What’s blocking high-quality output? A communicative approach to
popular misconceptions in the Arab world about the aims of translation.
Afnan H. Fatani
King Abdul-aziz University, Jeddah
The aim of this article is to give the reader a basic understanding of a popular and deeprooted misconception in the Arab world (perhaps in the world at large) that is hindering
the translation process and blocking the production of high-quality output; namely, the
misconception that the ultimate aim of translation is learning a foreign language. This is
perhaps the most damaging of all popular misconceptions not only because it is
responsible for much of the poor quality translations that are prevalent in the Arab world,
but also because it is hindering progress and blocking the integration of translation
technology into the translation curricula. Ultimately, the successful extraction of this
deep-rooted premise lodged in the minds of many in the Arab world will require the
concerted efforts of translation scholars and language instructors alike who must
genuinely act as agents for change. This study should be especially interesting to anyone
who is associated with what are sometimes called “the language industries”; particularly
translators, those training to be translators and those who commission or use translations
extensively.
Introduction
A basic understanding of the core components of this misconception requires a grasp of some
relatively simple ideas and terminology, mainly from Linguistics and Translation Theory, and this
1
has to be given ‘up front’. The following four sections provide a brief description of some
fundamental ideas about the most basic sort of knowledge that is required for translation and how
this knowledge is represented by translation scholars and how it used by professional translators.
1. Assessing translation quality
Let us first begin by trying to assess the quality of translations in the Arab world. As
Arnold et al (1994:162) assert, assessing translation quality is a practical problem that
human translators face, and one which translation theorists have puzzled over (see Hatim
and Mason 1990). This is basically because there are typically many possible translations,
some of them faithful to the original in some respects (e.g. literal meaning), while others
try to preserve other properties (e.g. style, or emotional impact). There are, however,
common evaluation methods that have been reliably used, the most traditional being to
assign scores to output sentences. A common aspect to score is Intelligibility, where the
intelligibility of a translated sentence is affected by grammatical errors, mistranslations
and untranslated words. Scoring scales reflect top marks for those sentences that look like
perfect target language sentences and bottom marks for those that are so badly degraded
as to prevent the average translator/evaluator from guessing what a reasonable sentence
might be in the context. The most well-known intelligibility scoring system is the 9 point
scale featured in the famous 1964 ALPAC Report (Automatic Language Processing
Advisory Committee report commissioned by the US National Academy of Sciences)
which was used to score the intelligibility of both MT and human translation (see Pierce
and Carroll 1966). A better and more fine-tuned system is the four point scale developed
by Arnold et al (1994: 163):
2
1 The sentence is perfectly clear and intelligible. It is grammatical and reads like
ordinary text.
2 The sentence is generally clear and intelligible. Despite some inaccuracies or
infelicities of the sentence, one can understand (almost) immediately what it means.
3 The general idea of the sentence is intelligible only after considerable study. The
sentence contains grammatical errors and/or poor word choices.
4. The sentence is unintelligible. Studying the meaning of the sentence is hopeless; even
allowing for context, one feels that guessing would be too unreliable.
Unfortunately, if one applies the above scale to many English translations produced in the
Arab world today, we find them consistently scoring a low 3 and many times even a 4.
That is to say, the sentences are riddled with grammatical errors and poor word choices.
Rarely, can we find a perfect score of 1. Although the basic problem here appears to be
poor English language skills on the part of Arab translators, the problem is actually much
more complex and damaging. It basically has to do with the popular misconception that
translation is a means of learning English or any foreign language. As the argument goes,
it is acceptable to commit all sorts of grammatical mistakes in any target text simply
because it is not the translator’s native language. It is not that the translator is deliberately
careless but that he/she cannot comprehend the concept that distorting the target language
is viewed by the receiving community as an offensive and unacceptable practice. The
profusion of category 3 scores makes it evident that many in the Arab world are not
aiming for accurate and aesthetic transfer from source to target text, but that they are
simply translating for the sake of gaining fluency in the target language. In cases where
the source text is of a religious nature, the impression is that many are undertaking the
3
translation in the firm conviction that they are performing a religious duty for which they
will earn the blessings of God. In short, the translation is here undertaken for extrinsic
reasons, and not because of its inherent value.
