AMBO UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

Course Name: Translation and Interpretation

Corse Code: Enla2054
Credit Hours: 3 Cr Hrs.
Course Description
This course treats the art of translation from the dual perspectives of theory and practice. We
shall look at various theoretical issues that impact on the choices translators make and spend
much of class time practicing various translation strategies and honing particular techniques.
The course also gives emphasis to language and culture as they impinge on the process of
translation and familiarizes students with a variety of strategies for dealing with mismatches
between source and target languages and cultures. Topics covered include textual and
contextual meaning; genres and text types; dialect and register in translation; translating
culture-specific references; wordplay, metaphor and puns.

Course Objectives:

Upon completing the course, students will be able to:

 develop translation skills related to specific language pairs;
 describe theories, approaches, and specialized terminology of the discipline of
translation;
 familiar with the methodology of application of translation in language teaching and
learning strategies;
 apply these theories and approaches, and utilize the specialized terminology in actual
translation situations in a variety of minor subject (language) texts; and
 demonstrate sufficient understanding of the linguistic and cultural factors which
have a bearing on written communication across sensitive media
Table of Contents
Unit One...................................................................................................................................1
Defining Translation.................................................................................................................1
1.1 What is Translation........................................................................................................1
1.2 Why Translation?...........................................................................................................1
1.3 History of Translation....................................................................................................1
1.5 Translation Theory.............................................................................................................3
1.5.1 Linguistic Theory of Translation................................................................................3
1.5.2 Functionalist Theories of Translation.........................................................................3
1.5.3 Translation as Cultural Events Theor..........................................................................3
1.5.4 Manipulation School of Translation............................................................................3
1.5.5 Deconstructionist Theories..........................................................................................3
1.5.6 Culture and Context Theories:....................................................................................3
1.6 Contemporary Translation Theories..................................................................................4
1.6 .1 The Sociolinguistic Approach....................................................................................4
1.6.2 The Communicative Approach...................................................................................4
1.6.3 The Hermeneutic Approach........................................................................................4
1.6.4 The Linguistic Approach.............................................................................................4
1.6 .5 The Literary Approach...............................................................................................5
1.6.6 The Semiotic Approach...............................................................................................5
1.7 Pre-Translation Considerations........................................................................................5
1.7.1. Reading The Text.......................................................................................................5
1.7.2. The Intention of The Text:.........................................................................................5
1.7.3. The Intention of The Translator:................................................................................5
1.7.4. Text Styles..................................................................................................................5
1.7.5. The Readership...........................................................................................................6
1.7.6. The Quality of the Writing:........................................................................................6
1.8 What is a translator?.....................................................................................................6
1.9 Theory of Translation (Rules and Principles)................................................................6
1.10 Principle of Equivalence..............................................................................................7
1.11 Description and Prescription........................................................................................9
Unit Two.................................................................................................................................10
The Translator and the Process of Communication:..............................................................10
2.1. The Translator and the Process of Communication....................................................10
Who is translator?..............................................................................................................10
Activity:..............................................................................................................................10
2.2 What Are the Things the translator supposed to do during translation?......................10
 2.3 The communication process made by a translator.......................................................11
2.4 The Translation Process...............................................................................................11
2.4.1 PROCESS OF TRANSLATING..........................................................................12
2.4.10 Nature of Translation as a Process......................................................................15
2.5. Translation Process and /or a Product.........................................................................15
2.6. The Communication Process Made by the Translator:...............................................16
Unit Three..............................................................................................................................18
The Translator knowledge and skills in Translation competence..........................................18
3.1. Ideal Lingual Translation............................................................................................18
3.2. Translation Competence:............................................................................................19
3.2.1 What is Translation Competence?.....................................................................19
3.3. Communicative Competence......................................................................................20
3.4. Components of communicative competence..............................................................21
ii. Sociolinguistic Competence...........................................................................................26
iii. Discourse Competence:................................................................................................26
iv. Strategies competence:..................................................................................................27
(1) Language competence..................................................................................................27
3.6 Acknowledge base (Ethical issues in translation)........................................................27
3.7 Inference Mechanisms.................................................................................................28
Unit Four................................................................................................................................30
Meaning and Translation........................................................................................................30
4.1 Grammatical meaning..................................................................................................30
4.2 Referential meaning.....................................................................................................31
4.3 Denotative Meaning.....................................................................................................31
4.4 Connotative meaning...................................................................................................32
4.6. Leech’s Seven Types of Meaning...............................................................................32
4.6.1 The Complexity of “Meaning”..............................................................................32
4.6.3 The Classification of “Meanings”.........................................................................33
4.6.5 Conceptual Meaning.............................................................................................33
4.6.6 Connotative Meaning............................................................................................34
4.6.7 Social Meaning......................................................................................................34
4.6.8 Affective Meaning................................................................................................34
4.6.9 Reflected Meaning................................................................................................35
4.6.10 Collocative Meaning...........................................................................................35
4.6.11 Thematic Meaning..............................................................................................35
Unit 5......................................................................................................................................36
Semantic theories and their implication for translation.........................................................36
 5.1 General Perspectives....................................................................................................36
5.2 Theories of Meaning....................................................................................................36
5.3. The referential theory..................................................................................................36
5.4 The ‘traditional’ theory................................................................................................37
5.5 The ideational theory....................................................................................................37
5.6 The stimulus-response theory......................................................................................37
5.7 Foundational Theories of Meaning..............................................................................39
5.7.1 Mentalist Theories.................................................................................................40
5.7.2 The Gricean program............................................................................................40
5.7.3 Meaning, belief, and convention...........................................................................42
5.7.4 Mental representation-based theories....................................................................43
5.7.5 Non-Mentalist Theories........................................................................................43
5.7. 6 Causal origin........................................................................................................44
5.7.7 Truth-maximization and the principle of charity..................................................44
5.7.8 Reference magnetism............................................................................................45
5.7.9 Regularities in use.................................................................................................46
5.7.10 Social norms........................................................................................................47
Unit 6......................................................................................................................................48
Written Texts and Their Standards of Textuality....................................................................48
6.1 Text Definition.............................................................................................................48
6.4 What are standards of texuality?..................................................................................49
Reference................................................................................................................................56
 Unit One
Defining Translation
1.1 What is Translation? Translation is rendering a written text into another
language in the way that the author intended the text. Translators are concerned with the
written word. They render written texts from one language into another. Translators are
required to undertake assignments, which range from simple items, such as birth certificates
and driving licenses, to more complex written material, such as articles in specialized
professional journals, business contracts and legal documents.
1.2 Why Translation? Even with the most up-to-date and sophisticated
communication systems, we can never know how many languages man uses today in the
world; let alone how many languages man has used during the course of his development.
Some sources say there are some two or three thousand languages being used in the world,
but some others say the number may be as large as eight thousand. What a habit man has,
that of speaking different tongues! And thus he offers himself difficulties and obstacles.
Since communication within only one speech community is not enough, certainly there has
a great number of times arisen a situation in which some individuals are unable to
understand the words or expressions of some others. This phenomenon creates a barrier to
understanding whenever man tries to communicate across a great distance of space or across
a great interval of time. Something has to be done to overcome this restriction. One way to
cope with the restriction is for individuals to know the foreign language. But this is not the
final solution because apparently no individual in the world can know all the languages in
use. The best polyglot so far knows only about twenty-five languages, and still people want
to read what other people write and what other people say. Translation and interpreting may
be considered as the most universally accepted solution for surmounting the obstacle. And
thus there is a need for professional translators and interpreters.
1.3 History of Translation: Translation has always been done by somebody
for somebody. The first trace of translation dates from 3000 B.C, during the Egyptian Old
Kingdom, the area of the First Cataract, Elephantine, where inscriptions in two languages
have been found. It became a significant factor in the West in 300 BC Luther's Bible
translation in 1522 laid the foundations of modern German. In the 19th century translation
was mainly a one-way means of communication between prominent men of letters and, to a
lesser degree, philosophers and scientists and their educated readers abroad, whilst trade was
conducted in the language of the dominant nation, and diplomacy, previously in Latin, was
in French. The 20th century has been called the “age of translation” to which one may add
“and interpreting”. International agreements between states, between state, public and
private organizations are now translated for all interested parties, whether or not the
signatories understand each other's language. The setting up of a new international body, the
constitution of an independent state, the formation of a multinational company, gives

1|Page
translation enhanced importance. The exponential increase in technology (patents,
specifications, documentation), the attempt to bring it to developing countries, the
simultaneous publication of the same book in various languages, the increase in world
communication, has correspondingly increased requirements. That the very survival of such
bodies as the United Nations is crucially dependent on interpreting and translation can be
taken as a good example of the importance of translation and interpreting.
Study the following definitions and try to reflect your understandings briefly. Rubin and
Thompson (1994): Translation is considered as an act of communication. To translate most
effectively, the translator should analyze the message; to do so, he/she should have some
tools at hand; such tools can be the well-known communication strategies (CS) which
prevent a communication from disruption.
Translation is the process or result of converting information from one language or language
variety in to another. The aim is to produce as accurately as possible all grammatical and
lexical features of the ‘source language ( SL) original by finding equivalents in the ‘target
language (TL) Meet ham and Hudson (1969). At the time all factual information contained
in the original text must be retained in the translation.
 Richards and Schmidt (2002): Translation is the process of rendering written
language that was produced in one language (source language) in to another
language version that results from this process.
 Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and / or
statement in to another language.
 Translation is the transfer of the meaning of a text ( which may be a word l a book
from one language to anther for anew reader ship ( Rachel owns, 1996)
 Translation is a process of changing something that is written or spoken into another
language.
 Translation is a recodification between language : a message which has been
codified in one language – source language- is recodified into another language-
target language Do you observe any similarities and /or differences among the about
definitions? State them briefly.
Which of the above definitions are clear and inclusive? Why?
No definition would appear to be more obvious or straight forward than that one, which is
regrettable but understandable for several reasons, form which the following are the main
ones:
Firstly, meaning can be synonymized only by ‘sense’ or ‘significance’ or ‘purport’.
Secondly, nothing can take place in a social vacuum: what is the context of situation; when
is the context of situation; when is the text transmitted, and for whom?
Thirdly, a Gothe pointed out that this process or act of translation is strictly (completely,
precisely, perfectly, correctly) not possible, however necessary it may be.
1.4 The Dynamics of Translation (Peter Newmark): There are
some participants/actors in the translation process: The truth (the facts of the matter} A text
is pulled in ten different directions, as follows:
1. The individual style or idiolect of the SL author. When should it be (a) preserved, (b)
normalized?
2. The conventional grammatical and lexical usage of this type of text, depending on the
topic and the situation.

2|Page
3. Content items referring specifically to the SL, or third language (i.e. not SL or TL)
cultures.
4. The typical format of a text in a book, periodical, newspaper, etc., as influenced by
tradition at the time.
5. The expectations of the putative readership, bearing in mind their estimated knowledge of
the topic and the style of language they use, expressed in terms of the largest common
factor, since one should not translate down (or up) to the readership. 6, 7, 8. As for 2,3 and
4 respectively, but related to the TL.
9. What is being described or reported, ascertained or verified (the referential truth), where
possible independently of the SL text and the expectations of the readership.
10. The views and prejudices of the translator, which may be personal and subjective, or
may be social and cultural, involving the translator's “group loyalty factor”, which may
reflect the national, political, ethnic, religious, social class, sex, etc. assumptions of the
translator.

1.5 Translation Theory: Since the mid-1980s there have been

some major translation theories in the world.
1.5.1 Linguistic Theory of Translation (by Catford, Nida) focuses on
finding the equivalence (of meaning, grammar, content...)
1.5.2 Functionalist Theories of Translation: (German school) by
K.Reiss, Neubart, Wilses, Vermeer, Skopco) do not pay attention to source texts. Their main
aim is what we do with translation.
1.5.3 Translation as Cultural Events Theory: (by Mary Snell
Hornby) sets up an integrated approach to translation.
1.5.4 Manipulation School of Translation: (by Susan Bassnett)
(School of UK and Holland) points out the power of translation.
1.5.5 Deconstructionist Theories: (by Edwin Gentzler) (USA) forget
source texts and regard translation as the second original.
1.5.6 Culture and Context Theories: (by Peter Newmark) focus on
culture and context during the translation process. As this is the most suitable for
undergraduate students, the theory, which is introduced below, is based on Peter
Newmark's. Translation theory, in a narrow sense, is concerned with the translation method
appropriately used for a certain type of text, and it is therefore dependent on a functional
theory of language. However, in a wider sense, translation theory is the body of knowledge
that we have about translating, extending from general principles to guidelines, suggestions
and hints. What translation theory does is, first, to identify and define a translation problem
(no problem - no translation theory!); second, to indicate all the factors that have to be taken
into account in solving the problem; third, to list all the possible translation procedures;
finally, to recommend the most suitable translation procedure, plus the appropriate
translation.

3|Page
1.6 Contemporary Translation Theories
The six main translation theories are: sociological, communicational, hermeneutic,
linguistic, literary and semiotic.
Let’s focus on theory! It makes sense for a translation agency‘s blog to venture into the dry
lands of translation theory. Right? There are six main approaches within contemporary
translation theory: sociolinguistic; communicative; hermeneutic; linguistic; literary; and
semiotic.

1.6 .1The Sociolinguistic Approach

According to the sociolinguistic approach to translation, the social context defines what is
and what is not translatable and what is or what is not acceptable through selection, filtering
and even censorship. According to this perspective, a translator is necessarily the product of
his or her society: our own sociocultural background is present in everything we translate.
This approach was developed by the School of Tel Aviv and by linguists and professors
such as Annie Brisset, Even Zohar, and Guideon Toury.

1.6.2 The Communicative Approach

This theory is referred to as interpretive. Scholars Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne
Lederer developed what they called the “theory of sense,” based chiefly on the experience
of conference interpreting. According to this perspective, meaning must be translated, not
language. Language is nothing more than a vehicle for the message and can even be an
obstacle to understanding. This explains why it is always better to deverbalize (instead of
transcoding) when we translate.

1.6.3 The Hermeneutic Approach

The hermeneutic approach is mainly based on George Steiner’s research. Steiner believed of
any human communication as a translation. His book After Babel shows that translation is
not a science but rather an “exact art”: a true translator should be capable of becoming a
writer in order to capture what the author of the original text “means to say.”

1.6.4 The Linguistic Approach

Linguists such as Vinay, Darbelnet, Austin, Vegliante, or Mounin, interested in language
text, structuralism, and pragmatics, also examined the process of translating. From this
perspective, any translation –whether it is a marketing translation, a medical translation,
a legal translation or another type of text– should be considered from the point of view of
its fundamental units, that is the word, the system, and the sentence.

4|Page
1.6 .5 The Literary Approach
The literary approach does not consider that a translation is a linguistic endeavours but
instead a literary one. Language has an “energy” revealed through words that the result of
experiencing a culture. This charge is what gives it strength and ultimately, meaning: this is
what the translation-writer should translate.

1.6.6 The Semiotic Approach

Semiotics is the study of signs and signification. A meaning is the result of a collaboration
between a sign, an object, and an interpreter. Thus, from the perspective of semiotics,
translation is thought of as a way of interpreting texts in which encyclopedic content varies
and each sociocultural context is unique.

1.7 Pre-Translation Considerations

1.7.1. Reading The Text: You begin the job by reading the original for two
purposes: first, to understand what it is about; second, to analyze it from a “translator's”
point of view. Understanding the text requires both general and close reading. General
reading is to get the gist. Close reading is required, in any challenging text, of the words
both out of and in context.
1.7.2. The Intention of The Text: The intention of the text represents the
SL (source language) writer’s attitude to the subject matter. Two texts may describe a battle
or a riot or a debate, stating the same facts and figures, but the type of language used and
even the grammatical structures (passive voice, impersonal verbs often used to disclaim
responsibility) in each case may be evidence of different points of view.
1.7.3. The Intention of The Translator: usually, the translator's
intention is identical with that of the author of the SL text. But he may be translating an
advertisement, a notice, or a set of instructions to show his client how such matters are
formulated and written in the source language, rather than how to adapt them in order to
persuade or instruct a new TL (target language) readership. And again, he may be
translating a manual of instructions for a less educated readership, so that the explanation in
his translation may be much larger than the “reproduction”.
1.7.4. Text Styles: Following Nida, we distinguish four types of (literary or non-
literary) text 1. Narrative: a dynamic sequence of events, where the emphasis is on the verbs
or, for English, “dummy” or “empty” verbs plus verb-nouns or phrasal verbs. 2. Description,
which is static, with emphasis on linking verbs, adjectives, adjectival nouns. 3. Discussion, a
treatment of ideas, with emphasis on abstract nouns (concepts), verbs of thought, mental
activity (“consider”, “argue”, etc.), logical argument and connectives. 4. Dialogue, with
emphasis on colloquialisms and phaticisms.

