0. TRANSLATION STUDIES – KEY ISSUES
1. INTRODUCTORY NOTES
André Lefevere – Louvain Colloquium on Literature and
Translation, 1976
‘Translation Studies’ – discipline concerned with
‘the problems raised by the production and
description of translation’
- a discipline in its own right: complex
- not a minor branch of comparative literary study
- not a specific area of linguistics
TR viewed generally as:
- rendering of SL text into TL text, so as to ensure
that:
- the surface meaning of TL / SL texts will be
approximately similar
- the structures of SL text will be preserved as
closely as possible BUT not so closely that the TL
structures will be seriously distorted
(basically syntax-oriented)
TR a) analyzed as product only ‘servant-translator’
b) not the process itself ‘independent’
(TR – a perfection of the original)
Anton Popovič (1976) – set out the basis of a
methodology for studying translation
1960’s – growing influence of linguistics and stylistics
- the Russian Formalist Circle,
- the Prague Linguistic Circle (R. Jakobson)
Catford (1965) - tackled the problem of linguistic
untranslability:
In TR there is SUBSTITUTION of TL meanings for SL
meanings: not TRANSFERENCE of TL meanings into
SL. In transference there is an implantation of SL
meanings into the TL text. These two processes must be
clearly differentiated in any theory of translation
J. Levý – ‘a translation is not a monistic composition
BUT an interpretation and conglomerate of two structures’:
1. semantic content / the formal contour of SLT
2. the entire system of aesthetic features bound up
with the language of the translation
HOLISTIC APPROACH: (Snell-Hornby) TR Studies –
bridging the gap between the vast area of:
- STYLISTICS, LITERARY HISTORY,
LINGUISTICS, SEMIOTICS, AESTHETICS
- A discipline also firmly rooted in PRACTICAL
APPLICATION – guidelines for producing of
translations
THEREFORE: TR Studies vs other disciplines:
Product-oriented vs. Process oriented
1. history of translation (component part of
literary history)
2. Process oriented TR in the TL culture
3. TR and linguistics
4. Translation and poetics
2. CENTRAL ISSUES IN THE THEORY AND
PRACTICE OF TRANSLATION
KEY ISSUES:
1. Types of translation - units of TR
2. Process of translation (the communicative model of
TR
3. Translation equivalence
4. Loss and gain
5. (Un)translatability
6. Machine translation
7. Language and culture in translation
8. Translation: Science or ‘secondary activity’
9. Translation quality assessment
10. Translation ethics,
11. Translation universals
12. Theory vs studies, name vs subject-matter –
methodology, theory vs practical translation, etc.
1. Types of translation - units of translation
Units of translation depend on:
- levels of linguistic description (word, collocation,
phrase, clause, text, body of texts)
- kind of message / text
R. Jakobson ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation ( 1959) TYPES OF TRANSLATION:
1. intralingual - rewording
- interpretation of verbal signs by means of other
signs in the same language
2. interlingual - TR proper
- interpretation of (SL) verbal signs by means of
the signs of another language (TL)
3. intersemiotic - transmutation
- interpretation of verbal signs by means of nonverbal sign systems
Central problem (No. 1):
- TL messages may serve as adequate interpretations
of SL code units of messages,
(apparent synonymy does not yield equivalence)
HOWEVER:
- there is normally NO FULL EQUIVALENCE
through translation
- intralingual TR must often resort to a combination of
code units in order to interpret the meaning of a
single unit
e.g. perfect
- ideal
vehicle - conveyance
No equivalence : each unit contains within itself a
set of:
- non-transferable associations
- non-transferable connotations
- poetic art - untranslatable (Mounin: starting/ending
point: 'significations' and 'functions')
What is translatable?
- Creative transposition, i.e.:
1. from one poetic shape into another
2. from one language into another
3. from one system of signs to another (verbal art
to music, dance, cinema, painting
e.g. pastry
-
pasta (It.) (completely different
associations in Italian/E/Cro)
1
flour dough or paste made with shortening and used for the
crust of pies, tarts, etc.
2
foods made with this, as pies, tarts, etc.