2. Translating vs. Learning a Foreign Language
As many translation scholars have insisted, only after having studied one or more foreign
languages can one begin to study translation. Osimo (2004: Chapter 3) best highlights the
difference between translating and learning a foreign language:
It is in fact necessary to have higher education qualifications or a university
degree in order to be admitted to any translation course at university level. In both
cases, when one sets out to learn the art of translation, one has already studied
languages for some years. It is therefore necessary for the aspiring translator to
have a clear idea of certain fundamental differences between learning a foreign
language and learning translation.
When studying a foreign language, one is exposed to the usual techniques used
for teaching the language: translation along with dictation, listening
comprehension, conversation and grammar exercises . . . What we want to
establish is that translating in order to learn a foreign language is very different
from translating in order to produce a text, which is what one is supposed to learn
when studying translation at university level.
Delisle (1984: 45-46) makes this particular point, the transition from the study of a
language to the study of translation, very clear.
4
[...] Scholastic translation has little in common with professional translation.
They do not have the same finalities; the former is totally integrated with a
method for acquiring a language whilst the latter is a communicative process.
Scholastic translation by definition precedes professional translation.
Consequently the methodology of the learning process must be conceived with
professional translation in mind and not scholastic translation. To link up different
concepts, in order to reformulate a message following communication imperatives
is not the same thing as assimilating a foreign language or the culture which forms
its habitat [...]
This distinction between scholastic translation and professional translation goes a long
way in exposing the false premise behind the popular misconception that translating is
the same as learning a foreign language. Obviously one cannot ban scholastic translations
but at least one can try to inform language instructors of the urgent need to point out this
important distinction to their students. It is also important to point out that there exists a
basic causal difference between a scholastic text and an authentic text. As Osimo (2004:
Chapter 3) explains:
A third difference between a scholastic text and an authentic text is the reason for
the translation. The students translating for their language teacher must produce a
result which shows the language level. The sentence produced with this function
is not usually evaluated for its linguistic value but as proof of having learned
certain rules and vocabulary.
5
It is quite plausible that this misconceived fusion of translation and language acquisition
on the part of students actually originates in the language classroom. Teachers are usually
satisfied with the jumbled translations of their students simply because they are
evaluating vocabulary and certain rules of grammar and not whether the translation is
reliable or accurate. In many instances, they motivate their students by praising their
mediocre attempts to translate the text. By so doing, instructors are unwittingly
responsible for the misconception that it is okay to make errors whilst translating, and
that the receiving culture will ultimately praise them for showing an interest in the
language. It is a given n education psychology that when students observe their own
successful completion of academic tasks, they develop a belief in their ability to continue
such accomplishments – a belief called self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982). Hence we find it
common for many inefficient translators to classify themselves as good translators simply
because their past “success” in the classroom and verbal encouragement from instructors
leads them to expect they will succeed in the future on similar tasks. This misguided
belief in competence is further reinforced by the fact that no attempt is ever made to
inform students that a professional translator has to ask himself who the receiver of the
sentence is, its reader, and to model the sentence in order to make it plausible and natural,
as if spoken by a native speaker. As Osimo explains: “A translator has to worry about the
register whilst the student deals only with artificial language which has an artificial
register, anonymous like a textbook.” One must also keep in mind that many professional
translators are themselves language instructors, and that is why many of them insist that
translating is a form of language acquisition. In a sense, human translators appear to be
the root cause behind much of the translation problems we are facing today; not only are
6
they resisting Machine Translation which they perceive as a threat to their jobs, but they
are also propagating damaging misconceptions that are ultimately blocking the
production of high quality translations. To correct the current deficiencies in translation
output, language teachers must become involved in the process of informing their
students that “a language student produces a sentence to be evaluated, while a translator
produces a text which is then used, either because read or because listened to.” (Osimo
2004: Chapter 3).
3. Source Language and Target Language
As Arnold et al (1994:36) explain, knowledge of the target language is important because
without it, what a human or automatic translator produces will be ungrammatical, or
otherwise unacceptable. Knowledge of the source language is important because the first
task of the human translator is to figure out what the words of the source text mean
(without knowing what they mean it is not generally possible to find their equivalent in
the target language). According to Osimo (2004:Chapter 3) translating a text requires not
only a good knowledge of the vocabulary of both source and target language, but also of
their grammar — the system of rules which specifies which sentences are well-formed in
a particular language and which are not. Additionally it requires some element of real
world knowledge — knowledge of the nature of things out in the world and how they
work together — and technical knowledge of the text’s subject area. In summary, as
researchers at SDL explain, there are many different types of knowledge required to
perform a good quality translation. These include, but are not limited to:
.. Source and target language dictionaries of word meanings
.. Source and target language structures and rules
7
.. Word meanings in different contexts and language constructs
.. Domain specific terminology
.. Idioms and colloquial language
.. Previously translated words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs
.. Language style
.. Cultural differences: social conventions, customs, and expectations etc.
