Errors in Translation Equivalence

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/299282122
Errors in Translation Equivalence
Book · November 2015
CITATIONS READS
5 4,435
2 authors, including:
Omer Elmahdi
Taibah University
13 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Right now, I have nothing to do. Please, suggest any suitable project. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Omer Elmahdi on 21 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Errors in
Translation Equivalence
Errors in
Translation Equivalence
Dr. Omar Elsheikh Hago Elmahdi

Dr. Abdulrahman Mokbel Mahyoub
Integrity Media
New Delhi
© 2016
Dr. Omar Elsheikh Hago Elmahdi
Dr. Abdulrahman Mokbel Mahyoub
ISBN 13: 978-93-81902-xx-x
Published by
Integrity Media
4A, C-2/C Pocket 12 DDA Market
Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110058
Phone: +91-9818687799 (M)
email: india.publisher@gmail.com
www.thepublisher.co.in
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
Typeset by
Integrity Media, New Delhi
Printed and bound in India by

Fuzion Works, New Delhi
Cover Design By
Integrity Media
This book is meant for educational and learning purposes. The

author(s) of the book has/have taken all reasonable care to ensure that
the contents of the book do not violate any existing copyright or other
intellectual property rights of any person in any manner whatsoever.
In the event the author(s) has/have been unable to track any source
and if any copyright has been inadvertently infringed, please notify the
Publisher in writing for corrective action.
Contents
Introduction 08
Dedication 09
Foreword 10
6 Errors in Translation Equivalence
Preface
N
othing is more fascinating in our human adventure than
the journey from innocence to experience. Praise to the
Almighty who bestows success and guides our destiny.
I fail to find words to express my gratitude for his blessings
and for bestowing us with perseverance in accomplishing this
uphill task. We started this journey as a tiny baby who stares at
the wonders of the world, eager to take it all in, who feels much
more than understands and stocks everything in a huge database
of memories.
Before the word, there was the reality behind the word. As
soon as that reality was named, it became the word. Now it is
very hard to perceive that reality outside its name. Accordingly,
Adam was asked by God to name all things. In a more modern
interpretation, man is born with the ability to create language
and use it to make sense of the world around him.
Translation equivalence is an important problem that
students face when they go beyond the linguistic and semantic
levels. Our primary aim, at this point, is to make students aware
of the theory of equivalence which “is usually intended in a
relative sense – that of closest approximation to source text
meaning” (Hatim & Mason: 1990, 8).
Translators are in a unique position to act as ambassadors
between cultures because they have knowledge and understanding
of both the source and target cultures of the works they have
Errors in Translation Equivalence 7

translated. This study identifies the main functions served by the
topics discussed by the translators and determines that the most
predominant function is the promotion of understanding between
cultures. The next most served function is that of promoting
understanding of the translator’s role and intervention in the
text. Although translators’ prefaces are relatively uncommon
today, they have an important role to play as the voice of the
translator—the key figure in promoting better understanding
among peoples and nations.
Language is a bridge, but also a barrier. The problem is that
we seem to forget language is only a means, not a purpose in
itself. If we don’t learn to see beyond it, to recreate the portion
of reality that has been pinned down in a word, we are going to
miss the deepest and most subtle layers of existence.
We would like to express our special thanks to our colleague

Dr. Waquar Ahmad Khan, words cannot express how grateful
we are. This book could not have been completed without his
critiques, brilliant comments and fruitful suggestions.
Omar Elsheikh Hago Elmahdi

Abdulrahman Mokbel Mahyoub

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.0 Overview
Language is a vital means of communication and it is

considered one of the main features that differentiate human
beings from other living creatures. Through language, one
comes in contact with others. Learning a foreign language
widens a person’s chances of communicating with others and
enables him to share experiences, improve his abilities and
increase his chances of employment in spheres where a foreign
language matters, i.e. exchanging thoughts, ideas, knowledge,
and technology.
Traditionally, English is taught through the four major skills

of language: listening, speaking, writing, and reading. However,
the skill of writing requires mastery of other skills such as the
graphic system, the structures of the vocabulary, etc. For teaching
purposes, the situation is not so simple, especially when we
consider that the teacher is only concerned with classroom work,
and with guiding the learners’ performance in the future. In this
respect, Wringe (1989:81), states,
“Something incorrectly written may not affect

the present communication, but if attention is
not drawn to it, it may be taken as a model for
future writing where it may prove misleading or
distracting.”

Moreover, written structures are open to inspection and are used
in all tests and examinations.
The possibility of ensuring an adequate mastery of a language
to guarantee a good level of written structures is examined by
many educationalists through errors analysis. Errors made by
learners of a foreign language have, for a long time, attracted
the attention of many teachers, researchers and linguists.
This straightens the belief that a systematic study of written
structures may lead to improve teaching methods and increase
the awareness of the nature and causes of L2 learner’s errors.
The overall translation activity is a kind of communicative
behavior between the source text (ST) author and the target text
(TT) reader via the translator. There is no doubt that the major
inquiry of translation studies is about how the translator can
most successfully convey what is intended in the ST into the TT.
In modern translation studies, much research has been done to
answer this fundamental question in various ways, from attempts
to set up a precise goal for translation to scientific accounts of
the translation process and the translator’s activity. With relation
to this, the assessment of translation quality has been especially
concerned with the degree of equivalence between ST and TT
as concrete products in themselves rather than concerned with
reader-dependency of meaning in text understanding. In terms of
theory, the assessment has been based on a traditional contrastive
approach to the meaning of sentences.
This approach to the assessment of translation quality,
however, often ignores the basic premise that translation is a
kind of communicative activity, aiming at conveying a message
to the recipient. This communicative activity is of course not
merely a matter of the linguistic code changing from the ST into
the TT. Rather, it must involve negotiating a certain message
with the TT readers, so that the closest meaning of the ST to its
readers can be realized by the target readership. Hence, one of
the crucial questions in translation studies should be how the

message or intended meaning of a text is realized by the reader
via a textual form.
In terms of cognitive information processes, it is now
commonplace to look for an answer to this psychological aspect
of verbal communication in general. So far, however, translation
theorists have limited their attention predominantly to describing
only the translation process and the translator’s activity as a
cognitive behaviour, not the response of TT readers.
Since the two major concerns of translation studies are the

meaning of the ST and the target reader’s understanding of it
through the TT, any discussion about the task or process of
translation is basically inadequate unless it fully takes account
of the mechanism of text processing from the reader’s point of
view. More specifically, we need to understand how the text
and the reader’s mind interact with each other, and thus on what
basis we can compare the ST and the TT for the assessment of
translation quality.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
The researchers hold the view that the operation of learning a
foreign language has many phases beginning with the exploration
of the target/second language and ending with approximation of
a good command of the required language. The performance of
Arab learners of English, as noted by many EFL Arab specialists
shows the presence of many errors when writing in English.
The misuse of English structures leads to the confusion of the
meanings of the written contexts. The causes of such errors are
too many, where the most effective one is the ‘mother tongue
interference’. Kharma and Hajjaj (1995:75), think “that Learners
of any foreign or second language always have difficulties in
dealing with its various approaches.”
The Sudanese EFL learners face many problems in expressing
themselves in written English, so they make poor English texts
by committing certain errors. These errors (Khalid 1995:73-79)

are considered an indication of severe learning difficulties that
hinder good performance of English language. This research is
intended to investigate the contextual translation equivalence
experienced by Sudanese students who are preparing to graduate
with a B.A. degree in English.
As for the homogenous selection of subjects, Corder
(1973:264) mentions two aspects of homogeneity. The first is
namely linguistic that the selected subjects should speak the same
mother tongue, (MT). This was done in view of the assumption
that the different linguistic backgrounds might cause different
problems in the process of learning a foreign language, (FL).
The second one is that, the students should share a satisfactory
knowledge of the new language.
Accordingly, the researchers have selected 150 students
randomly from the fourth year, Department of English Faculty of
Arts, of Neelain University as sample for the study. The students’
ages range between 20 – 25 years. They have had an average of
ten years of formal instruction in English as a FL at school and
university. So, the selected group is homogeneous in respect
to age educational level and linguistic background. Out of 180
students, 30 students were randomly chosen as subjects for the
pilot study. They were excluded from taking the main test. This
leaves 150 males and females to constitute the main strata in the
sample in this study. They are believed to have been exposed
to a variety of courses in language skills, linguistics courses,
translation, and literature, which can collectively contribute
to enhance their translation performance. In this sense, the
research is evaluative in nature that examines texts as acts of
communication, and individual static sentence. It investigates
textually, and grammatically, the relationship between sentences,
text and context that make text coherent and relationship within
a sentence that make it grammatical.
Now, the scope of this research will follow traditions laid
down by text linguistics whereby reference will be made to

translation equivalence. Therefore, translation equivalence
aspects that will be investigated are in the students’ translation.
This study is limited to identify, describe, explain, and discuss
some of the errors made by Sudanese students at Neelain
University, 4th year, when translating from Arabic into English.
It identifies, describes, and explains translation errors, synonyms’
errors, syntactic errors, and finally, the cohesion errors made by
the subjects. In addition, it is expected to discuss the reasons to
which these errors are attributed.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
This research aims at:
1- Giving insight into the nature of the English

translation equivalence by Sudanese students
when translating from Arabic into English.
2- Investigating Sudanese EFL learners’ translation

problems at the above mentioned level.
3- Establishing a translation-based approach to EFL

learners at Sudanese universities.
1.3 Research Questions
In investigating the research problem, the researcher will

try to find answers to the following questions
1- How competent are Sudanese learners in

handling English translation equivalence?
2- What are the problems that these learners

encounter in practicing translation?
3- How can such problems be overcome?

1.4 Significance of the Study
It is hoped that the present study will be of value to Sudanese

learners of English in particular and Arab learners in general in
explaining, and diagnosing the learners’ written performance
when translating from Arabic into English and vice-versa. It is
also hoped that the findings of this study will be useful to the
teachers of English and curriculum designers to know exactly
where to expect areas of difficulty and thus plan their lessons and
curriculum in a way to help their students avoid making errors.
1.5 Outline of the Study
Beside the first chapter, which includes the statement of

the problem, hypotheses, objectives, the scope, etc. the rest of
the study is structured as follows. Chapter two deals with the
theoretical framework, and highlights the increasing interest in
translation as skill in its own right and as complement to the four
language skills. Chapter three is a review of related literature,
with special reference to translation and its importance in FL
teaching and learning. Chapter four reports the methodology
adopted in collecting data where a detailed description of the
following: method, subjects, data gathering techniques, etc.
will be given. Chapter five presents the analyses, results of the
study and their interpretation. Finally, chapter six, summaries
the results of the study, evaluates the study, suggests areas for
further studies and reports certain implications for the students,
teachers, and course designers.
1.6 Summary
This chapter introduces the theme of the investigation,

explains the statement of the problem, and states the research
questions, etc. The coming chapter will shed light on the
theoretical framework of the study.

Chapter 2
eoretical Framework
2.0 Introduction
Studying the English contextual translation equivalence, as

experienced by Sudanese learners of English language, makes
the study of the major levels of linguistic analysis necessary. As
such this chapter starts with a brief exploration of these levels,
particularly, phonological, grammatical and lexical levels.
Then, it surveys the relevant literature concerned with some of
the essential issues related to translation in general in order to
shed light on the relationship between translation and foreign
language learning.
Since the translation equivalence is the centre of this study,

the researchers believe that the term equivalence is clearly a
key term in both translation and translation practice. As a result,
the term is given special attention. Moreover, the chapter sheds
light on the errors made by the learners which are, in fact,
wrong response to the stimulus. Finally, this chapter explains the
translational difficulties caused by such Arabic mother tongue
influence on the one hand and English culture based on the other.
2.1 The Major Levels of Linguistic Analysis

It is a well-known fact that any living language must
constitute three major levels on which it stands. These three
levels have been identified by linguists as phonology, (sounds),
grammar, (morphology & syntax), and lexicon (words). As such

for the analysis of any language, one has to consider these levels,
each on its own right and in consideration with each other. Again,
there are other levels of linguistic analysis (e.g. pragmatics and
semantics). They are very important for the understanding of
the language.
2.2. Translation and the Linguistic Levels
2.2.1. The Phonological Level

Starting with the lowest unit, the phonological level
comes into play in speech recognition systems, which accept
spoken queries or even provide spoken documents. For these
applications, the phonological level is an obvious requirement,
but for other applications in text translation, this level has
obviously not come into play.
Phonology is the study of the sound system of a language,
and the general properties of that system. Philologists study the
way the sound segments are organized in languages, and the
patterns of pitch, loudness, and other voice qualities, Crystal
(1999:666). Thus, the phonological level can be defined as the
interpretation of speech sounds within and across words. In
fact, the phonology of English includes certain sounds which
are absent from the Arabic sound inventory and vice versa.
However, the problem arises is how these sounds affect the
process of translation. It is common that texts under translation
might include proper nouns or names of objects and inventions
which are typical in the SL culture and which are left deliberately
untranslatable. These nouns or names may include sounds that
are not found in the TL. For example the word, ’television’, and
all of its derivatives include the sound /v/ which has no equivalent
in Arabic. Arabic, on the other hand, has sounds such as ‫ص‬, ‫ع‬, ‫غ‬,
‫ق‬, ‫خ‬, ‫ح‬, which are, all absent from the English sounds inventory.
If a translator finds himself obliged to translate a word that
includes one of these sounds, he will not find a corresponding
symbol in the TL. The solution of this problem is ‘transliteration

through approximation’ or ‘transcription’. Another problem that
faces translators is that the English writing system includes small
and capital letters which Arabic has no equivalent for.
2.2.2 Morphological Level
Morphology is the study of morphemes, the smallest
indivisible units of meaning in the structure of a word. It
recognizes such notions as roots, inflections, and affixes. Crystal
(1999:579). The morphological level then can be defined as the
componential analysis of words, including prefixes, suffixes
and roots. The morphological level is the level of linguistic
processing most commonly incorporated in translation systems
and has the longest history of inclusion. Stemming of terms in
documents and queries so that morphological variants between
query and document will match has a long history in both
experimental and commercial systems. Moreover, while there
have been differing empirical results on the impact of stemming
in English, most current translation systems support stemming
to avoid the potential for obviously missed relevant documents.
For example, if the plural forms of nouns in documents are not
stemmed, these documents will not match to the singular form of
the term of interest in a query or vice versa. It should be noted that
for other languages that have a richer morphology, the attention
to morphological processing offers a much more obvious and
larger pay-off for translation than it does for English.
Translators are primarily concerned with communicating

the overall meaning of a stretch of language. To achieve this,
we need to start analyzing the basic units and structures which
carry meanings. Linguists think of the morpheme as the minimal
linguistic unit that conveys meaning.
2.2.3. Lexical Level
Lexis, a term used in linguistics to refer to the vocabulary
of a language. Crystal (1997:221). Linguistically, it can be said
that: lexical is word level analysis including lexical meaning and

part of speech analysis. The lexical level of linguistic processing
can be used in translation either for part-of-speech tagging or for
the utilization of lexicons from which the detailed features of
individual terms can be accessed. The lexical level of language
is evidenced in the knowledge contained in thesauri and other
similar resources, which were originally manual consultation
tools for both indexers and searchers. They were and are
utilized to ensure that a common vocabulary is used in selecting
appropriate indexing or searching terms/phrases. These lexicons,
which provide both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations of
terms, can be used in rendering systems for automated or semi-
automated assistance in building queries. Recognition, tagging
and indexing of specific lexical features of interest (e.g., proper
nouns) reflects lexical information usage.
1.1.4. Syntactic Level
Syntax is the study of sentence structure; alternatively, the

study of how words can be combined of larger grammatical
units. Syntax for a language specifies a set of grammatical
categories (such as verb, noun phrase, and a sentence) and a
set of rules which define the ways in which these categories
relate to each other. Crystal (1999:840). However, the syntactic
level analysis is of words in a sentence in order to uncover the
grammatical structure of the sentence. The syntactic level of
linguistic processing utilizes the part-of-speech tagging output
from the lexical level and can assign phrase and clause brackets.
This semi-parsed text can then be used to drive the selection of
better indexing entries because phrases can be automatically
recognized and used to represent the documents’ contents
rather than single-word indexing which frequently introduces
ambiguity into the representation and resultant retrieval.
Similarly, syntactically identified phrases extracted from the
query can provide better searching keys for matching against
similarly bracketed documents.

It has been mentioned that the syntactic structure of a
language imposes certain restrictions on the way it can be
organized in that language. The order in which functional
elements such as subject, predicate, and object may occur is
fixed in some languages than in others. Languages vary in the
extent to which they rely on word order to signal the relationship
between elements in the clause. Compared to Arabic, word
order in English is relatively fixed. The meaning of a sentence
in English often depends entirely on the liner arrangement in
which the elements one placed.
Some languages have case inflections, which indicate the
relationship between the constituents of the clause. In such
languages, the form of syntactic category or an element changes
depending on its function in the clause. Languages, which have
elaborate system of case inflections such as Arabic, tend to have
fewer restrictions on word order than languages like English
which has very variation and is available as a resource to signal
emphasis and contrast and to organize messages in a variety
of ways. Word order is extremely important in translating into
English because it plays a systematic and patterning role as the
only acceptable order in the English sentence-structure.
1.1.5. Semantic Level
Semantics is the study of meaning system of a language.

Crystal (1999:773), semantic level analysis is determining the
possible meanings of a sentence, including disambiguation
of words in context. Use of the semantic level of language in
translation includes interpretation of the meaning of sentences
as the unit of understanding, as opposed to processing at the
individual word or phrase level. This level of processing can
include the semantic disambiguation of words with multiple
senses, the identification of predicate argument relations in
sentences or the expansion of the query by addition of all
synonymous equivalents of the query terms. Term expansions
can be obtained from lexical sources such as Word Net or

Information Retrieval-style thesauri, but the challenge here is to
add just those terms which are expansions of the particular sense
of the word intended in the query. Another usage of semantic
processing is the production of semantic vectors to represent both
queries and documents, but this also requires that the appropriate
sense of each term has been determined and the appropriate
semantic category selected for inclusion in the semantic vector.
In the process of translation, the meaning or the content of

the message is the ultimate goal which is sought to be reflected
or conveyed by the different structural patterns. The variety
of semantic gaps is unparallel in Arabic and English, which
accounts for the source of difficulties and affects decision in the
process of translation.
2.2.6. Pragmatic Level
Pragmatics, Crystal (1997:301), in modern linguistics, it

has come to be applied to the study of language from the point
of view of the users, especially of the choices they make, the
constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction,
and the effects their use of language has on the other participants
in an act of communication. So the pragmatic analysis can be
considered as understanding the purposeful use of language in
situations, particularly those aspects of language which require
world knowledge.
The pragmatic level of language, which is concerned with

how the external world impacts the meaning of communications,
would come into play primarily at the query processing and
understanding level. In the same way that good reference
librarians can elicit from users the purpose to which they plan
to put the information they are seeking, information retrieval
systems need to understand the user and his/her needs in the
context of their history and their goals. Gricean maxims and
other principles of communication can be incorporated in the user

interface of translation systems to facilitate the “conversation”
between the user and the translation system.
2.3. Fundamental Issues in Translation
This section surveys the relevant literature concerned with

some of the essential issues related to translation in general in
order to shed light on the relationship between translation and
foreign language learning. These issues are, defining translation,
its types, and importance. Also, it deals with such issues as
translatability and untranslatability, translation equivalence,
adequacy of translation theory, etc.
2.3.1 What is Translation?
Though it may sound a good idea to decide on “defining”

translation as a departure point, it is not as easy as it may appear.
However, translation has been defined as: the “restatement

of the forms of one language in another: the chief means
of exchanging information between different language
communities”, McArthur, (1992:1051-2). According to
Collier’s Encyclopedia (1960:452), translation is: “… the art of
converting written or spoken communication from one language
into another” According to the Dictionary of Language and
Linguistics, it is: “the process or result of converting information
from one language or language variety into another. In translation
written or recorded material of natural languages, the aim is to
reproduce as accurately as possible all grammatical and lexical
features of the source language original by finding equivalents
in the target language, (Hartman, 1972: 242).
Catford, (1965:1), sees translation as “an operation

performed on language: a process of substituting a text in one
language for a text in another”, or, “… the replacement of textual
material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in
another language (TL)”. While Jacobson (1966) states that it is in

its simplest terms “the interpretation of verbal signs by means of
some other language”, (Jacobson, 1966, cited in Kelly, 1976: 1)
Wilss (1982:112) thinks of translation as “a text oriented
event”. Based on that, translation, to him, is “a procedure which
leads from a written SLT (source language text) and requires the
syntactic, semantic, stylistic and text-pragmatic comprehension
by the translation of the original text”.
Newmark (1982:7) defines translation as “a craft consisting
of the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement
in one language by the message and/or statement in another
language”. He admits that translation activity is complex and
difficult to define to the extent that most people when asked to
define translation hesitate, and that many dictionaries which
offer synonyms for the verb (render, rephrase, reword, interpret,
convert, transform, transpose, express, transfer, turn) and add
“from one language to another”, do not state what is being
translation. Others make use of expressions such as equivalent,
“textual material”, “similar”, “like”, “parallel”, “equal”,
“identical”, “comparable”, “synonymous”, and “analogous”,
Newmark,(1985 :8). The problem in his opinion “belongs to the
meaning of meaning rather than the meaning of equivalence,
identity, similarity, likeness, sameness and so on”. He believes
that it is hard to talk about a specific meaning in a text to be
transferred for the meaning in a text is multi-dimensional to
be handled. He, nonetheless settled with what he calls ‘Nida’s
classical definition’ of translation i.e. “the reproduction of the
closest natural equivalent of the source language message,”
commenting that this definition could not be bettered (p. 12).
Back to the twenties of the last century, Benjamin, 1923,
sees translation as “a life-force that ensures a literary text’s
survival” (p. 75).
Translation, as mentioned above, does not, or cannot, often

convey the message of the original text simply because no

one knows exactly what it is that a work of art communicates.
In addition, a work of art addresses a reader who knows its
language, while the translation is directed to a different reader.
From all the above definitions, and in spite of all the
similarities and differences which exist in them, it can be
concluded that translation implies the process of transferring a
message from one language to another, taking into account all
the dimensions within the SLT, linguistic organization, culture,
style, time, intentions, feelings etc. and reproducing the whole
thing smoothly, naturally and as closely to the original text as
possible in the TLT. In these definitions, translation seems to be
more or less like exchanging or converting currency. We get a
new currency, but still we can use it exactly as we do with the
previous one. Of course, we may lose or gain some of its value,
but purpose or the benefit in both is the same. Unfortunately,
in translation, the process is not that simple. According to
grammatical items between languages, and, as seen in the
translation of idioms and metaphors, the process may involve
discarding the basic linguistic elements of the SL text in order
to be subjected to different socio-literary contextual factors.
Therefore, they must be viewed as having multiple identities,
dependent upon the forces of history and the semiotic web called
culture.
2.3.2. Types of Translation
Jacobson (1960), differentiates between three types of

translation depending on the codes involved in transferring the
message, (a) intralingual translation, in which the message is
transferred within the same linguistic medium, (b) interlingual
translation which deals with two different language, and (c)
intersemiotic translation or transmutation, which includes non-
linguistic media. This could be an interpretation of verbal signs
by means of non-verbal signs system, (Jacobson, cited in Stiener,
(1975: 260) and in Basssnett, (1980: 14). This study is mainly
concerned with the interlingual translation.

Nerwmark (1985), however, distinguishes three basic
types of translation based on three different types of texts, i.e.
(a) scientific-technological, which are usually handled by the
translation department of public corporations, (b) multinationals
and government departments; institutional-cultural texts (culture,
social sciences, commerce) handled in particular by international
organizations, and (c) literary text, normally handled by
freelance translation. Accordingly, three types of translation
exist: technical, cultural and literary and they are equally
important. Technical is important in introducing inventions and
innovations that improve health and living and literary translation
is important in transmitting human values.
Earlier in 1982, Newmark differentiates between tow

major methods of translation: communicative and semantic
translations. The former addresses itself to the second reader and
emphasizes the “force” rather than the content of the message,
and “it is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct,
more conventional, etc.”. The latter “attempts to render, as
closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second
language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original […]
it tends to be more complex, more awkward, more detailed, more
concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes rather than the
intention of the transmitter”, (ibid,39)
This differentiation, however, does not mean that there

is one communicative translation and one semantic, but they
are not only “widely overlapping bands of methods”, but “all
translation must be in some degree both communicative and
semantic,” (ibid, 40).
Apart from that, and depending on bilingual competence,

McArthur (1992: 1052), makes five distinctions, stating that none
of which represent an absolute position, but rather end-points
in an appropriate continuum. These may be mentioned below:

A -Translating and interpreting
Written translation can be distinguished from oral
translation or interpreting in that it is traditionally
a more important form its relative permanence and
lasting influence.
B -Word – for – word and free translation

Depending on the level at which translation
equivalence can be established; translation can be
more literal or free.
C -Literary and technical translation
Literary (of aesthetic, imaginative, fictional texts)

technical (of pragmatic and non-fictional texts).
D -Professional and pedagogical translation
Translation as a vocation (working for a client) or

translation as an exercise in the process of language
learning.
E -Human and machine translation
Types of documents most request for translation:
Vital (Civil) Records: birth, marriage, divorce and death

certificates, civil judgments, adoption documents, police
(criminal record search) certificates, passports, etc.
Academic Records: school, college, university diplomas

(undergraduate and graduate degrees), academic transcripts,
extracts, thesis, scientific publications, CV’s, etc.
Corporate, Business and Legal Materials: contracts,

agreements, Articles of Incorporation, Minutes, corporate
bylaws, resolutions, operating agreements (LLC), bankruptcy
and debt collection files, rules and regulations, annual reports,

tax transcripts, financial and income statements (personal and
business), patents, licensing agreements, legal correspondence,
workplace manuals, etc.
Advertising and Marketing: promotional materials,
websites, product brochures, presentations, articles,
press releases, newsletters, direct mail, research
findings, surveys, etc.
Technical and Scientific Materials: product
specifications, diagrams, drawings, flowcharts, operation
and maintenance manuals, technical reports, data sheets.
Health Care, Biochemistry and Pharmaceutical
Materials: clinical trials, reports, studies, diagnostic
findings, drug information, hospital procedures and
practices, medical device manuals, pharmaceutical
documentation, biochemical research, product licensing
and patents.
Financial, Banking and Insurance Materials: bank
products, fiscal statements, audit reports, balance sheets,
market reviews, statements, loan agreements, financial
analysis, insurance records and other documentation.
IT and Computers: manuals, tutorials, product
catalogs, brochures, specifications.
Travel and Tourism: hospitality industry materials,
travel guides, articles, etc.
2.3.3 The Importance of Translation

The importance of translation stems from its inevitability
in today’s global setting in which the whole world with its
innumerable languages is, as commonly said too small and
interdependent. Its significance derives from the universal
need for mediation between speakers and writers of different
languages. It is in Stiener’s terms (1975: 471) “… fully implicit

in the most rudimentary communication”. According to Verma
(19920), translation is not the only means by which the language
barriers can be crossed, but it is to a large extent the most
effective way of breaking the language barriers and promoting
better communication, specially when all attempts to evolve a
simplified artificial or natural language like Esperanto or basic
English have failed.
Catford, (1965) also states that translation is an activity of
enormous importance in the modern world and a subject of interest
to many people in almost all literary, scientific and professional
specialization. Kelly, 1979, goes as to say that “Europe owes
its civilization to translation”. Bassnett(1980),however, is
convinced that translation, despite its importance, has never
been granted the dignity of original work. Rather, it has been
overlooked and seen as subsidiary art and derivative. This led
to underestimating the translation value and consequently to
lowering the standard demanded.
In the early fifties, McFarlane (1953), warned against value

judgment about translation and asked instead for knowing more
about its nature and suggested that an analysis of procedure is
the approach that promises most. Benjamin (1923: 74), holds
that translation goes beyond enriching the language and culture,
beyond renewing and maturing the life of the original. He says,
“Although translation, unlike art, cannot claim permanence for
its products, its goal is undeniably a final, conclusive, decisive
stage of all linguistic creation” (p. 75).
Bassnett (1990: ix), who sees translation as “rewriting” end
“manipulation”, maintains that this rewriting “can introduce new
concepts, new genres, new devices, and the history of translation
is the history also of literary innovation, of the shaping power
of one culture upon another […] the study of manipulative
processes of literature as exemplified by translation can help
us towards a great awareness of the world in which we live”.

Similarly, Derrida, 1985, cited in Gentzler, (1993:166), thinks
that translation process “ensures the rebirth, the regeneration, the
emergence, “the holy growth” of languages in general, and the
means by which we understand ourselves.” Obviously, Derrida
adopts Benjamin’s point of view and almost uses his terms.
Finally, as in the case of India, contrary to the notion that

says that Indian literature is one but written in many languages,
Prasad, 1995, believes that India will remain a home for many
languages and literatures since there is no likelihood of India
option for a single language or even accepting a link language,
whether Hindi or English. Therefore, the need for more and
more translators is a must even though he thinks that they are
not always dependable and can be capricious and wayward.
Thus, translation as can be seen from this example, is, and will
continue to be, of a great effect not only to people from different
nationalities, but also to people of the same nation.
2.3.4 Translatability and Untranslatability
With regard to this issue, it seems as if the situation, in which

Goethe, 1813 (cited in McFarlane, 1953) stated that translation
is impossible, essential and important, has not much changed.
To Benjamin (1923: 81-2), the original “contains the law
governing the translation; its translatability”. The text which is
“unconditionally translatable” is the text “which is identical with
the truth or dogma, where it is supposed to be “the true language”
in all its literalness and without the mediation of meaning […]
to some degree all great texts contain their potential translation”,
and the translation in this case “must be one with the original
in the form of the interlinear version, in which literalness’ and
freedom are united”. But, to what extent, is this really possible?
Benjamin himself says, “Indeed, the problem of ripening the
seed of pure language in a translation seems to be insoluble,
determinable in no solution”.

Catford (1985), distinguishes between two types of
untranslatability: (a) Linguistic- no lexical or syntactical
substitute in the TL for SL item due to differences in languages,
and (b) Cultural – the absence in the TL culture of relevant
situational feature for the SL text. Here, Catford says that “It
is the task of translator to find solutions to such problems,
and this is in itself a creative act”. Wilss (1982: 49-50) sees
that “The translatability of a text guaranteed by the existence
of universal categories in syntax, semantics and the (natural)
logic of experience”. While following Catford, untranslatability
exists whenever all resources in the TL have been exhausted
and functional equivalence between SL and TL remains beyond
reach. The reason for this, as noted by Catford is either linguistic
or cultural. But Wilss argues that translation procedures generally
present possibility for compensation, since translation is in
principle possible whenever an understanding of the content
of the original text precedes the transfer. Furthermore, he
believes that the “relative comparability of the extra-linguistic
experience of mankind and the empirically proven cognitive
commensurability of languages”, make it possible “to achieve
interlingual communication on the level of the text with a
relatively high degree of TE (translation equivalence) of content
and style”.
Newmark (1982:7) tackles this issue slightly differently. He
sees that loss of meaning occurs when:
a. the text situation with peculiar elements of
its language.
b. two languages have different lexical,

grammatical, sound systems etc.,
c. the individual uses of language by writer and
translator do not coincide.
d. writer and translator have different theories
of meaning and different values.

Popovic (1970:79), views that the changes, which occur
in translation result from the differences between the two
languages. Therefore, he emphasizes the need for a method for
objective classification of differences between the translation
and the original for the purpose of evaluating them and defining
the shifts of expressions precisely and systematically. To him,
“the identification of the shifts of expression and their semantic-
stylistic interpretation should be considered as the most important
aspects of translation analysis”.
On the other hand, he also distinguishes between two types

of untranslatabilirty, (a) Linguistic, in which an element in the
original cannot replaced in the target language, and (b) When
the relation between the creative subject and its linguistic
expression in the original does not find an adequate expression
in the translation.
Schogt (1988), points out that the major dilemmas that face
the translator of literature lie in dealing not only with the rare
cases, but also in general with flaws and stylistic peculiarities
in the source text. He argues that one of these dilemmas is that
the choice of usual stylistic level is in accordance with the
target code and therefore legitimate. It also caters to the reader’s
expectations and the result may be so different from the original
that it hardly qualifies as a translation, and the target language
is unable to match the source language in such a way that the
special relationship between form and meaning characterizing
the source is preserved.
As far as this study is concerned, it seems plausible,

however, to conclude that in translation, differences of
languages, circumstances, audience and translators are important
components of translation. And, following Schogt, discussion
about the quality of different translations, somehow, becomes
meaningless, it is only possible to compare interpretations.

2.4. Translation Equivalence
The term ‘equivalence’ is clearly a key term in both
translation theory and translation practice. Wilss (1982: 135) says
that “…there is hardly any other concept in translation theory
which has produced as many contradictory statement and has set
off as many attempts at an adequate, comprehensive definition
as TE (translation equivalence) between SLT and TLT”.
McFarlane (1953), quotes Firth saying that the use of the
word ‘meaning is subject to the general rule that each word
when used in a new context is a new word. He argues, then,
that the point that needs the strongest emphasis is not that literal
translation is “bad’, nor that it should be avoided, but that we
should not set up literalness as a standard by which to judge the
fidelity of translation, or posit it as an ideal of accuracy to be an
approach. He holds that it is not difficult to see why equivalence
in meaning sometimes is not possible. He says: “the problem
is the comparatively simple one of comparing the respective
powers of symbolic reference of the two languages. Anyone
who feels he must look for a precise equivalent between precise
symbolic is however, doomed to disappointment “p. 84). Most of
the verbal symbols have a ‘fringe’ round their area of meaning
where their application is doubtful.
Catford (1965: 27-9), distinguishes between textual

equivalence and formal correspondence. Textual translation
equivalence is “that portion of a TL text which is changed when
and only when a given portion of SL text is changed […] In
some cases there is no TL equivalent of a given SL item. The
TL equivalent in such cases is nil. A formal correspondence is
“any TL category […] which may be said to occupy, as nearly
as possible, the “same” place in the “economy” of the TL as the
given SL category occupies in the TL”.
Nida (1975: 46), admits that absolute communication is

quite impossible, but he states that “very close approximation

to the standard of natural equivalence may be obtained, but
only if the translations reflect a high degree of sensitivity to
different syntactic structures and result from clear insight into
cultural diversities”. He also distinguishes between two types
of equivalence, formal and dynamic. The formal focuses on
the message in both form and content, while the dynamic
equivalence is based on the relationship between the receiver
and the message in both SL and TL text. This brings in the
notion of equivalence effect which, according to Bassnett (1980),
enjoys great popularity in spite of its applicability to the formal
properties of a text which shows that Nida’s categories can
actually be in conflict with each other.
Newmark (1982: 132), also points out that “the equivalence

response principle is mentallistic and needs further definition”.
Moreover, it is not easy to achieve similar corresponding when
the readership is different. Besides, “similar response where
the function is expressive is difficult to analyze”. Zlateva
(in Bassnett, 1990: 34), raises another point in this respect.
According to her, the criteria for judging adequacy of language
use in translation are much more complex than those by which
we evaluate the use of language in an original work. To her, the
translation is a maximally close analogue of the original if the
translator has manage adequately to render the originals overall
content, both aesthetic and conceptual. She opines that translators
should not be blamed when failing to elicit an effect on their
readers. The reason is that “this effect is the result of something
very much not part of the actual text the translators had to deal
with “p. 30) (see also, Reiss and Vermeer (1984), Straight, in
Rose, (1981), and Schogt, (1988).
Following Holmes (1987), Bassnett (1980: 29), says that TE
(translation equivalence) “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 SL and TL versions”.
She believes that Popovic’s (1976) four types of equivalence

(linguistic, word for-word translation, pragmatic, elements of
grammar, stylistic and textual, form and shape), offer a useful
starting point; while Neubert’s (1968) three semiotic categories
(syntactic, semantic and pragmatic) point out the way to an
approach that perceives equivalence as a dialectic between the
signs and the structures within and surrounding the SL and TL
texts (ibid).
Wilss (1982: 45-7), as Nida, holds that anything can be
said in one language can be said in another with reasonable
accuracy. He says: “… in principle, any SLT can be replaced by
a TLT having a comparable communication function (with the
exception of certain lyrical production”. He maintains that TE
cannot be integrated in a general translation theory, but must be
looked in upon as part of specific translation theories which are
single-text-oriented. To him, that is why a translation practitioner
“prefers to rely on his translational intuition, his individual
translational range of experience and his TE norms, if he has to
make a statement as to whether in his opinion a translation is
equivalent, less equivalent or non- equivalent”.
In accordance with this point of view, Shveitser (1993),
remarks that translators themselves try to devise all kinds of
ways round the equivalence, whereas translation scholars who
do not actually translate themselves, like Catford, cling to some
notion of equivalence as the only yardstick by which the activity
of translation can be measured.
2.5. The Translation Process: A View of the Mind
In the last few decades, much has been written about
translation and translation theory drawing upon modern
linguistics. The translation models which have been formulated
in this fashion were mainly post-translation analytical methods
and largely pedagogic in approach. These models were concerned
with the product of translation and to some extent translator
training. They were not, strictly speaking, concerned with the
mental processes of regenerating text in another language.

