In her study of translation, Mona Baker starts by claiming that at the basis of any communication act lies the word. In order to make a good translation, the translator first decodes the message of the source text. And decoding is made through words. Baker gives the loose definition of the word, citing from Bolinger and Sears (1968:43): the word is ‘the smallest unit of language that can be used by itself’. But the word is not the only unit which can carry meaning. Morphemes, for example, are ‘the minimal formal element of meaning in language’ (Baker 1992:11). The difference between them is that a word can contain more than one meaningful element and a morpheme cannot(Baker 1992:11). In relation with these notions are the monomorphemic words (they have only one morpheme) and polymorphemic words (they have multiple morphemes).
(1) Cat is a monomorphemic word because it cannot be broken down is smaller meaningful units, only into sound segments.
(2) Unhappy is a polymorphemic word because it is composed of an affix (the prefix un-), and a meaningful unit (happy).
Every word or lexical unit carries lexical meaning. In Baker’s study of translation four types of lexical meaning are proposed: propositional meaning, expressive meaning, presupposed meaning, and evoked meaning.
The first category of lexical meaning, namely the propositional meaning, contributes to the truth value of a proposition. It helps us establish whether a proposition is true or false. For example, the propositional meaning of hat is ‘a piece of clothing that you wear on your head’ . The use of the word hat in order to refer to a piece of clothing that covers the lower half of the body would be inaccurate.
When it comes to the expressive meaning, we are no longer concerned with the truth value of a proposition. Expressive meaning reflects the speaker’s attitude or feelings and according to Baker’s example, there’s a difference between Don’t complain and Don’t whinge (Baker 1992:13). The difference is that whinge is more powerful than complain, because it carries some extra-meaning, namely that the speaker is annoyed.
All these meanings are used in a certain register. Register may vary depending on field of discourse (the subject of discussion, ex. politics), tenor of discourse (the language used with regard to the interpersonal relationship, ex. teacher/student) and mode of discourse (the role of the language, whether it is spoken/written or its form ‘ speech/essay, for example).
3.1.1 The problem of non-equivalence
Equivalence is one of the most discussed, interpreted and controversial concepts in translation studies. Since all translators have to deal with the problem of non-equivalence, Baker has some suggestions. In her study, she makes a connection between this problem and semantic fields.
Semantic fields are studied by linguistics; every language has its own semantic fields. A semantic field is a group of words that are related in meaning. Some examples of semantic fields would be those of technology, communication, cosmetics. Moreover, most languages have ‘fields of distance, size, shape, time, emotion, beliefs, academic subjects and natural phenomena’ (Baker 1992:18).
Lexical sets are the sub-divisions of a field. As Mona Baker exemplifies, ‘the field of SPEECH in English has a sub-division of VERBS OF SPEECH which includes general verbs such as speak and say and more specific ones such as mumble, murmur, mutter, and whisper.’ (Baker 1992:18).
In order to produce a good translation, the translator should understand ‘the difference in the structure of semantic fields in the source and target languages’; for example, in English there are four divisions when it comes to the field of temperature: cold, cool, hot and warm (Baker 1992:19). Romanians also have a few divisions within this field: rece, cald and fierbinte with their derived terms, such as r”coros or c”ldu”. The difference is that Romanians do not make a distinction between cold and cool, they use a single term for both. Knowing this, if the translator translates from Romanian into English, he should be aware of the differences and use the proper term.
In Mona Baker’s study of translation we find out that ‘semantic fields are arranged hierarchically, going from the more general to the more specific’ (Baker 1992:20). The more general word is called a superordinate term (or a hypernym) and the more specific word is called a hyponym. For instance, in the field of animals, animal is the superordinate term and dog, cat, mouse, lion are hyponyms. The meaning carried by a superordinate is part of the meaning of the hyponyms, but it does not work both ways. A dog is an animal, but not all animals are dogs.
We should always keep in mind the fact that semantic fields are not fixed. They change constantly, some words may be introduced into the vocabulary while some words may be excluded. (Baker 1992:20).