3
broadly, all fancy baked goods, including cakes, sweet rolls,
etc.
e.g. syr (Rus.),
- Cf. Croatian
-
cottage cheese (‘svježi/kravlji sir’)
(a food made of fermented pressed curds - the coagulated part of milk,
from which cheese is made: it is formed when milk sours
and is distinguished from whey, the watery part)
Syr (Russ) and cheese (Engl) do not cover the same
referent!!!
= NO / IMPOSSIBLE EQUIVALENCE:
TR is only an adequate INTERPRETATION of
an alien code unit
Other examples:
e.g. What's the time?
Koliko je sati?
Unit of TR? / lex-synt. level?
What's your name?
Kako se zovete?
NB:
1:1 relationshup? (reare)
1: many relationship: (What: kako, koliko, kakav, etc.)
TEXT-BASED TYPOLOGY OF TRANSLATION
(Reiss, Vermeer 1984, Neubert 1985, Nord 1996)
Role of text: (Reiss 1968-1969 / Buehler 1934):
- informative:
(referential function in translation)
- inform the reader about the phenomena of the
real world
- typology assumed to be universal - i.e. applies
both to SL and TL texts
- TLR should try to give a correct and complete
representation of the source text's content (guided
by TL and culture as far as stylistic choices are
concerned)
- expressive: (expressive function)
- the informative aspect complemented or
suppressed by the aesthetic component
- TLR tries to produce an analogous aesthetic
effect on the receiver
- stylistic choices are guided by those made in the
SLT
- operative (appellative and phatic function)
- in these texts both CONTENT and FORM are
subordinate to the extralinguistic effect that the
text is designed to achieve
- TLR should be guided by the overall aim of
bringing about the same reaction to the audience
- this, however, might involve changing the
CONTENT/STYLISTIC FEATURES of the
original
NB: Each type of TR may include various types of text genres
BUT one text genre (e.g letters):
need not necessarily correlate with one text type only:
- a love letter may be expressive
- a business letter may be of informative type
- a letter requesting help is of the operative type, etc.
NB: Role of conventions and norms in deciding on the typology
of texts:
cf. K. Reiss:
'Let your translation decisions be guided by the function
you want to achieve by means of your translation'
2. Model of TR - Process of decoding and encoding
Model of Translating: (Nida 1969)
SOURCE LANGUAGE
TEXT
TARGET LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION
ANALYSIS
RESTRUCTURING
TRANSFER
TRANSLATION is the process of 'interlingual transfer' : a
complex procedure - basic task:
- to retain the 'invariant core' (sameness in difference) (universal)
- to allow for differences attributable to pragmatics, i.e.
different the contexts of situation (culture etc.)
e.g. 'yes' and 'hello' (seemingly uncontroversial items)
'yes'
F - 'Oui'
- used generally
'Si'
- used as affirmative in case of
contradiction, contention, dissent
F, G, I, H - frequently doubled or 'stringing' affirmatives
(si,si,si / ja,ja,ja / da, da, da) - to express
confirmation
E - not doubled in (standard) E
H,I > E - answering by a single yes may seem brusque
(abrupt, uncivil)
H,I > E - stringing in E: hyperbolic or even a comic
effect
'hello'
(Standard) E - used as a friendly greeting when meeting
 F - Ça va?, hallo
 G - Wie geht's?, hallo
 I - Ola, pronto, ciao
 H - Bog, ciao, haj, zdravo, halo
E: hello - same word for:
a) greeting someone face to face
b) when answering the phone
D,G,H - all make the same distinction (a, b)
F,G,H - also use c) brief rhetorical questions
as a form of greeting:
Wie geht's?, Ça va?, Kako ste?
I - ciao : - the most frequent form of greeting in all
layers/society and situations
- also used on arrival / departure - greeting is linked
to the moment of contact
THEREFORE: when translating hello from E into H/F/I:
- the TLR must first extract from the term hello:
a) the core meaning (friendly greeting on arrival) DECODING
b) stages of the process of meeting/greeting
(interlingua) , and then
c) decide to distinguish between the forms of greeting
available in TL (RE-ENCODING)
THE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS however will also include
other considerations:
- oui, si (F) - affirmative, but also in contention,
contradicting, dissent)
- stylistic function of stringing (F,H,I)
- social context of greeting (telephonic, face to face, class
poition & status of speakers)
- the weight of colloquial greeting in different societies
Further examples: butter, spirit, say when (Bassnett 1991), p.