2.5.1. Translation Models
The translation models focused largely on the sentence
level and the analysis of deep sentence structure. Nida (1964)
reader-oriented dynamic equivalence started the idea of using
sentence grammar for the improvement of Bible translation.
Catford (1965) on the other hand, refined Halliday’s grammatical
‘rank scale’ theory to “underline the hypothesis that translation
of equivalence depends upon the availability of formal
correspondence between linguistic items at different structural
levels and ranks” Hartmann (1980), and more so at the sentence
level.
2.5.2. Beyond the Sentence
However, a translation theory or model is not workable if it

is confined to the treatment of separate sentences. A translation
model should consider the overall textual components, how
sentences are interlinked and how they depend on one another
in a stretch of text to convey the intended meaning. The meaning
of a sentence is determined by the different ways the sentence is
semantically related to other sentences in the text. Consequently,
for two sentences of different languages to be exact translations
of each other they must be semantically related to other sentences
of their respective languages in text in exactly the same way,
Keenan (1973).
2.5.3. Translation as a Process
Translation is a complex dichotomous and cumulative

process which involves a host of activities drawing upon other
disciplines related to language, writing, linguistics and culture.
This multi-disciplinary process suggests that three major
activities run concomitantly:
 transfer of data from the source language to the target
language

 synchroanalysis of text and translation and research of
subject-matter
 continuous self-development and learning
2.5.4. Translation as Communication

Translation is a communication process which involves
the transfer of a message from a source language to a target
language. Text linguistics, which is concerned with the way
the parts of text are organized and related to one another in
order to form a meaningful whole, is useful for the analysis of
the translation process and the transfer of meaning from one
language to another.
De Beaugrande and Dressler define the text as a communicative

occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality. These
standards of textual communication are cohesion, coherence,
intentionality, acceptability, informality situationality and
intertextuality. However, according to Widdowson (1979), a
text cannot be an occurrence since it has no mechanism of its
own, but can only be achieved by a human agency. It does not
itself communicate, but rather provides the means of achieving
communication. Moreover, Hatim defines a text as a stretch of
linguistic material which maps on the surface a set of mutually
relevant communicative intentions.
2.5.5. How Translation Works

The most important step in translation theory is to go beyond
the comparison of different textual versions and linguistic
systems towards an understanding of how translation operates
in totality of all communicative interaction, how communication
can take place when different codes are involved, and what the
mediating translator does to bring about communication in the
target language. Hartmann (1980).
According to Catford (1965), meaning is the property of a

language. A source language text has a source language meaning
and a target language text has a target language meaning — a
Japanese text, for instance, has Japanese meaning (as well as
Japanese phonology, graphology, grammar and lexis), and an
English equivalent has an English meaning.
Taking this a step further, concepts are the property of the
mind - they have no language. Meaning which is the property
of a language is manifested through language and embodied in
language. Concepts on the other hand, reside in the mind, outside
language. As such, they are universal and therefore transferable
and translatable.
2.5.6. A View of the Translator’s Mind
In the translation process, the translator possesses two sets of

parallel linguistic and cultural repertoires. Each repertoire has a
subset of components and units with codes and flags embedded
in each one of them. When the translation analysis begins, the
two parallel repertoires move constantly to match and replace
lexis, grammar, stylistics, phonology, cultural and situational
equivalents and to give universal concepts language properties.
In the transfer of a text from the source language to the target
language, all (or nearly all) the attributes of text/discourse travel
from one repertoire to the other through the Concept “lens”,
which is also in constant focusing converting concepts invoked
by the flagged attributes in context in the source language
repertoire through the activation of matching attributes in the
target language. This binary action-reflex mechanism results in
the translation product. The process can be further illustrated by
the following model.
The travel path is not always in one direction. It is in fact
bidirectional even when translation occurs in one direction. The
action-reflex mechanism works like a pendulum shifting back
and forth from one language set to the other, with the translator
constantly referring back to the source text.

This process is a 3-dimentional activity which involves:
1. Text analysis; meaning, register, style, rhetoric etc.
2. translation
3. rearrangement
As mentioned earlier, translation is a cumulative process. The
more experienced and better equipped a translator is, the faster
the action-reflex movement will be.
2.5.7 A Decision-making Process
In this context, translation can be defined as a continuous

decision-making process which is affected by the degree of
indeterminacy a source language text might present. The clearer
the information in the text the easier and more decisive the
matching and focusing process becomes.
With this in mind, analyzing the text in context determines
the interrelationship of sentences in text and their overall
communicative value.

2.5.8. Goals of Translation
The main goal of translation is, no doubt, to establish a
particular type of correspondence between the ST and the TT. The
nature of correspondence has been referred to ‘faithfulness’ and
‘fidelity’, or more predominantly to the notion of ‘equivalence’:
Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text

in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a
second language. (Meetham & Hudson 1972: 713)
This goal, however, varies depending on widely differing
motivations, such as linguistic, communicative, philosophical,
and technological targets (Wilss 1996:1). In consequence, the
notion of equivalence has been defined in a multitude of ways,
in a huge amount of literature. Being aware of this, Baker (1993:
236) declares that the question is no longer how equivalence
might be achieved but, increasingly, what kind of equivalence
can be achieved, and in what contexts.
For the purpose of this study, which attempts to examine
the English contextual translation equivalence experienced
by Sudanese students at the university level, it is necessary to
explore some key notions in describing ideal goals of translation
which imply certain ways of evaluating its quality.
2.6. The Notion of Equivalence

Wilss (1996: 3-4) observes an apparent ‘lack of scientific
ecology’ in the current equivalence terminology. There we
have ‘equivalence in difference’ (Jacobson 1959), ‘functional
equivalence’ (Jäger 1973, House 1977), ‘maintenance (retention)
of translation invariance on the content level’ (Kade 1968),
‘closet natural equivalent’ (Nida 1964), ‘formal equivalence
(correspondence)’ vs. ‘dynamic equivalence’ (Nida 1964),
‘communicative equivalence’ (Jäger 1975; Reiß 1976),
‘pragmatic equivalence’ (Wilss 1980; Baker 1992; Koller 1992),
‘adequacy’ (Reiß 1984; Puurtinen 1992); ‘acceptability’ (Toury

1980; Nord 1991; Puurtinen 1992); ‘faithfulness’, ‘fidelity’,
‘loyalty’ (Nord 1991; Puurtinen 1994), etc.
With regard to their implications on translation quality,
however, two significant developments in these notions would
be Nida’s (1964, 1969) distinction between formal vs. dynamic
equivalence, and the functionalist’s orientation from referential
equivalence towards pragmatic or functional equivalence.
2.6.1 Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalence
One of the fundamental debates on the translation
equivalence, the ‘literal’ verses ‘free’ controversy, has been
more or less a constant in translation studies. The problem,
as Hatim and Mason (1990: 5-6) point out, is that the issue in
the traditional ‘literal’ versus ‘free’ debate has too often been
discussed without reference to the context in which translation
takes place; the social circumstances of translation have been
lost from sight.
In this respect, Nida’s (1964) reformulation of the problem
in terms of types of equivalence appropriate to particular
circumstances was a significant move. By distinguishing ‘formal
equivalence’, meaning the closest possible match of form and
content between the ST and the TT, and ‘dynamic equivalence’,
which is the principle of equivalence of effect on TT reader, as
basic orientations, Nida shifts attention away from the debate
of literal versus free towards the effects of different translation
strategies. Nida and Taber (1969) assert as follows:
If we look at translations in terms of the receptors, rather
than in terms of their respective forms, then we introduce
another point of view; the intelligibility of the translation. Such
intelligibility is not, however, to be measured merely in terms
of whether the words are understandable and the sentences
grammatically constructed, but in terms of the total impact the
message has on the one who receives it. (Nida & Taber 1969: 22)

Formal equivalence is, of course, appropriate in certain
circumstances. It is a means of providing some degree of insight
into the lexical, grammatical or structural form of a source text.
Orientation towards dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, is
assumed to be the normal strategy. Although most translations
may fall somewhere on the scale in between the two types,
Nida (1964: 160) claims that ‘the present direction is toward
increasing emphasis on dynamic equivalence’. In a later work
dynamic equivalence is defined as follows:
Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of

the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor
language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the
receptors in the source language. This response can never be
identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different,
but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or
the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose. (Nida
& Taber 1969: 24)
In spite of the criticism that actual effects on receivers of

texts are difficult to gauge, one important aspect of ‘audience
response’ lies in correct understanding of the meaning by the
readership, which goes beyond the mere comprehension of the
original message:
It would be wrong to think, however, that the response

of the receptors in the second language is merely in terms of
comprehension of the information, for communication is not
merely informative. It must be expressive and imperative if it
is to serve the principle purposes of communications. That is to
say, a translation of the Bible must not only provide information
which people can understand but must present the message in
such a way that people can feel its relevance (the expressive
element in communication) and can then respond to it in action
(the imperative function) (Nida & Taber 1969: 24)

Thus, according to Nida and Taber (1969), a normal
translation should aim at the comprehension of the message of
the original which is defined as ‘the total meaning or content of
a discourse; the concept and feelings which the author intends
the reader to understand and perceive’ (Nida & Taber 1969: 205).
2.6.2 Referential vs. Functional Equivalence
There have been various attempts in the functionalist circle

to make another dichotomy between referential and pragmatic
equivalence. According to Schkffner (1998: 2), ‘functionalist
approach’ is a kind of cover term for the research of scholars
who argue that the function or purpose of the TT is the most
important criterion in any translation.
Based on a traditional contrastive approach, which

systematically contrasts and compares specific areas of language
between the ST and the TT, referential equivalence seeks to
reproduce the meaning of the words as symbols which refer to
objects, events, abstracts, relations. Implicitly, such an approach
is based on the assumption that normally one can imitate
syntactic structures and semantic-lexical distributions fairly
closely (Hönig 1998: 7). It is erroneous, however, to assume
that one-to-one equivalents exist for all lexical items or sentence
structures between any two languages (Larson 1998: 97-107).
Most recent contrastive studies are well aware of the difficulties
encountered in such an approach, and introduce functionalist
principles into contrastive approaches.
According to Hönig (1998: 7), the first important step in a
new direction was made by Reiß (1971). It is significant that
Reiß did not base her semantic analyses on traditional models but
applied the notion of functions of language from Bühler (1969)
to translation. She proposed the predominant functions of texts to
be content-focused (e.g. news items), form-focused (e.g. literary
genres), and appeal-focused texts (e.g. advertisements). These
text types are based on the notion of dominance or hierarchy.

For instance, there is dominance of content over form in news
items, or appeal over form and content in advertisements, etc.
Thus, a crucial difference in her approach from the notion of
traditional translation equivalence is as follows:
By focusing on (high-ranking) text-types, Reid introduces
(lower-ranking) variables into translation. Whereas in traditional
contrastive studies words and phrases are defined as translation
units, for Reid the preservation of text types becomes the aim
of translation. Consequently, lower-ranking parts of a text may,
indeed, must be ‘changed’ if this is the only way to preserve the
text type. (Hönig 1998: 8, italics mine)
In other words, syntactic or discoursal properties of the TT

may or must be changed if the translation wants to achieve the
same appeal as the source text. Thus, her view introduced more
flexibility into translation by moving away from rigidly defined
contrastive equivalences.
However, the beginning of a new approach, known as

functionalism, is marked by Vermeer (1978) in terms of the
skopos theory. He went one step further than Reid by placing
translation firmly in the context of sociolinguistic pragmatics.
Texts, according to Vermeer, are produced for defined recipients
and with a defined purpose (skopos). This general principle also
obtains for translations, thus they are special-cases of text-bound
pragmatic acts:
One of the key notions to understanding his approach is
Informationsangebot (information offered), which means that
the source text should no longer be seen as the ‘sacred original’,
and the purpose of the translation can no longer be deduced from
the source text but depends on the expectations and needs of the
target readers. In order to translate successfully, the translator
has to get acquainted with the specific situation of the recipients
of his/her translation in the target culture. (Hönig 1998: 9)
Translation equivalence is now defined in terms of the

function or purpose which the original text intended to achieve
in a specific communicative situation. As the result, the notion
of equivalence involves far more complex terms than before.
Translators do not just apply linguistic rules, nor is translation
a purely linguistic activity. Knowledge and methods from
other disciplines, notably psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics,
communication studies, and even brain-physiology, are
integrated into translation studies to describe the goals and
activities (cf. Snell-Hornby 1988).
2.7. Criteria of Translation Quality
Translation quality assessment (TQA) is an essential part of
any theoretical concept of translation. Models of TQA, therefore,
will inevitably reflect an overall theoretical framework. House
(1997: 1) points out that ‘Evaluating the quality of a translation
presupposes a theory of translation. Thus different views of
translation lead to different concepts of translational quality,
and hence different ways of assessing it.’
2.7.1 Accuracy and Faithfulness
A common answer to the question of what is a good
translation is that it is as accurate and faithful as possible to the
source text. This is the widely held notion within the contrastive
model of translation. In assessing the quality of a translation,
the TT is compared to the ST in order to see whether the TT
is an accurate, correct, faithful, or true reproduction of the ST
with regard to the notions of referential or formal equivalence.
In some modern approaches using these criteria for quality
assessment, however, the comparison involves both quantitative
and qualitative aspects, i.e. accurate in denotation and in
connotation, referentially and pragmatically. When Newmark
(1991: 111) mentions ‘pragmatic accuracy’, for instance, he
introduces textual and situational aspects, which are important
criteria in the text linguistics, pragmatic, and discourse models
of translation.

2.7.2 Functional Appropriateness
The introduction of the function and the purpose of the TT as
decisive criteria of all translation quality assessment is the major
contribution of functionalist approaches to translation. For these
approaches, quality is not given ‘objectively’ but rather depends
on the text users and their criteria for assessing how appropriately
and efficiently a text fulfils its ‘function’ in a specific situation.
The key word ‘function’ is used in the sense of the function
that the TT fulfils in the specific communicative setting of the
target culture. In this sense, ‘function’ is synonymous with
‘purpose’. Accordingly, for the purpose of establishing functional
equivalence between the ST and the TT, the ST is analyzed
and compared to the TT in terms of more specific situational
dimensions. For example, House (1977: 37-50) postulates the
following criterion for functional equivalence:
The situational dimensions and their linguistic correlates

are considered to be the means by which the text’s function is
realized, i.e. the function of a text is established as a result of
the text along the situational dimensions outlined above. The
basic criterion of functional match for translation equivalence
can now be refined: a translation text should not only match
its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-
dimensional means to achieve that function, i.e. for a translation
of optimal quality it is desirable to have a match between source
and translation text along the dimensions which are found --- in
the course of the analysis --- to contribute in a particular way
to the two components of the text’s function. (House 1977: 49)
The basic principle is that we do not translate words or
grammatical structures, but texts as communicative occurrences,
i.e. we are always dealing with texts in situation and in culture,
and these texts fulfill a specific function. Now, given that the
functional appropriateness of the TT has become the measure
for assessing the quality of a translation, both the translator and

the TT user are assigned a higher status and a more significant
role than is the case in more traditional approaches to translation.
As a text producer, not merely a text reproducer, the translator
is required to be a self-confident person who is aware of what
happens in the process of translation. Of extreme importance is
that he knows for whom he translates and what the users want
to do with the text. Only with this knowledge can a translator
produce a TT that is appropriately structured and formulated in
order to effectively fulfill its intended purpose for its addressees.
2.7.3 Limitations of the Current Views
Concerning the currently held notions in TQA with relation

to pragmatic, communicative or functional approaches to
translation, Nida (1964: 160) was correct in thinking that the
reader’s reaction is an increasingly important notion with
respect to dynamic equivalence. As Hönig (1998: 29) points out,
any TQA tacitly implies an assessment of a supposed reader’s
reaction. The problem is, however, the empirical basis of the
reader’s putative reaction is often unclear. Even those who are
in the functionalist circle realize the problem of assessing the
‘ghost’ readership. Kußmaul (1995) remarks:
We can restrict ourselves to the effect the error has on

the target reader. In psycholinguistic terms, we are trying to
imagine what kind of scene is created in the target reader by
a particular linguistic frame used by the translator. One might
argue, however, that this approach is just as speculative since
we do not really know what goes on in a reader’s mind, and that
our speculations instead of being retrospective are prospective,
but are speculations nevertheless. (Kußmaul 1995: 130)
Apart from this, the functional approaches, e.g. the skopos

theory of Vermeer (1978), have been often criticised by those
who say that the purpose of the target text, what the users are
going to do with it, cannot justify the means. Critics argue that

in a functionalist view ‘the ST is dethroned, the role of the client
is exaggerated, and that there is no clear delimitation between
translation and adoption or other textual operations’ (Schäffner
1998: 3). As one of the opponents, Wilss (1996) argues:
It is a task for the historian of TS to explain Vermeer’s

assault on the sensible belief that the ST --- as the starting point
for all translation --- is as important as the TT. On the other
hand, while instilling in us a mood of unproblematic theoretical
monism, Vermeer’s approach has the virtue of simplicity, but
at the same time he confronts us with the neglect of the fact
that a text (especially a literary one) can challenge a functional
framework which commits the translator to an exclusive TT
reader-oriented approach. Vermeer’s pursuit views that, by
and large, all translation can be subsumed under a TT reader-
determined concept of skopos amounts to abandoning the
dialectic relationship between ST and TT. (Wilss 1996: 34)
Given that the above arguments are reasonable, the major

limitations of the current approaches in TQA are as follows: First
of all, the current criteria for TQA lack a plausible account of
the reader’s reaction in spite of the agreement that translation
quality is to a great extent dependent on the reader’s reaction to
the text. Thus, a comprehensive theory of TQA needs a means
of accounting for the reader’s response in text processing.
Secondly, the emphasis on the TT readership as an almost
exclusive criterion for identifying the ‘function’ or ‘purpose’ of
the text seems to lose balance in the ‘double obligation’ (Wilss
1996: 46) of the nature of translation which aims a kind of
correspondence between the ST and the TT. This assessment is
determined not only by TT reader expectations, but also by the
ST author’s conceptions. Any translation should be seen in the
context of a rewriting that accommodates both the ST author’s
and the TT recipient’s perspective, leaving little leeway for
marked/unmarked options (Wilss 1996: 46).

2.8 The concept of equivalence
In the framework of systemic functional grammar, Matthiessen
(1999) discusses translation equivalence in the environments of
translation, and identifies the environments relevant to translation
in different dimensions of contextualization. He says “the wider
the context, the more information is available to guide the
translation” and “the wider the environment, the more congruent
languages are likely to be; the narrower the environment, the
more incongruent languages are likely to be” (ibid.: 27). From
his perspective, equivalence is a matter of degree rather than
that of dichotomy, and so is the difference between free and
literal translation.
The concept of equivalence has been one of the key words
in translation studies. In earlier work on translation equivalence,
Catford (1965: 20) defines translation as “the replacement of
textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual
material in another language (TL)”. He distinguishes textual
equivalence from formal correspondence. The former is “any TL
text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion
to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text” and
the latter is “any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of
structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible,
the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category
occupies in the SL” (ibid.: 27).
Wilss (1982a: 134) states that “the concept of TE (translation

equivalence) has been an essential issue not only in translation
theory over the last 2000 years, but also in modern translation
studies” and that “there is hardly any other concept in
translation theory which has produced as many contradictory
statements and has set off as many attempts at an adequate,
comprehensive definition as the concept of TE between SLT
(source language text) and TLT (target language text)”. In his
definition, “translation is a transfer process which aims at the
transformation of a written SL text into an optimally equivalent

TL text, and which requires the syntactic, the semantic and the
pragmatic understanding and analytical processing of the SL
text” (1982b: 3). I think his phrase ‘optimally equivalent’ is
reasonably appropriate, but in my view the problem is that he
fails to present what makes the optimality.
The concept of equivalence has been discussed in various
dichotomous ways such as ‘formal vs. dynamic equivalence’
(Nida), ‘semantic vs. communicative translation’ (Newmark),
‘semantic vs. functional equivalence’ (Bell), and so on. According
to Nida and Taber (1969: 12), “translating consists in reproducing
in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the
source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly
in terms of style”. The ‘closest natural equivalent’ is explained
by Nida (1964: 166) as follows:
1. Equivalent, which points toward the source language message

2. Natural, which points toward the receptor language
3. Closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis
of the highest degree of approximation.
Nida cites his examples from Bible translation, where the

phrase ‘Lamb of God’ would be rendered into ‘Seal of God’
for the Eskimos because the lamb doesn’t symbolize innocence
in their culture. In this case, a literal translation (formal
equivalence) doesn’t mean anything in a different culture, so
the dynamic equivalence is necessary.
Newmark (1981: 38) states that “opinion swung between
literal and free, faithful and beautiful, exact and natural
translation, depending on whether the bias was to be in favour
of the author or the reader, the source or the target language of
the text.” He categorizes translation by a degree of depending
on SL emphasis or TL emphasis as follows (1988: 45):
1- SL emphasis TL emphasis
2 - Word-for-word translation Adaptation

3 - Literal translation free translation
4 - Faithful translation Idiomatic translation
5 - Semantic translation Communicative translation
Newmark says “communicative translation attempts to

produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that
obtained on the readers of the original” and that “semantic
translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and
syntactic structure of the second language allow, the exact
contextual meaning of the original” (1981: 39).
According to Bell, “the translator has the option of focusing
on finding formal equivalents which preserve the context-free
semantic sense of the text at the expense of its context-sensitive
communicative value, or finding functional equivalents which
preserve the context-sensitive communicative value of the text
at the expense of its context-free semantic sense” (1991: 7).
A side from the dichotomy of equivalence, Baker (1992)
discusses various equivalence problems and their possible
solutions at word, above word, grammatical, textual, and
pragmatic levels. She takes a bottom-up approach for pedagogical
reasons. Baker proceeds with her equivalence discussion from
word to further upward levels. She claims “translators must not
underestimate the cumulative effect of thematic choices on the
way we interpret text” (ibid. 129).
2.8.1. Thematic equivalence
In the systemic functional model of the lexicogrammar,
language has three metafunctions - ideational, interpersonal
and textual. These three are simultaneous strands of meaning,
but “while translation should give equal weight to all three
metafunctional contributions, there has been a strong tendency
to give more weight to the ideational metafunction” (Matthiessen
1999: 47). It is unfortunate that the traditional translation studies
have paid little attention to the textual equivalence.

The thematic analysis with functional grammar helps
translators become aware of how the text guides readers as it
unfolds. Halliday uses a clause as a unit for analysis and textually
divides it into two parts; Theme and Rheme. He defines the
Theme as “the point of departure of the message” and the Rheme
as “the remainder of the message”, so “as a message structure, a
clause consists of a Theme accompanied by a Rheme” (1994: 37).
Baker clearly points out two functions of the Theme (1992: 121).
1. It acts as a point of orientation by connecting back to
previous stretches of discourse and thereby maintaining a
coherent point of view.
2. It acts as a point of departure by connecting forward and
contributing to the development of later stretches.
Baker’s discussion focus of the Theme-Rheme distinction
related to translation is text-based rather than the structure of
individual clauses. She explains that methods of organization and
development in different types of text are reflected in the overall
choice of Themes. Having noted the significance of the thematic
progression, we must still first shed light on individual clauses
for the purpose of investigating how the Theme is realized in
the ST and the TT.
Figure 2.1 Dynamic Equivalence (Nida & Taber 1969: 23)

Figure 2.2. Dynamic Interactive Equivalence
2.9. Translation Equivalence and the Reader’s Response

For translation, the distinction from other literary
communication is that any translation seeks a kind of
correspondence with its source text. The goals of the task are then
largely dependent on what should be preserved in the process
of transmission. The suggested ones have been the linguistic
properties, meaning, author’s intention, function, purpose,
reader’s response, and so forth of the original text.
In this study, researchers have been assuming that the
reader’s response is the best answer embracing the perspectives
of recent developments in the study of translation in a wide
communicative and cognitive frame of reference. With respect
to the assessment of translation quality, however, some problems
have been raised so far. Those are, first, postulating the reader’s
reaction without specific measurements and, second, dethroning
the author and the ST from the status of crucial criteria for the
assessment.
Indeed, from the review of literary criticism in analogy with
the study of translation, one implication for translation quality
assessment was that approaches focusing on a single element
of discourse as a discrete entity are basically inadequate: they

fail to account for the effect of the text on its readers as a result
of dynamic interactions between the reader’s multifarious
knowledge and the discoursal elements as one organic body.
In general, the idea is that any translation should aim to
achieve equivalence to the ST in terms of the reader’s reaction
to the text, because of interaction between the reader’s schematic
knowledge and the textual realization. The criteria of translation
quality are then how to construct the closest sets of dynamic
interactions among schemata in the TT reader’s mind via the
textual form.
2.10. A Framework for a Cognitive Approach to Translation
If we accept modern schema theory in general and especially
Cook’s (1994) theory of schema deviation as a plausible
explanation of discourse processing, then the reader’s schemata
are understood to contain knowledge of textual structure and
language, as well as the knowledge of the world. Interplay
between the textual form and the reader’s schemata create links
among schemata, so that the text is identified as a cohesive unity
unless it is worked out as mad or fantastic. In the light of this
mechanism, any elements or functions characterizing a discourse
should not be treated as discrete entities, but rather as organic
parts of the discourse, since all the aspects are integrated and
establish one ‘discourse hood’ in the reader’s mind.
2.10.1 Goals of Translation Revisited
As noticed earlier, in modern literary criticism, the readership

has been claimed to be the key notion with which the nature of
literary text is identified and characterized. Despite the objection
that a reader-based theory inevitably leads to relativism, Fish
([1976] 1988: 235-40) argues that totally subjective responses
are impossible since they cannot exist in isolation from sets of
norms, systems of thought which are inter-subjective. Thus, he
claims that the subject-object dichotomy breaks down as there
are no pure subjects and no pure objects. The object, including

the literary text, is always a construct by the subject, or more
exactly, by a group of subjects or what Fish calls an ‘interpretive
community’. To take a closer look at this readership community,
regardless of the degree of sharedness in the knowledge and
interpreting strategy, it is the reader who interacts with the textual
form and produces a certain response to the reading.
In this respect, for translation, what is meant to be transmitted
into the TT would be not merely the stylistic features, content,
function, or even meaning. In spite of some marked functions
or elements of texts depending on text types, a text cannot be
divided into such discrete components, so that one of them is
set apart from the organic body of the ST text to be preserved
into the TT.
Functionalism in translation, however, insists that some
subordinate elements or functions of the ST may or should be
changed in order to preserve the main ones into the TT:
By focusing on (high-ranking) text-types, Reid introduces

(lower-ranking) variables into translation. Whereas in traditional
contrastive studies words and phrases are defined as translation
units, for Reid the preservation of text types becomes the aim
of translation. Consequently, lower-ranking parts of a text may,
indeed, must be ‘changed’ if this is the only way to preserve the
text type. (Hönig 1998: 8)
It is difficult then to avoid the criticism that functionalist
approaches are another case which treats the text as a combination
of various discrete entities and the function/purpose of the text
as one of them.
Instead, an all-around description of goals of translation
will be the preservation or reconstruction of the ST reader’s
response through the TT. Opposed to the trend of componential
analysis of discourse studies rooted on the traditional semiotic
communication model, a cognitive approach tends to synthesize
all the aspects and elements of the discourse in terms of the

reader’s knowledge and inference strategy. The text would be
taken not to have an objective structure but rather a structure
to be completed by the reader. As Iser (1971) claims, all texts
create ‘gaps’ or ‘blanks’ which the reader must use his or her
imagination to fill. It is in this interaction between text and reader
that an aesthetic response is created. The following argument
of Iser (1971) is worth noting as a theoretical basis of my own
view of the goals of translation:
If the texts exactly possessed only the meaning brought to

light by interpretation, then there would remain very little else
for the reader. He could only accept or reject it, take it or leave
it. The fundamental question is, however, what exactly does
take place between text and reader. ...it must be pointed out
that a text can only come to life when it is read, and if it is to be
examined, it must therefore be studied through the eyes of the
reader. (Iser 1971: 226-27)
In principle, representation of a concrete meaning or truth

via textual realization is impossible. Though the degree would
depend on the kind of texts, texts are ‘forced to rely on the
individual reader for the realization of a possible meaning or
truth’ (Iser 1971: 230). The meaning is conditioned by the text
itself, but only in a form that allows the reader himself to bring
it out.
Taking this in connection with translation, the reader’s

response may well be the most relevant criterion for representing
the identity and the characteristic of the text to be preserved into
a second language as well. Thus, the TT would be compared to
the ST in terms of the reader’s response, and with this orientation
the TT readership would be expected to perceive the intended
message via the text and even to experience the similar cognition
change throughout the reading process as the original readership
work out the ST.

2.10.2 A Model of Reader-Response Theoretic Translation
Equivalence
We need a model of translation equivalence based on the
notion of reader’s response in literary communication in general
and specifically in translation. Nida and Taber (1969) introduced
a reader-response based approach to translation equivalence
under the name of dynamic equivalence:
Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of
the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor
language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the
receptors in the source language. This response can never be
identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different,
but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or
the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose. (Nida
& Taber 1969: 24)
Significantly, their notion of audience response lies in an
understanding of the ‘correctness’ of the message:
Correctness must be determined by the extent to which the

average reader for which a translation is intended will be likely
to understand it correctly. (Nida & Taber 1969: 12)
In other words, the measure of the correctness of the

message in TT form is not in the form itself, but in how the target
readership responded to the translated text. They present their
notion of reader’s response by a diagram (Figure 2.1).
The first message M1 was designed by the (S), Nida &Taber,
not for the bilingual person, but for the monolingual R1. The
translator, who is both receptor and source (the R next to the
S), first receives M1 as if he were an R1, and then produces in
a totally different historical-cultural context a new message
M2, which he hopes will be understood by the final receptor,
R2. It is the original receptor’s comprehension, R1, which is to
be compared with that of R2 by scholarly judge (the bottom R

next to the S). Moreover, it is the comprehension of M2 by R2,
which must ultimately serve as the criterion of correctness and
adequacy of M2 (Nida & Taber 1969: 22-23).
In spite of a reasonable orientation which focuses on the
crucial aspect of reader-dependency in translation, critics
raise questions about the underlying premises of this position.
According to Gutt (1991: 68), two basic objects of the approach
are that: 1) a translation must convey to the receptor language
audience the meaning or message of the original; and 2) it must
do so in a way that is faithful, i.e. equivalent to the dynamics of
the original. In other words, what the approach suggests is that
a translation should convey to the receptor language audience
a literal interpretation of the original or something closely
resembling it.
There are many indirect communication situations where

not all the meaning of the text is expressed, such as implicit
information, so that the audience fails to use the contextual
assumptions intended by the communicator. The audience
perhaps uses others instead, and these may give rise to a wide
range of misinterpretations: ambiguities can be resolved the
wrong way, metaphorical expressions can be taken literally,
implicatures can be missed and so forth (Gutt 1991: 66-79).
Gutt (1991) argues that there is a certain amount of

ambivalence to handling these problems in the dynamic
equivalence approach. For the comprehension of the ‘message’
defined in dynamic equivalence as ‘the total meaning or content
of a discourse, the concepts and feelings which the author intends
the reader to understand and perceive’ (Nida & Taber 1969: 205),
it is necessary for the translator to seek to overcome obstacles to
comprehension arising from the different background knowledge
between the old and the new audience.
Despite the quite clear demand that the target audience

should be somehow supplied with the missing contextual

assumptions, maybe by spelling out the implications, basically
their linguistic premise does not allow this. It is that a faithful
translation should also be a linguistic one:
Linguistic translation: a translation in which only information
which is linguistically implicit in the original is made explicit
and in which all changes of form follow the rules of back
translation and transformation and of componential analysis;
opposed to cultural translation. Only a linguistic translation can
be considered faithful. (Nida & Taber 1969: 205)
Contextual assumptions and implications are not a matter

of linguistics but of inferences that have to do with people’s
beliefs. Consequently, their explication is not warranted under
linguistic translation. As such, it is still rooted in the traditional
semiotic communication model, and to reconcile the goal of
dynamic equivalence with that of linguistic translation is very
difficult. With significant differences in cognitive environment,
it is almost impossible to achieve a high degree of equivalence
of response under the limitations of linguistic translation.
From the research, for example, consider the relationships

between Ho and the surrounding people in Text One. Given that
to understand such relations, especially between Ho and the
Chungju woman, is one of the main themes of the story, from
only information given in the original text and its linguistic
translation into the TT the target English audiences are hardly
aware of the possible interaction and the sequential relationship
between the tavern woman and her customers because of their
lack of the cultural background that the original readers have.
In other words, their background knowledge evoked by the
linguistically transferred story is quite different from that for
the original audience.
Comparing this to the previously mentioned notion of

‘indeterminacy’ (Iser 1971) of texts, which requires the reader’s
participation to fill the gap between the text structure and the

realization of the meaning, there are a number of limitations in
dynamic equivalence approach. First, this approach presupposes
meaning or message as concrete, based on linguistic codes.
According to reader-response theories, however, the meaning
is not fixed in the text, so the reader’s participation is required
to realize the meaning of the text. The gap to be filled consists
of the assumptions, not coded in the text, which the writer and
the reader share.
Secondly, therefore, dynamic equivalence refers to the
‘dynamics of original’ in acquiring this meaning in substantially
the same manner. Again, if the meaning or message is understood
as interpreted from linguistic codes, the dynamics are nothing
but interpretation. From the translator’s point of view, then, the
only way to promote the degree of equivalent response is to
make explanatory additions for the implied meaning or figurative
sense of the original. This approach is not concerned about the
interaction of the reader’s knowledge with the textual realization.
Thirdly, concerning the reader’s response, this approach does

not take account of the reader’s text processing effort. Without
considering the intra-personal differences of the reader, this
approach tends to regard a reader’s response to text as if it were
unchanging. To take the view of meaning as a construction, the
reader’s response through the interactions between the reader
and the text will be ever changing, since the reader’s cognitive
environment changes through the text processing.
Indeed, a more comprehensive model of translation
equivalence designed to account for the nature of reader-
dependency of text requires a fundamentally different premise
from that of any literary communication. An alternative model
of communication is, in Sperber and Wilson’s (1986) terms,
an ‘inferential model’ in which communication is achieved by
producing and interpreting evidence rather than by encoding and
decoding of a message.

With that, we need a more detailed version of text processing
mechanism from the audience’s viewpoint to work out how the
interaction between the reader’s knowledge and the text occurs
so that a reader can infer a certain message. According to schema
theory and the research conducted in this study, a given text
triggers different types and levels of schemata in the reader’s
mind. The content and kinds of schemata activated from the
same passage may differ depending on the reader’s experience
of language and culture. The reader’s response as a result of
reading is the product of interaction between the text and the
reader’s own schemata.
Now, given that we are comparing a TT to its ST to evaluate
the degree of equivalence, if our measurement is the reader’s
response, surely the text itself is not a self-sufficient criterion.
Rather, the translation will be assessed according to whether
it functions appropriately to get the intended response as the
ST did with the original readers. Once a certain meaning or
message is produced through the interaction of the ST and the
original reader’s schemata, a high degree of equivalent meaning
or message reproduction is expected from the interaction of the
TT and its readers. Thus, for the target readers to realise the
intention of the text producer, the text should be able to provide
textual guidelines for each stage of interaction in text processing.
The different shapes represent differences in language
and the reader’s schemata. As pointed out by reader-response
criticism, the text structures have gaps marked by incomplete
squares or circles. Thus the reader’s schemata fill the gap by
the interaction with the textual form. Since the TT reader’s
schemata are substantially different from the ST reader’s, a
formal translation TT1 which is concerned with only formal
equivalence may result fairly different response TR1 from the
ST reader’s response SR. In contrast, a cognitive translation TT2
which takes the TT reader’s schemata into account will produce
a highly similar response TR2 by providing communicative cues
marked by extra dots for the interactional text processing.

2.11. Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality
The comparison of texts in different languages inevitably
involves a theory of equivalence. Equivalence can be said to be
the central issue in translation although its definition, relevance,
and applicability within the field of translation theory have
caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the
concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this field in
the past fifty years. Whenever there is deficiency, terminology
may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan translations,
neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions
The aim of this section is to review the theory of equivalence
as interpreted by some of the most innovative theorists in
this field-Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber,
Catford, House, and finally Baker. These theorists have studied
equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different
approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for further study
on this topic. Their theories will be analyzed in chronological
order so that it will be easier to follow the evolution of this
concept. These theories can be substantially divided into three
main groups. In the first, there are those translation scholars who
are in favour of a linguistic approach to translation and who
seem to forget that translation in itself is not merely a matter of
linguistics. In fact, when a message is transferred from the SL
to TL, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures
at the same time. This particular aspect seems to have been
taken into consideration by the second group of theorists who
regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer of
the message from the SC to the TC and a pragmatic/semantic
or functionally oriented approach to translation. Finally, there
are other translation scholars who seem to stand in the middle,
such as Baker for instance, who claims that equivalence is used
‘for the sake of convenience, because most translators are used
to it rather than because it has any theoretical status’ (quoted in
Kenny, 1998:77).

