Considerations About Translation:Strategies About Frontiers

Lía Rodriguez de la Vega

Contents1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 A Brief Review of Studies on Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Lexical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Syntactic and Semantic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Ethical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Linguistic Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Addressing the Task of Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Difficulties, Strategies, and Rules in Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Translation Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Implicit Ethical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

10 Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

AbstractThe translation of any text focuses action and attention on the transference of asource language into a target language. It entails different methodological issuesthat range from linguistic treatment, grammatical issues of the languages consid-ered, lexical issues and how to approach them, space and time considerations in agiven textual construction, implied ethical questions, and so on. The approach tosuch issues varies from one translator to another. While some look for lexico-graphic patterns between the original text and its translation, others seek toconvey the sense of the original text in the contexts of translation. Against thisbackground, this chapter reviews some theoretical questions underpinning meth-odological approaches and those approaches as used in translation, along with

L.R. de la Vega (*)Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, University of Palermo, Buenos Aires, Argentinae-mail: liadelavega@yahoo.com

# Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018P. Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_36-1

1

normative, linguistic, and ethical issues, concluding with a reflection abouttranslation in cross-cultural research. For such purpose, this chapter draws on abibliographic review and the experiences of researchers who translate or havetranslated different types of texts – mainly written ones – in a nonprofessionalmanner.

KeywordsTranslation · Lexicographic pattern · Methodological approach · Linguistictreatment · Grammatical issue · Lexical issue · Space and time consideration ·Theoretical question · Internationalization of English

1 Introduction

Communication is a phenomenon inherent in human nature, and, as such, it entails ashared experience – a bond. In reviewing the polysemic character of the term, RizoGarcía (2012, p. 22) provides a general definition of communication as “a basicprocess for the construction of life in society, as a mechanism that produces senses,activates dialogue and coexistence between social subjects.” Communication allowsthe social fabric to be conceived as a network of interactions and is interwoven withculture(s) and identity(ies).

Within this framework, it can be stated that culture – seen as a network ofmeanings – is closely related to identity(ies), which evidence(s) the subjectiveprocessing of cultural matrices. Both culture and identity are connected with thenotion of frontier – a diffuse concept – that is characterized by its duplicity as anobject/concept and as a concept/metaphor. Thus, there are on the one hand physical,territorial frontiers, and, on the other, cultural, symbolic ones (Grimson 2011)(Grimson (2011) conceives cultural frontiers as significance regimes that are distin-guished and perceived by their own participants.).

Against this backdrop, translation is the task of transferring a text from the sourcelanguage to the target language, which also involves the adoption of a specificattitude toward certain frontiers. In this sense, it is worth noting that fidelity to theoriginal played a central role in translation for a long time, until it was replaced by anequivalence-oriented approach (Snell-Hornby 1990, p. 80, cited in Carbonell 1996,p. 143). Hence, the subject matter of translation studies has gradually shifted towardprioritizing the communicative aspect of translation (Carbonell 1996).

Thus, in the management of the everyday world through language, whether thetarget text becomes part of the canon of the target culture or emphasizes itsdifferences depends on the choice made by the translator. This also brings to thefore other issues associated with the translation task, such as the position to beadopted with respect to textual-, cultural-, and identity-related polyphony, that is,ideological issues and issues relating to disparities between the different narrativesand cultural agency.

In this chapter, I review some theoretical questions underpinning methodologicalapproaches and those approaches as used in translation, along with normative,

2 L.R. de la Vega

linguistic, and ethical issues concluding with a reflection about translation in cross-cultural research. For such purpose, this chapter draws on a bibliographic review andthe experiences of researchers who translate or have translated different types oftexts – mainly written ones – in a nonprofessional manner.

2 A Brief Review of Studies on Translation

2.1 Lexical Issues

Vázquez, Fernández and Martí (2000) present a classification of verb-centered mis-matches between Spanish and English. Such classification is based on a proposal forlexical representation of linguistic knowledge, thus falling within the scope of lexicalsemantics. The authors’ proposal relies on a model for lexical description thatconsiders meaning components, event structure and diathesis alternations. Thepaper describes how these elements allow creating a framework for the analysis ofmismatches. Along the same lines, the authors suggest how to use conceptualtransfer to cope with these mismatches in a Machine Translation system.

Martínez-Melis (2008) examines the translation of the Heart Sutra, a Buddhisttext of the prajñaparamita sutra literature, which has been highly influential inChinese culture since it was first translated in the fifth century. Drawing on atranslational approach (based on the categories proposed by the Marpa Termgroup), the author compares the versions of Kumarajiva, Xuanzang,Dharmacandra, Prajña and Liyan, Dharmasiddhi, Prajñacakra, and Danapala, allof which belong to the so-called Chinese Buddhist canon and aims to identify themethodological and technical translation choices of the translators. The authorconcludes that the early periods of translation of Buddhist texts in China, in thethird and fourth centuries, saw the adoption by the translator monks of methodo-logical choices consisting of the assimilation of Taoist terms in Buddhist texts. Theauthor further wonders whether the translation rendered by Xuanzang in theseventh century (considered to be the best one) contains an overuse of loans.Finally, the author points out that the Chinese language allows another possibility,consisting of the combination of two Sanskrit-Chinese lexical elements, accordingto which the Sanskrit element belongs to the phonetic translation, and it is thus acombination of the Sanskrit phonetic translation with a Chinese character thatcreates a new Chinese term.

Ayadi (2009–2010) carries out a qualitative and quantitative study aiming toidentify the reason why learners of English are unable to find the appropriateequivalents of English phrasal verbs in Arabic. The author concludes that, accordingto the findings of the study, the students’ inability to translate English phrasal verbsinto their most appropriate Arabic equivalents is based on their total ignorance of,and insufficient exposure to, phrasal verbs, while at the same time students tend todepend on the context – which does not always prove useful – and to translateliterally. This renders the translation of phrasal verbs unacceptable.

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 3

2.2 Syntactic and Semantic Issues

Li (2010) addresses the problems and challenges existing in current United NationsEnglish-Chinese document translation practice. The paper presents a detailed anal-ysis of examples taken from the official UN document system and investigates themajor grammatical and lexical problems influencing the readability of UN trans-lations and the translation strategies adopted by UN translators. The author con-cludes by identifying three major problems: readability (stating that poor readabilityis due to translators’ failure to choose the appropriate translation strategies), incom-plete sentence structure (which mainly originates in the lack of a subject, which inturn is caused by passive voice or the lack of a subject in the original text), andaccuracy of individual words/phrases (stating that mistranslations are unavoidable.However, translators are responsible for minimizing mistakes and ensuring thattranslations are accurate).

Miličević (2011) relates translation studies to the theory of language acquisition,by examining recent findings on some grammatical properties of translated texts onthe one hand and the findings of acquisitional studies dealing with such properties onthe other. As well as reviewing research into the well-known phenomenon ofpronoun overuse, the author focuses on a less explored problem: the overuse ofpossessive adjectives, for which the author considers preliminary data from Englishto Serbian translations. Relying on a comparison with the results obtained inacquisitional studies of possessive adjectives, the author argues that the differentcases of patterning between translation and language acquisition – in particularsecond language acquisition and first language attrition – show a similarity in thelinguistic systems of translators and language acquirers and speak in favor of closercollaboration between both fields.

