3.

EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT EFFECT (1950s/1960s)

key issues: meaning and equivalence

ROMAN JAKOBSON

structuralist, follows de Saussures relation (signifier + signified sign, examples: cheese, nectar no full equivalence !etween code-units (cheese syr kinds of translation: interlingual, intralingual, intersemiotic interlingual translation: - entire messages are su!stituted code-units differ !ecause they !elong to different sign systems focus: differences in the structure and terminology of languages languages differ essentially in what they must convey, and not in what they may convey" in gender, aspect, semantic fields poetry is untranslata!le and requires creative transposition

EU ENE NIDA

#$oward a Science of $ranslation%, #$he $heory and &ractice of $ranslation% !orrows concepts and terminology from semantics, pragmatics and 'homsky words acquire meaning through context and produce varying responses according to culture meaning: linguistic, referential (denotative , emotive (connotative techniques for determining the meaning of linguistic items: o hierarchical structuring ( differentiating series of words according to their level (animal ) goat * dog o componential analysis ( identifies specific features of a range of related words (mother, cousin sex, generation, lineality o semantic structure analysis ( separating different meanings of a word according to its characteristics in context (spirit human, good+!ad,, - the idea is to reali-e that the sense of complex terms depends on context .ida adopts 'homskys model: phrase structure rules deep structure !! transformational rules deep structure + deep structure !! phonological / morphemic rules surface structure

.idas three-stage process of translation: S$ surface structure 11

2.234S5S

$$ surface structure 11
67S$68'$865.9

11 translation 11 S$ !asic elements ---------------------- $$ !asic elements (kernels $62.S:76 kernels are produced !y the process of !ack-transformation: surface s;: will of 9od !ack-transform: < (o!=ect, God performs 2 (event, wills transformation into the surface structure happens in > stages: literal, minimal and literary transfer formal equivalence is oriented towards the S$ structure and focuses on the message in form and content o the message in the receptors language should match as closely as possi!le the different elements in the S3 dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression o the goal is the closest natural equivalent to the source message ? !asic requirements of translation: o making sense o conveying the spirit and manner of the original o a natural form of expression o producing a similar response as the original

'riticism - equivalent effect or response is impossi!le - equivalent effect cannot !e achieved when meaning is !ound up in form, especially in literary works - the pro!lem of equivalence in translating cultural references - the techniques for the analysis of meaning are carried out systematically, !ut it is dou!ta!le whether it is so in practice - .idas work is considered theological and dynamic equivalence serves the purpose of converting the receptors
NE"MARK

#2pproaches to $ranslation%, #2 $ext!ook of $ranslation% com!ining practical examples of linguistic theories of meaning with practical applications for translation semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of $3 allow, the contextual meaning of the original o it interprets and explains (metaphor and idioms

communicative translation attempts to produce an effect as similar as possi!le to the one of the original on its readers equivalent effect cannot !e achieved if the text is out of $3 space and time (e;g; modern translations of Aomer literal translation is the !est approach ( the translator should concentrate on especially difficult pro!lems, and literally translate the rest if semantic translation results in an a!normal $$, communicative should !e used
S7B2.$5' $62.S32$5C. 'CBB8.5'2$5D7 $62.S32$5C.

- remains within the S$ culture - not fixed in time or space" new translations are needed - inferior to S$ - accuracy of reproduction of the significance of the S$

- transfers foreign elements into the $3 culture - rooted in its own contemporary context - may !e #!etter% than the S$ - accuracy of communication of the S$ message in the $$

'riticism - strong prescriptivism ( translations are #smooth% or #awkward%, translation is #art% (semantic or #craft% (communicative
"ERNER KOLLER

examines the concepts of correspondence and equivalence correspondence: !elongs to contrastive linguistics (comparing two language systems and descri!ing differences and similarities deals with langue ( false friends, lexical and morphological interference refers to competence in foreign language equivalence: !elongs to the science of translation relates to equivalent terms in specific S$-$$ pairs (parole refers to translation competence types of equivalences: 0; E7.C$2$5D7 ( equivalence of the extra-linguistic content content invariance @; 'C..C$2$5D7 ( related to the lexical choice stylistic equivalence >; $7F$-.C6B2$5D7 ( different text-types !ehaving differently ?; &629B2$5' ( oriented towards the receiver communicative equivalence G; :C6B23 ( related to the form and aesthetics of the text expressive equivalence the translator must set up a hierarchy of values to !e preserved in translation: a language function ! content characteristics c language-stylistic characteristics d formal-aesthetic characteristics