5|Page
1.7.5. The Readership: You should characterize the readership of the original
and then of the translation, and to decide how much attention you have to pay to the TL
readers. You may try to assess the level of education, the class, age and sex of the
readership. The average text for translation tends to be for an educated, middle-class
readership in an informal, not colloquial style. All this will help you to decide on the degree
of formality, generality (or specificity) and emotional tone you must express when you work
on the text.
1.7.6. The Quality of the Writing: The quality of the writing has to be
judged in relation to the author’s intention and/or the requirements of the subject matter. If
the text is well written, i.e., the right words are in the right places, with a minimum of
redundancy, you have to regard every nuance of the author's meaning as having precedence
over the reader's response. If a text is well written the syntax will reflect the writer's
personality - complex syntax will reflect subtlety, and plain syntax, simplicity. A badly
written text will be cluttered with stereotyped phrases; recently fashionable general words
and probably poorly structured. In this case, you have to correct the text.

1.8 What is a translator?

A translator is person who translates writing or a speech from one language (source
language) in to a different language (target Language) especially as a job. A translator is an
inter- man, who is familiar with both language; a person who is a bilingual, bicultural, who
can compensate the absence of a shard linguistic knowledge that does the translation.

1.9 Theory of Translation (Rules and Principles)

Translation theory is misnomer (an incorrect or unsuitable name), a blanket term, a possible
translation, therefore a translation label. In fact, translation theory is neither a theory nor a
science, but the body of knowledge that we have and have still to have about the process of
translating. Translation theory’s main concern is to determine appropriate translation
methods for the widest possible range of texts or text categories. Further, it provides a
translating texts and criticizing concerned with choices and decisions, not with the
mechanics of either the source language (SL) or the target language (TL)
Translation is communication between two groups of speakers. But for communication to
take place through translation, communication to take place through translation, common
experience (shared knowledge) should be there between communicants. Language is the
basis of communication. But the same sort of language unit-sound, words, etc. might be
shared between communicants; not all people have the same level of kind of code. There
must also be some unshared knowledge; otherwise, there would be no point to
communicate. Certain communication, like salutation, etc. may not require shared
knowledge.
 Concepts in two cultures may not be compatible:
A. Linguistic incompatibility (lexical, phonology)

6|Page
B.Cultural incompatibility: The question is how do we bridge (fill) these gaps
(incompatibilities), especially, the lexical gap, such as padding (English), ‘firfir’. (Amharic),
respectively, to Amharic and to English? We can narrow down such lexical gap by
generating words from the internal potential of the target language
1. Fluency: a translated text should be like an originally compared text of the target
language phrase structures, local terms, etc.
2. Naturalness: not mechanical; not crated, when there is a good evidence of fluency in a
translated text, we would observe naturalness.
3. Relevance: Selection of the desired text from our options, units, paragraphs.
4. Economy: the shorter, the better. Like a lady’s skirt, short enough to attract and long
enough to cover the part.

1.10 Principle of Equivalence

Q. What is the main effect of a translator?
There is a wide but not a universal agreement that same effect on the reader as was
produced on the readers of the original. The principle is variously referred to as the principle
of similar or equivalence response or effect, or dynamic equivalence on the reader
Firstly, the principle demands a considerable imaginative or intuitive effect form the
translator, since he must not identify himself with the reader of the original, but must
empathize with him, recognizing that he may have reactions and sympathies alien to his
own. The emphasis of this principle is rightly on communication. The translator should
produce a different type of translation of the same text for a different type of audience. The
principle emphasizes the importance of the psychological factor it is mentalistic – its
success can hardly be verified one would, and behaves. The principle allows for a wide
range of translation types, if the writer of the original has deviated from the language norms
of the type of text he has written, whether it is an advertisement to like wise. A poem or a
story in such a case would retain the flavor of the original, and might perhaps read like a
translation.
Secondly, a non – literary text relating to an aspect of the culture familiar to the first reader
but not to the target language country cannot bend the text towards the second reader
Thirdly, there is the artistic work with a strong local flavor which may also be rooted in a
particular historical period. The themes will consist of comments or human character and
behavior universals applicable to the reader of the translation, and there, the work may
describe a culture remote from the second reader’s experience which the translator wants to
introduce to his readers not as the original reader, who takes it for granted, but as something
strange with his own special interest. But if the culture is as important as the message (the
translator has to decide) he produces the form and content of the original as literally as
possible (with some transliterations) without regarded for equivalent effect.
In fact, if the creative artist writes for his own relief, translation of a work of art. For
example, in Benjamin’s words (1923), no poem is written for its readers nor is regarded for
those who receive a work for art use full for the purpose of understanding. In such case, the
translator’s loyalty is therefore, to the artist, and he must concentrate on creating as much of

7|Page
the work as he can. This literal or maximal translation (in Nicolas’s sense, 1964): rendering
as closely as the associative and syntactical capacities to another language allows the exact
contextual meaning of the original. Syntax, word order, rhythm, sound, all have semantic
values. The priorities differ for each work, but there are three rules of thumb on this:
 A translation should be as literal as possible as free as necessary.
 A source language word should not normally be translated into a target language
word which has another primary one-to-one equivalent in the source language.
 A translation is impermeable to interference- if never takes over a typical source
language collocation, structure, or word- order. These rules apply to ‘literal’ as to
the much more common equivalent – effect of translation. Interference , however
plausible is always mistranslation
To put it in nutshell, the equivalent effect principle is the principle that the translator should
produce the same effect on his own readers as the SL author produced on the original
readers. The principle of equivalent frequency of usage in source and target language
applied to grammatical structures and lexis is particularly useful as an additional method of
verifying translation. While semantic equivalence is the only basic principle of translation, it
can only exist if there is a maximum equivalence of form and frequency in usage.
Equivalence: Semantic and Stylistic, Rule
Equivalence: (n.) the degree of correspondence of meaning, grammar, style and
communicative effect between a source text and any translation into a particular target text.
The term ‘equivalence’ was listed in 1958 by the French-Canadian linguists and specialists
in stylistics and translation studies Jean-Paul Vinay (1910-99) and Jean Darbelnet (1904-90)
as one of seven of their types of translation procedure. In their case the equivalence invoked
was not maximally strict. It involved translating units in the source text, especially idiomatic
expressions, into different but more or less equivalent expressions in the target text, as in
translating French ‘je m’en fous’ by English ‘I don’t give a damn’. The Swiss translation
theorist Werner Koller (1942-) in 1979 and 1989 proposed five types of equivalence
(sometimes referred to by specialists in translation studies by its original German term
Äquivalenz). These were denotative equivalence, connotative equivalence, text-normative
equivalence, pragmatic equivalence and formal equivalence. Criticisms of the basic
concept have included the arguments that equivalence in translation cannot be absolute, it
can extremely seldom achieve full equivalent effect, it promotes over- explication, and
reflects a very Western-oriented notion of the requirements of communication. The
translator needs to aspire for equivalence. Otherwise, s/he may mislead the audience. The
equivalence is between the source text (ST) and the translated text (TT). And the
equivalence achieved between these two texts can be in terms of their semantic/ meaning,
communicative effect/purpose and stylistic/ appeal to the audience.
In addition to this, the translator should take care to avoid the following kinds of errors in
the process of the translation:
a. Functional errors: These are based on incorrect understanding of ST dominant
function(s) and result in wrong translation strategy choice and, consequently, in inadequate
TT.

8|Page
b. Content related errors: These can be identified only in the process of ST and TT
comparison. (What may at first glance seem ambiguity often proves to be sense distortion
after looking back into the ST).
They are: Sense distortion Inaccuracy Ambiguity
c. Structural errors: These can be identified by reading TT only, because they are errors
in the target language. They are further divided into:
i. Syntactical errors, i.e. involving syntax rules violations and actual division deficiencies.
ii. Combinatory errors, i.e. morphological, word formation, lexical and compatibility
disorders.
iii. Stylistic errors, i.e. stylistic norms violations.
iv. Individual translator style defects: i.e. poorness of vocabulary and phraseology,
tautology, pleonasm, etc.
d. Cultural errors. These form a separate group because they are caused by a
misperception of the ST cultural component, or the wrong choice of culturally colored text
elements translation strategy.
Activity 2:
Have you read any translated texts from English to your mother tongue? Or vice versa
recently?
If yes, which of the above kinds of errors did you notice?
How would you try to avoid if you were the translator?

1.11 Description and Prescription

When a translator tends to state objectively what is there in the ST as it is, it can be said
description. The tone, the voice, the style, and the attitude of the ST are totally maintained
as much as possible. But, when the translator seems to take the tone, the voice, the style, and
the attitude of the ST to him/herself that might be regarded as prescription.

Unit Two
9|Page
 The Translator and the Process of Communication:

2.1. The Translator and the Process of Communication

Who is translator?
Activity:
Can anybody else be a translator?
What are the criteria to be a translator?

2.2 What Are the Things the translator supposed to do

during translation?
The role of understanding for translation can- not be underestimated. The famous postulate:
“Understood is what can be otherwise expressed” [Leontiev], 2001, p. 383), implies that
what has not been understood cannot be expressed otherwise. This means that one can
adequately translate only what has been adequately understood, and therefore teaching
translation to a large extent means teaching understanding. “Paradoxical as it may sound,
the translator has to understand the TT deeper than a “normal” reader, i.e. the target
language native speaker does”. The translator must not only understand the ST on the levels
of meaning, sense and intention, but also on the fourth (the highest) methodological level. In
other words, the translator should “understand the process of understanding”.
They/translators should know about the existence of understanding levels, to be able to
identify them, to master techniques of transition from one to another. (As a flash-forward it
could be mentioned that this correlates very much with critical thinking, which is
characterized as reflexive thinking).
1. There are three levels of ST (source text) understanding in the translation process:
a. Verbal-semantic or linguistic level.
b. Cognitive level.
c. Pragmatic level.
2. Understanding at the highest (pragmatic) level involves and includes understanding at
all lower levels.
3. The required depth of understanding is in direct relation to the text type and translation
type. There is only a small amount of translation situations in which surface
understanding at verbal-semantic level can be sufficient.
Apart from these, the translator should also consider the following during the process of
translation:
• Formal and semantic structure of the text;
• The theme of the text;
• General stylistic characteristics of the text;
• Genre, as well as genre type;

10 | P a g e
Functional dominant (communicative task);
• Informational content;
• Expressiveness;
• Pragmatics of both the sender and the recipient

2.3 The communication process made by a translator

From the viewpoint of cognitive, translation must be viewed as a process involving :
multiple targeting (with the possibility of conflicting targets), the need for inspiration and
intuition, a significant proportion of principally unavoidable uncertainty and
unpredictability, absence of general universal rules or instructions for any particular
instance of translation viewed as a complex task, attention to details that is paramount for
the successful complex tasks solving, uniqueness of each complex task instance, etc.
According to Komissarov (1990), translating is a heuristic process by which a translator
solves a number of creative tasks, using a certain set of techniques. Hence it clearly follows
that pre-translation text analysis is an intellectual activity based on the mechanisms of
critical thinking. In short, translation can be considered as a process which is a critical-
thinking-based cognitive activity aimed at (a) understanding of both content and message of
the ST, inclusively of linguistic, extra linguistic (cognitive, discursive) and pragmatic
aspects, and (b) determining of translation strategy and invariant.

2.4 The Translation Process

Translation is undoubtedly a creative activity, not always fully amenable to theoretical
generalization. It is clear that the initial stage of the process in translation is based on critical
(logical, deductive) thinking. During this analytical stage, the translator comes to verbalized
conclusions about translation strategy. But it is known that in the process of complex task
solving deductive reasoning has but limited applicability; induction and abduction are no
less important. Therefore, after the analytical stage is over, creative thinking activates and
works while the translation itself goes on. It is the stage of synthesis, which ensures the
implementation of the chosen translation strategies. The final stage of the translation
process, again involves mechanisms of critical thinking, but this time it has a reflective
nature and is aimed at TT evaluation and assessment.

2.4.1 Process of Translating

2.4.2 The Approach: There are two approaches to translating: (1) You start translating
sentence by sentence, for say the paragraph or chapter, to get the feel and the feeling tone
of the text, and then you deliberately sit back, review the position, and read the rest of the

11 | P a g e
SL text; (2) You read the whole text two or three times, and find the intention, register, tone,
mark the difficult words and passages and start translating only when you have taken your
bearings. Which of the two methods you choose may depend on your temperament, or
on whether you trust your intuition (for the first method) or your powers of analysis
(for the second). You may think: the first method more suitable for a literary and the
second for a technical or an institutional text. The danger of the first method is that it may
leave you with too much revision to do on the early part, and is therefore time wasting. The
second method (usually preferable) can be mechanical. Translating process begins with
choosing a method of approach. Secondly, when we are translating, we translate with
four levels in mind: the SL text level, the referential level, the cohesive level, and the
level of naturalness.
A. The Textual Level: You transpose the SL grammar (clauses and groups) into their
“ready” TL equivalents and you translate the lexical units into sense that appears
immediately appropriate in the context of the sentence. Your base level when you translate
is the text. This is the level of the literal translation of the source language into the target
language, the level of the translationees’ you have to eliminate, but it also acts as corrective
of paraphrase and the pared-down of synonyms. So a part of your mind may be on the text
level whilst another is elsewhere. Translation is preeminently the occupation in which you
have to be thinking of several things at the same time.
B. The Referential Level: Whether a text is technical or literary or institutional, you have
to make up your mind summarily and continuously, what it is about, what it is in aid of,
what the writer's peculiar slant on it is. For each sentence, when it is not clear, when there is
an ambiguity, when the writing is abstract or figurative, you have to ask yourself: What is
actually happening here? and Why? For what reason, on what purpose? Can you see it in
your mind? Can you visualize it? If you cannot, you have to “supplement” the linguistic
level, the text level with the referential level, the factual level with the necessary additional
information from this level of reality, the facts of the matter.