2.3 Ethical Issues

Mansourabadi and Karimnia (2013) reviewed the ideological differences betweenHoseini’s novel A Thousand Splendid Suns and its two Persian translations, by Ganjiand Soleimani and Ghebrai. Based on Fairclough’s approach – according to whichideology in discourse is encoded in the lexical, grammatical, and textual elements,and changes in them are indicative of a different ideology – the authors analyzed thelexical choices of the source book and the two translations in order to establishideological differences between them. The results of chi-square showed that therewere no ideological differences between the source text and the two translations. Inaddition, the authors found that the translators had chosen similar vocabularies inorder to represent the ideology of the original author.

Kruger and Crots (2014) conducted a survey of 31 members of the South AfricanTranslators’ Institute (SATI), in which respondents were asked about the translationstrategies they were most likely to select in order to address particular ethicalchallenges. In addition, in order to understand the factors affecting the choice oftranslation strategies, the impact of the experience and age of the translators and the

4 L.R. de la Vega

text type and the type of ethical problem encountered were investigated. In a secondstage, the survey sought to find out the reason why respondents chose particularstrategies and their views on ethical responsibility. The findings show that there is anoverwhelming preference for faithful translation and also reveal an interplaybetween personal and professional ethics as the motivation for such preference,with certain differences across text type and type of ethical problem.

3 Current Situation

In the globalized present, English is a central language that has become theprivileged means of expression of science and technology, as well as of internationalpolitical and trade relations, among others. English has given rise to the existence ofdifferent types of bilingualism. These types have in turn led to the dialectal diver-sification of English by virtue of its geographic expansion (related to the emergenceof diverse English in the world) and contact with other languages, its international-ization and its influence on other languages – (The Englishization of the world’slanguages) which have thus been transformed – with the consequent emergence ofdifferent sociolects (Ferro Mealha 2012).

In the lexical field, that internationalization of English has had an impact oninternational organizations, where working languages tend to be reduced in favor ofEnglish or where English is considered to be a lingua franca, with its consequentinfluence as a supersubstrate. This is evidenced by the importation of concepts andterms created in the English-speaking world, the significant development of neolo-gisms (This is the case of terms such as “Third Way,” “weapons of mass destruc-tion,” bypass, airbag, e-mail, leasing, link, buffer, bit, and so on (Montero Fleta2004; Muñoz Martín y Valdivieso Blanco 2007; Gutiérrez Rodilla 2014).), and so on(Muñoz Martín and Valdivieso Blanco 2007).

Therefore, within this framework of contact of languages, we can argue thattranslation is indeed a special case of such contact, given that the translator him orherself is subject to the interference of one of the languages in the other (source andtarget language) and, in addition, because translation allows for contact to beestablished in a different manner.

Within the context of a same language, it is well-known that not all speakers of alanguage use the same variety. Such linguistic variety can be verified by observingall of the levels of a given language. For example, terms and expressions such as“che” [“Hey”], “fiaca” [“feel lazy”], “hacerme una siesta” [“I’m gonna take a nap”],and so on are indicative of the Spanish spoken in Argentina. These varieties dependon extralinguistic factors such as the origin of the speaker, his or her age, sex,socioeconomic status, among others, and give rise to social linguistic variations orsociolects (which are thus defined on the basis of the social features of the speaker).

In addition to the speaker’s features, the study of linguistic variation also takesinto account where the speakers are (context), who the speakers are (interlocutor),and what they talk about (topic) in the conversational exchange. All of these issuesdefine the situational linguistic variety known as register.

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 5

Within the framework of language variety, we as speakers recognize a variety ofthe language (Spanish in the case of Argentina) which is common to all speakers andsuch variety is taken as a model of the language considered and is known as writtenstandard variety or written normative language. The different oral varieties of thelanguage considered are variants of such language and speakers tend to attribute agreater prestige to one of the oral varieties to which they are exposed, generally theone that speakers identify with the most powerful social group (in cultural, politicaland/or economic terms) and the one which is closest to the written standard variety.This variety is known as oral standard variety or oral cultured norm.

Moreover, it is worth noting that languages often coexist with other languages(which presupposes the existence of bilingual speakers), and in such circumstancesof linguistic contact, the varieties of the language spoken in such places havelinguistic features that may be attributed to the contact with another language.These are the so-called contact varieties. A situation in which more than onelanguage is spoken is known as diglossia, that is, a situation where two languagevarieties coexist within the same population or territory. In such contexts, one of thelanguages is more prestigious and is usually considered as a language of culture or ofofficial use, while the other is relegated to socially inferior situations such as oralcommunications, folklore, and family life (An example of this is the one between theSpanish and Guarani in Paraguay. In this regard, Rubin (1974) notes that Spanish isthe language that speakers choose to issues related to education, government, highculture, and religion, while Guarani is used to “matters of privacy or primary groupsolidarity” (pp. 121–122). The influence of Spanish in the Paraguayan Guarani led tothe variety of Guarani known as “yopará,” while also observed in the ParaguayanSpanish, the influence of Guarani (Ferrero and Lasso-Von Lang 2011). Similarly, thecontact of Spanish with Brazilian Portuguese originated Portuñol, which recordsdifferences in the spoken language in different places, such as the province ofMisiones (Argentina) and northern Uruguay (Lipski 2011). Similarly, in northwest-ern Argentina, it is verified in the contact of Spanish and Quechua, showing differentcontributions from Quechua to the first one in the lexical field, in the phonetic loans,and in the pronunciation of the “s” (Nardi 1976–1977).). Along these lines, whenthree or more languages coexist in such context, the situation is one of polyglossia ormultiglossia (Suriani 2008; Supisiche et al. 2010).

4 Translation

I agree with Muñoz Martín (2014) that translation and interpretation are skills thatare specific to bilingual competence in the translation task. Mayoral Asensio (1999)argues that there is no homogeneous concept of translation and identifies theproperties of communication in general, taking into account the maxims of Grice(1975) (Grice points out that in all those situations the readers of a translation haveexpectations as to the original text and its meaning, which the translator must in turnsatisfy within the framework of his or her ethics. This satisfaction can be assessed byusing what Grice presents as perspectives of analysis, that is, an analysis of an

6 L.R. de la Vega

assertion as to its truthfulness (quality), brevity (quantity), relevance (relation), andobservance of set patterns (manner). Grice thus identifies the conditions of efficiency(maxims) in the communication of the linguistic variation, namely, adjusting to thecontext and the situation as specified in the translation instructions (Maxim ofQuality and Maxim of Relation), adjusting the communicative strategy to thetranslation instructions (Maxim of Quality and Maxim of Relation), using onlymarkers with which the reader is familiar (Maxim of Relation), maintaining onlythose distinctions that the reader can appreciate (Maxim of Quantity) notmaintaining in the translated text those distinctions made in the original text thathave no communicative function (Maxim of Quantity), using the minimum amountof markers that, along with other contextualization hints, allow identifying situa-tional features and creating the desired effect (except in cases of deliberate allitera-tion) (Maxim of Quantity), not introducing unjustified ambiguities in the definitionof situational features (Maxim of Quality), avoiding inconsistencies (in the case ofcultural parameters, such inconsistencies may be caused by mixing features that arespecific to each culture) (Maxim of Manner), and maintaining consistency in the typeof markers used to point to a certain feature and the set of features of a text (Maximof Manner) (pp. 171–172).) which allow explaining a variety of conversationaltranslation situations and of different solutions.

