Translation & Editing Text

Eng 120: Translation and Editing of Text I. A. B. C. D.

Overview of Translation Etymology of Translation History of Translation: East and West History of Literary Translation General Purposes

A. B. C. D.

Types of Translation Language Interpretation Techical Translation Literal Translation Legal Tranlation

A. B. C. D. E.

Context Retention Principle of Equivalence Back Translation Fidelity and Transparency Equivalence Understanding Jargons

II.

III.

IV.

Transliteration

V. A. B.

Translators Roles of Translators Attributes

A. B. C. D.

Techniques in Translation Computer-Assisted Machine Translation Subtitling Editing/Post Editing

VI.

VIII. A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

A Review: Press Freedom and Limitations Constitutional Guarantees Delimitations Anti-Obscenity Laws Libel Copyright Law Right of privacy National Security

IX.

Editing in Translation Contextual Abstraction Light Editing vs. Full Editing Style Sheet Writing

A. B. C. VII. A. B. C.

Literary Translation History Purpose Technique

X.

Basic Copyediting and Proofreading The Manuscript Copyediting the Manuscript Proofs and Proofreading

A. B. A.

OVERVIEW OF TRANSLATION A. Etymology of Translation 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 equivale equivalence. nce.

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 -forword or literal) vs. “paraphrasis” (saying in other word). In linguistic approach, these terms are tantamount to formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivale equivalence. nce. 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,  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 grammatic al 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 18 th 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Retrieval of lost information Understanding of the Universal Truth Sharing of beliefs Understanding and appreciation of culture Bridging cultural barrier Advancement in human achievement Addressing social needs Social Empowerment 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 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

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 process

use

verbatim

text

in Attempts to reproduce source 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 targetlanguage 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 translation);

of

translation

2. The grammatical rank equivalence is established

unbounded

(full

translation vs partial

at which the translation ( rank-bound translation vs. 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. 3.

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 noncorresponding 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 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 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 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' 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. B.

analysis of the source and target languages; a through study of the source language text before making attempts translate it;

C.

II.

Making judgments approximations.

Organizational

of

the

semantic (pp.

and

syntactic 241-45)

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 'wordfor-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 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.

iii.

Moreover, nine strategies for the translation of key-phrase allusions are proposed by Leppihalme (1997: 82) as follows: i. ii. iii. iv.

v. vi. vii. viii.

ix.

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