1. Introduction
The act of translation,
far from being a simple linguistic transcodage, constitutes a complex process
of intercultural communication that requires a continuous stream of strategic
decisions. Translation has never been merely a mechanical act of linguistic
substitution but a complex decision-making process influenced by multiple
strategic considerations. While much attention has been given to the final
product of translation, the underlying strategies that guide
translators' choices often remain concealed, operating, as it were, backstage.
Therefore, translators are
not just bilingual individuals; they are adept navigators of linguistic and
cultural terrains, making decisions at various levels to effectively
communicate meaning and meet specific communicative objectives in a new
context. The overarching framework that guides these decisions, often referred
to as "translation strategy," is the primary focus of this study.
Although scholarly discussion has extensively explored specific translation
techniques and their uses, gaining a deeper understanding of the core strategic
orientations that support these choices remains essential for both theoretical
progress and practical use in the field.
This research aims to go
beyond analysing isolated techniques to explore the fundamental principles and
contextual factors that influence the adoption and implementation of
translation strategies. It also seeks to uncover these underlying mechanisms by
systematically examining the concept of translation strategy: its
definitions, theoretical foundations, and the factors that affect its
application.
The concept
of strategy itself is complex, originating from military, managerial,
and game-theoretical roots before being adapted for use in linguistics and
translation studies. This research begins by defining the term, distinguishing
it from related concepts such as tactics, and integrating various academic
perspectives to create a comprehensive working definition. It then examines how
strategic thinking is applied to translation, where decisions are shaped by
both structural factors (such as text type, language function, and
linguistic limits) and functional factors (like audience
expectations, cultural differences, and the translation's purpose).
A key focus of this
investigation is the interaction between different levels of linguistic meaning
(denotation, connotation, and mythical signification) and how they require
distinct strategic approaches, from direct to oblique and global strategies.
By mapping these choices onto a coherent framework, this study aims to clarify
the translator's decision-making process, providing a more systematic
understanding of how and why certain strategies are used in specific contexts.
Ultimately, this study
advances translation theory by linking abstract strategic principles with their
practical use, highlighting that every translation involves deliberate,
contextually embedded choices. From this perspective, the "backstage"
of translation becomes not just visible but essential to understanding the art
and science of cross-linguistic mediation. Additionally, this study provides a
systematic overview of key translation strategies, classifying them into
direct, oblique, and global approaches. This classification offers a practical
framework for understanding the range of strategic options available to
translators and how these choices relate to the structural and functional
factors previously discussed. Ultimately, this research aims to reveal the
implicit reasoning behind translator decisions, thereby contributing to a
deeper theoretical understanding of the strategic elements of translation and
serving as a valuable resource for future research and pedagogical development
in the field.
2. Strategy
2.1. Strategy: Definitions &
Perspectives
2.1.1. Definition of the Term “Strategy”
Oxford Dictionary defines
strategy as “a plan or method for achieving a particular goal, usually over a
long period.”[1] It is commonly used in business, the military, education,
communication, and translation. According to the Longman Dictionary, strategy
is "a planned series of actions for achieving something in the future,
especially in politics, business, or military affairs."[2] Collins English
Dictionary describes strategy as “a particular long-term plan for success,
especially in business or politics."[3] Cambridge Dictionary presents
strategy as "a detailed plan for achieving success in situations such as
war, politics, business, industry, or sport, or the skill of planning for such
situations."[4] Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines
strategy as "the science and art of employing the political, economic,
psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford
the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war."
Also: "A careful plan or method for achieving a particular
goal."[5]
2.1.2. Academic Perspectives on Strategy
Chandler
defines strategy as "the determination of the basic long-term goals and
objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the
allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals." As for
Mintzberg, strategy is multifaceted. That is why, from his perspective, setting
a strategy involves fulfilling the "Five Ps" he introduces: Plan (a
guideline to deal with a situation), Ploy (a specific manoeuvre intended to
outwit a competitor), Pattern (a set of planned or unplanned actions over
time), Position (spotting particular products in specific fields), and
Perspective (a unique point of view about the world, encompassing the planned
actions and the achieved outcomes). Rumelt, in turn, relates a good strategy to
three elements: diagnosis (defining the nature of the challenge), Guiding
Policy (a comprehensive method selected to deal with the challenge), and
Coherent Actions (specific steps that are consistent with the guiding policy
and designed to implement it).
2.1.3. A Synthetic Perspective on Strategy
Re-examining
all the definitions above, strategy seems to be a comprehensive,
well-structured set of actions or guiding principles designed to achieve
long-term goals or a main objective in situations involving challenges such as
complexity, competition, or uncertainty. It is a high-level plan that offers a
framework for decision-making, outlining the approach to follow to reach
desired outcomes. It involves making deliberate decisions about resource
allocation, prioritising tasks, and coordinating actions to increase the
chances of success, considering available resources and external factors. The
core idea of strategy, therefore, centres on a deliberately integrated set of
choices and actions aimed at attaining desired results in a complex and
competitive environment. It requires understanding the context, setting goals,
allocating resources, and deciding how to compete and succeed.
In
brief, strategy is, firstly, the roadmap that guides someone from their current
position to their desired destination or from a present state to a future one.
Secondly, it represents the how behind what an organisation or individual aims
to achieve. Thirdly, a good strategy recognises the challenging nature of the
constraints ahead and approaches them with an effective way to overcome them.
It remains practical and aspirational at the same time. Fourthly, strategy has
a long-term perspective. Fifthly, it is more stable as it establishes
fundamental directions. Overall, strategy is the framework of choices that
directs a project towards its long-term objectives, helps navigate uncertainty,
and maintains a competitive edge. It concerns what the organisation aims to
accomplish and the broad strategies it will adopt.