2.12. Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence
in translation
Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation
as a procedure which ‘replicates the same situation as in the
original, whilst using completely different wording’ (ibid.:
342). They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during
the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of
the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is
therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with
proverbs, idioms, cliches, nominal or adjectival phrases and the
onomatopoeia of animal sounds.
With regard to equivalent expressions between language

pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long
as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as ‘full equivalents’
(ibid.:255). However, later they note that glossaries and
collections of idiomatic expressions ‘can never be exhaustive’
(ibid.: 256). They conclude by saying that ‘the need for creating
equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation
of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution’ (ibid.:
255). Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an
expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it
is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation.
They provide a number of examples to prove their theory, and
the following expression appears in their list: Take one is a fixed
expression which would have as an equivalent French translation
Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a notice
next to a basket of free samples in a large store, the translator
would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation
and use the expression Echantillon gratuit (ibid.:256).
2.12.1. Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference
Roman Jakobson’s study of equivalence gave new impetus
to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the
notion of ‘equivalence in difference’. Based on his semiotic

approach to language and his aphorism ‘there is no signatum
without signum’ (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of
translation:
 Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or
paraphrase)
 Interlingual (between two languages)

 Intersemiotic (between sign systems)
Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation,
the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST
message across. This means that in interlingual translations
there is no full equivalence between code units. According to
his theory, ‘translation involves two equivalent messages in
two different codes’ (ibid.:233). Jakobson goes on to say that
from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from
one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean
that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the
translator may face the problem of not finding a translation
equivalent. He acknowledges that ‘whenever there is deficiency,
terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or
loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally,
by circumlocutions’ (ibid.:234). Jakobson provides a number
of examples by comparing English and Russian languages
structures and explains that in such cases where there is no literal
equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the
translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT.
There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and
Darbelnet’s theory of translation procedures and Jakobson’s
theory of translation. Both theories stress the fact that, whenever
a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a
translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such
as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories
recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that
a translation can never be impossible since there are several

methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator
as the person who decides how to carry out the translation is
emphasized in both theories. Vinay and Darbelnet as well as
Jakobson conceive the translation task as something which can
always be carried out from one language to another, regardless
of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT.
It can be concluded that Jakobson’s theory is essentially
based on his semiotic approach to translation according to which
the translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he
has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.
2.12.2 Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic
equivalence
Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence,

namely formal equivalence, which in the second edition by Nida
and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal correspondence, and
dynamic equivalence.
Formal correspondence ‘focuses attention on the message
itself, in both form and content’, unlike dynamic equivalence
which is based upon ‘the principle of equivalent effect’
(1964:159). In the second edition (1982) or their work, the
two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each
type of equivalence. Formal correspondence consists of a TL
item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or
phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always
formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore
suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever
possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than
dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at
times have serious implications in the TT since the translation
will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett,
1997). Nida and Taber themselves assert that ‘Typically, formal
correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns
of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as

to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard’
(ibid.:201).
Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle
according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning
of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger
the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did
upon the ST audience. They argue that ‘Frequently, the form of
the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the
rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual
consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor
language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful’
(Nida and Taber, 1982:200).
One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of
dynamic equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure.
This is perfectly understandable if we take into account the
context of the situation in which Nida was dealing with the
translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the
Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text
in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers
it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber’s edition is it clearly
stated that ‘dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than
mere correct communication of information’ (ibid:25).
Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is

much more interested in the message of the text or, in other
words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to make sure
that this message remains clear in the target text.
2.12.3. Catford and the introduction of translation shifts
Catford’s approach to translation equivalence clearly differs
from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a
more linguistic-based approach to translation and this approach
is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His main
contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of
the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed

very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria:
 The extent of translation (full translation vs partial
translation);
 The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence

is established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation);
 The levels of language involved in translation (total
translation vs. restricted translation).
We will refer only to the second type of translation, since
this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we
will then move on to analyze the notion of translation shifts,
as elaborated by Catford, which are based on the distinction
between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. In
rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for each
word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In unbounded
translation equivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we
may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other
levels. Catford finds five of these ranks or levels in both English
and French, while in the Caucasian language Kabardian there
are apparently only four.
Thus, a formal correspondence could be said to exist

between English and French if relations between ranks have
approximately the same configuration in both languages, as
Catford claims they do.
One of the problems with formal correspondence is that,
despite being a useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, it
seems that it is not really relevant in terms of assessing translation
equivalence between ST and TT. For this reason we now turn
to Catford’s other dimension of correspondence, namely textual
equivalence which occurs when any TL text or portion of text is
‘observed on a particular occasion ... to be the equivalent of a
given SL text or portion of text’ (ibid.:27). He implements this
by a process of commutation, whereby ‘a competent bilingual

informant or translator’ is consulted on the translation of various
sentences whose ST items are changed in order to observe ‘what
changes if any occur in the TL text as a consequence’ (ibid.:28).
As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines
them as ‘departures from formal correspondence in the process
of going from the SL to the TL’ (ibid.:73). Catford argues that
there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts,
where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a
TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis), and category shifts
which are divided into four types:
Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change
between the structure of the ST and that of the TT;
 Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item

which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may
be translated with a noun;
 Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
 Intra-system shifts, which occur when ‘SL and TL

possess systems which approximately correspond formally as
to their constitution, but when translation involves selection
of a non-corresponding term in the TL system’ (ibid.:80). For
instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.
Catford was very much criticized for his linguistic theory

of translation. One of the most scathing criticisms came from
Snell-Hornby (1988), who argued that Catford’s definition
of textual equivalence is ‘circular’, his theory’s reliance on
bilingual informants ‘hopelessly inadequate’, and his example
sentences ‘isolated and even absurdly simplistic’ (ibid.:19-
20). She considers the concept of equivalence in translation
as being an illusion. She asserts that the translation process
cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by
Catford for instance, since there are also other factors, such as
textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should be taken

into consideration when translating. In other words, she does
not believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables
people to carry out a translation, since translating involves
different cultures and different situations at the same time and
they do not always match from one language to another.
2.12.4. House and the elaboration of overt and covert
translation
House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic
equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match one another
in function. House suggests that it is possible to characterize the
function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of
the ST.* In fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself
is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly
identified and taken into account by the translator. After the ST
analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the
ST and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then
they are not functionally equivalent, and the translation is not
of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that ‘a translation
text should not only match its source text in function, but
employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve
that function’ (ibid.:49).
Central to House’s discussion is the concept of overt and

covert translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is
not directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to
attempt to recreate a ‘second original’ since an overt translation
‘must overtly be a translation’ (ibid.:189). By covert translation,
on the other hand, is meant the production of a text which is
functionally equivalent to the ST. House also argues that in this
type of translation the ST ‘is not specifically addressed to a TC
audience’ (ibid.:194).
House (ibid.:203) sets out the types of ST that would

probably yield translations of the two categories. An academic
article, for instance, is unlikely to exhibit any features specific

to the SC; the article has the same argumentative or expository
force that it would if it had originated in the TL, and the fact that
it is a translation at all need not be made known to the readers.
A political speech in the SC, on the other hand, is addressed to
a particular cultural or national group which the speaker sets
out to move to action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT
merely informs outsiders what the speaker is saying to his or
her constituency. It is clear that in this latter case, which is an
instance of overt translation, functional equivalence cannot be
maintained, and it is therefore intended that the ST and the TT
function differently.
House’s theory of equivalence in translation seems to be
much more flexible than Catford’s. In fact, she gives authentic
examples, uses complete texts and, more importantly, she relates
linguistic features to the context of both source and target text.
2.12.5. Baker’s approach to translation equivalence
New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of

equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and
several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of
recent works in this field. An extremely interesting discussion
of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who
seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the
concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion
of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation
process, including all different aspects of translation and hence
putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach.
She distinguishes between:
 Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word
level, when translating from one language into another.
Baker acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach to
translation, equivalence at word level is the first element to
be taken into consideration by the translator. In fact, when
the translator starts analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words

as single units in order to find a direct ‘equivalent’ term in
the TL. Baker gives a definition of the term word since it
should be remembered that a single word can sometimes be
assigned different meanings in different languages and might
be regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme. This
means that the translator should pay attention to a number
of factors when considering a single word, such as number,
gender and tense (ibid.:11-12).
 Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity
of grammatical categories across languages. She notes
that grammatical rules may vary across languages and
this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct
correspondence in the TL. In fact, she claims that different
grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause
remarkable changes in the way the information or message
is carried across. These changes may induce the translator
either to add or to omit information in the TT because of
the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL itself.
Amongst these grammatical devices which might cause
problems in translation Baker focuses on number, tense and
aspects, voice, person and gender.
 Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence
between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and
cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation
since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension
and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or
her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the
TC audience in a specific context. It is up to the translator to
decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well
as the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be
guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the
purpose of the translation and the text type.
 Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures
and strategies of avoidance during the translation process.

Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is
implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied
meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across.
The role of the translator is to recreate the author’s intention
in another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader
to understand it clearly.
2.13. Translation and Meaning
Since translation is, above all, an activity that aims at
conveying meaning or meanings of a given-linguistic discourse
from one language to another, rather than the words or
grammatical structures of the original, we should look briefly
at the most significant and recent developments in the field of
study of “meaning”, or semantics. Our interest here lies in the
shift of emphasis from referential or dictionary meaning to
contextual and pragmatic meaning. Such a shift represents a
significant development, particularly relevant to translation,
and to communicative register-based approach to translation.
The meaning of a given word or set of words is best
understood as the contribution that word or phrase can make
to the meaning or function of the whole sentence or linguistic
utterance where that word or phrase occurs. The meaning of a
given word is governed not only by the external object or idea
that particular word is supposed to refer to, but also by the use of
that particular word or phrase in a particular way, in a particular
context, and to a particular effect.
The first type of meaning, i.e., the meaning of reference,
is often referred to as the “referential” meaning, the “lexical”
meaning, the “conceptual” meaning, or the “denotative”
meaning. It is also sometimes referred to as the “signification”
of a lexical item.
There is a distinction between conceptual meaning, on the
one hand, and connotative, stylistic, affective, reflected, and
collective types of meaning on the other hand. Thus, we classify

the last five types of meaning under one general category of
associated meaning. There is a clear distinction between the
logical meaning or the lexical reference of a particular word,
and between the types of associated meaning. Such a distinction
in the field of semantics between the lexical and the associated
may remind us of the distinction between the semantic and the
communicative approach as far as the literature on translation is
concerned. The reason why there is a distinction, however, is that
the conceptual meaning of a word is the type of meaning which
could be mainly deduced in isolation from any other linguistic or
even non-linguistic context, whereas the other types of meaning,
whether associative or theoretical, are broadly speaking to be
derived from the context of the utterance. Hence, this is relevant
to translation and translation theories. It is usually easier to find
the conceptual or the logical meaning of a given word, but that
type of meaning is not always telling in the case of translation.
However, it is often difficult to obtain even the lexical equivalent
of a given item in translation, when the translation is taking
place across two different languages that do not have a culture
in common, such as translation from Arabic into English and
vice versa. Yet, we should not indulge in a tedious and rather
worthless search for the lexical equivalent, since, even if such
lexical items are easy to come by, they might not be helpful in
translation.
2.13.1. Distinction between the referential or lexical meaning

of a word and the meaning it acquires or radiates in a given
context
There is a difference between the referential meaning of
a word and the contextual meaning of the same word. Let us
consider, for example, three lexical items which have the same
physical reference in the world of non-linguistic reality, but are
not simply used alternatively in free variation on each other.
The words ‘father’, ‘daddy’ and ‘pop’ refer to the same physical
object, i.e. the male parent. Yet other factors contribute to the
choice of one rather than the other two in different situations.

These factors may vary in accordance with the personality of the
speaker or addressor, the presence or absence of the male parent
in question, the feelings the addressor has towards his father as
well as the degree of formality or informality between the two.
In the case of translation, it is almost needless to point out the
significance of such factors.
The same difference is recognized between referential
and contextual types of meaning of lexical items, by the use
of a different set of labels. Distinction is made between the
signification of a given lexical item and its value or meaning
when used in a particular context. In translation, consequently,
the translator ought to translate the communicative function of
the source language text, rather than its signification. A translator
must, therefore, look for a target-language utterance that has
an equivalent communicative function, regardless of its formal
resemblance to original utterance as far as the formal structure
is concerned. In other words, translation should operate or take
place on the level of language use, more than usage. It has to
be carried out in the way the given linguistic system is used for
actual communication purposes, not on the level of the referential
meaning or the formal sentence structure. Conveying textual
effect of the original is the final objective to which a translator
aspires, “A text is a whole entity, to be translated as a whole”..
2.14. Errors Analysis
In this section, the researchers are going to discuss the

significance of evaluating Error Analysis (EA) studies in 1970s
and early 1980s and set the proper perspective toward the use
of learner corpora in analyzing learner language errors in order
to better understand the process and sequence of acquisition of
English as a second/foreign language.
Before 1960s, when the behaviouristic viewpoint of

language learning was prevailing, learner errors were considered
something undesirable and to be avoided. It is because in

behaviourists’ perspectives, people learn by responding to
external stimuli and receiving proper reinforcement. A proper
habit is being formed by reinforcement, hence learning takes
place. Therefore, errors were considered to be a wrong response
to the stimulus, which should be corrected immediately after
they were made. Unless corrected properly, the error became a
habit and a wrong behavioral pattern would stick in your mind.
This viewpoint of learning influenced greatly the classroom
language, where teachers concentrated on the mimicry and
memorization of target forms and tried to instill the correct
patterns of the form into learners’ mind. If learners made any
mistake while repeating words, phrases or sentences, the teacher
corrected their mistakes immediately. Errors were regarded as
something you should avoid and making an error was considered
to be fatal to proper language learning processes.
This belief of learning was eventually discarded by the well-
known radically different perspective proposed by N. Chomsky
(1957). He wrote in his paper against B.F. Skinner, that human
learning, especially language acquisition, cannot be explained
by simply starting off with a “tabula rasa” state of mind. He
claimed that human beings must have a certain kind of innate
capacity which can guide you through a vast number of sentence
generation possibilities and have a child acquire a grammar of
that language until the age of five or six with almost no exception.
He called this capacity “Universal Grammar” and claimed that
it is this very human faculty that linguistics aims to pursue.
This swing-back of pendulum toward a rationalistic view of
language ability leads many language teachers to discredit the
behaviouristic language learning style and emphasize cognitive-
code learning approach. Hence, learners were encouraged to
work on more conscious grammar exercises based on certain
rules and deductive learning began to be focused again. This
application of new linguistic insights, however, did not bear
much fruit since Chomsky himself commented that a linguistic

theory of the kind he pursued had little to offer for actual
language learning or teaching (Chomksy 1966) .
In the school of applied linguistics, however, this shift
towards the innate human capacity raised a growing interest in
the learner’s powers of hypothesis formation as he moves towards
the bilingual competence sufficient for his communicative needs.
One major result of this shift of attention was an increasing
concern in the monitoring and analysis of learner language.
The concepts of ‘interlanguage’ and ‘approximative system’
presented challenging areas of descriptive enquiry.
In 1970s and early 80s, a large number of papers on error
analysis were published throughout the world. However, it lost
its attention and enthusiasm gradually as more and more criticism
was made against the approach and method of error analysis. As
the present writer makes an attempt to analyze learner language
on translation, it is essential to review the previous work of error
analysis and identify what it aimed to achieve and how.
2.14.1. Error Analysis (EA): its roots and development
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) claims that the study
of SLA can be said to have passed through a series of phases
defined by the modes of inquiry researchers have utilized in their
work: contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance analysis
and discourse analysis (p.81). As we look into the roots and
development of error analysis, let us first overview contrastive
analysis so as to gain better insight into how error analysis
became more popular among SLA researchers.
2.14.2. Contrastive Analysis
Before the SLA field as we know it today was established,
from the 1940s to the 1960s, contrastive analyses were conducted,
in which two languages were systematically compared.
Researchers at that time were motivated by the prospect of
being able to identify points of similarity and difference between

native languages (NLs) and target languages (TLs). There was a
strong belief that a more effective pedagogy would result when
these were taken into consideration. Charles Fries, one of the
leading applied linguists of the day, said: “The most efficient
materials are those that are based upon a scientific description
of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel
description of the native language of the learner.”(Fries 1945: 9)
Robert Lado, Fries’ colleague at the University of Michigan,
also expressed the importance of contrastive analysis in language
teaching material design:
Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings
and the distribution of forms and meanings of their
native language and culture to the foreign language and
culture - both productively when attempting to speak
the language and to act in the culture and receptively
when attempting to grasp and understand the language
and the culture as practised by natives. (Lado 1957, in
Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991:52-53)
This claim is still quite appealing to anyone who has

attempted to learn or teach a foreign language. We encounter so
many examples of the interfering effects of our NLs.
Lado went on to say a more controversial position, however,
when he claimed that “those elements that are similar to his
native language will be simple for him, and those elements that
are different will be difficult” (Lado 1957:2). This conviction that
linguistic differences could be used to predict learning difficulty
produced the notion of the contrastive analysis hypothesis
(CAH): “Where two languages were similar, positive transfer
would occur; where they were different, negative transfer, or
interference, would result.” (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991: 53)
It was S.P. Corder who first advocated in ELT/applied
linguistics community the importance of errors in language
learning process. In Corder (1967), he mentions the paradigm

shift in linguistics from a behaviouristic view of language to a
more rationalistic view and claims that in language teaching one
noticeable effect is to shift the emphasis away from teaching
towards a study of learning. He emphasizes great potential for
applying new hypotheses about how languages are learned in
L1 to the learning of a second language. He says “Within this
context the study of errors takes on a new importance and will
I believe contribute to a verification or rejection of the new
hypothesis.” (in Richards 1974:.21)
Corder goes on to say that in L1 acquisition we interpret
child’s ‘incorrect’ utterances as being evidence that he is in the
process of acquiring language and that for those who attempt
to describe his knowledge of the language at any point in its
development, it is the ‘errors’ which provide the important
evidence.(ibid.: 23) In second language acquisition, Corder
proposed as a working hypothesis that some of the strategies
adopted by the learner of a second language are substantially
the same as those by which a first language is acquired. (It
does not mean, however, the course or sequence of learning is
the same in L1 and L2.) By classifying the errors that learners
made, researchers could learn a great deal about the SLA process
by inferring the strategies that second language learners were
adopting. It is in this Corder’s seminal paper that he adds to our
thinking by discussing the function of errors for the learners
themselves. For learners themselves, errors are ‘indispensable,’
since the making of errors can be regarded as a device the learner
uses in order to learn. (Selinker 1992: 150)
Selinker (1992) pointed out the two highly significant
contributions that Corder made: “that the errors of a learner,
whether adult or child, are (a) not random, but are in fact
systematic, and are (b) not ‘negative’ or ‘interfering’ in any
way with learning a TL but are, on the contrary, a necessary
positive factor, indicative of testing hypotheses. (ibid:151) Such
contribution in Corder (1967) began to provide a framework for
the study of adult learner language. Along with the influence of

studies in L1 acquisition and concepts provided by Contrastive
Analysis (especially language transfer) and by the interlanguage
hypothesis (e.g. fossilization, backsliding, language transfer,
communication and learning strategies), this paper provided the
impetus for many SLA empirical studies.
2.15. Mother Tongue Interference
The concern of the following issue is the role of mother

tongue in learning English as a second language,(L2). This issue
addresses the problematic areas for the L2 learners of English.
First, Nasr (1970), stated that Arab students as L2 learners
of English are often caught translating prepositions from Arabic
into English. In addition, Michael and Bernard (1978), also
noted that Arabic language has a wealth of fixed prepositions
and particles with both verbs and adjectives, many of which do
not coincide with their direct English translation. Michael and
Bernard added that there are no phrasal and prepositional verbs
in Arabic language and the whole area is one of great difficulty
for Arab students; speakers of English language.
In the influx of Chomsky’s views of the 60’s has caused
according to Corder (1981:6), “the shift of emphasis from a
preoccupation with teaching to a study of learning where most
of the mentalists’ views were adopted in the explanation of TL
learning.” The learner is seen as building up his competence
towards mastery of the TL. Along the way, he constructs for
himself a grammar and a system of the TL based on the linguistic
data he is exposed to.
This learner’s system has been referred to as ‘transitional
idiosyncratic’ dialect by Corder (1971:151), and ‘approximative
system’ by Nemser (1971:116), however, Selinker’s (1972:214),
term Interlanguage (henceforth IL), has become, the most
popular and has come to characterize a majour approach to L2
research and theory.

As this term suggests, Selinker (1972:214), makes it
explicit that he regards learner’s system as autonomous one
falling between the system of L1&L2 on the grounds that they
show some formal characteristics of both. On the other hand,
McLaughlin (1993:60), states that the IL is thought to be distinct
from both the learner’s MT & the TL. It develops over time as
learners make use of various internal strategies to make sense
of the input and to control their own output.
However, most of linguists who attempt to probe the nature of
IL to understand the nature of the process involved in TL learning
have conceived IL as a (dynamic system), stressing the notion of
progression. Nemser’s (1971:116), term ‘approximative system’
on the other hand indicates that he regards IL, as an evolving
series of stages of approximating to the TL. However, there
should be some over-lapping between the stages of learning, and
manifestation of the system of one stage into the other is usually
apparent in the inconsistency of the learner’s IL.
Nevertheless, there are two types of continuum or a mixture

of them that underlie L2 learning process as stated by Dulay
and Burt (1974:95), and Ellis (1984:208). The first is embodied
by Selinker’s ‘restructuring continuum,’ in which “the learner
gradually replaces features of his MT with features of the target
language.” This stance seems to conform to the behaviorist
view of L2 learning and in turn emphasizes interlingual transfer
process. The second continuum is embodied in findings of recent
studies in learner’s IL which strongly suggest that L2 learning
is a reaction continuum, in which “the learners use the child’s
in L2 acquisition.” It is essential to point out that learner’s IL is
the product of processes rather than one or the other.
In view of the dynamic, changing nature of IL system shown
above, the L2 learner is expected to continue to develop his IL
system along the learning process, elaborating his IL as long as
he has a motive for doing so. Hence, the errors he produces are
indication that his IL; has the status of “transitional competence”

as Corder (1971:151) , labels it. When his IL system reaches
a stage where he finds it difficult to serve his communicative
needs, he is then no longer prepared or motivated to learn any
more to elaborate his IL and approximate it to TL system no
matter how long he remains exposed to authentic data. In this
case learner’s IL represents the (terminal), competence, as James
(1972:6), labels it, and which is similar to Selinker’s (1972:215),
(fossilization), whereby speakers of a particular native language
tend to keep certain linguistic items, rules, subsystems, etc., in
their IL, no matter what the stage of the learner or amount of
explanation and instruction he receives in TL.
Though functionally fossilized utterances do not sound
English, they would not hinder the learner to fulfill his
communicative needs and therefore, he is less likely to
defossilize such utterance at an early level. Nemser (1971:116),
outlines the assumptions underlying the IL approach when he
points that the L2 learner performance is based on his existing
rule system in much the same way as the native speaker bases
his plans on his internalized knowledge of the system.
2.16. Language & Culture
Languages differ in fundamental ways: their phoneme
inventories vary from 11 to 141 (Maddieson 1984), they may
have elaborate or no morphology, may or may not use word order
or constituent structure or case to signify syntactic relations,
may or may not have word roots of fixed grammatical word
class, may make use of quite different semantic parameters, and
so on. There are an estimated 7000 or more distinct languages
in the world, each a cultural tradition of (generally) thousands
of years in the making, and there are at least 20 (how many is
controversial) language families across which relationships
cannot be demonstrated. Each is adapted to a unique cultural and
social environment, with striking differences in usage patterns
(Bauman and Sherzer 1974). This cultural adaptation constitutes
the cultural capital of language, and language differences are

perhaps the most perduring of all aspects of culture. On the
other hand, language is a biological capacity, instantiated in the
anatomy of our vocal tract and the corresponding acuity of our
hearing and in dedicated areas of the brain. In fact, language
provides the best evidence for the thesis of coevolution, whereby
cultural replication and genetic replication became intertwined,
each providing the context for the evolution of the other; also
Durham 1991). Cultural variation also requires that the biological
capacity for language be malleable-- for example, able to learn
and parse speech of quite different sound and structural type --
although this malleability is progressively lost during maturation
of the individual.
2.17 Summary
The aim of the present chapter was to survey the relevant

theoretical background on translation in general in order to gain
some insight of the relationship between translation and foreign
language teaching and learning.
First, a survey of different definitions of translation was

made. The search for a precise and comprehensive definition
of the term “translation” proved to be, somehow, elusive. The
reason (s) being that various components are involved in the
translation process, and also different scholars and theorists
in different times and places consider and think of those
components from different perspective and points of view. But
in spite of the similarities and differences which exist in the
definitions of translation, it is concluded that translation implies
the process of translating a message from one language to
another, taking into account all the dimensions within the SLT
(source language text), linguistic organization, culture, style,
time, intentions, feelings, etc. And reproducing the whole thing
smoothly, naturally and as closely to the original as possible in
the TLT (target language text).

As for the types of translation, it was found that there is a
distinction between different types of translation depending on:
(a) the codes involved in transferring the message (intralingual,
interlingual and intersemiotic), (b) the types of text (technical,
cultural and literary), (c) methods of translation (communicative
and semantic translation) and (d) bilingual competence
(translating and interpreting, word-for-word and free, literary
and technical, professional and pedagogical, and human and
machine).
The learner of a foreign language is entitled to have the
opportunity not only to know about these types of translation but
also to try his hand on them as this can contribute to increasing
his command of the foreign language.
The importance of translation stems from its vital role in
our life in which translation is an essential factor in ensuring an
effective communication. It is also of a great effect in enriching
languages and cultures.
The process of translating involves not only the replacement
of lexical and grammatical items between language, it also
requires the syntactic, semantic, stylistic and text-pragmatic
comprehension, and, in certain cases, deviating and making shifts
from the original in order to achieve “ expressive identity” and
reproduce the closest natural equivalent of the source language.
This process engages the translation in intensive reading, in
going beyond the language in order to understand and interpret
messages and intentions of the original. Consequently, it involves
him/her in developing the skills of writing, reformulating,
because reading/writing are recursive interdependent and
mutually enhancing.
The survey of the issue of translatability and untranslatability
of a text revealed that the potential translation of a text is
contained and guaranteed by the universality of linguistic
conventions shared by languages and by human experiences

of everyday life. In other words, that which can be said in one
language can be said in any other. None the less, untranslatability
between source language and target language exists due to either
the absence of a linguistic element or to cultural differences.
However, a part of the task of the translator is to compensate and
find proper solutions to those particular problems. Differences of
language, circumstances, audients and translators are important
components of translation which could result in different
translation for the same original work.
On the other hand, certain attention is drawn to the concept

of translation equivalence. The discussion showed that this
concept is considered an important one in translation theory and
translation practice. It is believed that looking for an exact and
precise equivalence between two linguistic items is not possible.
It only possible to look for an approximate one or close analogue
of the original.
Distinction between different types of equivalence was

made, textual equivalence and formal correspondence, formal
and dynamic and linguistic, pragmatic, stylistic and textual).
The notion of equivalence effect associated with Nida’s dynamic
equivalence which enjoyed a wide acceptance, seemed to be
facing objection among scholars as it is being applicable to
the formal properties of a text or as being “mentallistic” which
needs further definition. Furthermore, the criteria of evaluating
the use of language in translation are different and much more
complex than those by which we evaluate the use of language
in an original.
The concept of equivalence is apparently left to individual

translators themselves to say whether their translations are
considered equivalent, less equivalent or non- equivalent. While
some scholars seem to stick to certain notion of equivalence as
a yardstick for measuring translation.

Considering the issue of the adequacy of translation theory, it
was found that there is a general feeling among the theorists that
what was achieved in this area yields very little. That is because
translation and language is seen on one hand as an art not as a
science and good translations mostly do not depend on theory for
translators translate by intuition. There is even a doubt whether
translation is a subject for theory construction. On the other
hand, it is believed that the difficulties of constructing a scientific
theory of translation are due to the numerous goals that can be
connected to the translating activity and the technical literature
related to the subject is insufficient. Translation theory, however,
is viewed as being able to provide principles and guidelines to
the translator, which could help him when carrying out his task,
but it cannot make a good translator.
Different attempts have been made to historically
accommodate the trends of translation theory and practice. But
it appears that there was no satisfactory classification as it is
not easy to periodize the theory of translation for different views
and approaches continue to exist for centuries and at different
times (e.g. literal or free translation, faithful or non-faithful
translation).
The evolution in the last two decades, however, has been
the field of Translation Studies which has become a discipline
with very many branches and opened to almost all fields of
knowledge. Translation studies have become a collective
discipline of pure research which covers all kinds of activities
related to translation.
The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most

problematic and controversial areas in the field of translation
theory. The term has caused, and it seems quite probable that
it will continue to cause, heated debates within the field of
translation studies. This term has been analyzed, evaluated and
extensively discussed from different points of view and has
been approached from many different perspectives. The first

discussions of the notion of equivalence in translation initiated
the further elaboration of the term by contemporary theorists.
Even the brief outline of the issue given above indicates its
importance within the framework of the theoretical reflection on
translation. The difficulty in defining equivalence seems to result
in the impossibility of having a universal approach to this notion.
It should be noted that House’s model of situational
dimension is adapted from Crystal and Davy’s model elaborated
in 1969. House gives an extensive explanation of the reasons
which motivated her to change, and sometimes omit, some of
the information given by Crystal and Davy. Further details can
be found in House (1977:38-41), or in D. Crystal and D. Davy,
Investigating English Style (London: Longman, 1969).

Chapter 3
Literature Review
3.1 Introduction
Problematic issues in translation have been widely dealt

with by linguists and theorists of translation alike. Theorists of
translation agree that translation is the rendering the same ideas
from the source language (SL) into the target (TL). They also,
agree that the translator is both a text receiver and a text producer
who should first read and comprehend the source language
text (SLT) then convey it equivalently into the target language
text,(TLT). So, this chapter is expected to cover the problematic
areas and the related literatures.
3.2 Structure of the language
True competence in a language involves much more

than understanding its structure. Knowing how and when to
use informal slang or how to begin and end a conversation
with normal social conventions can be just as important to
communication as word order (syntax), grammatical rules of
sounds (phonology), word forms (morphology), and semantics
(word meaning). In order to communicate orally or in writing,
a person must coordinate all of his/her knowledge of these
systems in a way that fits the social context. Language carries
meaning through a shared understanding of rules regarding
sounds (including pitch, intonation, etc.), word order and word
forms. However, as anyone who has taken a language course
that focused on grammar can tell, an understanding of language

rules does not empower one to carry on a conversation in that
language.
In English, rice is rice, while many Southeast Asian languages
use different words depending on whether it is in the field, cut,
threshed, or prepared to eat. In English we eat breakfast, lunch
or dinner, while in Cambodia, their words literally mean to eat
rice. Other words also reflect daily culture - in English, they can
carry something, while in Cambodia there are at least 15 words
to express the action depending on whether it is on the head,
shoulder, a pole, in the hand, on the hip, etc. (Source: Southeast
Asia Community Resource Center, 1988). In the U.S. there are
many ways they can express the concept of a transportation
vehicle: car, automobile, SUV, compact, full size, convertible,
coupe, van, truck, etc., not to mention the names of specific
makes and models. Teachers need to consider the possibility of
creating an unintended mental image in the minds of students
when using words with shades of meaning that are unfamiliar
to someone from a different culture.
The semantics can be even more complicated for an English
language learner when we consider the many meanings of the
same word. For example, in English they can carry on, carry
out (a plan), carry a disease, carry over, carry (in addition), carry
off, carry our own weight, and get carried away, all different
concepts using the same word. Students need to hear this type of
idiomatic speech within comprehensible contexts, and teachers
need to be prepared to clarify when the context itself has failed
to communicate the meaning.
Becoming literate in any language is a complicated and

multifaceted task. Children who begin formal reading instruction
in kindergarten have already enjoyed thousands of hours
mastering the sounds, syntax, grammatical rules and social
nuances of their language. They have already developed an
expansive oral vocabulary. For an English learner to achieve
parity with native speakers in academic language (CALP)

requires from 4-7 years. A child who begins the process of
becoming literate in a language they know since birth has a
tremendous advantage since most of the skills of reading and
writing are transferable to the second language. Children
who begin reading in a language they do not yet speak learn to
focus on the mechanics of decoding without gathering meaning
from the text. This overemphasis on graphophonic cues (and
under utilizing of syntactic and semantic cues) often results in
comprehension that lags behind native speakers throughout their
years in school.
All children (barring physical or environmental barriers)
learn to speak their first language without any formal instruction.
The same can not be said about reading and writing. Because of
the universality of spoken language, Chomsky (1959) theorized
that language acquisition can only be explained by an inherent
«language acquisition device» (LAD). By first generalizing those
rules they come to understand about grammar and syntax (such
as adding the plural «ed» to every word to make it past tense-»I
telled him a story»), children gradually refine their knowledge
by testing and listening. Parents and others help the child to
acquire language through «caretaker speech», paraphrasing a
child’s statements, expanding on their expressions, ensuring
comprehension through whatever means. Rather than telling a
young child, «Today we are going to learn the present perfect
tense”, we expose them to meaningful language forms in a
natural context.
Current research shows that we learn our second (or third)
language much in the same way as we learned our first. Dulay
and Burt (1974) examined the grammatical errors made by native
Spanish and Chinese speaking children. Their analysis showed
that the types of errors, rather than being due to the influence
of their first language, were mostly the same types of errors
made by young English speakers acquiring their first language.
Contrastive linguistics, comparing structural differences between
the first language and the second, is less likely to predict the

difficulties a child will have with English as a second language
than is a knowledge of how young native speakers «creatively
construct» the rules and structure of English early on.
Krashen draws a distinction between learning and acquiring
a language. Learning focuses on direct and formal teaching
of the grammar and structure of a language in an academic
environment. Acquiring occurs in a natural context, in much
the same way as we learn our first language. According the
Krashen’s Natural Order hypothesis, we acquire (rather than
learn) morphemes in a predictable sequence. Certain morphemes
are found to be acquired early in the acquisition process, whereas
others may not be mastered until later. Formal learning does
little to affect the order.
Students learn a great deal about language through
meaningful context. This makes it so important to provide whole
texts for authentic purposes. Their syntactic understanding of
English builds through interesting reading material to which
they can respond in a realistic way.
Word walls can be organized in a number of ways that

facilitate the structure of the language. Using different colors for
different types of words (blue for contractions, red for adjectives,
etc.) is a simple way to remind students of the formal names.
3.3. Textual Analysis in Translation
3.3.1. The Text-organizing Function of Lexical Repetition
in Translation
A textual approach to translation may be justified by
the notion of global textual meaning, since, as Neubert and
Shreve (1992) point out, it is the global meaning of translation,
recontextualized as an L2 text that must be adjusted to the
original global meaning of the source text. This study will show
that Károly’s (1998) theory-based analytical tool, a partly revised
version of Hoey’s (1991) repetition model, may be capable of

providing information about the global meaning of texts on the
basis of particular linguistic elements identifiable on the textual
surface. More precisely, it is hypothesized that this analytical
tool, which focuses on a number of issues related to repetition,
may serve as an objectively distinguish between the text-building
strategies of professional and trainee translators.
Károly’s (1998) taxonomy distinguishes two principal
categories of repetition: lexical repetition and text-bound
repetition. The category of lexical repetition can be broken down
into two further groups, the one containing same unit repetition
(with simple and derived distinction), and the other containing
different unit repetition. The latter group involves a gradually
loosening scale of lexical relations, including synonymy (simple
and derived), opposites (simple and derived), hyponymy, and
meronymy. The other main category of repetition contains the
text-bound relations of equivalence and naming. This category
was originally introduced by Hasan (1984) under the name
“instantial relations”.
Following the method of analysis proposed by Hoey (1991),
this analytical tool, designed to analyze the text-organizing
function of lexical repetition, allows for the identification of
marginal and central sentences in a text. Hoey claims that
marginal sentences do not directly contribute to the main theme
and therefore their omission does not disrupt the argument of the
text. Central sentences, on the other hand, directly contribute to
the topical development of the particular discourse, unfolding
the main theme. Hoey argues that, with the elimination of
marginal sentences and the combination of central ones, readable
summaries of the texts may be created. Summaries constitute the
gist (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978) or the global meaning (Neubert
& Shreve, 1992) of the text.
The texts submitted to analysis can be divided into three
groups: (1) an English newspaper article (i.e. the source text),
(2) five Hungarian translations written by professionals, and

(3) five Hungarian translations by trainees. The grouping of the
translations is based on careful selection criteria. First, the study
compares the amount and types of repetition used in the texts.
Secondly, the characteristic patterns of repetition are identified
in the three groups. The texts are also compared in terms of the
macro propositions that the repetition links and bonds signal and
the summaries that can be produced from them. The summaries
may offer interesting insights into the different text-building
strategies within the translations through the global meaning
communicated by them. In order to ensure the reliability of the
analysis, inter-coder reliability was computed.
To gain further information about how the text-organizing
role of lexical repetition relates to the quality of translations, the
quantitative analysis is combined with a qualitative approach.
This content-based, qualitative investigation sheds light on the
relationship between the central sentences identified by the
analytical tool and the sentences with special discourse function
within the superstructure and the macrostructure of these texts.
Following Tirkkonen-Condit (1985), the term superstructure
is used to refer to the compositional plan of the text (including
e.g., the introduction, development, and conclusion), whereas
macrostructure refers to the semantic or propositional content of
the text. The latter is analyzed applying Bell’s (1998) framework
for the study of the discourse structure of news stories.
Results of the quantitative analysis indicate that the density

of links and bonds in the source text and the professional
translations is similar, whereas the trainees’ translations consist
of a significantly lower number of both. Regarding the types
of repetition used, the translations differ considerably from
the original English text. The repetition matrices show, on the
one hand, that a great number of links appear at paragraph
boundaries (at the beginning and end of paragraphs), because
of the “topic opener” and “topic closer” functions of these
sentences. On the other hand, it is also interesting to note that
the majority of the bonds in the source text and the professional

translations coincide, whereas similar bonds are not created in
the trainees’ texts. What the above findings indicate is that the
partly revised version of Hoey’s (1991) analytical tool may
reflect the difference in text-building strategies between the two
groups of translations: the professional translations portray a
similar lexical patterning to the source text, while the trainees’
translations lose this pattern.
Finally, the qualitative analysis suggests that in the texts
produced by professional translators the analytical tool picks out
the same (or very similar) macropropositions as in the source
text. The trainees’ translations, however, produce a different
propositional content, and thus communicate different global
meaning.
3.3.2. Investigating Translation as a Specific Text Type: A
Model, Predictions, Testability
The question of whether, and precisely in what way,

translation as a product constitutes a specific text type, can
be seen as one of the key questions relating to the nature of
translation (cf. Fawcett 1997: 100 for a useful summary). It
has been addressed in a number of ways, though often with a
conspicuous lack of an explicit model of text and language, and
with insufficient empirical testing. Fortunately, the means for
large-scale empirical testing have started to become available
over the past few years (Baker 1996) and have already yielded
valuable results. Models of language, text and translation to
provide the background for empirical studies are now more
needed than ever.
We shall formulate key requirements on a model of
translation as a text type. Such a model must be able to a) relate
(translated) texts to situations of production and reception, b)
provide an account of texture which goes beyond traditional
grammatical categories, c) provide a motivated notion of text
type, and d) provide a motivated relationship of these types to

lexico grammatical realization, so as to be amenable to empirical
and corpus-based work (Biber et al 1998.) We shall then sketch
such a model, taking social-semiotic models of language as
background (e.g.. Halliday and Hasan 1989), and semiotically-
oriented work in translation as substantial input (Hatim and
Mason 1991, House 1997). This model allows strata/ levels of
language, ranks within strata, delicacy on a given rank, as well
as syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes of description (structure
vs. system), thus providing a sufficiently rich conceptual grid
within which to investigate dimensions of textual variation.
Within this framework, translation can be modelled on any level
or rank, but it will be argued that, for most purposes, modeling
on the semantic level is most promising.
One of the key elements of this model is the relationship

between translation and understanding. It will be argued that
understanding is a prerequisite to translation, and that it can
be modeled in the approach suggested here as unpacking of
presentation of information by varying ranks at which some
given quantum of information is lexico grammatically encoded
(clause complex, clause, group/ phrase, word, morpheme). In
synthesizing some target-text, only some of this unpacking
is undone, which provides a major source of properties of
translated, rather than otherwise generated, text. Additional
key properties of translated texts derive from the degree of
conformity with target-cultural norms, as well as from the
typological relationship between the languages involved in the
translation. A number of predictions will then be formulated for
specific properties of the text type translation. These predictions
will relate to explicitness, grammatical and lexical metaphor,
markedness, and a few other properties.
Translated texts are predicted to be a) more explicit

grammatically and lexically than parallel (non-translated) texts,
b) less marked both within the target-language grammatical
system and culture, c) less metaphorical than both the source-
text and than comparable target-culture texts, and d) “weaker” in

terms of expressed effect. Finally - and subject to availability by
then - results of a few pilot studies on small-scale textual samples
will be reported. These pilot studies operationalise the categories
above in terms of specificity of lexical and grammatical types
used in translated texts, degree of markedness of constructions,
type-token relationships for both lexical and grammatical
types, degree to which texts exploit the core areas of lexical
and grammatical systems, the introduction of “new” types in
translated texts as a consequence of translation being one major
form of language contact, generality of lexical items, number
of synonyms per concept, relationship of finite vs. non-finite
structures, marked vs. unmarked, degree of meta phorisation, as
well as criteria developed and used earlier by Baker and others
(cf. Hansen and Teich 1999).
In a first assessment of testability of these hypotheses, it
will be shown that while all the predictions are testable, because
they ultimately relate to configurations of lexico grammatical
properties of texts, most of them still require substantial human
analyses and subsequent tagging of corpora. Tools available at
the moment provide significant help in various ways, but need
substantial refinement and further development in order to
make testing less labor-intensive. In conclusion, an outline will
be given of a strategy for basing this enterprise on more large-
scale corpora of English-German translation and associated
comparable corpora.
3.4. The Power of Discourse in Religious Translation
Translation theory and studies, old and recent, have tended
to exclude religious translation and assign it a special category
of its own. While other types of translation - literary, economic
etc. have benefited from other studies such as linguistics and
sociolinguistics, religious translation has hardly been given the
opportunity to similarly benefit from those studies. In this study,
the possible contributions of linguistic studies - specifically
Norman Fairclough’s (1989) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

together with other Arabic rhetorical studies and Quranic studies
to translation studies of religious texts will be reflected.
Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis proposes to unravel
power relations behind discourse. Though it has been successfully
applied to various types of discourse basically media discourse
to deconstruct power behind those texts, it has been found that
it cannot give a full account of power relations in religious texts
- the Holy Quran. Quranic Sciences give a description of power
relations in Quran that defies those postulated by Fairclough
(1989). Thus, CDA together with Quranic Sciences can then be
relied upon to give a fair and full account of power relations in
SL Quran ayas. Literal translation of Quranic ayas will be relied
upon to bring out such nuances of power in the translated ayas.
This will allow us to look at translation studies of religious
texts like the Holy Quran in a different perspective. For then
the translated ayas of the Holy Quran can then be turned to, to
find out how power is constructed in the Quran.
3.5. The Analysis and Translation of Style
The study of translation requires specific models which

take into account the transfer of material between languages.
Before this transfer can take place, the source text (ST) must
be analyzed, and once the target text (TT) has been created, it
can also be analyzed and evaluated. A model of translation will
thus potentially contain three parts: (i) analysis of the ST, (ii)
transfer, (iii) evaluation of the target text. Of these, the actual
transfer is the most problematical. Most theories of translation
assume, implicitly or explicitly, some sort of black box in which
there is a matching device for material from the ST with material
from the target language, selected to make the TT. Discussions
of equivalence (Baker 1992), compensation (Harvey 1995), and
so on, refer to such a matching device which accepts or rejects
linguistic material. In this way, theorizing about the actual
process of transfer is reduced and the weight of translation
theory is borne by the analysis of the ST and the evaluation of

the TT. At both ends of the process we are dealing with texts
whose study has its own established research methods based
on linguistic, stylistic or - in the case of literary texts - literary
analysis. However, analysis of the ST is specifically geared to
preparing it for the act of transfer and evaluation of the translated
text always refers to a ST. Such analyses, whether of TT or
ST, tend to be contrastive and traditionally use the methods of
comparative linguistics, comparative stylistics or comparative
literary study. Alternatively, they may abstract from comparative
studies and make reference to universals.
In the 70s and early 80s much discussion centered on the
interplay between literary studies and linguistics (Freeman 1970,
Hendricks 1974); now the interdisciplinary area of stylistics is
well-established and can be applied to the developing field of
translation studies, thus reviving a tradition going back to the
Russian Formalists and Prague Linguists, who studied literature,
linguistics and translation together as aspects of communication.
The stylistic model proposed here is concerned with the

analysis of the ST, and the evaluation of the resulting TT, against
fixed criteria, for adequacy. Poetic language (PL) is defined as
language which deviates from standard language and is therefore
of special interest to translation, which needs to take into account
the nature of that deviation. Many elements of PL cannot be
found in a dictionary and a machine would have to be specially
programmed to encompass them, before it could successfully
translate speeches, novels, advertisements, poems, all of which
rely heavily upon the resources of PL. Style is defined as the
link between a linguistic form and its meaning, in standard
language this forms part of the speaker’s linguistic knowledge
and it is also available from a dictionary. This sort of link is
not our concern here. Of far more interest to translation studies
is the sort of link characterizing PL, poetic style. These links
between form and meaning may be non-arbitrary (iconic), one-
to-many (ambiguous), paradigmatically organized (repetitive)
or embedded in an unusually wide context (allusive). Style is

a characterisable and quantifiable aspect of texts. In analyzing
a ST for translation, the translator’s knowledge of style allows
links between form and meaning to be made explicit, so that they
can feed directly into the process of transfer. Many aspects of
this knowledge are universal, language-independent, and form
just one module in a system of knowledge which is assumed to
be modularly organized (Fodor 1983, Pinker 1994). Others are
specific to particular languages, and have to be learned along with
other specific aspects of the culture, vocabulary and pragmatics
of the languages concerned.
The same characteristics which define a translator’s (or any

speaker’s) knowledge of style in the ST, being universal, are
also used to analyses the TT and form the basis for evaluation of
equivalence or adequacy. The model draws on research in certain
areas of linguistic and literary studies, in the structure of the mind
and of linguistic and literary knowledge (sometimes called the
“biology of literature”). It is a partial theory, and as such should
be compatible with a wide range of models of other areas of the
discipline, for example, of the circumstances of creation of ST
and TT, of purpose, cultural background, historical situation.
We would, however, maintain that a stylistic study must be the
starting point for a theory of translation encompassing any but
the most straightforward texts.
3.6. A Contrastive Syntactic Analysis
Once language syntactic structures are the basic foundation

that carries the building characteristics of that language and the
conveyed meanings, it must be clearly stated. At the same time
the researchers should concentrate on the techniques through
which they structurally can study two different languages. Such
study can be done under contrastive syntactic analysis, which is
based on a syntactic analysis of both languages. According to
Nasr (1980:128-129), the syntactic analysis would determine:

a) what the word order is in each language,
b) what meanings are given by different word order
arrangements, and
c) How different words are combined and distributed.

