ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, ADAPTATION AND TRANSLATION: THE LINE BETWEEN PROCESS AND PRODUCT AS DETERMINED BY EQUIVALENCE

Abstract

This work explores the interrelations of Analysis, Interpretation, Adaptation, and Translation based on theories of equivalence. Specifically, this work theoretically debates at what point translation moves from being conceptualized as a process to being realized as a product from an interpretative pragmatics perspective of discourse.

Full text

ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION,
ADAPTATION AND
TRANSLATION:
THE
LINE
BETWEEN
PROCESS AND
PRODUCT
AS
DETERMINED
BY
EQUIVALENCE
Kerry Sluchinski
Translation
is
a
process
that
is
spawned
primarily
from
the
fruits
of
analysis.
Regardless
of
whether
a
translator
is
conscious
or
unconscious
of
the
process
of
analysis,
it
naturally
occurs.
This
being
said,
it
is
arguable
whether
interpretation
can
only
take
place
after the
process
of
analysis
is
complete,
or
whether
interpretation
can
occur simultaneously
with
analysis,
which
leads
us
to
the
theory
of
simultaneous
analysis-interpretation
process.
However,
one
thing
is
for
certain:
without
analysis
the
process
of
translation
and
all
that
it
entails
cannot commence.
In
terms
of
what
follows
the
process,
or
stage,
of
interpretation
within
the
process
of
translation,
it
is
arguable
as
to
what
type
of
end
product
is
produced
as
this
is
dependent
upon
the function
of
a
target
text,
as
well
as
the
intended
readership.
As
the
process
of
translation
is
essentially
based
on
analyzing
the source text,
interpreting
one’s
analysis
of
the
source
text, and
then
conveying
this
interpretation
into
a
target
text
for
a
specific
readership,
it
is
possible
that
the
ideas
and
concepts
in
the
source
text
have
to
be
modified
based
on
the
translator’s
interpretation
of
the
source
text
itself
and
of
what
is
appropriate
in
the
readership’s
target
culture.
As
a
result, the
credibility
of
the
translator
is
often
challenged
by
others due
to
lack
of
fidelity
in
terms
of
equivalence
to
the
source
text,
which
I
would counter
with
the modernized theory
of
fidelity
to
the
readership.
However,
the
criticism
is
not
quelled
by
this
justification
alone;
the
quality
of
the
product
is
also called
in
to
question
due
to
possibility
of
‘mis-interpretation’,
which
causes

problems
with
regards
to
how
the
product
should
be
classified
when
the
produced
text
is,
the
majority
of
the
time,
not
Strictly
in
line
with
the ideas
and
concepts
of
the original
text. This
gives rise
to
a
debate
surrounding
the
processes
involved
in
the
production
of
a
‘translation’,
and
the
characteristics
that define
a
‘translation’.
Consequently,
this has
led
the
field
of
translation
studies
to
a
major
controversy
over
the
terms
translation,
inter
pretation,
and
adaptation.
However,
I
personally
see
it
as
an
issue
of
the
relationship
between
the
processes
of
analysis. interpretation,
and
adaptatjo
embedded
as
stages
within
the
process
of
translation
and
whether
the
product
produced
is
consequently
in
the medium
of
a
trans
lation,
interpretation, or
adaptation
due
to
differing degrees
of
equivalence.
My
goal
in
this
work
is
not to
claim
that
the
proc
ess
of
translation
always
produces
a
product
called
a
translation,
nor
is
it
to
claim
that
the
process
of
translation never
produces
a
product referred
to
as a
translation.
I
will,
however, argue
that
each
product
of
the
process
of
translation
is
unique, unique
in
the
way
that
they
are
products
of
the
process
of
translation
which
have
taken
form
in
a
specific medium
demanded
by
the
external
factors
pertaining
to
the
readership.
Chan and
Pollard
note
in
their
encyclopaedia
that
Holmes
be
lieved an
adequate
general
theory
of
translation
would
be
a
theory
which
“will
devote
extensive attention
to
the
form
of
texts-
how
their
parts work
together
to
constitute
an
entity
—
to
the
ways
texts
convey
often
complex
patterns
of
meaning,
and
to
the
manner
of
which
they function
communicatively
in
a
given
socio-cultural
context”
(142).
