الاثنين، 21 يناير، 2013

Studying the English contextual translation equivalence

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Overview Language is a vital means of communication and it is considered one of the main characteristics that differentiate human beings from other living creatures. Through language, one is exposed to 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 is required. Traditionally, English is taught through the four majour skills: 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. 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 error analysis. Errors made by learners of a foreign language have, for a long time, attracted the attention of many teachers, researchers and linguists. This attraction 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. It is thought that one of the effective tools where learners’ performance of translation can be examined and analyzed is the written structures. This is why it is strongly believed, in this study, to examine the learners’ translation through error analysis approach. 1.1 Statement of the Problem We hold the view that the process 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. The performance of Arab learners of English, as noted by many EFL Arab, is reflected in the presence of many errors when writing in English. The misuse of English structures leads to the confusion of the meanings. The causes of such errors are too many, where the most effective one is the ‘mother tongue interference’. 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 researcher at the Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Neelain University, therefore, he, seriously, thinks of studying this phenomenon. 1.2 Objectives of the Study This study is aimed at: 1- Investigating, identifying and classifying the English translation equivalence made by Sudanese students at the university level when translating from Arabic into English. 2- 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 practising translation? 3- How can such problems be overcome? 1.4 Hypothesis of the Study It is expected that the students are incompetent in handling English translation equivalence when translating from Arabic into English. These students commit different types of errors, such as spelling, lexical errors, errors of synonymity, syntactic errors, and finally, the cohesion errors. The committed errors are due to linguistic and non-linguistic factors. 1.5 Implications It is hoped that the present study will be of value to Sudanese learners of English 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. 1.6 Summary This chapter introduced the study. First, a statement of the problem was given. Second, the objectives of the study were stated. Third, research questions were introduced in order to be answered in this study. Fourth, certain hypotheses were presented. Fifth, light was shed on some implications of this study. Chapter one is the introduction and the plan on which subsequent chapters will be built on. Therefore, chapter two will set up the scene of the theoretical framework of this study and highlight the increasing interest in translation as a skill in its own right and as a complement to the four language skills. Chapter three will review the related literature, with special reference to translation and its importance in FL teaching and learning. Chapter four will report the methodology adopted in collecting data where a detailed description of the following will be given: method, subjects, data gathering techniques, etc. Chapter five will present the analyses, and results of the study and their interpretation. Finally, chapter six, will summarize the results of the study, evaluate the study, suggest areas for further studies and report certain implications for the students, teachers, and course designers. CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.0 Introduction Studying the English contextual translation equivalence, as experienced by Sudanese learners of English language, makes the study of the majour levels of linguistic analysis necessary. This chapter starts with 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. Moreover, the chapter sheds light on the errors made by the learners which are, in fact, wrong responses to the stimulus. Finally, this chapter explains the translational difficulties caused by Arabic mother tongue influence on the one hand and English culture based on the other. 2.1 The Majour Levels of Linguistic Analysis It is a well known fact that any living language must constitute three majour levels. These three levels have been identified by linguists as phonology, (sounds), grammar, (morphology and 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. There are also other levels of linguistic analysis (e.g. pragmatics and semantics), which 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. Phonologists study the way the sound segments are organized in languages, and also 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. The phonology of English includes certain sounds, which are absent from the Arabic sound inventory and vice versa. However, the question that poses itself, 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 to the SL culture and which are untranslatable. These nouns or names may include sounds that are not found in the TL. For example the word, ’television’, includes the sound /v/ which has no equivalent in Arabic. Arabic, on the other hand, has sounds such as (ş, ġ, x) which are all absent from the English sounds system. 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 if that the English writing system includes small and capital letters which Arabic has no equivalents for. 2.2.2 Morphological Level 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. As it is commonly known, 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). Then, the morphological level can be defined as: the componential analysis of words, including prefixes, suffixes and roots. The morphological level is the level of linguistics 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. And 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. 2.2.3. Lexical Level 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 thesaurus 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. 2.2.4. Syntactic Level Syntax is the study of sentence structure; 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 being 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 are 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. 2.2.5. Semantic Level Semantics is the study of meaning system of a language, (Crystal, 1999:773). Semantic level analysis determines 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 has been 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 unparalled 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, in modern linguistics, is 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, (Crystal 1997:301). 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). In Collier’s Encyclopedia (1960:452), translation is defined as “ … the art of converting written or spoken communication from one language into another” According to the Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, it is defined as “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). 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 the 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 being 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. So they must be viewed as having multiple identities, dependent upon the forces of history and the semiotic web called culture. 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 the source language (SL) by equivalent textual material in the target language (TL)”. While Jacobson (1966) states that it is in its simplest terms “the interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language”, (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 source language text (SLT) 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 translated. 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 Newmark’s 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). The de Compos brothers, (Augusto de Campos and Haroldo de Campos), refuse any sort of preordained original and they view translation as a form of translation and they coin their own terms in which translation is a form of which is seen in a sense of respect, i.e. “a symbolic act of taking back out of love, of absorbing the virtue of a body through a translation of blood” (Gentzler, 1993: 192). But Bassnett (1990) views it as “a rewriting of an original text…,rewriting is a “manipulation which can help in the evolution of a ;literature and a society” (p. ix). Back to the twenties of the twenty-century, Benjamin, 1923, sees translation as “a life-force that ensures a literary text’s survival” (p. 75). Translation 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. At the same time, 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, with their 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 source language text, 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 target language text. 