The contrastive syntactic analysis would determine:
d) how the order of words differs in both languages,

e) what meanings are given by different word order
arrangements, and
f) Whether the combination of words is distributed in

similar or different ways in both languages.
3.6.1 Syntactic Problems
Arabic and English are different in their constructions. A

comparison of an Arabic text and its English counterpart in
order to produce a readable English text, the learner may have
to change the structure of nearly all sentences.
For example, Arabic verbal sentences have the basic word-

order of verb-subject-adverbial. The main Arabic word-order
is V.S.O., whereas the English one is S.V.O. The learner (when
translates) may overlook this example rule and consequently the
Arabic rendering of some English sentences would look. Here
in this example :(1)
1- a- the boy went to the garden.
1- b- elwaladu thahaba ila elhadiqati.
1- c- thahaba elwaladu ila elhadiqati.
the structure (1- b) looks odd whereas (1- c) looks normal.
Arabic favours co-ordination, whereas English tends to use

complex sentences using subordination as in the example (2),

2-a – Because he had felt angry after he had seen the envious
man, he thought he had better stay away from the club.
2- b- li-‘annahu sha’ra bil-ghadhabi ba’da an ra’a el-rajul

el-hasid, ‘azama ‘an yabqa ba’idan min el-nadi.
This rendering has conveyed the grammatical structure but at

the cost of naturalness, abandoning the fact that Arabic favours
linking through co-ordination and usually forwarding the main
clause rather than sub-ordinate clause. Thus the translation (2-c)
below may be more appropriate:
2-c- ‘azama ‘an yabqa ba’idan min el-nadi ba’da an ra’a

el-rajul el-hasid.
Further, in English one can say,
(3)In his speech, the president said…
In Arabic the cataphoric usage is ruled out: that is, one cannot
mention the adjectival pronoun before mentioning the noun to
which it refers, e.g. it is only possible to say: (3-a) qala a-syyidu
l-ra’isu fi xitabin la-hu.
In English, when a series of modifies precede a noun, the

modifies must be placed in a special order, e.g. ‘Mary’s three
new large brown house doors.’ In Arabic, however, there are no
such restrictions in the arrangement of a series of adjectives in
a sentence. Moreover, English adjectives precede nouns, but in
Arabic, they come after them. In Arabic, the mubtada, should
precede the xabar, e.g. Allah maujud, (God is Existent).
In brief, in Arabic the translator has to use an entirely

different approach and completely different construction in
dealing with syntactic problems.

3.7. Difficulties in Translating Coordination
3.7.1Syntactic and Semantic Evaluation of Translating

Coordination:
The first step towards the quality assessment will be
concerned with syntactic mismatches. These are mainly
represented in formal and lexical aspects such as additions,
repetitions and deletions of coordinators as well as changes
in the structure of coordination (i.e. change in the position
of conjoined elements). The second step towards the analytic
approach of translation assessment will be concerned with
semantic mismatches, which are mainly represented in
functional and communicative aspects such as wrong selection
of coordinators. Semantic mismatches may also result from the
substitution, the translator usually selects a coordinator or any
other conjunction that can replace or substitute the original one
in the text. The coordinator or the conjunction used may suit
the meaning of the original in the conceptual content of the
utterance. However, we may sometimes find deviations or slight
changes in meaning as a result of this substitution.
In the quality assessment followed, the four translations
in question are judged with the help of different exegeses like
those of Abu Hayyan, Al-Zamakhshari and Ibn Khalaweih.
These exegeses play a major role in; first, judging the exact
meaning of the source message. Second, in comparing the
various translations under study. Third, in giving an assessment
of each translation and finally, in giving a suggested version,
based on Khatib’s translation.
3.7.2Syntactic Evaluation of translating Coordination:
It is realized that quality assessment of translation mainly
distinguishes between Syntax (or merely grammar) and
semantics. Therefore, our judgment of the four translations in
question in dealing with Coordination will first be focused on
the syntactic analysis, leads to the communicative value of the
original text.

As mentioned above, syntactic evaluation of translation
is mainly represented informal and lexical aspects such as
additions, repetitions and deletions of coordinators as well as
changes in the conjoined structure.
3.7.2. Addition of Coordinators:
Translators may sometimes add a coordinator in the TL,

which does not actually exist in the SL text. The result is
a change in both structure and meaning of the original. An
example for illustration is:
“ Kalla? Inna-l-insan-a la-yatga in raa-hu
stagna”(Sura 96, Verses 6-7 : 166) Translators adopt
different attitudes in rendering both verses. Khatib,
for instance, introduces verse 6, with the adversative
conjunction ‘yet’, although it has no apparent equivalent
in the original text except for the negative particle /kalla/.
(Khatib –814):
“Yet, surely man is contumacious,
When he considers himself in no need.”
3.8 Number & Gender
Number and gender may pose difficulty when translating

from Arabic into English. English makes two number
distinctions: ‘one’ and ‘more’ than one, i.e. singular and plural,
whereas Arabic makes a third distinction as well, i.e. the dual.
Consequently, when rendering English plurality into Arabic, the
translator should be sure if it is dual or plural form, I.e. the use
of a special form to indicate two persons or items and the use of
another form to indicate three or more persons or items. Thus,
for an Arab translator, the term ‘vice-presidents’ may constitute
a difficulty.
Gender is even more difficult to translate.

The following examples are considered:
(4) She is pretty (a girl).
(5) It is pretty (a picture).
Both (4) and (5) are to be rendered in the same way: inaha
jamilah. As a result, the difference between the two is not to be
conveyed despite the fact that the first refers to ‘a girl’ and the
second refers to ‘a picture’.
S.M. El-Sheikh (1977:22) has the following to say on the

importance of gender in Arabic. Compared to English, gender
plays an extremely important part in the grammar of Arabic. It
combines with number to form intricate concord systems which
might link together, or set apart the various elements of the larger
linguistic units such as the phrase or the clause.
In English, in some cases, a noun of common gender may

correspond to two nouns each indicating a different sex, e.g.
Child: boy, girl
Horse: stallion, mare
Parent: father, mother.
Arabic, on the other hand, distinguishes two genders, i.e.

masculine and feminine (the concept of neuter is missing in
Arabic). The English word ‘cousin,’ for instance, is a troublesome
lexical item to an Arab translator, because it doesn’t tell him/her
what sex is meant and what the exact relation is. In Arabic, the
word ibn (son) or bint (daughter) are placed before the words
corresponding to the items ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’. So there are eight
designations in Arabic for the single word ‘cousin’. To translate
the word ibn a’m in English specifying its sex, we have to say,
the son of the brother of one’s father and bint a’m we have to
say, ‘the daughter of the brother of one’s father’.

Arabic –speaking students usually regard English nouns of
common gender as belonging to masculine gender only. This
being the ‘unmarked category’ since in Arabic the feminine
gender differs from the masculine in that a suffix is added to the
feminine, e.g. mu’limah (female teacher)/ mu’lim (male teacher).
3.9. Relative Nouns/Pronouns/Clauses
3.9.1. Types of Pronouns
A pronoun is used in place of a noun to refer to the person,

place, or thing the noun names. There are different types of
pronouns. The list below describes eight types of pronouns and
gives examples of them.
Subjective pronouns - are used when the pronoun is the

subject doing the action in a sentence.
Examples - I, he, she, those
Objective pronouns - are used when the pronoun is the object

that the verb affects in a sentence.
Examples - you, him, it, them
Demonstrative pronouns - point out a specific person or thing.

Examples - this, that, these, those
Indefinite pronouns - refer to other people or things in

general, not specifically.
Examples - any, someone, nothing, everybody
Plural pronouns - refer to more than one thing or person.

Examples - our, they, theirs, we
Possessive pronouns - show that something belongs to someone.

Examples - mine, hers, its, yours

Reflexive pronouns - refers back to a noun or pronoun used
earlier.
Examples - itself, ourselves, myself, yourself
Relative pronouns - connect parts of sentences to each other.

Examples - that, which, who, whatever
3.9.2. What Are Clauses?
A clause is a group of words that have a subject and a verb

(predicate). This is important, because if you can’t find both
a subject and predicate, most likely, it is a phrase that you are
looking at, and not a clause.
There are two kinds of clauses:
1. Main Clauses (also called Independent or Coordinate)

can stand on their own as they form a complete sentence.
I like my dog and he likes me.
The above sentence can also be written without the

word “and.” The 2 clauses are separated with a semi-
colon. This method works best when both clauses are
approximately the same length or number of beats.
I like my dog; he likes me.

Note: if 2 main clauses are joined together with a comma,
this error is known as a comma splice.
2. Dependent Clauses (also called Subordinate or Relative)

are not complete sentences.
I like my dog best when he is clean.
Clauses are classified as either restrictive (essential/needed for
the exact meaning of the sentence to be clear) or non-restrictive
(non-essential/unimportant for clarity, yet adds important detail.).

1. Non-restrictive Clauses are used to add details that are
useful for your reader to know, but not necessary to
meaning of the sentence.
The dog barked whenever it rained.
The dog, which was brown and black, barked.
2. Restrictive Clauses are necessary when you want your
reader to know you are only referring to certain things,
places or people and not to all. Let’s say you write
that boys play soccer. If you add the clause, “who are
in Room 5”, you then let your readers know you are
referring to a smaller group than all the boys in the
whole wide world.
The dog that was in the locked car barked.
Clauses are used as nouns, adverbs and adjectives.
 Noun Clauses will answer a reader’s questions of either

what or who.
 Adverb Clauses will answer a reader’s questions of how,

where, when, why, and to what extent.
 Adjective Clauses are used to give the reader more
information about things, places or people.
In Arabic, relative pronouns are used for more than their
counterparts in English. In English, ‘who, whom, which’, and
‘that’ are used, whereas in Arabic we use, allati, allaði, allawati,
allati, allaðain, allatan, allaðan, allaðina, etc., which could
be rendered by the one English item ‘who,’ as in the following
examples (6-9):
6- haða huwa as-safiru allaði alqa al-xutbata.
6-This is the ambassador who delivered the speech.

7- ha’ulai hum as-sufara’u allaðna alqu el-xutbata.
7- These are the ambassadors who delivered the speech.
8- haðan as-safiran allaðni alqaya el-xutbata.
8- These are the two ambassadors who delivered the speech.
9- haðihi hiya as-safiratu allati alqat el-xutbata.

9- This is the ambassador who delivered the speech.
It is worth mentioning, that in Arabic the relative pronoun

has to agree with the antecedent in number and gender, as in (6-
9) above. In Arabic, a presumptive pronoun may be used along
with the relative pronoun, both referring to the same antecedent.
As in the examples (10-12) below:
10-ar-rajulu allaði ra’aitu-hu.
10- The man whom I saw him. Lit.
11- ar-rajulu allði katabtu la-hu er-risalata.
11- The man whom I wrote the letter to him. (Lit.)
12- ar-rajulu allði ra,atu ibna-hu.

12- The man who I saw his son. (Lit.)
When translating an Arabic relative clause into English (as

in the above examples), one should drop al-damir-l’aid(6), but
transfer the case role to the relative pronoun. Consequently, a
sentence like (10) above should be rendered as ‘the man whom
I saw’ and (12) as “the man whose son I saw.” It is worth noting
also that a relative pronoun in the objective case may be omitted
in English, whereas this is not permissible in Arabic. However,

in Arabic, a relative pronoun is omitted when the antecedent is
indefinite, e.g., qabaltu rajulan qatala imr’ata-uh.
Imet a man killed his wife (Lit.)
3.10 Text Type
3.10.1. Text Typology

Hatim’s (1984) text typological approach to translation,
though pedagogic in essence (i.e. concerned mainly with syllabus
design for translator training) provides a macro-structure of the
translation process which takes translation beyond the sentence
level analysis; it “subsumes the interdisciplinary study of text in
context carried out within stylistics (and foundational disciplines
such as Rhetoric and Exegesis), discourse and conversational
analysis, ethnomethodology, as well as recent attempts at
developing text grammars within a science of text.” Hatim (1984)
Types of Text
Reiss (1971, 1976) suggests that there are basically three

types of text, according to whether they place emphasis on
content, form, or appeal. Similarly, Nida (1975) distinguishes
between the expressive, informative and imperative functions of
text, adding that the reader will often be totally reliant on context
to determine how to interpret a particular text.
Naturally, language is used for the framing of thoughts
and for the conveyance of thoughts for some purpose in social
interaction Halliday and Hasan (1976). Language serves for
the expression of the speaker’s experience of the real world,
including the inner world of his own consciousness.
In the light of this definition of the purpose of language,

the classification of text into three major contextual foci 1)
exposition, 2) argumentative, and 3) instructional, and the
breakdown of text into elements making a cohesive whole while

maintaining an overall view of text in context provide a synchro-
analytical approach to the translation process.
The text has been widely defined and discussed by different
linguists. The most appropriate definition for the present
discussion is the one given by R.De Beaugrande and W.Dressller
(1981:3): “A text will be defined as a communicative occurrence
which meets seven standards of textuality,(cohesion, coherence,
acceptability, informativity, situationality, and intertextuality). If
any of these standards is not considered to have been satisfied,
the text will not be communicative.” The word ‘text’ is equivalent
to nas – in Arabic. Text therefore, is a stretch of language which
us functional, i.e., doing some job in some contexts as opposed
to isolated words or sentences.
It goes without saying that translation involves more
replacement of unrelated sentences, because sentences are parts
of the text. Consequently, our main purpose will be concentrated
on translating the text as a maximal unit of language. Here the
concentration will be with the problems arising from translating
different types of Arabic texts into English. Beaugrande (1978:16)
has the following to say in this respect: “Recent contributions
about translating have reaffirmed that the strategies involved
must indeed be co-ordinated with the text type (Dressler 1975 and
ensuring discussion; Holmes1975; Reiss1971,1977 ). However,
text-type cannot be simply determined according to traditional
classifications of texts. Even the most basic groupings, such as
fact versus fiction or prose versus poetry, have been called into
question. Most texts contain at least some admixture of both
actual and fictional material, and poetic and prose features.”
The text typological approach to translation considers
context as a crucial element which determines the structure
of the text. According to B.Hatim, context almost casually
determines the shape of the text’s hierarchic structure, which
in turn determines the kind of texture devices used to make the
text operational. Hatim classifies text into three types according

to the pragmatic and communicative layers of the context. He
distinguishes (1) expository: used to describe (e.g. an apparatus),
to analyze concepts with the aim of informing, or to narrate (e.g.
an event); (2) argumentative: used to evaluate objects, events, or
concepts with the aim of influencing future behaviour; and (3)
instructive: used to direct the receiver towards a certain course
of action (e.g. legal texts).
This approach concentrates on the function of words with
respect to these three types and their contexts. For example, the
translator may interpret the word ‘tender’ differently into Arabic
according to the context of the text. It could be translated as
mu’lim (acutely sensitive) in a medical context or ‘ata or umlah
(bid of money) in a commercial text.
3.6 Emotiveness
Taxonomy depends on the emotive intention of the speaker.
Some types of texts intend to express or arouse emotional
reactions toward a special topic. On the other hand, other types
of text aim only to denote. That is to say, some text-procedures
use neutral/objective vocabulary, whereas others use emotive/
subjective vocabulary. Shunnaq (1993:39) argues for the view
that an emotive meaning is a function of responses to words
(i.e. certain words tend to produce emotive responses showing
that there is emotive meaning). He subscribes to Stevenson’s
(1963:21-22) definition of emotiveness; as “the emotive meaning
of a word is a tendency of a word, arising from history of its
usage, to produce (result from) effective responses in people.”
Newmark (1981:133) suggests that the translators sometimes
have to give precedence to emotive and affective elements in
the SL over the informative or content elements if the context
requires that. Shunnaq (1993:48) agrees with Newmark and
says that an Arab translator translating emotive lexical items
into English should take this suggestion to heart. He goes on to
say that in Arabic we have numerous examples of lexical items/

expressions which constitute a difficulty when translated into
English and their translations look incongruent despite strenuous
efforts that would be exerted by translators and, in most cases,
translators fail to convey the emotive meanings. This point is
illustrated in the following examples:
13-(‫يواسأملا عضولا مغرلاب و ةكلاحلا ةروصلا هذه نم مغرلاب‬
‫ايقيرفأ بونج ءانبأ نم ةقيحسلا ةيبلغألا هشيعت يذلا نزحملا‬
‫) ايبيمان و‬
13- (Despite the black picture and despite the tragic situation
of the overwhelming majority of the sons of the South Africa
and Namibia.)
The translator may choose to translate a lexical item with
‘+ emotiveness’ as opposed to ‘- emotiveness.’ In this type of
text and context, a translator should use emotive vocabularies.
This segment is part of political speech, i.e. an argumentative
text, which is characterized by an excessive use of emotive
vocabulary. The item al-halika could have different renderings
in other text-types: pitch black, deep black, gloomy, and murky.
Each of which could be proper in a certain context.
14-‫ةوق لكب و ايلاع هتوص عفري نا نم يلودلا عمتجملل دبال و‬
‫برحلا اوفقوأ اخراص ةبالص و‬, ‫حباذملا و زاجملا نم ةيلقألا اوذقنأ‬.
14- The international community must speak out,

proclaiming firmly and equivocally the need to the war and
save the present and future generations from massacres and
slaughters.
The item (‫‘ )اخراص‬sarixan’ (speak out), ‫ ))رزاجملا‬elmajazir
( butchers /massacres /carnages), and elmaðbih (massacres/
slaughter/ carnage) are emotive, evaluative, and carry value-
judgment. Here, the two synonymous items el-majazir
wal-l-maðbih (which mean almost the same) mean ‘to kill
indiscriminately’ as in barbarous warfare or persecution.
However, the meaning of each of them would be different in

other texts. In an expository text, the item maðbaha could mean
‘slaughter’ (as killing cattle and sheep for food).
It goes without saying that the native speakers of a language
have keen appreciation of the emotive meanings of words. The
analysis of the emotive meaning is by no means as easy as that
of a referential meaning. Contexts, particularly cultural ones, are
very helpful in analyzing the emptive meanings. Let’s consider
the example below:
15 ‫يف و ليلخلا و سلبان و ةزغ و سدقل ا يف يرجي يذلا ىرأ‬

‫اهجراخ يرجي ام ىرأ و ةلتحملا يضارألا يف ميخم و ةيرق و ةنيدم لك‬
‫حناوجلا يف ىسألا رقتسي و ملألا يبلق رصتعيف‬.
15- I see what goes on in Jerusalem, Gaza, Nablus, Hebron,
and in each city, village, and refugee camp in the occupied
territory, and I see what goes on outside them. As a result, pain
wrings my heart and sorrow settles down there.
Here, the two clauses ya’tasiru qalbi-l-a’lam, wa-ya’tasiru
l-a’sa fi-l-jawanih (pain wrings my heart and sorrow settles
down there) are rich in connotations. The reader’s emotional
reaction to these expressions may become very strong as they
are used in an argumentative text. However, in an expository
text, the meanings ya’tasiru and yastaqiru will be referential,
i.e. dictionary meanings. The item el-jawanih (heart) as it is
used in this example is far more emotive and effective than its
translation in English.
3.11. Lexical Non-equivalence

The problem of equivalence has been discussed by different
linguists. J. D. Catford defined translation as “The replacement
of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual
material in another language (TL). According to S. Bassnette
McGuire ‘equivalent in translation 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

SL and the TL versions.’ Therefore, it could be safely assumed
that complete equivalence in translation is a far-fetched task,
indeed virtually impossible. ”
The translator may find some terms in Arabic difficult if they
are to be fully translated into English. Consequently, he/she will
be obliged to accept a partial equivalent item in English, as in the
following examples: the translation of ‘am as “uncle” , ibn’am
as “cousin,” ‘anta as “you,” hum as they ðahaba as went ‘išq
as “love,” hurma as “woman.”
In some cases, the Arab translator may find certain lexical

items in Arabic which have no equivalence in English because
the concept they refer to do not exist in English. Such terms are
normally culture bound terms in Arabic, as in salat l-istixarat(the
prayer for guidance in making a good choice; tayammum
(ablution with fine sand)), and hidad (a widow in Islam has to
observe mourning for her dead husband for a period of four
mouths and ten days ).
3.12. Language and Culture linguistic study
The meanings and forms of words are reflections of

the cultures that use them; culture and language are closely
interwoven. Linguists tell us that by comparing even the amount
of words devoted to a certain item or concept one can tell a
great deal about the culture surrounding a language. Consider,
for example, the number of words in Spanish devoted to corn
in its various forms (and that many are borrowed from the
indigenous Nahuatl language) : xilotes (the corn on the stalk
newly formed), elotes (from elotl, the ear of corn), mazorca
(the full ear), miahuatl (grains from which corn syrup is taken),
granos (the grains), nixtamal (grains cooked in water with lime),
esquites (soft grains in their own water), masa (the nixtamal
ground and mashed), to name a few, and not to mention the
dozens of elaborate recipes involving corn: pinole (corn flour

with sugar-a candy), atole (corn flour with water or milk, sugar
and cinnamon), many types of tortillas (blanditas, tlayudas,
totopos, tostadas, sopes, etc.).
Nasr (1980:112) states that “People’s actions in different

situations are greatly influenced by their culture. Their culture
includes their customs, traditions, ways of thinking and the like.”
So, once all these social items are included in culture, and the
main purpose of language is to communicate ideas and meanings,
that means language and culture are interrelated affected. In order
to master the use of language, learners must:
a- know the correct language to use,
b- Understand the general situations in which to use the
language (contextual orientation), and
c- Understand the culture of the native speakers of the

language (cultural orientation).
Cultural orientation means learning about a culture; it does
not mean copying or imitating that culture, (ibid:113).
3.12.1. Culture-specific Expressions

In translating Arabic into English and vice versa the
translator has sometimes to deal with texts full of proverbs,
verses, historical incidents long forgotten, legendry personage,
euphuisms, etc. in addition, we must add the normal difficulties of
interpreting cultural contexts of worlds remote from the English
language, with completely different tastes and conventions.
When translating, a translator has to bear in mind the fact

that he should exchange ideas and messages and not merely
words. Considering this, the translator should be familiar with
and sensitive to the SL culture. That is assuming the translator
translates into his native language and also that he is aware of
his own culture.

Time and again, as Arab translators, we find instances of
Islamic teachings and conventions deeply routed in Arabic
culture which are very difficult to render into other languages.
So, for instance, we are faced with problems of how to cope with
such culture – specific expressions as ‘alayyi talaq, kaθθar allah
xairak. These expressions may be literary (but roughly) rendered
respectively:, (I swear) to divorce (my wife), and , ‘My God
increase your income’. Of course, lexical gaps were not filled in
such renderings due to cultural differences. These expressions
are familiar in Arabic, but they have not equivalence in English.
In these cases the translator may be completely faithful to the
SL text, but the reader needs further explanation. In this respect,
Farghal and Shunnaq (1997) argue that translation of Islamic
texts is further complicated when the translator attempts to
render a key religious term that constitutes a complete referential
gap in English, i.e. the concept is totally missing in the target
culture. The concept of janaba (when an adult has got semen
on him due to a sexual intercourse, a wet dream, and instance of
masturbation, or any other imaginable manner.). This concept is
so important in Islam that a Moslem cannot perform any of his
duties in the event of janaba.one could imagine how difficult to
assign the correct denotation to janaba in English.
Proverbial expressions are difficult to translate. Different

languages reflect different shades of meanings because of
differences in cultural aspects. F.M. Mahgoub (1986) has the
following to say on proverbs:
Proverbs have been defined in numerous ways. Cervantes
describes proverbs as being opinions derived from experience
which the mother of knowledge. James Howell, in a sonnet
which he prefixed to his collection of proverbs, describes the
proverbs as being people’s voice ‘coined first and current made
by common choice’.
Euphemism is another cultural problem of translation. A.
Shivtiel (1976:221) defines this figure of speech thus: euphemism

is the substitution of a word or a phrase for an unpleasant one,
usually to avoid words which are embarrassing in certain
circumstances or taboo words. Euphemism is , therefore, a
linguistic device talking about unpleasant realities directly..8.2.
Contrastive Contextual & Cultural Analysis
It is very important to indicate whether the contrastive
contextual analysis and cultural analysis is linguistic or non-
linguistic in nature and to clear out its role for teachers and
learners of a foreign language. As stated by Nasr (1980:129),
that “A contrastive contextual analysis and cultural analysis is,
of course, not linguistic in nature, but it is related to linguistics
and language learning. The same words or sentences in two
different contexts or cultures might have very different meanings.
A contrastive contextual and cultural analysis helps teachers and
learners of foreign languages understand the target language
better, and it also helps them produce the right utterances in the
right contexts and cultural situations.”
3.13. Synonyms
Engine Nida (1964), Peter Newmark (1984&1988),

S.B.McGuire (1980), Anna Wierzbicka (1980), and D.A. Cruse
(1986) haveall attempted to handle the problem of synonymy
and translatability. The practical difficulties that may arise in
translation, by considering further examples quoted from Arabic
texts.
(22) Laqad šahida a’m 1986 akθar min ayyi waqtin mada
mazi-dan min l-maðabihi wa-hamamat l-dami wa-l-i’tiqalati wa-
mazi dan min tadabiri il-qam’i wa-l-idtihadi wa-l-raqabati,(from
speech delivered by a Kuwaiti diplomat at the U.N headquarters
in 1986).
(22) The year 1986 witnessed more carnage, bloodshed,
arbitrary detention, and more measures of oppression and
censorship than any previous year.

Here, the two cognitive synonyms l-qama’ wa-l-idtihadi are
better rendered by one English item (i.g., ‘oppression’) to avoid
tautology in translation.
(23) raji-na li-jtima’hima kulla taufiqin wa-najah.
(23) wishing their meeting every success.
Here, the synonymous couplet taufiq wa najah is rendered
by one English item.
The translator should distinguish the degrees of similarlity
between SL synonymous items. If it is very high, it is advisable
to render them by one item in the TL. However, if the items of
the SL are only near-synonyms, the translator might translate
them separately in order to preserve the function of such
repetition, e.g., as-silmu wa-l-amnu (peace and security). There
are typical differences between most synonymous couplet, which
the translator should convey in the TL. S. Ullmann (1962:142)
pointed out that Prof. w.E.Collinson distinguished between nine
relational possibilities, viz (1) one term is more general than the
other: refuse – reject (2) one term is more intense than the other:
repudiate – refuse; (3)one term is more emotive than the other:
reject- decline; (4)one term may imply moral approbation or
censure where another is neutral: thrifty- economical; (5) one
term is more professional than the other: decease – death; (6)
one term is more literary than the other: passing – death; (7)
one term is more colloquial than the other: turndown- refuse; (8)
one term is more local or dialectal than the other: Scots flesher
– butcher, and (9) one of the synonyms belongs to child-talk:
daddy – father.
3.14 Causes of Errors
During language acquisition, a variety of factors influence

the learning process, including the phenomenon of language
transfer, and the potential difficulties and positive influences that
transference can create. Within the scope of positive and negative

transfer, many areas of language transfer can be affected, such as
syntactic structures, semantics, lexical items, and sociolinguistic
elements and pragmatics. All of these issues can, for the most
part, be predicted through contrastive analysis and studies of
markedness. These predictions can assist language teachers
and learners to be more effective in the classroom environment.
Positive transfer itself is difficult to identify due to the fact
that successfully mastering one aspect of a foreign language can
also be attributed to conscious learning or simply lack of any
sort of conflict. Logically, if a learner’s L1 has, for example, the
exact same prepositional construction to signify ownership in
L2, the learner will not have to learn anything, thus there will
be no stepped learning process as can be seen with the effects of
negative transfer. As with any learning process, when negative
transfer occurs, generally there is a stepped sequence where the
learner gradually corrects the error as more and more linguistic
input is received. Thus, positive transfer can be broadly defined
as occurring in contexts where structures in L1 and L2 are the
same and no conflict occurs, effectively facilitating learning.
Transfer of syntactic structures is one of the most striking
aspects of negative transfer, especially in languages such as
English, which rely on syntax to determine grammatical function.
This is not to say that learners of languages with relatively
free word order do not make syntactic errors, but the resulting
speech in these languages are much more understandable. At
the heart of syntactic difficulties is the issue of word order and
its rigidity. Applying L1 word order to the grammar of L2 can
have disastrous results, rendering even the most basic sentences
incomprehensible, or worse, misinterpreted. A language with a
rigid SVO structure, such as English, generally has one way any
given sentence can be rendered, as opposed to a flexible SVO
language, such as Hungarian, where the words in the sentence
can be rearranged yet preserve the same general meaning.1
The mechanism that allows this is the use of a rich system of
grammatical function morphemes. In the case of an English L1

speaker learning Hungarian, the rigidity can transfer, causing the
learner to use the SVO word order in inappropriate contexts. In
response to the question Hol van a könyv? ‘Where is the book?’,
a common response from an English speaking learner might be
A könyv van az azstalon ‘The book is the table-on’, when he
means Az asztalon van a könyv ‘The table-on is the book’. While
both responses are both understandable to a Hungarian, only the
second is correct in the context, the first being the result of the
rigid SVO word order in English. In the opposite direction, a
native speaker of Hungarian may transfer one of several different
word orders, a required grammatical feature in Hungarian, when
speaking English. Consider the English sentence “Cats drink
milk,” in Hungarian, which can appear in many ways:
Thus, word order in Hungarian does not determine semantic

roles, rather, direct and indirect objects are morphologically
marked. Asking a Hungarian learner of English the question
“What does the cat drink?” may get a response such as “Milk
drink cats,” the preferred word order of Hungarian for answering
this type of question.2
Another syntactic difficulty is the placement of negative
particles. In Romance languages such as Spanish and Portuguese,
the negative particle is simply placed before the verb to negate
the sentence. English, however, uses a much more complex
method of verbal negation with the addition of an auxiliary verb,
usually “do” or “has”, then contracted with the negative word
“not”. Contrastive analysis correctly predicts such mistakes
as “I no go”, or “They no have a dog” from Spanish and
Portuguese learners of English. (Port. “Eu não vou”, “Eles não
têm um cachorro” Sp. “Yo no voy”, “Ellos no tienen un perro”
respectively.) However, contrastive analysis fails to predict why
English speaking learners of a language such as Portuguese
never attempt to say *Eles fazem não ter um cachorro or *Eu
faço não ir. (literally: ‘They do no have a dog’, ‘I do no go’.)
The reason for this lies in the sheer complexity of the English
verbal negation, something that doesn’t translate directly to

other languages, and that the type of simple preverbal negation
as realized in Portuguese is a common step in both L1 and L2
acquisition of any language. (Odlin 1989: 107)
Another source of negative transfer in language is from
semantics and specific lexical items. Among the various
semantic derived problems are inflectional issues with genitive
constructions. Some languages, such as Portuguese, do not have
any genitive morphology, but rely on prepositional constructions
to signify ownership, a contrast significant enough to produce
errors in English genitive’s constructions. (Odlin 1989: 76)3
Another source of contrast is location of the genitive morpheme.
Both Hungarian and English have a genitive morpheme that can
be suffixed to nouns in order to signify ownership, however, in
Hungarian the suffix is added to the possessed noun, instead
of the possessor as in English. An English speaker learning
Hungarian would say *Ez Bélaja kutya, when he means to say
Ez Béla kutyaja ‘This is Béla’s dog’. This difference can of
course work in the other direction, causing a Hungarian learner
of English to potentially say ‘This is Béla dog’s.’
Lexical differences such as reflexive verbs can often cause
problems if the verb in L1 is reflexive but not reflexive in
L2, or vice versa. For example, in romance languages such
as Portuguese, and Spanish, many verbs are reflexive, but
their English counterpart is not. English speaking learners of
Portuguese frequently leave out the reflexive particle, saying
things like *sinto bem4 instead of me sinto bem ‘I feel well’.
On the other hand, Portuguese speakers may say something
like “I feel myself well” instead of “I feel well”. Cognates and
near cognates can pose a problem for language learners. In
Portuguese, the word procurar, and the English procure share
similar spellings, but procurar does not mean, ‘to get’, as an
English speaker may be fooled into believing, but rather ‘to
look for’. This can create obvious mistakes for speakers of both
languages. Another significant problem arises from phrasal verbs
such as ‘to look for’ in English. The following is a conversation

that took place between a native English speaker, TWT, and a
Brazilian Portuguese native speaker, JPR, who is still in the
process of acquiring English:
There are two potential causes for JPR’s failure to include
the mandatory preposition ‘for’ in the above dialog. First, the
verb ‘to look for’ in Portuguese is a single word: procurar,
no preposition is needed. Second is the statement that elicited
the malformed sentence from JPR: not yet… but I am looking,
obviously confusing JPR as to the necessity of the preposition
‘for’, since in this context, omission of the preposition is
permissible in English.
Another problem occurs when the scope of a word in a

learners L1 is more or less than that of the L2. Again, consider
the case of some verbs in Portuguese, which has three verbs to
express “be”; ser, estar and ficar, and two to express “know”;
saber and conhecer. A native Portuguese speaker learning
English will have no trouble narrowing three or two verbs down
to just one, but to English speaking learners of Portuguese, this
poses a significant problem, these learners frequently use the
wrong verb, which although does not create an ungrammatical
statement, but most likely something the speaker doesn’t mean
to say. For example, the statements Ela é louca, and Ela está
louca both mean ‘she is crazy’ but the former means she is
certifiably, permanently crazy, whereas the latter just means she
is temporarily out of sorts. Other problems can arise if particular
learners L1 lack a word that exists in L2. Hungarian, for example,
is so devoid of grammatical gender, that there is only one word,
öö, for ‘he’ and ‘she’. Even advanced Hungarian learners of
English frequently mix the two and their genitive and dative
counterparts, ‘his/her’ and ‘him/her’, something that in certain
contexts can be quite embarrassing.
L1 discourse, pragmatic and sociolinguistic elements,
especially if reflected in the grammar of the language, can be
a troublesome area. Many languages have several different

levels of formality, often times, as in Hungarian, represented in
the language with specific words. The word maga (pl. maguk)
is used along with the third person tense markings on verbs
when speaking to an adult or stranger to demonstrate respect. In
addition to this, the word ön (pl. önök) is used when addressing
strangers in very formal contexts. This, of course is a very
difficult concept for an English speaker to grasp, who generally
use the Hungarian familiar form, te (pl. ti), in the beginning
stages of acquisition, something considered very rude unless
you are speaking to a child, family member, or close friend. The
problem of course lies in that there aren’t any equivalent lexical
items in English that denote these degrees of respect. On the other
hand, Hungarian learners of English are often seen to be rude,
despite their comparatively rich system of grammatical formality.
This is due in part to the extremely liberal use of imperative verb
forms in Hungarian; azt a könyvet nekem adjon ‘give me that
book’ is perfectly respectful in Hungarian.
Apologies and their frequency of use is another aspect that
is frequently transferred from L1. In a study conducted by Elite
Olshtain (Gass & Selinker 1983: 232-249), English and Russian
learners of Hebrew were shown to transfer their native concepts
of apology into their target language. The English speakers, who
perceived a lesser necessity to apologize in Hebrew, tended
to apologize less, whereas the Russian speakers tended to
apologize more. Conversations are also susceptible to transfer.
For example, Spanish speakers use pauses rather frequently in
both Spanish and L2 English, which to a native English speaker
is an opportunity to interrupt. (Gass & Selinker 1983: 318) This,
of course, can negatively affect both the Spanish Speaker’s
perception of the English speaker, and the English speaker’s
perception of the Spanish speaker.
Predicting negative transfer in a variety of situations is

possible with the appropriate linguistic and sociocultural
knowledge. However, contrastive analysis alone cannot predict
transference, as evidenced by English speakers not transferring

their native do-support into foreign languages, it must be enriched
with knowledge of marked structures. The concept of markedness
stems from the belief that some structures are more natural than
others are. Those structures that are considered unmarked are
common to the world’s languages, or according to Chomskian
approach, a result of universal grammar. Unmarked structures
are generally learned first, with the exceptions to the rules; the
marked structures learned subsequently. Consider the English
direct object and indirect object placement, which can be done
one of two ways, verb indirect-object direct-object (Marked)
or verb direct-object to indirect-object (Unmarked). Universal
grammar dictates that both the indirect and direct objects must
be adjacent to the verb, or connected with a preposition. The
English marked structure verb indirect-object direct-object
clearly violates this by separating the direct object from the
verb. It is proposed that more marked structures are less likely to
transfer due to their unnatural nature. (Ellis 1997: 70) This is true
of English object stacking and the method of verbal negation in
English as discussed earlier. English speakers learning French are
more likely to correctly identify a verb indirect-object direct-
object structure as ungrammatical in French (White 1987: 277),
though this could partly be a result of metalinguistic knowledge
gained from formal language instruction.
The implications that transfer and markedness studies have
for second language acquisition are far-reaching. The information
gained can aid both language learners and teachers determine
problem areas on an individual basis. This is especially useful
in the area of sociolinguistics, an aspect of language learning
that is generally neglected at lower levels. Errors that result from
syntactic, lexical and semantic transfer generally do not result in
affronts to native speakers, however, violating sociolinguistic and
discourse rules can often be interpreted as rudeness or stupidity
or possibly worse. Knowing when to offer apologies or to use
respectful forms can be as much a benefit to the language learner
as knowing how to conjugate verbs. Conscious knowledge of the

effects of language transfer can prevent more serious errors, but
the actual learning process of making mistakes and correcting
them is essential to language learning.
1. Hungarian and other languages with flexible word order
often exploit the flexibility to indicate stress on words or
phrases, creating a slightly dissimilar meaning.
2. Responses to questions in Hungarian preserve the word

order of the question, placing the “asked-about” word
or phrase in sentence initial position. The question Mi
van az asztalon? ‘What is on the table?’, would get a
response: A cica van az asztalon ‘The cat is on the table’.
But the question Hol van a cica? ‘Where is the cat?’
would get the response Az asztalon van a cica. ‘The cat
is on the table’.
3. Although Odlin mentions Spanish for this example in
the text, Portuguese and Spanish share this method of
showing possession.
4. In colloquial Brazilian Portuguese, this form is frequently

used despite its ungrammatical status.
Generally, errors occurrence is due to certain cognitive

processes and other minour ones. These processes are called
Interlanguage processes. Selinker (1972:214), views IL as a
separate linguistic system resulting from the learner’s attempted
production of the TL norm. He considers it the product of five
centeral cognitive processes and perhaps some additional minor
ones such as spelling pronunciation and hypercorrection involved
in L2 learning:
a- language transfer,
b- transfer of training,
c- strategies of L2 learning,

d- strategies of L2 communication, and
e- Overgeneralization of TL rules.
According to him these are the psycholinguistic processes

which should establish the knowledge underlying the IL behavior.
They are henceforth going to be discussed here according to their
relevance to the learner’s errors.
3.14.1. Language Transfer (Interference)
Most contemporary experts on language learning believe that
errors are a natural and inevitable part of the language learning
process. In the early stages of learning especially, the only way
to avoid making errors is to avoid using the language to create
your own speech or writing. Since we know that language use
is the best vehicle for language learning, we can see that errors,
if they are made in the process of trying to communicate, are
actually useful. Learners make errors from several different
sources, to name a few:
-reliance on the native language
e.g., «Throw the cow over the fence some hay.»