This
theory
is
what
became
known
as
Discourse
Analysis,
a
theory
which
encompasses
a
wide
range
of
disci
plines such
as
sociolinguistics,
language
philosophy,
pragmatics,
text-linguistics
and
semiotics
(Chan
and
Pollard
142).
However,
despite
these disciplines having
seemingly vast differences,
the
discourse
analysis theory focuses
on
one
common
interest
among
them
all,
which
is
the
analysis
of
a
text
beyond
the
sentence.
Nord
states
that
“most
writers
on
translation theory agree
that
before
embarking
on
any
translation
the
translator
should
analyze
the
79
text
comprehensively,
since
this appears
to
be
the only
way
of
sUrlhg
that
the
source text
has
been
wholly
and
correctly
un
derstood”
(I).
Chan
and
Pollard
define
one
of
the
central
focuses
of
translation theory
as
being
that
of
“establishing
the
scope
of
linguistic units
(words,
sentences, texts)
to
be
examined
and
the
types
of
equivalence
to be
sought
for(formal/functional)
between
source
and
target texts”
(143).
Equivalence
is
a
theory
that
has
been
a
topic
of
hot
debate
which
has
plagued
the
field
of
translation
studies
and
translators
alike.
Many
translators
have
attempted
to
define
the
term
“equiva
lence”
as
well
as,
define
what
this
concept
consists
of
however,
in
the
process
there were
even
claims that
this
ideal
of
equivalence
was
unreasonable
as
there
can
be
no
exact
equivalent
between
one
language
and
another.
According
to
Panou,
the
concept
of
equivalence became
an
essential feature
of
translation theories
in
the
1960s
and
1970s,
functioning
as
a
term
to
describe
the
degree
of
similarity
a
source
text
and
target
text
should
theoretically
have
between them
(2).
Beginning
with
translator-theorists
such
as
Jean-Paul
Vinay and
Jean
Darbelnet,
the
equivalence paradigm
began
to
be
conceptualized
and
undergo
dynamic changes
with
the
emergence
of
later
translator-theorists
such
as
Eugene
Nida,
and
the
recently
emerged Mona Baker
whose linguistic
work
is
largely
based
on
that
of
Halliday.
Nida
is
the
theorist
who
drasti
cally
recreated
what
the term
equivalence
meant
by
not
simply
focusing
on
the
textual
similarity,
as
had
those
before
him, but
rather
by
focusing
on
whether
the
target
text
did
justice
to
the
source
text
in
terms
of
being culturally
and
conceptually
equiva
lent.
Nida’s
founding
work
of
realizing
the
importance that
the
original
cultural
context
and
concepts
must
also
be
taken
into
consideration
when
translating,
made
way
for
theorists
such
as
Baker whom
also
developed ways
to
preserve
the
concepts
and
cultural
contexts
of
the
original
text
in
translation.
Vanessa
Leonardi(2000)
claims
that throughout
the
evolution
of
the
theory
of
equivalence, there
came
to
emerge three
major
groupings.
The
first grouping
consists
of
scholars,
such
as
Vi-
nay
and
Darbetnet,
who
took
a
solely
linguistic
based approach.
7$
Kern’ Sluchinskj
Analysis,
Interpretation,
Adaptation
and
Translation...

80
Keny
Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation, Adaptation
and
Translation...
81
Consequently,
this
lead
to
the
neglect
that
when
translating
from
source language
to
target
language, the
translator’s
duty
is
only
to
transfer
the
basic
meaning
of
the
source
text,
but
is
also
to
act
as
a
medium
between
the
two
different
cultures.
This
flaw
of
the
linguistic
approach
made
way
for
the
next
wave
of
theo
rists, such
as
Nida, who
emphasized
the
importance
and
duty
of
the
translator
to
produce
a
text that
was
equivalent
in
meaning
to
the
original.