Within this framework, it can be stated that a translator is faced with differentcircumstances related to lexical semantic, grammatical, syntactic, rhetorical, prag-matic, and cultural issues. Lexical semantic issues are related to terminologicalalternation, neologisms, contextual synonymy and antonym issues, lexical networks,semantic contiguity, and so on. Grammatical issues comprise aspects such as tensesand pronouns. Syntactic issues may arise from syntactic parallelism, passive voice,rhetorical figures of speech such as anaphora (the repetition of a word or phrase at thebeginning of a verse or sentence) and hyperbaton (inversion of the natural order ofspeech) reaction, and so on. Rhetorical issues are related to the identification andrecreation of figures of thought (comparisons, metaphors) and diction. Pragmaticissues are concerned with differences in use (e.g., the difference between “tú,” “vos”and “usted” to address a person in Spanish), idiomatic expressions, proverbs, humor,and so forth.

Finally, cultural issues concern the differences between cultural references.Coseriu (1977) examines the translation of culture in his analysis of the relationshipbetween signification (signifier-signified relationship), designation (the relationshipbetween sign and referent), and sense (the meaning as actualized in a text). He arguesthat the transposition of the three is not always possible when translating and that thetranslator must privilege designation and sense in the translation (Gentile 2012).

5 Linguistic Treatment

As far as linguistic treatment is concerned, it is worth pointing out that the normconstitutes the foundation that gives both cohesion and continuity to a language,which can thus maintain its usefulness. The norm can be understood in two different

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 7

ways: from a prescriptive perspective, with reference to an imperative of theuse/correctness that tends to be unique and does not admit variations; and from adescriptive perspective, according to which the norm is what is normal, a set ofcharacterizing features that distinguish a given language, what the majority ofspeakers habitually use. Thus, while speakers can deviate from the norm, suchdeviation is not without limits, which are given by the need to understand themessage.

The speaker can – and usually does – resort to authority as a supplement to, orsubstitute for, the norm. In this respect, we can distinguish between (a) power-basedauthority, that which has a prescriptive function in the field of language, assigned in aformal manner, or which is vested with an institutional power of another type but thathas an impact on the field of language (language academies, public powers, and soon and b) credit-based authority, that which the speaker trusts because he or sheassigns to it a certain measure of credit (dictionaries of language use, specialists, theinternet) (Muñoz Martín and Valdivieso Blanco 2007).

As an example of the above, the commentators of Sanskrit texts during the Vedicperiod enjoyed an authority and preeminence that could be as important as that of theauthor to whom the text was attributed. When commenting the texts, those com-mentators identified different meanings of specific terms, provided examples, citedother texts, and so forth (see Levman 2014).

6 Addressing the Task of Translation

The task of translation can be addressed in different ways, and it depends on thestance to be adopted by the translator him or herself. Chesterman (1995, 1997, citedin Schjoldager et al. 2008) describes the evolution of translation theory bydistinguishing eight interrelated stages, to each of which he assigns a metaphor todescribe the prevailing view of translation in each of the stages. Chesterman pointsout that there is a general trend to alternate between a stage of source-text dominanceand another of target-text dominance in the process of translation. The stages arepresented below.

Stage 1 begins in 1000 BC, and the metaphor assigned to it by the author is“translating is rebuilding.”A set of “units,” namely, words in one language, are takenand rebuilt in another set of “units,” that is, words in another language (Schjoldageret al. 2008).

Stage 2 starts in the fourth century, and the metaphor assigned to it by the author is“translating is copying.” In this stage, translators were faced with the dilemma ofhow to translate without changing meaning. St. Jerome, a translator from this period,presented a three-term taxonomy that has had an influence over translation studiessince then: (1) faithful word-for-word translation, (2) faithful sense-for-sense trans-lation, and (3) unfaithful free translation.

Stage 3 begins in the fourteenth century, and the metaphor assigned to it is“translating is imitating.” In this stage, many translators, instead of making a

8 L.R. de la Vega

copy-like translation, sought to imitate the creative process of the original author,thus taking a freer approach (with respect to the original text) to translation.

Stage 4 begins in the nineteenth century, and the metaphor assigned to it by theauthor is “translating is creating.” In this stage, some translators started to experi-ment with a translation style that deliberately created a foreignness in the target texts,thus giving rise to an overview of equivalence-based work in translation studies(Schjoldager et al. 2008).

Stage 5 starts in the twentieth century, and the metaphor assigned to it is“translating is recoding.” In this stage, there was considerable experimentationwith the so-called machine translation. Of particular note in this period is the Pragueschool, which was formed by a circle of linguists that emphasized the analysis oflanguage as a system of functionally related units. Eugene Nida, a renowned linguistand Bible translator – whose most significant contribution is the principle ofdynamic (or functional) equivalence over the principle of formal equivalence(or correspondence) – is the most outstanding scholar from this period. Anothersignificant contribution to the linguistics-oriented approach is that of J. C. Catford,his most influential contribution probably being the notion of shifts.

Stage 6 begins in the 1970s, and the metaphor assigned to it is “translating iscommunicating.” In this stage, translation studies became a separate discipline.Some developments in general linguistics seem to have paved the way for theindependence of translation studies as an academic discipline. Language studiesno longer revolved around the phrase, and the context acquired more importance(Snell-Hornby 2006). Translation studies were greatly influenced by text linguisticsand pragmatics, among which Grice’s theory of conversational implicature and thecontributions of de Beaugrande and Dressler and, more recently, of Hatim andMason have been highly influential. Many scholars from this period rejected thenotion of equivalence and replaced it with target-text functionality as the controllingfactor in translation processes. Such studies were developed by German scholars,with the Skopos theory by Hans J. Vermeer being the most influential (Schjoldageret al. 2008). This new approach gives more visibility to the translator, who,according to Christiane Nord, remains solely responsible for the loyalty of thetranslation (Vidal Claramonte 1995). While loyalty can be understood from differentpoints of view, this new approach to translation is particularly relevant in the field ofintercultural translation, given that the translator is in the privileged position ofdeciding how to translate what he or she translates, thus conveying one message oranother in the target culture.

Stage 7 also begins in the 1970s, and the metaphor assigned to it is “translating ismanipulating.” During this period, concurrently with the developments in Stage 6, agroup of Israeli and Belgian scholars developed a new approach to translationstudies. This was a break with the trend toward prescriptivism followed by scholarsfrom previous stages. These scholars followed Holmes’ (1972) proposal for empha-sis on descriptive translation studies. A particularly influential scholar in this stagewas Gideon Toury, who focused on the translator as a social agent.

Stage 8 begins in the 1980s, and the metaphor assigned to it by Chesterman is“translating is thinking.” This stage ushered in a growing interest in the translation

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 9

process and the use by scholars of cultural studies tools for the study of translationfrom a cultural, sociological, and cultural perspective (Schjoldager et al. 2008).

