Eng 120: Translation and Editing of Text

I. Overview of Translation
A. Etymology of Translation
B. History of Translation: East and West
C. History of Literary Translation
D. General Purposes

II. Types of Translation

A. Language Interpretation
B. Techical Translation
C. Literal Translation
D. Legal Tranlation

III. Context Retention

A. Principle of Equivalence
B. Back Translation
C. Fidelity and Transparency
D. Equivalence
E. Understanding Jargons

IV. Transliteration

V. Translators
A. Roles of Translators
B. Attributes

VI. Techniques in Translation

A. Computer-Assisted
B. Machine Translation
C. Subtitling
D. Editing/Post Editing
VIII. A Review: Press Freedom and Limitations
A. Constitutional Guarantees
B. Delimitations
C. Anti-Obscenity Laws
D. Libel
E. Copyright Law
F. Right of privacy
G. National Security

IX. Editing in Translation

A. Contextual Abstraction
B. Light Editing vs. Full Editing
C. Style Sheet Writing

VII. Literary Translation

A. History
B. Purpose
C. Technique

X. Basic Copyediting and Proofreading

A. The Manuscript
B. Copyediting the Manuscript
A. Proofs and Proofreading

OVERVIEW OF TRANSLATION

A. Etymology of Translation
Translation – came from the Latin “translatio” (to carry across), an
adaptation from the Greek’s concept of “metaphrasis” (word-for-
word 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.

B. History of Translation
Etymology

Translation – came from the Latin “translatio” (to carry across), an

adaptation from the Greek’s concept of “metaphrasis” (word-for-
word 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.

History based on Theories

Western
Translation practice in 1600 – 1700, translation theorists focused more
on “equivalents” or language meaning counterpart to retain the
essence and beauty of the original literature.

Prior to the proliferation of English literature and the different

movements or school of thoughts, Romans already veered away
from “verbum pro verbo” (word for word) because what is beautiful
in one language can be barbarous in the target language.

With the old philosophers’ (Horace, Cicero, Terence, etc.) attempts

to translate literature without causing injury the context, it was
discovered that there are words that failed to meet the standards of
the principles of equivalence. Thus, “untranslatable” words were
bridged with “loanwords” to meet the grammatical rules governing
the western literary world and abiding the “sememe” or the
intended meaning.
In the 13th century, a translation movement called Bilingualism
started propagating the knowledge of both languages (originating
and targeted) is a pre-requisite of translation. Roger Bacon, a
famous English Philosopher and the father of empirical method of
science is one of the advocates of this movement.

As religion and fanaticism beat its rhythm in the 18th century, Martin
Luther made an axiomatic move to translate religious literature,
particularly the bible towards his native language.

Eastern: Sinosphere Theory

There is a separate tradition of translation in South Asia and East Asia

(primarily modern India and China), especially connected with the
rendering of religious texts — particularly Buddhist texts — and with
the governance of the Chinese empire. Classical Indian translation is
characterized by loose adaptation, rather than the closer translation
more commonly found in Europe, and Chinese translation theory
identifies various criteria and limitations in translation.

In the East Asia Sinosphere (sphere of Chinese cultural influence),

more important than translation per se has been the use and
reading of Chinese texts, which also had substantial influence on the
Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese languages, with substantial
borrowings of vocabulary and writing system. Notable is Japanese
Kanbun, which is a system of glossing Chinese texts for Japanese
speakers.

C. History of Literary Translation

First notable translation of the west would be the Septuagint, Jewish

sacred scriptures translated into Koine Gk. (Jews needed Gk version
of their scriptures)
 Middle age, 19th cent – Latin was the lingua franca; there were
struggles in translating religious and philosophical scriptures; text
were then translated to vernacular Latin.

With the large-scale effort to spread Buddhism, Tangut Empire

utilized block printing translating centuries of calligraphically
rendered scriptures – promoting understanding of Buddhism as
personally supported by the emperor and his mother

After Arab conquered the Greek world, scientific and philosophical

accomplishments were translated to Arabic texts. These text were
then converted to Latin that later helped the advancement of
Scholasticism of European world.

13th century marked the flourishing of English equivalents that gave

rise to the name of Geoffrey Chauser whose literary work entitled
Knight’s Tale marked the standards in translation.

15th century dawned the translation of prose literature opening the

door to Arthurian literature to European writing.

Renaissance in Italy flipped another chapter in literature by

introducing the works of Plato in straightforward language that also
paved the way for the works of other philosophers to be introduced
in European Literature.

D. 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

TYPES OF TRANSLATION

A. 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 sign-language, 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 Translation
Takes a message from a Transfers the meaning of a
source language and renders language format from text to
that message into text
a different target language.

Interpreters take in a complex With ample time, translators

concept from one language, use external resources
choose the most appropriate (dictionaries, thesaurus,
vocabulary in the target glossaries, etc.) to faithfully
language to faithfully render transfer the source language
the message in equivalent into the target language to
idea. produce accurate documents
or artifacts.

Does not use verbatim in Attempts to reproduce source

process language in its exact
equivalents of the target
language

Call for accuracy is Uses revisions and editing

instantaneous as the process is techniques to attain accuracy
actual and 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.