where the native speaker of Pennsylvania German has
used German word order rules in an English sentence.
-overuse of a second language rule
e.g., «I eated my dinner.» where the speaker has
applied the past tense ending -ed to an irregular verb
-use of a socially stigmatized form
e.g., «I ain›t got none.» where the speaker has used
a form that exists in native speaker usage but the form
is considered improper
-the current stage of development

Researchers studying second language acquisition have
discovered that learners seem to go through predictable stages
in acquiring the ability to use certain complex structures of their
adopted languages. An example of a documented developmental
sequence is to be found in studies of how learners of English as
a Second Language learn to form questions.
At stage 1, learners do not use any of the grammatical

resources for asking questions in English, relying instead on
rising intonation:
He work today?
At stage 2, learners may use question words such as why,

what, or how, but they don’t invert the subject and the verb”
Why he work today?
At stage 3, learners invert the subject and verb in every

question, whether or not inversion is required:
How can you say it? but also
Do you know how can you say it?
At stage 4, learners differentiate between simple questions

with question words, and embedded questions of the same type,
and only apply inversion where it is required:
Do you know how you can say it?
Larsen-Freeman and Long, (199: 93)
Passage through these stages seems to be an inescapable

part of learning to use the language, although the transition can
be accelerated by instruction and by similarities between the
native and the second language. As a learner, it may comfort
you to know that some of the errors you will make can be
interpreted as showing progress (not regression) in your language

development. These errors are a natural consequence of the way
mind works when it encounters a complex linguistic problem,
and works out the details of the problem over time.
The term ‘interference’ was first introduced by Weinreich

(1954:1) , referring to : “These instances of deviation from the
norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals
as a result of their familiarity with more than language, i.e. as
a result of language contact.” Further, Weinreich’s definition
of interference is not based on which language is learned first
as appointed by Lado (1957:74), “Through out the analysis
of the forms of linguistic interference conventional terms like
mother tongue, first, second, or native language were avoided.
For example, the structural point of view the genetic question
is irrelevant.”
However, the native foreign language distinction is centeral

to Lado’s as he holds the view that learner’s fall back on their
L1 when faced with the situation to produce utterances in the
TL prematurely. This presupposes that L1 usually gets in the
way of L2 resulting in language transfer. If this result in deviant
forms, it is to be ‘negative’ transfer of interference. Traditionally,
this phenomenon has been considered as Sharwood Smith
(1979:346), puts it as ‘automatic mental process.’
Kellerman (19977:64), and other investigators have extended

this cognitivist approach to include the transfer resulting from
active decisions made on the basis of the learner’s perception of
the similarity between L1 and L2 structures and the degree of
markedness of the L1 structure, with regard to form irregularity,
infrequent use and semantic preferences.
This suggests that transfer does not happen automatically;

however, it could be predicted to occur both positively and
negatively in both productive and receptive skills.

3.14.2.b- Transfer of Training
The transfer of training is a process which is quit different
from language transfer and from overgeneralization the TL rules.
Selinker (1975:121), notices that the occurrence of errors which
he attributes to the way drills and exercises are constructed, can
be attributed to transfer of training. He brought the example that
the Serbo-Coroatian speakers at all levels of English proficiency
constantly have difficulty in producing (he/she), distinction.
They produce (he) indiscriminately on almost every occasion
although their language allow the gender distinction between (he/
she), with regard to animates in the same way as it in English.
Here, according to CA, there should be no problem.

However, it is possible to attribute such problem to the transfer
of training where course books and teachers in the interlingual
situation almost always present drills and exercises with (he) ,
and with (she).
3.14.3.c- Strategies of L2 Learning
Learning strategies (henceforth LSs), stated by Corder

(1981:89), refer to the mental processes whereby a learner creates
for himself a language system underlying the data he is exposed
to. While communication strategies (CSs), are the devices,
whereby the learner exploits whatever linguistic knowledge he
possesses to achieve his communicative ends. Corder (1981:104),
argues that much of the literature in the field seemed to lack a
general view of the problem as one of the principle confusions
found is between what are LSs and CSs. Sometimes, learner’s
errors could only be explained as interaction of both strategies.
Another problem is that it is sometimes difficult to decide
whether a certain strategy at work is to be labeled as learning
or as a communicative one. Perhaps one of the reasons for
“both cases the data for the investigating are the same, namely,
utterances in Interlanguage of the speaker” Corder (1992:16).

Therefore, it is difficult to clearly identify an important part
of an utterance as a result of one or the other strategy, i.e., the
result of learner’s IL System or an adhoc result of some CS.
Richards (1974:71), argues that both LSs and CSS refer to the
language contact phenomenon, whereby due to the circumstances
of learning and the uses required of English, the learner generates
a grammar in which many of the marked unmarked distinctions
of the TL are removed, where influenced forms tend to be
replaced by uninfected forms, and where preposition, auxiliary,
and article usage appears to be simplified. Simplification is
one way on which speakers of different languages can make a
new language easier to learn and use. In this respect, Richards
(1975:118), said: “Simplification may thus be considered as a
universal learning strategy based on the extension and application
of rules. Overgeneralization and analogy are instances of the
same process. ”
Here four learning strategies are given by Brown (1980:162),:

transfer, interference, generalization, and overgeneralization as
manifestation of one principle of language learning, namely,
the interaction of previously learned material with a present
learning event. He regards interference, as negative transfer and
overgeneralization as the negative subset of generalization. Jain
(1974:191), associates overgeneralization with simplification,
i.e., the learner’s tendency to reduce their learning burden. He
says that: “The reduction of simpler system seems to be best
affected through generalizations, which are very often restricted
in nature, and thus carry within them potential errors through
over-application of these generalizations.”
This applicable to both MT acquisition and L2 learning
at a later stage in life. We do not know if this simplification
or speech reduction in L1 learning and adult L2 learning is
qualitatively the same. What is important is that this strategy is
used by the L2 learner and some of its characteristic features
are identifiable in his performance data, as both errors and non-
errors. However, Jain (1974), argues that through both native

child and the L2learner use a developmental process in speech
reduction at one stage in their learning they diverge and while
“the native child ‘expands’ his reduced system to give it a one to
one correspondence with the accepted adult system of his speech
community, the L2learner with varying degrees of adjustment
continues to operate it as a reduced system.”
Therefore, if the reduction diverges widely from the TL
and operates at all syntactic levels, his L2 performance data are
marked with errors of diversity kind, if however, the reduction
is selective and does not seriously violate the TL system, his
L2performance data may be comparatively free from errors. This
tendency to reduction is a common learning strategy, proposing
that the learner’s brain is an efficiency-seeking organism, and
hence it is able to exercise a natural initiative in rejecting,
modifying, or accepting the learning mental. In the same sense
Meisel (1977:97), argues that simplification of foreigners’ speech
is: “The result of psychological processes quite common in
natural second language acquisition, rather than a ‘a competence’
reduced by natal imitation of native speakers and foreigners.”
This implies that simplification is not limited to L2 learners
but is also utilized by native speakers. In line with this, Meisal
(1977) , suggests that “part of the competence to use language
adequately in different situations is the strategy of simplification,”
which is used when addressing people who are supposed to be
unable to understand the normal speech of the community of
the TL, such as foreigners and children. It is also used for other
purposes such as telegraphic instructions.
However, there is a distinction between simplification and as

adopted by the native or competent speaker of the language and
simplifications as utilized by the L2 learner. The former knows
the full system of the TL but he shifts to a structurally simpler
code dropping what is felt to be redundant or difficult likely to
hinder communication as in the case where the interlocutors
are infants or foreigners. The latter, on the other hand, does not

possess the full TL code so, as Corder (1980:110), points out, “he
can not simplify what he does not possess.” This suggests that the
native or competent speaker of the TL does not simplify for the
same purpose or may be not in the same way as the L2 learner.
The latter simplifies due to lack of competence of the TL system,
whereas, the former recourses to simplification only when he
thinks that his interlocutor (such as foreigners, and infants), is
not competent enough to understand normal speech. In literature,
this phenomenon has been referred to as “foreign talk”.
32.14.4.d- Strategies of L2 Communication
Strategies of communication were first invoked by Selinker
(1972), to account for certain classes of errors made by learners
of a L2. These errors were considered as a by-product of
the learner’s attempt to express his meaning in spontaneous
speech without having an inadequate grasp of the TL system.
Corder (1981:103), reported that Varadi (1973) , was the first
to investigate CS experimentally but little work has since
been published on the topic. However, the most recent attempt
to provide a framework of analysis for it is that of Tarone,
Cohen, and Dumas (1976). Tarone (1981:181), also saw CSs as
“The learner’s contribution to the interactional work required
to overcome a communication problem.” However, from a
psycholinguistic point of view according to Faerch and Kasper
(1983:213-31), CSs are treated as the mental phenomenon which
underlie actual language behavior.
Ellis (1985:182), attributes CS to psycholinguistic plans
saying that: “Communication strategies are psycholinguistic
plans which exist as part of the language user’s communicative
competence. They are potentially conscious and serve as
substitutes for production plans which the learner is unable to
implement. ”
This found acceptance as it addresses the question of

application, whereas the earlier studies on CSs (i.e. Tarone,

Cohen, and Dumas, 1983:14, Corder: 1983:15-9), were directed
towards establishing definitions and developing taxonomies
that could be used to classify them. Alsamawi (1995), surveys
literature on CSs and differentiate LSs & CSs. He suggests a
classification for replacement strategies that is based on the work
of Tarone (1977).
Corder (1980:105), realizes ‘message adjustment’ and
‘recourse explanation’ as the main CSs characterizing the IL
of the language learners. He stated that “These strategies are
essentially to do with the relationship between ends and means.”
He argues that these ends and means are ideally in balance
in a native speaker utterance, where he always has the linguistic
means to communicate. In a foreign language learner situation,
however, these means are not in a balance because “his resources
allow him to express his intentions successfully.” As a result,
in case of communication, the learner finds himself faced
with only two options either to cut out his message according
to the available resources he has or adjust his ends to his
means, i.e. adopt ‘resource-expansion’ strategy. The former
signaling a negative attitude on the part of the learner towards
the communication task while the latter signals the learner’s
willingness to actively participate in the communication task.
The message adjustment strategy which is (risk avoiding), as
stated by Corder (1980), includes: ‘topic avoidance,’ i.e. a refusal
on the part of the learner’s to enter or continue a spoken or written
discourse and ‘message abandonment,’ where the learners want
to talk about an idea but is unable to continue and stops in mid-
course. The ‘recourse-expansion’ strategy includes ‘paraphrase
and borrowing’. Tarone (1992:62), subdivides paraphrase into:
‘approximation-’the use of a single TL vocabulary item or
structure, which the learner knows is not correct, but which
shares enough semantic features in common with the desired item
to satisfy the speaker (e.g. pipe for waterpipe). The second type is
‘word-coinage’ where the learner makes up a new word in order
to communicate a desired concept. For example, a Turk learning

Arabic as a L2 who did not know Arabic word for “bul” make
up a term in Arabic which when literary translated means ‘cow
man’ (Al-jumaily, 1982:60). The third type is ‘circumlocution’
which is a wordy extended process where the learner describes
the characteristic or elements of an object or action instead of
using the appropriate TL word.
As for ‘borrowing’, Tarone (1992), sub-classifies it into:
literal translation from his MT where the learner uses a word
for word translation, and ‘language switch’ where the learner
uses the MT vocabulary without troubling himself to translate
‘appeal for assistance,’ where the learner uses all his attempts to
seek help from his interlocutor or from a dictionary and ‘mime,’
where the learner uses non-verbal communication strategies
instead of lexical items or actions (e.g. clapping ones hands to
illustrate applause), or the learner turns to paralinguistic devices
such as (gestures), to communicate with others.
3.14.5.e-Overgeneralization of TL Rules
Overgeneralization is defined by Brown (1980:173), as “the
incorrect generalization of rules within the target language.”
Taylor (1975:393), defines syntactic overgeneralization along
the same lines as “A process in which a language learner uses
syntactic rules of the target language inappropriately when he
attempts to generate a novel target language utterance.” This
definition suggests that, the product of such process will suggest
that the learner grasps the mechanics of a particular grammatical
rule of the TL, but he fails to master its correct forms. This is
turn would suggest that the learner is operating on his already
acquired knowledge of the TL creatively as he is neither imitating
what he hears around nor transferring MT structure in his TL
attempts. Thus overgeneralization may be result of the learner’s
attempt to reduce his learning load. For example, the learner
may omit the 3rd person singular (-s), revealing himself of the
effort that necessitates concord; producing a sentence like: *He
speak English well.

Overgeneralization is also associated with redundancy
reduction. For example, the (-ed), past tense marker in narrative
or in other past contexts often appears to be redundant to some
learners when lexical past tense adverbial indicators such as
‘yesterday,’ ‘last week’ or ‘ago’ are used. Thus, the learner cuts
down the task involved in sentence production and reduces the
TL system to a sample form. These errors are called by Richards
(1974:175), ‘intralingual’ errors as they occur as a result of
factors within the TL system itself regardless of the learner’s
MT. Dulay and Burt (1974:284), refer to these types of errors as
‘developmental’ since they are similar to those regularly made
by native speakers children when learning English. They are
independent of MT interference and found common to learners
from different linguistic backgrounds as illustrated by Selinker
(1974:38), which provides some practical justification for the
collection of common errors made from time to time.
Another interpretation for overgeneralization is developed

by Richards (1971:178). He refers to the process underlying
instances where the learner creates a deviant structure due to
his “faulty comprehension of distinction in the TL”, and called
it ‘False concepts hypothesized’. He maintains that this type of
error occurs due to poor gradation or presentation of teaching
materials. For example, the overuse of the continuous form of the
verbs in the classroom may lead the students to assume that this
form in English is a tense for telling stories and for describing a
succession of events in either the past of the present which could
lead to errors such as:
*I was admiring the speaker and was liking him.
However, it is evidently difficult to attribute errors to this
cause arbitrary, without close observation of the total teaching
situation. Nevertheless, little systematic studies in this respect
have been made, except for few attempts such as those of Stenson
(1975), where she gave an account of what she calls ‘induced
errors’ caused by faulty teaching situations imposed by the

teacher and Selinker (1974:39), who treated such errors under
‘transfer of training’ to differentiate it from ‘language transfer.’
Closely related to the overgeneralization which resulted in
deviant structures is failure to observe/ignore rule restrictions,
e.g., the learner grasps a certain TL rule but fails to observe the
restrictions governing the application of that rule in the different
contexts? This could be manifested as ‘incomplete application
of rules’ where the learners produce deviant structures resulting
from applying certain rules incompletely. Richards (1974:177),
gives the example of using a statement form instead of a question
form as in the case of YES/NO interrogatives or simply by
adding a question word to the statement form as in the case of
wh-interrogatives. For example:
*What she was saying?
However, Richards (1974), argues that such errors could also
be attributed to reasons such as the inherent in the grammatical
question form which involves a lot of redundant transformation,
the learner’s motivation to achieve communication which can
be achieved without needing to apply more than the basic rules
required for forming the interrogatives, or to teaching techniques
and teaching materials.

Chapter 4
Research Methodology
4.1 Introduction
With the explosion of knowledge in both linguistics and

social theory, it is no longer possible to approach any text in a
simple or unproblematized manner, least of all translations which
de facto link two languages and two cultures. In a sense, two
new infinite orders have opened up: the virtually inexhaustible
possibilities suggested by segmenting the text into smaller
and smaller linguistic units, and the equally inexhaustible
possibilities suggested by the relationship of text to layer upon
layer of context, including the context of other texts.
Clearly translation studies reflect this crisis: it is at the heart

of the debate between those writers who debate the validity of
linguistic versus cultural studies approaches to translation. This
presentation will propose research methods that respond to the
contemporary crisis in knowledge about texts resulting from
developments in both linguistics and social theory. If large
translation effects investigated by cultural studies approaches
to translation are the result of small word-by-word, sentence-
by-sentence, and text-by-text decisions by translators that can
be analyzed with contemporary linguistic tools, then research
methods in translation studies must strive to connect those two
realms.
Linguistic specificities of textual construction must be
identified and retraced, so that translation effects are understood

as a product of textual particularities. Outlining research
methods for connecting the two infinite orders in my own work,
I will suggest strategies that are particularly useful for dealing
with situations where data are fragmentary, sparse, or incomplete.
This chapter is aimed at the description of the method that the
researcher has followed in order to achieve the study. It includes
the description of the subjects, data gathering techniques,
instruments of data collection, the pilot study, procedures,
sample selection, administration, statistic tests, data processing
techniques, and data analysis.
4.2. Method
Experiments are needed if you do not want to rely only on
your intuitions. Depending on what you want to know or what
you would like to rest, you have to select the appropriate tools
and methods to apply. However, regardless of the experimental
method employed, the more subjects you test, the reliable your
results. Jannedy, et al, (1998) “If you were to do an experiment
with only one speaker of a given language, how would you
know that the data that you had gathered were not just accidental
observations and invalid for all the speakers of that language?
Well, unfortunately, you wouldn’t. Therefore, you want to test
more than one speaker of that language.” It is essential to be
aware of that there is no one best method for testing translation.
No single test can fulfill all the varied purposes for which we
might test. Alderson J. (2000:203-204), indicates,
“however, certain methods are commonplace merely
for reasons of convenience and efficiency, often at the
expense of validity, and it would be naïve to assume that
is widely used it is therefore ‘valid’. Where a method is
widely advocated and indeed researched, it is wise to
examine all the research and not just that which shows
the benefits of a given in method. It is also sensible to
ask whether the very advocacy of the method is not

leading advocates to overlook important drawbacks,
for rhetorical effect. It is certainly sensible to assume
that no method can possibly fulfill all testing purposes.”
4.3. Subjects
As for the homogenous selection of subjects, Corder
namely linguistic, that the selected subjects should speak the same
knowledge of the new language. So 150 students were randomly
chosen from the forth year, department of English at the faculty
of Arts at Neelain University to represent the original subjects
in this study. The students’ ages range between 20 – 25 years.
They have had an average of ten years of formal instruction in
English as a FL at school and university.
So the selected group is homogeneous with the respect to
age educational level and linguistic background. Out of 150
students 30 students were randomly chosen as subjects for the
sample in this study.
4.4. Data Gathering Techniques
Once the textual analysis is necessary to study how

contextual translation equivalent is expressed by the Sudanese
learners, the researcher should ask the subjects to translate certain
topics into English, for the translation as such is the useful tool
in such studies. The Arabic written texts were distributed to the
subjects. Then the subjects were asked to translate these texts
into English. The process of translation took place in a fairly
separate room. Any subject was given certain number for easy
distinguishing.

4.5 Pilot Study
The pilot study was undertaken in order to try out the
test before giving it to the strata in the sample to achieve the
following aims:
A- Examining the appropriateness of the
determination of the starting and ending of the
test,
B- Discovering the workability of the test in the
faculty chosen and assessing other distractions
that may impede the smooth administration of
the test in order to eliminate any effect that they
might have,
C- Making any necessary modifications on the
final version of the test, and
D- Estimating the time allotted for carrying
it out. Hence, the translation process was
administered to the pilot study subjects under
self-relaxation conditions during the second half
of July 1999. The conclusions arrived at through
this pilot study were taken into consideration in
the preparation and administration of the test.
4.6. Procedures
After a careful administration of the pilot study, the following
procedures for the identification and classification of samples
were used to achieve the results of the study:
1. Each paper was given a number to facilitate
back reference,
2. Errors of each paper were signaled out in a
separate numbered paper, and
3. Errors were classified into categories.
Also within each category sub-classifications were made,
for example, within the syntactic errors, sub-classifications were
made such as: article errors, tenses errors, preposition errors…
etc. The percentage of each category was calculated to show
their relative frequency.
4.6.1 Sample Selection
The present work is in progress performing textual

analysis. It is for sure that there are various methods for selection
of the best sample that achieves the aim of the proposed study.
In this study the researcher distributed the Arabic written sample
texts to the subjects in the classroom. Then, they were asked to
translate individually into English.
4.6.2 Administration
To start achieving the arranged steps of this study, the
researchers prepared a fairly furnished room. The subjects
were, asked to keep away from each other while translating.
Each subject was given a number to ease referring to him/her
at any analogous step. After having finished the translation, the
researcher numbered these sheets, and packed them tightly.
4.7. Analytical Tests
Finally, the analytical tests will be run out on the limited

study that is performed on 150 normal subjects to determine the
answers that are expected to the following research questions in
investigating the research problem:
1-How competent are Sudanese learners in

handling English translation equivalence?
2- What are the problems that these learners

encounter in practicing translation?
3- How can such problems be overcome?

4.8 Test Validity and Reliability
4.8.1Validity
Validity can be defined as the degree to which a test actually

tests what it is intended to test. If the purpose of a test is to test
ability to communicate in English, then it is valid if it does
actually test ability to communicate. If what it is testing is
actually knowledge of grammar, then it is not a valid test for
testing ability to communicate.
This definition has two very important aspects. The first is
that validity is a matter of degree. Tests are either valid or not
valid. There are degrees of validity, and some tests are more
valid than others. A second important aspect of this definition
is that tests are only valid or invalid in terms of their intended
use. If a test is intended to test reading ability, but it also tests
writing, then it may not be valid for testing reading--but it may
test reading and writing together.
4.8.2Types of Validity
Validity is the most important notion it tests evaluation. As
mentioned by ELS(1983:318),
“the test is valid if it measures
what is supposed to measure.”
In this study both validity and content validity were applied.
Face validity is defined by Hamis (1969:21), as,
“the way the test looks to the examinees,
test administrators, educators and the like”.
Validity according to Brown (1988:29) is defined as
“…the degree to which the study and its results
lead to or support exactly what is claimed.”

Furthermore, validity could be divided into two types: content
validity and face validity. Tyler (1979:31) elaborates that:
“content validity is connected with
whether or not the test covers the

material that it claimed to cover.”
Face validity, according to Allen and Yen (1979:113), is that:

“… the test has a face validity if an examination
of the items leads to the conclusion that they are
measuring that are supposed to measure.”
Validity is divided into different types. Broadly it is divided into
internal and external validity
4.8.2.1. Internal Validity
Internal validity is validity in terms of the test itself-- whether
the content of the test and the way the test is carried out allows it
to test what it is intended to test. There are two types of internal
validity--face validity and content validity. Face validity is the
extent to which a test looks like it will test what it is intended to
test. It is the opinion of non-experts about what a test is really
getting at. While their opinion is not expert, it can be important,
because it is the kind of response that you can get from the people
who are taking the test. If a test does not appear to be valid to
the test takers, they may not do their best, so the perceptions of
non-experts are useful.
Content validity is the opinion of experts as to whether
a test is valid. The experts should look at whether the test is
representative of the skills you are trying to test. This involves
looking at the syllabus, in the case of an achievement test, and
the test specifications and deciding what the test was intended
to test and whether it accomplishes what it is intended to. The
problem is that even experts may disagree over the validity of a

test, particularly if they are not given a systematic way of looking
at it. However, even looking at a test systematically does not
guarantee that all the experts will agree.
4.8.2.2. External Validity
External validity has to do with the relationship between the
test and other measures. There are two types of external validity-
-concurrent validity and predictive validity. Concurrent validity
is the degree to which a test correlates with other tests testing
the same thing. In other words, if a test is valid, it should give
a similar result to other measures that are valid for the same
purpose. When considering concurrent validity, there are several
concerns. First, the measure that is being used for comparison
of the test in question must be valid. If the measure is not valid,
there is no point in testing another test’s validity against it. For
example, teacher’s ranking might be used to test validity--but
the teacher’s ranking may be affected by a number of factors
that are not related to the students’ actual proficiency. One
possible solution is to average the rankings of several teachers
to compensate for this.
Second, the measure must be valid for the same purpose

as the test whose validity is being considered. A reading test
cannot be used to test the concurrent validity of a grammar test.
In addition, if teachers’ rankings are being used, it is necessary
to make certain that they understand on what basis they are
expected to rank the students. If the test being considered is
a grammar test, then the teacher’s should be asked to rank the
students according to their grammar proficiency, not their overall
English language ability.
Predictive validity is the extent to which the test in question
can be used to make predictions about future performance.
For example, does a test of English ability accurately predict
how well students will get along in a university in an English-
speaking country? There are a number of problems with trying

to answer such questions. Measures of how well a student does
at a university are sometimes used to measure predictive validity,
but the problem is that there are many factors other than English
proficiency involved in academic success. In addition, it is not
possible to know whether the students who scored low on the
tests and therefore did not get to go to the university would have
done if they had been allowed to go.
In the present study both face and content validity were

applied. However, it is important in test construction in the sense
that if a test lacks validity, it may not be accepted by the testees,
the teachers, or the educational authorities.
For content validity it has to be demonstrated that it measures

a representative sample of the language skill, structures, etc.,
with which the test is meant to be concerned. Topics were also
chosen to be familiar to the students, (\arise from their everyday
life), so as to give practice in the expression of ideas and facts
that they have gathered for themselves.
4.8.3. Reliability
There are two types of reliability. Test-retest reliability is

the extent to which the test achieves the same result time after
time. For example, if a ruler is used to measure a piece of paper,
it should get the same result every time. Therefore a ruler is a
reliable measure.
The other type of reliability is inter-item consistency. Inter-

item consistency is the extent to which all the items on the test
are measuring the same thing.
4.8.3.1. Test-Retest Reliability
Determining test-retest reliability is not a simple matter.

There are various ways of trying to measure it, but each of them
has potential problems.

Test-retest.
One way of measuring reliability is to give the students the

same test twice to the same group of students. However, if a test
is given twice, particularly if there is not much time between
the two tests, the students might do better the second time due
to a practice effect. On the other hand, if there is a longer time
between the two tests, the practice effect is not as likely to be
important, but it may be that with the passage of time, students’
English proficiency has improved.
Parallel groups.
Another way to determine reliability is to have two parallel

groups take the same test. The problem is determining whether
the two groups are truly parallel.
Parallel tests.
Reliability can also be measured by giving parallel tests,

that is, two similar tests with the same type and number of items,
the same instructions, etc. The problem with this approach is
determining whether the two tests are actually parallel.
4.8.3.2. Inter-Item Consistency
Inter-item consistency is usually determined using statistical
tests.
Statistical tests
Statistical tests, in Kuder Richardson’s view, are a statistic
that measures reliability in terms of whether all of the items
in a test are measuring the same thing. Kuder Richardson 20
takes all possible divisions of the test in order to determine the
reliability. (Alpha is the same, except that it is specifically used
for multiple-choice tests.) Kuder Richardson 21 is similar to
Kuder Richardson 20, except that it also takes into account the
mean and standard deviation but not individual items, which

produces a lower reliability. Reliability is reported with numbers
between 0.00 and 1.00. The higher the number, the more reliable
the test.
Split-half.
Another way of measuring inter-item consistency is to
randomly assign test items to two groups and compare the
results of the two groups. Of course, it is still possible that the
tests will not be parallel. In addition, because the individual
tests are shorter, they will be less reliable, which needs to be
compensated for statistically, that is by calculating how reliable
the test would have been with twice the number of items. With
regard to reliability, Lado (1962:160) defines it as:
“the stability of the scores to the same sample.”

Hence, the Arabic texts were administered to thirty students
(they represent the pilot study subjects). A week later, the same
Arabic texts were administered to the same group to ensure its
reliability in accordance with the test-retest method and the
application of the correlation formula. The test-retest was used
because it was more meaningful from practical point of view.
This was confirmed by what Lado (1962:333), states:
“This method is more wanted to know how variable the
scores are as result of normal changes in conditions
from day to day.”
Accordingly, coefficient of stability was obtained and
was found to (0.48), which is regarded a positive correlation
that reveals the stability of the test. “the ratio of the explained
variation is called the coefficient of determination. If there is zero
explained variation, i.e. the total variation is all unexplained, this
ratio is zero. If there is zero unexplained variation, i.e. the total
variation is all explained, the ratio is one. In other cases the ratio
lies between zero and one.” Spiegel, R. (1972:243).

4.8.4. The Relationship between Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability have a complicated relationship. If

a test is valid, it must also be reliable. A test that gives different
results at different times cannot be valid. However, it is possible
for a test to be reliable without being valid. That is, a test can
give the same result time after time but not by measuring what
it was intended to measure.
4.9 The Test Descriptions
However, a translation theory or model is not workable if it
is confined to the treatment of separate sentences. A translation
model should consider the overall textual components, how
sentences are interlinked and how they depend on one another
in a stretch of text to convey the intended meaning. The meaning
of a sentence is determined by the different ways the sentence is
semantically related to other sentences in the text. Consequently,
for two sentences of different languages to be exact translations
of each other they must be semantically related to other sentences
of their respective languages in text in exactly the same way.
Keenan (1973).
4.10. The Scoring Scheme
A scoring scheme is defined by Richards (1985:251), as:

“A procedure used for giving numerical values or scores to the
responses in a test”. This means that the scoring is made by
allotting specific scores to the tested items or responses. Here,
the error-count method by Oller (1979:385-391), can be used. In
this method the students are required to translate certain given
topic from which errors are deducted. The scorer is guided by
a predetermined list of equivalent types. On the other hand, the
error-count method seems to be promising and satisfying as
Gharab clearly (1988:75), states: “The error-count appears to
promise a fairly high degree of reliability. Reference to the list of
error types will maximize marker objectively. Only one careful
reading by one marker should be necessary”.

As far the scoring of translations in the present study each
student’s task was scored independently by two scorers in
addition to the researcher.
4. 11. Statistic Analysis
After the researcher having collected and summarized the
raw data, he has found that it is often useful to distribute the
data into classes or categories and to determine the number of
individuals belonging to each class, called the class frequency.
Then the data is going to be tabulated as such: the categories are
tabulated together with the corresponding categories frequencies.
This tabular arrangement is called a frequency distribution or
frequency table. Afima. R.W. (1972). The term that is followed
in this study is called the frequency of occurrence. The relative
frequency of the class is the frequency of the class divide by
the total frequency of all classes and is generally expressed as
a percentage. Spiegel, R. (1961:29).
4.12. Approaches to the Discussion of Results
The approach used for gathering data in the study is the test
paper. Then the results obtained in the test paper will be analyzed
quantitatively and qualitatively.
4.12.1. The Quantitative Approach
Quantitative approach analysis indicates the use of statistical

methods when analyzing the data, (Bryman 1996). The reliability
and validity are of great significance for this approach as they
mainly depend on statistical approaches. This approach is
fundamentally used nowadays in such studies because it analyzes
the data on the grounds of scores obtained. As a consequence, the
results should be reliable and should be of great help for other
researchers to depend on. Worth mentioning, this type of analysis
argues that results obtained are essentially and principally to be
obtained in the course of statistical means.

4.12.2. The Qualitative Approach
This approach is an example to quantitative analysis where
it was the only governing one in the 1960’s, and 1970’s. This
approach is mainly used in social sciences that adopt mainly the
observation elicitation and assessment. Qualitative approaches
according to Bryman (1996) are that which studies, describes
and analyzes the behavior and culture of a group of people from
their own perspective. Özad (1997) argues that such analysis and
description are not of necessity to be gained through statistical
and quantification means. Finally, the use and the implementation
of both approaches may give profundity to the items analyzed.
4.13. Summary
At the end, this chapter has drawn the methodology on

which this study is going to be carried out. This methodology is
designed by describing the subjects chosen for the study, the data
gathering techniques. Then, the pilot study at which the test was
tried out before giving it to the strata in the sample. After that,
this chapter explained the procedures were used to achieve the
results of this study. Finally, it was concluded by the test analysis
and descriptions, where test validity and reliability are discussed.

Chapter 5
Analyses, Results
and Discussion
5.0. Introduction
Translation is traditionally considered to be one of the most

important and linguistically relevant components within the
general course of learning the peculiarities of a studied (foreign)
language. Its value is seen, in particular, in helping the student
acquire or improve practical language skills. The uniqueness of
translation, compared to other kinds of language practices, lies in
the fact that this is a receptive and, simultaneously, reproductive
linguistic activity. In its essence, translation, apart from fulfilling
a number of “applied” didactic functions, is also valuable and
all-sufficient by itself, since it is one of the final objectives of
teaching a foreign language at a university level.
The aim of this chapter is to identify, describe, explain, and
discuss some of the errors made by Sudanese students at Neelain
university, 4th , when translating from Arabic into English. It
identifies, describes, and explains translation errors, synonyms’
the subjects. Also, this chapter discusses the reasons at which
these errors are attributed to.
5.1. Translation Errors
When learners have difficulty in not finding the TL lexical
which may convey the intended meaning, they resort to the
translation of the equivalent item from their MT and use it in

the TL context. If the rules governing the item in the MT and TL
are different, the use of the translated item will result in either
a clear cut error or in an expression which sounds odd to native
speakers, however, fulfills the purpose of communication.
5.1.1. Errors of paraphrasing (circumlocution)
Tarone et al., (1983:10), define the strategy of paraphrasing

as “The rewording of the message in an alternative acceptable
construction in order to avoid more difficult form or construction.”
The term ‘circumlocution’ is also used by Tarone et al.,
(1983:10), and Varadi (1983:84), to refer to paraphrase. Here a
learner normally gives a description of the intended lexical item
or a definition of it in other words when he fails to produce the
proper lexical item to use in a certain context as in the following
examples from the present study:
 He will stay for several days.(many)
 -,to communicate food to the citizens of those areas.(to
supply, to provide, to send)
 …. Across the history.(through)
 He is concerned with human rights. (affairs)
The above sentences may be understood by the native

speaker, however, the paraphrase in each of them is not an
acceptable usage in English. In this case, learners have recoursed
to elaborate descriptive paraphrasing where the speakers of the
TL prefer a single lexical item to capture the meaning of a high
level word. A characteristic feature of such a paraphrase is the
introduction of separate words to specify some of semantic
features of the defined word.
Learners sometimes tend to incorporate long, big words

into their writings to make their performance impressive and
literary alike. Consequently archaic, strictly formal and less
familiar words are used instead of more appropriate current ones.