>

pragmatic characteristics

#. T$E TRANSLATION S$IFT A%%ROAC$

efforts to categori-e the translation process

VINA& AND DARBELNET

a comparative stylistic analysis of :rench and 7nglish identifying different translation strategies: a E567'$ translation a; !orrowing ( the S3 word is transferred directly to the $3 ( glasnost, perestroika, apartheid, cherub, yacht !; calque ( the S3 expression or structure is transferred in a literal translation (skyscraper neboder, superman ubermensch, free verse vers libre, Saturday Dies Saturni, honeymoon luna de miel c; literal translation ( word-for-word translation" prescri!ed as #good translation% - inappropriate if it: gives a different meaning has no meaning is impossi!le for structural reasons has no corresponding expression within metalinguistic experience corresponds to something at a different level of language ! translation a; transposition ( changing one part of speech for another without changing the sense (Ae will soon !e !ack ( .eIe mu dugo tre!ati da se vrati
C<35H87

!; modulation ( changing the semantics and the point of view of the S3 (the time when ( le moment ou where - can !e: a!stract concrete, cause effect, part whole, part another part, reversal of terms, negation of opposite, active to passive, space for time c; equivalence ( languages descri!e the same situation !y different stylistic or structural means (slon u staklarni ( the !ull in the china shop d; adaptation ( changing the cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture (a game of cricket ( $our d :rance - !ase!all these categories operate on three levels: the lexicon, the semantic structure, the message (the utterance and its metalinguistic context two further terms are introduced: o demarche - word order and thematic structure o charniJres - connectors (cohesive links , deixis (demonstrative pronouns , punctuation other parameters taken into account !y Dinay and Ear!elnet are:

o servitude - o!ligatory transpositions and modulations due to a difference !etween S3 and $3 o option - non-o!ligatory changes that are due to the translators own style and preferences the role of the translator is to choose among availa!le options to express the nuances of the message five steps that should !e followed in moving from S$ to $$: 0; identify the units of translation @; examine the S3 text >; reconstruct the metalinguistic context ?; evaluate the stylistic effects G; produce and revise the $$ unit of translation lexicological unit + unit of thought * the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they shouldnt !e translated individually examples: individual words ( he, !ut grammatically linked groups ( the watch, to look fixed expressions ( from time to time semantically linked groups ( to glance away

CATFORD

#2 linguistic theory of translation% analy-es language as communication, operating functionally in context, on a range of different levels and ranks formal correspondent is any $3 category (unit, class which can !e said to occupy the #same% place in the #economy% of the $3 as the given S3 category occupies in the S3 it is a general system-!ased concept !etween a pair of languages textual equivalent is any $3 text or portion of text o!served on a particular occasion to !e the equivalent of a given S3 text or portion of text it is tied to a particular S$-$$ pair translation shift is a departure from formal correspondence in the process of going from the S3 to the $3: a level shift something expressed !y grammar in one language and lexis in another (to write ( pisati, to finish writing - napisati ! category shifts: o structural 5 love =a--; ( Bi piace il =a--; 5m hungry; ( Ao fame; o class a medical student ( student medicine o unit+rank the translation equivalent is at a different rank (clause, word, morpheme : when he came ( doKavKi

o intra-system S3 and $3 possess approximately corresponding systems, !ut the translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the $3: advice ( des conseiles (sg; pl;
C'EC$ "RITIN

introduction of the literary aspect Miri 3evy deals with the translation of the surface structure of the S$ and $$, particularly poetry translation literary translation is a reproductive and creative la!or with the goal of equivalent aesthetic effect equivalence needs to !e achieved among these features (priority depends on the type of text : 0; denotative meaning, connotation, stylistic arrangement @; syntax >; sound repetition, vowel length, articulation minimax strategy ( maximum effect with a minimum of effort 3evy considers translation work to !e pragmatic :rantiKek Biko discusses different theoretical aspects of style in translation (#shift of expression% he suggests an analysis of style under categories such as: ?; operativity, iconicity, affectation, prominence, contrast 2nton &opoviN emphasi-es that the shift analysis can !e seen as a way of influencing the system of norms which govern the translation process the shifts arise from the tension !etween the S$ and the translation ideal, which results from the translators conscious efforts to faithfully reproduce the aesthetic totality of the original