The idea that “translating is not neutral” became increasingly prominent. Alongthese lines, Robinson (1997) points out that translation has always served as amechanism of conquest and occupation. That is, during the colonization process anetwork of hierarchical relations is created through discourse that eventually con-solidates and spreads across time and space. In addition, the concept of othernessgains impetus within the theory of postcolonial translation, due to its presence in theworks of authors that live in contact with two different civilizations and cultures,who look for specific forms of expression that give voice to both languages andcultures, with consequent social and political implications. Not only are the mes-sages conveyed important but also the manner in which they are conveyed, making itnecessary to review the role of translation in the representation of other cultures(Sales Salvador 2004) (Dovidio et al. (2010) sustain that stereotypes are cognitiveschema used by social percipients to process information about others, reflecting notonly beliefs regarding the characteristic features of group members but also infor-mation about the diverse qualities of those “others,” influencing the emotionalreactions toward the members of that group. Associated to this, Pedulla (2012)points out that stereotypes may play an important role in molding attitudes, oftenbeing related to discrimination and prejudice.).

Translation studies have currently evolved in so many directions that it is difficultto determine which of them is more typical (Schjoldager et al. 2008). Within thisframework, the colleagues whom we interviewed refer to their own positions andtranslation logics. An Indian colleague, aged 45, who translates literary texts –moving in a universe of English, Hindi, and Spanish – states that: [. . .] “I need toacquire the sense of the text. I always want to drown in the original.” An Argentinecolleague, aged 65, who also translates literary texts (essays, theory and poetry) fromFrench, English, and exceptionally Japanese (classical poetry) into Spanish suggeststhat she usually reads the text in the original language first, checking if there areterms that may give rise to ambiguities and solving that using appropriate sources.After that, she begins to translate, taking into consideration not only the correctsyntax but also the appropriate rhythm. Another Argentine colleague, aged 50, whodoes interlinguistic translation work of literary, philosophical, religious, and legaltexts elaborates that as a university professor and scientific researcher, she usestranslation not as an end in itself but as a didactic tool. She uses the method ofgrammar and translation, meaningful learning, and contrastive linguistics.

7 Difficulties, Strategies, and Rules in Translation

In analyzing the possible strategies to be adopted when translating, Venuti (1995)sets a series of parameters that mark and define the translation process. He provides aclassification based on the degree of alienation of a translation, its fluidity, and thetype of existing relationships between cultures. He makes reference to what heconsiders a good or bad translation in those terms, considering thus that while a

10 L.R. de la Vega

fluid translation is that where the language used combines the literary standards ofthe target language with the “marginal” aspects of the source in such a way thatcultural and linguistic differences show, a bad translation shapes an ethnocentricdomestic attitude revolving around the foreign culture.

Different areas of study offer diverse terminological features, and the manner inwhich they are approached varies from one translator to another. The Indian col-league notes that:

The most common difficulties are not grammatical (. . .) and I think that nothing isuntranslatable. It all comes down to finding the appropriate equivalent. So I look for suchan equivalent in the social experiences of the culture of the target language, in its myths andlegends and in its society... I think that we are all human and that all societies have the sameexperiences. Then, all of us have the necessary vocabulary to convey those experiences andit is just a matter of knowing where to look and go for it.

On some occasions, for example, when translating a “Chick-lit” novel from English intoHindi, I was having some lexical issues. . . (as) I don’t believe I have the necessaryvocabulary in Hindi to express feelings/intimate experiences (taking into account her ownHindi background and leaving the possibility open for more considerations from and abouttranslators from the same perspective).

On the other hand, one of my Argentine colleagues comments that:

The difficulties of English and French texts usually lie in idiomatic expressions, in not over-expanding where the language is concise, that is, problems related to the lexical and syntacticfields. In the case of Japanese, from which I’ve translated some poetry, we encounter moreproblems as there are no morphological coincidences: elements like number are not neces-sarily marked in Japanese, which also has a smaller variety of tenses and, as a result, therearises a need to choose from the different possibilities in Spanish. Besides, as this is a culturethat carries a strong stamp concerning objects, habits, clothing, etc., I consider that the termshould be kept in the source language and notes or comments should be included.

Similar resources are used by prestigious indologists Tola and Dragonetti (1999;Dragonetti and Tola 2004), who make use of introductions which put translated textsin context and describe the development of their study, including notes and sectionswith key concepts in order to clarify terms and concepts under analysis and tofacilitate the access to the semantic network that sheds a light on the text and thesubject itself. Another Argentine colleague suggests that:

One of the most common difficulties when translating from a very rich and concise languageis finding equivalents in other languages that lack those characteristics. For example, acomplex structure, including subordinate clauses, is needed in Spanish in order to translatean idea that in Sanskrit is conveyed by a nominal phrase.

In the lexical field, a highly interesting example is that of the multidisciplinarygroup Marpa Term of the Departament de Traducció I d’Interpretació de laUniversitat Autónoma de Barcelona, which studies Tibetan Buddhism in the Westfrom a translation-related perspective and in this context develops a terminologicaldatabase. The group points out the coexistence of diverse areas of study of

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 11

Buddhism that fostered different translation methods, which in turn result in thecoexistence of different equivalent terms seeking to translate the same term in thesource language. The source of its database is Tibetan, and the target languages areSpanish and Catalan. The group carries out a prescriptive task that aims to generateproposals to normalize the use of terminology in Spanish and Catalan in the contextof Tibetan Buddhism. Each entry includes the Tibetan term in its original form, in theTibetan alphabet, and its Wylie transliteration, together with its equivalent in Spanishand Catalan (also including its equivalent in English, French, and Sanskrit). It alsoincludes a section which refers to the translation technique applied so that the usermay understand how the proposed equivalent was achieved. With respect to thetranslation techniques considered, an order of priority is proposed as follows:equivalent, context equivalent, coinage, periphrastic translation, calque, and loan(Martínez-Melis and Orozco 2008).

In addition to any lexical issues and their equivalents, the creation of neologisms,syntactic adaptations, and the solution to agreement difficulties, there are space-timeconsiderations involved in the text constructs under analysis. In this respect, it isworth noting that a translation, both as an activity and as a product, falls within aspecific social context, determined by specific linguistic, political, cultural, andsocioeconomic coordinates, which at the same time renders a text that also accountsfor such coordinates. The sensitivity of this issue is related to the fact that time andspace are founding variables of social relationships, paramount both for the creationof the text as well as its reception and understanding. This raises the question of howeffectively establish a co-participation in space times considered by translating and ifthat practice contributes to a kind of intellectual genealogy of the own translator, inthe deep heuristic sense of the question (Personally, I consider that the way suchissues are addressed has scope to rescue the interpellation of the translated texts intothe present affairs (with a corresponding impact on translation competence).).

Vibha Maurya (2008), in her translation of Don Quixote, from Spanish intomodern Hindi writes:

Besides, I consider that there is something even more meaningful. As a translator, I findmyself in a very different place culturally speaking and in a fairly distant historical time.Consequently, it was necessary to make a temporal and linguistic adjustment. I think that, asa “(re)writer” of a text in its translation, it is my duty to bring the readership closer to the textas well as the text closer to the readership, so that the translation is aimed at treading a doublepath. I am fully aware that in this process as a whole there are several losses but also a fewgains for the target language. The translation of Don Quixote into Hindi is intended to makethe literary world of our language richer, I believe.

