Translation

Translation – came from the Latin “translatio”
(to carry across), an adaptation from the
Greek’s concept of “metaphrasis” (word-forword or literal) vs. “paraphrasis” (saying in
other word). In linguistic approach, these
terms are tantamount to formal equivalence
vs. dynamic equivalence.
In usage, verbatim translation is imperfect
for words can carry multiple meaning but
both are considered as ideals and possible
approaches in the process of translation.

General Purposes of Translation
1.
Retrieval of lost information
2.
Understanding of the Universal Truth
3.
Sharing of beliefs
4.
Understanding and appreciation of
culture
5.
Bridging cultural barrier
6.
Advancement in human achievement
7.
Addressing social needs
8.
Social Empowerment
9.
Binding nations
10. Neo-culture development

Language Interpretation
General Definition

Language interpretation refers to the process
of providing ease of understanding between
users of language of origin and target
language. This could take the form of signlanguage,
oral
interpretation
or
technologically-assisted programs.
Interpreting refers to the actual process of
providing ease of understanding from one
language form into its actual or approximate
equivalent. Interpretation pertains to the
output of interpreting one language to
another form (speech, signals, text, etc.)
Interpreter assumes the position of the
person who converts thoughts or expression
of a language form and defines its equivalent
to target language.
Equivalence in interpretation refers to
linguistic, emotional, tonal and cultural
parallel meaning of a language format with
the target language.
General Contrast
Interpretation
Takes
a
message
from
a
source
language
and
renders
that
message
into
a
different
target
language.

Translation
Transfers
the
meaning
of
a
language format from
text to text

Interpreters take in a
complex
concept
from one language,
choose
the
most
appropriate
vocabulary in the
target language to
faithfully render the
message
in
equivalent idea.

With
ample
time,
translators
use
external
resources
(dictionaries,
thesaurus, glossaries,
etc.)
to
faithfully
transfer the source
language into the
target language to
produce
accurate
documents
or
artifacts.

Does
not
use Attempts
to
verbatim in process
reproduce
source
language in its exact
equivalents of the
target language
Call for accuracy is Uses revisions and
instantaneous as the editing techniques to
process is actual and attain accuracy
immediate
(extempore,
consecutive,
chuchotage,
relay,
liaison)

Modes of Language Interpretation
Simultaneous (extempore) - interpreter
renders the message in the target language
as quickly as he can formulating from the
source
language
while
the
source
continuously provides input.
Consecutive interpretation (CI) - interpreter
renders the message into the target
language after the source stopped provided
the information. The interpreter relies on
memory and sometimes uses memory aids
to render long passages. Sight translation refers to the process of transfering the
language as he sees it and usually done for
legal or medical documents. Could also be
classified as partial or full consequtive
interpretation.
Whispered - interpreter sits or stands next to
the small target-language group and
simultaneously interprets information coming
from the source language.
Relay -usually used when there are several
target
languages.
A
source-language
interpreter interprets the text to a language
common to every interpreter, who then
render the message to their respective
target languages.
Liaison - involves passing on the message
through relay, between two or more,
consecutively with the assistance of short
notes as memory aid.
Technical Translation
A technical translation refers to the need for
specialist translators due to the use of
uncommon vocabulary in a text. Topics such
as medicine, finance, law, engineering,
software, manuals, etc would all be
considered as technical. These fields usually
contain big amount of specific circumstances
or ways to describe situations from the
subject and also contain high amount of
jargon, words that are used (almost) only
within that specific technical field.
Technical translation can also be defined as
the translation of technical writing (owner's
manuals, user guides, etc.), or more
specifically, texts that contain a high degree
of technical or specialized terminology, that
is, words or phrases that are virtually used
only within a specific profession, or describe
that profession in great detail. Technical
translation covers the translation of many
kinds of specialized texts which requires a

high level of subject knowledge and mastery
of the relevant terminology.
In
general,
technical
translation
and
language translation contrast in many ways.
One of the differences would be the subject
of their focus – technical translation focus on
easing the understanding of particular
jargons used while language translation finds
a way to convert the language format into
another language format as a whole.
Technical translation may use similar
language format for the origin language and
the target language but concentration would
be on the set of language use in
understanding the literature. It is also
interesting to note that language translation
uses text-to-text format while technical
translation uses the process of explaining the
details if actual equivalent is not available.
As previously defined, translation refers to
the process of giving target language
equivalent to the language of origin. The
same process is being applied in technical
translation as the translators attempt to
produce actual equivalent or approximate
equivalent through explanation of the source
language into the target language format.
Literal Translation
Literal translation – transference of one
language format to another following the
form of the source language and using the
‘verbum pro verbo’ principle. This is also
known
as
metaphrase
process
and
commonly used in technical translation and
legal annotation conversions to preserve the
original format of the text undermining the
context of the original text.
In the light of contextual aspect, literal
translation can be considered as erroneous
since it does not carry the register of the
source language.
As for usage, literal translation can be a very
useful tool for translation preparation as it
serves as a foundation in translating
unfamiliar language format.
In communication, literal translation is
currently being used in the form of machine
translation. One the most common example
of these would be internet translators (i.e.
babelfish,
google
translate,
microsofttranslator,
freetranslation,
worldlingo, etc.)
Without the tweaking process
translators, machine translation
misleading and sometimes totally
The common result of this would
or translation with reference to