VAN LEUVEN('"ART

a model of shift analysis, attempting to systemati-e comparison and to !uild in a discourse framework a!ove the sentence level 0; comparative model involves a detailed comparison of the S$ and the $$ and a classification of all the microstructural shifts divide selected passages into comprehensi!le textual units #transemes% (e;g; she sat up quickly ( se endere-o define the architranseme ( the invariant core sense of the S$ transeme, which serves as tertium comparationis (e;g; to sit up compare each transeme with the architranseme to esta!lish the relationship !etween the transemes if !oth transemes have a synonymic relationship with the architranseme, no shift has occurred the a!sence of a synonymic relationship indicates a shift in translation which can !e:

modulation one of the transemes tallies with the architranseme, !ut the other differs semantically or stylistically (sat up quickly ( has an extra element ! modification !oth transemes show some form of dis=unction compared to the architranseme (you had to cry ( hacia llorar ( it caused you to cry c mutation it is impossi!le to esta!lish and architranseme either !ecause of addition, deletion or some radical change in meaning in the $$ once all the shifts are identified and categori-ed on this level, their cumulative effect is then calculated !y using a descriptive model

@; descriptive model a macrostructural model, designed for the analysis of the translated literature - !ased on concepts !orrowed from narratology and stylistics - attempts to interweave the concepts of #discourse level% and #story level% with three linguistic metafunctions (interpersonal, ideational, textual the analytical model involves totaling the num!er of instances of each kind of shift in GPPP word extracts and examining the patterns that emerge translation strategy is $$ oriented, with an emphasis on accepta!ility in the target culture the comparative model is extremely complex ( allocating eight different categories and >O su!categories of shifts and keeping track is very difficult architranseme might !e su!=ective the statistical matching does not discriminate !etween the relative importance of different examples of each shift category

5. FUNCTIONAL T$EORIES OF TRANSLATION (19)0s/19*0s)

in 9ermany, the emergence and flourishing of a functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation

KAT$ARINA REISS

views the text as the level at which communication is achieved and at which equivalence must !e sought links three functions to their corresponding language dimensions and to the text types in which they are used L+,-.+-/ 536/,s34,s logical T/72 041.s contentfocused formfocused TT s84.95 transmit content transmit aesthetic T:+,s9+234, 6/2845 plain prose, explication as required identifying method, adopt T/72 2;</ informative (reference work expressive (poem Q

L+,-.+-/ 0.,1234, 5nformative (representing o!=ects and facts 7xpressive (expressing

aesthetic

senders form the authors attitude perspective 2ppellative dialogic appellative elicit adaptive, (making an -focused desired equivalent appeal to text response effect receiver - the fourth type 6eiss mentions is audiomedial text which supplements functions with visual images, music, etc; (films, visual advertisements -

operative (advertiseme nt the other three

6eiss lists a series of intralinguistic and extralinguistic criteria !y which the adequacy of a $$ may !e assessed: o 5ntralinguistic: semantic, lexical, grammatical, stylistic features o 7xtralinguistic: situation, su!=ect field, time, place, receiver, sender, affective implications (humor, irony the importance of those criteria varies according to the text type, for example: o translation of a content-focused text aims at preserving semantic equivalence o a news item $$ would place grammatical criteria in second place o a popular science !ook would pay more attention to the individual style of the S$ example: 9ullivers $ravel originally written as a satirical novel (operative text , today read and translated as ordinary piece of fiction (expressive text

'ritisicm 6eiss moves translation theory towards a consideration of the communicative purpose of translation Rhy should there !e only three types of language functionS 5t is unclear how proposed translation methods are to !e applied in the case of a specific text ( !usiness and financial texts contain a large num!er of simple and complex metaphors, so #plain-prose% method is perhaps inappropriate 'an text types really !e differentiatedS ( a !usiness report, classed !y 6eiss as strongly informative, can also show a strongly expressive side $he translation method employed depends on more than =ust text type