While keeping an eye on this linguistic aspect, we should also be aware of a few dimensions of the problem of non-equivalence. The first one is related to culture-specific concepts. Baker explains that ‘the source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture'(Baker 1992:21). She exemplifies with the term Speaker (of the House of Commons); it seems that there are no equivalents for this in many languages. But there might be some approximate translations in some languages. For example, in Romanian an equivalent expression is pre”edintele Camerei Deputa”ilor. There is a cultural difference in their meaning, namely that when he/she takes office, the Speaker of the House of Commons breaks ties with his/her political party, and pre”edintele Camerei Deputa”ilor does not. If we would rather not lose the cultural specificity, we can translate it by pre”edintele Camerei Comunelor.
Another type of non-equivalence would occur if the source-language concept is not lexicalized in the target language. Baker suggests the example of standard (defined in Longman Dictionary as ‘the level that is considered to be acceptable, or the level that someone or something has achieved’ ). She claims that in spite of the fact that the concept is understood by most people, there are languages which do not have an equivalent for it, such as Arabic. Luckily, the Romanian translation fully respects the lexical form of the term since the same term is used, namely standard. The example (3) exemplifies how Romanian preserved the term.
(3) Fiecare ”ar” are propriul standard de frumuse”e.
Another problem may arise when the source-language word is semantically complex. Mona Baker gives the example of the Brazilian word arrua”o, meaning ‘clearing the ground under coffee trees of rubbish and piling it in the middle of the row in order to aid the recovery of beans dropped during harvesting’ (Baker 1992:22).
Non-equivalence can also occur when the source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning. Baker illustrates this problem (1992:22) with two Indonesian words, kehunjanan (going out in the rain without knowing that it’s raining) and hujanhujanan (going out in the rain while being aware that it’s raining). Such a distinction is inexistent in English and in Romanian.
In both cases, whether the word is semantically complex or there are certain differences between the meanings of source and target terms, the translator may use the paraphrase or add a footnote with an explanation.
A translator may face some difficulties if a superordinate or a hyponym is absent in the target language. For instance, when it comes to the field of movement, English is very rich, using terms such as to jump, to spring, to leap, for instance. We can find Romanian equivalents for these, namely a s”ri (for jump), a t”ni (spring) and a s”lta (for leap). But this does not always happen in all languages.
Difficulties may also appear when talking about shifts in the physical or interpersonal perspective (Baker 1992:23). Baker gives the example of Japanese, where there are six equivalents for the word give, depending on who gives what to whom.
Another problem would be the differences in form. Baker provides the example of some English couplets, such as employer/employee, trainer/trainee, and payer/payee or affixes that contribute to evoked meaning, like ‘ish(stylish) and ‘able (loveable) (1992:24). Even though the meaning cannot always be rendered in all languages, even by paraphrase, in Romanian there may be solutions for these terms: angajator/angajat for employer/employee, antrenor/sportiv for trainer/trainee and pl”titor/beneficiar for payer/payee.
Baker comes up with some useful strategies that could help in overcoming problems of non-equivalence. Firstly, she claims that a very good solution would be the use of a more general word, namely a superordinate (Baker 1992:26). For example, in a Spanish translation from English, the verb shampoo is replaced with lavar (wash) in the target text (Baker 1992:27). The verb wash is a superordinate term for to shampoo. Luckily, in Romanian there is no such case in this context; we have a term for to shampoo, namely a ”ampona.
Another solution would be to translate using a more neutral word (Baker 1992:28). For instance, we have the verb to whinge, which in opposition to to complain, expresses more annoyance on the speaker’s behalf. We can translate to whinge by a se v”ita or a se smiorc”i.
We can also use the strategy of cultural substitution, which demands a lot of creativity (Baker 1992:31). The translator has to use a word or expression that has a similar impact on the reader. An example would be the British archetypal prankster, Robin Goodfellow. As he is not a character which is well-known to most Romanians, a cultural substitute could be P”cal”, since both characters share the same features.
There are cases where two languages have cultural differences, so a translator can use a loan word or a loan word and an explanation (Baker 1992:34). The translator preserves the form of the source-text term and adds an explanation and if the term occurs more than once, it is not necessary to repeat the explanation. But it is also possible that the concept of the loan will be understood by the reader, and in this situation the explanation is not mandatory; the example in (4) illustrates this situation:
(4) Recent projects have included support to improve the pursuit of money laundering and the recovery of the proceeds of crime, strengthen communication between the judiciary and the mass media, and prepare for the implementation of the new codes.