2.1.4. Key Elements of Strategy
The key
elements of a strategy include setting clear objectives that define what
to achieve, a long-term perspective that extends beyond immediate actions and
short-term results (outcomes achieved over a more extended period), a thorough
analysis that assesses internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external
opportunities and threats, rational allocation of resources (time, money, and
personnel), a plan of actions with specific steps and tasks (timelines,
responsibilities, etc.), a competitive advantage that enables outperforming
rivals (having a unique or practical approach that provides an edge over
competitors), a decision-making framework ensuring consistent decisions
throughout the effort, and flexibility and adaptability to allow adjustments
in response to changing conditions and competitors.
2.2. Strategy versus Tactic
Strategy provides the framework, while
tactics offer the means to achieve the outlined strategy. Strategy and tactics
are interconnected. While strategy guides tactics, the latter execute the
former. A clear strategy gives purpose to tactical actions, whereas an unclear
strategy renders them aimless. Effective tactics, in turn, contribute to the
overall strategy by bringing the strategic plan to life.
In a military context, Clausewitz
distinguishes between strategy and tactics. He considers strategy to be the use
of engagements to achieve the war's objectives, while tactics are the theories
behind deploying military forces in combat. This emphasises the hierarchical
relationship where tactics support strategic aims.[9] In a business context,
Chandler emphasises that strategy involves setting long-term goals and
allocating resources. In contrast, tactics refer to the specific methods
employed in daily operations to achieve those goals.[10] In Mintzberg's
"five Ps" framework, the distinction between strategy and tactics is
implicit. While "Plan" signifies a consciously devised strategy,
"Ploy" refers to a specific tactic used to outwit a competitor.
"Pattern," as a realised strategy, develops from a series of tactics
over time.[11] Porter contends that a successful strategy involves defining a
unique and valuable position through a distinctive set of activities. Tactics
refer to the specific actions taken to deliver the unique value
proposition.[12] Liddell Hart highlights that strategy aims to attain
objectives with minimal losses, often via indirect approaches. Tactics refer to
the direct engagements and manoeuvres employed in executing a strategy.[13]
To summarise, strategy is the overarching
plan. At the same time, tactics refer to the specific tools, actions, or
methods used to implement a strategy and achieve short-term objectives that
support the broader strategic goals. They are the how of executing a strategy.
Strategy involves long-term goals (what to achieve and why?), whereas tactics
focus on short-term ones (how to implement the strategy?). Strategy is
conceptual, while tactics are concrete and detailed, addressing all the
wh-questions. Strategy generalises, while tactics specify. Strategy is more
stable, whereas tactics are more flexible and adaptable. Despite their
differences, strategy and tactics are closely interconnected, both essential
for success in any targeted field.
2.3. Fields of Strategy
Strategies are found in many fields. They
are present in all areas and ready to be used in various actions. These can
include a business strategy (such as expanding into new markets or launching a
new product line), a military strategy (deploying forces to outmanoeuvre an
enemy), or a personal strategy (replanning one's financial savings). They also
cover teaching strategies (such as outlining a plan to address reading
difficulties among students), political strategies, translation strategies, and
more. Still, all strategies have the basic aim of providing a clear action plan
to achieve success.
3.
Translation Strategy
3.1. Perspectives
3.1.1. Academic Perspectives on Translation
Strategy
According to Chesterman, translation
strategies are "potentially conscious plans for solving concrete
translation problems in the
framework of a concrete translation task."[14] He emphasises that these strategies are
process-oriented, goal-oriented, problem-centred, consciously applied,
intersubjective (i.e., understandable and justifiable to others), and liable to
manipulate the translated texts.
Hurtado Albir distinguishes between method,
strategy, and technique. For her, a translation strategy is an individual and
procedural mechanism that the translator employs to handle problems encountered
during the translation process, adapted to specific needs. It serves as a
higher-level plan that directs the selection of particular translation techniques.[15] Although Hurtado Albir and Molina concentrate on
translation techniques (specific procedures used to analyse and classify
translation solutions), their framework implicitly underscores the significance
of overarching strategies in guiding the choice and application of these
techniques. They emphasise the dynamic and functional nature of translation,
where strategies are used to achieve the intended communicative effect in the
target language.[16]
Lörscher regards translation strategies as
"potentially conscious procedures for solving problems faced in
translating a text from one language to another."[17] He highlights the cognitive processes involved in
translation and the
strategies used by translators to overcome difficulties.
Venuti explores key ethical and cultural
strategies, focusing on the contrast between domestication (translating so that it reads smoothly and sounds
natural in the target culture, often rendering the translator invisible) and
foreignisation (keeping the foreign qualities of the source text and culture,
making the translator more visible).[18]
3.1.2. A Synthetic Perspective on Strategy
Perspectives on translation differ based on
cognitive, cultural, linguistic, or ethical factors. Nevertheless, a
translation strategy can be defined as a systematic method used by translators
to effectively convert a text from one language to another while maintaining
the intended meaning, expressive tone, accuracy, readability, cultural
relevance, and nuances. It functions as the framework guiding informed
decisions throughout the translation process, resulting in a high-quality,
effective translation that meets the target audience's expectations and the
project's specific requirements. It reflects the thought process behind
translation and the careful decision-making that influences the translator's
choices at each stage. Furthermore, it serves as the translator's roadmap for
navigating the complexities of interlingual and intercultural communication,
considering the purpose of the translation, the target audience, the
characteristics of the source text, and the constraints of the target language
and culture — all while transferring structure, meaning, and style from the
source to the target text.
3.2. Translation Strategy Choice
Requirements
Some strategies are entirely direct and
literal, similar to how translation was in the days of linguistic theory. Other
methods are completely indirect, as exemplified by Skopos theory. Nonetheless,
many strategies are combined and employed by skilled translators within
flexible approaches. The choice of translation strategy depends on factors such
as text type, target audience, purpose, cultural context, and linguistic
differences between languages. Skilled translators often blend several
techniques in a single project to achieve optimal results.