$OL'(MANTTARI

the translational action model aims at providing a model and guidelines applica!le to a wide range of professional translation situations translation is viewed as purpose-driven, outcome-oriented human interaction interlingual translation is descri!ed as translational action from a source text and as a communicative process involving a series of roles: o initiator needs the translation o commissioner contacts the translator o S$ producer writes the S$ o $$ producer the translator o $$ user uses $$, as teaching material or sales literature

o $$ receiver the final recipient, for example, the students in the $$ users class each of these players have their own primary and secondary goals, e;g; for the translator, the primary might !e to earn money and the secondary to fulfill the contract the translator may !e a non-expert in !oth the text type and su!=ect area translational action focuses on producing a $$ that is functionally communicative for the receiver what is functionally suita!le has to !e determined !y the translator who has to make sure that the intercultural transfer takes place satisfactorily the needs of the receiver are the determining factors for the $$ (e;g; a technical term in an S$ might require clarification for a non-technical $$ user relevant features of the S$ are descri!ed in terms of: o content factual information + overall communicative strategy - (tectonics o form terminology + cohesive elements (texture

'riticism $he value of this work is the placing of translation within its sociocultural context, including the interplay !etween the translator and the initiating institution 'riticism refers to the complexity of =argon $he model fails to consider cultural difference in more detail or in the kinds of terms proposed !y the culturally oriented models

$ANS VERMEER

#9roundwork for a 9eneral $heory of $ranslation% skopos * aim, purpose (9reek word " a technical term for the purpose of translation and of the action of translating skopos theory focuses on the purpose of translation, which determines the methods and strategies that are to !e employed in order to produce a functionally adequate result, the translatum (the $$ knowing why an S$ is to !e translated and what the function of the translatum will !e are crucial for the translator !asic rules of the skopos theory: - a translatum is determined !y its skopos - a $$ is an offer of information in a target culture and $3, concerning an offer of information in a source culture and S3 - a $$ does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversi!le way the function of a translatum in its target culture is not necessarily the same as in the source culture - a $$ must !e internally coherent $$ must !e translated in such a way that it is coherent for the $3 receivers, given their circumstances and knowledge - a $$ must !e coherent with the S$ there must !e coherence !etween the translatum and the S$

according to skopos theory, the same text can !e translated in different ways, according to the purpose of the $$ and the commission which is given to the translator example: an am!iguity in a will written in :rench would need to !e translated literally, with footnotes or comments" !ut if the will appeared in a novel, the translator might prefer to find a corresponding am!iguity in $3, without footnotes, so as not to interrupt the reading process the skopos needs to !e explicitly or implicitly stated in the commission which comprises a goal and the conditions under which that goal should !e achieved (including deadline and fee , !oth of which should !e negotiated !etween the commissioner and the translator skopos and adequacy (which descri!es the relations !etween S$ and $$ as a consequence of o!serving a skopos during the translation process determine the nature of the translatum equivalence is reduced to functional constancy !etween S$ and $$

'riticism the skopos theory can only refer to non-literary texts" literary texts are considered to have no specific purpose text type approach and the skopos theory are considering different phenomena and cannot !e lumped together skopos theory does not pay enough attention to the linguistic nature of the S$ nor the reproduction of the microlevel features in the $$ unnecessary =argon that does little to further the translation theory (#translatum%

C$RISTIANE NORD

#$ext 2nalysis in $ranslation% aims at providing a model of S$ analysis which is applica!le to all text types and translation situations examines text organi-ation at or a!ove the sentence level and distinguished !etween: a documentary translation a document of source culture communication !etween the author and the S$ recipient the $$ allows the $$ receiver access to ideas of the S$, !ut the reader is aware that it is a translation example: literary translation, culture-specific lexical units, literal translation ! instrumental translation an independent message transmitting instrument in a new communicative action in the target culture intended to fulfill its communicative purpose without the recipient !eing conscious of reading or hearing a text that was used !efore in a different communicative situation function-preserving translations example: a translated computer manual

#$ranslating as a &urposeful 2ctivity% ( highlights three aspects of functionalist approaches that are particularly useful in translator training: - the importance of the translation commission the translator needs to compare S$ and $$ profiles defined in the commission to see where the two texts may diverge information a!out the intended text functions, the addressees, the time and place of text reception, the medium and the motive ena!les the translator to prioriti-e what information to include in the $$ the role of S$ analysis the S$ can !e analy-ed to decide on functional priorities of the translation strategy list of intratextual factors: su!=ect matter, content, presuppositions, composition, non-ver!al elements (illustrations, italics , lexicon (dialect, register, terminology , sentence structure, suprasegmental features (stress, rhythm, stylistic punctuation the functional hierarchy of translation pro!lems: the intended function of the translation should !e decided those functional elements that will need to !e adapted to the $$ addresses situation have to !e determined the translation type decides the translation style the pro!lems of the text can then !e tackled at a lower linguistic level