According to Arnold et al (1994:35), this last kind of knowledge is what allows
translators to act as genuine “mediators”, ensuring that the target text genuinely
communicates the same sort of message, and has the same sort of impact on the reader, as
the source text (see Hatim and Mason (1990) for good examples of cultural mediation). It
is no wonder then that human translators, even those with expertise, must struggle to
deliver consistent quality translations. Consequently, it is only logical to assume that a
translator’s deficiency in any of the above knowledge types can lead to consistent lowquality output.
4. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
To help us further illustrate how fundamental source language and target language
fluencies are to the translation process, let us apply the familiar model of human needs
developed by Abraham Maslow (1954). According to this hierarchical model, human
needs are based on two groupings: deficiency needs and growth needs. Within the
deficiency needs, each lower need must be met before moving to the next higher level.
Once each of these needs has been satisfied, if at some future time a deficiency is
detected, the individual will act to remove the deficiency. These hierarchical needs are
represented by the following well-known diagram:
8
The first four levels constitute deficiency needs:
1) Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.
2) Safety/security: out of danger.
3) Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted.
4) Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.
The growth needs include:
5) Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore.
6) Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty.
7) Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential.
8) Self-transcendence: to connect to something beyond the ego or to help others find
self-fulfillment and realize their potential.
9
Maslow's basic position is that as one becomes more self-actualized and selftranscendent, one becomes more wise (develops wisdom) and automatically knows what
to do in a wide variety of situations. The following adaptation from Maslow illustrates
what an be termed the translation hierarchy of needs
Style
Aesthetic
Needs
Aestheti
cscs
5. C.A.T.
4. Basic PC & DTP
3. Translation Skills
Fluencyills
l
2. Target Language Fluency
1. Source Language Fluency
Growth
Needs
Deficiency
Needs
(Prototext)
It is a basic tenet in translation theory that to translate one first has to acquire fluency in
both target and source domains. Hence, the first two items are crucial and represent
10
language deficiency needs that must be adequately satisfied before a person can be
motivated to pursue satisfaction of higher-level translation needs. The main emphasis
here is on acquiring basic linguistic knowledge at all levels of the language, i.e. fluency
in subdivisions or language components such as 1) phonological, 2) lexical, 3)
morphological, 4) syntactic, 5) semantic and 6) cultural skills. Much of the poor quality
translations we are witnessing today are a result of a mediocre knowledge of the target
language and the inability to realize that this constitutes a serious deficiency that needs to
be corrected before one can proceed to the next level. As for the third level, the
translation skills, this is presented as a growth need since there is much evidence to
indicate that most of the reliable translation jobs are being undertaken by fluent bilinguals
with little or no prior experience in translation and no formal instruction in the field.
Once formal knowledge of translation theory and practice is acquired or perfected one
can go on with the process of acquiring basic computer processing skills (PC) and desk
top publishing (DTP) since the idea of handwritten documents is unacceptable in today’s
computerized workplace. Having someone type the translation for you would slow the
process considerably and lead to numerous errors that need to further revised. In addition,
translators might need to translate texts written in a variety of format (i.e. Powerpoint,
Frontpage) and hence the need for DTP skills so as to eliminate the need for assistance
and subsequent revisions. At the top of the growth needs lies the Computer-Aided
Translation (C.A.T.). This is the level where translators can now afford to have
computers do the boring and repetitive work for them, while they concentrate their
attention on more interesting, imaginative and complex tasks, where their specialist skills
are really needed. These technical tools include: Machine Translation, Terminology Management
System, Translation Memory System, and Localization. According to many researchers,
11
machine translation is here to stay and what is likely to happen in the near future is that
the process of producing draft translations, along with the often tedious business of
looking up unknown words in dictionaries, and ensuring terminological consistency, will
become automated, leaving human translators free to spend time on increasing clarity and
improving style, and to translate more important and interesting documents — editorials
rather than weather reports, for example. This stage leads logically to the final stage of
aesthetic needs, where issues of style, beauty and the translation of literary works of art
now become a valid option, and where translators strive to find self-fulfilment and realize
their potential. Perhaps only after this stage is reached, can one begin to think of a
Maslow’s final stage of self-transcendence: when translators can connect to something
beyond the ego, i.e. to instruct others in the art of translation and help them realize their
own potential.