C. The Cohesive Level: This level follows both the structure and the moods of the text, the
structure through the connective words (conjunctions, enumeration, reiterations, definite
article, general words, referential synonyms, punctuation marks), linking the sentences,
usually proceeding from known information (theme) to new information (rheme). The
second factor in the cohesive level is mood moving between positive and negative, emotive
and neutral. For example, you have to spot the difference between positive and neutral in,
say, “passed away” and “died”, “appreciate” and “evaluate”, etc.
D. The Level of Naturalness: For the vast majority of texts, you have to ensure: (a) that
your translation makes sense; (b) that it reads naturally, that it is written in ordinary
language, the common grammar, idioms and words that meet that kind of situation.
Normally, you can only do this by temporarily disengaging yourself from the SL text, by
reading your own translation as though no original existed. You have to ask yourself: Would
you ever see this in The Times, The Economist, in a textbook...? Is it common usage in that

12 | P a g e
kind of writing? How frequent is it? Check and crosscheck words and expressions in an up-
to-date dictionary. Note any word you are suspicious of.
E. Combining the Four Levels: You should keep in parallel the four levels. They are
distinct from but frequently impinge on and may be in conflict with each other. Your first
and last level is the text; then you have to continually bear in mind the level of reality, but
you let it filter into the text only when this is necessary to complete or secure the
readership’s understanding of the text, and then normally only within informative and
vocative texts.
2.4.4 The Unit of Translation: The unit of translation can vary. It is what you are
translating at that moment. It can range from a word, a sentence to a paragraph or whole
passage. However, normally you translate sentence by sentence; running the risk of not
paying enough attention to the sentence joins. If the translation of a sentence has no
problem, it is based firmly on literal translation. Since the sentence is the basic unit of
thought, presenting an object and what it does, is, or is affected by, so the sentence is your
common unit of translation. In each sentence, it is the object and what happens to it that you
sort out first. Below the sentence, you go to clause, both finite and non-finite. Within the
clause, you may take next the two obviously cohesive types of collocations, adjective-plus-
noun or verb-plus object, or the various groups that are less context-bound.
2.4.5 Translation Methods: In this Session, it is important to introduce the two main
methods: semantic and communicative translation with their striking features as follows:

2.4.6 Semantic Translation 2.4.7 Communicative Translation

The stress lies on: -The stress lies on
- Meaning - Message -
- Author -Reader
- Thought process: - Utterance
Mostly inferior to its original. -Often better; it’s original. “Tailor made” for
one category of readership, does one job
-Wide and universal, responds to the author and addresses itself to all readers.
-No such right here. Right to:
Correct or improve logic.
Replace clumsy with elegant. Remove obscurities.
Eliminate repetitions and tautology.
Modify and clarify jargon.
Normalize idiolect
Correct mistakes of fact.
Secure truth Secure truth
Reduce unit of translation. Extend unit of translation
Text will be Text will be
: - more idiosyncratic - smoother
- more” sensitive” - more idiomatic
- easier to read
Text categories: Text categories Text categories
1. Texts of original expression 1. Most non-literary writing

13 | P a g e
2. Any important statement 2. Journalism
3. Autobiographies 3. Informative articles and books
4. Private correspondence 4. Textbooks
5. Any personal effusion 5. Reports
6. High literature 6. Scientific and technological writing
7. Drama (Shakespeare…): 7. Non-personal correspondence
8. Propaganda
9. Publicity
10. Public notices
11. Popular fiction
12. Religions, philosophical, artistic, scientific, legal texts.
There are other translation methods. SL emphasis, TL emphasis Word-for-word translation,
Adaptation Literal translation, Free translation, Faithful translation, Idiomatic translation,
Semantic translation, and Communicative translation.
2.4.8 Word-for-word translation: This is often demonstrated as interlinear translation,
with the TL immediately below the SL words. The SL word order is preserved and the
words translated singly by their most common meanings, out of context. Cultural words are
translated literally. The main use of word-for-word translation is either to understand the
mechanics of the source language or to construe a difficult text as a pre-translation process.
2.4.9 Literal translation: The SL grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest
TL equivalents but the lexical words are again translated singly, out of context. As a pre-
translation process, this indicates the problems to be solved.
2.4.10 Faithful translation: A faithful translation attempts to reproduce the precise
contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical structures.
It “transfer” cultural words and preserves the degree of grammatical and lexical
“abnormality” (deviation from SL norms) in the translation. It attempts to be completely
faithful to the intentions and the text-realization of the SL writer. 2.2.4 Adaptation This is
the “freest” form of translation. It is used mainly for plays and poetry; the themes,
characters, plots are usually preserved, the SL culture converted to the TL culture and the
text rewritten.
2.4.11 Free translation: Free translation reproduces the matter without the manner, or the
content without the form of the original. Usually it is a paraphrase much longer than the
original, a so-called “intralingual translation”, not translation at all.
2.2.6 Idiomatic translation: Idiomatic translation reproduces the “message” of the original
but tend to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialism and idioms where there
do not exist in the original.

2.4.12 Nature of Translation as a Process

While translating, a translator takes into account the lexicon, grammatical structure and
cultural context of the text in the source language to understand the meaning built in the
text and then transfers the same meaning to the text in the target language with the help
of lexicon and grammatical structure appropriate to the target language and its cultural
context. In this process, every care is taken to ensure that there is no or minimum loss of
meaning.

14 | P a g e
Activity:
Discuss in your groups on the following questions and report the result of your discussion.
What are the differences and similarities between translation and writing?
Are both writing and translation a one shoot activities or process oriented?
If translation is a process, what are the major steps that can be followed in translating a text?

2.5. Translation Process and /or a Product

Discuss the following question briefly in groups and report to the class.
Is translation a process or a product? If you say it is a process, what makes it a process?
In unit one, we have seen that most of the definitions show that 'translation is a process.' It
is usually viewed as the transfer of meaning from one language, termed as source language,
to another, termed as target language. Translation takes place in writing, and interpreting is
its oral counterpart. The two terms are often confused. At its best, a successful translation
should read as if it were originally written in the new language.
Recent academic research has shown that translation from one language to another is one of
the most complex higher order activities of the human brain. The translation method is
dedicated by the purpose of the translation. While the best translation will always be
performed primarily by a human being, in some (limited) situations, machine translation can
be a useful technique, and this is likely to increase in importance overtime as this
technology evolves.
The word translation has three different meanings. It refers to translation as:
An abstract concept which includes translating as both a process and a product, namely it
refers to both the activity of translating and translation as distinct entity;
A product of the process of translating, namely the translated product; a process, namely
the activity of the translator.
However, before getting the final translated text as product, there are three basic translation
processes to pass through:
N.B. These processes are to a small degree paralleled by translation as a science, a skill, and
an art.

2.6. The Communication Process Made by the

Translator:
 Translation can be considered as a process or /and an act of communication.
What do you understand from this sentence? How do you define communication?
If translation is an act and /or a process of communication, beyond the above
major process, what do you think should a translator do in his/her process of
communication?
 Translation is considered to be an act of communication. To communicate well
through translation, the translator should translate most effectively by analyzing
the messages. But before going into the detail, it is necessary to see what
communication is at this point.
15 | P a g e
 For most people, communication is simply talk. It is a natural event. Students enrolling in
an introductory undergraduate communication course will quickly reference a convenient
and aging dictionary when asked to define communication and provide the following:
 "Communication is a process by which information is exchanged between
individuals through a common system of symbols, signs ,or behavior"
(Webster,1983,p.266).
The fundamental problem with defining communication is nothing more than information
exchange is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for understanding the complex
process of communication. The naive perspective which allows one to define
communication as simple information suggests that one can simply define "engineering as
the art of managing engines"--a definition unlikely to resonate with most professionals who
study mechanical, electrical, chemical, civil, or biological engineering.
The field of communication focuses on HOW PEOPLE use MESSAGE to generate
MEANINGS within and across various CONTEXTS, CULTURES, CHANNELS and
MEDIA.
When we communicate, we transmit (as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior)
information (thoughts and emotions) so that it is satisfactorily received and understood.
Communication researchers refer to the process as "sharing meaning" and prefer to define
communication as "the management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning."
Translation, as a process of communication, has been seen as natural language acceptably
used in the context, if it is so in the original.
In the process of communication through translation:
Firstly, the translator's craft lies in his command of an exceptionally large vocabulary as
well as all syntactic resources _his ability to use them elegantly, flexibly, and succinctly.
All translation problems finally resolve themselves in to problems of how to write well in
the target language. Benjamin(1923)states that in good work ( translation), language
surrounds the content as a shell surrounds its fruits, while a translation is a coat hanging
loosely round the content of the original in large folds. A translation is never finished, and
one has to keep paring at it, reducing the element of paraphrase, tightening the language.
The shorter the translation, the better it is likely to be.
Secondly, the translator as a craftsman has to know the foreign language so well that he
can determine to what extent the text deviates from the language norms usually used in that
topic on that occasion. He has to determine with an intuition backed by empirical
knowledge and the extent of the text's grammatical and semantic oddness, which must
account for in a well written 'expressive' text, and may decide to normalize in a badly
written ' informative' or ' vocative ' text.
Thirdly, the translator has to acquire the technique of transferring smoothly between the two
basic translation processes: comprehension, which may involve interpretation, and
formulation, which may involve recreation.
Fourthly, the translator has to have a sharp eye for oppositions, contrasts and emphasis in
the original, and if it is a nonliterary text, he has to know how to accentuate these in his own
version. He has to distinguish synonyms used to give additional or complementary
information from synonyms used simply to refer to previously mentioned object or
concept .In literary translation, his hardest task is to catch the pace of the original.

16 | P a g e
 Unit Three
The Translator knowledge and skills in
Translation competence
3.1. Ideal Lingual Translation

17 | P a g e
Do all linguists and translators share a common level of linguistic intelligence? Is there a
level of linguistic intelligence about which one will always be required as linguistically
skilled?
There are thousands and one myth about what needs to be undertaken to become a good
translator, one of these is the opinion that the ideal translator needs to be bilingual. But is
this really the case? Is the mark of a great translator the fact that he/she is bilingual or
multilingual?
Generally speaking, a bilingual can refer to someone who fluently speaks two languages.
This definition itself poses certain problems. Firstly how do we define fluency, and
secondly, does speaking also include writing? We can assume that fluency is the ability to
speak and write effectively, skillfully, and articulately with smoothness and ease.
Obviously, knowing two languages fluently is most certainly key element in becoming a
translator. But is it enough?
Translation is by some seen as a gift, by others it is seen as a craft which can be understood
learnt and perfected. What r/n does bilingualism have to these approaches to translation?
Should the real translator be a native bilingual who has learned both languages since
childhood? Or second language? Some beeline that only childhood billing valise is the only
real way forward, although experience tells us this is not always the case.
This seems to be the main sticking point in discussions of bilingualism vis-à-vis translation.
Those who believe translation to be a gift often see bilingualism as a ticket to translation.
However, it is a naïve to think there is a one to one reship b/n bilingualism and translation
competence Although being is certainly vitally important for the translator, being bilingual
does not mean that one will become a translator.
Good theory is based on information gained from practice. Good practice is based on
carefully worked-out theory. The two are interdependent. (Larson 1991.) The ideal
translation will be accurate as to meaning and natural as to the receptor language forms
used. An intended audience who is unfamiliar with the source text will readily understand it.
The success of a translation is measured by how closely it measures up to these ideals.

The ideal translation should be:

Accurate: reproducing as exactly as possible the meaning of the source text.
Natural: using natural forms of the receptor language in a way that is appropriate to the
kind of text being translated.
Communicative: expressing all aspects of the meaning in a way that is readily
understandable to the intended audience. Translation is process based on the theory that it is
possible to abstract the meaning of a text from its forms and reproduce that meaning with
the very different forms of a second language.
Translation, then, consists of studying the lexicon, grammatical structure, communication
situation, and cultural context of the source language text, analyzing it in order to determine
its meaning, and then reconstructing this same meaning using the lexicon and grammatical
structure which are appropriate in the receptor language and its cultural context (Larson
1998)

18 | P a g e
In practice, there is considerable variation in the types of translations produced by
translators. Some translators work only in two languages and are competent in both. Others
work from their first language to their second language, and still others from their second
language to their first language. Depending on these matters of language proficiency, the
procedures used will vary from project to project. In most projects in which SIL is involved,
a translation team carries on the project. Team roles are worked out according to the
individual skills of team members. There is also some variation depending on the purpose of
a given translation and the type of translation that will be accepted by the intended
audiences.

3.2. Translation Competence:

3.2.1 What is Translation Competence?
According to the Germen scholar Wolfram Wills (1982), translation competence is the
summation of what the translator knows in two languages (SL and TL). The translator must
have an SL text analytical competence; and a corresponding TL text reproductive those two
competencies together, just like 1+1= 2
In much the same vein to Wills, Werner koller (1979) describes translation competence as
being the ability to put together the linguistic competencies gained in two languages.
Another scholar Bell (1991) describes translator competence as a huge summation: TL
knowledge, text type knowledge, SL knowledge, subject area (real world) knowledge,
contrastive knowledge, then decoding and encoding skills summarized as “ communicative
competence’’ covering grammar, sociolinguistics and discourse.
So, the term translation competence should have referred to as a kind of systematic
knowledge underlying the actual performances of a translator as an expertise.
The other side to the story is the common belief that someone who is bilingual is
automatically a translator Bilingual (non-translator are perplexed by questions from
monolinguals who ask them to translate a word, phrase or text. But ‘I’m not a translator is
the most common reply, often followed by the retort, “But you speak two languages fluently
…. ‘’In these situations, bilingualism can often be seen as more of a curse than a blessing …
Many of us have had professional schooling, undertaken some form of linguistic training or
scholarly preparation to become translators. Some of us have become translators by
accident, through our hove of languages or downright (non –a cadmic) hard work. Whatever
the path towards becoming a translator has been, we all have strong views about what

19 | P a g e
transition is or rather should be.When we sit down to translate, all of us have some sort of
idea. What is interesting is finding the connection b/n this idea, this form, and the reality of
the translation act, the matter.
If this is the case in each translation situation, for each translation event, there should be an
ideal fore where there are universes which we can somehow form trace and attempt to reach.
But are there such universals? Can we, infect talk of an ideal translation? Experience shows
that ambiguity exists even at the word level, so what possibility is there for postulating the
concept of an ideal translation?
The answer, perhaps, lies again with Plato and his allegory of the cave. If the translations
that we produce are shadows, poor reflections of some sort of ideal, then, in a sense, the
search for a better version is a worthwhile Endeavour in itself. We should always be
attempting to produce a better text, a more polished translation a clearer document. The
translation that we produce is a constantly flickering shadow of nether text, always moving,
always bending. Our aim is to pin it down, flesh it out make it whole. What could be more
rewarding? The kedge that our final text is simply a twisted shadow is the first step in the
search for the ultimate signified which can be found at the end of along and shadowy chain
of signifiers.

3.3. Communicative Competence

a. What is communication?
For most people, communication is simply talk; it is a natural event. Students enrolling in an
interdictory undergraduate communication course will quickly reference a convenient and
aging dictionary when asked to define communication and provide the following:
“Communication is a process by which information is exchanged between individuals
through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior (Webster, 1983, p266).
The fundamental problem with defining communication as nothing more than information
exchange is that information exchange is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for
understanding the complex process of communication. The naïve perspective which allows
one to define communication as simple information exchange suggests that one can simply
define engineering as “the art of managing engines’’ a definition unlikely to resonate with
most professionals who study mechanical, electrical, chemical, civil, or biological
engineering.
Because of its complex feature, Canals set the following criteria to define communication:
 It is a form of social interaction.
 It has a high degree of unpredictably and creativity.
 It takes place in discourse and socio cultural contexts
 It is carried out under psychological and other conditions such as memory, fatigue or
distractions.
 It is judged as successful or not depending on the outcome (for example an utterance
like’’ How to go train? Can be regarded as successful if we are given appropriate
directions to go to the station).
b. What is communicative competence?

20 | P a g e
Different scholars defined communicative competence in different times with little
differences in the following ways?
Canals and Swain (1980) defined it as the underlying system of knowledge and skill
refuted for communication. Form this definition; they redefined some of the following
concepts: knowledge refers to what one knows both viscously and unconsciously about
language and use skill refers to how well one performs that knowledge in actual
communication. The actual communication is the realist ions of that knowledge and skill
under several conditions like psychological, sociological, or nervousness.
For Hymens, communicative competence is a term in linguistics which refers to a language
user’s grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, as well as
social knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately.
Spitzberg (1988) defined communicative competence as “the ability to interact well with
others.’’ He explained the term “well” refer to accuracy, clarity, comprehensibility,
coherence, expertise, effectiveness and appropriateness.
A much more complete and operational definition is provided by Friedrich (1994) when he
suggests that communicative competence is best understood as a situational ability to set
realistic and appropriate goals and to maximize their achievement by using knowledge of
self, others, context, and communication theory to generate adaptive communication
performances.