Moreover, learners transfer words from their mother tongue into
their English writings which sometimes distort the message.
5.1.2. Errors Resulting from False Analogy
Analogy is used by learners from different backgrounds.

The learner coins new verbs, nouns, adjectives and other parts
of speech along the lines of existing TL rules. According to
Tarone (1983:82)”the learner resorts to analogy in situations
where the intended lexical item is known. It is his desire to
communicate a certain concept that presses him to adapt this
strategy. ” However, the use of terms in analogy to others shows
the active involvement of the learner in the process of learning
the language. Also, it can be a good indication of the creative
use of language. In this respect, the students made errors like
the following:
*U.N agent arrive in the Sudan. (envoy)
*the most significance function of this heart is to help….
(important).
* A united nation responsipol man arrive to the country.
(envoy)
*He will discuss [Ф] or conversation with the responses of
united nation with the response of country and organs.
In this example the learner creates his/her own coinage. The

symbol [Ф]indicates that the learner omits the subject of the
verb ‘discuss’, and also the noun ‘conversation’ is used instead
of a verb. It is worth mentioning that, the rest of the sentence
is completely misused, and could not be easily understood
by the native learner. Such errors are referred to by Richards
(1984:174), as “developmental errors” which “illustrate that the
learner is attempting to build up hypothesis about the English
language from his limited experience of in the classroom or the
textbook.” This definition is also suggesting that the learners’

problems are the result of the limitation in the exposure to TL.
Errors in (5.1-2), could be attributed to the wrong selection of
the words, when the students tend to communicate the intended
meaning. This process of selection is a result of direct translation
from MT. This becomes clearer if we view the equivalents of the
mentioned examples. Sometimes literal translation brings wrong
collocations. Collocation is defined by Firth (1957:12),”The
statement of the habitual or customary places of that word in
collocational, but not in any contextual order. The collocation of
a word or ‘a piece’ is not to be regarded as mere juxtaposition it
an order of expectancy.” In addition, the wrong collocation can
be attributed to the lack of extensive reading in English where
the students may acquire and build up competence to use the
lexicon of the language.
5.2. Errors of Synonymy
English is said to be very rich in synonyms because of the
French, Latin, and the Greek influences on the language and due
to the extensive number of loan words from other languages.
However, it has been generally argued in semantics that there
are no real synonyms in a language. Synonymy is defined by
Richards (1985:28), as “a word which has the same, or nearly
the same meaning as another word.” For example, in English
‘hide’ and ‘conceal’ in:
Ali hid the money under the bed.
Ali concealed the money under the bed.
However, the point to be emphasized is that there are no real
synonyms. Here, it is important from the FL learning point of
view to show whether TL learners maintain the differences that do
exist between synonyms. The difference in meaning among the
synonyms may be according to Nilson (1975:154), a difference
in style, in geographic distribution, in formality, in attitude of
speaker, in connotation, in collocation and possibly some other
ways. In an immense number of cases, these differences can be

specified in terms of features which tend to be more language
specific than universal; as a FL learner might assume. If we take
the words (provide, bring, supply, submit, reach, arrive, and
communicate) for example, might have different meaning the
native language speaker at these words are used by the learners
of this study to the same meaning as in:
*… which led food to reach to the people who are living
in those areas.
*… and how to supply the citizens of those areas with

food.
*He will discuss the arrangements to provide those
areas with food.
*it is necessary to bring food to those areas.
*…above all the necessity of arrangement to arrive food

to citizens in those areas.
*… to communicate food to the citizens of those regions.
* He will discuss the way to submit food to the people

in those areas.
In Arabic most of these (provide, bring, supply, submit,
reach, arrive, communicate) words are of the same equivalent
or can be used at the same places. So the learners are confused,
which one to use. FL learner tends to assume that a number of
related words are synonyms to the extent that they can be used
interchangeably. This view is confirmed by Hornby (1965:104),
who states that “There are few real synonyms in English so
circular definitions are dangerous, especially in a dictionary
intended for users to whom the language is foreign.” He adds
that a monolingual dictionary in unsatisfactory. This tendency
is reinforced by the fact that in a greater number of words the
difference in meaning is fine and subtle, or such differentiation
in not made in the MT. This becomes a serious problem in the

case of words which Palmer (1976:62), calls “loose sense of
synonymy.” Engine Nida (1964), Peter Newmark (1984&1988),
S.B. McGuire (1980), Anna Wierzbicka (1980), and D.A. Cruse
(1986) have all attempted to handle the problem of synonymy
and translatability.
The translator should distinguish the degrees of similarity
between SL synonymous items. If it is very high, it is advisable
to render them by one item in the TL. However, if the items of
the SL are only near-synonyms, the translator might translate
them separately in order to preserve the function of such
repetition, e.g., as-silmu wa-l-amnu (peace and security). There
are typical differences between most synonymous couplet, which
the translator should convey in the TL. S. Ullmann (1962:142)
pointed out that Prof. W .E .Collinson distinguished between
nine relational possibilities, viz (1) one term is more general than
the other: refuse – reject (2) one term is more intense than the
other: repudiate – refuse; (3)one term is more emotive than the
other: reject- decline; (4)one term may imply moral approbation
or censure where another is neutral: thrifty- economical; (5) one
term is more professional than the other: decease – death; (6)
one term is more literary than the other: passing – death; (7)
one term is more colloquial than the other: turndown- refuse; (8)
one term is more local or dialectal than the other: Scots flesher
– butcher, and (9) one of the synonyms belongs to child-talk:
daddy – father.
Looking at the topic no. two of the test, we will discover that
there are certain Arabic words nearly of the same meaning such as:
abq and itr, ihsas, infi’al, and aatifah, farah and bahjah,dahshah
and I’jab, shumokh, kibriya, izzah, and min’ah, and motuasilah
and mostamirrah. Such words cause a problematic area to the
subjects when translating from Arabic into English, as a result
of using bilingual dictionaries.
From all the above discussion it can be said that no true
synonyms exist in a language and the most of the criteria and

tests of real synonyms are the same among different linguists.
Lyons (1963:52), states that “The criteria of real synonym is
the capacity of occurrence in precisely the same linguistic and
contextual environment with the same meaning both denotative
and connotative.” On the other hand, Hill (1969:44), states
that the true synonyms must be identical in their meaning and
function. By the time Palmer (1981:91) thinks that true synonyms
are mutually interchangeable in all their environments, or they
the same opposites. Ullmam (1962:142), has referred to the same
situation with more precision by saying that “few words are
completely synonymous in the sense of being interchangeable in
any context without the slightest alteration in objective meaning,
feeling tone, or emotive.” Finally, it can be said that virtually
no true or real synonymy exists in a language and if it is there,
it is very rare.
The errors in most cases can be attributed to the use of

bilingual dictionaries where the FL learners tend to assume that
there is a number of related words. This view is confirmed by
Honrny (1965:104), who states that: “There are very few real
synonyms in English, so circular definitions are dangerous,
especially in a dictionary intended for users to whom the
language is foreign.”
5.3. Syntactic Errors
This section is devoted to identifying, describing, and
explaining syntactic errors made by the learners in this
study,(3.6.1). According to the English syntax, these errors
are categorized into six categories, exactly, articles errors,
tenses and verbs errors, preposition errors, concord errors,
pronominal errors, and other errors. Table (1), below shows the
frequency of occurrence of (496), syntactic errors in the data
under investigation. The typology was constructed according
to linguistic usages.

Table (1)
Frequency of Occurrence of Syntactic Errors
Errors Category Cases Percentage %

1- Article errors 90 18.145
2 - tenses & verbs 304 61.2903
3 – Prepositions 10 2.016
4 – Concord 64 12.90
5 – Pronominal 22 4.435
6 – Other Errors 6 1.29
Total 496 Aprox. 100%
5.3.1. Types of Articles errors

The articles errors have been classified under three main
headings: omission of articles, redundant of articles, and wrong
choice of articles as shown in table (2), below:
Table (2)
Types of Articles errors
Types Cases Percentage

Articles’ omission 16 17.8
Redundant articles 54 60
Wrong choice of articles 20 22.2
Total 90 100%
The possible explanation for omission of articles’ errors is

MT interference as in the following examples:
1- They use (…)heart transplantation for patients who…
2-to send food for(…) people who live there.,
3- This method is used for (…) patient.,

4-(…) United Nations’ delegate is invited by (…)
Sudanese government and so on.
However, in Arabic, as no form of indefinite article exists,

indefiniteness is expressed by the absence of the definite article
‘?al’ ‘the’ and the use of zero morpheme instead. Therefore,
the students transfer this Arabic rule to English and in effect,
they make mistakes. Another possible explanation to this is
the irregularity of the English article system which hinders the
formulation of a generalized rule. This view is confirmed by Jain
(1974:205), who states that “In many English language teaching
situations, three typical areas: article, prepositions, and the tense
system; the major difficulty about them is that they don’t submit
themselves to any easy generalization or overgeneralization
based on some consistent regularity.” This means that, if we
regard the generalization rule which says that the indefinite
article is used with singular countable nouns, and should not be
used with uncountable nouns, it is found that a number of non-
confirming examples as cited by Jain (ibid:205),:
a- As painter, he is not well known.
b- It is a pleasure to see you.
Where the singular countable noun ‘painter’ in example (a),

lacks the indefinite article and the uncountable noun ‘pleasure’
in (b), takes the indefinite article. In examples (a) and (b), above,
learners have adopted the strategy of simplification, deleting the
indefinite article to reduce the linguistic burden of the TL because
they didn’t arrive firm generalizations in the use of indefinite
article. Carelessness may also contribute to the occurrence of
indefinite article omissions. This claim can be justified by the
fact the occurrence of such errors is inconsistent.
Concerning the redundant articles, one can say this type of

errors could be attributed to MT interference on the one hand

and to the ignorance of rule restrictions of the TL itself on the
other hand. English doesn’t use the definite article with mass/
uncountable nouns with generic reference. Arabic, on the other
hand, selects the definite article as such usages. For example:
a- ?lma’u muhimon lil hayati.
*The water in necessary for the life.
It should be Water is necessary for life
Redundant use is also observed with geographical names as

in the example below:
b- Alkhartoum University.
*the Khartoum university
it should be Khartoum University.
Finally, the errors made by the wrong choice of articles

mainly resulted from the interchange of definite and indefinite
articles. Here, students replace the definite article ‘the’ by the
indefinite article ‘a/an’ in places which require the definite article.
So the students ignore the rule that if a noun is preceded by a
modifier and an indefinite article ‘a/an’, the article comes before
the modifier only not after it. So, this error is due to ignorance
of rule restrictions.
5.3.2. Tenses & Verbs Errors
Tense and verbs errors have been classified according to

usage into wrong choices of tenses, wrong formation of tenses,
verb to BE errors as shown in table (3), bellow.

Table (3)
Frequency of Occurrence of Tenses & Verbs Errors
Sub-Category Cases Percentage%

Wrong Choice of Tenses 42 13.8
Wrong Formation of Tenses 180 59.2
BE Errors 92 30.2
Wrong Formation of Passive 10 3.2
Total 304 106.4
Wrong choice of tense could be due to the fact that students

are probably incapable of selecting the appropriate tense form
for the appropriate context. They wrongly broke the sequence
of tenses, by shifting the tense from past to present while proper
sequence of tenses has to be used in both English and Arabic.
The omission of the past marker (-ed), in the following examples:
(1)the last week was a beautiful. It is distinctive, and

considerable week.,
(2) Some model were done to last for some weeks while
other last for many years. The other applied way used
with patient who are not response to treatment.,
Could be attributed to the learning strategy of simplification
stemming from the learner’s tendency to reduce certain
grammatical performatives such as the past tense forms. It could
also be explained as Richards (1974:175), maintains:” The –ed
marker in narrative or in other past contexts, often appears
to carry no meaning, since pastness usually can be expressed
equally well in the present.” He argues that this kind of errors
is ‘developmental’, i-e, it is made by anyone learning English
and it not derived from transfer. This type of errors could be
attributed to poor training of students with regard to proper
selection of tenses so to suit proper contextual situations. Also

the ignorance of the rules of the conjugation of the verbs plays
a great role, when students fail to produce the right form of
the verb. The students try to extend the use of the verb by over
generalizing the general rule of conjugation (-ed addition to
the base form), of English regular verbs to the irregular ones
as well. This claim is supported by Selinker (1974:40), who
says that “the past tense form morpheme –ed is extended to
an environment in which to the learner, it could logical apply,
but just doesn’t.” Other reasons that play a great role in this
area can be maintained as: overgeneralization, carelessness,
learning chunks or teaching strategies. The last ones increase
the frequency of over-generalization structures, e-g: He talks
to the responsible people. This example is over generalized to:
*He is talks to the responsible people.
Concerning the verb to be errors, it is obviously found that

MT interference plays a great role in this area. This is for the verb
be when used in the present has no corresponding verbal form
in Arabic, e.g. the Arabic equivalent of the English sentence:
?abi shafoqun djidan.
My father---kind very.
However, in Arabic when the context implies past event the

insertion of be is possible, e.g.
Alhakomatu mashgholaton.
The government was busy. Burt and Kiparsky, (1972:15),

Jain, (1974:191), state that the omission of be “seems to be
typical errors to many EFL learners with different language
backgrounds.” It is not detected to be a strategy of simplification
on the part of the learner, but as stated by Cohen, (1976:55), “it
seems to be an instance of language interference from the MT
form languages is no copula element.”

On the other hand, the linguistic simplification is clearly
applied by the learners in the omission of be as an auxiliary. As
for the justification of omission of be as an auxiliary, it could be
due to a strategy of simplification whereby the learner reduces
his/her linguistic burden. According to Dulay & Burt (1982:155),
“Learners try to eliminate those semantically redundant items.”
For these areas on most of the grammatical morphemes such as
the auxiliary verbs, the articles, the prepositions and most of the
nouns and adverb inflections are subjected to omission. This type
of be is termed by Ellis (1985:179), “linguistic simplification.”
Once there is an omission of verb be, there should be
redundant use of verb be. This redundant could be attributed to
faulty comprehension of distinctions in the TL. This is as in the
following example: He is talks with the government.
5.3.3. Analysis of Preposition Errors
The percentage of the preposition errors in this study

was 2.16% of all errors in the data. These errors revealed that
the students made mistakes in choosing the correct prepositions
as shown in e.g.:
*In the previous week is very beautiful and distinguished
and considered with perfume thousand sense thousand
reaction thousand feverish emotions with joy and
jubilation over whelmed with surprise dressed….
The reason of such errors could be lack of practice on the part
of the students which initials to ignorance of the rule restrictions
concerning the use of prepositions.
5.3.4. Concord Errors
The analysis of concord errors constitutes 12.90% of the
errors handled in this study. They have been dealt with under one
heading, viz. subject-verb agreement since it is the only type of
error revealed in the data. The student made errors of subject-

verb agreement, particularly the omission of the 3 rd person
singular. The data also showed that many errors made by the
students in the omission of the plural (-s) marker. This type of
error could also be attributed to MT interference, where English
requires an (-s), with present simple verbs, when the subject is
one of the 3rd persons. On the contrary, Arabic requires no (-s),
marker in that equivalent English constructions e,g:
*abee ya’malu mu’alim.
*father my work teacher
My father works as a teacher.
The errors could be attributed to the carelessness of the

students and their lack of practice.
5.3.5. Pronominal Errors
As it is a commonplace fact that English shows concord

in number, gender and person between a pronoun and its
antecedent, English distinguishes several types of pronouns:
personal pronouns, relative pronouns, demonstrative pronouns,
possessive pronouns, and reflexive pronouns. Pronominal errors
in this study constitute 4.435% of the errors. They were treated
under the following sub-categories: wrong choice of pronouns,
that constitute 5.2% of the pronominal errors, and redundant
pronouns. These errors of wrong selections could be attributed
to the differences between the English pronouns and Arabic
language. In English, six of the pronouns show differences in
form for certain syntactic positions. In English correlation of
the pronouns with the different kinds of noun words refereeing
to humans and non-humans, and animate and inanimate things
is not always easy to make because both humans and non-
humans such as: child, enemy, dog, etc., may have the following
correlation forms: he, she, it.

Noun words such as: group, nation, family, class… etc., may
have correlation forms: they or it. The FLs of English have
difficulty in choosing the correct correlation form.
5.3.6. Other Errors
These types of error are due to the students’ ignorance of the

functions of adverbs and adjectives because they lack practice
of these parts of speech. They ignore that adjectives describe
nouns and adverbs describe verbs, therefore, they are unable
to differentiate between them. Arabic and English are different
in their constructions. A comparison of an Arabic text and its
English counterpart in order to produce a readable English
text, the learner may have to change the structure of nearly all
sentences.
For example, Arabic verbal sentences have the basic word-

order of verb-subject-adverbial. The main Arabic word-order
is V.S.O., whereas the English one is S.V.O. The learner (when
translates) may overlook this example rule and consequently the
Arabic rendering of some English sentences would look. Here
in this example :( 1)
1- a- the boy went to the garden.
1- b- elwaladu thahaba ila elhadiqati.
1- c- thahaba elwaladu ila elhadiqati.
The structure (1- b) looks odd whereas (1- c) looks normal.
Arabic favours co-ordination, whereas English tends to use

complex sentences using subordination as in the example (2)
2-a – Because he had felt angry after he had seen the envious

man, he thought he had better stay away from the club.
2- b- li-‘annahu sha’ra bil-ghadhabi ba’da an ra’a el-rajul

el-hasid, ‘azama ‘an yabqa ba’idan min el-nadi.
This rendering has conveyed the grammatical structure but at

the cost of naturalness, abandoning the fact that Arabic favours
linking through co-ordination and usually forwarding the main
clause rather than sub-ordinate clause. Thus the translation (2-c)
below may be more appropriate:
2-c- ‘azama ‘an yabqa ba’idan min el-nadi ba’da an ra’a

el-rajul el-hasid.
Further, in English one can say,
(3) In his speech, the president said…
In Arabic the cataphoric usage is ruled out: that is, one cannot
mention the adjectival pronoun before mentioning the noun to
which it refers, e.g. it is only possible to say: (3-a) qala a-syyidu
l-ra’isu fi xitabin la-hu.
In English, when a series of modifies precede a noun, the

modifies must be placed in a special order, e.g. ‘Mary’s three
new large brown house doors.’ In Arabic, however, there are no
such restrictions in the arrangement of a series of adjectives in
a sentence. Moreover, English adjectives precede nouns, but in
Arabic they come after them. In Arabic, the mubtada, should
precede the xabar, e.g. Allah maujud, (God is Existent).
In brief, in Arabic the translator has to use an entirely

different approach and completely different construction in
dealing with syntactic problems.

5.4. Cohesion Errors
Table (4)
Frequency of Occurrence of Cohesion Errors
Type of cohesion error No. Percentage %

Reference errors 349 56.3%
Conjunction errors 271 43.7%
Total 620 100%
Cohesion is the glue that holds a piece of writing together.

In other words, if a paper is cohesive, it sticks together from
sentence to sentence and from paragraph to paragraph. Cohesive
devices certainly include transitional words and phrases, such as
therefore, furthermore, or for instance, that clarify for readers
the relationships among ideas in a piece of writing. However,
transitions aren’t enough to make writing cohesive. Repetition
of key words and use of reference words are also needed for
cohesion.
5.4.1 Repetition of Key Words
Sentences or paragraphs together can be tied by repeating

certain key words from one sentence to the next or from one
paragraph to the next. This repetition of key words also helps
to emphasize the main idea of a piece of writing.
For example, in the following paragraph, notice how many
times the words owned and ownership are repeated: Nobody
owned any part of the land. Sotopo’s father owned many cattle,
and if the cows continued to produce calves, he might as well
become the next chief. Old Grandmother owned the beautifully
tanned animal skins she used as coverlets in winter. And Sotopo
owned his polished hard-wood assegais. But the land belonged
to the spirits who governed life; it existed forever, for everyone,
and was apportioned temporarily according to the dictates of
the tribal chief and senior headman. Sotopo’s father occupied

the hillside for the time being, and when he died the older son
could inherit the loan -- land, but no person or family every
acquired ownership.
From The Covenant by James Michener.
By repeating the words owned and ownership throughout the
paragraph, the writer has tied each sentence to each other and
has clearly indicated what the main idea of the paragraph is. In
this case, the main idea is ownership of something. Moreover,
what exactly is being (or not being) owned? By repeating the
word land, the author shows us that the entire main idea is
ownership of land.
The learners in this study tend to be weak when they want
to tie sentences and paragraph to indicate what the main idea
of the paragraph is. This weakness is clearly observed from the
occurrence of cohesion errors in table (4), where the percentage
of each type of cohesion errors is as such: Reference error is
56.3%, and conjunction error is 43.7%. It can be said that the
reference error represents the most problematic area among the
cohesion error.
5.4.2 Use of Reference Words
Another way of tying sentences and paragraphs together
involves using reference words that point back to an idea
mentioned previously. Among the many reference words that
can be used to tie one sentence to another or one paragraph to
another are words like this, these, those, such, and that. These
reference words should not be used by themselves but should be
combined with the important words and phrases from previous
sentences or paragraphs. In the following paragraphs, we can
see how reference words are used not only to tie sentences and
paragraphs together, but also to emphasize the main idea.
Writing about a topic is often difficult and many times

rewarding. First, I don’t always know what to write about, so

I often need to research, talk to people, and think about what I
know before I come up with a strong topic. In addition, writing
process takes time and energy. Time is needed to select and
narrow a topic, to generate information and structure ideas, to
knock out draft after draft, and to edit for my usual typos and
mechanical errors. Besides the time involved, energy (and lots
of food to produce it) is needed so I can produce my best work.
Although writing is sometimes difficult, it can be very rewarding.
Somebody may enjoy seeing words which say exactly what he/
she wants them to. He/she also feels proud when everything
“clicks.” Finally, knowing that he/she’s done his/her best work
and earned a good grade too are strong personal rewards.
It can be said that the reference,(table 4) is a problematic

cohesive device for the students as seen in the following
examples:
1-Today he is going to arrive in the Sudan. To
visit the country (…) spends some days. This
(…) invited from (…) government. He will discuss
the responsible of united nation researchers with
official in country and authority in control take
of humanity position. Above all the necessity of
arrangement to arrive food to citizen in these
areas.
2- A team of scientist discovered [an] alternative
method for heart transport which is called V.I.A.
It is an artificial heart which put in the chest of the
patient by using an operation. The most important
function for it [is] to help the heart to pump a
large mount of blood that have a lot of oxygen
to pass for the other parts[of what?]. It also help
the heart to pump the blood to the lungs to gain
more oxygen. They [who are they?]design some
samples[of what?] to be used[by who?] for few
weeks and others for to be used for years[why?].

3-*In the previous week is very beautiful and
distinguished and considered with perfume
thousand sense thousand reaction thousand
feverish emotion with joy and jubilation over
wheld with surprise dressed….
4- Upon an invitation of the Sudan’s , [Sudan’s
what?].
5-* The aim of this visit is to make the preparations
so as to supply people who live there, [where?]
With food.
6-* bring the food to these area.[‘these’ should
refer to plural nouns ]
7- * And the arrangements which are necessary
to communicate food aids to the citizens in
the concerned regions.[These regions are not
mentioned before.]
8- *This method has been used with patient who

they, [who are they?],waiting for cardioplantation
cergers and they don’t [who are they?],respond
for treatment. ‘don’t’& ‘they’ don’t refer to 3rd
person singular, ‘patient’.
9-*And it designed some sample to stay a few

week, and few of it stay about years they use
this way with the patient who waiting the heart
transport and they will never respond to it.
Lack of cohesion in writing is a problem that plagues many
ESOL students. How to help students overcome the problem has
long been a challenge to ESOL teachers and researchers alike.
Yet in dealing with this complex task, many teachers continue
to focus mostly on teaching the use of functional connectives
such as conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs, overlooking

another important element responsible for basic text cohesion:
content lexical ties. Many studies have shown that these ties,
which involve the use of repetition, synonymy/antonym, and
superordinates/ hyponymy among other tools, are an essential
cohesive device in native speakers’ speeches and writing (Carter
and McCarthy 1988; Halliday and Hasn 1976; Halliday 1994;
McCarthy 1991; Salkie 1995; Winter 1977 and 1978). However,
the studies seem to have failed to produce much impact on ESOL
writing instruction on cohesion. The author’s search has yielded
no direct studies on the teaching and the use of content lexical
ties in ESOL, and most ESOL writing textbooks have either
totally neglected the subject or merely mentioned it in passing.
Spencer and Arbon (1996) and Swales and Feak (1994)

discussed only functional connectives in addressing the issue
of cohesion in their composition books. Reid (1988), while
rendering a four-page detailed discussion on connectives, offered
only a sketch of less than one page on repetition and synonyms
as cohesive devices. Similarly, Ruetten (1997) had merely a short
unit on using repetitions for cohesion, while presenting in almost
every chapter a unit on using functional connectives. More
importantly, neither Reid nor Ruetten mentioned superordinates/
hyponymys as viable cohesive devices. Only Hamp-Lyons
and Heasley (1987) included units such as “Class relationship:
Classification” and “Class relationship: Definition” on how to use
superordinates/hyponyms in writing. No authors seem to have
touched on the use of content text-structuring words—a term
will be explained later—for cohesion. This absence of content
lexical ties in ESOL writing textbooks might partially explain
the failure of classroom teachers to address cohesion issue from
this important perspective.
5.4.3 Types of content lexical ties

Before further discussing the significance of teaching content
lexical ties in ESOL writing, a brief review of lexical cohesion is
needed. Lexical cohesion refers to the coherence of a text formed

by the use of repetition, synonyms, antonyms, superordinates/
hyponyms, related words (Salkie 1995:28–31), and/or text-
structuring words (Carter and McCarthy 1988:206–210; Winter
1977, 1978).
Since repetition, synonyms, and antonyms are well-known
terms, their uses for forming text cohesion should be easy to
understand. However, superordinates/ hyponyms, related words,
and text-structuring words are much less familiar nomenclatures.
Superordinates are general words that refer to a class,
whereas hyponyms are specific members of the class. Animal,
for example, is a superordinate whose hyponyms include
words like dog, cat, and chicken. Depending on the context,
the writer may go from a superordinate to its hyponyms or vice
versa to create text coherence as shown in the example below.
Related words refer to those that are normally not considered
synonyms or antonyms but that form a synonymic, antonymic,
or superordinate/hyponym relationship in the context (Carter and
McCarthy 1988; Salkie 1995). They are situational or textual
synonyms or antonyms. The vocabulary choice in the following
quotation from Gibbs’ (1990) article about the extreme optimism
of today’s youth will exemplify both concepts.
Wild optimism is youth’s prerogative, but older women
should shudder slightly at the giddy expectations of today’s
high school and college students. At times their hope borders
on hubris with its assumption that the secrets that eluded their
predecessors will be revealed to them. “In the 1950s women
were family-oriented,” says Sheryl Hatch, 20, broadcasting
major at the American University in Washington. “In the ’70s
they were career-oriented. In the ’90s we want to balance. I
think I can do both.”
The word youth and the phrase high school and college
students form a superordinate/ hyponym relationship in which
youth is a superordinate to high school and college students. As
for related words, there are many in this short passage. Youth
versus older, and family-oriented versus career-oriented are

obvious examples that may be considered either antonyms or
situational antonyms. Wild optimism, giddy expectations, hope,
and hubris refer basically to the same thing. They are not usually
considered synonyms, but are situational synonyms. The words
eluded and revealed would not normally be considered related.
Yet in the sentence, they form a contrasting relationship.
Text-structuring words, also known as halfway-house
words, are those that fall somewhere between what have been
traditionally called content and functional words (Carter and
McCarthy 1988; Winter 1977). Words such as agenda (dis)
advantage, problem, reason, and feasible may seem to be
classifiable as content words in the traditional sense because they
are nouns, adjectives, or verbs. However, when we encounter
these words in reading, often “we need to do something similar
to what we do when we encounter words like it, he and do in
texts: we either refer to the bank of knowledge built up with the
author, look back in the text to find a suitable referent, or [look]
forward, anticipating that the writer will supply the missing
content” (Carter and McCarthy 1988). The following sentence
is an example: “Despite its many good features, this car has a
shortcoming.” Both the words features and shortcoming fall
into the category of text-structuring words because the reader
has to go back to the previous sentences to understand what
the good features mean, and wait for an explanation about the
shortcoming before learning what it is. That is, both words have
to be lexicalized before they make full sense.
Studies have demonstrated that content lexical ties are an
important cohesive device in writing and that insufficient use of
lexical cohesive ties by ESOL students contribute to the lack of
cohesion in their writings. Yet so far, ESOL educators seem to
have overlooked the issue. More attention should be paid to this
topic in research and classroom teaching. Many more teaching
and learning activities in this area need to be developed to help
students write more cohesively.

5.4.4. Conjunction Errors
This type of errors represents 43.7% of the total of the cohesion

errors, table 4. The following are some examples:
1- *And it designed some sample to stay a few week,
and few of it stay about years they use this way with
the patient who waiting the heart transport and they
will never respond to it. It is clearly that this sentence
doesn’t need to start with the additive coordinator
‘and’, for it is the first sentence of a paragraph. Then,
the same coordinator is repeated twice in the same
sentence. Moreover, Yahya, (2000:162), indicates that
Arab EFL learners’ overuse of the English ‘and’ seems
to play a central role in the formulation of the contrastive
rhetoric hypothesis. Kaplan (1980:402), a leading
contrastve rhetorician, claimed that Arabic language is
characterized by a series of parallel constructions which
are connected by coordination. He also argued at length
that parallel construction forms the core of paragraphs
in some Arabic writings as well (p.403).
2-*The general delegate Tom frasline of the united nation
of humanity affairs will arrive to day in Sudan as a visit
which will take some days because the government
invited him. The responsible of the united nation will
hold speeches with some of responsible people in the
authority. Which handle the humanity position in some
areas in the west, and upper nlie and bahr elrazal,
and arrange all the needs to deliver food for citizens
in these areas. Looking at the example (2), one will
discover that it a form of a three sentences paragraph.
It can be said, the three sentences are loose and not
logically joint. The sentence (1), and (2) are of the same
beginning using the article ‘the’, where as the sentence
(3) starts with ‘which’, which is completely wrong.
Also it is observed that the first sentence contains three

linking words. A sentence may contain more than one
idea. If these ideas are considered by the writer to be
equal in rank, they are coordinate, and the independent
clauses embodying their ideas are coordinate clauses.
In such cases several connectives are used including
coordinating conjunctions. The connective used depends
on the relationship that obtains between the two (or
more) ideas/clauses. Kharma & Hajaj, (1997:115), state
that “Arab grammarians do not make a special distinction
between coordination and subordination in the is dealt
with in English. This may constitute a source of difficulty
for Arab students when dealing with subordinate clauses
in particular.”
It is only natural for students at the university level with an

advanced stage of intellectual maturity to deal with sophisticated
ideas when they are required to write on various serious
topics. The most important components of such writing are the
relationships among the sub-ideas that constitute the main theme.
So it is advisable that the students should have taken care of the
relationship among the sub-ideas.
As the student and some teachers view the problem, the most
significant and complicated steps are the stages of “superficial
awareness” and “deep awareness of the original.” Failure to
clear these stages successfully may be due to the students’ poor
or insufficient knowledge of the foreign vocabulary; possible
lack of information on rare words and/or stylistic labels in the
dictionaries consulted (the latter circumstance generally leading
to the translator’s inability to distinguish the stylistic specificity
of the original); the presence, in the foreign text, of complicated,
non-standard syntactical constructions ignored or poorly reported
by grammar textbooks. All these create the general mood of
“fear” of the source text on the part of the poor translator.
Another reason for neglect of the “result” is the translator’s a
priori persuasion that every structure he/she makes in the native

language is always grammatically (and/or stylistically) correct
in FL language. As seen the following example,
* A united nation responsipol man arrive to the country
It should also be noted that the above “result” is obviously

conditioned by the original text in its content, but actually
does not exhibit any formal linguistic ties with the latter thus
being absolutely independent. Hence it is assessed, among
other important criteria, from the standpoint of its conformity
to the accepted standards of the native language. The typical
characteristics of such a “result” might be as follows:
1. Undesirable imitation of the foreign word organization
(word order), as in * Arrive responsible of united nation
country;
2. Rendering of certain foreign grammar forms by the
seemingly analogous structures of the mother tongue,
as in * Tom, general secretary of the united nation for
humanitarian affairs will arrives the country today, as a
visitor and he will stay for many days, and this invitation
from the government. and * Arrive responsible of united
nation country;
3. Excessive and/or unjustified use of international language
forms *U.N. agent arrives in the Sudan; *United nation
official arrives the country;* the general secretary’s
envoy for humanitarian affairs;
The above-said drawbacks originating from the “translator’s
dependence” on the linguistic peculiarities of the original text,
can seldom be qualified as “discrepancy of senses,” but should
rather be attributed to the violation of formal standards of the
native language which hampers the perception of the translation
result as a text showing ultimate agreement with the original
utterance. This violation thus cannot but notably lower the
quality of the result.

As an immediate example, I’ll take one English sentence
found almost at random in a text dedicated to the system of
U.N. This sentence, which has every chance of being offered for
translation by Arabic-language students of various knowledge
levels, runs as follows: ‫نوئشلل ةدحتملا ممألل ماعلا نيمألا ثوعبم‬
‫ةيناسنإلا‬.
The possible variant of translation in English is: U.N.
secretary general’s envoy for human affairs.
Obviously enough, variants reveal the poorest knowledge of

the structural specificity of the foreign language. The difficulties
of the original which remained unmastered during the first
studying stage have resulted in misunderstanding the meaning
of the source utterance and, consequently, in the semantic
distortion of the result. This distortion is itself so bad that it
even overshadows the wrong syntax of the English translation.
As seen in the following examples:
1. U.N. agent arrives in the Sudan;
2. A united nation responsipol man arrive to the country;
3. United nation official arrives the country;

4. The general security of united nation humanitarian he
will arrivals for several days for invitation for Sudanese
government;
5. A responsible of united nation arrives to Sudan;
6. The united nation manager come to country;
7. The uinted nation delegate council.
Generally speaking, variants may be recognized as semantically

equal to the original. However they contain an evident violation
of the Arabic language standards leading to an ambiguity which
is absolutely absent in the original).

The translation variants may serve as typical examples of the
translator’s underestimation of the final stage of the translating
activity.
Apart from the fact that the above faulty translations exhibit
errors pertaining to different linguistic domains, they also
indicate different levels of practical knowledge of the foreign
language and acquaintance with its lexical and grammatical
specificity.
5.5. Summary
As it is clearly stated that this chapter identifies, describes,
explains, and discusses some of the errors made by Sudanese
students at Neelain university, fourth year, when translating from
Arabic into English. It explains translation errors, synonyms’
the subjects. Then, it discusses the reasons to which these errors
are attributed. The analysis and discussion are considered as a
step to chapter six where the conclusion, and recommendations.

Chapter 6
Recommendations
and Conclusions
6. 0. Introduction
This chapter is devoted to summarize the findings of the

study, estimate the research, suggest areas for further studies
and affirm the pedagogical implementations of the research in
the light of the results obtained.
6.1. Summary of the Results

The present researchers hold the view that the operation of
learning a foreign language has many phases beginning with
the exploration of the target/second language and ending with
approximation of a good command of the required language.
In the performance of Arab learners of English, it is noted the
presence of many errors when writing in English. The misuse
of English structures leads to the confusion of the meanings of
the written contexts. The causes of such errors are too many,
where the most effective one is the ‘mother tongue interference’.
Kharma and Hajjaj (1995:75), think “that Learners of any
foreign or second language always have difficulties in dealing
with its various approaches.” The Sudanese EFL learners face
many problems in expressing themselves in written English,
so they make poor English texts by committing certain errors.
These errors (Khalid 1995:73-79), are considered an indication
of severe learning difficulties that hinder good performance
of English language. This problem has been experienced by
the researchers at the Department of English, faculty of Arts,

Neelain University, therefore, he, seriously, thinks of studying
this phenomena. This research is intended to investigate the
contextual translation equivalence experienced by Sudanese
students who are preparing to graduate with a B.A. degree in
English.
Students chosen for this study are homogenous. Corder
namely linguistic, that the selected subjects should speak the same
knowledge of the new language. So 150 students were randomly
chosen from the forth year, department of English at the faculty
of Arts at Neelain University to represent the original subjects
in this study. The students’ ages range between 20 – 25 years.
They have had an average of ten years of formal instruction in
English as a FL at school and university.
So the selected group is homogeneous with the respect to
age educational level and linguistic background. Out of 180
students 30 students were randomly chosen as subjects for the
sample in this study. They are believed to have been exposed
to a variety of language skills courses, a number of linguistic
courses, translation, lexical studies, stylistics, etc, which can
collectively contribute to enhance their translation performance.
In this sense the research is evaluative in nature that examines
texts as acts of communication, and individual static sentence.
It investigates textually, and grammatically, the relationship
between sentences, text and context that make text coherent and
relationship within a sentence that make it grammatical.
The scope of this research followed traditions laid down
by text linguistics whereby reference was made to translation

equivalence. So, translation equivalence aspects that were
investigated were in the students’ translation. This study was
limited to identify, describe, explain, and discuss some of the
errors made by Sudanese students at Neelain university, 4th , when
translating from Arabic into English. It identified, described, and
explained translation errors, synonyms’ errors, syntactic errors,
and finally, the cohesion errors made by the subjects. Also, it
was expected to discuss the reasons at which these errors were
attributed to.
On the other hand, this study aimed at:
1. Giving insight into the nature of the English translation
equivalence.
2. Investigating Sudanese EFL learners’ translation

problems at translation equivalence.
3. Proposing translation-based approach to EFL translation

in Sudanese academic institutions.
In investigating the research problem the following questions

were put into consideration, and were posed:
1. How competent are Sudanese learners in handling
English translation equivalence?
2. What are the problems that these learners encounter
in practicing translation?
3. How can such problem be overcome?
Studying the results of the investigations, it was found that
there were certain areas that represented problematic areas to
the Sudanese students. These areas were lexical errors, errors
of synonymity, syntactic errors, and finally, the cohesion errors.
It can be said that, the lexical errors in this study were divided
into: literal translation from Arabic, paraphrasing, false analogy
and synonymy. It was found from the analysis undertaken,
MT interference was a majour variable in the choice of lexical
items. It was also found that overgeneralization of TL rules
predominates.
Tense errors were the results of the students’ incapability
of selecting the right tense as well as the learning strategy of
simplification and the false analogy, while MT interference was
a main source of error in the wrong formation of tenses.
Concerning the preposition errors, MT interference where the
students translated literally the Arabic prepositions into English,
lack of practice, ignorance of rule restrictions were responsible
for making errors.
Concord errors could be attributed to overgeneralization of
TL rules and MT interference. The students made pronominal
errors in the wrong choice, redundant use and omission of
pronouns due to the differences between the English pronouns
and Arabic pronouns on one hand, and the MT interference in
the other hand. The students also made other errors such as
adjective positioning and adverb positioning. The MT was the
main source of adjective errors.
Generally, most of the errors revealed could be attributed
to two major sources: interlingual (MT interference), and
interalingual, (i.e. overgeneralization of TL rules, simplification,
false analogy, ignorance of rule restorations and incomplete
application of rules.). In addition, they could be also attributed
to other non-linguistic sources, such as methods of teaching,
untrained teachers, and ineffective curricula.
Thinking of answering the above mentioned three questions
led to the evaluation of the learners’ competence in handling
English translation equivalence, the problems that these learners
encountered in practicing translation, and how could such
problems be overcome. The evaluation of the study showed that
when learners had difficulty in ruling the TL lexical, which may
convey the intended meaning, they resorted to the translation of

the equivalent item from their MT and used it in the TL context.
If the rules governing the item in the MT and TL were different,
the use of the translated item would result in either a clear cut
error or in an expression which sounded odd to native speakers,
however, fulfilled the purpose of communication.
Tarone et al., (1983:10), define the strategy of paraphrasing as
“The rewording of the message in an alternative

acceptable construction in order to avoid more difficult
form or construction.” The term ‘circumlocution’ is also
used by Tarone et al., (1983:10), and Varadi (1983:84),
to refer to paraphrase.
According to Tarone (1983:82),
”the learner resorts to analogy in situations where
the intended lexical item is known. It is his desire to
communicate a certain concept that presses him to adapt
his strategy. ”
These errors are referred to by Richards (1984:174), as

“developmental errors” which “illustrate that the learner is
attempting to build up hypothesis about the English language
from his limited experience of in the classroom or the textbook.”
In addition, the area of synonymy should be taken care of

which is defined by Richards (1985:28), as “a word which has
the same, or nearly the same meaning as another word.”
The errors in most cases can be attributed to the use of
bilingual dictionaries where the FL learners tend to assume that
there is a number of related words. This view is confirmed by
Honrny (1965:104), who states that:
“There are very few real synonyms in English, so circular

definitions are dangerous, especially in a dictionary
intended for users to whom the language is foreign.”