Proiectele recente au inclus sprijin pentru ”mbun”t”irea instrument”rii cazurilor de sp”lare de bani ”i a recuper”rii veniturilor realizate din infrac”iuni, consolidarea comunic”rii ”ntre sistemul judiciar ”i mass-media, precum ”i preg”tirea pentru punerea ”n aplicare a noilor coduri.
In cases of non-equivalence, a translator can also use paraphrasing with a related word (Baker 1992:37). The word or expression used in the target language is equivalent to the one used in the source language, but has a different grammatical or lexical form in the target text. The strategy works in Romanian translations too:
(5) I would like to own a tiger-like cat one day.
Mi-ar pl”cea ca ”ntr-o bun” zi s” am o pisic” cu blana tigrat”.
A similar strategy is translating by paraphrase using unrelated words (Baker 1992:38).
(6) It provided an affidavit of its manager explaining the sourcing process of the samples used in the testing in order to prove the independence, correctness and representativeness of the testing.
Produc”torul-exportator a furnizat o declara”ie scris” a responsabilului care explica provenien”a e”antioanelor utilizate ”n cadrul testelor pentru a dovedi independen”a, corectitudinea ”i reprezentativitatea acestor teste.
In some contexts, the translator has no choice but to leave out a word from the source-language text, this strategy being called translation by omission. But he has to bear in mind that this strategy can be put into practice only if the omitted term does not provide the readership with vital information. Baker’s example is the following:
(7) ST: This is your chance to remember the way things were, and for younger visitors to see in real-life detail the way their parents, and their parents before them lived and travelled.(Baker 1992:40).
TT1: Voici l’occasion de retrouver votre jeunesse (qui sait?) et pour les plus jeunes de voir comment leurs parents et grands-parents vivaient et voyageaient. (Baker 1992:41).
TT2 : Acum ave”i ”ansa de a v” reaminti trecutul, iar vizitatorii mai tineri pot vedea cum au tr”it ”i c”l”torit p”rin”ii lor ”i p”rin”ii p”rin”ilor lor.
In example (7) we can see that the structure in real-life detail is omitted in both translations; the translator has chosen to do this because the information is not really necessary, and its absence does not affect in any way the text. As a sidenote, in Romanian it works both ways, with or without that term. If the Romanian translator had chosen to preserve the structure, the target text would have been like this:
(8) Acum ave”i ”ansa de a v” reaminti trecutul, iar vizitatorii mai tineri pot vedea exact cum au tr”it p”rin”ii lor ”i p”rin”ii p”rin”ilor lor.
3.2. Equivalence above word level. Collocations, idioms & fixed expressions
So far we have talked about what can happen when the problem of non-equivalence occurs at word level. We might wonder what happens when words combine and form various structures (Baker 1992:46). Words usually occur in the presence of certain other words, the occurence being based on some restrictions. This goes under the name of ‘lexical patterning’, which is the case of collocations and idioms and fixed expressions (Baker 1992:47).
In her study of translation, Baker discusses the problem of collocations, idioms and fixed expressions in translation. As she puts it, collocations are ‘semantically arbitrary restrictions which do not follow logically from the propositional meaning of a word’ (Baker 1992:14). Some translators find the translation of lexical patterns a little difficult because they might confuse the source and target patterns and be influenced by the collocational patterning of the source language. This is likely to happen because the language changes all the time: ‘we create new collocations all the time, either by extending an existing range or by deliberately putting together words from different or opposing ranges’, Baker explains (1992:52). Translators have to be in touch with all the linguistic changes in the languages they works with, because otherwise they will not be able to come up with a natural equivalent.
Baker shares another difficulty that a translator may have to deal with: misunderstanding the meaning of a collocation because of the influence of his/her native language (Baker 1992:55). There are cases when that particular collocation has a close equivalent in the other language, but the latter is associated with someloss of meaning. But we have to bear in mind that if the respective nuance is of no real significance in the respective context, it is better to have a naturally written text than a ‘foreign’ one. Naturalness is more important than accuracy in some cases. Even Baker agrees with this, saying that ‘a certain amount of loss, addition, or skewing of meaning is often unavoidable in translation; language systems tend to be too different to produce exact replicas in most cases’ (Baker 1992:57). For example, the English collocation good/bad law is a just/unjust law in Arabic (Baker 1992:56).