3.4. Components of communicative competence

What are the major components of communicative competence? According to Canals and
Swain (1980) definition of communicative competence, there are four main areas of
competence that interact with the systems of knowledge and skill to form actual
communication. These are:

i. Grammatical Competence
It refers to the mastery of the language code itself. It includes wide areas like vocabulary
pronunciation, spelling, semantics and sentence formation. If focuses on the knowledge and
skill necessary to understand and sentence formation. It focuses on the knowledge and skill
necessary to understand and express the meaning of utterances.
A. ABOUT LANGUAGE
WORDS: When people get together, they talk to each other. All our talk comes in words,
which we use with their unchangeable meanings. In English, we know that the idea of 1 is
expressed as "one", in French "un", and in Vietnamese "một".
SYNTAX: Then there are rules, which tell us how to put the words together, their sequence.
I can say in English: I have a red book, but the Vietnamese would say: I have a book red.
Every language has its own order of words in the sentence and we must respect that. Once
we know a language, we can use the rules; we can make new sentences and phrases.
IDIOLECT: All native speakers of a language have a particular way of speaking, which
depends on their age, sex, mood, education, etc. This very personal way of speaking is
called IDIOLECT. It allows us to recognize a person by his voice, even if we do not see

21 | P a g e
him. There are about 400 000,000 English speakers in the world. Each of them, we might
say, speaks a different idiolect of English.
DIALECTS: Regional variations of a language are called DIALECTS. New Zealand and
Australian and US English can be considered dialects of English. It is very difficult,
however, to define a dialect as such, i.e. to decide when two tongues are to be classified as
separate languages instead of one being a dialect of the other. There is a rule of thumb,
which states that two dialects become different languages when they are mutually
unintelligible, when people of one language group can no longer understand members of the
other group.
SLANGS: SLANG WORDS occur frequently in speech. Although we use slang on many
occasions, it is rather difficult to define it. The use of slang, or colloquial language, creates
new forms by combining existing words, (beat it, rip-off) giving new meaning to words
(grass, pig) or introducing completely new words into the language
JARGON: All professions, sciences, trades and occupations, including the less honorable
ones have a language, which includes words known only to their members or initiates.
These "languages" are called JARGON. A doctor was being examined as a witness for the
defense in an assault case. The police prosecutor asked the doctor: "Did you notice anything
special regarding the defendant, when he came to see you on 29 July?” “The defendant?”
asked the doctor, “he had a peri-orbital haematoma”, and to the prosecutor's staring look he
added, "a black eye" to each his own jargon.

IDIOMS: Finally, in addition to single or compound words that we know in a language,

there are phrases called IDIOMS, the meaning of which cannot be inferred by the individual
words they consist of. Here are some examples of English idioms: to take for a ride, to give
a piece of one’s mind, to bite one's tongue.
B. STRATEGIES FOR TRANSLATORS: The following strategies have been suggested
by translators, commissioners of translations, and others involved in translating as ways to
approach difficulties in translation from English to Vietnamese. This list reflects only the
main issues.
STRATEGY 1: How to deal with non-equivalence at word level It is often the case that no
direct equivalents can be found in Vietnamese for English words. It may be that the concept
or idea is new to Vietnam, as is the case with "gender", which is in fact a relatively new
concept in general, and a difficult one to understand and explain in many languages. Or, it
may be that the concept is known or readily understood but there is no specific word in
Vietnamese to express it. Another difficulty is that, in addition to their concrete meaning,
some words have special connotations that are not conveyed by the Vietnamese word for the
same thing. The strategies listed below can be used to handle cases of non-equivalence.
3.4.1 Translation by a more specific word: In some cases, it may be appropriate or
necessary to use a more specific word to translate an English word into Vietnamese. This
usually involves choosing among several different words, as there may be many Vietnamese
words that correspond to the general category or meaning expressed by the English term.
For example, Vietnamese has many words that mean "to carry" with distinctions being made
depending on the size and shape of the object; its animacy (e.g. a child as opposed to a box);

22 | P a g e
and how it is carried (e.g. in the hand, in both arms, etc.). Similarly, the English word "rice"
can be translated by many different Vietnamese words, depending on whether one is
planting it, harvesting it, cooking it, or eating it. In these cases, the English word alone is not
enough to determine the appropriate Vietnamese translation, and it is necessary to examine
the English context in deciding which Vietnamese word is to be used.
3.4.2 Translation by a more general word: In other cases, it may be appropriate to use a
more general word to translate an English word with no specific Vietnamese equivalent. For
instance, English makes distinctions among mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles, the latter
having larger wheels and engines than both mopeds and scooters; Vietnamese, on the other
hand, refers to all two-wheel, motorized vehicles as "xe máy". Similarly, the English "paw",
"foot", and "leg" may all be translated by the Vietnamese "chân", which does not present
problems of comprehension in Vietnamese, as it should be clear from the context which of
these words is meant. Another example can be found in a manual on community
development, which translates "matrix" by the Vietnamese "ma trận". However, in
Vietnamese, "ma trận" has a specific use in mathematics only, and does not have the
additional sense of a model or plan according to which something is developed. In this
instance, "matrix" is better translated as "bảng", which is a more general word used to
classify a written plan or formula.
3.4.3 Translation by cultural substitution: This strategy involves replacing a culture-
specific item or expression with one of different meaning but similar impact in the translated
text. Because of their self-described "respect" for the original text, most Vietnamese
translators object to this strategy and tend to translate directly, even when it may be highly
inappropriate. For example, a farmers' manual that has been translated into Vietnamese
suggests the planting of different types of fruit and fuel trees that are not even grown in
Vietnam. The original manual, which was developed in other parts of Asia, was not
modified at all for the Vietnamese context. Though some translators argue that it is not the
responsibility of the translator to change the text in this way, the translator is in fact an
important role here. Translators should be encouraged to question the appropriateness of the
documents they are translating and suggest changes to make them more culturally
appropriate. However, this is not only the burden of the translator, but also of the
commissioner of the translation and the editor. In addition, field testing of documents will
elicit useful feedback on cultural appropriateness.
3.4.4 Translation using a loan word plus explanation: There is some resistance to this
strategy in Vietnam, as many translators prefer to create new Vietnamese words rather then
borrow English words. However, this strategy can be useful when dealing with concepts or
ideas that are new to Vietnam, cultural specific items, and proper names of diseases or
medicines that are widely known by their English names. For example, HIV and AIDS are
two loan words that are frequently used in Vietnamese, as they are referred to by their
English names in most of the world. Because these words have been in common use in
Vietnam for some time now, they are often used without any accompanying explanation,
which is not advisable. Whenever a loan word is used, it is best to offer an explanation
either in parentheses or a footnote. Another example is the acronym for oral dehydration
salts, or ORS, which is printed on every package; and hence easily recognized; this is

23 | P a g e
usually written in its English form with an explanation in parentheses as follows: ORS
(muối bù mất nước).
3.4.5 Translation by paraphrase: This strategy can be used when translating an English
word or concept that does not exist in Vietnamese, or when the Vietnamese term for it does
not include all the meanings conveyed by the English term for the same concept. For
example, in the sentence "pregnant women should avoid alcohol," the English word includes
all alcoholic beverages in its meaning. The Vietnamese word for alcohol, “rượu", does not
include beer in its definition, so the Vietnamese translation should add the word “beer” to
reflect the full meaning of the English. To cite another example, the English term "abuse"
and "neglect" signify a whole range of behaviors, some of which are not conveyed by the
Vietnamese terms alone. Therefore, the sentence, "Children shall be protected from abuse
and neglected” cannot be translated simply as "Trẻ em phải được bảo vệ khỏi sự lạm dụng
và lơ là” as was suggested by one translator. This does not account for their full meanings,
which must be unpacked for better understanding. This can be done by paraphrasing, as
another translator has attempted in the following translation: "Trẻ em cần được bảo vệ
chống lại mọi hình thức bạo lực, gây tổn thương hay xúc phạm, bỏ mặc hoặc sao nhãng
trong việc chăm sóc". Back translated roughly into English, this sentence reads, “Children
must be protected from all forms of violence causing harm or offense, and from
abandonment and negligence in their case."
3.4.6 Translation by omission: Though some translators may reject this strategy as too
drastic, it is sometimes appropriate to omit words or phrases that are not essential to the
meaning or impact of the text. This is especially true for words that would need lengthy
explanations, awkward paraphrases, or literal and unnatural translations, which would
interrupt the flow of the text and could distract the reader from the overall meaning. For
example, the sentence, "Much can be done even without being physically present in the
meeting..." is best translated into Vietnamese by, "Nhiều việc có thể làm ngay cả khi không
có mặt tại cuộc họp..." which omits the word "physically” in the translation. The difference
in meaning between "being physically present" and "being present" is so minimal that it
does not justify translation into Vietnamese, which cannot easily express the slight emphasis
implied here by the author, and would not do so by emphasizing the physicality of a person's
presence.
STRATEGY 2: How to deal with idioms and fixed expressions Idioms and fixed
expressions can be dealt with in ways similar to those discussed above. With idioms,
however, there is the added difficulty that the translator may not realize that s/he is dealing
with an idiomatic expression, since more idioms may make sense when translated literally.
3.5.1 Using an idiom or fixed expression of similar meaning and form: It is sometimes
possible to find a Vietnamese idiom or examples with a similar meaning to an English idiom
or expression, and which is expressed in the same way. One example is the idiom "to fight
like cats and dogs", which is expressed using the same words in Vietnamese "cãi nhau như
chó với mèo"; another is "better late than never", which translates as "thà muộn còn hơn
không bao giờ". It is ideal if such a match can be found, but this kind of correspondence is
not common, and it is usually necessary to use other strategies in dealing with idioms and
fixed expressions.

24 | P a g e
3.5.2. Using an idiom or fixed expression of similar meaning but dissimilar form: It is
also possible, and usually easier to find a Vietnamese idiom with a similar meaning to an
English idiom, but which is expressed differently. A good example is the translation for "to
carry coals to Newcastle": "chở củi về rừng", which translates as "to carry firewood to the
forest". The meaning here is clearly the same in both idioms - to bring something to a place
that already has abundance of that thing - but the way in which each language expresses it is
bound to the culture of that language. It would be far more cumbersome to translate this
idiom word-for-word into Vietnamese with an explanation that Newcastle is a well-known
coal-producing city in England (as was suggested by some Vietnamese translators), which
would unduly interrupt the flow the text and greatly diminish the idiom's impact. By
substituting similar Vietnamese idiom, then, the flow and the impact of the original text are
retained in the translation.
3.5.3 Translation by paraphrase: When Vietnamese equivalents cannot be found;
paraphrasing may be the best way to deal with an idiom or fixed expression. A good
example can be found in an article on maternal mortality, which includes the sentence, "But
before the new estimates replace the old as a way of packaging up the problem, it should be
said that a mistake has been made in allowing statistics such as these to slip into easy
language." The expression "packaging up the problem" presented problems in translation, as
it was misinterpreted to mean "assembling" or "gathering together". However, even if this
phrase were clearly understood, it would be difficult to find a correct equivalent in
Vietnamese; in fact, it would be difficult to re-state concisely in English. This phrase is best
dealt with by paraphrasing, which in English should read something like, “summing up the
problem by referring to it simply as a number, which does not reflect its true magnitude or
impact”. The expression “to slip into easy usage" is problematic for the same reasons, and is
also best dealt with by paraphrasing, as a direct translation into Vietnamese would be
nonsensical.
3.5.4 Translation by omission: As with single words, whole phrases may be omitted if they
are not essential to the meaning or impact of the text. This may be done with phrases that
would require lengthy explanations, awkward paraphrases, or literal and unnatural
translations. This may also be done when a phrase has two meanings, and one of the
meanings must be sacrificed for the other. For instance, a book entitled, “Being Positive -
Living with HIV/AIDS” presents problems in translation because of the double meaning of
"being positive". Here, the meaning is both that a person is HIV positive and, more
idiomatically, that s/he should have an optimistic outlook on life. This may be clear to a
translator, who may interpret the phrase to mean simply that this book is for and about
people who are HIV positive. However, the double meaning should be made clear through
collaboration with the commissioner, after which a choice must be made between the two
meanings, for it would not be possible to translate both meanings by one Vietnamese phrase.
As the emphasis is on a positive outlook towards life and not on the fact of being HIV
positive, one translator has suggested the following translation: "Sống một cách tích cực".
This expresses the notion of being positive about life without mentioning anything about
HIV status, which will be made clear in the rest of the title and in the content of the book.

25 | P a g e
ii. Sociolinguistic Competence
It means that utterances are appropriate both in meaning and form a given particular
situation; that is to say, contextual back ground. Appropriateness of meaning makes
reference to the communicative functions that are adequate or inadequate for a given
situation.
Appropriateness of form concerns with the way a given meaning is represented in verbal
form. We cannot finish a letter of application for a job with “Love” or Goodbye,” but with
“I am looking forward to hearing from you’ or “yours faithfully’’. Sociolinguistic
competence addresses the extent to which utterances are produced and understood
appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts depending contextual factors.
There are three types of rules that must be considered under the epigraph sociolinguistic
competence:
A. Pragmatic rules: that is to say, the precious conditions. For example, to give a
command, one must have the right to do so
B. Social appropriateness: It would be impolite to ask a stranger fill in how much he/she
earns.
C. Linguistic relaxations: that is the frequency and generality of forms.
Pragmatic elements: conversational analyses:
Conversational maxims:
- Relation
- Quantity
- Quality
- Manner

iii. Discourse Competence:

 It means how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to form unified text.
This unity is achieved through cohesion in form (use of pronouns, conjunctions
or references) and coherence in meaning, i.e.the relationship of meaning in a
text.
 It concerns with the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and
meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres.

iv. Strategies competence:

It refers to the mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies and has two
reasons:
 To make up for breakdowns in communication
 To enhance the effectiveness of communication

26 | P a g e
Major strategies for effective communication are:
Paraphrase: e.g. students don’t know the word baker,
They can say the place where bread is sold
Approximation: also called generalization refers to the use of a more general word to
define an unknown concept, e.g. oak =tree ; nightingale = bird
Paralinguistic: the use of non-linguistic features to convey the meaning of unknown
expressions.e.g.to convey the meaning of the verb “ to yawn”, we can use body language
Fillers (oilers):are words that don’t add any meaning to a message but can be used when
one is looking for the exact word /expressions to win time such as well, so, really.
Direct appeals for help: is the last resort when everything else has failed. This may be a
dictionary, a teacher, and a dictionary, an authority,

3.6 Ideal Lingual and Expertise competence

Translation competence (TC) is considered to equal – an even partial – competence in the
languages involved plus an Interlingua (rudimentary) ability to mediate plus
training/experience in translation. (Lörscher, 2012:6).There are roughly five parameters of
translational competence, viz.:
(1) Language competence,
(2) Textual competence,
(3) Subject competence,
(4) Cultural competence, and last but not least,
(5) Transfer competence. (Neubert, 2000:6).
However, more recently scholars have tended to highlight the interrelation between the
various components and developed some models that move from a static conceptualization
and representation of TC. Undoubtedly, one of the most quoted models is PACTE’s, in
which TC is considered to be the underlying knowledge system needed to translate and has
four distinctive characteristics:
(1) it is expert knowledge and not possessed by all bilinguals;
(2) it is basically procedural knowledge (and not declarative);
(3) it is made up of various interrelated sub- competencies;
(4) the strategic component is very important, as it is in all procedural knowledge.
(PACTE, 2005: 610).

3.6 Acknowledge base (Ethical issues in translation)

With regard to the above, a culture-sensitive and functional approach to text translation
assumes that source texts may (have to) vary in their internal and external components from
the target text to be produced. This is due to the fact that in culture-orientated and
functional translation it is not words or sentences that are conveyed but texts in which
culture-specific communication is translated.
Activity:
In your groups, develop a comprehensive note on the following two topics.