The initial step before selecting a
translation strategy is understanding the source text and its purpose, which
includes analysing its content, style, tone, and intended audience. The second
involves defining the target audience, the aim of the translation, and the
desired effect on the target readership. The third step is determining the
suitable level of equivalence and approach that align with the goals of the
translation project, based on how the relationship between the target text and
the original is viewed. This can range from a literal translation at one
extreme (a word-for-word approach often used in technical documents where
accuracy is vital), to a communicative translation at the other (focused on
impact and naturalness for the target reader), or an adaptation at the opposite
end (a free modification to suit the target culture, such as in plays or
advertisements), or a semantic translation somewhere in between (aiming to
convey the meaning and nuances as accurately as possible while respecting the
grammatical, semantic, and textual conventions of the target language).
The fourth requirement is cultural factors,
a key aspect to consider, as they significantly influence texts and
symbolically alter their meanings, creating potential cultural differences
(such as idioms, proverbs, maxims, and sayings) that might not be understood
the same way or may have the same impact in the target culture. Here, decisions
must be made on how to handle these situations: whether to translate them
directly, adapt them, or explain these elements. The fifth requirement is
resource and constraint management, which involves considering the available
time, budget, tools, and technologies (such as CAT tools or machine
translation), as well as the expertise of the translators involved. The final
requirement is ensuring quality and consistency. The strategy should specify
how quality will be maintained throughout the process, including review,
proofreading, and editing stages, as well as how consistency in terminology and
style will be preserved.
3.3. Factors Influencing Translation
Strategy Choice
There are two types of factors that
directly influence the choice of translation strategy. The first is structural,
focusing on aspects such as text typology, field of translation, language
function, and levels of signification. The second is functional, emphasising
the text's polyphony, the target audience's expectations, the cultural context,
and the text's function.
3.3.1. Structural Factors
3.3.1.1. Text Type and Field of Translation
A field of translation strategy involves a set of
specialised approaches and systematic frameworks designed to translate content
within particular domains or disciplines. Each field requires specific
considerations because of its specialised terminology, conventions, and
audience expectations. Moreover, each field demands particular expertise not
only in the relevant languages (literary language, scientific language,
economic language, etc.) but also in the subject matter itself
(prose/poetry/criticism, biology/physics/geology, banking/accounting/commerce,
etc.) to ensure maximum accuracy and equivalence.
There are three types of translation: specialised
translation, general translation, and literary translation, which is neither
general nor specialised. However, the fields of translation extend beyond these
categories. The main fields include literary translation, scientific
translation, technical translation, audiovisual translation, legal translation,
medical translation, marketing translation, and localisation. Consequently, the
choice of translation strategy must consider the specific field in which the
translation will be undertaken.
The
specific field of translation partly shapes the identity of any translated
text. For example, legal translation is common in courts, laws, and legislation;
commercial translation in trade transactions; advertising translation in
publicity and marketing; financial (or accounting/banking) translation in
finance and business; scientific translation in fields such as chemistry,
physics, biology, geology, and astronomy, as well as abstract sciences like
mathematics; medical translation in medicine and its various branches;
technical translation in engineering disciplines; software translation in
computer technology; website translation in cybernetics, which mainly differs
from software translation when the browser is directly online; journalistic
translation in both print and electronic media, covering newspaper editorials,
news reports, weather forecasts, and press interviews; military translation
related to armament, military intelligence, and soldiers’ conditions; religious
translation involving sacred texts, prophetic biographies, fatwas, and
religious studies; cultural translation in areas such as thought, philosophy,
criticism, and humanistic studies; and literary translation in creative fields
like drama (including classical, experimental, and one-man shows), poetry
(epic, poetic, haiku, rhymed verse, free verse, and prose poetry), and prose
(fiction, non-fiction, science fiction, etc.), where figures of speech and
rhetorical images flourish.
3.3.1.2. Language Function
3.3.1.2.1. The Concept of Language Function
Language function was first introduced by Karl
Bühler in 1934, as communication is a triangular relationship among the
speaker, the listener, and
external reality. He proposed the Organon Model of language, believing that
every linguistic sign serves three language functions. The first language
function is representational, focusing on context or reference, and conveying
information about the external world.[19] The second language function is expressive,
focusing on the sender or speaker, and expressing their emotions, intentions,
and viewpoints.[20] The third and final language function is
appellative, concentrating on the receiver or addressee, and aiming to
influence the hearer or appeal to them.[21]
Later, in 1960, Roman Jakobson expanded Bühler's
model into a six-function framework based on communication theory and
semiotics. The first language function is referential, providing information
about the context, reference,
or situation. The second language function is emotive or expressive, conveying
the sender's feelings or intentions. The third language function is conative or
appellative, directly addressing the receiver with imperative verbs and
second-person pronouns. The fourth language function is phatic, facilitating
the opening and maintenance of communication. The fifth language function is
metalingual, clarifying language itself. The sixth language function is poetic,
emphasising the message for its structure, style, rhythm, and wording. All six
functions are present in every act of communication; however, only one function
usually dominates, depending on the context.
3.3.1.2.2. Language Function versus
Linguistic Function
A linguistic function explains the role that a
particular linguistic element, such as a word, phrase, or grammatical
structure, plays within a sentence or utterance. It emphasises how language
forms function both in structure and meaning in communication contexts. Crystal
defines linguistic function as "the role played by a linguistic unit
(word, phrase, clause) in a sentence or discourse, such as subject, object,
modifier, or predicate."
Linguistic function is different from language
function. While linguistic function relates to the role of elements in sentence
structure, such as subject, object, or modifier, language function concerns the
purpose of discourse, like requesting, apologising, or informing. Nonetheless,
both concepts are vital in choosing the right translation strategy for a
specific project.
3.3.1.2.3. Language Function versus
Language Metafunction
Language metafunction relates to the purpose that
language serves in communication. It is what speakers or writers aim to achieve
with their utterances. This concept is central in systemic functional
linguistics, especially as developed by Michael Halliday, and it plays an important
role in translation quality assessment. According to Juliane House's 2015 TQA
model, language functions can be regarded as the uses to which language is
applied in communication. They convey different meanings or intentions embedded
in text.[24]
In this context, functionalist translation scholars, building on Halliday's
framework, identify three metafunctions of language: the ideational,
interpersonal, and textual functions. The first of these is the ideational
metafunction. It is "the content function of language, which reflects the
speaker's experience of the real world."[25] This metafunction embodies experience, content, facts
and data, ideas, and logical relationships. It captures both the external world
and inner knowledge.