Two terms that are relevant for the disccussion collocations in translation are the terms ‘collocational range’ and collocational markedness’. The collocational range refers to the set of collocates of a certain word. For example (Baker 1992:50), the collocational range of the English verb shrug is quite limited; it can only select the complement NP shoulders; by contrast, there are words with vast collocational ranges, such as run, which can co-occur with car, business, nose, water, company and so on.
Collocational markedness is the situation in which the writer or the speaker creates an unusual combination of words. ‘Marked collocations are often used in fiction, poetry, humour, and advertisements precisely for this reason: because they can create unusual images, produce laughter and catch the reader’s attention'(Baker 1992:51). Baker exemplifies this idea with the sentence in (8):
(9) War normally breaks out, but peace prevails.
In example (9) it is suggested that the two situations are extreme opposites: while war is temporary and undesirable, peace is normal and desirable. And in the following example, the sense is reversed:
(10) Could real peace break out after all? (John Le Carr”, ‘The Russia House’, 1989:102).
According to Baker, unlike collocations which are quite flexible, idioms are fixed structures (Baker 1992:63). The writer can change the structure of the idiom only when making a joke, but usually the structure is observed (for example, jump the gun – ‘to be doing something early’ ‘ does not bear variation).
So we saw the difference between collocations and idioms, but what about idioms and fixed expressions? Unlike idioms, fixed expressions are more transparent in meaning. Some examples of fixed expressions would be the following: Ladies and Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, as it follows, all the best, Merry Christmas. Proverbs can be classified as fixed expressions as well.
(11) Better late than never.
Going back to the concept of idioms, we should be aware that not all idioms are fixed, some are more flexible than others. When dealing with a translation which involves idioms, a translator might find himself in the position of not identifying the idiomatic expression. ‘The more difficult an expression is to understand and the less sense it makes in a given context, the more likely a translator will recognize it as an idiom'(Baker 1992:65). But knowing this, the translator should pay more attention when he finds such problematic expressions.
Baker also talks about the difficulties a translator might encounter when it comes to idioms and fixed expressions. She claims that there are idioms which have no equivalent in the target language, idioms with similar counterparts in the target language, but different contexts of use, or idioms used with both their literal and idiomatic meaning at the same time. She then suggests various strategies of dealing with these problems.
Baker suggests using a target language idiom which is similar in terms of meaning and form to the idiom in the source text. For example, we can translate the English idiom to take someone for a ride by the Romanian idiom a lua pe cineva ”n c”ru”; both mean to fool someone.
A second strategy would be using an idiom with similar meaning but different form than in the source text. For example, to rain cats and dogs can be translated as a ploua cu g”leata.
We could also translate idiomatic expressions by paraphrasing: to be wet behind the ears can be translated as a fi neexperimentat or a fi novice.
3.3 Grammatical equivalence
Baker discusses how differences in grammatical structure influence translation (Baker 1992:83).
One grammatical category which does not have uniform behaviour in all languages is number (Baker 1992:87). While the singular and the plural are clearly differentiated in English, there are languages in which there is a distinction ‘between one, two and more than two’ (Baker 1992:87), such as Arabic and Slavonic languages. In addition, Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese are languages which express the difference between singular and plural lexically or not at all. So the translator has two options: he/she can omit the relevant information on number or he/she can lexically render the information by adding an adjective like “various” or a numeral. The Romanian singular and plural are clearly differentiated as well, just like in English.
Another grammatical category is gender (Baker 1992:92). It might pose problems because, for instance, languages like Arabic make the distinction between feminine and masculine in the second person, while other languages do not. In Romanian, there is a distinction between feminine and masculine only in the third person singular (el= he, ea= she) and plural (masc. ei, fem. ele = they), but there is no such distinction as the one in the second person in Arabic.
The last problematic grammatical category mentioned by Baker is the pronoun (Baker 1992:94). In English, speakers use the first, second and third person singular and plural. In Russian, for instance, there are four persons. English does not mark politeness in its person system, while other European languages do (Romanian tu as opposed to dumneavoastr”). A translator will have to choose what form to use according to context. For instance, in a situation in which a college student meets his favourite writer, the Romanian translation of example (11) would be as follows:
(12) I admire your work tremendously!
V” apreciez scrierile at”t de mult!
In the Romanian translation in example (12), the pronoun v” is a plural form and marks the politeness; the reader does not need to be aware of the context in order to sense it. On the opposite, in the source text, the politeness is not obvious without knowing the context, because the possessive adjective your is universal.