18-19
CONCL.: In order to ensure 'roughly' the same meaning, the
translator must take into account the process of translation:
I. INTERPRETATION in SL
II. SELECTION in TL, but
!!!! 'Exact' TR is impossible:
e.g. (H) Dobar tek!
- (E) Good appetite
- used most naturally
- meaningless (OK as a loan in a particular context)
- Dig in / Tuck in - colloq.
- So start
- more formal
- I hope you like it - apologetic
- I hope it's alright - " "
- ‘Bon appetit’
THEREFORE: TR procedure should involve the following:
1. Accept that the SL phrase is UNTRANSLATABLE on the
linguistic level
2. Accept the LACK of a similar CULTURAL CONVENTION
in the TL
3. Consider the RANGE of phrases AVAILABLE IN THE
TARGET LANGUAGE - taking into consideration the
representation of: class, status, age, sex of the speaker,
speaker's relationship to the listeners, and the context of their
meeting/encounter in the TL
4. Consider the significance of the phrase in the PARTICULAR
CONTEXT - e.g. the moment of high tension in the dramatic
text
5. Replace in the TL the INVARIANT CORE of the SL phrase
in its two referential systems:
a) the particular system of the text
b) the system of culture out of which the text has sprung
Levý (1976):
 advocates the adoption of a functional view of TR (=semiotic
transformation):
1. meaning
2. style
e.g. translation of the Bible
3. form
 emphasis should always be on the READER/LISTENER
 the TR should tackle the SL text in such a way that the TL
version will correspond to the SL version. esp. e.g. literary
TR: (cf. Neubert 1985):
e.g. Shakespeare's sonnet:
Shall compare thee to a summer's day? - ? in a language
where summers are unpleasant
e.g. God the Father - ? in a language where the deity is
female
3. Translation equivalence - the equivalence problem
A. (Neubert 1985)
TRANSLATION - a study which should be viewed as
a) a process
b) a product
- dynamic model
- static model
THEORY OF TRANSLATION QUIVALENCE - a missing link
between the two models
TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE: a largely exploited issue,
though much abused
CEDT
1. the state of being equivalent or
interchangeable.
2. Maths, logic.
a. the relationship between two statements
each of which implies the other.
b. the binary truth-function that takes the
value true when both component
sentences are true or when both are false,
corresponding to English if and only if.
Symbol: ≡ or ↔ , as in -(p ^ q)
WNWD
1. equal in value, measure, force, effect,
or significance: His silence is equivalent to
an admission of guilt.
2. corresponding in position, function, etc.
3. having the same extent, as a triangle and
a square of equal area.
4. Math. (of two sets) able to be placed in
one-to-one correspondence.
Source of misinterpretations:
LANGUAGE
≡ or ≠ or ≈
MATHEMATICS
?'sameness'?
B. Van den Broeck (1981)
- the precise definition of EQUIVALENCE in mathematics is a serious
obstacle to its use in TR theory
(E. Nida 1964, 1969)
C. TYPES OF TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE
FORMAL EQUIVALENCE / GLOSS TR
 focuses on the message itself in both
FORM and CONTENT
 based on formal
CORRESPONDENCES:
- sentence-to-sentence
- word-for-word
- concept-to-concept
 aims to allow the reader to understand as
much of the SL context as possible
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE
 based on the principle of
EQUIVALENT EFFECT : i.e. the
relationship between the
RECEIVER/MESSAGE should aim to
be the SAME as that between the
ORIGINAL RECEIVER and the SL
MESSAGE
 - the communicative model of TR
e.g. Translating from Ancient Greece into modern European languages:
Homer's epic poems into English prose
(dyn. effect applied to formal properties of a text)
e.g. (the Bible - Romans 16:16):
(ORIG) greeting with a holy kiss ≡ 'give one a hearty handshake all
round' (dyn.effect in E):
- BUT: translation inadequate in E language, poor taste in E social
context
EQUIVALENT EFFECT: - a popular concept in the theory of TR - esp.
literary TR and the Bible:
BUT:
- What is it? How to achieve it?