The
translator
was emphasized
as
being
an
advocate
for
the
source
text
and
source
culture;
as
a
result,
it
was
then
the
duty
of
the
translator
to
accurately
reproduce
the
semantic
and
pragmatic
contexts
of
the original
text
in
translation.
Both
previous
groups
of
translation
theorists
approach
the
theory
of
equivalence
from polar
opposite
ends
of
the
spectrum;
however,
in
recent
years theorists
such
as
Baker have
emerged
and com
bined
the
two
positions,
taking
a
stance
between
them through
the
usage
of
approaches similar
to
discourse
analysis.
Discourse
analysis,
a
theory
born
from
the
adaptation
of
applied
linguistics, focuses
on
the
investigation
of
language
use.
According
to
Christina
Schaffner
in
The
Handbook
of
Translation studies:
Volume
4,
discourse
is
a
term
with
both
a
broad
sense
of
usage
and
a
narrow
sense,
on
one
hand
discourse
is
used
to
describe
oral
communication
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambler
47).
Discourse
is
a
term
that
is
also
used
to
apply
to
the
term
‘text’
for
written
communication,
which
is
the
aspect
of
concern
for
literary
translators. Schaffner suggests
that
‘discourse’
is
best
seen
as
an
umbrella
term
as
one
must
take
into
account
the
commonalities
in
terms
of
signals
between
text
and
talk
beyond
one
individual
text
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambier47).
As
a
result,
dis
course tends
to
focus
on
the line
of
communication
between
the
text
and
the readership,
emphasizing
that
the
interpretation based
on
the
analysis
of
a
text
is
only
meaningful
in
a
specific
context
of
situation
and
dependent
upon
the culture
of
the
readership.
Consequently,
in
order
to
analyze
the
structure
and
function
of
a
language,
one
must
also
analyze
the
context
and
purpose
of
the
source
text,
as
well
as
consider
the
function
of
the
target
text
and
the
restrictions
imposed
by
the
readership’s
target
culture.
I$chafft1
suggests
that
the
field
of
discourse
has
widely
expanded
due
to
the
works
of
Halliday
on
systemic
functional
linguistics
Halliday
1978),
which
proposed
that
language
was
a
social
.semiot
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambier
47).
Schaffner
rther
notes
that
Foucault
(e.g. 1972)
contributed
the
definition
0fdiscoufseS’
as
being ‘conventional
ways
of
talking
that
both
create
and
are
created
by
conventional ways
of
thinking.
These
linked
ways
of
talking
and
thinking
constitute ideologies (sets
f
interrelated
ideas)
and serve
to
circulate
power
in
society’
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambier
47).
With
regards
to
discourse
analysis
in
the field
of
translation
studies,
Schaffner
points out
that translation
is
often
defined
“as
an
act
of
communication
across
linguistic
and
cultural
boundaries,
or
as
interlingual
and
intercultural communication,
as
text-produc
tion
for
addressees
in
a
new
cultural
context”
(Doorslaer, Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambier
48).
There
are
five
participants
involved
:
in
the
process
of
translation,
from
the
analysis
stage
through
the
interpretation
stage
and
until
the
end
product
has been
produced,
which
are
the
author,
the
text,
the
readership,
the language,
and
arguably
an
encyclopedia
(Lecercle,
34).
However,
I
believe
that
this
view
is
only
one-sided
in
that
it
focuses
only
on
the source
text;
thus
Jakobson’s
classic
model
of
‘situation
of
communica
tion’
is
better
suited
in
describing the
process
of
translation taking
into
account
the
stage
of
interpretation.
In the
history
of
translation
studies
pertaining to
the
development
of
discourse analysis,
Schaffner claims that Halliday’s
systemic
functional
linguistics
theory
is
what
translation scholars
look
to
for
a
theoretical
and
methodological framework
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambier
50).
According
to
Schaffner,
Halliday
strived to
investigate
how language
was
used
“to
construe
meaning
as
people
interact
in
a
specific
situational
and cultural
context”
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambler
50)
as
the language one
choses
to
use,
(the register,
mode,
tenor
etc)
is
largely
determined
by
the
immediate
context
and
situation
they
are
in.