The second language metafunction is the
interpersonal metafunction. It aims to establish and maintain social relations.
It expresses the speaker's attitudes and evaluations.[26] This metafunction represents social interaction and attitude. It conveys the speaker's feelings,
judgments, and emotions. It positions the speaker in relation to others,
whether they are casual, informal, polite, rude, affectionate, commanding,
patronising, or otherwise.
The third and final language metafunction is the
textual metafunction. It “relates to the way the message is structured, so that it is cohesive and coherent."[27] This metafunction represents language as a structured
message. It organises the text cohesively and coherently, ensuring flow and
clarity for the reader or listener, through the use of linking words,
subordinators, and conjunctions. While Michael Halliday considers the textual
metafunction, the last of the language metafunctions, fundamental in functionalist
analysis, Juliane House assigns it little importance in translation quality
assessment.
House argues: "A translation is functionally
equivalent if it preserves the meaning and intention of the original text
across all three metafunctions."[28] In her 2015 TQA model, she emphasises the
importance of understanding language metafunction for various reasons. Reason
One: The translator must preserve the original metafunction in the target
language (functional equivalence). Reason Two: A text may prioritise one
metafunction over others: interpersonal in poetry, and ideational in scientific
writing. Reason Three: Misjudging any language metafunction can lead to a
mistranslation, even if the words are rendered correctly.
3.3.1.3. Levels of Signification
Levels of signification refer to the process by
which meaning is created and interpreted through signs, especially in language,
media, and semiotics. This concept is essential in semiotics, linguistics, and
translation studies. In his Mythologies, Roland Barthes outlined two main
levels: denotation (the literal, surface-level meaning of a sign) and
connotation (the cultural, emotional, or ideological meaning that is added to
the denotation). Barthes describes denotation as the "first-order
semiological system" [29] because it is objective and dictionary-based, and
he labels denotation as the "second-order semiological system" [30] because it is subjective, contextual, and influenced
by culture. Barthes even introduces a third level of signification, a broader
one in the form of myth or ideology, where the entire first-order sign
(signifier + signified) becomes a single signifier within a new system where
myth and ideology are naturalised and accepted.[31]
By the time Roland Barthes' work introduced three
levels of signification, two language philosophers, Michael Devitt and Kim
Sterelny, published in 1999 Language and Reality: An Introduction to the
Philosophy of Language, adding a new level of signification, which may be
called the zero-level of signification or the multilingual level of
signification, since the signifier is itself the signified, as in grammar
courses and related issues.
Transitioning
from linguistics and the philosophy of language to translation studies,
understanding the four levels of signification becomes essential for grasping
words and their culturally embedded meanings. This is because a translation
that concentrates solely on denotative meaning may risk losing the connotative loads
and ideological implications of the source text, as Susan Bassnett writes.[32]
Juliane House, on the other hand, devised a cultural filtering approach to
refine what may seem untranslatable in the source text, focusing on assessing
the cultural context, evaluating pragmatic equivalence, and ensuring that the
source text's function and meaning at all levels are maintained in the target
text.
3.3.1.3.1. Verification of Linguistic Use
and Linguistic Mention
Since Ferdinand de Saussure's posthumous
lectures on General Linguistics, published in 1916, three years after his
death, the concept of levels of signification was limited to denotation (where
a signifier directly refers to a signified). The field had to wait for Roland
Barthes, in his Mythologies (1957) and Elements of
Semiology (1964), to add two more levels to denotation, the one discovered
by de Saussure in the early twentieth century. With Barthes, connotation (where
a signifier refers to a signified indirectly) was introduced as a new level of
signification. Barthes distinguished between denotation (the literal, direct,
surface meaning of the word), connotation (the cultural, ideological, or
associative meanings of the word), and myth (higher-order ideological
narratives), a third level of signification.
The
philosophy of language, as explained by
Devitt and Sterelny, distinguishes between the linguistic mention of a word or
phrase and its linguistic use. Linguistic mention involves referring to the
word itself without using it or indicating its meaning, as in: "Al Bayd (البَيْضُ) is a noun derived from Abyad (أبْيَضٌ), Bayad (بَيَاضاً)." The purpose of
mentioning Al Bayd here is not to refer to the signified, eggs, but to the
signifier itself, since the discussion requires mentioning and naming the
items. In contrast, linguistic use involves using the word to refer to the
signified and its application, as in: "Eggs (البَيْضُ) are good for health." Here, the intended meaning of eggs
is the signified, because the focus is on their use and relevance as food.[33]
Therefore,
four levels of signification must be analysed before selecting the appropriate
translation strategy for a given project: the metalingual level (metalanguage),
the denotative level (denotation), and the connotative level (connotation). All
three levels relate either to linguistic mention or to linguistic use.
Simultaneously, they align with the dominant language function in the text or
speech. It is based on this clarification that the differences between possible
translation strategies can be explained.
3.3.1.3.1.1. Levels of Linguistic Mention
3.3.1.3.1.1.1.
Metalingual Level/Transcription Strategy
Transcription
strategy demonstrates linguistic reference. To translate the following
sentence, "Building (بِنَايَة) is a noun derived from the
triliteral verb built (بَنَى), such as builds (يَبْنِي)," it is first important to identify the text's field or
type. Next, it is necessary to determine the dominant language function, which
is a meta-linguistic function that constantly refers to itself. Then,
determining the level of signification—the zero level—that corresponds to
linguistic reference and aligns with translation strategies such as calque or
borrowing is essential. These strategies are often regarded in modern
translation studies as part of direct strategies and are considered equivalent
to transcription strategy, mainly when each signifier within the text
consistently refers to itself. Nevertheless, transcription strategy remains
more specific than calquing and borrowing.