Popovič (1976) : Four types of Equivalence
1. linguistic
- if there is homogeneity on the linguistic level (e.g. word-for-word
TR)
2. paradigmatic
- if there is equivalence on the paradigmatic axis (grammatical level)
3. stylistic
- if there is function equivalence of elements in both original and
translation - aiming at an expressive identity with the invariant of
identical meaning
4. textual (syntagmatic)
- if there is equivalence of the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e.
equivalence of both form and shape
e.g. idioms in SL substituted by idioms in TL
THE PROBLEM, however, STILL REMAINS:
What is the exact level of equivalence aimed?
Any TR (i.e. each of its many possible versions) should aim at:
(a) preserving the INVARIANT CORE of the
original
(basic semantic elements)
(b) TRANSFORMATIONS - to add the expressive
form (e.g. poems)
BUT: invariant - an indefinable quality that TLRs rarely achieve.
E. Translation equivalence and the theory of texts
TE = a semiotic category comprising:
a) semantic
(primary)
b) syntactic
- component
(secondary)
c) pragmatic
- conditions & modifies a) & b)
The OVERALL EQUIVALENCE is the result of:
- the relationship between signs themselves
- the relationship between signs and what they stand for, and
- the relationship between those who use them
e.g. blasphemous expressions in Italian / H
- the shocking effect in E can be rendered pragmatically by
substituting expressions with
sexual overtones: porca Madonna fucking hell
e.g. letter writing - formal greetings between friends (concluding the
letter)
with love; in sisterhood
(today and in 1812), cultures!?
- variations from language to language / period to period / sex / age
etc.
F. Defining the object of TE in TR studies - two lines of
development:
emphasis laid on:
SEMANTICS
TRANSFER of semantic content
from SL to TL
explores the question of TE in:
LITERARY texts
- Russian Formalists
- Prague Linguists
- discourse analysis
G. TE and SKOPOSTHEORIE
-
Reiss, Vermeer, Nord, (Toury)
TRANSLATION OF A SLT INTO THE TLT:
1. SLT = an offer of information which the ST author takes into
account the presumed interests, expectations, knowledge an
situational constraints of the source-culture addressees
2. TRANSLATOR in the process of translations =
a)
the receiver of the source text
b)
has the task of informing another audience (ST),
located in a situation under target-culture conditions
about
c)
the offer (of information) made in the source text
d)
the translator has his own assumptions about the needs,
expectations, previous knowledge of the TL
audience/receivers/addressees (obviously different
from those for SL receivers!)
THEREFORE: The translator CANNOT offer the same amount and
kind of information to the TL audience/receivers as the source-text
producer!!!!!
What does he offer?: another kind of information in another form, in
another setting
SKOPOSTHEORIE directly challenges the traditional concept of TE as a
constitutive feature of TR
EQUIVALENCE vs. ADEQUACY:
- An adequate TR is a translation which realizes in the TL the
textual relationship of a ST with no breach of its own linguistic
system (adequate to the TR brief) - a dynamic concept of EQ
- EQ in Nida's sense (communicative approach) - a static concept
of EQ - i.e. equal communicative value between two texts
EQUIVALENCE: - when between the TLT and the SLT there exists a
relationship which can be designated as a TRANSLATIONAL
EQUIVALENCE or equivalence relation (Koller 1995)
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE - a kind of adequacy in which:
- the TLT serves the same communicative function as the SLT (a
functional TR)
e.g. SLT: Is life worth living?
- It depends upon the liver!
F: La vie, vaut-elle la peine?
- C'est une question de foi(e)!
G: Ist das Leben lebenswert?
- Das haengt von den
Lebenwerten ab?
H: Isplati li se živjeti?
- To ovisi o …?
F & G TR - functional TR - fulfil the same communicative function (a play
on words)
E 'liver' (homonymy)
F 'foi'
(homophony: foi/faith and foie/liver)
G similarity (worth living - lebenswert); (liver count Leberwerte)
H. CONCLUSION:
EQ in TR should NOT be approached as a search for sameness,
- since sameness cannot even exist between two TL versions of the
same text
- let alone between the SLT and the TLT
- Popovič's four types of EQ - a useful starting point
and Neubert's three semiotic categories :
point the way towards an approach that perceives EQ as a
dialectic relationship between the signs and the structures
within and surrounding the SLT and the TLT.