Throughout my career as a translator of literary works, I have witnessed a process whichis composed of two branches which are interdependent of the social system: the linguisticbranch and the sociocultural branch. (pp. 546–547) (Her assertions are complemented bythose of Maurya (2015, p. 4), where she stated that “faithfulness has nothing to do withliterality; this practice not only ruins a translation but also distorts the relationship betweenthe translator and the original author (. . .) The language of the author is not, after all, just abundle of words or a fortuitous lexical collection, a random syntax. Each word, each lexicalitem, is carefully selected, its direct meanings and its connotations are so complex that theyseem to be constantly rebelling. In fact, the rendering process is like a vortex of meanings—

12 L.R. de la Vega

where a translator sinks and spins in order to obtain equivalents for words in both languages(. . .) That is why faithfulness may be a sincere ideal goal of the translator of literary worksbut it is completely utopian (. . .).”)

In considering an intercultural context, translators, who find themselves betweentwo cultures, must know them both, their rules and differences, in order to be able toapply the necessary strategies in an appropriate manner, thus obtaining differentresults in each case (Toury 1995). Venuti (1995) argues that the translator must breakcertain rules shared by the members of the target culture to guarantee the renderingof the message and the source identity, but he or she must also comply with some ofthose rules to prevent the translation from being rejected, thereby finding the middleground. The greater the level of acceptance of a text in the target culture, the morechanges made to the target text with respect to the source. This will result in the textbeing closer to the readership and will make the translator invisible (as a discourseeffect that depends on how the translator handles the translation and how the publicreads and assesses it).

Nord (1989, 1997) meanwhile proposes a model to develop the translationprocess from a functional approach called “the looping model.” It considers thetranslation process as a circle rather than as a line and makes reference to theresponsibility translators have toward their partners, referred to as “loyalty,” aprinciple first introduced by the Skopos (Translation theory proposed by the Germantranslator Vermeer in 1978, who claims that the principle that defines the translationprocess is the Skopos (purpose) of the transactional action (Jabir 2006).) theory,which tries to account for the cultural features of translation concepts by setting anethical limit to the range of possible skopoi for the translation of a specific source text(Nord 2006).

Hatim and Mason (1995), who start with the elements that comprise the textstructure, analyze the relationship between discourse processes, and translationpractice, taking into account the motivations of both the author and the translator.They analyze language as text within a cultural and situational context, givingimportance to the pragmatic, semiotic, and communicative values of discourse, thecontext elements whereby the translator captures the intention of texts. House(1997), on the other hand, a predecessor of Hatim and Mason, may be classifiedwithin the functionalist translation theories because of her sociocultural perceptionand her influence in functionality concepts, both of the source text and thetranslation.

8 Translation Competence

In line with the above statements, besides the bicultural perspective presented byHatim and Mason (1995), several authors acknowledge the development of atranslation competence. For example, Muñoz Martín (2014) proposes a constructfor translation expertise consisting of five dimensions: (1) knowledge, (2) adaptivepsychophysiological traits, (3) problem-solving skills, (4) regulatory skills, and

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 13

(5) the self-concept. These dimensions are regarded as scopes in a complex behavior,and they do not imply any “internal” separate mental activity (p. 17). On the otherhand, in 1997, the PACTE (Process Acquisition of Translation Competence andEvaluation) group was created. The group was formed in order to analyze theacquisition of translation competence (ATC) in written translation, and in 1998,they developed a holistic model which established several basic premises.

In this regard, the group conceives translation competence as the underlyingsystem of knowledge necessary to translate; it is, therefore, regarded as expertknowledge comprising both procedural and declarative knowledge. It is by virtueof this competence that the translator is able to perform the translation process. Theyalso consider that translation competence comprises several sub-competences (lan-guage, extralinguistic, knowledge about translation, instrumental, psychophysiolog-ical and strategic) as well as psychophysiological components.

Considering the different sub-competences, we can say that the languagesub-competence refers to the expert’s ability to switch between both languages,and it comprises pragmatic, sociolinguistic, textual, grammatical, and lexical knowl-edge (PACTE Group 2003). The extralinguistic sub-competence consists of “[. . .]declarative knowledge, both implicit and explicit, about the world in general andspecial areas” (PACTE Group 2003, p. 58), whereas the “knowledge about transla-tion” sub-competence implies that the translator needs to know how translationfunctions: “types of translation units, processes required, methods and proceduresused (strategies and techniques), and types of problems, as well as knowledge relatedto professional translation practice: knowledge of the work market [. . .],” and so on(PACTE Group 2003, p. 59). The instrumental sub-competence refers to knowledgerelated to the use of documentation sources and information and communicationtechnologies applied to translation – the use of dictionaries, encyclopedias, glossa-ries, and so on (PACTE Group 2003).

These sub-competences are complemented by certain psychophysiological com-ponents: (1) cognitive components such as memory, perception, attention, andemotion; (2) attitudinal aspects such as intellectual curiosity, perseverance, rigor,critical spirit, knowledge of and confidence in, one’s own abilities, the ability tomeasure one’s own abilities, and motivation; (3) abilities such as creativity, logicalreasoning, analysis and synthesis, and so on (PACTE Group 2003, p. 59). Whentranslation is performed, these sub-competences interrelate establishing a hierarchythat depends on the specific work, and different variants are possible depending ondifferent factors (text, context, translation experience, and so forth). Here, thestrategic sub-competence plays an essential role in that it regulates and compensatesall the other sub-competences.

9 Implicit Ethical Issues

Inghilleri (2009, p. 102, cited in House 2016, p. 27) states that “once the spacebetween the translator and the text (. . .) is acknowledged as irrefutably ethical, thetask of the translator cannot be viewed as simply linguistic transfer, while this is

14 L.R. de la Vega

understood as segregated from an ethical injunction.” The idea that translation, thesocial context, and the translator’s position/stance are closely related is not new but hasbeen emphasized in recent years. In this respect, House (2016) considers that this newemphasis lies in conceiving culture as a space of ideological struggle and the translatoras a “stimulator” resisting the influence of hegemonic structures. In line with thisapproach, translation may also be considered ideology. Along the same lines, there hasbeen significant production regarding the “politics of translation” and the perception oftranslation as a space for political action (Baker 2013), these considerations arisingwithin the framework of the relation between translation and conflict scenarios.

Ethical issues in translation, therefore, seem to be related to a large and complextension between the literal rendering of the source text and a translation that considersthe expectations of the target language’s readership taking into account the culturalcontext and the text’s function in the target culture. Alwazna (2014) proposes a middleground between these approaches, paying special attention to the nature of the text, thepurpose of the translation, and the readership. İçöz (2012), in turn, aims to identifythose situations in which a translation becomes unethical. The author refers to aprejudiced version, misinformation affecting the translation on purpose or by mistake,among others. In any case, it is clear that translating requires the translator to perform aconstant critical and reflective analysis over his or her work and over him or herself.

The colleagues whom I interviewed explain their positions with respect to thistension that raise, is resolved, and rise again. In an Indian colleague’s view, “atranslator should make sure the translation is an echo of the original without losingsight of the target language’s reader.” An Argentine colleague adds that:

I try to be faithful to the original; I’m not keen on recreating, adapting or looking for rhymeswhen the original text makes use of them. I always try to make the resulting text nice to theear and make it adapt to syntactic rules in Spanish. I have never ventured into the translationof texts which are avant-garde or experimental in the source language.

Another Argentine colleague also remarks that:

It is essential to be as faithful as possible to the original, producing a text equivalent to theoriginal and, for this purpose, subjective considerations should interfere as little as possible in theend result of the translation process. Translation should not be used as an ideological weapon.