3.3.1.3.1.2. Levels of Linguistic Use
3.3.1.3.1.2.1. Denotation & Direct
Strategies
Unlike
transcription strategy, direct and oblique translation strategies are
considered two types of linguistic use. That is why they depend on the
intention behind the utterance. If the purpose of the utterance is explicit,
direct, and not open to interpretation, the suitable translation strategy is
the direct translation strategy. To translate the following sentence, "the
public entered the lecture hall and sat in the first places," it is
crucial, firstly, to identify the text type as informative, to recognise the
dominant linguistic function as referential, and to establish the level of
signification as denotative. Therefore, the short text in question will be
approached with the direct strategy, which requires that each signifier in the
text corresponds to only one signified within the agreed-upon referential
context. Consequently, the translation of the short text will proceed as
follows:
"Le public entra dans la salle de conférence et
s'assit dans les premières rangées." (French
translation)
"دخل
الجمهور قاعة المحاضرات وجلسوا في المقاعد الأمامية" (Arabic translation)
“Dakhala
al-jumhūr Qāʻat al-muḥāḍarāt wajalasū fī almaqāʻid al-amāmīyah.” (Arabic
romanised).
3.3.1.3.1.2.2. Connotation & Oblique Strategies
If the
intention behind the utterance is implicit, indirect, suggestive, and open to
interpretation, the suitable translation strategy is the oblique translation
strategy. Therefore, reconsidering the earlier short text, "The public
entered the lecture hall and sat in the first places," various
possibilities can emerge. Multiple outcomes may be expected, depending on
changes in the text type, shifts in the dominant language function, and the
elevation of the equivalences used from the first level of signification (i.e.,
denotation) to the second level (i.e., connotation).
"The
public entered the lecture hall and sat in the first places."
"The
crowd rushed into the auditorium and occupied the front
seats."
"People
broke into the amphitheatre and invaded the first
rows."
"Spectators
hustled and bustled into the space and threw
themselves onto the VIP seats."
The
proposals for translation could be endless and unlimited because the text type
is literary, the language function is poetic, and there is no reference to
control or restrict the generated texts. Additionally, the level of
signification has been elevated to the second level, corresponding to
connotation. Given these factors, translating the short text above involves
adopting an oblique translation strategy, which requires that each signifier in
the text has a first signified in the nearby context outside the text and a
second signified in the more distant context, beyond both the ordinary reader
and censorship.
3.3.1.3.1.2.3. Mythical Level &
Extended Strategies
"Myth is a form of speech...
a system of communication, that is a message," argues Roland Barthes,[34]
who categorises levels of signification into two orders: first-order
signification, which involves language (signifier + signified = sign), and
second-order (mythic) signification, where that sign becomes a new signifier
conveying ideological meaning. Here, the translator is expected to communicate
not just literal content but also ideological, cultural, and symbolic meanings.
Kwame
Anthony Appiah, on his part, advocates for "thick translation," which
includes contextual and cultural explanations to preserve deep meaning and the
mythic connotation in politically or culturally charged texts: "Thick
translation is a translation that seeks with its annotations and its
accompanying glosses to locate the text in a rich cultural and linguistic
context."[35]
Beyond
Apiah, Lawrence Venuti advocates for a foreignising translation to alert
readers to the "otherness" of the source culture, resisting the
erasure of ideological context and maintaining cultural differences: "A
foreignising translation... seeks to restrain the ethnocentric violence of
translation."
Susan
Bassnett believes that "a text is embedded in a network of cultural
signs... and translators must negotiate these"[37] while Peter Newmark
suggests cultural substitution, where a source-culture reference is replaced by
a culturally equivalent one in the target language: "Cultural equivalent:
an approximate translation where a cultural reference is replaced by one from
the target culture."[38]
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak warns that translation can exoticise and reproduce colonial myths. She
advocates for politically conscious translation that questions, rather than
merely transfers, cultural myths: "Translation is the most intimate act of
reading... a responsibility to the rhetoricity of the original."[39] Translating myth, in brief, is more than just
conveying literal meaning. It involves translating cultural codes, ideologies, and implicit connotations. Translation may require
finding semiotically equivalent signs, which are not merely linguistic matches
but signs that perform similar ideological functions in the target culture.
3.3.1.4. Specific constraints of source
text and target text
Translation involves
recognising the specific constraints imposed by both the source and target
texts, which influence the translator's choices. Regarding the source text,
several constraints must be taken into account. Some are linguistic, such as
differences in sentence structure, challenges in translating rhyming and
alliteration, or gender and tense systems that may not exist in the target
language. Others are cultural, like words that have no direct equivalent, historical
or religious references that may require footnotes, or concepts that could be
offensive or nonsensical in the target culture. Additionally, some constraints
relate to the text type itself; for instance, legal texts demand absolute
precision with no room for creative adaptation, while literary texts require
the preservation of style and figures of speech, and technical manuals must
maintain consistent terminology.
3.3.2. Functional Factors
3.3.2.1. Target audience
The effect and influence of the target
audience on translation are undeniable. The target audience is a vital factor
in translation, as it shapes linguistic, cultural, and functional choices. Its
influence can determine linguistic adaptation or lexical selection (formal
versus colloquial language, simplified sentences for children or language
learners, technical jargon for experts versus layman's terms for general
readers), cultural adaptation (localisation versus foreignisation), text
structure (simplification versus elaboration), and the specific needs of the
target audience (formal versus casual, cultural knowledge). The
audience's purpose for reading guides the translation strategy.
3.3.2.2. Cultural Gap
Cultural gap refers to the lack of
equivalence between source and target cultures, making it difficult or
impossible to translate certain concepts, values, or references directly. This
phenomenon occurs when a word, phrase, or idea in one language has no direct
equivalent in another because of differences in history, religion, social
norms, or material culture. That is why the main features of cultural gaps
include untranslatability (terms without exact equivalents), asymmetrical
associations (words with different connotations across cultures), institutional
differences (legal, political, or religious systems that do not match, such as
"common law" versus "sharia law"), and material
culture gaps (objects or practices that cannot exist elsewhere, such as types
of “dates" or "lion" distinctions in Arabic).