of human
could be
erroneous.
be pidgins
the target

language’s native format and mistranslations
that contextually unacceptable.
Legal Translation Overview
By nature, legal translation is a delicate
process that only professional translators
commissioned by the court should handle
the process. Laws are culturally subjective
and require expertise in understanding
passages of documents that are legal in
nature.
In the international law, legal translation
follows the following general rules:
1.
Legal system of the source language
must suit the culture of the language format
and reflective of the legal language
2.
The translation should be read by
someone who is well-versed with the other
legal system where the translation was
prepared
3.
Proper documentation of the
translation is required such as certificate of
accuracy, witness statement, court orders,
immigration documents, labels and other
related documents.
Since legal translation is culture-based, the
process is lexis dependent and must be
structure base on the linguistics standards
which is generally accepted to produce
formal and legal equivalence of the target
language.
Some examples of legal translations are
contracts, international court decisions and
proceedings, safety precaution instructions,
flight transactions, import/export laws,
international transactions, etc.

have to look for an equivalent term in a
similar situation and use the expression
Échantillon gratuit(ibid.:256).
Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in
difference
Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave
new impetus to the theoretical analysis of
translation since he introduced the notion of
'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of
his semiotic approach to language and his
aphorism 'there is no signatum without
signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds
of translation:
Intralingual (within one language, i.e.
rewording or paraphrase)
Interlingual (between two languages)
Intersemiotic (between sign systems)
Principles of Translation
Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of
equivalence in translation
Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalenceoriented translation as a procedure which
'replicates the same situation as in the
original, whilst using completely different
wording' (ibid.:342). They also suggest that,
if this procedure is applied during the
translation process, it can maintain the
stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text.
According to them, equivalence is therefore
the ideal method when the translator has to
deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal
or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia
of animal sounds.
With regard to equivalent expressions
between
language
pairs,
Vinay
and
Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as
long as they are listed in a bilingual
dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255).
However, later they note that glossaries and
collections of idiomatic expressions 'can
never be exhaustive' (ibid.:256). They
conclude by saying that 'the need for
creating equivalences arises from the
situation, and it is in the situation of the SL
text that translators have to look for a
solution' (ibid.: 255). Indeed, they argue that
even if the semantic equivalent of an
expression in the SL text is quoted in a
dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and
it does not guarantee a successful
translation. They provide a number of
examples to prove their theory, and the
following expression appears in their list:
Take one is a fixed expression which would
have as an equivalent French translation
Prenez-en un. However, if the expression
appeared as a notice next to a basket of free
samples in a large store, the translator would

Jakobson claims that, in the case of
interlingual translation, the translator makes
use of synonyms in order to get the ST
message across. This means that in
interlingual translations there is no full
equivalence between code units. According
to his theory, 'translation involves two
equivalent messages in two different codes'
(ibid.:233). Jakobson goes on to say that from
a grammatical point of view languages may
differ from one another to a greater or lesser
degree, but this does not mean that a
translation cannot be possible, in other
words, that the translator may face the
problem of not finding a translation
equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever
there is deficiency, terminology may be
qualified and amplified by loanwords or loantranslations, neologisms or semantic shifts,
and finally, by circumlocutions' (ibid.:234).
Jakobson provides a number of examples by
comparing English and Russian language
structures and explains that in such cases
where there is no a literal equivalent for a
particular ST word or sentence, then it is up
to the translator to choose the most suitable
way to render it in the TT.
There seems to be some similarity between
Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of translation
procedures and Jakobson's theory of
translation. Both theories stress the fact that,
whenever a linguistic approach is no longer
suitable to carry out a translation, the
translator can rely on other procedures such
as loan-translations, neologisms and the like.
Both theories recognize the limitations of a
linguistic theory and argue that a translation
can never be impossible since there are
several methods that the translator can
choose. The role of the translator as the
person who decides how to carry out the
translation is emphasized in both theories.
Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson

conceive the translation task as something
which can always be carried out from one
language to another, regardless of the
cultural or grammatical differences between
ST and TT.
It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is
essentially based on his semiotic approach to
translation according to which the translator
has to recode the ST message first and then
s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent
message for the TC.
Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and
dynamic equivalence
Nida argued that there are two different
types of equivalence, namely formal
equivalence—which in the second edition by
Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as
formal
correspondence—and
dynamic
equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses
attention on the message itself, in both form
and content', unlike dynamic equivalence
which is based upon 'the principle of
equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the second
edition (1982) or their work, the two
theorists provide a more detailed explanation
of each type of equivalence.
Formal correspondence consists of a TL item
which represents the closest equivalent of a
SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it
clear that there are not always formal
equivalents between language pairs. They
therefore
suggest
that
these
formal
equivalents should be used wherever
possible if the translation aims at achieving
formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The
use of formal equivalents might at times
have serious implications in the TT since the
translation will not be easily understood by
the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida
and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically,
formal
correspondence
distorts
the
grammatical and stylistic patterns of the
receptor language, and hence distorts the
message, so as to cause the receptor to
misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'
(ibid.:201).
Dynamic equivalence is defined as a
translation principle according to which a
translator seeks to translate the meaning of
the original in such a way that the TL
wording will trigger the same impact on the
TC audience as the original wording did upon
the
ST
audience.
They
argue
that
'Frequently, the form of the original text is
changed; but as long as the change follows
the rules of back transformation in the
source language, of contextual consistency
in the transfer, and of transformation in the
receptor language, the message is preserved
and the translation is faithful' (Nida and
Taber, 1982:200).

One can easily see that Nida is in favour of
the application of dynamic equivalence, as a
more effective translation procedure. This is
perfectly understandable if we take into
account the context of the situation in which
Nida was dealing with the translation
phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of
the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation
process, that is the text in the TL, must have
the same impact on the different readers it
was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's
edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic
equivalence in translation is far more than
mere correct communication of information'
(ibid:25).
Despite using a linguistic approach to
translation, Nida is much more interested in
the message of the text or, in other words, in
its semantic quality. He therefore strives to
make sure that this message remains clear in
the target text.
Catford and the introduction of translation
shifts
Catford's approach to translation equivalence
clearly differs from that adopted by Nida
since Catford had a preference for a more
linguistic-based approach to translation and
this approach is based on the linguistic work
of Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in
the field of translation theory is the
introduction of the concepts of types and
shifts of translation. Catford proposed very
broad types of translation in terms of three
criteria:
The extent of translation (full translation vs
partial translation);
The grammatical rank at which the
translation equivalence is established (rankbound translation vs.unbounded translation);
The levels of language involved in translation
(total translation vs. restricted translation).
We will refer only to the second type of
translation, since this is the one that
concerns the concept of equivalence, and we
will then move on to analyze the notion of
translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford,
which are based on the distinction between
formal
correspondence
and
textual
equivalence. In rank-bound translation an
equivalent is sought in the TL for each word,
or for each morpheme encountered in the ST.
In unbounded translation equivalences are
not tied to a particular rank, and we may
additionally find equivalences at sentence,
clause and other levels. Catford finds five of
these ranks or levels in both English and
French, while in the Caucasian language
Kabardian there are apparently only four.

Thus, a formal correspondence could be said
to exist between English and French if
relations between ranks have approximately
the same configuration in both languages, as
Catford claims they do.
One
of
the
problems
with
formal
correspondence is that, despite being a
useful tool to employ in comparative
linguistics, it seems that it is not really
relevant in terms of assessing translation
equivalence between ST and TT. For this
reason we now turn to Catford's other
dimension
of
correspondence,
namely
textual equivalence which occurs when any
TL text or portion of text is 'observed on a
particular occasion ... to be the equivalent of
a given SL text or portion of text' (ibid.:27).
He implements this by a process of
commutation,
whereby
'a
competent
bilingual informant or translator' is consulted
on the translation of various sentences
whose ST items are changed in order to
observe 'what changes if any occur in the TL
text as a consequence' (ibid.:28).
As far as translation shifts are concerned,
Catford defines them as 'departures from
formal correspondence in the process of
going from the SL to the TL' (ibid.:73).
Catford argues that there are two main types
of translation shifts, namely level shifts,
where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g.
grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different
level (e.g. lexis), and category shifts which
are divided into four types:
Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical
change between the structure of the ST and
that of the TT;
Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated
with a TL item which belongs to a different
grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be
translated with a noun;
Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL
and TL possess systems which approximately
correspond formally as to their constitution,
but when translation involves selection of a
non-corresponding term in the TL system'
(ibid.:80). For instance, when the SL singular
becomes a TL plural.
Catford was very much criticized for his
linguistic theory of translation. One of the
most scathing criticisms came from SnellHornby (1988), who argued that Catford's
definition of textual equivalence is 'circular',
his theory's reliance on bilingual informants
'hopelessly inadequate', and his example
sentences 'isolated and even absurdly
simplistic' (ibid.:19-20). She considers the
concept of equivalence in translation as
being an illusion. She asserts that the
translation process cannot simply be reduced
to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford

for instance, since there are also other
factors, such as textual, cultural and
situational aspects, which should be taken
into consideration when translating. In other
words, she does not believe that linguistics is
the only discipline which enables people to
carry out a translation, since translating
involves different cultures and different
situations at the same time and they do not
always match from one language to another.
House and the elaboration of overt and
covert translation
House (1977) is in favour of semantic and
pragmatic equivalence and argues that ST
and TT should match one another in function.
House suggests that it is possible to
characterize the function of a text by
determining thesituational dimensions of the
ST.* In fact, according to her theory, every
text is in itself is placed within a particular
situation which has to be correctly identified
and taken into account by the translator.
After the ST analysis, House is in a position
to evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT
differ substantially on situational features,
then they are not functionally equivalent,
and the translation is not of a high quality. In
fact, she acknowledges that 'a translation
text should not only match its source text in
function, but employ equivalent situationaldimensional means to achieve that function'
(ibid.:49).
Central to House's discussion is the concept
of overt and covert translations. In an overt
translation the TT audience is not directly
addressed and there is therefore no need at
all to attempt to recreate a 'second original'
since an overt translation 'must overtly be a
translation' (ibid.:189). By covert translation,
on the other hand, is meant the production
of a text which is functionally equivalent to
the ST. House also argues that in this type of
translation the ST 'is not specifically
addressed to a TC audience' (ibid.:194).
House (ibid.:203) sets out the types of ST
that would probably yield translations of the
two categories. An academic article, for
instance, is unlikely to exhibit any features
specific to the SC; the article has the same
argumentative or expository force that it
would if it had originated in the TL, and the
fact that it is a translation at all need not be
made known to the readers. A political
speech in the SC, on the other hand, is
addressed to a particular cultural or national
group which the speaker sets out to move to
action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT
merely informs outsiders what the speaker is
saying to his or her constituency. It is clear
that in this latter case, which is an instance
of overt translation, functional equivalence
cannot be maintained, and it is therefore

intended that the ST and the TT function
differently.
House's theory of equivalence in translation
seems to be much more flexible than
Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic
examples, uses complete texts and, more
importantly, she relates linguistic features to
the context of both source and target text.
Baker's approach to translation equivalence
New adjectives have been assigned to the
notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual,
pragmatic equivalence, and several others)
and made their appearance in the plethora
of recent works in this field. An extremely
interesting discussion of the notion of
equivalence can be found in Baker (1992)
who seems to offer a more detailed list of
conditions upon which the concept of
equivalence can be defined. She explores the
notion of equivalence at different levels, in
relation to the translation process, including
all different aspects of translation and hence
putting together the linguistic and the
communicative approach. She distinguishes
between:
Equivalence that can appear at word level
and above word level, when translating from
one
language
into
another.
Baker
acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach
to translation, equivalence at word level is
the first element to be taken into
consideration by the translator. In fact, when
the translator starts analyzing the ST s/he
looks at the words as single units in order to
find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL.
Baker gives a definition of the term word
since it should be remembered that a single
word can sometimes be assigned different
meanings in different languages and might
be regarded as being a more complex unit or
morpheme.This means that the translator
should pay attention to a number of factors
when considering a single word, such as
number, gender and tense (ibid.:11-12).
Grammatical equivalence, when referring to
the diversity of grammatical categories
across
languages.
She
notes
that
grammatical
rules
may
vary
across
languages and this may pose some problems
in terms of finding a direct correspondence in
the TL. In fact, she claims that different
grammatical structures in the SL and TL may
cause remarkable changes in the way the
information or message is carried across.
These changes may induce the translator
either to add or to omit information in the TT
because of the lack of particular grammatical
devices in the TL itself. Amongst these
grammatical devices which might cause
problems in translation Baker focuses on
number, tense and aspects, voice, person
and gender.

Textual equivalence, when referring to the
equivalence between a SL text and a TL text
in terms of information and cohesion. Texture
is a very important feature in translation
since it provides useful guidelines for the
comprehension and analysis of the ST which
can help the translator in his or her attempt
to produce a cohesive and coherent text for
the TC audience in a specific context. It is up
to the translator to decide whether or not to
maintain the cohesive ties as well as the
coherence of the SL text. His or her decision
will be guided by three main factors, that is,
the target audience, the purpose of the
translation and the text type.
Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to
implicatures and strategies of avoidance
during the translation process. Implicature is
not about what is explicitly said but what is
implied. Therefore, the translator needs to
work out implied meanings in translation in
order to get the ST message across. The role
of the translator is to recreate the author's
intention in another culture in such a way
that enables the TC reader to understand it
clearly.