This
theory
was
built
upon
by
Baker,
who holds
that both
the
stages
of
analysis
and
interpretation
are
intertwined
in
the
process
of
translation
when

82
Kerrv
Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation,
Adaptation
and
Translation...
83
considering
the recipient
(or readership)
of
the
message.
As
a
result,
the
cultural context
of
the
situation
is
referred
to
as
the register,
which
ultimately
dictates the
three
separate
discourse typologies
that
influence
the usage
of
language
(the
field,
tenor,
and mode).
The field
of
discourse
dictates
the
linguistic
choices
one
makes
based
on
the
situation
they
are
partaking
in.
The
tenor
of
dis
course refers
to
the
relationship
between
the people
in
a
situation
and
corresponding
levels
of
formality which
need
to
be
reflected
through stylistic
choice.
The
mode
of
discourse
is
the medium
in
which
the
communication
is
taking
place,
depending
on
whether
it
is
an
advertisement,
an
annual
income
report, or
a
casual
con
versation
the
linguistic
choices
a
speaker
makes vastly
differ.
The
role
that
the
relationship
between
the
sender
and
receiver
plays
is
a
point
of
emphasis
for
both
Jakobson
and
Baker,
which
as
stated
before
is
responsible
for
language choice
and
is
said
to
constitute
the
interpersonal
function. Textual
function,
on
the
other
hand,
is
said
to
refer
to
“the
linguistic
realisation
of
mode,
and
comprises
aspects
of
textuality
such
as
cohesion,
thematic
organisation,
and
text
types”
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambier
50).
While
building
upon this theoiy,
Baker
also focused
on
the
closely
related
concept
of
equivalence,
approaching
it
from
a
combined stylistic-cultural
perspective.
The
Routledge
Encyclo
pedia
of
Translation
Studies
describes
Baker
as
one
of
the
very
rare
theorists
who
approaches
translation with
a
“same
meaning
approach”(96).
Baker categorizes
equivalence
into
several
typolo
gies,
equivalence
at
word
level,
above
word
level,
grammatical
equivalence,
textual equivalence
and
pragmatic
equivalence.
F
or
the
purpose
of
this work,
I
will
focus
on
the
word
level
of
equiva
lence
in
Baker’s
theory.
In
addition
to
these
typologies,
Baker
also
contributed
suggested
strategies for
dealing
with
specific
problems
that
arise
due
to
the
phenomenon
of
non-equivalence.
The
Routledge
Encyclopedia
of
Translation
Studies
notes
that
Baker expanded
the
concept
of
equivalence
in
her typology
of
textual
equivalence
to
include
the
factor
of
information
flow
in
source
text
and target
text,
as
well
as,
the cohesive
roles the
components within
each
text
plays
(97).
When
discussing
the
concept
of
the
word
from
a
linguistic
perspective,
Baker
considers
the ‘one-to-one’
relationship
between
word
and
semantic
meaning
and
attributes
the
cause
of
a
word
containing
more
than
one
meaning
to
morphemes
and
the
syntacti
cal
restraints
of
a
language.
It
is
suggested
by
Baker
that
when
dealing
with
the lexical
meaning
of
a
word,
it
is
rarely
possible
to
analyze
each
component
into
units
of
distinct
meaning
due to
the
complex
nature
of
language
(11).
Through Baker’s research,
she
advocated
for
the
model
put forward
by
Cruse (1986), who
claims
that
words
and
utterances
carry
four
main
types
of
mean
ing:
propositional, expressive, presupposed,
and
evoked
(11).
Propositional meaning
is
very similar
to
the
concept
of
the
signifier
and the
sign
proposed
by
Vinay and
Darbelnet
which
will
be
discussed
later
on.
Propositional meaning
functions
on
the
basis
of
a
word, and
the
concept
that
a
reader
associates
with
that
word
in
the real
or
imaginary world;
as
a
result,
Baker
suggest
that propositional
meaning
can
then
be
judged
as
true
or
false.