6. DISCOURSE AND RE ISTER ANAL&SIS A%%ROAC$ES (1990s)

discourse analysis looks at the way language communicates meaning and social and power relations

$ALLIDA&

model of discourse analysis, !ased on systemic functional grammar geared to study language as communication meaning is in the writers linguistic choices and these choices are systematically related to a wider sociocultural framework there is a strong interrelation !etween the surface-level reali-ations of the linguistic functions and the sociocultural framework Sociocultural environment 9enre 6egister (field, tenor, mode Eiscourse semantics

(ideational, interpersonal, textual 3exicogrammar (transitivity, modality, theme-rheme+cohesion the genre is conditioned !y the sociocultural environment and itself determines other elements

register comprises: o field (what is !eing written a!out o tenor (who is communicating and to whom o mode (the form of communication each of these varia!les is associated with a strand of meaning, or metafunctions, that form the discourse semantics: o ideational meaning associated with the field, reali-ed through transitivity patterns (ver! types, active+passive structures etc; o interpersonal meaning associated with the tenor, reali-ed through the patterns of modality (modal ver!s, adver!s such as hopefully, possibly and evaluative lexis such as beautiful, dreadful o textual meaning associated with the mode, reali-ed through the thematic and information structures (the order of elements in a clause and cohesion (the way that text hangs together lexically

these metafunctions are reali-ed !y the lexicogrammar (the choices of wording and syntactic structure

JULIANE $OUSE

the model is !ased on comparative S$-$$ analysis leading to the assessment of the quality of the translation, highlighting #mismatches% or #errors% a systematic comparison of the textual profile of the S$ and $$ register analysis according to their reali-ation through lexical, syntactic and textual means textual means refers to: o theme dynamics ( thematic structure and cohesion o clausal linkage ( additive, adversative o iconic linkage ( parallelism of structure register is expanded in comparison to Aallidays model: o field su!=ect matter and social action o tenor authors provenance and stance, social role and social attitude (formal+informal o mode medium (spoken+written and the degree of participation (monologue, dialogue the model: 0; a profile of the S$ register is produced @; a description of the S$ genre reali-ed !y the register is added >; a #statement of function% is made (what information is !eing conveyed and what is the relationship !etween sender and receiver ?; the same descriptive process is carried out for the $$ G; the profiles are compared and the statement of errors is made, categori-ed according to the genre and register L; a statement of quality of the translation is made O; the translation is categori-ed as over or covert type of translation 0

overtly erroneous errors denotative mismatches or target system errors covertly erroneous errors dimensional errors of a situation overt translation does not purport to !e an original o the equivalence is sought at the level of language+text, register and genre o the individual text function cannot !e the same for the S$ and $$ o example: the translation of 'hurchills speech after the RR @, which is tied to a particular source culture and historical context covert translation en=oys the status of the original source text in the target culture o not linked to a particular S$ culture or audience o the function is to recreate, reproduce or represent the function that the original text has in its linguacultural framework o example: a tourist information !ooklet, a letter from a company chairman to the shareholders in cases where covertly functional equivalence is desired, !ut where the S$ genre does not exist in the target culture, the aim should !e to produce a covert version

MONA BAKER

#5n Cther Rords: 2 'ourse!ook on $ranslation% looks at equivalence at a series of levels: word, a!ove-word, grammar, thematic structure, cohesion, pragmatic levels thematic and information structure - most attention is devoted to the textual functions - a comparison of nominali-ation and ver!al forms in theme position are incorporated - thematic structures are reali-ed differently in different languages - example: Analisou-se as relacoes da dopamina cere!ral com as funcoes motoras; (Analy ed were the relations of dopamine with the motor functions; $he relations !etween dopamine and motor functions were analy ed; normali-ed 7nglish word order An analysis is carried out of the relations !etween dopamine and motor functions; <akers suggestion 5 theme Eiscuti theme discussed this matter in Rashington; rheme este assunto em Rashington; rheme