27 | P a g e
3.7 Inference Mechanisms
3.7.1 Inference and Reading: Much of what an author writes is implied. Authors expect
their readers to fill in the gaps. So, to truly comprehend or understand much of what an
author writes, we, as readers, have to use our inference skills. The more we are able to do
this the better our inference and reading comprehension becomes. And successful inference
of written text is often reliant on us having good word and world knowledge. To have a
good vocabulary is important. But perhaps even more important is to have a solid
understanding of semantic categories, and the links between words in our mental lexicon, or
mental dictionary. If we are able to access the connections well then our ability to make
inferences from complex text is that much stronger.
How do we infer?
Successful inferential comprehension requires us to do 3 things.
1. We must use the information presented in the text as our starting point.
2. We look for key words in the text that give us little hints or clues of a hidden meaning.
3. Using our background knowledge, or our world knowledge, we fill in the gaps using
the key words to select a best fit answer.
The best way to illustrate this is to use an example from a children's book: Schumann the
shoe man. To give you some background, Schumann the Shoe man is an old style cobbler
who lovingly makes pairs of shoes that are true works of art. No two pairs are the same.
Example text: 'One grey wintery morning, a shoe factory opened in town. Before long,
everyone was wearing the shoes that spilled from its conveyer belts. The shoes came in just
one style - sensible. They came in just one color - salmon. And they wore out after only one
season.' Excerpt from Schumann the shoe man, by John and Stella Danalis. This excerpt is a
particularly rich example of effective language written for children, and has much gold
buried just beneath the surface. Often, children, particularly those with oral and written
language difficulty, need a little push from us to discover for themselves the themes and
depth of certain stories. At a literal level, the author presents us with a shoe factory, which
makes shoes that everybody buys. The shoes don't last particularly long in that they wear
out after one season. But there's much more going on in the text than is revealed at surface
level. We can sense that the author doesn't really approve of this situation. Nothing is stated
explicitly, yet we can feel the disapproval nonetheless. We need to dig a little deeper here.
We start by identifying the key words.
'One grey wintery morning, a shoe factory opened in town. Before long, everyone was
wearing the shoes that spilled from its conveyer belts. The shoes came in just one style
- sensible. They came in just one colour - salmon. And they wore out after only one season.'

28 | P a g e
The author repeats the words one grey wintery morning, and one style, one colour, one
season. He adds words such as 'conveyer belts' and 'spilled' to denote a lack of care and
absence of originality.

At a deeper inferential level, the word 'everyone' carries weight in that it hints that
Schumann the Shoeman may face a difficult challenge if he were to lose all his customers to
the shoe factory. This then raises the larger world view of the small businessman trying to
compete with mega-companies and trans-national corporations. As we can see, there is
much that the author is communicating in this one short passage. The author relies on the
reader to use their world knowledge to infer the deeper implications of the impact the shoe
factory may have on Schumann the Shoeman's livelihood. A child with reading
comprehension difficulty may read this book at a surface level and not dig any deeper. The
child will note only that a new factory has opened and that it makes shoes.
The worksheets on this page are highly useful in directing your students' attention to the
hidden meaning in much of what they read. To be good at inference is to be good at
comprehension, which makes reading a far more enjoyable and worthwhile pursuit than
simply reading words on page.

Unit Four
Meaning and Translation
29 | P a g e
The analysis of various meaning is among the top priorities of the practices of the
translation process. There are different kinds of meaning in any language. As an example,
consider the following three types: grammatical meaning, referential meaning and
connotative (i.e., emotive or associative) meaning.

4.1 Grammatical meaning

Grammatical meaning refers to “the meaningful relationship between the constituent parts
of the grammatical construction” (Nida, 1964:57). This can be interpreted as the meaningful
relationship between words, phrases and sentences. The total meaning of a phrase or
sentence is not determined by a simple combination of the meanings of isolated words; part
of the total meaning is derived from the particular structure of the phrase or sentence. For
example, in the phrases such as old man, gray house, beautiful fur and tall tree, it is the first
component in each case which qualifies the second. Moreover, such structures in
traditional grammar as “subject+ predicate” and “verb + object” designate, in fact, a kind of
grammatical meaning. This can explain why the combination of words in a language is
meaningful and cannot be changed freely. For example, when we analyze the combinative
relationship of words in the sentence “The old men stared at us”, we do not relate the to
old, old to men, men to stared, etc., and do not reverse the position of men stared as stared
men.
Generally speaking, the phrases and sentences made up of similar construction may have
similar meanings. For instance, The old men stared at us and Some young boys pounced on
them bear the same construction of the parts of speech of words, i.e., “det. + adj. + n. (pl.) +
v. (past) +prep. + pron.”, and thus they share the same grammatical meaning. But this is
not always the case. Not all the same grammatical structures bear the same.
In the course of analyzing grammatical meaning, Nida proposes a new classification of
words into: object words, event words, abstract words and relational words on the basis of
Sapir’s and the symbolic logician Reichenbach’s theories (Nida, 1964, p. 62). Object words
are the words indicating objective entities, such as man, dog and machine; nouns often
function as object words. Event words are the words of action, such as run, study and
work; verbs often function as event words. Abstract words are the words implying abstract
concepts, such as tall, quite and beautiful; adjectives or adverbs often function as abstract
words. Relational words are the words used to link the phrases or sentences, such as in, if
and although; prepositions and conjunctions often function as relational words. However,
this doesn’t mean that all object, event, abstract and relational words are nouns, verbs,
adjectives or adverbs, and prepositions or conjunctions. The reason is that Nida’s four
types of words are classified according to their meanings, and they denote the meanings of
words, i.e., the concepts of words, which are something in the deep structure, not the
grammatical forms which are something in the surface structure. Therefore, a certain type of
word can have several diverse forms. For example, beauty, beautiful, beautifully and
beautify belong to abstract words, but they are noun, adjective, adverb and verb respectively
in terms of grammatical function.

4.2 Referential meaning

Grammatical meaning is no doubt important, but comparatively speaking, referential
meaning and connotative (emotive or associative) meaning are key in semantic analysis. In
30 | P a g e
Nida’s view, referential meaning is generally thought of as “dictionary meaning”. Later, he
interprets referential meaning as the meaning of “the words as symbols which refer to
objects, events, abstracts, relations” (Nida & Tiber, 1982: 56).
Referential meaning is, in fact, in our eyes, “conceptual meaning” bearing the logical,
cognitive or denotative content which is the first basic meaning of Leech’s seven kinds of
meaning (i.e., conceptual meaning, connotative meaning, social meaning, affective
meaning, reflected meaning, collocative meaning and thematic meaning). It is true that
referential or conceptual meaning can often be found in dictionaries.
However, the referential or conceptual meaning of the same word may vary in different
contexts. Therefore, a translator should analyze the linguistic context of the original
carefully, comprehend the specific conceptual meanings accurately in different contexts,
and choose the appropriate words in the TL. Otherwise, errors in translation may occur
A translator will distort the referential or conceptual meaning of the original if he doesn’t
pay enough attention to the context. And that is why Nida suggests that “referential
meaning” should refer primarily to “the cultural context identified in the utterance”. Context
plays a decisive role in determining the appropriateness of words bearing two or more than
two meanings.

4.3 Denotative Meaning

Denotative meaning involves the overall range, in a particular sense, of an expression –
word, multi-word unit, or syntactic structure. A ‘syntactic structure’ is defined to include the
words involved in that structure, not just the abstracted structural relations. Thus in relation
to a ‘parse-tree’ approach, a syntactic structure under this definition goes beyond the nodes
(terminal and non-terminal) to include the vocabulary items which are attached to terminal
nodes. Two expressions in a particular sense which ‘pick out’ the same extensional range of
entities in the world – or better, in all possible worlds, real and imaginable – have the same
denotative meaning. Denotative meaning is also known by other terms, e.g. denotational
meaning, denotation, propositional meaning and cognitive meaning (Cruse 1986: 45, 271–
277).
Connotative meaning, or connotation, is defined here negatively as all kinds of meaning
which are not denotative meanings. The denotative meaning of an expression in a particular
sense is that kind of meaning which, in the context of a proposition, contributes to the truth-
conditions of that proposition (for an extension of these principles to questions and other
non-propositions, see Dickins 2010: 1079). There is thus an intimate connection between
denotative meaning and truth-conditional semantics.

4.4 Connotative meaning

Connotative or emotive meaning relates to the associative or “emotional reactions to
words” of the participants in the communicative act. It involves such emotive values as
“vulgar”, “obscene”, “slang” and “pedantic”. Although the analysis of emotive meaning is
by no means as easy as that of referential meaning, Nida proposes that the only way in
which emotive meaning can be analyzed is by contexts, either cultural or linguistic
(Nida, 1964, p. 71). In describing emotive meaning based on cultural contexts we either

31 | P a g e
analyze the behavioral responses of foreign speakers to the use of certain words if we are
studying a foreign language or we attempt to diagnose our emotional attitudes toward words
of our mother tongue.
4.5 Collocative Meaning: In describing emotive meaning through the
examination of linguistic contexts we analyze the co-occurring words which may prove
diagnostic as to emotive value. This is, in our view, collocative meaning. It is true that some
synonyms may have the same referential or conceptual meaning, but they have different
collocative meanings when they co-occur with other words. For example, pretty and
handsome are synonyms bearing the same referential meaning “good-looking”, but
when they co-occur with the word woman, different collocative or associative meanings
arise, for a pretty woman implies “a beautiful woman” and a handsome woman indicates “a
respectable woman”. Connotative meaning, as noted, covers all kinds of meaning which is
not denotative meaning: meanings which do not involve the extensional range of an
expression in a particular sense, minus denotative meaning. There are many types of
connotative meaning (perhaps an endless number), but in this chapter, fifteen are identified
as particularly important for their significance for translation. In doing so, the following
basic notions are used here to analyze connotative meaning

4.6. Leech’s Seven Types of Meaning

4.6.1 The Complexity of “Meaning”
In his work “Semantics. The Study of Meaning” published in the year 1981, Geoffrey
Leech establishes at that time one of the most thorough classifications of the term
“Meaning” from a semantic point of view. In order to do so, Leech first puts emphasis on
the problematics of the term itself and names different authors who dealt with this subject so
as to accentuate the complexity of the topic. With regards to this, he mentions the book
written by C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, published in 1923, who found twenty-two
definitions for the word “meaning”. (1981, 1) Leech then states that ten years after Ogden’s
and Richards’ publishing, in 1933, Leonard Bloomfield in his work “Language” shared the
same viewpoint regarding the future of the “Meaning” as the two aforementioned authors.
The main point of both sides was that the scientific advancements would be of great help in
defining the term “Meaning”.1 (1981, 2): “The statement of meanings is therefore the weak
point in language-study, and will remain so until human knowledge advances very far
beyond its present-state” (Bloomfield 1933, 140) One might ask himself what the
importance of the establishing a theory of semantics is, and Leech has the answer. He states
that the main point regarding this question is to provide “a systematic account of the nature
of meaning”. (1981, 4) Additionally, he explains how this can be done, namely by
semanticists focusing on studying the relations within the language. The whole concept in
Leech’s opinion rests on the distinction between meaningful and meaningless utterances in
relation to “the knowledge of language” and “the knowledge of the real world”. (1981, 4-6)
To exemplify this statement, Leech provides two opposed sentences, each of which is
characterized by the discrepancies relating to either “real world” or “language”: 1) My uncle
always sleeps on one toe. (inconsistent with the “real world”) 2) My uncle always sleeps

32 | P a g e
awake. (inconsistent with the “language”) (1981, 6) 1 It would be interesting to engage in a
detailed diachronic analysis of the definition of the term “Meaning”, which would include
the time period of almost a hundred years (1923, i.e. Ogden and Richards - 2018), but the
scope of this paper cannot incorporate a work of that amount.

4.6.3 The Classification of “Meanings”

Leech created seven types of meaning (1981, 9):
1) Conceptual meaning
2) Connotative meaning
3) Social meaning
4) Affective meaning
5) Reflected meaning
6) Collocative meaning
7) Thematic meaning

4.6.5 Conceptual Meaning

As Leech underlines in “Semantics. The Study of Meaning”, the emphasis in this
classification should be put on the logical or conceptual meaning (also called “denotative”
or “cognitive”) (1981, 9). The reason for this is his statement that conceptual meaning “is
widely assumed to be the central factor in linguistic communication”. (Leech 1981, 9) He
goes further to explain that conceptual meaning plays an enormous role in linguistic
communication for it “has a complex and sophisticated organization which may be
compared with, and cross-related to, a similar organization on the syntactic and
phonological levels of language”. (Leech 1981, 9) This is connected, according to Leech,
with “two principles of all linguistic patterning” (1981, 9), i.e. the principle of
contrastiveness and the principle of structure. (1981, 9) Leech asserts that contrastiveness is
based on the classification of sounds in phonology, namely the binary opposition of
characteristics of sounds – positive (present) and negative (absent) features. He depicts that
using the example of the sound /b/ and, furthermore, with the example of the meaning of the
word “woman”. According to these two comparable subjects, the sound /b/ can be described
as +bilabial, + voice, + stop, - nasal, whereas the word “woman” includes following
elements: + human, - male, + adult. (1981, 10) The principle of structure, on the other hand,
is in this case simply described as “the principle by which larger linguistic units are built up
out of smaller units”. (Leech 1981, 10) 6 In addition to this, Leech expresses that, in order to
comprehend or generate a linguistic utterance, at least three levels of language need to be
present. These are: A) the level of phonology (a phonological representation), B) the level of
syntax (a syntactic presentation) and C) the level of semantics. In what order these three
levels are going to be used depends on the role in linguistic communication. As a speaker,
the process starts from the level of semantics, undergoes structural formation on the level of
syntax and becomes phonologically formed. This C-B-A order is called “encoding”. Unlike
in “speaker-situation”, the whole process is upside-down in the role of the listener when the
order is A-B-C, i.e. grasping the phonological structure, thereafter the syntactic one and in
the end realizing the meaning of the utterance. The A-B-C order is then called “decoding”.

33 | P a g e
(1981, 11) However, this idea has progressed over years and therefore this Leech’s structure
can be regarded as somewhat obsolete.

4.6.6 Connotative Meaning

For the sake of precisely defining this type of meaning, Leech’s book on semantics needs to
be consulted once again: “Connotative meaning is the communicative value an expression
has by virtue of what it refers to, over and above its purely conceptual content.” (Leech
1981, 12) As it can be seen from the definition, connotative meaning unavoidably overlaps
with certain aspects of the conceptual meaning. Therefore, the “reference” overlaps with the
elements of conceptual meaning, as in when the contrastive features of conceptual meaning
become attributes of the “real world” referent. But additional attributes expected from the
referent depend on various other factors, such as age or society, and they can also depend on
the individual, as claimed by Leech. (1981, 12) In this context, the relationship between
conceptual and connotative meaning can easily be compared to the one between the
language (conceptual) and the “real world” (connotative). For this reason, connotative
meaning can be seen as an open-ended and unstable category in comparison to conceptual
meaning. (Leech 1981, 12) 2 The evolution of this concept may be a topic for some of the
papers in the future. 7

4.6.7 Social Meaning

Leech stresses that the social type of meaning includes all the social circumstances
regarding the use of a piece of language. (1981, 14) Since these are closely related to
various social groups who are parts of those circumstances, David Crystal and Derek Davy
established a classification of socio-stylistic variations which vary according to3 (1969, 66):
1) Dialect (The language of a geographical region or social class) 2) Time (e.g. The
language of the 18th century) 3) Province (Language of law, science, advertising, etc.) 4)
Status (Polite, colloquial, slang, etc.) 5) Modality (Language of memoranda, lectures, jokes,
etc.) 6) Singularity (The style of Dickens, Hemingway, etc.) Therefore, it can be said that
the words with the same conceptual and social meaning are particularly rare, and, to prove
that point, Leech introduces a number of examples while contrasting conceptual synonyms
with different stylistic meanings. (1981, 14) Illust. Leech 1981, 14 Depending on the
situation the social meaning can also include what is called the illocutionary force of an
utterance, which can then be interpreted as a request, an apology, a threat, etc., as stated by
Leech. (1981, 15)

4.6.8 Affective Meaning

Another type of meaning which is closely related to the social meaning is the one which,
according to Leech, deals with the way a language can reflect personal feelings of the
speaker that may include attitude to a listener or something he is talking about. (1981, 15) 3
The explanations of the variations are to be found in: Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics.
The Study of Meaning. Second edition – revised and updated. p. 15. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books. 8 Furthermore, affective meaning can be expressed directly and indirectly,
once again depending on the context.4 1) You are a horrible person and I hate you. (Direct
message) 2) Boyfriend: “What’s wrong?” Girlfriend (in a clearly nervous tone): “Nothing.”
As it can be seen from the examples mentioned above, the factors such as tone of voice,

34 | P a g e
mimic and gestures can be significant when “decoding” the message of an utterance. (Leech
1981, 16)