Regarding the unavoidable reflection about the power that operates in translation,the respondents allude to the relationship of language with spatial semiotics, whichopens another dimension to deepen: the relationship between language, space, andpower (It seems relevant to remember Tally, when he says that “To draw a map is totell a story” (Daricci 2015)). Thus, for an Indian colleague:

I find great pleasure in translating from Spanish into Hindi and fromHindi into Spanish. In myopinion, translating directly from Spanish into Hindi works in two ways. Hispanic literature inIndia is mostly known through translations from the U.S. and Indian literature – I’m referringonly to literature in Hindi – is not known in the foreign world, except for religious texts. Thisis why it is so important for me as a translator to work with these two languages.

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 15

An Argentine colleague also remarks that:

Language is a defining and essential aspect of all peoples and nations. History shows theunavoidable association between power and language: for example Latin’s role in theinvasion and dominance of the Roman Empire, or Spanish in the discovery and colonizationof the Americas. In this age, rather than through weapons and war, power is imposed throughother levels: technology, commerce, and science, and in this sense, it becomes difficult tofind answers or solutions. Spoken language, if not recorded, will be lost – there always wereand still are many communities that don’t use a written language. In my opinion, in largesocieties, the power of the dominant language pervades fields like commerce and science;whereas in the minority languages the arts (literature, songs) are preserved.

Within the framework of this analysis, I think it is essential to address the subject of thewritten word: This applies to China, which despite its industrial and commercial power, usesa complex (spoken and written) language that is very much restricted and is usually replacedby English for the signature of treaties, conventions, etc. (Rodriguez (2014), links thepromotion of language to the notions of “soft power” and “nation branding” and pointsout the successful cases of the United States and China in this task.)

Another Argentine colleague adds that:

I think the translator’s task as an agent that promotes cultural visibility is extremelyimportant. This transference should be serious, scientifically founded and devoid of super-impositions germane to the culture of the target language. It is also very valuable that thereare now more “languages of knowledge.

The experiences of my colleagues bring to the fore important aspects of thetranslation process, such as the projection of a concrete identity through translationand the resulting active and conscious participation in an intercultural dialogue process,the “reading” of language use and its geopolitical implications, and the space ofempowerment of some languages in relation to others, as knowledge seems to beassociated with certain specific languages (while others could appear as “repetition” ofthe former) (Ferro Mealha (2012) addresses the use of English as the language ofacademic and scientific discourse and points out the bias to which it can lead to notknowing the language and not publishing in English.). All of these matters – whichrequire a thorough and focused analysis – relate to the observations made by Restrepo(2010) in the sense that identities (thinking about the identity of the author, thoseidentities which the text realizes, the one of the translator, the ones of the readers, and soon) are not only concerned with differences but also with inequalities and domination;that is to say, identity demarcation practices are connected with the preservation orconfrontation of different hierarchies (at the social, political, and other levels).

10 Conclusion and Future Directions

The all-important role that the translator has had throughout history as a mediatorbetween languages/cultures acquires special significance today, in a context ofenormous technological advances that on the one hand seem to facilitate the trans-lator’s work but on the other may also condition it.

16 L.R. de la Vega

Contact between cultures evidence the dynamics of power at play in thoserelations, which has an inevitable influence on the translator, the translation process,and the end product. In other words, “translating is not neutral” (and translators arenot mere “technicians”). Therefore, since the translator decides what to convey andhow to convey it, his or her stance becomes essential in the translation process and,consequently, in the representation of the others and the process of the cross-culturalresearch of which it is part. Furthermore, and in accord with the notion that thetranslator is influenced by an epistemic subjectivity (as he or she requires previousknowledge in order to translate, but he or she also knows the task of translationitself), I agree with Retamozo (2007, quoted in de la Vega Rodriguez 2015), whoconsiders that the construction of such subjectivity is the result of a position thatarticulates volition and consciousness in an indivisible manner with the translator’sethical and political stance.

Thus, while an Argentine colleague notes that she cannot conceive intellectualwork and research in any field without the aid and use of translations, my Indiancolleague states that:

In answer to the question of “what is translation?”, Umberto Eco states that it is “sayingalmost the same thing”. The key lies in that “almost”, which makes us understand thattranslating can never imply an exact literal transposition of the meaning of one text intoanother, written in another language. On the contrary, it involves a process of culturalnegotiation.

She also contends that:

Translation is a bridge between two languages and cultures. It is important that the bridge webuild is nice and strong, and translators play a very important role in this. The significance ofthis cultural change is undeniable, even in today’s globalized world.

Regarding the above statement, an Argentine colleague adds: “I respect andadhere to the Buddhist principle that we should ‘reach each person in the languagehe or she speaks’. In this sense, the translator is a true pontiff, in the etymologicalsense of the word, i.e. a ‘bridge-builder.’”

I thus perceive a translator as a kind of bridge builder, an agent and manager oflinguistic change, who recovers cultural agency and empowerment through transla-tion, in the understanding that the link between knowing a language and applyingthat knowledge is not an innocent one. On the contrary, the construction of meaningsaround the subjects, their relationships, and their productions carries sociopoliticalconsequences, thus destroying, reconfiguring, and/or constructing new frontiers. Inthis context, the translation strategies do not appear as a certain and fixed itinerarybut rather as a compass that guides the translation, while representations of othernessare always relational and relationships, although similar, are always unique.

Being an integral component of cross-cultural research, translation raises ethical,epistemological, and practical questions inherent in a research. Considering thepossibility of imposing another conceptual framework on the translated subjects(and their correspondent cultural contexts, values, life worlds, languages, texts, and

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 17

so on), it is evident that the need of reflexive approach to translation not only toovercome difficulties involved in cross-cultural research but also to take a stand onthe implicit element of power in the situation (that concerning hegemonic andnon-hegemonic cultures/languages). As translators, researchers, and/or researchers/translators, we have personal sociopolitical positions that impact not only in theproduct of research but also the interpersonal relations in the fieldwork. In that sense,our multilingual identities influence and impact our “locations.” Researchers (and)/translators should then recognize the linguistic and cultural differences that datatranslation must negotiate, preserving and highlighting cultural differences ratherthan resembling the dominant values of the target culture by translation. Thus, theacknowledgement of the translator’s roles as intercultural communicator and datainterpreter in the research process shows the importance of the translator as anintegral part of the knowledge production system (see also Finding meanings: Across-language mixed-methods research strategy and Conducting cross-language qualitative research with people from multiple language group).

All these elements are important to consider the rigor of the research and thatemphasizes the need to understand and recognize the critical importance of languagein the generation of knowledge and its cultural interpretation. For that reason, thedebate and constant reflection on translation/interpretation in cross-cultural researchshould involve “the hierarchies of languages, power, the situated epistemologies ofthe researcher, and issues around naming and speaking for people who may be seenas other” [. . .]. “speaking for others, in any language is a political issue, whichinvolves the use of language to construct self and other” [. . .] “translating itself haspower to reinforce or to subvert longstanding cross-cultural relationships but thatpower tend to rest in how translation is executed and integrated into research designand not just in the act of translation per se” (Temple and Young 2004, cited byAlzbouebi 2010, p. 7). Translation (and the given interpretation) is about under-standing that language is connected to “local toponymies” (space, historical time,identity, culture, the social apprehension of reality and its narrative, and so so); all ofwhich are crucial for any cross-cultural research.