Cultural gaps highlight
that translation is not merely linguistic but also an act of intercultural
mediation. Successful translation requires awareness of cultural
context and strategic choices to strike a balance between fidelity and
readability. In this context, André Lefevere and Susan Bassnett, in 'Cultural
Turn in Translation Studies', argued that
translation is not just linguistic but a cultural negotiation.[40] Mona Baker, in 'Taxonomy of Non-Equivalence',
identified cultural gaps as a significant hurdle in achieving equivalence.[41] David
Katan, in 'Cultural Mediation', proposed strategies such as explicitation,
adaptation, or borrowing to bridge gaps.[42] Lawrence Venuti,
in 'Foreignisation versus Domestication', observes that cultural gaps
force translators to choose between preserving foreignness or adapting.
Strategies to bridge
cultural gaps are diverse: borrowing (to retain the original term,
"Couscous"), calque (literal translation of "Lingua
Franca" from Arabic "Language of the Frank"), explicitation
(adding explanations like "Al Moussem, religious festival in
Morocco"), cultural substitution (replacing with a target-culture
equivalent such as “football” in British English instead of “soccer”), omission
(dropping untranslatable elements), or compensation.
Nevertheless, numerous imminent challenges
could hinder the translation process. The first is over-adaptation, where
domestication might erase cultural identity.[43] The second is exoticism, where foreignisation could
unintentionally reinforce exotic stereotypes and overly exoticise the source
culture. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak argues that
foreignisation, although intended to respect the integrity of the source text,
can backfire when used uncritically (especially with texts from marginalised
cultures). Instead of fostering understanding, it can reinforce
"otherness" and exotic stereotypes, turning the source culture into a
curiosity or spectacle for Western audiences, and reproducing colonial patterns
of consumption where cultural difference is aestheticised rather than truly
understood.[44] The third challenge is the loss of nuance: no strategy
fully captures the original's depth.[45]
3.3.2.3. Cultural Filtering
In Juliane House's 1977 translation quality
assessment model, a cultural filter is a concept used to explain how
a source text is adapted to align with the norms and expectations of the target culture. It
involves modifying linguistic and cultural elements to make the translation
more acceptable or familiar to the target audience, potentially altering the
original's cultural specificity. She introduces the cultural filter as "a
means of capturing socio-cultural differences in expectation norms and
stylistic conventions between source and target linguacultures".[46]
Cultural filtering is expected to enable
translators to 'adapt the source text to target cultural norms' [47], sometimes leading to shifts that may influence the
original's function. The concept was introduced into translation studies by
House to address socio-cultural differences between source and target language
communities, particularly in the context of covert translation. She describes a
cultural filter as a tool for capturing differences in shared conventions of
behaviour, communication, preferred rhetorical styles, and expectation norms
between two speech communities. The aim is to achieve functional equivalence in
the target text by carefully examining cultural differences before making any
alterations to the source text's meaning structure.
House recognises that excessive cultural
filtering can lead to domestication and the loss of the source text's
foreignness. However, she firmly believes that some degree of filtering is
necessary to achieve functional equivalence in covert translation. This translation
approach aims to function as an original text within the target culture,
requiring adjustments to meet the target audience's expectations and norms.
3.3.2.4. Purpose of Translation
Translation acts as a bridge between
languages and cultures, enabling communication, sharing knowledge, and
fostering mutual understanding. Its main goals include helping people who speak
different languages communicate, preserving and passing down cultural values,
literature, and traditions, making scientific, technical, legal, and
educational content accessible worldwide, supporting international business,
diplomacy, and globalisation, and adapting films, books, and games for broader
audiences.
From this perspective, translation is a
purposeful, context-dependent activity that facilitates cross-linguistic and cross-cultural communication while
fulfilling specific social, cultural, and textual functions. It is
a goal-oriented communicative act [48] that mediates meaning across linguistic and
cultural boundaries, fulfilling specific social, cultural, and textual roles.
Unlike earlier linguistic approaches that prioritised equivalence,[49] contemporary theories emphasise that translation is
shaped by its intended purpose (skopos), audience expectations, and
sociocultural constraints.[50]
The purpose of translation goes beyond mere
linguistic transfer; it includes adaptation, mediation, and the transformation
of content to suit the target audience and their specific context. It affects
textual changes (such as omissions, expansions, and cultural adjustments),
linguistic registers (ranging from formal to colloquial and dialectal choices),
and medium-specific techniques like subtitling versus dubbing in audiovisual
translation. Consequently, translation is not a neutral act but a functional,
audience-oriented process. Its objective guides whether it emphasises fidelity,
readability, persuasion, or cultural adaptation.
Primary purposes may vary across different
theories. In Skopos theory, the purpose (skopos) of a translation determines
its form and approach. According to Eugene Nida, translation aims to ensure that the target text effectively conveys
the source text's message, prioritising dynamic equivalence over formal
correspondence. Susan Bassnett believes that the purpose of translation is to
rewrite the source text so that the original cultural elements conform to the
norms of the target culture. Lefevre considers the purpose of translation as
reshaping perceptions through specific choices, such as censorship and
localisation. Cronin, in his view, sees the purpose of translation as
facilitating international trade, localising products, and improving
accessibility in multilingual markets.
In conclusion, the purpose of translation
greatly influences the translation strategies employed. Depending on the
intended function, a translation can be either source-oriented (literal),
target-oriented (adaptive), or instrumental (functional equivalence). Source-oriented
translation prioritises accuracy for legal, technical, or scholarly texts.[51]
Target-oriented translation adapts content for cultural relevance, as seen in
marketing or literature.[52] Instrumental translation ensures that the translation
functions in the same way as the original, similar to user manuals.[53]
3.3.2.5. Text Function
It is
quite common to confuse language functions with text functions, even in
scholarly translation studies. Katarina Reiss (1971), along with Hans
Vermeer (1984) and other German functionalists, fell into that trap completely,
working on text types and language functions as if they were the same.