4.6.9 Reflected Meaning

In a case of reflected meaning, it can be explained as the one appearing in situations of
multiple conceptual meanings, when one sense of a word influences our response to another
sense, as stated by Leech. (1981, 16) Furthermore, he exemplifies the statement above in the
cases of The Comforter and The Holy Ghost where, although both terms refer to the third
element in the Holy Trinity, there are certain semantic differences between those two
expressions. Thereby is The Comforter described by Leech as something “warm and
comforting” while The Holy Ghost he perceives as “awesome”. (1981, 16) Lastly, he points
out that in similar cases words can also impose the suggestive power with a little help of the
power of associations. (1981, 16)

4.6.10 Collocative Meaning

To clearly define what constitutes the collocative type of meaning a quotation from Leech
needs to be mentioned: “Collocative meaning consists of the associations a word acquires
on account of the meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment.” (Leech 1981,
17) To clarify his definition, he used the examples of the adjectives “pretty” and
“handsome” and the words which usually find themselves in their vicinity. 4 The following
examples are the ones I came up with. 9 Illust. Leech 1981, 17 In the case of collocative
meaning, the quasi-synonyms need to be mentioned, such as “to wander” and “to stroll”,
whereby Leech explains that “cows may wander, but may not stroll”. (1981, 17) Besides
that, a person can only “tremble” with fear and, on the other hand, only “quiver” with
excitement. (1981, 17)

4.6.11 Thematic Meaning

The thematic type of meaning provides an answer to the question: “What is communicated
by the way the author formed and organized the message?”, i.e. can be considered as a part
of sentence semantics. (Leech 1981, 19) There are multiple examples of these occurrences,
such as the ones where the active and passive sentence constructions are confronted, e.g.
Mr. X donated the first prize. (Active) vs. The first prize was donated by Mr. X. (Passive)
(Leech 1981, 19) In its core, however, Leech states that thematic meaning is “matter of
choice between alternative grammatical construction”, for instance in sentences “A man is
here to see you.” and “There is a man here to see you”. (1981, 19) Moreover, emphasis by
substituting one element with another or stress and intonation can also be of great
importance when dealing with this type of meaning. (1981, 19-20)

Unit 5
Semantic theories and their implication
for translation
35 | P a g e
5.1 General Perspectives
In functionally orientated translation theory the pragmatic dimension is a core element.
Given that pragmatics is the study of language as an action with a certain aim, as well as of
the social contexts in which linguistic action takes place, according to the functional
translation theory, translation as a special form of intercultural communication has to be
looked upon as the study of verbal and nonverbal action carried out by experts in order to
function- ally bridge two different cultural backgrounds. The significance of this contrastive
culture-pragmatic approach in translation is grounded on the fact that it reveals the culture-
specific use of language, text and mental concepts which constitutes a major translational
difficulty or obstacle.
Hence, it is obvious that a solid translation competence can only be achieved if translation
trainees elaborate on intercultural pragmatics of their working languages and develop
awareness of the significance of culture, pragmatics and text typology in the translation
process. In view of the above, contrastive intercultural pragmatics must be regarded as a
core
element of translation training.

5.2 Theories of Meaning

It is only obvious that sensitizing the trainee to functionally relevant translation problems
is helpful in preventing translational errors, because it enables the trainee to ascertain a
translational problem as such.

5.3. The referential theory

According to the referential theory, the meaning of an expression is what it refers to, or
stands for (Lyons, 1981). E.g., ‘John’ means John. The referential theory typically focuses
on a proper name and what is named (Alston, 1967). At first, nothing seems to be
problematic: on the one hand there is the name ‘John’ and on the other the man who is
named. One variant of the theory identifies meaning with what it refers to and another
identifies meaning with the relation between the name and what is referred to. A problem
with the first variant, pointed out by Frege, is that two expressions can refer to the same
entity yet not have the same meaning (ibid.). One does not just by understanding the
meaning of the expressions understand that they refer to the same entity so meaning cannot
be identical with the object of reference. A difficulty with the other variant is the assumption
that every word does refer to something. There are classes of words, such as prepositions
and conjunctions, which do not seem to refer to any objects.

5.4 The ‘traditional’ theory

36 | P a g e
The main idea in the ‘traditional’ theory of meaning, with its roots in Greek philosophy, is
the distinction between the meaning (intension, connotation, Sinn, sense) of an expression
and its referent (extension, denotation, Bedeutung) (Føllesdal et al, 1990). Charles Kay
Ogden illustrated the relationships between expression, meaning and referent in a triangle.
Meaning, intension,
connotation, sense, Sinn
Expression Referent, extension, denotation, Bedeutung
Figure 1 Ogden’s Triangle (including alternative terms). Meaning is what the expression
expresses. It is what is grasped when a person understands the expression. When a person
who knows the language hears or sees an expression he grasps the meaning expressed. The
meaning of an expression is distinguished from its referent which is the thing we speak
about when we use the expression, what the expression refers to. The meaning is something
abstract and can only be grasped by our intellect while the referent can be something quite
concrete such as a dog, a person or a tree. A possible question is: But, what is this thing
called ‘sense’ or ‘meaning’? One possible answer is given by the ideational theory.

5.5 The ideational theory

According to an ideational theory, words are marks of the ideas within the speaker’s mind
and communication is achieved when the words excite the same ideas in the hearer as they
stand for in the speaker. The meaning of an expression is the idea or concept, associated
with it in the mind of anyone who knows it (Lyons, 1981). Even if one at times speaks
without being conscious of the associated ideas one does not understand the word unless one
could call it up (Alston, 1967). But it does not seem to be the case that there is an idea in
one’s mind corresponding to every linguistic unit one hears or speaks. Consider the words in
the previous sentence: But - it - does - ... It does not seem possible to produce a distinctive
idea for each word. There are difficulties even for words for which it is easy to produce an
image. A problem is that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the image and the
word. For instance, the image of the word ‘dog’ could be a sleeping dog, a running dog, a
beagle or a hound. And the image of a dog can correspond to numerous words, e.g., ‘dog’,
‘warning’, ‘pet’, or ‘animal’. Another problem with the ideational theory is that we do not
settle questions about meaning by looking for ideas. The fact that there is public consensus
on what words mean suggests that meaning is a function of publicly observable aspects of
the use of language. This has led some theorists to base a theory of meaning on factors
present in the situation where speech occurs.

5.6 The stimulus-response theory

The stimulus-response theory defines the meaning of an expression as the situation in which
the speaker utters it and the response or disposition to respond which it calls forth in the
hearer (ibid.). A problem is that any word can occur in a wide variety of situations that have
nothing in common which is distinctive of the word. Furthermore different responses may
follow a given word depending on the situation, and sometimes there follows no overt

37 | P a g e
response at all. The theory is burdened with the assumption that every word is a sign for a
thing, aspect, or state of affairs (Alston, 1967). Another problem is associating the right
response with the right word — it is assumed that there is a certain response which occurs
every time a word is spoken. It seems there could be an infinite number of dispositions
produced by an utterance. Each of the theories mentioned so far is based on an insight into
the nature of meaning: (1) language is used to refer to objects, (2) language is used to
express our ideas, and (3) words have meaning in a physical context of human activity. But
it is an oversimplification to say that meaning is identified with only one of these aspects.
Most theories of meaning are also based on the notion that a word must be followed by one
certain aspect or thing on every occasion of its use, and the theories are therefore formulated
as answers to the question ‘what sort of entity is meaning?’. 2.5 Meaning is use A different
way of looking at language and meaning was established by Ludwig Wittgenstein. His work
is in a way a criticism of all the theories of meaning mentioned above. One of the main
points in the major work of the later Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, is a
negative one. It states what meaning is not. His view emphasizes the use of words and
language: it is the way an expression is used that gives it its meaning. The meaning of an
expression is identified with its use, but meaning can not be identified with any particular
aspects of the usage environment, neither the referent nor a mental idea. According to
Wittgenstein, it is a mistake to try to locate the meaning of a word in some realm or other, to
look for a certain sort of entity that constitutes meaning. Instead meaning depends on the
whole context of use, the whole language game, the whole ‘form of life’ that the participants
share. Wittgenstein’s primary contribution is thus to introduce a holistic perspective on
meaning. We have labeled this ‘usage holism’. It is not to be confused with ‘semantic
holism’, which could be described as asserting: ‘In order to understand an expression, you
need to understand a whole language.’. Usage holism, on the other hand, could be described
as follows: ‘In order to understand an expression, you need to master a set of practical
activities in which this expression is used.’. When Wittgenstein argues for this holistic view,
he exemplifies how aspects of the usage context, other than the ideational and referential
aspects, affect the meaning of an expression, e.g., social relations between different
language users. A second contribution of Wittgenstein is hence that he has inspired others to
focus on new aspects of the usage environment, in addition to (or opposed to) the referential
and ideational aspects. Both speech act theory and behaviorism have been influenced by
Wittgenstein in this respect. Wittgenstein emphasized that language has many different
functions — not only to convey ideas or refer to objects — and he also stressed that
speaking is doing something. Besides informing, speaking may be doing a number of things
such as asking, joking, begging, requesting, convincing, etc. Speech act theory has tried to
describe how people use language in terms of speech acts. There is a clear appeal to aspects
that lays outside the realm of the referent or the mental ideas of the language user. The
factors that make an utterance a command or a description can be, e.g., the bodily behavior
of a speaker, the eye movements, pitch, the location of the utterance, the social role of the
speaker, etc. Speech act theory is often labeled as a ‘meaning is use theory’ together with
the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein. Both associate the meaning of an expression with
how it is used. However, it is also important to see the differences between the two. Searle
associated meaning with a limited set of rules for how an expression should be used to

38 | P a g e
perform certain actions. With this as a basis, he created a taxonomy of different types of
speech acts. For Wittgenstein, on the other hand, meaning is related to the whole context of
use and not only a limited set of rules. It can never be fully described in a theory or by
means of systematic philosophy.

5.7 Foundational Theories of Meaning

We now turn to our second sort of “theory of meaning”: foundational theories of meaning,
which are attempts to specify the facts in virtue of which expressions of natural languages
come to have the semantic properties that they have. The question which foundational
theories of meaning try to answer is a common sort of question in philosophy. In the
philosophy of action (see entry) we ask what the facts are in virtue of which a given piece of
behavior is an intentional action; in questions about personal identity (see entry) we ask
what the facts are in virtue of which x and y are the same person; in ethics we ask what the
facts are in virtue of which a given action is morally right or wrong. But, even if they are
common enough, it is not obvious what the constraints are on answers to these sorts of
questions, or when we should expect questions of this sort to have interesting answers.
Accordingly, one sort of approach to foundational theories of meaning is simply to deny that
there is any true foundational theory of meaning. One might be quite willing to endorse one
of the semantic theories outlined above while also holding that facts about the meanings of
expressions are primitive, in the sense that there is no systematic story to be told about the
facts in virtue of which expressions have the meanings that they have. (See, for example,
Johnston 1988.)
There is another reason why one might be pessimistic about the prospects of foundational
theories of meaning. While plainly distinct from semantics, the attempt to provide
foundational theories is clearly in one sense answerable to semantic theorizing, since
without a clear view of the facts about the semantic contents of expressions we won't have a
clear view of the facts for which we are trying to provide an explanation. One might, then,
be skeptical about the prospects of foundational theories of meaning not because of a
general primitivist view of semantic facts, but just because one holds that natural language
semantics is not yet advanced enough for us to have a clear grip on the semantic facts which
foundational theories of meaning aim to analyze. (See for discussion Yalcin (2014).)
Many philosophers have, however, attempted to provide foundational theories of meaning.
This section sets aside pessimism about the prospects for such theories and lays out the main
attempts to give a systematic account of the facts about language users in virtue of which
their words have the semantic properties that they do. It is useful to separate these theories
into two camps.
According to the first sort of view, linguistic expressions inherit their contents from some
other sort of bearer of content. So, for example, one might say that linguistic expressions
inherit their contents from the contents of certain mental states with which they are
associated. I’ll call views of this type mentalist theories. Mentalist theories are discussed
in §3.1, and non-mentalist theories in §3.2.

5.7.1 Mentalist Theories

39 | P a g e
All mentalist theories of meaning have in common that they analyze one sort of
representation— linguistic representation—in terms of another sort of representation—
mental representation. For philosophers who are interested in explaining content, or
representation, in non-representational terms, then, mentalist theories can only be a first step
in the task of giving an ultimate explanation of the foundations of linguistic representation.
The second, and more fundamental explanation would then come at the level of a theory of
mental content. (For an overview of theories of this sort, see entry on mental
representation and the essays in Stich and Warfield 1994.) Indeed, the popularity of
mentalist theories of linguistic meaning, along with the conviction that content should be
explicable in non-representational terms, is an imprtant reason why so much attention has
been focused on theories of mental representation over the last few decades.
Since mentalists aim to explain the nature of meaning in terms of the mental states of
language users, mentalist theories may be divided according to which mental states they
take to be relevant to the determination of meaning. The most well-worked out views on this
topic are the Gricean view, which explains meaning in terms of the communicative
intentions of language users, and the view that the meanings of expressions are fixed by
conventions which pair sentences with certain beliefs. We will discuss these in turn,
followed by a brief discussion of a third alternative available to the mentalist.

5.7.2 The Grecian program

Paul Grice developed an analysis of meaning which can be thought of as the conjunction of
two claims: (1) facts about what expressions mean are to be explained, or analyzed, in terms
of facts about what speakers mean by utterances of them, and (2) facts about what speakers
mean by their utterances can be explained in terms of their intentions. These two theses
comprise the “Gricean program” for reducing meaning to the contents of the intentions of
speakers.
To understand Grice’s view of meaning, it is important first to be clear on the distinction
between the meaning, or content, of linguistic expressions—which is what semantic theories
like those discussed in §2 aim to describe—and what speakers mean by utterances
employing those expressions. This distinction can be illustrated by example. (See entry
on pragmatics for more discussion.) Suppose that in response to a question about the
weather in the city where I live, I say “Well, South Bend is not exactly Hawaii”. The
meaning of this sentence is fairly clear: it expresses the (true) proposition that South Bend,
Indiana is not identical to Hawaii. But what I mean by uttering this sentence is something
more than this triviality: I mean by the utterance that the weather in South Bend is not
nearly as good as that in Hawaii. And this example utterance is in an important respect very
typical: usually the propositions which speakers mean to convey by their utterances include
propositions other than the one expressed by the sentence used in the context. When we ask
“What did you mean by that?” we are usually not asking for the meaning of the sentence
uttered.
The idea behind stage (1) of Grice’s theory of meaning is that of these two phenomena,
speaker-meaning is the more fundamental: sentences and other expressions mean what they
do because of what speakers mean by their utterances of those sentences. (For more details
about how Grice thought that sentence-meaning could be explained in terms of speaker-

40 | P a g e
meaning, see the discussion of resultant procedures in the entry on Paul Grice.) One
powerful way to substantiate the claim that speaker-meaning is explanatorily prior to
expression-meaning would be to show that facts about speaker-meaning may be given an
analysis which makes no use of facts about what expressions mean; and this is just what
stage (2) of Grice’s analysis, to which we now turn, aims to provide.
Grice thought that speaker-meaning could be analyzed in terms of the communicative
intentions of speakers—in particular, their intentions to cause beliefs in their audience.
The simplest version of this idea would hold that meaning p by an utterance is just a matter
of intending that one’s audience come to believe p. But this can’t be quite right. Suppose I
turn to you and say, “You’re standing on my foot”. I intend that you hear the words I am
saying; so I intend that you believe that I have said, “You’re standing on my foot”. But I do
not mean by my utterance that I have said, “You’re standing on my foot”. That is my
utterance—what I mean by it is the proposition that you are standing on my foot, or that you
should get off of my foot. I do not mean by my utterance that I am uttering a certain
sentence.
This sort of example indicates that speaker meaning can’t just be a matter of intending to
cause a certain belief—it must be intending to cause a certain belief in a certain way. But
what, in addition to intending to cause the belief, is required for meaning that p? Grice’s
idea was that one must not only intend to cause the audience to form a belief, but also intend
that they do so on the basis of their recognition of the speaker’s intention. This condition is
not met in the above example: I don’t expect you to believe that I have uttered a certain
sentence on the basis of your recognition of my intention that you do so; after all, you’d
believe this whether or not I wanted you to. This is all to the good.
This Gricean analysis of speaker-meaning can be formulated as follows:[5]

 [G]a means p by uttering x iff a intends in uttering x that

 1.his audience come to believe p,
 2.his audience recognize this intention, and
 3.(1) occur on the basis of (2).
However, even if [G] can be given a fairly plausible motivation and fits many cases rather
well, it is also open to some convincing counterexamples. Three such types of cases are: (i)
cases in which the speaker means p by an utterance despite knowing that the audience
already believes p, as in cases of reminding or confession; (ii) cases in which a speaker
means p by an utterance, such as the conclusion of an argument, which the speaker intends
an audience to believe on the basis of evidence rather than recognition of speaker intention;
and (iii) cases in which there is no intended audience at all, as in uses of language in
thought. These cases call into question whether there is any connection between speaker-
meaning and intended effects stable enough to ground an analysis of the sort that Grice
envisaged; it is still a matter of much controversy whether an explanation of speaker
meaning descended from [G] can succeed.
For developments of the Gricean program, see—in addition to the classic essays in Grice
(1989)—Schiffer (1972), Neale (1992), and Davis (2002). For an extended criticism, see
Schiffer (1987).