It is then necessary to discern how we can be more faithful to the sources wetranslate (subjects, cultures, identities, texts) and assume that all this involvesoperations with different temporalities (that of the moment of translation and thatrelated to the history of what or whom we translate and the one related to who doesthe translation), spaces (the one of the translator, that of what or who is translated andthe space for which the translation is done), and the memories related to all that (theimplicit and explicit memories in what is translated, who translates, and the memoryof the translator, that activate the life trajectories involved). As Richard points out(2002), the name implies a cut and modeling of a category of intelligibility, and, aswe have said, this is not dissociated from power as an element of social relations, ofwhich we finally go to give account in the cross-cultural research processes wedevelop.

18 L.R. de la Vega

References

Alwazna RY. Ethical aspects of translation: striking a balance between following translation ethicsand producing a TT for serving a specific purpose. Engl Linguist Res. 2014;3(1):51–7.Retrieved from http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/elr/article/view/4852/2841

Alzbouebi K. The splintering selves: a reflective journey in educational research. Int J Excell Educ.2010;4(1). Retrieved from http://uklef.ioe.ac.uk/documents/papers/alzouebi2006.pdf

Ayadi A. Lexical translation problems: the problem of translating phrasal verbs. The case of thirdyear LMD learners of English. Unpublished master Thesis, Master in Applied LanguageStudies, Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Languages, Mentouri University Con-stantine, People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. 2009–2010. Retrieved from http://bu.umc.edu.dz/theses/anglais/AYA1194.pdf

Baker M. Translation as an alternative space for political action. Soc Mov Stud. 2013;12(1):23–47.Carbonell O. The exotic space of cultural translation. In: Álvarez R, Vidal Claramonte MCA,

editors. Translation, power, subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1996. p. 79–98.Chesterman A. The successful translator: the evolution of homo transferens. Perspect Stud Trans-

latol. 1995;2:253–70.Chesterman A. Memes of translation: the spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam/Phila-

delphia: John Benjamins Publishing; 1997.Coseriu E. El Hombre y su lenguaje. Estudios de teoría y metodología lingüística. Madrid: Gredos;

1977.Daricci K. “To draw a map is to tell a story”: interview with Dr. Robert T. Tally on Geocriticism. Revi

Forma. 2015;11:27–36. Retrieved from https://www.upf.edu/forma/_pdf/vol11/05_darici.pdfDovidio JF, Hewstone M, Glick P, Esses VM. Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: theoret-

ical and empirical overview. In: Dovidio JF, Hewstone M, Glick P, Esses VM, editors.Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. London: Sage; 2010. p. 3–28.

Dragonetti C, Tola F. Dhammapada. La esencia de la sabiduría budista. New Jersey: Primordia;2004.

Ferrero C, Lasso-Von Lang N (Coords.). Variedades lingüísticas y lenguas en contacto en el mundode habla hispana. Bloomington: Author House; 2011.

Ferro Mealha I. English as the language of science and academic discourse in (non-) translatedmedical Portuguese: the initial stages of a research project. In: Fischer B, Nisbeth Jensen M,editors. Translation and the reconfiguration of power relations: revisitng role and context oftranslation and interpreting. Austria: Universität Graz-Das Land Steiermark-CETRA; 2012.p. 221–36.

Gentile AM. La traducción de las referencias culturales: el caso de la obra de Philippe Delerm enespañol. 2012. Retrieved from http://citclot.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/viii-congreso/actas-2012/Gentile.pdf

Grice HP. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL, editors. Syntax and semantics 3: speechacts. New York: Academic; 1975. p. 41–58.

Grimson A. Las culturas son más híbridas que las identificaciones. Diálogos inter-antropológicos.En Los límites de la cultura. Críticas de las teorías de la identidad. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.2011. Retrieved from http://live.v1.udesa.edu.ar/files/UAHumanidades/Critica%20Cultural%202011/Culturas_hibridas.pdf

Gutiérrez Rodilla BM. El lenguaje de la medicina en español: cómo hemos llegado hasta aquí y quéfuturo nos espera. Panace@. 2014;XV(39):86–94. Retrieved from http://www.medtrad.org/panacea/IndiceGeneral/n39-tribuna_GutierrezRodillaB.pdf

Hatim B, Mason I. Teoría de la traducción: una aproximación al discurso. Barcelona: Ariel S.A;1995.

Holmes JS. The name and nature of translation studies. In: Venuti L, editor. The translation studiesreader. London: Routledge; 1972. p. 172–85.

House J. Translation quality assessment: a model revisited. Tübingen: Narr; 1997.House J. Translation as communication across languages and cultures. New York: Routledge; 2016.

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 19

Hui-Wen T, Martínez-Melis N. Siete traducciones chinas del Sutra del corazón. In: San GinésAguilar P, editor. CEIAP (Colección Española de Investigación sobre Asia Pacífico), 2, cap. 39.Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada; 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~feiap/ceiap2v1/ceiap/capitulos/capitulo39.pdf

İçöz N. Considering ethics in translation. Electron J Vocat Coll. 2012;2:131–4. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ejovoc.org/makaleler/aralik_2012/pdf/14.pdf

Inghilleri M. Translators in war zones: ethics under fire in Iraq. In: Bielsa E, Hughes ChW, editors.Globalization, political violence and translation. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan;2009. p. 207–21.

Jabir JK. Skopos therpy: basic principles and deficiencies. J Coll Arts. University of Basrah, 41.2006. Retrieved from http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=50013

Kruger H, Crots E. Professional and personal ethics in translation: a survey of South Africantranslators’ strategies and motivations. Stellenbosch Pap Linguis. 2014;43:147–81. Retrievedfrom http://www.ajol.info/index.php/splp/article/viewFile/111744/101509

Levman JG. Linguistic ambiguities: the transmissional process, and the earliest recoverable lan-guage of Buddhism. Unpublished PhD thesis, Doctorado en Filosofía, Department for the Studyof Religion, University of Toronto. 2014. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/68342/1/Levman_Bryan_G_201406_PhD_thesis.pdf

Li X. An Investigation on grammatical and lexical problems in the English-Chinese documenttranslation in the United Nations. Unpublished master thesis, Master of Arts in Translation andInterpreting, School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, the University of Queens-land. 2010. Retrieved from https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:210208/s41874398_MACTI_Thesis.pdf

Lipski JM. Contactos lingüísticos hispano-portugueses en Misiones, Argentina. Texto a formarparte de Homenaje a Emma Martell, editado por María del Mar Forment. 2011. Retrieved fromhttp://www.personal.psu.edu/jml34/Misiones.pdf

Mansourabadi F, Karimnia A. The impact of ideology on lexical choices in literary translation: acase study of a thousand splendid suns. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013;70:777–86. Retrievedfrom http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042813001249/1-s2.0-S1877042813001249-main.pdf?_tid=586cbab8-5d0f-11e6-99cb-00000aacb360&acdnat=1470623297_1fa0fb5313ab949ce31b1a78dc8bca54

Martínez-Melis N, Orozco M. Traducir la terminología budista. Del sánscrito y tibetano alcastellano y catalán. Actas del III Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudiosde Traducción e Interpretación (AIETI). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra; 2008.