Baker
argues
that
when the propositional
meaning
has
not
been
rendered
correctly
in
a
translation,
that translation
is
then
classified
as
inaccurate.
On
the
contrary,
expressive meaning
cannot
be
judged
as
true
or false
as
it
refers
to
a
speaker’s
feel
ings;
which
cannot
be
measured
not
deemed
as
true
or false
by
others.
Expressive
and
Propositional meaning
are
related
in
the
way
that
two
words
may possess
the
same
propositional
mean
ing
but
differ
in
expressive.
Additionally,
expressive
meaning
is
also
dependant
on
word
choice,
the
stronger
a
word
is
the more
expressive
it
will
be;
thus
when translating,
translators
must
be
cautious
of
using
words with
overtly expressive
meaning
in
the
target
text
than
was
in
the
source
text.
Presupposed
meaning operates
on
the basis
of
the
pre-notions
a
reader
already
holds due to
prior context
or
usage.
Baker
claims
that
the
pre-notions
of
a
reader
operate under two
paradigms
of
restriction:
selectional
and
collocational. Selectional
restrictions
are
based
on
the logical
expectations
readers hold
with
regards
to
semantic
categories.
For
example,
Baker
states
that
for
the
adjective
of
studious
one
expects
a
human
subject,
where
as
they

$4
___________
Kerry
Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation,
Adaptation
and
Translation,..
$5
awkward.
Evoked
meaning arises
from
dialect
and
register variation,
concepts which
Baker
credits
to
Halliday (197$).
A
dialect
is
defined
as
a
variety
that
is
in
current
use
by
a
group
of
speakers
and
has
three
aspects:
geographical,
temporal,
social.
The
regis
ter
is
situation
dependent
and
functions
as a
situational specific
lexicon,
which
is
similar
to Vinay
and
Dalbernet’s theory
of
language
levels
which will
also
be
discussed
in
further
detail.
Within
the
register
lie
the
three
previously
mentioned
discourse
typologies
that
influence the
usage
of
language:
the field,
the
tenor,
and
the
mode.
Baker
addresses
the
problem
of
non-equivalence taking
into
account
that
equivalence depends
on
the
linguistic
and
extra-lin
guistic
factors
present
in
a
text, basing
her
strategies
of
dealing
with
non-equivalence
on
the
notion
of
semantic
fields,
reasoning
that
“understanding
the
difference
in
the
structure
of
semantic
fields
in
the
source and
target
languages
allows
a
translator
to
assess
the
value
of
a
given
item
in
a
lexical set” (17).
The
largest
category
in
a
semantic
field
is
referred
to
as
the
superordinate,
with
specific
words
under
it
referred
to
as
hyponyms.
Baker
identi
fies
11
common
problems
that
arise
due
to
non-equivalence,
$
of
which
I
believe
to
be
essential:
Cultural
specific
concepts,
the
source
language concept
is
not lexicalized
in
the
target
language,
the
source language word
is
semantically complex,
the source
and
target
languages
make different distinctions
in
meaning, the
target
language
lacks
a
superordinate,
the
target
language
lacks
a
hyponym, differences
in
physical
or
interpersonal perspective,
and
differences
in
expressive
meaning.
In
order
to
combat
these problems,
Baker
suggests
a
variety
of
methods
that
are
largely
target
culttire
oriented
and
consider
the
readership
as
Nida
had
proposed.
Baker
attests
that
the
fol
lowing
methods
can
be
used
in
situations
of
non-equivalence
to
produce
a
culturally
equivalent
text:
Translation
by
a
more
general word,
translation
by
a
more
neutral/less expressive
word,
translation
by
cultural
substitution, translation
using
a
loan
word
(and
explanation),
translating
by
paraphrase
using
a
related
word,
translating
by
paraphrase
using
an
unrelated
word,
by omission,
and
by
illustration.
In
terms
of
the
text
and
discourse
analysis,
it
is
used
in
order
to
discover
the
systematic
way
in
which
texts
cohere
to form
whole
entities
in
order
to
obtain
textual
equivalence.