41 | P a g e
5.7.3 Meaning, belief, and convention
An important alternative to the Gricean analysis, which shares the Gricean’s commitment to
a mentalist analysis of meaning in terms of the contents of mental states, is the analysis of
meaning in terms of the beliefs rather than the intentions of speakers. It is intuitively
plausible that such an analysis should be possible. After all, there clearly are regularities
which connect utterances and the beliefs of speakers; roughly, it seems that, for the most
part, speakers seriously utter a sentence which (in the context) means p only if they also
believe p.
One might then, try to analyze meaning directly in terms of the beliefs of language users, by
saying that what it is for a sentence S to express some proposition p is for it to be the case
that, typically, members of the community would not utter S unless they believed p.
However, we can imagine a community in which there is some action which everyone
would only perform were they to believe some proposition p, but which is such that no
member of the community knows that any other member of the community acts according
to a rule of this sort. It is plausible that in such a community, the action-type in question
would not express the proposition p, or indeed have any meaning at all.
Because of cases like this, it seems that regularities in meaning and belief are not sufficient
to ground an analysis of meaning. For this reason, many proponents of a mentalist analysis
of meaning in terms of belief have sought instead to analyze meaning in terms
of conventions governing such regularities.
Roughly, a regularity is a matter of convention when the regularity obtains because there is
something akin to an agreement among a group of people to keep the regularity in place. So,
applied to our present example, the idea would be (again roughly) that for a sentence S to
express a proposition p in some group is for there to be something like an agreement in that
group to maintain some sort of regularity between utterances of S and agents’
believing p.This seems to be what is lacking in the example described in the previous
paragraph.
There are different ways to make this rough idea precise (see the entry on convention).
According to one important view, a sentence S expresses the proposition p if and only if the
following three conditions are satisfied: (1) speakers typically utter S only if they
believe p and typically come to believe p upon hearing S, (2) members of the community
believe that (1) is true, and (3) the fact that members of the community believe that (1) is
true, and believe that other members of the community believe that (1) is true, gives them a
good reason to go on acting so as to make (1) true. (This is a simplified version of the theory
defended in David Lewis 1975.)
For critical discussion of this sort of analysis of meaning, see Burge 1975, Hawthorne 1990,
Laurence 1996, and Schiffer 2006.

5.7.4 Mental representation-based theories

The two sorts of mentalist theories sketched above both try to explain meaning in terms of
the relationship between linguistic expressions and propositional attitudes of users of the
relevant language. But this is not the only sort of theory available to a theorist who wants to
analyze meaning in terms of broadly mental representation. A common view in the
philosophy of mind and cognitive science is that the propositional attitudes of subjects are

42 | P a g e
underwritten by an internal language of thought, comprised of mental representations. (See
entry on the computational theory of mind.)
One might try to explain linguistic meaning directly in terms of the contents of mental
representations, perhaps by thinking of language processing as pairing linguistic expressions
with mental representations; one could then think of the meaning of the relevant expression
for that individual as being inherited from the content of the mental representation with
which it is paired.
While this view has, historically, not enjoyed as much attention as the mentalist theories
discussed in the preceding two subsections, it is a natural view for anyone who endorses the
widely held thesis that semantic competence is to be explained by some sort of internal
representation of the semantic facts. If we need to posit such internal representations
anyway, it is natural to think that the meaning of an expression for an individual can be
explained in terms of that individual's representation of its meaning. For discussion of this
sort of theory, see Laurence (1996).
Just as proponents of Gricean and convention-based theories typically view their theories as
only the first stage in an analysis of meaning—because they analyze meaning in terms of
another sort of mental representation—so proponents of mental representation-based
theories will typically seek to provide an independent analysis of contents of mental
representations. For an overview of attempts to provide the latter sort of theory, see the
entry on mental representation and the essays in Stich and Warfield (1994).

5.7.5 Non-Mentalist Theories

As noted above, not all foundational theories of meaning attempt to explain meaning in
terms of mental content. One might be inclined to pursue a non-mentalist foundational
theory of meaning for a number of reasons; for example, one might be skeptical about the
mentalist theories on offer; one might think that mental representation should be analyzed in
terms of linguistic representation, rather than the other way around; or one might think that
representation should be analysable in non-representational terms, and doubt whether there
is any true explanation of mental representation suitable to accompany a mentalist reduction
of meaning to mental representation.
To give a non-mentalist foundational theory of meaning is to say which aspects of the use of
an expression determine meaning—and do so without taking that expression to simply
inherit its content from some more fundamental bearer of content. In what follows I’ll
briefly discuss some of the aspects of the use of expressions which proponents of non-
mentalist theories have taken to explain their meanings.

5.7. 6 Causal origin

In Naming and Necessity, Kripke suggested that the reference of a name could be explained
in terms of the history of use of that name, rather than by descriptions associated with that
name by its users. In the standard case, Kripke thought, the right explanation of the
reference of a name could be divided into an explanation of the name’s introduction as
name for this or that—an event of “baptism”—and its successful transmission from one
speaker to another.

43 | P a g e
One approach to the theory of meaning is to extend Kripke’s remarks in two ways: first, by
suggesting that they might serve as an account of meaning, as well as reference; [6] and
second, by extending them to parts of speech other than names. (See, for discussion, Devitt
1981.) In this way, we might aim to explain the meanings of expressions in terms of their
causal origin.
While causal theories don’t take expressions to simply inherit their contents from mental
states, it is plausible that they should still give mental states an important role to play in
explaining meaning. For example, it is plausible that introducing a term
involves intending that it stand for some object or property, and that transmission of a term
from one speaker to another involves the latter intending to use it in the same way as the
former.
There are two standard problems for causal theories of this sort (whether they are elaborated
in a mentalist or a non-mentalist way). The first is the problem of extending the theory from
the case of names to to other sorts of vocabulary for which the theory seems less natural.
Examples which have seemed to many to be problematic are empty names and non-referring
theoretical terms, logical vocabulary, and predicates which, because their content does not
seem closely related to the properties represented in perceptual experience, are not
intuitively linked to any initial act of “baptism”.
The second problem, which is sometimes called the “qua problem”, is the problem of
explaining which of the many causes of a term’s introduction should determine its content.
Suppose that the term “water” was introduced in the presence of a body of H 2O. What made
it a term for this substance, rather than for liquid in general, or colorless liquid, or colourless
liquid in the region of the term's introduction? The proponent of a causal theory owes some
answer to this question; see for discussion Devitt and Sterelny (1987).
For a classic discussion of the prospects of causal theories, see Evans (1973). For a recent
theory which makes causal origin part but not all of the story, see Dickie (2015).

5.7.7 Truth-maximization and the principle of charity

Causal theories aim to explain meaning in terms of the relations between expressions and
the objects and properties they represent. A very different sort of foundational theory of
meaning which maintains this emphasis on the relations between expressions and the world
gives a central role to a principle of charity which holds that (modulo some qualifications)
the right assignment of meanings to the expression of a subject’s language is that
assignment of meanings which maximizes the truth of the subject’s utterances. An
influential proponent of this sort of view was Donald Davidson, who stated the motivation
for the view as follows:
A central source of trouble is the way beliefs and meanings conspire to account for
utterances. A speaker who holds a sentence to be true on an occasion does so in part because
of what he means, or would mean, by an utterance of that sentence, and in part because of
what he believes. If all we have to go on is the fact of honest utterance, we cannot infer the
belief without knowing the meaning, and have no chance of inferring the meaning without
the belief. (Davidson 1974a: 314; see also Davidson 1973)
Davidson’s idea was that attempts to state the facts in virtue of which expressions have a
certain meaning for a subject face a kind of dilemma: if we had an independent account of

44 | P a g e
what it is for an agent to have a belief with a certain content, we could ascend from there to
an account of what it is for a sentence to have a meaning; if we had an independent account
of what it is for a sentence to have a meaning, we could ascend from there to an account of
what it is for an agent to have a belief with a certain content; but in fact neither sort of
independent account is available, because many assignments of beliefs and meanings are
consistent with the subject’s linguistic behavior.
Davidson’s solution to this dilemma is that we must define belief and meaning together, in
terms of an independent third fact: the fact that the beliefs of an agent, and the meanings of
her words, are whatever they must be in order to maximize the truth of her beliefs and
utterances.
By tying meaning and belief to truth, this sort of foundational theory of meaning implies
that it is impossible for anyone who speaks a meaningful language to be radically mistaken
about the nature of the world; and this implies that certain levels of radical disagreement
between a pair of speakers or communities will also be impossible (since the beliefs of each
community must be, by and large, true). This is a consequence of the view which Davidson
embraced (see Davidson 1974b); but one might also reasonably think that radical
disagreement, as well as radical error, are possible, and hence that any theory, like
Davidson’s, which implies that they are impossible must be mistaken.
A different sort of worry about a theory of this sort is that the requirement that we maximize
the truth of the utterances of subjects hardly seems sufficient to determine the meanings of
the expressions of their language. It seems plausible, offhand, that there will be many
different interpretations of a subject’s language which will be tied on the measure of truth-
maximization; one way to see the force of this sort of worry is to recall the point, familiar
from our discussion of possible worlds semantics in §2.1.5 above, that a pair of sentences
can be true in exactly the same circumstances and yet differ in meaning. One worry is thus
that a theory of Davidson’s sort will entail an implausible indeterminacy of meaning. For
Davidson’s fullest attempt to answer this sort of worry, see Chapter 3 of Davidson (2005).

5.7.8 Reference magnetism

A different sort of theory emerges from a further objection to the sort of theory discussed in
the previous section. This objection is based on Hilary Putnam’s (1980, 1981) model-
theoretic argument. This argument aimed to show that there are very many different
assignments of reference to subsentential expressions of our language which make all of our
utterances true. (For details on how the argument works, see the entry on Skolem’s paradox,
especially §3.4.) Putnam’s argument therefore leaves us with a choice between two options:
either we must accept that there are no facts of the matter about what any of our expressions
refer to, or we must deny that is determined solely by a principle of truth-maximization.
Most philosophers take the second option. Doing so, however, doesn’t mean that something
like the principle of charity can’t still be part of our foundational theory of meaning.
David Lewis (1983, 1984) gave a version of this kind of response, which he credits to
Merrill (1980), and which has since been quite influential. His idea was that the assignment
of contents to expressions of our language is fixed, not just by the constraint that the right
interpretation will maximize the truth of our utterances, but by picking the interpretation
which does best at jointly satisfying the constraints of truth-maximization and the constraint

45 | P a g e
that the referents of our terms should, as much as possible, be “the ones that respect the
objective joints in nature” (1984: 227). Such entities are often said to be more “eligible” to
be the referents of expressions than others. An approach to the foundations of meaning
based on the twin principles of charity + eligibility has some claim to being the most widely
held view today. See Sider (2011) for an influential extension of the Lewisian strategy.
Lewis’ solution to Putnam’s problem comes with a non-trivial metaphysical price tag:
recognition of an objective graded distinction between more and less natural properties.
Some have found the price too much to pay, and have sought other approaches to the
foundational theory of meaning. But even if we recognize in our metaphysics a distinction
between properties which are “joint-carving” and those which are not, we might still doubt
whether this distinction can remedy the sorts of indeterminacy problems which plague
foundational theories based solely on the principle of charity. For doubts along these lines,
see Hawthorne (2007).

5.7.9 Regularities in use

A different way to develop a non-mentalist foundational theory of meaning focuses less on
relations between subsentential expressions or sentences and bits of non-linguistic reality
and more on the regularities which govern our use of language. Views of this sort have been
defended by a number of authors; this section focuses on the version of the view developed
in Horwich (1998, 2005).
Horwich’s core idea is that our acceptance of sentences is governed by certain laws, and, in
the case of non-ambiguous expressions, there is a single “acceptance regularity” which
explains all of our uses of the expression. The type of acceptance regularity which is
relevant will vary depending on the sort of expression whose meaning is being explained.
For example, our use of a perceptual term like “red” might be best explained by the
following acceptance regularity:
The disposition to accept “that is red” in response to the sort of visual experience normally
provoked by a red surface.whereas, in the case of a logical term like “and”, the acceptance
regularity will involve dispositions to accept inferences involving pairs of sentences rather
than dispositions to respond to particular sorts of experiences:
The disposition to accept the two-way argument schema “p, q // p and q”.As these examples
illustrate, it is plausible that a strength of a view like Horwich’s is its ability to handle
expressions of different categories.
Like its competitors, Horwich’s theory is also open to some objections. One might worry
that his use of the sentential attitude of acceptance entails a lapse into mentalism, if
acceptance either just is, or is analyzed in terms of, beliefs. There is also a worry—which
affects other “use” or “conceptual role” or “functional role” theories of meaning—that
Horwich’s account implies the existence of differences in meaning which do not exist; it
seems, for example, that two people’s use of some term might be explained by distinct basic
acceptance regularities without their meaning different things by that term. Schiffer (2000)
discusses the example of “dog”, and the differences between the basic acceptance
regularities which govern the use of the term for the blind, the biologically unsophisticated,
and people acquainted only with certain sorts of dogs.[7]

46 | P a g e
5.7.10 Social norms
This last concern about Horwich’s theory stems from the fact that the theory is, at its core,
an individualist theory: it explains the meaning of an expression for an individual in terms
of properties of that individual’s use of the term. A quite different sort of use theory of
meaning turns from the laws which explain an individual’s use of a word to the norms
which, in a society, govern the use of the relevant terms. Like the other views discussed
here, the view that meaning is a product of social norms of this sort has a long history; it is
particularly associated with the work of the later Wittgenstein and his philosophical
descendants. (See especially Wittgenstein 1953.)
An important defender of this sort of view is Robert Brandom. On Brandom’s view, a
sentence’s meaning is due to the conditions, in a given society, under which it is correct or
appropriate to perform various speech acts involving the sentence. To develop a theory of
this sort, one must do two things. First, one must show how the meanings of expressions can
be explained in terms of these normative statuses—in Brandom’s (slightly nonstandard)
terms, one must show how semantics can be explained in terms of pragmatics. Second, one
must explain how these normative statuses can be instituted by social practices.
For details, see Brandom (1994), in which the view is developed at great length; for a
critical discussion of Brandom’s attempt to carry out the second task above, see Rosen
(1997). For discussion of the role (or lack thereof) of normativity in a foundational theory of
meaning, see Hattiangadi (2007), Gluer and Wilkforss (2009), and the entry on meaning
normativity.

Unit 6
Written Texts and Their Standards of
Textuality
Introduction: What is a text?