B. 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.

C. 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,
Microsoft translator, free translation, worldlingo, etc.)

Without the tweaking process of human translators, machine

translation could be misleading and sometimes totally erroneous.
The common result of this would be pidgins or translation with
reference to the target language’s native format and mistranslations
that contextually unacceptable.

D. Legal Translation Overview

Legal Translation

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.

CONTEXT RETENTION

A. Principles of Translation
Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in
translation

Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented 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 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)

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 loan-translations, 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'

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'

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'

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:

1. The extent of translation (full translation vs partial

translation);

2. The grammatical rank at which the translation

equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs.
unbounded translation);

3. 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'

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:
1. Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change
between the structure of the ST and that of the TT;

2. 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;

3. Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;

4. 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' 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 Snell-
Hornby (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 the situational 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 situational-
dimensional 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'

House 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.

 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.
 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
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.

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.

2. Translation procedures, strategies and methods

The translating procedures, as depicted by Nida (1964) are as follow:

I. Technical procedures:
A. analysis of the source and target languages;
B. a through study of the source language text before
making attempts translate it;
 C. Making judgments of the semantic and syntactic
approximations. (pp. 241-45)

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

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.

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.
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
decision-making."

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."

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.
2.1. Procedures of translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs)

Graedler (2000:3) puts forth some procedures of translating CSCs:

1. Making up a new word.

2. Explaining the meaning of the SL expression in lieu of translating
it.
3. Preserving the SL term intact.
4. 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:

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."
2. Formal Equivalence or 'linguistic equivalence': It means a 'word-
for-word' translation.
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:

 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."
 Naturalization: it adapts the SL word first to the normal
pronunciation, then to the normal morphology of the TL.
 Cultural equivalent: it means replacing a cultural word in the SL
with a TL one. however, "they are not accurate" Functional
equivalent: it requires the use of a culture-neutral word.
 Descriptive equivalent: in this procedure the meaning of the
CBT is explained in several words. 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 their common and then their differing sense
components."
 Synonymy: it is a "near TL equivalent." Here economy trumps
accuracy.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Recognized translation: it occurs when the translator "normally
uses the official or the generally accepted translation of any
institutional term."
 Compensation: it occurs when loss of meaning in one part of a
sentence is compensated in another part.
 Paraphrase: in this procedure the meaning of the CBT is
explained. Here the explanation is much more detailed than
 that of descriptive equivalent.
 Couplets: it occurs when the translator combines two different
procedures.
 Notes: notes are additional information in a translation.

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" .

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:

i. Retention of the name:

a. using the name as such.
b. using the name, adding some guidance.
c. using the name, adding a detailed explanation, for
instance, a footnote.

ii. Replacement of the name by another:

a. replacing the name by another SL name.
b. replacing the name by a TL name
iii. Omission of the name:
a. omitting the name, but transferring the sense by other
means, for instance by a common noun.
b. 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:

i. Use of a standard translation,

ii. Minimum change, that is, a literal translation, without regard to
connotative or contextual meaning,
iii. Extra allusive guidance added in the text,
iv. The use of footnotes, endnotes, translator's notes and other
explicit explanations not supplied in the text but explicitly given
as additional information,
v. Stimulated familiarity or internal marking, that is, the addition of
intra-allusive allusion ,
vi. Replacement by a TL item,
vii. Reduction of the allusion to sense by rephrasing,
viii. 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,
ix. Omission of the allusion.
3. Conclusion

Although some stylists consider translation "sprinkled with footnotes"

undesirable, their uses can assist the TT readers to make better
judgment of the ST contents. In general, it seems that the procedures
'functional equivalent' and 'notes' would have a higher potential for
conveying the concepts underlying the CSCs embedded in a text;
moreover, it can be claimed that a combination of these strategies
would result in a more accurate understanding of the CSCs than
other procedures.

Various strategies opted for by translators in rendering allusions seem

to play a crucial role in recognition and perception of connotations
carried by them. If a novice translator renders a literary text without
paying adequate attention to the allusions, the connotations are
likely not to be transferred as a result of the translator's failure to
acknowledge them. They will be entirely lost to the majority of the TL
readers; consequently, the translation will be ineffective.

It seems necessary for an acceptable translation to produce the

same (or at least similar) effects on the TT readers as those created
by the original work on its readers. This paper may show that a
translator does not appear to be successful in his challenging task of
efficiently rendering the CSCs and PNs when he sacrifices, or at least
minimizes, the effect of allusions in favor of preserving graphical or
lexical forms of source language PNs. In other words, a competent
translator is wll-advised not to deprive the TL reader of enjoying, or
even recognizing, the allusions either in the name of fidelity or
brevity.

It can be claimed that the best translation method seem to be the

one which allows translator to utilize 'notes.' Furthermore, employing
'notes' in the translation, both as a translation strategy and a
translation procedure, seems to be indispensable so that the foreign
language readership could benefit from the text as much as the ST
readers do.
MODULE IN TRANSLATION AND
EDITING OF TEXT