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 languages, and (c) intersemiotic translation or transmutation, includes non-liguistic media, this could be an interpretation of verbal signs by means of non-verbal signs system, (Stiener, 1975 : 260, Basssnett, 1980 : 14). The present study deals with the second type of translation, which is (b). 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 texts, normally handled by freelance translation. Accordingly, three types of translation exist : technical, cultural and literary and they are equally important. Technical translation is important in introducing inventions and innovations that improve health and living, and literary translation in transmitting human values. Earlier in 1982, Newmark differentiated between two 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...”. 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 continum. These distinctions are: A -Translating and Interpreting Written translation can be distinguished from oral translation or interpreting in that it is traditionally a more important form because of its relative permanence and lasting influence. B -Word – for – word and free translation Translation can be more literal (word-for-word) or free depending on the level at which translation equivalence can be established. C -Literary and technical translation Literary translation is concerned with aesthetic, imaginative and fictional texts, whereas technical translation concerns pragmatic and non-fictional texts. D -Professional and pedagogical translation Translation can be professional, i.e. translation as a vocation (working for a client) or pedagogical, i.e. as an exercise in the process of language learning. E -Human and machine translation 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 (1975) terms is “… fully implicit in the most rudimentary communication”, (p.471). According to Verma (1920), translation 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 very many people in almost all literary, scientific and professional specializations. Kelly, 1979, says 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 an analysis of procedure is the approach that promises most. Benjamin (1923), 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 as a final, conclusive, decisive stage of all linguistic creation” (p.74, 75). Bassnett (1990: ix), who sees translation as “rewriting” and “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), 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.” (Gentzler, (1993:166). Obviously, Derrida (1985) 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 Indian 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 the issue of translation in which Goethe, 1813 (McFarlane, 1953) stated that translation is impossible, essential and important. To Benjamin (1923: 81-2), the original text “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”. Catford (1985), distinguishes between two types of untranslatability: (a) Linguistic. No lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for/ or an 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 the translator to find solutions to such problems, and this is in itself a creative act”. Wills (1982: 49-50) sees that “The translatability of a text is guaranteed by the existence of universal categories in syntax, semantics and the (natural) logic of experience”. According 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 Wills 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, the two authors and the two literary situations involved. So, 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 be replaced by another 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. 2.3.4. 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" (1999: 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" (1965: 27). Wills (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 (1964) 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 states "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." Newmark (1981: 38). He categorizes translation by a degree of depending on SL emphasis or TL emphasis as follows 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 (1988: 45) 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 (1991), "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" (p. 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). Wills (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' (Reid 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. 2.3.4.1. 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). Unfortunately, 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 (1994), 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" (p.37). Baker clearly (1992) mentions two functions of the Theme (p.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 (1992) discussion focus on 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 (Nida & Taber 1969: 23) 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 statements 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 approached. 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. A 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 inspite 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 (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 managed adequately to render the original’s overall content, both aesthetic and conceptual. She thinks 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, (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 version”. 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 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 according 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. 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, I 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. 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 as a result 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. 2.6. 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: as defined in (ch:2:6.1), 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 raises 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 realisation of the meaning, there are a number of limitations in dynamic equivalence approach. First of all, 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 realise 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 basically 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 be different 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 that 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. 2.7. 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, Cat ford, 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' (Kenny, 1998:77). 2.8. Vinay and Darbelnet’s (1992) definition of equivalence in translation Vinay and Darbelnet, 1998 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 1998:256 claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents’. However, they note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions 'can never be exhaustive'. 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'. 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 gratuity’,pp 255, 256). 2.8.1. Jakobson 1959 and the concept of equivalence in difference Jakobson's 1959 study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation, since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum'. He suggests three kinds of translation: • Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase) • Interlingual (between two languages) • Intersemiotic (between sign systems) Jakobson 1959 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’. 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'. Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a 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, (pp 233, 234). There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's (1998) theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's (1959) 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. Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jackobson (1959) 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 (1998) 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. 2.8. 2 Nida and Taber’s (1982) Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence, which 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' (Nida 1964:159). Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber (1969) 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 (1969) 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' (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', (p. 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 it is clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information' (p.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. 2.8.3. Catford (1965) and the introduction of translation shifts Catford's (1965) approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida (1964) 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: 1 The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation); 2 The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation); 3 The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation). We will refer here 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' (Catford: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. 2.8.4. House (1977) 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 (1977) 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 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(1977) 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' (p.49). Central to House's (1977) 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' (p.189). By covert translation, on the other hand, is meant the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. She also argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a TC audience' (p.194). House (1977: 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. 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 (1965). 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. 2.8.5.Baker's (1992) approach to translation equivalence New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence e.g. (grammatical, textual, pragmatic, and several others) They 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: 1 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 to 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). 2 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. 3 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. 2.9.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. 2.9.1.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 and more so at the sentence level”, Hartmann (1980). 2.9. 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). 2.9.3.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 2.9.4.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. 2.9.5.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. 2.9.6. 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 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 tri-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. 2.9.7 A Decision-making Process In this context, translation can be defined as a continuous decision-making process that 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 interrationship of sentences in text and their overall communicative value. 2.9.8.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. 2.10. Criteria of Translation Quality Assessment 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.' 2.10.1 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 textlinguistic, pragmatic, and discourse models of translation. 2.10.2 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 basis 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. 2.10.3 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 realise the problem of assessing the 'ghost' readership. Kubmaul (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. (Kubmaul 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' (Schuffner 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). 2.11.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 hand, and connotative, stylistic, affective, reflected, and collocative 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. 2.11.1.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".. 2.12. Errors Analysis In this section, the researcher is 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 analysing 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 behavioural pattern would stick in your mind. This viewpoint of learning influenced greatly the language classroom, where teachers concentrated on the mimicry and memorisation 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 them 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 lead 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. 2.12.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 way he constructs for himself a grammar and a system of the TL on the basis of 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 it shows 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 both 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. 2.13. 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 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. 2.15 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 languages, 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 and reformulating, because reading/writing are recursive interdependent and mutually enhancing. The survey of the issue of translatibility 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 as 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 is 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 translation 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 view 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, is the field of Translation Studies, which has become a discipline with very many branches and opened to almost all fields of knowledge. Translation studies has 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 THREE 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 or 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 relations and text-bound relations. 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 macropropositions 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 lexicogrammatical realisation, 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, modelling 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 modelled in the approach suggested here as unpacking of presentation of information by varying ranks at which some given quantum of information is lexicogrammatically encoded (clause complex, clause, group/ phrase, word, morpheme). In synthesising 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 affect. 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 metaphorisation, 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 thepredictions are testable, because they ultimately relate to configurations of lexicogrammatical 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 labour-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. 3.5.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 analysed, and once the target text (TT) has been created, it can also be analysed 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, theorising 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 centred 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 my concern here. Of far more interest to translation studies is the sort of link characterising PL, poetic style. These links between form and meaning may be non-arbitrary (iconic), one-to-many (ambiguous), paradigmatically organised (repetitive) or embedded in an unusually wide context (allusive). Style is a characterisable and quantifiable aspect of texts. In analysing 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 I am assuming is modularly organised (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 analyse 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. I would, however, maintain that a stylistic study must be the starting point for a theory of translation encompassing any but the most straight forward 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: a- how the order of words differs in both languages, b- what meanings are given by different word order arrangements, and c- 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 would that 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 presedent 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.” 3.10 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 can not 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 Another 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-(بالرغم هذه الصورة الحالكة و بالرغم الوضع المأساوي المحزن الذي تعيشه الأغلبية السحيقة من أبناء جنوب أفريقيا و ناميبيا) 13- (Despite the black picture and despite the tragic situation of the overwhelming majourity 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-و لابد للمجتمع الدولي من ان يرفع صوته عاليا و بكل قوة و صلابة صارخا أوقفوا الحرب, أنقذوا الأقلية من المجاز و المذابح. 