Translation procedures, strategies and
methods
by Mahmoud Ordudari
Abstract
Translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs)
in general and allusions in particular seem to
be one of the most challenging tasks to be
performed by a translator; in other words,
allusions are potential problems of the
translation process due to the fact that
allusions have particular connotations and
implications in the source language (SL) and
the foreign culture (FC) but not necessarily in
the TL and the domestic culture. There are
some
procedures
and
strategies
for
rendering CSCs and allusions respectively.
The present paper aims at scrutinizing
whether there exists any point of similarity
between these procedures and strategies
and to identify which of these procedures
and strategies seem to be more effective
than the others.
Keywords: Allusion, culture-specific concept,
proper name, SL, TL.

1. Introduction
ranslation typically has been used to
transfer written or spoken SL texts to
equivalent written or spoken TL texts. In
general, the purpose of translation is to
reproduce various kinds of texts—including
religious,
literary,
scientific,
and
philosophical texts—in another language and
thus making them available to wider readers.
If language were just a classification for a set
of general or universal concepts, it would be
easy to translate from an SL to a TL;
furthermore, under the circumstances the
process of learning an L2 would be much
easier than it actually is. In this regard, Culler
(1976) believes that languages are not
nomenclatures and the concepts of one
language may differ radically from those of
another, since each language articulates or

organizes
the
world
differently,
and
languages do not simply name categories;
they articulate their own (p.21-2). The
conclusion likely to be drawn from what
Culler (1976) writes is that one of the
troublesome problems of translation is the
disparity among languages. The bigger the
gap between the SL and the TL, the more
difficult the transfer of message from the
former to the latter will be.

consciousness
is
what
distinguishes
strategies from these processes that are not
strategic."

The difference between an SL and a TL and
the variation in their cultures make the
process of translating a real challenge.
Among the problematic factors involved in
translation such as form, meaning, style,
proverbs, idioms, etc., the present paper is
going to concentrate mainly on the
procedures of translating CSCs in general
and on the strategies of rendering allusions
in particular.

Venuti (1998:240) indicates that translation
strategies "involve the basic tasks of
choosing the foreign text to be translated
and developing a method to translate it." He
employs the concepts of domesticating and
foreignizing to refer to translation strategies.

2. Translation procedures, strategies and
methods
The translating procedures, as depicted by
Nida (1964) are as follow:
Technical procedures:
analysis of the source and target languages;
a through study of the source language text
before making attempts translate it;
Making judgments of the semantic and
syntactic approximations. (pp. 241-45)
Organizational procedures:
constant reevaluation of the attempt made;
contrasting it with the existing available
translations of the same text done by other
translators,
and
checking
the
text's
communicative effectiveness by asking the
target language readers to evaluate its
accuracy and effectiveness and studying
their reactions (pp. 246-47).
Krings (1986:18) defines translation strategy
as "translator's potentially conscious plans
for solving concrete translation problems in
the framework of a concrete translation
task," and Seguinot (1989) believes that
there are at least three global strategies
employed by the translators: (i) translating
without interruption for as long as possible;
(ii) correcting surface errors immediately; (iii)
leaving the monitoring for qualitative or
stylistic errors in the text to the revision
stage.
Moreover,
Loescher
(1991:8)
defines
translation strategy as "a potentially
conscious procedure for solving a problem
faced in translating a text, or any segment of
it." As it is stated in this definition, the notion
of
consciousness
is
significant
in
distinguishing strategies which are used by
the learners or translators. In this regard,
Cohen (1998:4) asserts that "the element of

Furthermore, Bell (1998:188) differentiates
between global (those dealing with whole
texts) and local (those dealing with text
segments) strategies and confirms that this
distinction results from various kinds of
translation problems.

Jaaskelainen (1999:71) considers strategy as,
"a series of competencies, a set of steps or
processes that favor the acquisition, storage,
and/or utilization of information." He
maintains that strategies are "heuristic and
flexible in nature, and their adoption implies
a decision influenced by amendments in the
translator's objectives."
Taking into account the process and product
of translation, Jaaskelainen (2005) divides
strategies into two major categories: some
strategies relate to what happens to texts,
while other strategies relate to what happens
in the process.
Product-related strategies, as Jaaskelainen
(2005:15) writes, involves the basic tasks of
choosing the SL text and developing a
method to translate it. However, she
maintains that process-related strategies
"are a set of (loosely formulated) rules or
principles which a translator uses to reach
the goals determined by the translating
situation" (p.16). Moreover, Jaaskelainen
(2005:16) divides this into two types, namely
global strategies and local strategies: "global
strategies refer to general principles and
modes of action and local strategies refer to
specific activities in relation to the
translator's problem-solving and decisionmaking."
Newmark (1988b) mentions the difference
between translation methods and translation
procedures.
He
writes
that,
"[w]hile
translation methods relate to whole texts,
translation
procedures
are
used
for
sentences and the smaller units of language"
(p.81). He goes on to refer to the following
methods of translation:
Word-for-word translation: in which the SL
word order is preserved and the words
translated singly by their most common
meanings, out of context.
Literal translation: in which the SL
grammatical constructions are converted to