How can Maslow’s theory provide a means for us to assess or to identify problems
in poor-quality translations?
Obviously, we will have to adopt a proactive approach. Conduct a thorough research of
the translator and, starting at the bottom of the hierarchy, ask some basic questions. Has
the translator met basic “physiological” needs? Does he have a firm command of source
and target language? If basic linguistic needs appear to have been met, what about
subdivisions such as semantic and cultural knowledge? An interview with the translator
might give us some clues about his/her language deficiencies. A translator whose
deficiency needs have been met is said to be growth-motivated; he/she now has more
12
aesthetic needs. These translators might appreciate the rhythm of a sonnet, for example.
Next, what about the translator’s formal level of acquisition, his/her translation skills and
knowledge of Translation Theory and methods of transfer from source language to target
language? If the translator seems to have met all three first levels, we can then start on the
next set of questions which should address the translator’s PC skills and familiarity with
technical aids to translation. Does he write the translated document himself or is it done
for him? In many cases the process of revising a document can be tedious and numerous
grammatical errors can occur. This need should thus help us know whether the problem
lies in his inability to review and edit a translated text that is riddled with omissions and
errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. A translator who is familiar with translation
technology or C.A.T will produce a more accurate text that is terminologically consistent
and free of serious grammatical error. Finally, if all these needs are met, we can begin to
look at more aesthetic questions concerning style and the translation of rhetorical devices
and metaphorical language, i.e. at errors associated with the transfer of literary texts.
The Situation in Saudi Arabia
If we look at the situation in Saudi Arabia, although we do not have official statistics, we
do know for certain that almost all government institutions have translation departments;
i.e. the ministry of information, the ministry of foreign affairs, the ministry of education
to take a few examples, in addition to newspapers, TV stations, hospitals, medical
centres, banks and of course universities and academic institutions. We know that all
these corporations have official websites in English. But the important question to ask
here is who exactly is translating in these institutions: are they trained professional
13
translators and if so what is their level of proficiency. A quick survey of some of these
institutions, in particular, radio stations and hospitals, reveals the following: (1) most
translations are performed by fluent speakers of English but not necessary professional
translators; (2) some of the non-professional staff are better able to translate than the
professional translators themselves (3) documents produced by translators are most often
revised because of the poor quality of the language (4) in some hospitals and banks,
translation departments have been completely cancelled and the task of translating
documents relegated to medical secretaries or outsourced to fluent bilinguals (5) even
more amazing is the fact that translations produced by licensed translations agencies are
generally of poor quality. One quick look at some academic English websites in Saudi
Arabia will reveal the extent of the problem. It seems that not only are the translators
incompetent, they are completely unaware of their incompetence and what is more
surprising no-one is seriously attempting to assess or review their output.
The Inefficiency Model
At present, it is evident that there is a sort of “inefficiency” model operative in Saudi
Arabia and the Arab world in general; a model that is primarily conceived upon distorted
and outdated conceptions about the aims of the translation profession, and about the
importance of fluencies in both source language and target language. In order to correct
popular misconceptions and provide a more efficient model of translation, we need to
promote not only the basic tenet that to be a translator requires a good knowledge of the
vocabulary and grammar of both source and target language but also to promote the idea
14
that translation is not an end in itself but only a means to an end. In other words, one
needs to highlight the following interrelated concepts:
1. The concept that translation is much than a technique; it is an exchange of
information, a communication between people of a different culture and language.
2. The concept of “receiving community” or “audience” which plays so crucial a
part in translation theory.
But what actually happens when people communicate through translation and how does
this concept help us correct popular misconceptions? There are various possible models
of the translation process in the West and each one tends to emphasize certain
components to the detriment of others. In order to illustrate the inefficiency model
practised by many in the Arab world, we will draw especially on the writings of Roman
Jakobsón, Umberto Eco and John Holmes.