47 | P a g e
6.1 Text Definition
Traditionally, a text is understood to be a piece of written or spoken material in its primary
form (as opposed to a paraphrase or summary). A text is any stretch of language that can be
understood in context. It may be as simple as 1-2 words (such as a stop sign) or as complex
as a novel. Any sequence of sentences that belong together can be considered a text.
Text refers to content rather than form; for example, if you were talking about the text of
"Don Quixote," you would be referring to the words in the book, not the physical book
itself. Information related to a text, and often printed alongside it—such as an author's name,
the publisher, the date of publication, etc.—is known as paratext. The idea of what
constitutes a text has evolved over time. In recent years, the dynamics of technology—
especially social media—have expanded the notion of the text to include symbols such as
emoticons and emojis. A sociologist studying teenage communication, for example, might
refer to texts that combine traditional language and graphic symbols.
In translation:-a text is a spoken or a written discourse that can be interpreted to render
meaning.
In linguistics, the term text refers to:
 the original words of something written, printed, or spoken, in contrast to
a summary or paraphrase:
 coherent stretch of language that may be regarded as an object of critical
analysis.
6.2 Text linguistics: refers to a form of discourse analysis—a method of studying
written or spoken language—that is concerned with the description and analysis of extended
texts (those beyond the level of the single sentence). A text can be any example of written or
spoken language, from something as complex as a book or legal document to something as
simple as the body of an email or the words on the back of a cereal box.In the humanities,
different fields of study concern themselves with different forms of texts. Literary theorists,
for example, focus primarily on literary texts—novels, essays, stories, and poems. Legal
scholars focus on legal texts such as laws, contracts, decrees, and regulations. Cultural
theorists work with a wide variety of texts, including those that may not typically be the
subject of studies, such as advertisements, signage, instruction manuals, and other
ephemera.Text linguistics is a field of study where texts are treated as communication
systems. The analysis deals with stretches of language beyond the single sentence and
focuses particularly on context, i.e. information that goes along with what is said and
written. Context includes such things as the social relationship between two speakers or
correspondents, the place where communication occurs, and non-verbal information such as
body language. Linguists use this contextual information to describe the "socio-cultural
environment" in which a text exists.
Sources:
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

48 | P a g e
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
_____________
6.3 Texts and New Technologies: The concept of the text is not a stable
one. It is always changing as the technologies for publishing and disseminating texts evolve.
In the past, texts were usually presented as printed matter in bound volumes such as
pamphlets or books. Today, however, people are more likely to encounter texts in digital
space, where the materials are becoming "more fluid," according to linguists David Barton
and Carmen Lee:
" Texts can no longer be thought of as relatively fixed and stable. They are more fluid with
the changing affordances of new media. In addition, they are becoming increasingly
multimodal and interactive. Links between texts are complex online, and intertextuality is
common in online texts as people draw upon and play with other texts available on the
web."
An example of such intertextuality can be found in any popular news story. An article
in The New York Times, for example, may contain embedded tweets from Twitter, links to
outside articles, or links to primary sources such as press releases or other documents. With
a text such as this, it is sometimes difficult to describe what exactly is part of the text and
what is not. An embedded tweet, for instance, may be essential to understanding the text
around it—and therefore part of the text itself—but it is also its own independent text. On
social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as blogs and Wikipedia, it is
common to find such relationships between texts.

6.4 What are standards of texuality?

The following is a summary from: Beaugrande, R. de and W.U. Dressler. 1992.
Introduction to Text Linguistics. London, New York. Longman. The 7 standards of
Textuality (Text Linguistics) Text linguistics deals with fragments of language larger than a
sentence. The approach to text is functional rather than formal, i.e. Text Linguistics is
concerned with how people use language, which involves taking into account context. The
task of text linguistics is to account for the ability of native speakers to distinguish between
well-formed texts, which constitute a unified whole, and non-texts. According to De
Beaugrande and Dressler, a text can be defined as a communicative occurrence when it
meets the seven standards of textuality.
 cohesion
 coherence
 intentionality
 acceptability
 informativity
 situationality
 intertextuality

49 | P a g e
I. Cohesion: It concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text (the actual
words that we hear or read) are connected in a sequence. The cohesive devices have two
tasks: a) to unify text; b) to make it more economical (to save short-term memory).
Cohesive devices can be grouped into the following categories:
a) co-reference E.g. I met a very knowledgeable man last week. He told me that ….
b) substitution. E.g. Would you like the red sweater or the blue one?
c) ellipsis E.g. Would you like another candy? I have plenty (-)
d) lexical cohesion E.g. terms such as “universe, stars, galaxy, sun” in a text about the
discovery of a new planet. The semantic field/lexical set could be called “Astronomy.”
e) conjunction E.g. There are many reasons why yoga is highly beneficial. First, it can help
you become more flexible. Second, it is the best way to develop body and soul connection.
II. Coherence: This has to do with the mental processes and cultural knowledge that help a
reader/hearer understand any given discourse.
Could you open the door?
I’m in the bath!
Often texts are both coherent and cohesive, but sometimes only coherent, e.g. the example
above. As long as they are interpreted by the users, and are understood, they are acceptable.
However, a text which is cohesive but not coherent is unacceptable. Logical unity is more
important than surface unity. Yesterday I saw a car. A car is a machine. There is no doubt
about it that a machine is a noun. We have many kinds of nouns and he was very kind to me.
What’s more, kind has four letters.
III and IV. Intentionality and Acceptability: These concern the speaker/writer’s intention
to produce a text, and the listener/reader´s intention to accept it as a text. Assessing
intentionally involves asking questions such as “What is the goal? Does the text achieve it?”
When assessing intentionality, listeners/readers ask whether the text can be considered of
use or relevance. If a conversation is to be successful, it should involve
 co-operation of the interlocutors;
 truthfulness of the interlocutors;
 providing necessary information (but not more or less than necessary);
 being relevant, to the point;
 being clear.
(Remember, though, that these can be purposefully violated, to imply something)
If acceptability is restricted, communication can break down. It is taken as a signal of
noncooperation if a text receiver raises questions about acceptability when the text
producer’s intentionality is obviously in effect.
Example:
Thomson: On the way to France, I had the funniest experience! I was sitting next to a
Frenchman on the train and he was dozing off and then … Smith: Did you get to France at
all when you were away? Thomson: This was in France that I am telling you about. On the
way from Paris to Marseilles, I got into this carriage and sat next to a Frenchman. Smith:
The carriages there aren´t like our here, right? Thomson (rather discouraged): A bit
different, but that´s not the point. Here it is clear that Thomson has a plan in order to tell his
story. However, Smith denies acceptability of the plan by being non-cooperative. Smith

50 | P a g e
refuses to accept Thomson´s text as an anecdote and thus he has defeated Thomson´s goal
and attained his own, which was to make Thomson refrain from telling an anecdote his
interlocutor was not interested in. Smith has achieved all this through lack of acceptance of
Thomson´s text. In the case of written texts, writers must observe the conventions of the text
type being produced. For example, when writing a research paper, writers must follow the
conventions of academic discourse, which involve the use of proper citation conventions
and strict observance of the following sections: Introduction, Literature Review, Methods,
Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Reference List. For a research paper to be accepted, among
other requirements, all the sections must be included and their order cannot be altered.
V.Informativity :It concerns the balance between the unknown and certain, expected and
unexpected in a text. A text which is full of the new and unexpected can be rejected as too
difficult. (too high on informativity) A text which consists of only known information can
be rejected as boring. (too low on informativity) Informativity is context-sensitive. For
example, you expect high informativity in a lecture, and rather low informativity in a text
heard at a bus stop. Example: Particularly low informativity is likely to be disturbing,
causing boredom or even rejection of the text. The opening stretch of a science textbook
runs like this: [1] The sea is water The fact asserted here is so well known to everyone that
there seems to be no point in saying it here. The stretch of text is clearly cohesive and
coherent, and undoubtedly intended to be acceptable as such. But it is nonetheless a
marginal text because it is so uninformative. Not until we look at the continuation does the
text’s status seem more sound: [2] The sea is water only in the sense that water is the
dominant substance present. Actually, it is a solution of gases and salts in addition to vast
numbers of living organisms ... The assertion of the obvious fact in [2] functions as a
starting point for asserting something more informative. In addition, a written text with a
high level of informativity will require good use of paragraphing, topic sentences and
connectors to be considered appropriate and effective.
VI. Situationality: It concerns factors which make a text relevant to a current situation or
occurrence. Example: A road sign such as: (1) SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY may be
interpreted in different ways, but its intended meaning may be inferred by considering its
context, or the situation in which it is used. If the sign is placed in a location where a certain
class of receivers, namely motorists is likely to be asked for a particular action, then it is far
more reasonable to assume that ‘slow’ is a request to reduce speed rather than an
announcement of the children’s mental or physical deficiencies. On the one hand, a text
version such as: [2] Motorists should proceed slowly, because children are playing in the
vicinity and might run out into the street. Vehicles can stop more readily if they are moving
slowly. would remove every possible doubt meaning. However, it would not be appropriate
to a situation where receivers have only limited time and attention to devote to signs among
the other occurrences of moving traffic. 7.
VII. Inter-textuality. This concerns the ways in which the production and reception of a
given text depend upon the participants’ knowledge of other texts. The transfer from an old
text to the present one can take the form a direct quotation or an allusion. Example: An
advertisement appeared in magazines some years ago showing a petulant young man saying
to someone outside the picture: [1] As long as you’re up, get me a Grant’s. A professor
working on a research project cut the text out of a magazine, altered it slightly, and

51 | P a g e
displayed it on his office door as: [2] As long as you’re up, get me a Grant. In the original
setting, [1] was a request to be given a beverage of a particular brand. In the new setting, [2]
seems to be pointless: research grants are awarded only after extensive preparation and
certainly can’t be obtained while casually walking across a room. One can only understand
[2] as a joke via one’s knowledge of the originally presented text.
Activity: Work in pairs/groups.
Study the figure below carefully and try to analyze the note below the figure.

Source: Ying Cui and Wei Zhao (2015). Language Translation and Interpretation: IGI
Global
The above model shows the important characteristics of the text as an object of translation
and illustrates the author’s vision of the text as an integral whole of form and content. It
includes five aspects, among which aspect “A” (functional style and speech genre)
occupies the central place. It is located in the center, because “… genre and style are
synthesis categories, they embody integral characteristics of a text” (Brandes, 1988: 70).
It is surrounded with other aspect characteristics, marked “B”, “C”, “D”, and “E”.
Aspect “B” presupposes:
VIII. External information about the text (author, time of creation and publication, the
global source of the text, etc.) All of this external extra linguistic information largely
influences the translation strategy. For example, obsolescent lexis is needed to translate a
text created in XIX century.
IX .The general content (theme) of the text.

52 | P a g e
Aspect “C” involves the following parameters:
3. Dominant speech form: statement, description or reasoning (Brandes & Provotorov],
2001).
4. Dominant reporting format: monologue, dialogue or polylogue.
5. Syntactical features structures of sentences, paragraphs, supra-phrasal unities,
fragments.
6. The general composition character: stereo- typical or free.
7. In-text cohesion forms: chain-like, parallel, attaching; lexical, logical, associative
connections.
8. Overall coherence and integrity of the text and the language means, providing for
them.
Aspect “D” is all about information and its density. It includes:
9. Types of information presented in the text, the information density, the method of its
presentation (explicit or implicit), as well as modality and expressiveness forms.
10. Stylistic devices and expressive means, as well as other stylistically marked language
and text segments. Expressiveness: “external” and “internal” forms. Register: formal/
elevated, neutral, informal/colloquial.
11. Conceptual information of the text, as well as semantic, pragmatic and aesthetic value
of the text.
Aspect “E” could be called “pragmatic”, for it is about translation pragmatics.
It includes:
12. Dominant speech function(s), i.e. communicative task.
13. Sender and addressee types (generalized, instantiated or specific; specialist or non-
specialist; addressee’s supposed age and social group).
14. Culturally colored text components and degree of their importance.
15. Translation invariant.
To sum up, it must be emphasized that all the fifteen items listed are interrelated and
interdependent. In practice PTSTA can begin with any aspect of the circular pattern, in full
accordance with the properties of a circle in general and hermeneutical circle in particular. It
must also be noted that PTSTA is not a recipe to be mindlessly and mechanically followed,
but, rather, a set of reference points, benchmarks, and a guideline for conscious creative
activity of the translator.
But the scheme above applies to non-fiction texts. As for fiction translation, the scheme has
to be modified considerably, adding some narratological categories applicable for belles-
lettres style. Fiction translation is undoubtedly one of the most creative translator’s jobs,
involving critical and creative thinking skills, i.e. ability to analyze and synthesize,
employing theoretical knowledge and logical thinking as well as intuition, insight and
“artistic sensitivity” (Nida, 1964:3).
The translator has to see the subtle interdependences between the structure of a literary work
and its content, meaning, and, finally, message. In other words, adequacy of translation rests
upon adequacy of understanding, hence the translator has to be a most sophisticated and
attentive reader, and only after that a mediator. (Being an effective mediator presupposes
certain knowledge basis, inclusive of know-how and experience, but this is beyond the
limits of this chapter, dedicated mainly to pre-translation cognitive processes). Although a

53 | P a g e
 certain degree of translator’s subjectivity is inevitable and even admissible, still it has to be
minimized in order to make translation as adequate as possible.
Activity:
Find an article/essay on any familiar topic and translate it into your native language.
Find a brief fable of 1-2 pages and translate it into your own language.
Evaluating a Translated Text

Level Accuracy of Transfer of ST Content Quality of Expression in TL Degree of Mark

Task
Completion

Level 5 Complete transfer of ST Almost all the translation reads like a piece Successful 9, 10
information; only minor revision originally written in English. There may be
needed to reach professional minor lexical, grammatical or spelling errors.
standard.

Level 4 Almost complete transfer; there may Large sections read like a piece originally Almost 7, 8
be one or two insignificant written in English. There are a number of completely
inaccuracies; requires certain lexical, grammatical or spelling errors. successful
amount of revision to reach
professional standard.
Level 3 Transfer of the general idea(s) but Certain parts read like a piece originally Adequate 5, 6
with a number of lapses in accuracy; written in English, but others read like a
needs considerable revision to reach translation. There are a considerable number
professional standard. of lexical, grammatical or spelling errors.

Level 2 Transfer undermined by serious Almost the entire text reads like a translation; Inadequate 3, 4
inaccuracies; thorough revision there are continual lexical, grammatical or
required to reach professional spelling errors.
standard.

Level 1 Totally inadequate transfer of ST The candidate reveals a total lack of ability Totally 1, 2
content; the translation is not worth to express himself adequately in English. inadequate
revising.

(Source: Waddington 2001)

Activity: Study the table above carefully and use it as a guide line to evaluate/grade one of
the translations you have made in the above activity.
Activity: Work in pairs.

54 | P a g e
Do you agree with the above definition of a text? If so, expand it. Or, if you don’t, develop
your own definition.

Reference
Arnold, D.J., Balkan, L., Meijer, S., Humphreys, R.L. and Sadler, L., Machine (1994).
Translation: An Introductory Guide, London: Blackwells-NCC,
Gerding-Salas, C. (2000) Teaching Translation: problems and solutions. Translation
Journal # 4 pp. 1-11.
Azizinezhad, M. (2006) Is translation teachable? Translation Journal. Volume 10 # 2.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barton, David. and Carmen Lee. "Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and
Practices." Routledge, 2013.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carter, Ronald. and Michael McCarthy. "Cambridge Grammar of English." Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Ching, Marvin K. L., et al. "Linguistic Perspectives on Literature." Routledge, 2015.
Colina, S. (2003) Translation Teaching: from Research to the Classroom. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Crystal, David., Davy, Derek. 1969. Investigating English Style. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

55 | P a g e
Danalis, John & Stella, 2009. Schumann the Shoeman, University of Queensland Press
DeKemel, K. 2003 Intervention in Language Arts. A Practical Guide for Speech Language
Pathologists Elsevier inc
Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics. The Study of Meaning. Second edition – revised and
updated. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Lyons, John. 1996. Semantics. Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 2002. Language and Linguistics. An Introduction, First South Asian Edition.
Palmer, Frank. 1976. Semantics. A New Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parkin,C. Parkin, C. & Pool, B. 2008 Key into Inference, Triune Initiatives
Communicative Competence and its Component.

56 | P a g e