their nearest TL equivalents, but the lexical
words are again translated singly, out of
context.
Faithful translation: it attempts to produce
the precise contextual meaning of the
original within the constraints of the TL
grammatical structures.
Semantic translation: which differs from
'faithful translation' only in as far as it must
take more account of the aesthetic value of
the SL text.
Adaptation: which is the freest form of
translation, and is used mainly for plays
(comedies)
and
poetry;
the
themes,
characters, plots are usually preserved, the
SL culture is converted to the TL culture and
the text is rewritten.
Free translation: it produces the TL text
without the style, form, or content of the
original.
Idiomatic translation: it reproduces the
'message' of the original but tends to distort
nuances
of
meaning
by
preferring
colloquialisms and idioms where these do not
exist in the original.
Communicative translation: it attempts to
render the exact contextual meaning of the
original in such a way that both content and
language are readily acceptable and
comprehensible to the readership (1988b:
45-47).
Newmark (1991:10-12) writes of a continuum
existing
between
"semantic"
and
"communicative" translation. Any translation
can be "more, or less semantic—more, or
less, communicative—even a particular
section or sentence can be treated more
communicatively or less semantically." Both
seek an "equivalent effect."
Zhongying (1994: 97), who prefers literal
translation to free translation, writes that,
"[i]n China, it is agreed by many that one
should translate literally, if possible, or
appeal to free translation."

2.1. Procedures of translating culturespecific concepts (CSCs)
Graedler
(2000:3)
puts
forth
procedures of translating CSCs:

some

-Making up a new word.
In order to clarify the distinction between
procedure and strategy, the forthcoming
section is allotted to discussing the
procedures of translating culture-specific
terms, and strategies for rendering allusions
will be explained in detail.

-Explaining the meaning of the SL expression
in lieu of translating it.
-Preserving the SL term intact.
-Opting for a word in the TL which seems
similar to or has the same "relevance" as the
SL term.
Defining culture-bound terms (CBTs) as the
terms which "refer to concepts, institutions
and personnel which are specific to the SL
culture" (p.2), Harvey (2000:2-6) puts

forward the following four major techniques
for translating CBTs:

their common and then their differing sense
components." (Newmark, 1988b:114)

1. Functional Equivalence: It means using a
referent in the TL culture whose function is
similar to that of the source language (SL)
referent. As Harvey (2000:2) writes, authors
are divided over the merits of this technique:
Weston (1991:23) describes it as "the ideal
method of translation," while Sarcevic
(1985:131) asserts that it is "misleading and
should be avoided."

7. Synonymy: it is a "near TL equivalent."
Here economy trumps accuracy. (Newmark,
1988b:84)

2.
Formal
equivalence':
translation.

9. Shifts or transpositions: it involves a
change in the grammar from SL to TL, for
instance, (i) change from singular to plural,
(ii) the change required when a specific SL
structure does not exist in the TL, (iii) change
of an SL verb to a TL word, change of an SL
noun group to a TL noun and so forth.
(Newmark, 1988b:86)

Equivalence
It means a

or
'linguistic
'word-for-word'

3.
Transcription
or
'borrowing'
(i.e.
reproducing
or,
where
necessary,
transliterating the original term): It stands at
the far end of SL-oriented strategies. If the
term is formally transparent or is explained
in the context, it may be used alone. In other
cases, particularly where no knowledge of
the SL by the reader is presumed,
transcription
is
accompanied
by
an
explanation or a translator's note.
4. Descriptive or self-explanatory translation:
It uses generic terms (not CBTs) to convey
the meaning. It is appropriate in a wide
variety of contexts where formal equivalence
is considered insufficiently clear. In a text
aimed at a specialized reader, it can be
helpful to add the original SL term to avoid
ambiguity.
The following are the different translation
procedures that Newmark (1988b) proposes:
1. Transference: it is the process of
transferring an SL word to a TL text. It
includes transliteration and is the same as
what Harvey (2000:5) named "transcription."
2. Naturalization: it adapts the SL word first
to the normal pronunciation, then to the
normal morphology of the TL. (Newmark,
1988b:82)
3. Cultural equivalent: it means replacing a
cultural word in the SL with a TL one.
however, "they are not accurate" (Newmark,
1988b:83)
4. Functional equivalent: it requires the use
of a culture-neutral word. (Newmark,
1988b:83)
5. Descriptive equivalent: in this procedure
the meaning of the CBT is explained in
several words. (Newmark, 1988b:83)
6.
Componential
analysis:
it
means
"comparing an SL word with a TL word which
has a similar meaning but is not an obvious
one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating first