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 (صارخا) ‘sarixan’ (speak out), المجازر)) elmajazir (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 أرى الذي يجري في ا لقدس و غزة و نابلس و الخليل و في كل مدينة و قرية و مخيم في الأراضي المحتلة و أرى ما يجري خارجها فيعتصر قلبي الألم و يستقر الأسى في الجوانح. 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 Different linguists have discussed the problem of equivalence. 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 approach 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 in 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 they 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 find 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 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. Taking this into consideration, 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 language. 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-linguistics in nature. Then, 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 an other 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 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 also 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 a particular learners L1 lacks 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. Conversation conventions 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 impact 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 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 minour 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) YES! 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 learners 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. During second 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. 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 also 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 a particular learners L1 lacks 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. Conversation conventions 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 impact 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 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. 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 a 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 the L2 learner uses this strategy 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 ins 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),argue 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”. 3.14.4.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 behaviour. 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, “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 wordly 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 suggest 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 learner’s 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, i.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 from instead of a question form as in the case of YES/NO interrogatives or simply by adding a question word to the statement from 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 from 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 FOUR 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 don’t 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 (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. 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 pilot study. They were excluded from taking the main test. This leaves 120 males and females to constitute the main strata in 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 easily 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 researcher 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 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. 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.” 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 be 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. Kuder Richardson is 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 bin 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 be measuring what it was intended to measure. 4.9 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. 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 collecting and summarizing 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) is 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 basically 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 explains the procedures were used to achieve the results of this study. Finally, it is concluded by the test analysis and descriptions, where test validity and reliability are discussed. CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSES, RESULTS & DISCSSION 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’ errors, syntactic errors, and finally, the cohesion errors made by 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 like. 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 his desire to communicate a certain concept that presses him to adapt his 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 couldn’t 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.” Also, 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 also 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. But the point to be emphasized is that there are no real synonyms. Here, it is important from the FL learning point of view to 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, 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 extend 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 practical difficulties that may arise in translation, by considering further examples quoted from Arabic texts. (3.13) 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 an other 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 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 “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% Figure (2), Types of Articles errors 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. So the students transfer this Arabic rule to English and in effect they make mistakes. An other 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 majour 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 are 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 Figure 3 Frequency of occurrence of tenses & verbs errors 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 as 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 shlud 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 emotion with joy and jubilation over wheld 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 3rd 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 it 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 This type of error is 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 would that 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 presedent 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% Frequency of Occurrence of Cohesion Errors 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. And 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(…) spend 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 this 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, a 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 begging using the article ‘the’, where as the sentence (3) strats 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 this 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: مبعوث الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة للشئون الإنسانية. 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’ errors, syntactic errors, and finally, the cohesion errors made by the subjects. Then, it discusses the reasons at which these errors are attributed to. The analysis and discussion are considered as a step to chapter six where the conclusion, and recommendations. CHAPTER SIX RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 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 researcher holds 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, 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 their 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 researcher 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 (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. 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 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 language skills, 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: 3- Giving insight into the nature of the English translation equivalence. 4- Investigating Sudanese EFL learners’ translation problems at translation equivalence. 5- 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: 4- How competent are Sudanese learners in handling English translation equivalence? 