- Communicative (Nida) and functional approach (Vermeer,
Toury)
The non-equivalence problem
- rare or no one-to-one relationship between word and meaning
- LEXICAL MEANING (Cruse 1986): types:
1. Propositional
- Referential - relation between the word/form and what it refers
to or describes in a real or imaginary world, as conceived by
the speakers of the particular language
- Used in judging whether an utterance is true or false (socks,
shirt, cap)
2. Expressive
- Cannot be judged as true or false
- Relates to speaker’s feeling or attitude (e.g. Don’t complain,
Don’t): difference not in the propositional meaning but in the
expressiveness of growl - to utter (words) in a gruff or angry
manner)
E.g. notorious (well-known; publicly discussed) – notoran
(widely but unfavorably known or talked about)
famous - famozan
3. Presupposed
- Arises from co-occurrence of restrictions (i.e. what other words
or
expressions we expect to see before and after a particular
lexical unit)
a) Selectional restrictions : depend on the propositional
meaning (adj. clever – invokes a human subject; triangular –
an inanimate subject)
b) Collocational restrictions: semantically arbitrary restr. – do
not follow
logically from the propositional meaning;
e.g. laws are broken in English but violated (CRO),
contradicted in Arabic:
e.g. brush the teeth – prati/wash in
Croatian/Polish/German/Italian
e.g. donijeti zakon – pass the law; položiti ispit – pass /
It. superare
4. Evoked
- Arises from variations such as :
- dialect (geographical, temporal, social) and register:
- field :– what is going on, subject-matter of speech),
- tenor: relationship between the speakers / roles: Father /Dad;
Tell me… / Would you mind …
- mode: the role that the language is playing and the medium of
transmission (spoken, written)
THE NON-EQUIVALENCE PROBLEM: (Baker 1992)
SEMANTIC FIELDS AND LEXICAL SETS
- a set o words belonging to a conceptual fiel
- divisions & subdivisions of words ‘imposed’ by a given
linguistic community on the continuum of experience
- fields of PLANTS, ANIMALS, SPEECH, VEHICLES
- fields of SIZE, SHAPE, DISTANCE, TIME, EMOTION,
BELIEFS, MILITARY RANKS, ACAD. SUBJECTS,
COLOUR
- verbs of speech (say, tell, mumble, mutter)
- verbs of motion,
- lexical taxonomies, hierarchies, etc
PROBLEMS IN DEALING WITH NON-EQ
a) common problems of non-eq
b) SL concept not lexicalized in TL
c) SL word is semantically complex
d) SL and TL make different distinctions in meaning
e) TL lacks a superordinate
f) TL lacks a specific term (hyponym)
g) Differences in physical and interpersonal perspective
h) Differences in expressive meanings
i) Difference in form
j) Difference in frequency and purpose of using specific terms
k) The use of loan in the SLT – false friends
5. Loss and Gain in Translation
- loss – a concept too much and too often over-emphasized: cf.
Enrichment of poetry (translations of Petrarch, Dante etc.- Wyatt
& Surrey, Kombol, Torbarina, I.G.Kovačić,)
- most frequently: loss due to non-existing concepts in TL , cf.
Nida: (E good – bad) / Guaica: good – bad - violating taboo
- large number of terms for :
- variations of snow in Finnish,
- aspects of camel behaviour in Arabic,
- bread in France
- water, sea, light in English
6. Untranslatability
LINGUISTIC: (Catford 1965)
- no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for a SL term:
e.g. I found your message on the table. Našao sam Vašu poruku na
stolu.
e.g. Koliko je sati? U koliko sati je došao vlak?- CRO sentence –
(formally) untranslatable in E –
- adjustments must be made in TL (word order, lexical
choice/restrictions, tense, etc.) to produce an acceptable sentence
and translation
CULTURAL /SITUATIONAL:
- absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational feature for the
SLT:
e.g. bathroom, soda; plava riba, bijela riba, sitna stoka,
krupna stoka; gornji tok, ciklona-anticiklona
e.g. Dobar tek!
Hvala!
Izvolite!
Hvala.
Nema na čemu.
Jučer su bile tri prometne u okolici Rijeke.