1. Jakobson’s Theory of Communication
In his classic 1958 essay, Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics, Jakobsón examined the six
main elements that characterize communication illustrated by the following diagram:
CONTEXT
ADDRESSER -------> MESSAGE -------> ADDRESSEE
CONTACT
CODE
15
The addresser is the person who sends out the message, addressing an addressee or
establishing contact with him/her, within the framework of a given context. When
llanguage is used to talk about language itself, it becomes a “code”, and the
communication is metalinguistic. A good example would be: "What are you saying? Are
you speaking in English or what?" (Osimo 2001: Chapter 12). Although this might seem
simplistic, it is in fact highly relevant to our discussion and can go a long way in
visualizing the root causes behind poor quality translations, whether in the Arab world or
elsewhere. What inefficient translators are lacking is a clear idea of their addressees (their
values, cultural traits, attitudes, preferences, taboos), compounded by the inability to
conceive of the text as a “message” or two-way reciprocal communication between
people; to them the text is merely an object or physical entity that exists in a spatial rather
than a mental realm. It is a fact that no culture likes to have their language distorted,
Arabs most of all since Arabic is revered as the sacred language of the Quran. Had Arab
translators looked upon the process of translation as the production of a message to an
addressee they would have immediately perceived the fact that being functionally
illiterate in a target language is a universal taboo and is considered much worse than not
knowing the language at all.
2. Eco’s Modal Reader
According to Eco (1991: 54), the translation process is characterized by an analysis stage
and a synthesis stage. During analysis, the translator refers to the prototext (the text to be
translated) in order to understand it as fully as possible. The synthesis stage is the one in
which the prototext is projected onto the reader, better, onto the idea that the translator
16
forms of who will be the standard reader of the metatext (the text to be produced):
[...] the text postulates the reader's cooperation as a condition for its
actualization. Or, better, we can say that a text is a product whose
interpretive fate must be part of its generation mechanism: to
generate a text means to enact a strategy enclosing the prediction of
the other's moves - as, by the way, it happens in every strategy.
In other words, as Osimo (2004: Chapter 20) explains, Eco tells us that, when we create a
text (Eco does not speak about translation, but his points holds for us too) we foresee the
reader's moves. We postulate, therefore, the existence of a Model Reader:
The Model Reader is a set of conditions of happiness, textually
established, that must be satisfied for a text to be fully actualized in
its potential contents (Eco 1991: 62).
Osimo goes on to explain:
This means that the translator, elaborating her translation strategy, projects the
prototext onto her Model Reader, onto a type of reader that she infers from the
relation between prototext and target culture. Noone of the real readers, or
empirical readers, can therefore coincide completely with the Model Reader. And
what Eco tells us is that, the more the empirical reader X is different from the
17
postulated model, the less complete will be the actualization of the potential
contents of the text, i.e. the less complete the text fruition or understanding will
be.
The basic problem in poor quality translations is that the translation process is primarily
centred on the analysis phase; the focus is on the author of the prototext and on the
translator rather than on empirical readers or Modal Reader and metatext (Torop 2000:
200-201). In fact, the inefficient translator (IT) seems to have no knowledge about the
existence of an empirical reader, let alone a Modal Reader. Remember according to our
modal of the inefficient translator highlighted above, he/she is simply translating in order
to learn the language, perhaps also to learn the culture. It is thus not a question of the
empirical reader X being different from the postulated model but rather that both reader
and modal have no existence whatsoever in the translator’s mind, i.e. there is no culture
receiving the metatext, and no target culture to address. Consequently, since there is no
prediction of moves in response to the prototext, the inefficient translator does not feel
the urgent need to enact a strategy of moves; he simply wonders freely totally absorbed in
a one-way process that revolves around understanding his prototext. He thus alternates
between being completely oblivious of any grammatical errors or mistranslations he
might commit along the way, and between the belief that he can afford to make mistakes
since the metatext is not his native language. Of course, this alternation is the classic
nightmare scenario for all professional translators and educators alike; to be incompetent,
semi-conscious of your incompetence, and yet, paradoxically enough, also happy about
your incompetence.
18
3. Holmes’ Mapping Theory
One of the most important and far-reaching approaches to translation processes is the
model developed by Holmes (1988: 96), the so-called “mapping theory”:
I have suggested that actually the translation process is a multilevel process; while we are translating sentences, we have a map
of the original text in our minds and at the same time, a map of the
kind of text we want to produce in the target language. Even as we
translate serially, we have this structural concept so that each
sentence in our translation is determined not only by the sentence
in the original but by the two maps of the original text and of the
translated text which we are carrying along as we translate.