Baker recommends viewing the text as a whole, both at the beginning and at the end of the process of translating. It is crucial for a translator to read and understand the text in the source language in the first place. Then he has to produce a text that would be easily understood by the readership, in other words, a naturally written text (Baker 1992:111).
The aim of a translator “is to achieve a measure of equivalence at text level, rather than at word or phrase level”, states Baker, who is in favor of communicating the meaning and the purpose of the text, rather than the meaning of individual words or phrases (1992:112). Moreover, a good translation would have to be accepted by the target reader as an original text, without being aware that it is a translation. The target text should sound logical, natural and should definitely render the message of the original text.
3.4 Textual equivalence
Textual equivalence is related to the way that information flows in a translation. This section will present the Hallidayan approach to information flow; according to the Hallidayan approach, a clause has two components: the theme and the rheme: ‘the theme is what the clause is about’ and ‘the rheme is what the speaker says about the theme’. (Baker 1992:121,122).
(13) Susan likes cooking.
In example (13), the theme is Susan, and the rheme is likes cooking.
The theme and rheme are not grammatical notions (Baker 1992:124). In order to create a logical, coherent text, the writer should not only pay attention to grammatical aspects, but also to thematic acceptability. A text should be well-formed both grammatically and thematically. Baker provides example (13) of a sentence which is well-formed grammatically, since it can be easily rephrased as His opponent congratulated him on his victory. However, the initial phrasing does not help in identifying the thematic segments, respectively the theme and rheme. This is a case of thematic unacceptability.
(14) On his victory his opponent congratulated him.
Another important notion in the field of textual equivalence would be the marked and non-marked thematic choices. Markedness is the feature that states how important a term in a certain clause is: ‘the more obligatory an element is, the less marked it will be and the weaker will be its meaning’ (Baker 1992:129,130). In order to understand these notions, let’s consider the following examples:
(15) dog ‘ dogs
In example (15), the term dog is unmarked, while its plural, dogs, is marked by the suffix ‘s.
(16) young ‘ younger ‘ youngest
In example (16), the term young is unmarked, while its forms of comparative (younger) and superlative form (youngest) are marked by the affixes ‘er and ”’est”.
(17) Mary helped John.
John was helped by Mary.
In example (17), the first phrase, in active voice, is unmarked, while its passive version is marked, because it contains more elements.
Last but not least, Baker (1992:166-167) mentions the term of linear disclocation, which could be defined as the situation created by the ‘tension between word order and communicative function’. Then she suggests a few strategies for this situation: voice change(‘the translator changes the syntactic form of the verb in order achieve a different sequence of elements’), change of verb (‘the translator replaces the verb with another which has a close meaning but can be used in a distinct syntactic structure’, for example the pair of verbs like/please), nominalization (‘the translator replaces a verbal form with a nominal one’, for example decide’decision), and extraposition (the translator changes the position of the clause) (Baker 1992:167-168-169).
Baker also talks about cohesion. All words, all structures that we use when creating a text are linked by cohesion. Even Newmark has an opinion on it: ‘The topic of cohesion’has always appeared to me the most useful constituent of discourse analysis or text linguistics applicable to translation.’ (1987:295).
Baker mentions that according to Halliday and Hasan (1976 apud 1992:180), there are five main cohesive devices in English: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.
When it comes to reference, there are various ways of using it: pronouns (he/she, for example) or determiners (this, that, these, those).
(18) Susan hopes for a better future. She applied for a new job.
(19) This cake is so delicious! I should definitely bake it for my husband.
In the previous examples, (18) and (19), the reference is made by using the pronouns she and it.
Conjunction is a cohesion device by which the writer relates ‘sentences, clauses and paragraphs to each other’ (Baker 1992:190). The use of conjunction indicates some general relations at sentence level, as presented by Mona Baker. She mentions the additive relation (and, moreover); the adversative relation (but, however, on the other hand); the causal relation (so, for, because); the temporal relation (then, next, finally); the continuative relation (now, of course) (Baker 1992:191).
(20) I asked him about his personal life and he inquired about my professional life.
(21) I was invited, but I am too tired to leave the house.
(22) He got on my nerves so I never called him back.
(23) We refused the proposal. Firstly, the board did not find it convincing. Secondly, they proposed something else and finally their company went bankrupt.
(24) You always have my back, of course I will help you.