5- What are the problems that these learners encounter in practicing translation? 6- 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 confidential 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 majour 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 will lead to the evaluation of the learners’ competence in handling English translation equivalence, the problems that these learners encountered in practicing translation, and how can 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 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.” Also 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 that 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 translate 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 a 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 remembered 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 researcher has 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. To a great extent, the quality of translation will depend 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, 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 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, other sources. And 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 in the translated unit. References: Alderson J. Charles (2000), Assessing Reading. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K. 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, Am Beaugrande, R. de, 1978, Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating, van Gorcum, Assen. 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. Bell, R. T., 1991, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice, Longman Inc., New York. Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 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. 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 Confere Cook, Guy, 1989, Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cook, Guy, 1994, Discourse and Literature: the interplay of form and mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cook, Guy, 1989, Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cook, Guy, 1994, Discourse and Literature: the interplay of form and mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.nce, 1966, pp. ?? Corder (1967): Introduction of the Concept 'Error Analysis' 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 Crystal, D. (ed.), 1991, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Crystal, D. (ed.), 1991, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 3rd ed., Blackwell, Oxford. De Beaugrande, R and Dressler, W (1981), Introduction to Text Linguistics, Longman, England. 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. Dulay, H. and M. Burt. "Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition." Language Learning 24 (1974): 37-53. ____________. "A New Approach to Discovering Universal Strategies of Child Second Language Acquisition." In Developmental Psycholinguistics: Theory and 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. Ellis, Rod (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Faerch, C.G. Kasper (1984). Two Ways of Defining Communication Strategies. London, 34/1. pp. 45-64 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. 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. Fries, C.C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 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. 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. Hansen, Silvia and Teich, Elke 1999. Beiträge zur 11. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Linguistische Datenverarbeitung (GLDV). Schwerpunktthema: Multilinguale Korpora. Prag: Enigma Hartmann, R, (1980), Contrastive Textology, Longman, England. Hartmann, R, (1980), Contrastive Textology, 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. Hatim, Basil and Mason, Ian 1991. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman Horby, A.S., (1957). Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press. Hudson, ed., Artificial Intelligence and International Politics, Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. This a revised version of H. R. Alker, Jr., and 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. House, J., 1997 [1977], A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, 2nd ed, TBL Verlag Gunter Narr, Tübingen. 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. 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. James, C. (1983). Perspectives in Communicative Language Teaching. London: Harcourt, Brace Jovanich. 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. Kade, O., 1968, Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in derÜbersetzung, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen I, VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, Leipzig. Kasper (eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. New York: Longman 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. 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. Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1957. Larson, M. L., 1998, Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence, 2nd ed., University Press of America, Lanham. 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. L. G. De Michael, [1989], ``Overview: The Common Lisp Object System,'' Lisp and Symbolic Computation, January, 1989, 1(3/4): 227-244. Mclaughim, B. (1993). Theories of Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold Nasr, R. (1963). The Teaching of English to Arab Students. London: Longman 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. Odlin, Terence (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Oller, J.W. "Difficulty and Predictability." PCCLLU Papers. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1971. Oller, W. Jr. (1979). Language Tests at School. London: Longman. Ozad,B.E.(1997).The Reflective Model of Teacher Training: Its Influence on Novice English Language Teachers. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manchester. Palmer, F.R. (1976). Semantics: A New Outline. Cambridge University Press Pamler, F. R. (1974). The English Verb: London: Longman Palmer,F.R. (1986). Grammar. Harmodsworth: Peguin. 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, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 83-90. 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, 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, 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. Richards, J.C. (1974). Uunderstanding second Language Acquisition. London: Longman. 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. Reid, K (1971, 1976), in Hartmann's Contrastive Textology, Longman, England. 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. Schäffner, C., 1998, 'From Good to Functionally Appropriate: Assessing Translation Quality', in Translation and Quality, C. Schäffner (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 1-5. Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage." IRAL 10:219-31 Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage." IRAL, Vol. 10/, pp. 209-230 Sharwood Smith M. (1979). Strategies, Language Transfer and the Simulation of Second Language Learner’s Mental Operations. Language Learning, 29, pp. 345-62 Snell-Hornby, M., 1988, Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, Benjamins, Amsterdam. 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, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 83-90. Reid, J. 1988. The process of composition. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Schäffner, C., 1998, 'From Good to Functionally Appropriate: Assessing Translation Quality', in Translation and Quality, C. Schäffner (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 1-5. Selinker, L. "Interlanguage." IRAL 10:3 (1972). 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. Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious Communication Strategies in Interlanguage: a Progress Report. TESOL Quarterly 77, pp.194-203 Taylor, B.P. "Toward a Theory of Language Acquisition." Language Learning 24 (1974): 23-35. 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. 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, Aca Vermeer, H. J., 1978, 'Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie', Lebende Sprachen, vol. 23, pp. 99-102. demic Press, New York. Varadi, T. (1983) Strategies of Target Language Learner. In Faerch & Kasper (eds,) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. New York: Longman. Wilson, Jr. & Robert, F. (1998). Writing: Analysis and Application. London: MacMillan. Wringe, C. (1989). The Effective Teaching of Modern Languages. London: Longman.

ليست هناك تعليقات:

إرسال تعليق