As Osimo explains (2004: Chapter 20), the translation process should, therefore, be
considered a complex system in which understanding, processing, and projection of the
translated text are interdependent portions of one structure. Consequently, if the metatext
is riddled with grammatical errors and mistranslation achieving a low score 3 or 4 on the
intelligibility scale, whereas the prototext is a high quality text 1, we can be sure that
either a certain split or break has occurred in the mapping structure, or else the two texts
were never originally viewed by the translator as forming interdependent portions of one
whole.
19
Conclusion
The above analysis reveals that although it is understood that a translator working on
texts in two different languages has the author of the original, with his own
considerations about his own Model Reader behind him/her, this is not the case for many
translators in the Arab world. Our basic problem is that there is no thought of empirical
readers or a Model Reader or of the prototext, nor is there any attention being given to the
metatext itself. Applying the above three well-know translation models suggests the
following: that the deficiency on the part of Arab translators appears to be more mental
than it is language-based. For even if a translator’s target language is somehow
compromised, had the mental mapping system been intact, nothing would have stopped
him/her from striving to perfect the metatext or at least raising it to a standard level of
acceptance by seeking the assistance of native speakers of the language, or the assistance
of more fluent translators among his peers, or even the help of professional translating
agencies.
Holmes (1988), the founder of translation studies as a discipline, thinks it possible to
describe the attitude of a culture toward translation. He holds that, for instance, in the
18th century there was a general trend toward modernizing and naturalizing of the
translated texts. On the basis of the inefficiency model developed in this study, it is
similarly possible to describe the attitude of Arab culture toward translation. There
appears to be a marked tendency toward concentrating primarily on the prototext; i.e. on
the need to translate the “best” of the source culture, paired with an opposing neglect of
the language and culture of the metatext. Arab educators seem to be unaware that this
20
strategy is the root cause of the cultural misunderstanding between Arabs and the
Western world. Consequently, because of this inefficiency on the part of some
translators, Arabs in general come across as being just as inefficient, ethnocentric and
offensive as their outputs or metatexts. As Osimo (2004: Chapter 35) explains, the
translator is a “special mediator” who, unlike the mediator in psychology, must
concentrate on the cultural rather than on the affective bonds. Even before dealing with
the linguistic difference between prototext and receiving culture - the translator must
know who is the addressee of his mediation work, his Model Reader. If this concept is
propagated strongly enough, perhaps our translators could begin not just to alter
considerably the erroneous formulation of their translation strategy, but to start seriously
thinking about forming a translation strategy in the first place. It is evident that the
challenge for translator training centres and universities is to “expose” these
misconceptions by integrating the study of “popular misconceptions” into mainstream
coursework. As stated in the introduction, this process might be long and complex and
will most certainly require the full involvement of teachers and researchers.
21
References
1. Arnold, D. J. , Balkan L., Meijer S., Humphreys R.L., and Sadler L. (1994). Machine
Translation: an Introductory Guide, London: Blackwells-NCC.
2. Bandura, A. (1982). “Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency.” American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
3. Eco, U. (1991) Lector in fabula. La cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi.
Milano: Bompiani. English edition: The role of the reader: explorations in the
semiotics of texts. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1979.
4. Champollion, Y. (2001). “Machine Translation and the Future of the Translation
Industry”. Translation Journal. Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 2001.
5. Delisle, J. (1984). L'analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction. Initiation à la
traduction française de textes pragmatiques anglais. Ottawa: Éditions de l'Université
d'Ottawa.
6. Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. Longman, London.
7. Holmes, J. S. (1988) Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation
Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
8. Jakobsón, R. Language in Literature. (1987). Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy
(Eds). Cambridge: Belknap Press.
9. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
10. Osimo, B. (2004). Introduction to Translation (Free Online Course). Logos Group.
Available at www.globilization.com/transaltion courses
11. Pierce, J.R. and Carroll, J.B. (1966). Language and Machines – Computers in
Translationand Linguistics (ALPAC Report). Washington D.C.: ALPAC.
22
12. SDL International. “Knowledge-based Translation”. Available at
www.sdl.com/white papers .
13. Torop, P. La traduzione totale. (2000). B. Osimo (Ed.). Modena: Guaraldi Logos.
23