As we can see, example (19) exemplifies the additive relation (and), (20) exemplifies the adversative relation (but). Example (21) provides an example of a causal relation (so), (22) provides an example of a temporal relation (finally), and (23) is an example of a continuative relation (of course).
3.5 Translation procedures
Firstly, in A Methodology of Translation (1958), Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet speak about two main translation methods, direct and oblique translation. The direct methods mirror the source text closely, whereas the oblique methods allow for various changes as necessary.
Direct translation procedures:
‘ borrowing: it is very convenient to use this procedure when the source language concept is unknown in the target language. In his book, Translation, Linguistics, Culture, Nigel Armstrong mentions the fact that this is a process which contributes in the renewal of a language (Armstrong 2005:143). Usually a borrowing occurs for stylistic reasons, but there are cases when they become part of the target language lexicon (for example, the French d”j” vu has entered the English and Romanian lexicon; other English entries into the Romanian lexicon would be job or popcorn;
‘ calque: the translator borrows an expression from the source language by literally translating each of its elements in the target language (Armstrong 2005:145). For example: lune de miel (Fr.) ‘ honeymoon (En.) ‘ lun” de miere (Ro.) or gratte-ciel (Fr.) ‘ skyscraper(En.) ‘ zg”rie-nori (Ro.). Nigel Armstrong claims that sometimes it is advantageous to use this procedure because ‘the calque will be transparently recognizable as such if the SL phenomenon referred to is culture-specific'(Armstrong 2005:146);
‘ literal translation: called word-for-word translation as well, being the most common translating procedure between two languages of the same family or of the same culture. For instance (Armstrong 2005:147), the French phrase Le livre est sur la table is translated in English as The book is on the table and in Romanian as Cartea e pe mas”.
Oblique translation procedures:
‘ transposition (linguistic transposition): the word or structure from the source text changes its grammatical category in the target text (Armstrong 2005:150). For example:
(25) Travellers are said to have an adventurous spirit.
Se spune c” cei care c”l”toresc au un spirit aventuros.
In (25), the simple noun phrase travellers is expanded into a complex noun phrase which contains the semi-independent demonstrative pronoun cei and a relative clause care c”l”toresc. Moreover, the Nominative + infinitive structure from the source text, which contains a passive verb, and has the syntactic function of subject, is translated into Romanian using a reflexive structure, which contains the reflexive pronoun se.
‘ modulation involves a change of perspective. We will take a couple of the examples given by Nigel Armstrong (2005:151): objets trouv”s(Fr.) ‘ lost property (En.) ‘ obiecte pierdute(Ro.); beware of the dog (En.) ‘ c”ine r”u (Ro.)
‘ equivalence (pragmatic translation) is the strategy by which the translator replaces a stretch of source language (such as proverbs and idioms) by its functional equivalent in the target language (Armstrong 2005:152). Let’s consider the following examples:
(26) Put your money where your mouth is!
Fapte, nu vorbe!
(27) La curiosit” est un vilain d”faut.
Curiosity killed the cat.
Curio”ii mor repede.
‘ adaptation (cultural transposition): the translator can use this strategy when the source language concept is unknown in the target language culture. Adaptation is often used when it comes to translating books and film titles. But it can be also used if there is no exact equivalent. For instance (Armstrong 2005:156): bonne continuation! (Fr.) ‘ take care! (En.); bon film! (Fr.) ‘ hope you enjoy the film! (En.) ‘ vizionare pl”cut”! (Ro.); bon examen! (Fr.) ‘ best of luck in the exam! (En.) ‘ baft” la examen! (Ro.).
In his book, Translation, Linguistics, Culture. A French-English Handbook, Nigel Armstrong suggests a few more translation strategies:
‘ exegetic translation: it is a specialised, rather rare type where the translated text usually has some uncertainties which need to be explained (Baker 2005:156). An example would be a book in which the author explain some theoretical concepts, such as a book on the theory of translation, or a text on mathematics;
‘ gist translation: it us usually used in an informal context, ‘when a bilingual is asked to summarise a written document viva voce’ (Armstrong 2005:157). By using this strategy, the text might be rendered in a much organized, logical and natural way;
‘ non-translation (compression): if there are any culture-specific difficulties or if the reader can understand the concept either way, the source text structure is directly imported and compressed in the target text (Armstrong 2005:159).
...(download the rest of the essay above)