.2 Deep Structure
It is the grammatical relationship inherent in the elements of the
phrase or a sentence but not immediately apparent from their linear
sequence (Hartman and Stork, 1972, 58-9). James (1980:171) points out
that deep structure can be interlingual, i.e., language specific, and
interlingual, i.e., language independent as in:
The question is difficult to answer.
It is difficult to answer the question.
The two sentences above are intralingual paraphrase, whereas the
following two sentences are interlingual paraphrase:
The question is too difficult to answer.
‫السؤال اصعة مه ان يجاب عليه‬
Nevertheless, James (ibid) criticizes deep structure by saying
sentences of the same or of different languages with a common deep
structure are not necessarily communicatively equivalent, i.e., deep
structure conveys only ideational meaning and overlooks interpersonal and
textual meanings as Halliday (1970) calls them.
3.2.1.3 Translation Equivalence
The concept of "equivalence" is one of the cardinal and controversial
issues in the field of translation due to the fact that establishing
equivalence in the TL occupies the central basis in the process of
translation and the absence of which results in a kind of adaptation or
paraphrase in the TL and not a translation at all.

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬63 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
Catford (1965:49) holds that translation aims at reproducing in the
TL the closest equivalence of the ST. he went on saying that the general
condition for achieving equivalence is the relationship of the SL and TL
text or item to at least some of the same features of situation substance
(Ibid:50).
Translation equivalence is one of the most important and useful
criteria of comparison upon which contrastivists rely. Translation
equivalence is synonymous with the sameness of meaning. According to
this view, the contrastivists should equate pairs of sentences of L1 and L2
which "mean the same" (James, 1980: 175).
James (ibid) says that this definition leads to a problem on how to
determine whether an L1 and L2 sentences do mean the same. He (ibid)
believes that one way to define translation equivalence is in terms of deep
structure. Since deep structure is insufficient to be a good criterion of
comparison, i.e., it only conveys the ideational meaning, it is better to
adopt translation equivalence because "for two sentences from different
languages to translationally equivalent they must convey the same
ideational and the interpersonal and the textual meanings"(ibid: 178).
According to Halliday (1970:143), language has an ideational
function, i.e., it serves for the expression of one's experience of the world;
an interpersonal function, i.e., it serves for the expression of one's attitudes
and for the influence upon the behaviour of others; and a textual function,
i.e., it serves for the creation of texts.
For example, the English sentence:
Jack is a good friend.
may have its equivalent in Arabic as:
ٌ‫ق مخلص‬ ٌ ‫جاك صذي‬
Both L1 and L2 sentences have the same deep structure, but is the
Arabic sentence equivalent to the English one?
In order to achieve an optimal equivalence in the L2, the translator
cannot be satisfied with conveying ideational meaning only; he should look
for the context in which the L1 sentence was produced. Suppose that there
was a previous discussion before the L1 sentence was produced as in:
Tom: I went to Jack as you advised me.
John: Did he lend you the money you need?
Tom: Although he is rich, he did not help me. Jack is a good friend.
Here, Tom means exactly the opposite of what he said, i.e., irony.
Therefore, it is best translated into the opposite meaning. If we apply deep

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬64 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
structure to the L1 utterance, we will fail to achieve the intended meaning
by the speaker.
Furthermore, translation equivalence can help CA in the above
utterance by looking for the textual devices of this utterance like coherence
and cohesion.
By so doing, translation equivalence serves CA in achieving the
three functions of language mentioned above, which contrastivists need in
performing their work. For this reason, James (1980: 178) confirms that
translation equivalence is the best available TC for CA.
3.2.2 Criteria of Contrastiveness
In order to perform his work in contrastiveness, a contrastivists
"must choose what elements from each of the languages he is studying to
juxtapose to and contrast with specific elements from the others and he
must decide what sort of equivalence should exist between those elements.
His initial choice is based upon hypothesis that the two elements he selects
are equivalent in a sense important to his study" (Bouton, 1976: 144).
Bouton (ibid) adopts translation equivalence as the most widespread
criterion of contrastiveness "each element chosen is mutually translatable
… with those with which it is to be contrasted" (ibid).
Bouton (ibid) refers to four models of contrastiveness adopted by
some contrastivists relying on translation equivalence as an important
criterion in this process, but for the sake of brevity, one model will be
mentioned in order to show how translation equivalence is useful for CA:
viz, Harris' (1954) model of contrast.
Harris (1954: 267 as in Bouton, 1976: 144) introduces a transfer
relation between each sentences of A and its translation in B. This means
that each sentence in A was analyzed in terms of its differences from its
translation in B.
Let us take an example in which Harris' (ibid) model is applied to
show the importance of translation equivalence in contrastiveness:
I hear you have won the first prize. (A)
(B) .ً‫سمعد أوك رتحد ألجائسج أالول‬
(Aziz, 1989: 52), (A) and (B) are Harris' symbols.
Contrasting the two sentences, some differences are recognized
thanks to translation equivalence. For example, the word order of A is S
+V whereas that of B is V + S (S here is ‫)خ‬, A can express the perfective
aspect by its construction (S + have/has + P.P) whereas B expresses it by
the past simple tense since B has no present perfect like A. the adjective of
A is post-nominal whereas that of B is pre-nominal, and so on.
‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬65 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬
3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
Thus, translation equivalence proves its successfulness once again in
the domain of CA, without which the work of CA is incomplete and
ambiguous.

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬66 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
4. Conclusions
Having tackled the relationship between CA and translation, it can be
concluded that both CA and translation make use of each other in their
work.
Translation can make use of CA since the latter can provide the
former with many data that usefully help the translator. CA can provide the
translator with bilingual grammars and bilingual dictionaries that, to a
large extent, constitute a great pillar to the process of translation.
CA, on the other hand, can make use of translation in attempting to
find the optimal translation equivalence which can help it in the criteria of
comparison and contrast between two languages. Translation equivalence
has been proved to be the most important criterion upon which
contrastivists rely in performing their work.
By corollary, the relationship between CA and translation is a mutual
one to the extent that they cannot be dispensed with each other.
References
Aziz, Y.A. (1989). A Contrastive Grammar of English and Arabic.
University of Mosul.
Bouton, L.F. (1976). The Problem of Equivalence in Contrastive Analysis.
IRAL, vol. 14.
Catford, J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fisiak, J. (1981). Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher.
Pergamon Institute of English. Oxford. Pergamon Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). "Language Structure and Language Function" in
New Horizons in Linguistics, pp.140-165. Edited by John Lyons.
Harmondosworth: Penguin.
Hartmann, R.R.K. and Stork, F.C. (1972). Dictionary of Language and
Linguistics. London: Applied Science Publishers.
Jakobsen, L.F. and Oisen, J. (1988). "On Syntactic Levels-One Tertium
Comparison in Contrastive Linguistics". Papers and Studies in
Contrastive Linguistics. vol. 22.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Longman Group Ltd.
Krzeszowski, T.P. (1981). "What do we need Lexical Contrastive Studies
for". Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, vol. 13.
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Penguin. Nida, E. and Taber, C. (1969). The
Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J.Brill.

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬67 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬
Interdependent Relationship Between Contrastive Analysis And
Translation ………………………………………….….Dr. Samir Salih Mehdi
Weise, G. (1988). "Contrastive Studies and the Problem of Equivalence in
Translation". Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, vol.22.

‫ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬ ‫ ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬68 ‫مجلةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة ل ةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةةة‬

3122 ‫عدد سبعون‬