8. Through-translation: it is the literal
translation of common collocations, names of
organizations
and
components
of
compounds. It can also be called: calque or
loan translation. (Newmark, 1988b:84)

10. Modulation: it occurs when the translator
reproduces the message of the original text
in the TL text in conformity with the current
norms of the TL, since the SL and the TL may
appear dissimilar in terms of perspective.
(Newmark, 1988b:88)
11. Recognized translation: it occurs when
the translator "normally uses the official or
the generally accepted translation of any
institutional term." (Newmark, 1988b:89)
12. Compensation: it occurs when loss of
meaning in one part of a sentence is
compensated in another part. (Newmark,
1988b:90)
13. Paraphrase: in this procedure the
meaning of the CBT is explained. Here the
explanation is much more detailed than that
of
descriptive
equivalent.
(Newmark,
1988b:91)
14. Couplets: it occurs when the translator
combines
two
different
procedures.
(Newmark, 1988b:91)
15. Notes: notes are additional information in
a translation. (Newmark, 1988b:91)
Notes can appear in the form of 'footnotes.'
Although some stylists consider a translation
sprinkled with footnotes terrible with regard
to appearance, nonetheless, their use can
assist the TT readers to make better
judgments of the ST contents. Nida
(1964:237-39)
advocates
the
use
of
footnotes to fulfill at least the two following
functions: (i) to provide supplementary
information, and (ii) to call attention to the
original's discrepancies.
A really troublesome area in the field of
translation appears to be the occurrence of
allusions, which seem to be culture-specific

portions of a SL. All kinds of allusions,
especially cultural and historical allusions,
bestow a specific density on the original
language and need to be explicated in the
translation to bring forth the richness of the
SL text for the TL audience.
Appearing abundantly in literary translations,
allusions, as Albakry (2004:3) points out,
"are part of the prior cultural knowledge
taken for granted by the author writing for a
predominantly Moslem Arab [SL] audience.
To give the closest approximation of the
source language, therefore, it was necessary
to opt for 'glossing' or using explanatory
footnotes." However, somewhere else he
claims that, "footnotes ... can be rather
intrusive, and therefore, their uses were
minimized as much as possible" (Albakry,
2004:4).
2.2. Strategies of translating allusions
Proper names, which are defined by Richards
(1985:68) as "names of a particular person,
place or thing" and are spelled "with a
capital letter," play an essential role in a
literary work. For instance let us consider
personal PNs. They may refer to the setting,
social status and nationality of characters,
and really demand attention when rendered
into a foreign language.
There are some models for rendering PNs in
translations. One of these models is
presented by Hervey and Higgins (1986) who
believe that there exist two strategies for
translating PNs. They point out: "either the
name can be taken over unchanged from the
ST to the TT, or it can be adopted to conform
to the phonic/graphic conventions of the TL"
(p.29).
Hervey and Higgins (1986) refer to the
former as exotism which "is tantamount to
literal translation, and involves no cultural
transposition" (p.29), and the latter as
transliteration.
However,
they
propose
another procedure or alternative, as they put
it, namely cultural transplantation. Being
considered as "the extreme degree of
cultural
transposition,"
cultural
transplantation is considered to be a
procedure in which "SL names are replaced
by indigenous TL names that are not their
literal equivalents, but have similar cultural
connotations" (Hervey & Higgins, 1986:29).
Regarding the translation of PNs, Newmark
(1988a:214) asserts that, "normally, people's
first and sure names are transferred, thus
preserving nationality and assuming that
their names have no connotations in the
text."

The procedure of transference cannot be
asserted to be effective where connotations
and implied meanings are significant.
Indeed, there are some names in the Persian
poet Sa'di's work Gulestan, which bear
connotations and require a specific strategy
for being translated. Newmark's (1988a:215)
solution of the mentioned problem is as
follows: "first translate the word that
underlies the SL proper name into the TL,
and then naturalize the translated word back
into a new SL proper name." However, there
is a shortcoming in the strategy in question.
As it seems it is only useful for personal PNs,
since as Newmark (1988a:215), ignoring the
right of not educated readers to enjoy a
translated text, states, it can be utilized
merely "when the character's name is not
yet current amongst an educated TL
readership."
Leppihalme (1997:79) proposes another set
of strategies for translating the proper name
allusions:
1. Retention of the name:
- using the name as such.
- using the name, adding some guidance.
- using the name, adding a detailed
explanation, for instance, a footnote.
2. Replacement of the name by another:
- replacing the name by another SL name.
- replacing the name by a TL name
3. Omission of the name:
- omitting the name, but transferring the
sense by other means, for instance by a
common noun.
- omitting the name and the allusion
together.
Moreover, nine strategies for the translation
of key-phrase allusions are proposed by
Leppihalme (1997: 82) as follows:
1. Use of a standard translation,
2. Minimum change, that is, a literal
translation, without regard to connotative or
contextual meaning,
3. Extra allusive guidance added in the text,
4. The use of footnotes, endnotes,
translator's
notes
and
other
explicit
explanations not supplied in the text but
explicitly given as additional information,
5. Stimulated familiarity or internal marking,
that is, the addition of intra-allusive allusion ,
6. Replacement by a TL item,
7. Reduction of the allusion to sense by
rephrasing,

8. Re-creation, using a fusion of techniques:
creative construction of a passage which
hints at the connotations of the allusion or
other special effects created by it,
9. Omission of the allusion.