Then, the syntactic errors according to the English syntax, in
this study, were categorized into six categories, exactly, articles
errors, tenses and verbs errors, preposition errors, concord errors,
pronominal errors, and other errors. Table (1), in chapter five
shows the frequency of occurrence of (496), syntactic errors
in the data under investigation. The typology was constructed
according to linguistic usages.
Other Errors were seen. These types of error were due to the
students’ ignorance of the functions of adverbs and adjectives
because they lacked practice of these parts of speech. They
ignored that adjectives describe nouns and adverbs describe
verbs, therefore, they were unable to differentiate between them.
The learners in this study tended to be weak when they
wanted to tie sentences and paragraph to indicate what the
main idea of the paragraph was. This weakness was clearly
noticed from the occurrence of cohesion errors in table (4),
where the percentage of each type of cohesion errors was as
such: Reference error was 56.3%, and conjunction error was
43.7%. It can be said that the reference error represented the
most problematic area among the cohesion error.
At the end, the findings showed that learners made errors
for the reason of the lack of awareness of most words’ variety
of application. Learners should know the applicability and
use of words and structures in the language, a knowledge for
which no elaborated text exists, due to the continuous change of
languages and due to change in the state of affairs in which they
are used. Also, it can be said that the practice of translation is
indispensable, since it is the only best way of becoming a good
practitioner. Translation should be an act of love and devotion
since, as it is commonly known, efficient professionals are
those who love their profession. Learners should be exposed to
translating texts in both the SL and TL. They should read these
texts carefully with a decisive eye, and take the best of them as
models to imitate.

6.2. Recommendations of the Study
The following recommendations are suggested in the hope

that they will be taken into consideration for at least reducing the
occurrence of errors as well as creating better circumstances in
the field language learning, translation, teaching methodology,
course-books preparation, teacher training, and testing.
In accordance with our observations, the following measures
could be recommended to teachers and curricula compilers as
an attempt to avoid potential mistakes in translation:
1. As the students make step-by-step advance in

mastering the linguistic specificity of the target
language and move slowly from the initial to the
final stage of the studying process, the focus should
be gradually shifted from the first translation stage
to the last one, i.e. to the translation result. This
should of course be done primarily in class, to form
a habit of viewing the result as a self-sufficient and
self-valuable utterance in the native language whose
linguistic specificity should not copy the original. A
fine support here is perhaps an increase (or at least a
“non-decrease”) of the time devoted to the practical
written translation from the foreign language into
the native one, as compared to oral translation.
This is due to the fact that it is a written translation
technique that requires maximum responsibility
from the translator for the final result which is fixed
on paper only once as a “fair-copy.”
2. Adding, within the curriculum of the undergraduate
students, one more final phase to the above-shown
three-stage translation scheme, which may be named
“result editing,” i.e. bringing the native-language
utterance into complete accord with the standards
of the vernacular.

3. As an essential basis of what was said in the
previous item—greater attention to and focus
on the professional study of the native language
within the general curriculum of those students
who study foreign languages. This emphasis may be
particularly manifested in an intensive study of the
stylistic standards of the mother tongue.
4. Teaching English vocabulary to improve the learners’

vocabulary. It will help the learners to learn not
only the meanings of words but also how these
words are used. Learners should have known that
a word may have different meanings in different
contexts. Immediate development of strategies for
the large expansion of vocabulary at the intermediate
and advanced stages is seriously recommended,
vocabulary should be recognized as a crucial element
in language teaching/learning process from the
beginning stages.
5. Teaching grammar doesn’t have to be boring for

the students or teachers, with a little creativity,
productive lessons that teach grammar inductively
can cheer up the process for both teachers and
learners.
6. Writing should be given its own status in the ELT

course. There are a number of reasons for this.
For one thing, linguists have become interested in
studying the characteristics of written as well as
spoken language, and it is now clear for everyone
that writing is not simply a poor relative of speaking-
or that speaking is merely a sloppy version of
writing. For another, teachers of English have
become increasingly concerned with the need to
teach writing to students whom ability in the spoken

language may be secondary or even irrelevant.
Finally, coinciding with the increased interest in the
written language by both linguists and ELT teachers
has been a considerable growth in the study of
language beyond the sentence, that is, in discourse.
7. Learners should always be reminded that good

translators do not only share worthwhile ideas with
their readers; they also express those ideas in the
best possible way.
8. Any course book should be carefully planned to

introduce students to all the main elements of taught
subject in a simple, step-by-step fashion. Students
begin by discovering the value and fascination of
studying that subject, and move on. The course
book should also meet the needs of those who wish
genuinely to teach themselves.
9. Learners should be aware of the differences between

English and Arabic in terms of the structures and
their intended meanings.
10. Models of language, text and translation to provide

the background for empirical studies are now more
needed than ever. It is recommended to formulate
key requirements on a model of translation as a
text type. Such a model must be able to a) relate
(translated) texts to situations of production and
reception, b) provide an account of texture which
goes beyond traditional grammatical categories,
c) provide a motivated notion of text type, and d)
provide a motivated relationship of these types to
lexicogrammatical realization, so as to be amenable
to empirical and corpus-based work.

6. 3. Suggestions for Further Researches
The field language translation is still rich with the areas of

further research. The present study investigates the errors made
by Sudanese EF learners and their possible causes. So more
research is invited to support the findings of the present study.
Here are some suggested areas:
1- a study is needed with larger size and with subjects
representing an even wider range of language
backgrounds. For example, the question of the
influence of proficiency on both quantatively and
qualitively at present also remains unaware. It was
clearly not possible in this study to rank subjects with
any accuracy, since the limitations of these testing
measures are obvious.
2- A study is needed to set criteria to distinguish

between productive systematic deviations and
non-productive deviations in the learning in the
learner’s performance in order to make learning
more efficient.
3- It would be of vital importance to re-examine the

notion of errors in the context of L2 teaching,
especially in those settings where the primary
objective of learning a L2 isn’t so much to
communicate with the native speakers of that
language, but for certain purposes.
4- The researcher noticed that there were so many
spelling errors which were not of his interest in this
study, as a result of this, there should be activities for
practicing common spelling patterns. These spelling
errors must be studied by further research.
5- The mechanism of training foreign>native translation
skills may be schematically shown as a number of

sequential stages: 1. Perception of the utterance
in a foreign language (“superficial awareness of
the original”); 2. Processing of the result (“deep
awareness of the original”—e.g., identification
of unfamiliar words, work with bilingual and
monolingual explanatory dictionaries, etc.); 3. The
result itself (“creation of the new utterance,” or
construction of the semantic and connotative analog
in the native language).
6- Finally, and perhaps the most interesting and fruitful
area of research is the area of language universal as
they relate to L2 acquisition.
6.4. Pedagogical Implementations
Every translation activity has one or more specific purposes

and whichever they may be, the main aim of translation is to
serve as a cross-cultural bilingual communication vehicle among
peoples. In the past few decades, this activity has developed
because of rising international trade, increased migration,
globalization, the recognition of linguistic minorities, and the
expansion of the mass media and technology. For this reason, the
translator plays an important role as a bilingual or multi-lingual
cross-cultural transmitter of culture and truths by attempting to
interpret concepts and speech in a variety of texts as faithfully
and accurately as possible.
Most translation theorists agree that translation is understood
as a transfer process from a foreign language—or a second
language—to the mother tongue. However, market requirements
are increasingly demanding that translators transfer texts to a
target language that is not their mother tongue, but a foreign
language. This is what Newmark calls “service translation.”
“I shall assume that you, the reader, are learning to
translate into your language of habitual use, since that
is the only way you can translate naturally, accurately

and with maximum effectiveness. In fact, however, most
translators do translate out of their own language...”
Newmark (1995b).
This fact makes the translating process a harder task,
sometimes resulting in a mediocre output that should undoubtedly
be revised and post-edited before delivery to the client.
Through this study the researchers have learned that the

consequences of wrong translations can be catastrophic—
especially if done by laypersons—and mistakes made in the
performance of this activity can obviously be irreparable. Just
what could happen in cases of serious inadequacy in knowledge
areas such as science, medicine, legal matters, or technology.
If translating is a discourse operation interposing between

language and thought (Delisle, 1980), we should accept that in
the art or skill of translating we are inexorably going to come
across assorted and numerous obstacles. Delisle (1981) illustrates
what a subtle form of torture translation is:
Translation is an arduous job that mortifies you, puts you

in a state of despair at times, but also an enriching and
indispensable work, that demands honesty and modesty.
There are many thorns that can mortify us during the
translation process, whatever the nature of the text we face, and
translators should be aware of them. The first problem is related
to reading and comprehension ability in the source language.
Once the translator has coped with this obstacle, the most
frequent translation difficulties are of a semantic and cultural
nature (Tricás, 1995): “Linguistic untranslatability” (cognates,
i.e. true and false friends, calque, and other forms of interference;
institutional and standardized terms, neologisms, aphorisms,
etc.), and “cultural untranslatability,” (idioms, sayings, proverbs,
jokes, puns, etc.). One should adopt a very cautious attitude
toward these words or expressions so as to avoid interference
and/or language misuse (Kussmaul, 1995).

Similarly, we quite often run into those painful “not found”
terms, for which not even the best dictionary, an expert in the
topic or a native speaker of the source language can provide us
with a solution to convey an accurate meaning. We should always
bear in mind that one of the greatest virtues of a good translator
is what I have called “contextualized intuition,” i.e. the ability to
find the nearest common sense interpretation of the “not found”
element within its context.
Whatever the difficulty in the translation process, procedures
must aim at the essence of the message and faithfulness to the
meaning of the source language text being transferred to the
target language text. In the words of Nida and Taber (1974):
Translating consists of reproducing, in the target
language, the nearest equivalent to the message in the
source language, in the first place in the semantic aspect
and, in the second place, in the stylistic aspect.
The quality of translation will depend to a great extent on

the quality of the translator, i.e. on her/his knowledge, skills,
training, cultural background, expertise, and even mood!
Newmark (1995b) distinguishes some essential characteristics
that any good translator should have:
 Reading comprehension ability in a foreign language
 Knowledge of the subject

 Sensitivity to language (both mother tongue and
foreign language)
 Competence to write the target language dexterously,
clearly, economically and resourcefully
In addition, Mercedes Tricás refers to intuition, or common sense

as the most common of all senses; in other words, making use
of that sixth sense, a combination of intelligence, sensitivity
and intuition.

This phenomenon works very well if handled cautiously:
...the transfer process is a difficult and complex approach
mechanism, one in which one must make use of all one’s
intellectual capacity, intuition and skill (Tricás, 1995).
Apart from the previously mentioned aspects, it is relevant to
emphasize the necessity for sound linguistic knowledge of both
the SL and the TL, an essential condition, yet not the only one,
to begin swimming up the streams of professional translation.
However, neither knowing languages nor being efficiently
bilingual is enough to become a translator.
For more than twenty years, translation theorists have been
pointing this out, and yet many people believe and claim that
knowing two or more languages is identical to knowing how
to translate properly. We must banish this idea. Delisle (1980)
states it clearly:
Linguistic competence is a necessary condition, but not
yet sufficient for the professional practice of translation.
In addition to reading comprehension ability, the knowledge
of specialized subjects derived from specialized training and a
wide cultural background, and the global vision of cross-cultural
and interlingual communication, it is a must to learn how to
handle the strategic and tactical tools for a good translating
performance.
Hence, the importance of a didactic translation approach:
A methodology that allows the development of an effective
and efficient transfer process from one language to another. As
is widely known by those committed to the field of translation
as a formal professional activity with a theoretical background
is relatively new. Thus, a number of terms have recently been
coined for the subject called Translation Theory (“Translatology”
in Canada, “Traductología” in Spain, “Translation Studies” in
Belgium and the Netherlands).

Cognition sciences have provided us with simple but very
useful ideas about meaningful learning, i.e. a positive approach
to learning that comes from the relationship between previous
knowledge and new knowledge.
This cognitive approach perfectly applies to the transfer
process of ideas from one language to another, which obviously
implies a lot more than the simple reproduction model. In the
preparatory phase of a translation, cognition, in the form of
self-consciousness and self-confidence, plays a very important
role, inasmuch as this period implies conscious mental activities,
where translating problems are detected and analyzed, and
information and knowledge are accumulated (Kussmaul, 1995).
From the psychological and social point of view, the
translator, whose profile should be that of an intellectual worker
with professional training characteristics such as the above-
mentioned, will be more successful if her/his social-affective
development is given more emphasis, for s/he may be better
prepared for cooperative work, and s/he may reach a higher
tolerance level, showing respect, self-criticism and sensitivity.
With regard to the principal approaches to a translation text,

the most renowned translation theorists (Delisle, Newmark, Nida,
Nord, Kussmaul) are in agreement on the following aspects:
Firstly, there is comprehension and interpretation of texts
which implies the management of the approach principles
to various types of texts, considering the textual, referential,
cohesion and naturalness levels. This competence includes
reading comprehension and message interpretation (encoding
and decoding).
Secondly, re-wording is also important. It means the
application of the various strategies for the restitution process of
the message (re-coding) by choosing the appropriate method(s),
techniques and procedures. Among the most frequently used
procedures for the restoration of ideas contained in a translation

unit, a translator may resort to transfer, cultural or functional
equivalent, synonymy, transposition, modulation, compensation,
reduction and expansion or amplification , Newmark, P., (1995).
These skills constitute the essence of translating competence
and should most strongly be emphasized in the training
prospective translators. For this purpose, it is also indispensable
to make effective use of different types of documentation: Parallel
texts, monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, encyclopedias,
term database, informants, and other sources.
Thirdly, translation theorists give great importance to the

assessment of the result, i.e. evidencing the capacity to confront
the translated text with the original text, being able to assess
earnings and losses and showing self-correction capacity. It is
the accurate revision of the output that will definitely result in
a final translation of higher quality.
According to most translation theorists, the specific

approaches to text translation tend to be similar. On the one
hand, it is necessary to use one or more translating approaches
or models. On the other, there is always a way of approaching
an SL text, whether the translator chooses the author-centered
traditional model, the text-centered structuralistic model or the
cognitive reader-centered model. Depending on their training,
translators will adopt one model or another, but many will tend
to tend to an eclectic integration of the three approaches.
Translators should be aware of the fact that incorrect
comprehension of a text considerably decreases the quality of
the translation. We must, therefore, use reading comprehension
strategies for translation (underlining words, detecting translation
difficulties, contextualizing lexical items—never isolating them
-, adapting, analyzing, and so on.)
Finding solutions to dilemmas is a constant in the work of the
translator. This includes translating problems such as linguistic
or cultural “untranslatability,” being able to manage losses

and gains, solutions to lexical ambiguity, etc., through various
mechanisms such as compensation, loans, explanatory notes,
adaptation, equivalence, paraphrasing, analogies, etc.
Translators should also be aware that meaning is not only
conveyed by words. Hence adequate decoding and re-coding of
nomenclatures, figures, tables and charts; standardized terms,
acronyms, metonyms, homonyms, etc. is a matter that must be
properly considered.
A good translator should define some essential starting-points
for the approximation to a text to be translated, such as the author
of the text, the aim of the text, the readership, and the standard
to be used, for which it is important to identify and categorize
the author, the message, the kind of discourse, the translator and
the readership.
Another important aspect is the pre-editing of the original
text to detect eventual source text defects, on the one hand, and
the post-editing of the translated text to verify the use of the most
adequate syntactic, semantic and graphemic levels (recognition
of the reviser’s role), on the other hand.
Among formal matters, translators should be aware of
and control the sound effect and cadence of the translated text
(“translating with the ear”) to avoid cacophonous combinations
and calque on the source language. Regarding the use of
translation procedures and strategies, translators must constantly
make choices, in each paragraph, sentence or translation unit, so
as to decide which of them is the most useful for the transfer of
the ideas in the text being translated. It means adapting the most
suitable strategies and techniques to the requirements of the text
rather than adopting a certain technique and using it for ever.
Last, but not least, translators should observe that the
essence—in terms of meaning and sense, register and style,
etc.— and the lay out of the original text— in terms of format,
i.e. sources, paragraphs, indentation, columns, tables, etc.—is
properly adhered to the translated unit.

Bibliography
Alderson J. Charles (2000), Assessing Reading. Cambridge University

Press. Cambridge, U.K.
A. L. George, [1959], Propaganda Analysis: A Study of Inferences
Made from Nazi Propaganda in World War II, White Plains, NY:
Row, Peterson, &Co., 1959.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1989). Research in motivation in education.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1989). Research in motivation in education.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Anthony, B., 1999, The Foreignness of Languages and Literary
Translation, http://www.ccsun7/, (03 Nov. 1999).
A. Newell, [1980], ``Physical Symbol Systems,’’ Cognitive Science,
1980, 4: 135-183.
A. Newell, [1989], The 1987 William James Lectures: Unified Theories
of Cognition, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, forthcoming.
A. Ortony, G. L. Clore, and M. A. Foss, 1987], ``The Referential
Structure of the Affective Lexicon,’’ Cognitive Science, July-
September, 1987, 11(3): 341-364.
A. S. Maida &S. C. Shapiro, [1982], `Ìntensional Concepts in
Propositional Semantic Networks,’’ Cognitive Science, 1982, 6:
291-330.
Ausubel, D., and Ausubel, P. (1971). Cognitive development in
adolescence. In H. Thornburg (Ed.), Contemporary adolescence:
Readings. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 42-49.
Anthony, B., 1999, The Foreignness of Languages and Literary
Translation, http://www.ccsun7/, (03 Nov. 1999).

Baker, Mona 1996. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges
that Lie Ahead”, in Harold Somers (ed) Terminology, LSP and
Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan
C. Sager, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 175-186
Baker, M., 1992, In other Words. A Coursebook on Translation,
Routledge, London/New York.
Baker, M., 1993, ‘Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies:
Implications and Applications’ in Text and Technology. In
Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker et al. (eds.), John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 233-50.
Barr, A. & Feigenbaum, E. A., 1981, The Handbook of Artificial
Intelligence (3 vols.), William Kaufman, Los Altos, Cal.
Barr, Vickie. “ Foreign Language Requirements and Students with
Learning Disabilities” ERIC Digest. 1993. ED355834.
Barthes, R., 1974 [1970], S/Z (trans. R. Miller), Hill and Wang, New
York.
Barthes, R., 1977 [1968], ‘The death of the author’ (trans. S. Heath),
in Image, Music, Text, Fontana, London, pp. 142-49.
Bartlett, F. C., 1964 [1932], Remembering: A Study in Experimental
and Social Psychology Cambridge University Press, London.
Beaugrande, R. de, 1978, Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating,
van Gorcum, Assen.
Beaugrande, R. de. & Dressler, W. U., 1981, Introduction to Text
Linguistics, Longman, New York.
Beebe, R.M., & Leonard, K.S. (1993). Second language learning in a
social context. In “Visions and reality in foreign language teaching:
Where we are, where we are going.” Chicago: National Textbook.
Bell, R. T., 1991, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice,
Longman Inc., New York.
B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive
instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi 1998. Corpus
Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bouton, Lawrence F. 1976. “The problems of equivalence in contrastive
analysis.” IRAL 14:143-63

Bransford, J. D. & Johnson, M. K., 1973, Considerations of some
Problems of Comprehension, Academic Press, New York.
Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching
thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach.
In
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George 1985. Teaching the spoken language.
CUP
Brown, G. & Yule. G., 1983, Discourse Analysis, Cambridge
University Press, London
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard. [EJ 043959]
Bühler, K., 1965 [1934], Sprachtheorie, 2nd ed., Fischer, Stuttgart.
Baker, M., 1992, In other Words. A Coursebook on Translation,
Routledge, London/New York.
Baker, M., 1993, ‘Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies:
Implications and Applications’ in Text and Technology. In
Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker et al. (eds.), John Benjamins,
Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation,
London: Routledge.
Barr, A. & Feigenbaum, E. A., 1981, The Handbook of Artificial
Intelligence (3 vols.), William Kaufman, Los Altos, Cal.
Barthes, R., 1974 [1970], S/Z (trans. R. Miller), Hill and Wang, New
York.
Barthes, R., 1977 [1968], ‘The death of the author’ (trans. S. Heath),
in Image, Music, Text, Fontana, London, pp. 142-49.
Bartlett, F. C., 1964 [1932], Remembering: A Study in Experimental
and Social Psychology Cambridge University Press, London.
Beaugrande, R. de, 1978, Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating,
van Gorcum, Assen.
Beaugrande, R. de. & Dressler, W. U., 1981, Introduction to Text
Linguistics, Longman, New York.
Bell, R. T., 1991, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice,
Longman Inc., New York.
Bell, Roger T. 1994. Translation and Translating. Longman Group
UK Ltd.

Bernstein, B. (1972). A socio-linguistics approach to socialization:
With some reference to educability. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes
(Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.
B. Katz, [1980], `À Three Step Procedure for Language Generation,’’
Cambridge: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory AI Memo
No. 599, 1980.
B. Katz, [1988], ``Text Processing with the START Natural Language
System,’’ in E. Barrett, ed, Text, Context, and HyperText: Writing
with and for the Computer, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1988: 55-77.
An earlier version was published as `Ùsing English for Indexing
and Retrieving,’’ Proceedings of the Conference on User-oriented
Content-based Text and Image Handling, RIAO ‘88. A longer
version was appears M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory AI
Memo No. 1096, October, 1988.
B. Katz and P. H. Winston, [1982], `À Two-way Natural Language
Interface,’’ in P. Degano &E. Sandewall, eds, Integrated Interactive
Computing Systems, Amersterdam: North-Holland, 1982.
Bransford, J. D. & Johnson, M. K., 1973, Considerations of some
Problems of Comprehension, Academic Press, New York.
Brown, G. & Yule. G., 1983, Discourse Analysis, Cambridge
University Press, London
Brown, R.A. First Language. Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1973.
Bruce, L. “The Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes by Adult
Students of Russian as a Foreign Language.” MA Paper,
Department of Linguistics, USC, 1979.
B. Russell, [1948], Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, New
York, Simon and Schuster, 1948.
Bühler, K., 1965 [1934], Sprachtheorie, 2nd ed., Fischer, Stuttgart.
Bryman, A. (1996), Quantity and Quality in Social Research. New
York. Routledge.
Carrell, P. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16,
pp. 479–488.
Carter, R., and T. McCarthy. 1988. Vocabulary and language teaching.
New York: Longman.
Catford, John C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay
on Applied Linguistics, London: Oxford University Press.

Catford, J C (1965), A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford Press,
England.
Catford, J C (1965), A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford Press,
England.
Carter, R. A. (ed.), 1982, Language and Literature, George Allen and
Unwin, London.
Carter, R. A. (ed.), 1982, Language and Literature, George Allen and
Unwin, London.
Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Knowledge-constrained inferences about
new domain-related concepts: Contrasting experts and novices.
Pittsburgh University, PA: Learning Research & Development
Center. [ED 297882]
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
Chomsky, N. (1959) A review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior.
Language, 35, pp.26-58.
Chomsky, N. (1966) Research on language learning and linguistics.
Report of the Northeast Conference, 1966, pp. ??
Classes.” In G. Grouse, (Ed.), Broadening Frontiers of Language
Education. Lincolnwood, IL, 1995: National Textbook Co.
Cook, Guy, 1989, Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cook, Guy, 1994, Discourse and Literature: the interplay of form and
mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Corder (1967): Introduction of the Concept ‹Error Analysis›
Cook, Guy, 1989, Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cook, Guy, 1994, Discourse and Literature: the interplay of form and
mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learners’ errors. Reprinted in
J.C.Richards (ed.) (1974, 1984) Error Analysis: Perspectives on
Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 19 - 27
(Originally in International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (4))
Corder, S.P. 1971. “Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis.” IRAL
9:115-23
Corder, S.P. 1975. “Error analysis, interlanguage and second language
acquisition.” Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts
8:201-18
Corder, S.P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. OUP

Crombie, W. 1985. Discourse and language learning: a relational
approach to syllabus design. OUP
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the
research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512. [EJ 435997]
Crystal, D. (ed.), 1991, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics,
Crystal, D. (ed.), 1991, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 3rd
ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
C. S. Peirce, [1901], `Àbduction and Induction,’’ reprinted in J.
Buchler, Philosophical Writings of Peirce, New York: Dover
Publications, 1955. Written circa. 1901.
C. Taylor, [1985], Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in
promoting educational success for language minority students. In
California State Department of Education, Schooling and language
minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: National
Assessment and Dissemination Center.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in
assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
De Beaugrande, R and Dressler, W (1981), Introduction to Text
Linguistics, Longman, England.
Delisle, Jean. 1980. L’Anayse du discours comme métode de traduction.
Cahiers de traductologie, 2, Université d’Ottawa.
Delisle, Jean. 1981. L’Enseignement de l’interprétation et de la
traduction. Editions de l’Université d’Ottawa.
deVilliers, P. and J. deVilliers. “A Cross-sectional Study of the
Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes in Child Speech.”
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2 (1973): 37-53.
De Waard, Jan and Eugene A. Nida. 1986. From One Language to
Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson.
D. B. Lenat and R. V. Guha, [1990], Building Large Knowledge
Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project,
Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1990.
De Beaugrande, R and Dressler, W (1981), Introduction to Text
Linguistics, Longman, England.

Demuth, K & N. Smith. “The Foreign Language Requirement: An
Alternative Program.” The Foreign Annals 20, i, (1987): 66-77.
Dinklage, Kenneth T. “Inability to Learn a Foreign Language” in G.
Blaine & C. MacArthur
D. Chapman, [1985], ``Planning for Conjunctive Goals,’’ Artificial
Intelligence, July, 1987 32: 333-377.
D. Gentner and R. Landers, [1985], `Ànalogical Reminding: A
Good Match is Hard to Find,’’ paper presented to the panel on
``Commonsense Reasoning’’ at the International Conference on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tucson, Arizona, November, 1985.
D. L. Waltz, [1975], Understanding Line Drawings of Scenes with
Shadows, in P. H. Winston, ed, The Psychology of Computer
Vision, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975: 19-91.
D. McAllester and R. Givan, [1989], ``Taxonomic Syntax for First
Order Inference,’’ Cambridge: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory AI Memo No. 1134, June, 1989.
D. Mefford, [1987], `Ànalogical Reasoning and The Definition of the
situation: Back to Snyder for Concepts and Forward to Artificial
Intelligence for Method,’’ in C. F. Hermann, C. W. Kegely, Jr.,
and J. R. Rosenau, eds, New Directions in The Study of Foreign
Policy, Boston: Allen &Unwin, 1987: 221-244.
D. Mefford, [1988a], ``Women, Fire, and Artificial Intelligence,’’ paper
presented at the colloquium ``Words, Deeds, and Social Things,’’
Lincare College, Oxford University, March 11-13, 1988.
D. Mefford, [1988b], `Àn Alternative to Rational Choice: The function
of Stories in the Formulation of Foreign Policy with Examples
from U.S. Interventions,’’ Columbus: Department of Political
Science, The Ohio State University, unpublished paper, summer,
1988.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. “Natural Sequences in Child Second Language
Acquisition.” Language Learning 24 (1974): 37-53.
____________. “A New Approach to Discovering Universal
Strat egies of C hi ld S ec ond Language Ac qui sition.”
I n D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s : T h e o ry a n d
Application, ed. D. Dato, 209-233. Washington: Georgetown
University Press, 1975.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York:
Oxford University Press.

E. E. Azar, [1982], The Codebook of The Conflict and Peace Data Bank,
College Park: Center for International Development, University
of Maryland, 1982.
E. A. Devereux, [1989], ``Computational Analysis of Similarities and
Differences in Textual Descriptions: A Comparison of Newspaper
Coverage of the 1967 Election in South Vietnam,’’ paper presented
at The 1989 annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Atlanta, August, 1989.
E. A. Feigenbaum and H. A. Simon, [1984], `ÈPAM-like Models of
Recognition and Learning,’’ Cognitive Science, 1984, 8: 305-336.
E. A. Feigenbaum and H. A. Simon, [1984], `ÈPAM-like Models of
Recognition and Learning,’’ Cognitive Science, 1984, 8: 305-336.
E. Charniak and D. McDermott, [1985], Introduction to Artificial
Intelligence, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1985.
(Eds.) Emotional Problems of the Student. New York, 1971: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Eisenstein, M., & Starbuck, R.J. (1989). The effect of emotional
investment in L2 production. In “Variation in second language
acquisition: Volume II. Psycholinguistic issues.” Clevedon:
Newbury House.
Ellis, Rod (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Extensive Reading for Pleasure with Taiwanese Freshmen University
Students.” Ph.D Dissertation. Department of Curriculum and
Instruction Florida State University, 1996.
Fabris, M. “The Acquisition of English Grammatical Functions
by Child Second Language Learners.” TESOL Quarterly 12
(1978): 482.
Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriele 1983. “Plans and strategies in
foreign language communication.” In Faerch, Claus & Kasper,
Gabriele (eds.) 1983. Strategies in interlanguage communication.
Longman pp.20-60
Fawcett, Peter 1997. Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories
Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome
Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories
Explained, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing

Fish, S., 1988 [1976], ‘Interpreting the Variorum’ in Twentieth-Century
Literary Theory: A Reader, K. M. Newton (ed.), Macmillan
Education LTD. London, pp. 235-40.
Fish, S., 1981, ‘Why no-one’s afraid of Wolfgang Iser’, Diacritics,
vol. 11, pp. 2-13.
Flavell, J.H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Foucault, M., 1979 [1969], ‘What is an author?’ (trans. J. V. Harari), in
Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralism, J. V. Harari
(ed.), (reprinted in D. Lodge (ed.) 1988: 197-210).
Fowler, R., 1966, Essays on Style and Language, Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London.
Fowler, R. (ed.), 1975, Style and Structure in Literature: Essays in the
New Stylistics, Blackwell, Oxford.
Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T., 1971, Studies in Linguistic
Semantics, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc., New York.
Fish, S., 1972, Self-Consuming Artefacts, California University Press,
Berkeley/Los Angeles, Ca.
Fries, C.C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign
Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
F. R. Dallmayr, [1984], Language and Politics: Why Does Language
Matter to Political Philosophy?, Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1984.
Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T., 1971, Studies in Linguistic
Semantics, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc., New York.
Fish, S., 1972, Self-Consuming Artefacts, California University Press,
Berkeley/Los Angeles, Ca.
Fish, S., 1988 [1976], ‘Interpreting the Variorum’ in Twentieth-Century
Literary Theory: A Reader, K. M. Newton (ed.), Macmillan
Education LTD. London, pp. 235-40.
Fish, S., 1981, ‘Why no-one’s afraid of Wolfgang Iser’, Diacritics,
vol. 11, pp. 2-13.
F. L. Sherman, [1987a], Partway to Peace: The United Nations and
The Road to Nowhere, State College: Doctoral Dissertation,
Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University,
1987.

F. L. Sherman, [1988], ``SHERFACS: A New Cross-Paradigm,
International Conflict Dataset,’’ paper presented at The 1988
Meeting of The International Studies Association, St Louis,
Missouri, March, 1988.
F. L. Sherman, [1987b], ``Four Major Traditions of Historical Events
Research: A Brief Comparison,’’ paper presented to the M.I.T./
D.D.I.R Conference on ``New Directions for Storing, Indexing,
Retrieving, Coding and Analyzing Information on International
Events,’’ Cambridge: Center for International Studies, M.I.T.,
November, 1987.
Foucault, M., 1979 [1969], ‘What is an author?’ (trans. J. V. Harari), in
Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralism, J. V. Harari
(ed.), (reprinted in D. Lodge (ed.) 1988: 197-210).
Fowler, R., 1966, Essays on Style and Language, Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London.
Fowler, R. (ed.), 1975, Style and Structure in Literature: Essays in the
New Stylistics, Blackwell, Oxford.
Ganschow, Leonore & Richard Sparks. “Effects of Direct Instruction
in Spanish Phonology on the Native Language Skills and Foreign
Language Aptitude of At-risk foreign Language Learners.” Journal
of Learning Disabilities 28, (1995): 107-120.
Ganschow, Leonore, Richard Sparks & Elke Schneider. “Learning
a Foreign Language: Challenges for Students with Language
Learning Difficulties.” Dyslexia (Journal of the British Dyslexia
Association) 1, (1995):75-95.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation
in Second-Language Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House
Publishers.
Gardner, R., and Lambert, W. (Eds.) (1972). Attitudes and motivation
in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1986). “Attitudes and motivation in
second language learning.” Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P.F. (1994). On motivation, research
agendas, and theoretical frameworks. Modern Language Journal,
78, 359-368. [EJ497731]
Garnham, A., 1987, Mental Models as Representations of Discourse
and Text, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.

Gass, Susan and Larry Selinker, eds. (1983) Language Transfer in
Language Learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House
Publishers.
G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (eds.), Academic Press, New York. pp.
211-37.
G. Duffy, [1986], ``Categorial Disambiguation,’’AAAI-86: Proceedings
of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, August
1986: 1057-1061.
G. Duffy, [1987], Language, Politics, and Method: Grounding a
Computational Hermeneutic, Cambridge: Doctoral Dissertation,
Department of Political Science, M.I.T., August, 1987.
G. Duffy, [1988], ``Theory and Text: How Textual Analysis Can
Help Build International Relations Theory,’’ paper presented at
The Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, St.
Louis, March, 1988.
G. Duffy, [1989], ``The Validity Problem of Content Analysis,’’ paper
presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Atlanta, August, 1989. This is a revised chapter from
(Duffy, 1987: 21-40).
G. Duffy and J. C. Mallery, [1984], ``Referential Determinism
and Computational Efficiency: Posting Constraints from
Deep Structure,’’ AAAI-84: Proceedings of the 1984 National
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August, 1984: 101-105.
G. Duffy and J. C. Mallery, [1986], ``RELATUS: An Artificial
Intelligence Tool for Natural Language Modeling,’’ paper
presented at The 1986 Meeting of The International Studies
Association,
Gibbs, N. 1990. The dreams of youth. Time (special issue), pp. 10–14.
G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, [1980], Metaphors We Live By, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Grice, H. P., 1957, ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, pp.
377-88, Reprinted in Steinberg and Jakobovits, 1971, pp. 53-9.
Grice, H. P., 1975 [1967], ‘Logic and conversation’, in Syntax and
Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.),
Academic Press, New York. Pp. 41-59.
Grice, H. P., 1957, ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, pp.
377-88, Reprinted in Steinberg and Jakobovits, 1971, pp. 53-9.

Grice, H. P., 1975 [1967], ‘Logic and conversation’, in Syntax and
Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.),
Academic Press, New York. Pp. 41-59.
Gutt, E. A., 1991, Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and
Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Halliday, M. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed.
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Halliday. Michael A.K. and Hasan. Ruqaiya. 1989. Language, context
and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Halliday M A C and Hasan, R (1976), Cohesion in English, Longman,
England.
Hamp-Lyons, L., and B. Heasley. 1987. Study writing: A course
in written English for academic and professional purposes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, Silvia and Teich, Elke 1999. Beiträge zur 11. Jahrestagung
der Gesellschaft für Linguistische Datenverarbeitung (GLDV).
Schwerpunktthema: Multilinguale Korpora. Prag: Enigma
Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. London:
Multilingual Matters.
H. A. Simon, [1962], ``The Architecture of Complexity,’’ Proceedings
of The American Philosophical Society, December, 1962, 106:467-
482. Reprinted in H. A. Simon, The Sciences of The Artificial,
second edition, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1981. Originally
published in 1969.
H. A. Simon, [1985], ``Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of
Psychology with Political Science,’’ The American Political
Science Review, 1985, 79: 293-304.
Hatim, Basil and Mason, Ian 1991. Discourse and the Translator.
London: Longman
Harmer, J. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Essex:
Longman, 1983.
Hartmann, R, (1980), Contrastive Textology, Longman, England.