Maurya V. Traducción de “El Quijote”: apuntes de una traductora. In: Dotras Bravo A, LucíaMegías JM, Magro García E, Montero Reguera J y, editors. Tus Obras los Rincones de la Tierradescubren, Actas del Vl Congreso Internacional de la Asociación de Cervantistas. Alcalá deHenares, 13 al 16 de diciembre de 2006. Alcalá de Henares: Asociación de Cervantistas-Centrode Estudios Cervantinos; 2008. p. 545–51. Retrieved from http://cvc.cervantes.es/literatura/cervantistas/congresos/cg_VI/cg_VI_41.pdf.

Maurya V. La traducción de El Quijote al hindi: de la utopía a la realidad. Reflexiones de unatraductora. Paper presented at the Academic Session: “Cultura y Sentido: las traducciones desdela India”, organizado por el Grupo de Trabajo sobre India, comité de Asuntos Asiáticos, ConsejoArgentino para las Relaciones Internacionales, Buenos Aires, República Argentina (13 de julio).2015. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouLP3FMbA4w (video).

Mayoral Asensio R. La traducción de la variación lingüística. Hermeneus: Revista de la Facultad deTraducción e Interpretación de Soria. 1999;1:1–219. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~rasensio/docs/La_traduccion_variacion_linguistica.pdf

MiličevićM. Subtle gramatical problems in translated texts: how can language acquisition researchinform translator education? Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione. 2011;13:37–47.Retrieved from https://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/9175/1/04-Subtle-%20Maja_Milicevic.pdf

20 L.R. de la Vega

Montero Fleta B. Terminología científica: Préstamos, calcos y neologismos. Paper presentado atCongreso de Segovia: “ El español, puente de comunicación” (25 al 30 de julio de 2004),Segovia; 2004. Retrieved from http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/aepe/pdf/congreso_39/congreso_39_07.pdf

Muñoz Martín R. Situating translation expertise: a review with a sketch of construct. In: SchwieterJW, Ferreira A, editors. The development of translation competence: theories and methodolo-gies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing;2014. p. 2–57.

Muñoz Martín J, Valdivieso Blanco M. Autoridad y cambio lingüístico en la traduccióninstitucional. Revista Electrónica de Estudios Filológicos. 2007;13. Retrieved from https://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum13/secciones/tritonos_C_Mu%F1oz-Valdivieso.htm

Nardi LJ. Lenguas en contacto. El sustrato quechua en el noroeste argentino. Filología, XVII,XVIII; 131–150. 1976–1977. Recuperado de http://www.adilq.com.ar/Nardi04.htm

Nord C. Loyalität statt Treue. Vorschläge zu einer funktionalen Übersetzungstypologie. LebendeSprachen. 1989;XXXIV(3):100–5.

Nord C. Translating as a purposeful activity: functionalist approaches explained. Manchester:St. Jerome; 1997.

Nord C. Loyalty and fidelity in specialized translation. Confluências. Revista de Tradução Científicae Técnica. 2006;4:29–41. Retrieved from http://web.letras.up.pt/egalvao/TTCIP_Nord%20loyatly%20and%20fidelity.pdf

PACTE Group. Building a translation competence model. In: Alves F, editor. Triangulatingtranslation: perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2003.p. 43–66.

Pedulla DS. The positive consequences of negative stereotypes: race, sexual orientation, and the jobapplication process. Working Paper. Center for the Study of Social Organizaton, Department ofSociology, Princeton University. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/csso/working-papers/WP7.pdf

Restrepo E. Identidad: apuntes teóricos y metodológicos. In: Castellanos Llanos G, Grueso DI,Rodriguez M, editors. Identidad, cultura y política. Perspectivas conceptuales, miradasempíricas. México: Honorable Cámara de Diputados-Universidad del Valle-Miguel ÁngelPorrúa; 2010. p. 61–70.

Retamozo M. Cuaderno de Trabajo n 9. El método como postura. Apuntes sobre la conformación dela subjetividad epistémica y notas metodológicas sobre la construcción de un objeto de estudio.México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2007.

Richard N. Saberes Académicos y Reflexión Crítica en América Latina. In: Mato D, editor. Estudiosy otras prácticas intelectuales latinoamericanas en cultura y poder. Caracas: CLACSO y CEAP,FACES, Universidad Central de Venezuela; 2002. p. 363–72.

Rizo García M. Imaginarios sobre la comunicación. Algunas certezas y muchas incertidumbres entorno a los estudios de comunicación, hoy. Bellaterra: Institut de la Comunicació, UniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona; 2012.

Robinson D. Translation and empire: postcolonial theories explained. Manchester: St. JeromePublishing; 1997.

Rodriguez PL. The construction of cultural softpower and nation branding through the promotion oflanguage: the cases of the American Binational Centers and Chinese Confucius Institutes. Paperpresented at the 18th International Conference on Cultural Economics, 2014, Montreal. 2014.Retrieved from https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=ACEI2014&paper_id=257

Rubin J. Bilingüismo nacional en el Paraguay. México: Instituto Indigenista Interamericano; 1974.Sales Salvador D. Puentes sobre el mundo. Cultura, traducción y forma literaria en las narrativas de

transculturación de José María Arguedas y Vikram Chandra. Bern: Peter Lang; 2004.Schjoldager A, Gottlieb H, Klitgard I. Understanding translation. Denmark: Academica; 2008.

Considerations About Translation: Strategies About Frontiers 21

Snell-Hornby M. Linguistic transcoding or cultural transfer? A critique of translation theory inGermany. In: Bassnett S, Lefevere A, editors. Translation, history and culture. London: Pinter;1990. p. 79–86.

Snell-Hornby M. The turns of translation studies new paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amster-dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing; 2006.

Supisiche PM, Cacciavillani C, Renzulli S. Variedad Léxica en Intercambio lingüístico entreadolescentes, Serie de Materiales de Investigación, 3 (5). Córdoba: Universidad Blas Pascal;2010. Retrieved from http://www.ubp.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/352010MI-Veriedad-L%C3%A9xica-en-Intercambio-Ling%C3%BC%C3%ADstico-entre-Adolescentes.pdf

Suriani BM. El tratamiento de la variación lingüística en intercambios sociales. In: Fundamentos enHumanidades, vol. IX(I). Argentina: Universidad Nacional de San Luis; 2008. p. 27–41.Retrieved from http://fundamentos.unsl.edu.ar/pdf/articulo-17-27.pdf.

Temple B, Young A. Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qual Res. 2004;4(2):161–78.Tola F, Dragonetti C. El Sutra del Loto de la Verdadera Doctrina. Saddharmapundarikasutra.

México: El Colegio de México; 1999.Toury G. The nature and role of norms in translation. In: Descriptive translation studies and

beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1995. p. 53–69.Vázquez G, Fernández A, Martí MA. Dealing with lexical semantic mismatches between Spanish

and English. In: Proceedings of the international conference of knowledge based computersystems, Mumbai; 2000. p. 308–19. Retrieved from http://grial.uab.es/archivos/2000-4.pdf

Rodriguez de la Vega L. The role of context and culture in quality of life studies. In: Tonon G,editor. Qualitative studies in quality of life: methodolgy and practice, Social indicators researchseries, vol. 55. Heidelberg: Springer; 2015. p. 37–52.

Venuti L. The translator’s invisibility: a history of translation. London: Routledge; 1995.Vidal Claramonte MCA. Traducción, manipulación, desconstrucción. Salamanca: Ediciones

Colegio de España; 1995.

22 L.R. de la Vega