an important advantage of the systemic functional approach is that it is straightforward to implement ( theme is in the first position the translator should !e aware of the relative markedness of the thematic and information structures e;g; calquing a rigid 7nglish word order when translating into a DS language such as Spanish would produce a monotonous translation

cohesion - <lum-Uulka suggests that increased explication of cohesive ties might !e a general strategy adopted !y all translators - changes in cohesion in translation might !ring a!out functional shifts in texts - example from &inters #Cld $imes%: #:at or thinS% Ae!rew and other languages would need to state whether the character referred to was a man or woman - the we! of cohesive ties may have to differ !etween S$ and $$, since the networks of lexical cohesion will not !e identical across languages - the $$ must hang together logically in the mind of the $$ receivers pragmatics and translation - pragmatics is the study of language in use - three ma=or concepts: o the coherence of a text depends on the receivers expectations and experience of the world example: #the flagship Aarrods% * #the splendid Unights!ridge%, !ut the receiver might not know this so the translator needs to make explicit link !y adding the word #store% to !oth these expressions o presupposition the linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge the sender assumes the receiver to have or which are necessary in order to retrieve the message example: Sit 3eon <rittan in the 7uropean &arliament : %let me now turn to !ananas% referring to the trade dispute !etween the 78 and the 8S over !anana imports o implicature what the speaker means or implies rather than what he+she says this concept was developed !y 9rice and his maxims (quantity, quality, relevance, manner participants in conversations assume that the person to whom they are speaking is following those maxims and therefore tend to !e cooperative in what they say and how they say it pro!lems for the translator arise when the S3 and $3 work !y different maxims example: the Mapanese &remier replies to the 2merican concerns on textile exports !y saying #5ll handle it as well as 5 can%, which is understood !y the 8S &resident as a literal promise to sort out the pro!lem, whereas the Mapanese phrase is a polite formula to ending the conversation

$ATIM AND MASON

#Eiscourse and the $ranslator%, #$he $ranslator as 'ommunicator% focus in on the reali-ation of ideational and interpersonal functions in translation the model is incorporated into a semiotic level of discourse example from 'amus #3etranger%: !"ai crispe ma main my grip closed

!"ai touch# le ventre poli de la crosse the smooth under!elly of the !utt !ogged my palm !"ai tire 5 fired the pattern of shifts in the $$ made Bersault more passive than in the S$ ( !ut it might !e !ecause of the translators overall reading of the novel, in which Bersaults passivity is a key feature shifts in modality (the interpersonal function are also considered example: pro!lems with the recognition of a :rench conditional of allegation or rumour #un plan de restructuration qui aurait VtV prVpare par les administrateurs =udiciaires% #a rescue plan which was probably !y the receivers% ( is often wrongly translated as #had been prepared% language and texts are considered to !e reali-ations of sociocultural messages and power relations which represent discourse discourse modes of speaking and writing which involve social groups in adopting a particular attitude towards areas of sociocultural activity a semiotic function is performed !y idiolect and dialect example: the characters in 9eorge <ernard Shaws #&ygmalion% speak 'ockney dialect ( this purposely functional feature is a noteworthy o!=ect of the translators attention the peculiarities and connotations are unlikely to !e replicated easily in any $$ culture Aatim and Basons work can !e seen as a list of elements to !e considered when examining translation they concentrate on identifying sta!le and dynamic elements in the text a more #sta!le% S$ may require a fairly literal approach, while with a more dynamic S$, the translator is faced with more interesting challenges and literal translation might not !e an option

'riticisms of discourse and register analysis approaches discourse analysis models are very popular among many linguistics-oriented translation theorists Aallidayan model is critici-ed for !eing over-complicated in its categori-ation of grammar and for its apparently inflexi!le one-to-one matching of structure and meaning Aouses model raise question whether it is possi!le to recover authorial intention and S$ function from register analysis Rhile mismatches may indicate translation errors, they may also !e caused !y other translation strategies, such as explication or compensation <akers model languages with word order different than 7nglish need to !e analy-ed differently

3inguistic differences are indicative of cultural differences and Denuti critici-es linguistic-oriented approaches for !eing a conservative model of translation that restricts translations role in cultural innovation and change Aatim and Bason analy-e a range of text types, !ut their focus often remains linguistics-centred, !oth in its terminology and in the phenomena investigated