Guidelines for Editing Translations
By Wendy Griswold
One of the most important things to
remember in editing a translation is to do no
harm. If it is not broken, do not fix it.
With this in mind, I have developed the
following guidelines on the basis of others’
edits of my work and feedback I have
received about my own edits. Let me be the
first to acknowledge that they are subjective.
I hope they will generate some fruitful
discussion and perhaps provide a basis from
which each of us can take a fresh look at
some of our own practices.
1. Be very careful about making universal
changes. You may have a good reason for
changing “contract” to “agreement,” but
before you implement that “universal search
and replace” you must go through every
instance of “contract” to make sure you are
not adding awkward phrases, such as “it has
been agreed in the agreement,” and that you
are not going to end up with phrases such as
“the agreementing process.”
2. Talk to yourself. Take this one as literally as
is comfortable for you. I keep notes as I
move through a document and justify my
edits. I am probably justified in changing
“personnel” to “staff” if that is what the
translator has been using all along, except
for one instance. But am I comfortable that
he or she did not use “personnel” here in
order to avoid some awkward construction or
excessive repetition of the same word or
phrase?
3. Write a memo. This is especially important
if you have found serious issues with the
translation you are editing. Take that
conversation you had with yourself back in
point 2 and commit it to paper. The client
wants to know, and the translator deserves
to know, where you found fault.
4. Never guess. I have seen editors get into
trouble by not checking the dictionary. For
example, they will delete the correct
translation of radiodifusión as “broadcasting”

and change it to what they perceive as the
closest cognate: “radio broadcasting”—
which, according to my copy of the Oxford
Spanish Dictionary, would be incorrect.
Likewise, you may want to check with the
translator on where he or she found the
translation for a given term. Often the
translator is right on target. Sometimes he or
she is guessing or working from memory. The
client
always
deserves
the
correct
translation.
5. Do not make the translation sound as
though it is your own, unless you have been
specifically asked to do so. Changing
“personnel” to “staff” and “staff” to
“personnel” generally serves no purpose
except that of leaving your imprimatur on a
document. (I will grant you an exception if
the subject is Moses and the Red Sea.) Ask
yourself how the change makes the
translation better. Is it more accurate? Does
it resolve a “consistency” issue? Does it
make the translation clearer? Less wordy?
Are you making a change for the translator
(to correct an error or inconsistency), for the
reader (to make it clearer), or for yourself
(because you prefer “persons” to “people”)?
Level with yourself about why you have just
picked up that blue pencil. Distinguish
between correcting an error and substituting
your preference.
6. Sit down and read the document through
in the target language. You may be amazed
at what jumps out at you: grammar issues,
punctuation issues, consistency issues, and—
aha!—the meaning of that ambiguous,
incomprehensible phrase may just leap off
the page if you read it in your mother tongue
without the interference that comes with
working bilingually.
7. Review the entire document before you
start making changes on paper (or in “Track
Changes”). This will save you a lot of
perspiration if you realize, on page 15, why
the translator chose a certain word on page
1. In other words, review all the language in
context before you change anything.
8. Do not add errors to the text. I once
changed the translation of seguridad
alimenticia from “food security” to “food
safety,” wondering how such a brilliant
translator could make such an obvious error.
However, I failed to research “food security,”
and in that particular context the translator
was 100% right and I was 100% wrong. Do
your research. Never assume. If you cannot
do the research, you owe it to the translator
and the end client to ask where he or she
came up with that apparently questionable
term.
9. If it looks wrong, assume that there may
be an error and research the issue. The

translator may have just picked the wrong
definition from a long list. One of my favorite
obvious
examples
is
translating
desarrollamiento as “development” when it
means “implementation.”
10. Sometimes, it just cannot be done. Alas,
not every translation is professional or
satisfactory. It is your job to tell the client
that the translation cannot be fixed and that
he or she would be best served by having it
redone. I generally accompany this bad news
with an edit of at least a few paragraphs, so

the client can more easily see where the
problems lie.
In the best of all possible worlds, the
translator and editor would work as a team,
bouncing questions and concerns back and
forth. In the real world of commercial
translation, the process may become
compressed and truncated—which perhaps
may make it even more important to (a)
check with the translator and (b) proceed
with caution.