Simplifying the functions of texts based on the dominant language function in a
given text can never help to identify the specific text function. Therefore, it
cannot create true functional equivalence between the source and target texts.[54]
From
the distribution of language functions analysed earlier, based on the dominance
of certain factors over others, it is clear that language
function remains constant and is independent of context. It is unaffected by
cultural or situational contexts, as it belongs to the realm of structure
rather than function. This highlights the key difference between language function,
a structural concept used within a structuralist framework, and text function,
a functional concept employed within a functionalist perspective.[55]
3.4. Key Translation Strategies
There are
three categories of translations to which all active strategies belong. The
first category is direct or literal. The second is oblique or adaptive. The
third is global, and it involves text-level decisions. In the long term, all of
them use procedures to achieve their goals.
3.4.1. Direct Translation Strategies
Direct translation strategies involve
closely following the source text's structure, syntax, and lexical
choices, prioritising word-for-word accuracy over stylistic adaptation. They
are also used when the source and target languages share sufficient linguistic
and cultural similarities to allow for minimal deviation, thereby establishing
strong linguistic and cultural ties. This strategy is quite common when
translating languages that share many features, such as Romance languages
(Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian), Germanic languages
(German, Dutch, Flemish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, and English),
or Semitic languages (Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya, Aramaic, Hebrew, Maltese).
The main features of direct translation are
word-for-word correspondence (or formal equivalence), where possible. The
aim is to preserve the original grammatical structures and require minimal
cultural adaptation (as opposed to communicative translation) in contexts
demanding precision, such as legal documents, scientific texts, or religious
scriptures. Direct translation is useful for precision-focused texts but
can lead to awkwardness when languages differ structurally. Translators must
decide whether to prioritise form (direct communication) or fluency
(adaptive methods) depending on the context. It is a strategy that closely
reflects the source text in form and structure. While it can be effective,
especially in highly formal or technical contexts, it may cause unnatural or
incorrect translations in idiomatic or culturally nuanced texts. Its
application requires careful consideration of both linguistic and cultural
compatibility between languages.
The terms "direct" and
"oblique" translation were first introduced by Vinay &
Darbelnet in their collaborative work, Comparative Stylistics of French and
English, published in 1958.[56] Eugene Nida, in 1964, used formal
equivalence (similar to direct translation) and dynamic equivalence
(similar to oblique translation).[57] In 1988, Peter Newmark published A
Textbook of Translation, where he distinguishes semantic
translation (close to direct translation) from communicative
translation (close to oblique translation).[58] Lawrence Venuti relates direct translation techniques
to his idea of "foreignization": "Foreignising translation
signifies the difference of the foreign text by disrupting the cultural codes
that prevail in the target language."[59]
Vinay and Darbelnet distinguish between
three types of direct translation strategies: literal translation, calque, and
borrowing. The first type, literal translation (also known as word-for-word
translation or formal equivalence), is regarded as the primary translation
technique used in the direct translation strategy. It is a one-dimensional
translation that focuses on the straightforward meaning of the surface reading
without delving more profound into comprehension or analysis. It aims to retain
the original structure and ensure grammatical correctness in the target
language. It is especially common in legal and technical texts: "Direct
translation occurs when structural and conceptual elements of the source
language can be transposed into the target language without breaking the rules
of the latter."[60] Newmark confirms this principle but puts it
differently: "Literal translation is correct and must not be avoided if it
secures referential and pragmatic equivalence to the original."[61]
Calque is another technique within the direct
translation strategy. It is also known as a loan translation. Vinay and
Darbelnet define it as follows: "Calque is a special kind of borrowing
whereby a language borrows an expression from another, but then translates
literally each of its elements."[62] Therefore, a calque is a word or phrase
that is translated literally from the source language into the target language,
maintaining the structure and meaning while using words from the target
language. A calque can be lexical, focusing on the literal translation of a
phrase (e.g., skyscraper in English and gratte-ciel in French),
or structural, mirroring the grammatical structure.
In translation studies, borrowing and
calquing are methods of direct translation as defined by Vinay and Darbelnet.
However, they differ significantly in how they transfer elements from the
source language into the target language. While borrowing retains the original
foreign term in the target language, calque translates it gradually into the
target language. Both methods help maintain fidelity to the source text but
differ in the degree to which they adapt to the linguistic norms of the target
culture.
Borrowing is the process of taking a word or
expression directly from the source language without translation and using it
in the target language, sometimes with minor phonetic or orthographic changes.
Vinay and Darbelnet define borrowing as follows: "Borrowing is the
simplest type of translation because it involves no real translation. It is
used when the target language lacks an equivalent or for stylistic or cultural
reasons."[63] The main objective of borrowing is to fill a lexical
gap in the target language, preserve cultural specificity, and maintain
authenticity or prestige. An example of borrowing can be the French usage of
English words such as: internet, football, ferryboat, email, ebook…
3.4.2. Oblique Translation Strategies
Oblique translation strategies are employed when
direct translation is unsuccessful due to linguistic or cultural differences.
The most common ones include modulation, transposition, equivalence, and
adaptation.
Modulation specialises in shifting perspectives
(mode, form, voice, etc.) to make them sound fluent, spontaneous, and natural.
Some cultures favour affirmative phrasing, as seen in the Spanish context,
while others, such as Ernest Hemingway, avoid using negative forms, words, or
expressions. That is, instead of translating "I can't eat any more
cake", the modulation will go as follows: "I'm full". In other
words, both modulation and transposition work on the linguistic levels of the
source text involved. However, while modulation concentrates on the grammatical
structure being targeted, it also addresses the semantic meaning to communicate
effectively with target readers or listeners.
Transposition (or structural adjustment) is another
translation technique used in direct strategies to change word order or
grammatical structure in order to adapt syntax when the original form in the
source text is not feasible or common in the target language. For example,
translating "She appreciates talking to you" (using a gerund instead
of an infinitive) from English into French would result in “Elle apprécie
parler avec toi” (using an infinitive instead of a gerund), because the literal
translation "Elle apprécie la parole avec toi" is not current in
French.