Hatim, B (1984), A Text Typological Approach to Syllabus Design
in Translator Training, in the Incorporated Linguist, pp 146-149,
1984.
Horwitz, E. (1986). Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. Modern
Language Journal, 70, 25- 32. [EJ337666]
House, Juliane 1997. Translation Quality Assessment. A model
revisited. Tübingen: Narr
H. R. Alker Jr., [1975], ``Polimetrics: Its Descriptive Foundations,’’ in
F. Greenstein and N. Polsby, eds, Handbook of Political Science,
volume 7, Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1975: 140-210.
H. R. Alker Jr., [1984], ``Historical Argumentation and Statistical
Inference: Towards More Appropriate Logics for Historical
Research,’’ Historical Methods, Summer 1984, 17 (3): 164-173.
H. R. Alker, Jr., [1985], ``Reflective Resolution of Sequential Prisoner’s
Dilemmas,’’ paper presented at The 1985 Annual Meeting of
Society for General Systems Research, March 1985.
H. R. Alker, Jr., [1986], ``Bit Flows, Rewrites, Social Talk: Toward
More Adequate Informational Ontologies,’’ Proceedings of the
Tokyo University Conference on Information and Its Functions,
1988.
H. R. Alker, Jr., [1988a], ``Politics as Political Argumentation: Towards
a Regrounding of the Global Discipline,’’ paper presented at The
XIVth World Congress of the International Political Science
Association, Washington, D.C., August, 1988.
H. R. Alker, Jr., [1988b], ``The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides’
Melian Dialogue,’’ American Political Science Review, 82(3),
1988: 805-820.
H. R. Alker Jr., J. Bennett, and D. Mefford, [1980], ``Generalized
Precedent Logics for Resolving Insecurity Dilemmas,’’
International Interactions, 1980, 7: 165-206.
H. R. Alker Jr., and C. Christensen, [1972], ``From Causal Modeling
to Artificial Intelligence: The Evolution of a UN Peace-
Making Simulation,’’ in J. La Ponce and P. Smoker, editors,
Experimentation and Simulation in Political Science, Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1972.
H. R. Alker, Jr., G. Duffy, R. Hurwitz, and J. C. Mallery, [1990],
``Text Modeling for International Politics: A Tourist’s Guide
to RELATUS,’’ V. M. Hudson, ed., Artificial Intelligence and

International Politics, Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. This a
revised version of H. R. Alker, Jr., and
H. R. Alker, Jr. and R. Hurwitz, [1980], Resolving Prisoner’s Dilemmas,
Washington: American Political Science Association, 1980.
H. R. Alker, Jr., R. Hurwitz, J. C. Mallery, and F. Sherman, [1989],
``SHERFACS Data and The Butterworth Narrative for the
Caribbean/Cuban Missile Crisis in The Light of New Evidence:
More Powerful Textual Modeling Possibilities and Changing
Scholarly Purposes,’’ paper presented at the The 1989 Joint Annual
Convention of the British International Studies Association and the
International Studies Association, London, England, March, 1989.
H. R. Alker, Jr. and A. Tanaka, [1981], ``Resolutional Possibilities
in `Historical’ Prisoner’s Dilemmas,’’ paper presented at the
1981 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association,
Philadelphia, March, 1981.
Halliday M A C and Hasan, R (1976), Cohesion in English, Longman,
England.
Hartmann, R, (1980), Contrastive Textology, Longman, England.
Hatim, B (1984), A Text Typological Approach to Syllabus Design
in Translator Training, in the Incorporated Linguist, pp 146-149,
1984.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I., 1990, Discourse and theTtranslator, Longman
Inc., New York.
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator.
London/New York: Routledge.
Heath, S.B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. In
Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language
minority students. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center, California State University.
Hönig, H. G., 1998, ‘Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist
Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment’, in Translation
and Quality, C. Schäffner (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon,
pp. 6-35.
Holub, R. C., 1984, Reception Theory, Methuen, New York/London.
House, J., 1997 [1977], A Model for Translation Quality Assessment,
2nd ed, TBL Verlag Gunter Narr, Tübingen.

Hatim, B. & Mason, I., 1990, Discourse and theTtranslator, Longman
Inc., New York.
H. D. Lasswell, [1927], Propaganda Technique in World War I,
Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1971.
H. D. Lasswell, [1935], World Politics and Personal Insecurity, New
York: The Free Press, 1965.
H. D. Lasswell, N. Leites, et al., [1949], Language of Politics: Studies
in Quantitative Semantics, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1949.
H. D. Lasswell and J. Z. Namenwirth, [1969], The Lasswell Value
Dictionary, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.
Hill, Barbara, et al. “Accommodating the Needs of Students with
Severe Language Learning Difficulties in Modified Foreign
Language
Hönig, H. G., 1998, ‘Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist
Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment’, in Translation
and Quality, C. Schäffner (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon,
pp. 6-35.
Holub, R. C., 1984, Reception Theory, Methuen, New York/London.
House, J., 1997 [1977], A Model for Translation Quality Assessment,
2nd ed, TBL Verlag Gunter Narr, Tübingen.
House, Juliane (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment,
Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
H. P. Grice, [1975], ``Logic and Conversion,’’ in P. Cole, and J.L.
Morgan, eds, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York:
Academic Press, 1975, 41-58.
H. P. Grice, [1978], ``Further Notes on Logic and Conversation,’’
in P. Cole, ed, Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, New York:
Academic Press, 1978, 113-28.
Ingarden, R., 1973 [1931], The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation
on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic and Theory of Literature
(trans. G. Grabwicz), Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Ill.
Iser, w., 1974, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in
Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Columbia University Press,
New York and London.
Iser, W., 1988 [1971], ‘Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response’,
in Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: A Reader, K. M. Newton
(ed.), Macmillan Education LTD. London, pp. 226-31.

Ingarden, R., 1973 [1931], The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation
on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic and Theory of Literature
(trans. G. Grabwicz), Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Ill.
Iser, w., 1974, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in
Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Columbia University Press,
New York and London.
Iser, W., 1988 [1971], ‘Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response’,
in Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: A Reader, K. M. Newton
(ed.), Macmillan Education LTD. London, pp. 226-31.
I. S. Pool, H. D. Lasswell, D. Lerner, et al., [1970], The Prestige Press:
A Comparative Study of Political Symbols, Cambridge: M.I.T.
Press, 1970.
J. A. Fodor, M. F. Garrett, E. C. T. Walker, and C. H. Parkes, [1980],
`Àgainst Definitions,’’ Cognition, 1980, 8: 263-367.
J. A. Hobbs, [1979], ``Coherence and Coreference,’’ Cognitive Science,
1979, 3:67-90.
J. A. Hobbs, [1986], `Òn The Coherence and Structure of Discourse,’’
in L. Polanyi, ed The Structure of Discourse, Norwood, N.J.:
Ablex, 1986.
Jäger, G., 1973, ‘Invarianz und Transferierbarkeit’ in Neue Beiträge
zu Fragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft, A. Neubert and O. Kade
(eds.), Athenäum, Frankfurt, pp. 47-61.
Jäger, G., 1975, Translation und Translationslinguistik, Niemeyer,
Halle.
Jakobson, R., 1959, ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’, in On
Translation, R.A. Brower (ed.), Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 232-39.
Jacobson, R., 1960, ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, in
Style in Language, T. A. Sebeok (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., pp. 350-77.
J. C. Mallery, ``From Events Data to Computational Histories:
A RELATUS-based Research Program on the Collective
Management of International Conflict,’’ paper at the The 1988
Meeting of The International Studies Association, April, 1988.
Jakobson, Roman (1959) ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’, in
R. A. Brower (ed.) On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, pp. 232-39.

Jäger, G., 1973, ‘Invarianz und Transferierbarkeit’ in Neue Beiträge
zu Fragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft, A. Neubert and O. Kade
(eds.), Athenäum, Frankfurt, pp. 47-61.
Jäger, G., 1975, Translation und Translationslinguistik, Niemeyer, Halle.
Jakobson, R., 1959, ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’, in On
Translation, R.A. Brower (ed.), Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 232-39.
Jacobson, R., 1960, ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, in
Style in Language, T. A. Sebeok (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., pp. 350-77.
Jauss, Hans Robert. 1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception.
(Translated from the German by Timothy Bahti). Brighton:
Harvester Press.
J. Barwise and J. Perry, [1983], Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge:
M.I.T. Press, 1983.
J. C. Mallery, [1985], `Ùniversality and Individuality: The Interaction
of Noun Phrase Determiners in Copular Clauses,’’ Proceedings of
The Association for Computational Linguistics, 1985.
J. C. Mallery, [1987], ``Computing Strategic Language: Natural
Language Models of Belief and Intention,’’ paper presented at
the The 1987 Meeting of The International Studies Association,
April, 1987.
J. C. Mallery, [1988a], ``Thinking About Foreign Policy: Finding
an Appropriate Role for Artificially Intelligent Computers,’’
Cambridge: Master’s Thesis, M.I.T. Department of Political
Science, 1988. A revised version was presented at the The 1988
Meeting of The International Studies Association, April, 1988.
J. C. Mallery, [1988b], ``Beyond Correlation: Reconstructing the
Relational Structure of Conflict Processes from SHERFACS
Data,’’ paper presented at the The 1988 Meeting of The
International Studies Association, April, 1988.
J. C. Mallery, [1988c], `Ìdentifying Implicit Categories in Text
Models: A Step in Computational Hermeneutics,’’ paper presented
at the XIVth World Congress of the International Political Science
Association, Washington, D.C., August, 1988.
J. C. Mallery, [1989], ``The Invertibility Principle of Knowledge
Representation,’’ Cambridge: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, draft.

J. C. Mallery, [1990], ``Constraint-Interpreting Reference,’’
Cambridge: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Memo
No. 827, forthcoming. A draft version of this memo has seen
limited circulation since March, 1985.
J. C. Mallery and G. Duffy, [1990] `À Computational Model of
Semantic Perception,’’ Cambridge: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, AI Memo No. 799, forthcoming. A draft version of
this memo has seen limited circulation since January, 1986.
J. C. Mallery and R. Hurwitz, [1987], `Ànalogy and Precedent in
Strategic Decision-Making: A Computational Approach,’’ paper
presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, September, 1987.
J. C. Mallery, R. Hurwitz, and G. Duffy, [1987], ``Hermeneutics,’’ in
S. C. Shapiro, The Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, New
York: John Wiley, 1987: 362-376.
J. C. Mallery, R. Hurwitz, with H. R. Alker, Jr., and G. Duffy, [1986],
`Ànalyzing Natural Language Protocols of Sequential PD
Games,’’ paper presented to the Microcomputer Group at The
1986 Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Washington, D.C., August, 1986.
J. Habermas, [1979], ``What is Universal Pragmatics?,’’ in J.
Habermas, Communication and The Evolution of Society, T.
McCarthy, translator, Boston: Beacon Press, 1979.
J. Habermas, [1981], The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason
and the Rationalization of Society, Thomas McCarthy, translator,
Boston: Beacon Press, 1981. German edition published in 1981.
J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor, [1963], ``The Structure of a Semantic
Theory,’’ Language, 1963, 39 (2): 170-210.
J. Lyons, [1977], Semantics, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977.
J. P. Bennett, [1987], ``Deterrence in Contemporary Policy Debates:
The Expression of Strategic Doctrines in Political Arguments about
SDI,’’ paper presented at The 1987 Meeting of the International
Studies Associations, Washington, D. C., April, 1987.
J. Piaget, [1979], The Child’s Conception of the World, J. Tomlinson
and A. Tomlinson, trans., Totowa: Littlefield Adams, 1979.
J. R. Searle, [1969], Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969.

J. R. Searle, [1979], ``Metaphor,’’ in Ortony, Andrew, ed, Metaphor and
Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979: 92-123.
J. Z. Namenwirth and R. P. Weber, [1987], Culture Indicators Research:
A Content Analytic Perspective, Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1987.
Kade, O., 1968, Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in derÜbersetzung, Beiheft
zur Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen I, VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie,
Leipzig.
K. Bach and R. M. Harnish, [1979], Linguistic Communication and
Speech Acts, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1979.
Keenan, E L (1973), Logic and Language, in Language as a Human
Problem, Haugen and Bloomfield (ed), 1973, Butterworth Press,
London.
Kellerman, Eric 1977. “Towards a characterization of the strategy
of transfer in second language learning.” Interlanguage Studies
Bulletin (Utrecht) 2/1:58-145
Kellerman, Eric 1979. “Transfer and non-transfer: where we are now.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2/1:37-57
Kharma, N. & Hajjaj, A. (1997), Errors in English among Arabic
Speakers: Analysis and Remedy. York Press. Librairi du Liban
Publishers. Beirut.
Kenny, Dorothy (1998) ‘Equivalence’, in the Routledge Encyclopaedia
of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, London and New
York: Routledge, 77-80.
Kessler, C. and D. Idar. “The Acquisition of English Syntactic
Structures by a Vietnamese Child.” Paper presented at the Los
Angeles Second Language Acquisition Forum, UCLA, 1977.
Koller, W., 1992, Einführung in die Übersetzung swissenschaft, Quelle
und Meyer, Heidelberg/Wiesbaden.
K. Konolige, [1984], A Deduction Model of Belief and its Logics,
Menlo Park: Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International,
Technical Note 326, 1984.
K. Krippendorf, [1980], Content Analysis: An Introduction to its
Methodology, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980.
Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model of adult second language
performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finnochiaro (Eds.),
Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents.

Krashen, S. (1977a). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H.D.
Brown, C. Yorio, and R. Crymes (Eds.), Teaching and learning
English as a second language: Trends in research and practice.
Washington, DC: TESOL
Krashen, S. (1978). Individual variation in the use of the monitor. In
W. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Issues
and implications. New York: Academic Press
Krashen, S. (1981). “The fundamental pedagogical principal in second
language teaching,” Mimeographed. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California.
Krashen, S. “Theory Versus Practice in Language Training.” In
Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching, ed. R.W. Blair,
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1982.
___________. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1987.
Kade, O., 1968, Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in derÜbersetzung, Beiheft
zur Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen I, VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie,
Leipzig.
Koller, W., 1992, Einführung in die Übersetzung swissenschaft, Quelle
und Meyer, Heidelberg/Wiesbaden.
Kussmaul, Paul. 1995. Training the Translator. John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
K. W. Deutsch, [1953], Nationalism and Social Communication:
Am Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality, second edition,
Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1966. The first edition was originally
published in 1953.
Lachter, J. & Bever, T. G., 1988, ‘The relationship between linguistic
structures and associated theories of language learning A
constructive critique of some connectionist learning models’,
Cognition, vol. 28, pp. 195-247.
Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1957.
Lakoff, R., 1973, ‘The logic of politeness: on minding your p’s and
q’s’, in Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.
Larson, M. L., 1998, Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-
Language Equivalence, 2nd ed., University Press of America,
Lanham.

Lee, P. H. (ed.), 1990, Modern Korean Literature. An Anthology,
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Leech, G. N., 1969, A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, Longman,
London.
Leech, G. N., 1983, Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London.
Leech, G. N. & Short, M. H., 1981, Style and Fiction, Longman,
London.
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van. 1989. ‘Translation and Original:
Similarities and Dissimilarities, I’. Target 1.2: 151-81.
Lachter, J. & Bever, T. G., 1988, ‘The relationship between linguistic
structures and associated theories of language learning A
constructive critique of some connectionist learning models’,
Cognition, vol. 28, pp. 195-247.
Lakoff, R., 1973, ‘The logic of politeness: on minding your p’s and
q’s’, in Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.
Lakoff, George / Johnson, Mark (1980): Metaphors We Live By.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larson, M. L., 1998, Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-
Language Equivalence, 2nd ed., University Press of America,
Lanham.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
Lee, P. H. (ed.), 1990, Modern Korean Literature. An Anthology,
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Leech, G. N., 1969, A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, Longman,
London.
Leech, G. N., 1983, Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London.
Leech, G. N. & Short, M. H., 1981, Style and Fiction, Longman,
London.
L. G. De Michael, [1989], `Òverview: The Common Lisp Object
System,’’ Lisp and Symbolic Computation, January, 1989, 1(3/4):
227-244.
L. W. Barsalou and G. H. Bower, [1984], ``Discrimination Nets as
Psychological Models,’’ Cognitive Science, 1984, 8: 1-26.

L. Wittgenstein, [1953], Philosophical Investigations, New York:
MacMillan, 1958. First edition published in 1953.
Makino, T. Acquisition Order of English Morphemes by Japanese
Adolescents. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin Press, 1980.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKeough, A. (1995). Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization
in learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
McTear, M., 1987, The Articulate Computer, Blackwell, Oxford.
Meetham, A. R. & Hudson, R. A., 1972, Encyclopaedia in Linguistics,
Information and Control, Oxford, Pergamon.
M .H . L on g (e d s. ), C hi l d -a d ul t d i ffe r e nc e s i n s e c o nd
language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schumann, J.H. (1978). The acculturation model for second
language acquisition. In R.C. Gingras (Ed.), Second language
acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27-50). Arlington,
VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Miller, J. R. & Kintsch, W., 1980, ‘Readability and recall of short
prose passage: a theoretical analysis’, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, vol. 6, pp. 335-54.
Minsky, M. L., 1975, ‘A framework for representing knowledge’, in
The Psychology of Computer Vision, P. Winston (ed.), McGraw-
Hill, New York, pp. 211-27.
M. J. Shapiro, [1984], Language and Politics, New York: New York
University Press, 1984.
M. J. Shapiro, [1988], The Politics of Representation, Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.
M. Minsky, [1987], The Society of Mind, New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1987.
M. P. Marcus, [1980], A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural
Language, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1980.
Nemser, W. 1971. “Approximative systems of foreign language
learners.” IRAL 9:115-23
Newmark, Peter. 1995. Manual de Traducción. Prentice Hall
International (UK) Ltd. Ediciones Cátedra, S.A.

Newmark, Peter. 1995. A Textbook of Translation. Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
Newmark, Peter (1981): Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Newmark, P., 1991, About Translation, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Nida, E. A., 1964, Towards a Science of Translating: With Special
Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible
Translating, Brill, Leiden.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C., 1969, The Theory and Practice of Translation,
Brill, Leiden.
Nord, C., 1991, Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methdology, and
Didactic Implications of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text
Analysis, Rodopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta.
Nida, E. y Taber Ch. 1974. The Theory and Practice of Translating.
Brill, Leiden
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden:
E. J. Brill.
Nida, Eugene A. and C.R.Taber (1969 / 1982) The Theory and Practice
of Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of
Translation. (United Bible Societies) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. A., 1964, Towards a Science of Translating: With Special
Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible
Translating, Brill, Leiden.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C., 1969, The Theory and Practice of Translation,
Brill, Leiden.
Nida, E (1975), A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of
Theories of Translation, in Brislin, R. W. (ed) (1975), Translation
Application and Research, Gardner Press, New York.
N. Chomsky, [1965], Aspects of a Theory of Syntax, Cambridge:
M.I.T. Press, 1965.
Anaheim, March, 1986.
Nord, C., 1991, Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methdology, and
Didactic Implications of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text
Analysis, Rodopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta.
Norrish, J. Language Learners and Their Errors. London: Macmillan
Press, 1983.

N. Rescher, [1977], Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to
the Theory of Knowledge, Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1977.
N. Rescher, [1978], Peirce’s Philosophy of Science: Critical Studies
in His Theory of Induction and Scientific Method, Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1978.
Odlin, Terence (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influence
in language learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
O. Holsti, [1968], ``Content Analysis,’’ in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson,
editors, The Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 2, Reading:
Addison-Wesley, 1968.
Oller, J.W. “Difficulty and Predictability.” PCCLLU Papers. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii, 1971.
Orellana, Marina. 1994. La Traducción del Inglés al Castellano. Guía
para el Traductor. Editorial Universitaria.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation:
Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal,
78, 12-28.
Ozad,B.E.(1997).The Reflective Model of Teacher Training: Its
Influence on Novice English Language Teachers. Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manchester.
Pea, R. D. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem.
International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 639-663.
Pea, R. D. (1988). Putting knowledge to use. In Raymond S. Nickerson
& Philip R. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking
toward 2020. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perkins, D. (1991). Educating for insight. Educational Leadership,
49, 4-8. [EJ 432771]
Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). New conceptions of
thinking: From ontology to education. Educational Psychologist,
28, 67-85.
P. H. Winston, [1980], ``Learning and Reasoning by Analogy,’’
Communications of the ACM, December, 1980, 23(12).
P. H. Winston, [1984], Artificial Intelligence, Reading: Addison-
Wesley, 1984.

Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York:
Harcourt, Brace.
Pierson, H.D. “Error Analysis as a Basis for Developing
Curriculum Items in English as a Second Language for
Cantonese Speaking Students.” Ann Arbor: University Microfilm
Intl., 1982.
Pinker, S. The Language Instinct. London: Penguin, 1994
P. J. Stone, D. C. Dunphy, M. S. Smith, D. M. Ogilvie, with associates,
[1966], The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content
Analysis, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1966.
Politzer, R.L. “An Experiment in the Presentation of Parallel and
Contrasting Structures.” LL 19:1-2 (1968).
Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy,
and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 59, 1-41. [EJ 399812]
Pressley, M., Synder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1987). How can good
strategy use be taught to children? Evaluation of six alternative
approaches. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of
learning: Contemporary research and applications. (pp. 81-120).
New York: Academic Press.
P. Ricoeur, [1971], ``The Model of Text: Meaningful Action Considered
as Text,’’ Social Research, 1971, 38: 529-62. Reprinted in J. B.
Thompson, editor and translator, Paul Ricoeur: Hermeneutics
and The Human Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1981.
P. Ricoeur, [1975], ``Phenomenology and Hermeneutics,’’ Translated
and reprinted in J. B. Thompson, ed and trans, Paul Ricoeur:
Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1981. Originally published as ``Phenomenologie
et Hermeneutique,’’ Phanomenologische Forschungen, vol. 1, E.
W. Orth, ed, Karl Alber, Freiberg, 1975, 31-77.
P. Ricoeur, [1977], ``Metaphor and the Semantics of Discourse,’’ in
The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies in Metaphor,
translated by R. Czerny et al, Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1977, 65-100.
Puurtinen, T. H., 1992, Towards a Definition of Acceptability in
Translation: A Comparison of Two Finnish Translations of the
Witzard of Oz. Licentiate Thesis, University of Joensuu, Savolinna
School of Translation Studies.

Puurtinnen, T. H., 1994, ‘Dynamic style as a parameter of acceptability
in translated children’s books’, in Translation Studie. An
Interdiscipline, M. Snell-Hornby et al. (eds.), John Benjamins,
Pinker, S. & Prince, A., 1988, ‘On language and connectionism:
analysis of a PDP model of language and acquisition’, Cognition,
vol. 28, pp. 73-193.
Tricás, Mercedes. 1995. Manual de traducción francés-castellano.
Gedisa S.A.
Pinker, S. & Prince, A., 1988, ‘On language and connectionism:
analysis of a PDP model of language and acquisition’, Cognition,
vol. 28, pp. 73-193.
Puurtinen, T. H., 1992, Towards a Definition of Acceptability in
Translation: A Comparison of Two Finnish Translations of the
Witzard of Oz. Licentiate Thesis, University of Joensuu, Savolinna
School of Translation Studies.
Puurtinnen, T. H., 1994, ‘Dynamic style as a parameter of acceptability
in translated children’s books’, in Translation Studies. An
Interdiscipline, M. Snell-Hornby et al. (eds.), John Benjamins,
R. Axelrod, [1984], The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic
Books, 1984.
R. C. Schank, [1972], ``Conceptual Dependency: A Theory Of Natural
Language,’’ Cognitive Psychology, 3, 552-631 (1972).
R. C. Schank and R. P. Abelson, [1977], Scripts, Plans, Goals, and
Understanding, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.
R. C. Moore, [1985], `` A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action,’’
Palo Alto: Center for Study of Language and Information, Stanford
University, report no. CSLI-85-31, 1985.
R. C. Schank, [1972], ``Conceptual Dependency: A Theory Of Natural
Language,’’ Cognitive Psychology, 3, 552-631 (1972).
R. C. Schank and R. P. Abelson, [1977], Scripts, Plans, Goals, and
Understanding, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.
R. C. Moore, [1985], `` A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action,’’
Palo Alto: Center for Study of Language and Information, Stanford
University, report no. CSLI-85-31, 1985.
Reid, K., 1971, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik,
Max Hueber, München.

Reid, K., 1976, Texttyp und Übersetzungsmethode, Der operative
Text, Scriptor, Kronberg.
Reid, K., ‘Adäquatheit und ‫ؤ‬quivalenz’ in Translation Theory and its
Implementation in the Teaching of Translating and Interpreting,
W. Wilss and G. Thome (eds.), Narr, Tübingen.
Reid, J. 1988. The process of composition. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Riesbeck, C. K., 1975, ‘Computational Understanding’ in Theoretical
Issues in Natural Language Processing, R. C. Schank & B. L.
Nash-Webber (eds.), Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Reiss, K (1971, 1976), in Hartmann’s Contrastive Textology, Longman,
England.
R. Harre, [1985], Personal Being, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1985.
R. Hurwitz, [1990], Re: Solving the Prisoner’s Dilemma, Cambridge:
Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, M.I.T.,
forthcoming, 1990.
R. Hurwitz and J. C. Mallery, [1987], ``RELATUS Users Notes,’’
Cambridge: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, draft, 1987.

R. Hurwitz and J. C. Mallery, [1989], ``Norms in Sequential Prisoner’s
Dilemma Protocols: Using New Techniques of Semantic Content
Analysis to Identify Normative Orientations in Computer Models
of Text,’’ paper presented at The 1989 Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Atlanta, August, 1989.
R. Hurwitz, J. C. Mallery, H. R. Alker, Jr., and G. Duffy, [1986],
`Ànarchy or Community: A Study of Developmental Patterns
in SPD Games,’’ paper at The 1986 Meeting of The International
Studies Association, Anaheim, March, 1986.
R. P. Weber, [1985], Basic Content Analysis, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985.
R. Jervis, [1976], Perception and Misperception in International
Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.
Reid, J. 1988. The process of composition. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
R. C. Berwick and A. S. Weinberg, [1984], The Grammatical Basis of
Linguistic Performance, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1984.
R. L. Butterworth with M. E. Scranton, [1976], Managing Interstate
Conflict, 1945-74, New York: Knopf, 1976.
R. L. Butterworth, [1980], Managing Interstate Conflict, 1945-79,
State College: Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State
University, final report to ARPA, February, 1980.
Richards, J.C. “A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis.”
English Language Teaching XXV (1971): 204-219.
____________.”Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies.”
Language Sciences 17 (1971): 12-22.
____________. ed. Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition. London: Longman, 1974.
Rooney, Karen J. “Dyslexia Revisited: History, Educational
Philosophy, and Clinical Assessment Applications.” Intervention
in School and Clinic 31,i, (1995): 6-15.
Rossner, R. and P. Shaw, J. Shepherd, J. Taylor and P. Davies.
Conte mpora ry English Book I. London: Macmillan,
1979a.
R. P. Weber, [1985], Basic Content Analysis, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985.

R. S. Jackendoff, [1972], Semantic Interpretation in Generative
Grammar, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1972.
R. S. Michalski, [1987], ``Concept Learning,’’ in S. C. Shapiro, The
Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, New York: John Wiley,
1987: 185-194.
Ruetten, M. 1997. Developing composition skills: Rhetoric and
grammar. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Rumelhart, D. E., 1975, ‘Notes on a schema for stories’ in
Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science,
D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (eds.), Academic Press, New York.
pp. 211-37.
Rumelhart, D. E., 1977, ‘Understanding and summarising brief stories’,
in Basic Processes in in Reading: Perception and Comprehension,
D. Larberge & J. Samuels (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Ruetten, M. 1997. Developing composition skills: Rhetoric and
grammar. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Rumelhart, D. E., 1975, ‘Notes on a schema for stories’ in Representation
and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, D. G. Bobrow &
A. M. Collins (eds.), Academic Press, New York. pp. 211-37.
Rumelhart, D. E., 1977, ‘Understanding and summarising brief stories’,
in Basic Processes in in Reading: Perception and Comprehension,
D. Larberge & J. Samuels (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Rumelhart, D. E., 1975, ‘Notes on a schema for stories’ in Representation
and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, D.
Salkie, R. 1995. Text and discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. A. (1988). Teaching for transfer.
Educational Leadership, 46, 22-32. [EJ376242]
Scarcella, R.C. and Higa, C.A. (1982). Input and age differences in
second language acquisition. In S.D. Krashen, R.C. Scarcella and
Schäffner, C., 1998, ‘From Good to Functionally Appropriate:
Assessing Translation Quality’, in Translation and Quality, C.
Schäffner (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 1-5.
Schank, R. C., 1973, ‘Identification of conceptualisations underlying
natural language’, in Computer Models of Thought and Language,
R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (eds.), Freeman, San Francisco.
Schank, R. C., 1982, Dynamic Memory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Schank, R. C., 1984, The Cognitive Computer Reading, Addison-
Wesley, Mass.
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R., 1977, Scripts, Plans, Goals and
Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
S. C. Levinson, [1983], Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983.
Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage.” IRAL 10:219-31
Shklovsky, V. B., 1974 [1940], Mayakovsky and His Circle, Pluto,
London.
Sivert, S., & Egbert, J. (1995). Using a language learning environment
framework to build a computer-enhanced classroom. College
ESL,5, 53-66. [EJ519984]
Snell-Hornby, M., 1988, Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach,
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Sparks, Richard & Leonore Ganschow. “ Searching for the Cognitive
Locus of Foreign Language Learning Difficulties: Linking first
and Second Language Learning.” Modern Language Journal 77,
ii (1993): 289-302.
Sparks, Richard, & Leonore Ganschow. “The Impact of Native
Language Learning Problems on Foreign Language Learning: Case
Study Illustrations of the Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis.”
Modern Language Journal 77,i (1993): 58-74.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D., 1995 [1986], Relevance: Communication
and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.
Spencer, C., and B. Arbon. 1996. Foundations of writing: Developing
research and academic writing skills. Lincolnwood, IL: National
Textbook Company.
Spolsky, B. (1985). Formulating a theory of second language learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 269-288. [EJ334501]
Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C. & Anderson, R. C., 1979, ‘A cross-
cultural perspective on reading comprehension’, Reading Research
Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 10-29.
Steiner, G., 1975, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Strawson, P., 1964, ‘Intention and convention in speech acts’,
Philosophical Review, Vol.73, pp. 439-60. Reprinted in Strawson
1971: 149-69.

Strawson, P., 1971, Logico-Linguistic Papers, Methuen, London.
Schäffner, C., 1998, ‘From Good to Functionally Appropriate:
Assessing Translation Quality’, in Translation and Quality, C.
Schäffner (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 1-5.
Schank, R. C., 1973, ‘Identification of conceptualisations underlying
natural language’, in Computer Models of Thought and Language,
R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (eds.), Freeman, San Francisco.
Schank, R. C., 1982, Dynamic Memory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Schank, R. C., 1984, The Cognitive Computer Reading, Addison-
Wesley, Mass.
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R., 1977, Scripts, Plans, Goals and
Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Schackne, S. “Extensive Reading and Language Acquisition: Is There
a Correlation?” ERIC ED 388 110 (1994).
Schacter, J. “An Error in Error Analysis.” LL 24:2 (1974): 205-214.
Selinker, L. “Interlanguage.” IRAL 10:3 (1972).
Shklovsky, V. B., 1974 [1940], Mayakovsky and His Circle, Pluto,
London.
Skinner, B.F. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1957.
Snell-Hornby, M., 1988, Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach,
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
SPIEGEL, R. MURRAY (1972), THEORY AND PROBLEMS:
STATISTICS IN SI UNITS McGRAW HILL COMPANY UK
SPIEGEL, R. MURRAY (1961), THEORY AND PROBLEMS of
STATISTICS McGRAW HILL inc UK
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D., 1995 [1986], Relevance: Communication
and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.
Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C. & Anderson, R. C., 1979, ‘A cross-
cultural perspective on reading comprehension’, Reading Research
Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 10-29.
Steiner, Erich in press. “Intralingual and Interlingual Versions of a Text
- How Specific is the Notion of Translation?” In: Steiner, E. and
Steiner, G., 1975, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Strawson, P., 1964, ‘Intention and convention in speech acts’,
Philosophical Review, Vol.73, pp. 439-60. Reprinted in Strawson
1971: 149-69.
Strawson, P., 1971, Logico-Linguistic Papers, Methuen, London.
Swales, J., and C. Feak. 1994. Academic writing for graduate students:
A course for non-native speakers of English. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Symbolics, Inc., [1988], Reference Manual for Symbolics Computers,
Cambridge: Symbolics, Inc., 1986. Revised 1987, 1988.
Tannen, D., 1979, ‘What’s in a Frame: Surface Evidence for Underlying
Expectations’, in New Directions in Discourse Processing, R.O.
Freedle (ed.), Ablex, Norwood N.J., pp. 137-81.
Taylor, B.P. “Toward a Theory of Language Acquisition.” Language
Learning 24 (1974): 23-35.
Terrace, Herbert S. 1979. Nim. Knopf
Terrell, T. “A Natural Approach.” Innovative Approaches to
Langua ge Te aching, e d. R.W. Blair, Rowley, Mass:
Newbury House, 1982.
Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York:
Teachers College Press.
T. M. Mitchell, R. M. Keller, and S. T. Kedar-Cabelli, [1986],
`Èxplanation-Based Generalization: A Unifying View,’’ Machine
Learning, 1986, 1: 47-80.
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies - and beyond.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Toury, G., 1980, In Search of a Theory of Translation, The Porter
Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.
Toury, G., 1980, In Search of a Theory of Translation, The Porter
Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.
Tran-Thi-Chau. “Error Analysis, Contrastive Analysis, and Students’
Perception: A Study of Difficulty in Second Language Learning.”
IRAL 13:2 (1975): 119-143.
T. Winograd, [1971], Procedures as a Representation for Data in
a Computer Program for Understanding Natural Language,
Cambridge: Doctoral thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science, M.I.T., 1971.

T. Winograd and F. Flores, [1986], Understanding Computers and
Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
1986.
T. W. Malone, K. R. Grant, K. R. Lai, R. Rao, and D. A. Rosenblit,
[1987], ``Semi-Structured Messages are Surprisingly Useful for
Computer-Supported Coordination,’’ ACM Transactions on Office
Information Systems, 1987, 5: 115-131.
van Dijk, T. A., 1981, ‘Review of R.O. Freedle (ed.) 1979. New
Directions in.
Discourse Processing’, Journal of Linguistics, vol. 17, pp. 140-48.
van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W., 1983, Strategies of Discourse
Comprehension, Academic Press, New York.
van Dijk, T. A., 1981, ‘Review of R.O. Freedle (ed.) 1979. New
Directions in Discourse Processing’, Journal of Linguistics, vol.
17, pp. 140-48.
van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W., 1983, Strategies of Discourse
Comprehension, Academic Press, New York.
van Naerson, M. Ph.D Dissertation. Department of Linguistics.
University of Southern California, 1981.
Varela, Francisco J. 1990. Conocer. Gedisa Editorial.
Vermeer, H. J., 1978, ‘Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine
Translationstheorie’, Lebende Sprachen, vol. 23, pp. 99-102.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of
Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet. 1958/1995. Comparative
Stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation.
(Translated and edited by Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French
and English: a Methodology for Translation, translated by J.
C. Sager and M. J. Hamel, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Volosinov, V. N. (name used by M. M. Bakhtin), 1973 [1929], Maxism
and the Philosophy of Language (trans. L. Matejka and R. Titunik),
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Vermeer, H. J., 1978, ‘Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine
Translationstheorie’, Lebende Sprachen, vol. 23, pp. 99-102.

Vogel, Susan A. & Pamela Adelman. Success for College Students
with Learning Disabilities. New York, 1993: Springer Verlag.
Volosinov, V. N. (name used by M. M. Bakhtin), 1973 [1929], Maxism
and the Philosophy of Language (trans. L. Matejka and R. Titunik),
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Widdowson, H G (1979), Explorations in Applied Linguistics, Oxford
University Press, England.
Wendland, Ernst R. 1993. Comparative Discourse Analysis and the
Translation of Psalm 22 in Chichewa, a Bantu language of South-
Central Africa. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
----- 1998. Buku Loyera: An Introduction to the New Chichewa
Bible Translation. (Kachere Monograph No. 6) Blantyre: Christian
Literature Association in Malawi.
Widdowson, H. G., 1975, Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature,
Longman, London.
Widdowson, H G (1979), Explorations in Applied Linguistics, Oxford
University Press, England.
Wilss, W., 1980 , ‘Semiotik und Übersetzung swissenschaft’ in
Semiotik und Übersetzen, Narr, Tübingen, pp. 9-22.
Wilss, W., 1982, The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods,
Narr, Tübingen.
Wilss, W., 1996, Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior,
Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Winograd, T., 1977, ‘A framework for understanding discourse’, in
Cognitive Processes in Comprehension, P. Just & P. A. Carpenter
(eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Winter, E. 1977. A clause-relational approach to English texts: A study
of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional
Science, 6, 1, pp. 1–92.
———. 1978. A look at the role of certain words in information
structure. Informatics, 3, pp. 85–97.
Yallop, C. eds. In press. Beyond Content: The Challenges of Translation
and Multilingual Textproduction. Berlin, New York etc.: Mouton
De Gruyter
Wardhaugh, R. “The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis.” TESOL
Quarterly 4:2 (1970): 123-130..

White, Lydia (1987). Markedness and Second Language Acquisition:
The Question of Transfer. SSLA 9: 261-2863rd ed., Blackwell,
Oxford.
Widdowson, H. G., 1975, Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature,
Longman, London.
Wilss, W., 1982, The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods,
Narr, Tübingen.
Wilss, W., 1996, Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior,
Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Winograd, T., 1977, ‘A framework for understanding discourse’, in
Cognitive Processes in Comprehension, P. Just & P. A. Carpenter
(eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Wringe, C. (1989). The Effective Teaching of Modern Languages.
London: Longman.

View publication stats

Errors in Translation Equivalence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Errors in Translation Equivalence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Errors in Translation Equivalence

Book · November 2015

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dr. Omar Elsheikh Hago Elmahdi

ISBN 13: 978-93-81902-xx-x

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

Printed and bound in India by

This book is meant for educational and learning purposes. The

Errors in Translation Equivalence 7

We would like to express our special thanks to our colleague

Omar Elsheikh Hago Elmahdi

8 Errors in Translation Equivalence

Language is a vital means of communication and it is

Traditionally, English is taught through the four major skills

“Something incorrectly written may not affect

Errors in Translation Equivalence 9

10 Errors in Translation Equivalence

Since the two major concerns of translation studies are the

Errors in Translation Equivalence 11

12 Errors in Translation Equivalence

1.2 Objectives of the Study

This research aims at:

1- Giving insight into the nature of the English

2- Investigating Sudanese EFL learners’ translation

3- Establishing a translation-based approach to EFL

1.3 Research Questions

In investigating the research problem, the researcher will

1- How competent are Sudanese learners in

2- What are the problems that these learners

3- How can such problems be overcome?

Errors in Translation Equivalence 13

It is hoped that the present study will be of value to Sudanese

Beside the ﬁrst chapter, which includes the statement of

This chapter introduces the theme of the investigation,

14 Errors in Translation Equivalence

Studying the English contextual translation equivalence, as

Since the translation equivalence is the centre of this study,

2.1 The Major Levels of Linguistic Analysis

Errors in Translation Equivalence 15

2.2.1. The Phonological Level

16 Errors in Translation Equivalence

Translators are primarily concerned with communicating

Errors in Translation Equivalence 17

1.1.4. Syntactic Level

Syntax is the study of sentence structure; alternatively, the

18 Errors in Translation Equivalence

Semantics is the study of meaning system of a language.

Errors in Translation Equivalence 19

In the process of translation, the meaning or the content of

2.2.6. Pragmatic Level

Pragmatics, Crystal (1997:301), in modern linguistics, it

The pragmatic level of language, which is concerned with

20 Errors in Translation Equivalence

2.3. Fundamental Issues in Translation

This section surveys the relevant literature concerned with

2.3.1 What is Translation?

Though it may sound a good idea to decide on “deﬁning”

However, translation has been deﬁned as: the “restatement

Catford, (1965:1), sees translation as “an operation

Errors in Translation Equivalence 21

Translation, as mentioned above, does not, or cannot, often

22 Errors in Translation Equivalence

Jacobson (1960), differentiates between three types of