Problems: a) LING. - lack of denotation or connotation
b) CULT. - what is a cult. unit?, arbitrariness, culture-bound
concepts
e.g. democracy, home (normally translatable in H, G) – international
term,
BUT: different values in:
- three different political concepts
The American Democratic Party- international term: BUT - no common
ground from which to select relevant
situational features
The German Democratic Party
The democratic wing of the Tory Party
Cf. Vinay & Darbelnet (1958) and Mounin (1963):
1. personal experience in its uniqueness is untranslatable
2. in theory the base units of any two languages (phonemes,
morphemes, etc.) are not always comparable
3. communication is possible when account is taken of the
respective situations of speaker and hearer, or author and
translator:
TR is a dialectic process that can be accomplished with relative
success if:
- it starts with the clearest situations,
- the most concrete messages
- the most elementary universals
HOWEVER:
- it involves the consideration of the TR process in
its entirety,
- examination of situations etc
THEREFORE
- there is no doubt that communication through translation can
never be completely finished,
- which also demonstrates that it is never wholly impossible either.
7.Language and culture in translation
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: (relativism)
- No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be
considered as representing the same social reality.
The worlds in which different societies live are
distinct worlds, not merely the same world with
different labels attached.
Language is a modelling system:
- No language can exist unless it is steeped in the
context of culture. And, no culture can
exist which does not have at its center, the structure
of natural language (Lotman)
- a text cannot be treated in isolation from the culture
where it works
Vermeer (1987):
- a theory of culture is needed to explain the
specificity of communicative situations, and
- the relationship between verbalized and nonverbalized situational elements
Definition of culture: (Goodenough 1964)
 A society's culture consists of whatever one has to
know or believe in order to operate in a manner
acceptable to its members, and do so in any role
that they accept for one of themselves, … …
 Culture is not a material phenomenon; it does not
consist of things, people, behaviour, or emotions.
It is rather an organization of these things.
 It is the forms of things that people have in mind,
the models of perceiving, relating, and otherwise
interpreting them.
Culture is: the entire setting of norms and conventions an
individual as a member of his society must know in order to
be 'like (Vermeer 1987)
Therefore: translating means comparing cultures :
- culturemes: units/features of culture : universal
(similarity) and language-specific (differences)
- a culture-specific phenomenon: one that is found to
exist in a particular form or function in
only one of the two cultures being compared
e.g. translating religious, political, administrative,
behavioural phenomena, etc.
from a SL culture into a TL culture: taxonomies of
settlements
(city, town, village; state, region, county, municipality,
borough, district; food terms) - UK/US/F/I/H
8. Translation: Science or secondary activity
Purpose of TR theory:
 to try to understand the process of translation
 NOT to provide a set of norms for effecting the
perfect translation
 The pragmatic dimension of TR cannot be
categorized, just as the ‘inspiration’ of a text cannot
be defined and prescribed: but PRAGMATIC
ANALYSIS is ESSENTIAL AND
INDESPENSABLE in the process of TR
 The problem still remains: Is TR a science or a
secondary activity?
- there is obviously no THEORY of TR,
- no NORMS but A GUIDELINE FOR
PRODUCING TRANSLATIONS
- Translation Studies: a serious discipline investigating
the process of TR, attempting to clarify the question
of EQUIVALENCE and to examine what constitutes
MEANING within that process
Communicative relationships in the process of TR:
AUTHOR
TEXT
RECEIVER = TRANSLATOR
TEXT
Theory and practice are indissolubly linked, NOT in conflict
RECEIVER
The case for Translation Studies and for translation itself
(Octavio Paz 1971):
 "Every text is unique, at the same time, it is already
the translation of another text.
 NO text is original because language itself is already
a translation:
- Firstly, a translation of the non-verbal world
- Secondly, since every sign and very phrase is the
translation of another sign and another phrase
 However, this argument can be turned around
without losing any of its validity:
- All texts are original because every translation is
distinctive
 Every translation up to a certain point is an
invention and as such it constitutes a
unique text."
"On Defining Translation"
Mariano García-Landa
Meta : journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal, vol. 51, n° 3, 2006, p. 435-444.
http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/013551ar
First, a definition of the so-called language:
call “language” is a perceptual
system and therefore, there is a difference between the
acoustic (or written) perceptual
waves, the process of perception and the resulting percept.
what we
a definition of translation:
 Translators reproduce with a second sign
system (language) in a second speech act
(‘language game’)
 the percepts produced by
 other speakers/writers in a first speech
act (‘language game’) with a first sign
system