Equivalence (also called idiomatic substitution or
dynamic equivalence), as opposed to formal equivalence, employs culturally
different yet equivalent expressions or idioms. It focuses on the message's
effect on the reader rather than achieving precise structure and exact wording.
Functional equivalence can be either an adaptation or a free translation.
Adaptation can be either creative or cultural.
Cultural adaptation tailors cultural references, idioms, proverbs, maxims,
sayings, or concepts to make them more relevant and understandable to the
target audience. It involves modifying cultural references because direct
translation may sound odd or unappealing. It preserves the idea but adjusts the
meaning for the target readers. For example, a local holiday like 'Easter' can
be presented as 'ʿīd al-fiṣḥi' to the Arabic audience. Similarly, a proverb may
be replaced with an equivalent in another language, such as shifting "save
the white penny for the black day" into French as "Il faut garder une
poire pour la soif" or into Arabic as "Iḥfẓ al-Qirsh al-Abyaḍ
lil-yawm al-aswad” (احفظ القرش الأبيض لليوم الأسود).
Creative adaptation, however, does not focus on culture but on emotions.
Instead, it evokes similar feelings to those in the original texts. This
approach is commonly used in commercial advertising, children's literature, and
pop culture.
3.4.3. Global Translation Strategies
Global translation
strategies refer to broad approaches or methods that translators use to manage
an entire text, ensuring consistency, accuracy, and cultural appropriateness.
These strategies guide the adaptation of a text from the source language to the target language while
preserving its intended meaning, style, and function. Global translation
strategies are distinct from local translation strategies. The former
shapes the overall translation approach, affecting tone, style, and cultural
relevance, whereas the latter focuses on individual words or phrases.
Lawrence Venuti's concepts of Foreignisation and Domestication are
central strategies in global translation. Foreignisation aims to maintain the foreign character of the original
text, often through calques or borrowed terms, preserving some source language
flavour and keeping original words for cultural authenticity (for example:
“assalamu alaikum”). It is especially used in literary works where cultural
flavour is important. (Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim) = "In the name of
Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful." — this preserves
theological precision; footnotes explain divine attributes. Domestication,
however, involves adapting the text to make it sound natural and familiar to
the target culture. This approach prioritises fluency and ease of
understanding, ensuring the text feels natural in the target language. For
instance, translating Arabic sacred texts: (Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim) =
"In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful." often
replaces Allah with God to suit non-Muslim contexts.
In parallel, Peter Newmark distinguishes between communicative
translation and semantic translation. The former naturally focuses on the purpose of the text and the needs
of the target audience. Its main aim is to ensure that the message is delivered
effectively and naturally in the target language and culture, even if this
involves deviating from the source text's form or literal meaning. According to
Newmark, "Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an
effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the
original." This is often contrasted with semantic translation, which
Newmark describes as aiming "to render, as closely as the semantic and
syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning
of the original."[64] Semantic translation is a method that emphasises
conveying the precise contextual meaning of the source text as closely as the
semantic and syntactic structures of the target language permit.
Semantic translation primarily focuses on the author and the source
text. Its main goal is to accurately communicate the original's cognitive
meaning, including its stylistic and cultural features, while exerting minimal
influence from the target language and culture. According to Newmark,
"Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and
syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning
of the original."[65] This differs from communicative translation, which aims to produce an
effect on the target reader similar to that experienced by the original
readers.
Juliane House's translation strategy is
also regarded as a global approach, incorporating both overt and covert
strategies. The distinction between overt and covert
translation was introduced in 1977 by Juliane House to
explain how translations position themselves in relation to the source text and
the target culture. While an overt translation strategy maintains the source
text's foreignness and cultural context, openly declaring itself a
derivative of the source, preserving its original purpose and audience, a
covert translation strategy modifies the text to blend smoothly into
the target culture, behaving like an original target-language text, often
altering cultural references.
4.
Conclusion
This study tackles the ongoing issue of
untranslatability by creating a detailed list of translation strategies
intended to guide translators through the complex landscape of cross-linguistic
and cross-cultural transfer. By synthesising various theoretical perspectives
on strategy and applying them to the translation context, it develops a refined
framework for understanding the strategic aspects of translation
decision-making. The distinction between strategy and tactic, and the placement
of translation strategy within broader strategic fields, emphasise the
translator's role as an intentional, context-aware endeavour rather than a
mechanical task.
Central to this investigation is the
understanding that translation strategy is not a fixed or uniform concept, but
a dynamic and adaptable response to different structural and functional
factors. These include the nature of the source and target texts, the type and
purpose of language, and the relationship between linguistic use and mention.
By emphasising the denotative, connotative, and mythical levels of meaning, the
study shows how translators must navigate untranslatability through direct,
oblique, or holistic strategies.
The inventory listed here—comprising
literal translation, calque, borrowing, modulation, transposition, equivalence,
adaptation, compensation, and broader concepts such as foreignisation and
domestication—acts as a structured guide for tackling translational challenges.
This categorisation shows that strategic choices are influenced not only by
textual features but also by broader communicative goals, audience
expectations, cultural differences, and the purpose of the translation.
In the face of untranslatability, the
translator must go beyond linguistic accuracy towards informed, strategic
problem-solving. This research contributes to translation theory by providing a
more transparent and more systematic understanding of how strategic choices are
made, while also emphasising the complex link between theory and practice. The
proposed framework has considerable pedagogical value, fostering critical
reflection in translator training and supporting a more intentional, culturally
responsive translation approach.
Ultimately, by viewing untranslatability as
both a challenge and an opportunity, this study redefines translation as a
purposeful and adaptable act. The list of strategies offered here not only
deepens theoretical understanding but also provides translators with practical
tools to achieve functional equivalence and promote effective intercultural
communication. It establishes a foundation for future research into the
strategic management of untranslatability across different textual and cultural
contexts.