This
method
of
research
stems
from
the work
of
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
(195$)
in
contrastive
discourse
analysis
which, contrary
to
Baker,
focused
on
the
word
and
sentence
level only.
Working
in
the field
of
Comparative
Stylistics,
Vinay
and
Dar
belnet
are
portrayed
as
having valued
a
word
for
word
linguistic
approach
with
regards
to
equivalence
using
their
language
back
ground
in
French
as
a
basis
of
comparison
to
English.
Within
the
Comparative
Stylistic
theory,
the
pair
had
developed
a
set
of
what
they
referred
to
as
basic
concepts, using
this
to
envelope
their
theory
of
equivalence
and
methodology
in
translation.
These
basic
concepts
gave
rise to
the
meticulous
internal
structure
of
what
is
referred
to
as
basic units, units
of
a
language
that
should
be
transferred
from
the source
text
to
the
target
text.
The
Basic
Concepts consist
of
seven
parts,
those being
The
linguistic
sign,
Meaning
and
sense,
Lwigue
and
parole,
Servitude
and
option,
Overtranslation.
Language
and
slylistics,
and
Levels
of
language.
In
order
to
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the linguistic
approach
and
compare
it
to
that
of
Nida’s
pragmatic/semantic
approach,
as
well as
associate
it
with
Baker’s theories,
I
believe
it
is
necessary
to
discuss
the
fundamental
details
of
these
basic
concepts
and
the
previocisly
mentioned
units.
The
basic
concept
of
the
linguistic
sign
lies
in
the
supposition
that every
utterance consists
of
signs,
and
these
signs
originate
from
the
vocabulary
and
are
modified
by
the
grammar
in
order
to
create
a
global
meaning.
This global
meaning
is
the
purpose
would
expect
an
inanimate
subject
to
correspond
with
the
adjec
tive
geometrical
(12).
On
the contrary,
collocational restrictions
occur independently
from the
propositional meaning
of
a
word,
and
are
semantically
arbitrary. One
of
the
most
classic
examples
in
English
is
that
laws
are,
typically,
‘broken’
and not
disobeyed’
when
used
by
native
speakers for
the
reason
that
the
later
sounds

86
Kerry Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation,
Adaptation
and
Translation...
$7
for
the
utterance,
which
is
referred
to
as
the
message
(Vinay
and
Darbelnet
12).
In
addition
to
these
signs
it
is
necessary
to
take
into
account
the
mode
of
expression
as
the
mode
is
not
deliberately
selected
by
the
speaker
to
serve
a
specific
function,
but
rather
involuntarily
compliments
the
deliberately
selected
sign.
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
state
that
“In
the same
way
as a
good
textual
analysis
will
identify
the
mode
as
well
as
the
signs,
a
translation must
consider
both”(12),
explaining
that
the
utterance corresponds
to
one
or
several
situations,
and
that
these situations
are
described
as
the
reality
evoked
by
words
which
should
be
captivated/inter
preted
by
the translator.
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
also
emphasize
the
importance
of
paying
attention
to
the
context,
suggesting
that
the full
meaning
is
not
conveyed
until
the
situation
is
reconstructed, describing
this
as
a
matter
of
metalinguistic
information.
The
‘Sign’
is
then
further
divided
into
two
sub
parts,
the signified
(the
conceptual
part)
and
the
signifier
(the
linguistic part).
With
regards
to
the
distinction
between the
signified
and
signifier,
in
a
given
context
when
a
word has
an
exact equivalent
in
another
language,
the
relationship
between
the
two
signs
is
that there
is
one
signified
(one
concept)
for
two
signifiers
(two
lexical
components
referred
to
as
words).
However,
in
some
situations
the
signified for
the
signifiers may
not
be
completely
equivalent
due
to
different meanings
in
con
notation.
In
addition
to
this,
translators
must
also
take
into
ac
count formal
aspects
of
signs
which
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
classify
as
grammatical
morphemes,
for
example
the
difference
between
booksellers,
the
pluralized
form,
and
bookseller’s,
the
singular
possessive
form; thus
in
accordance
with
this
theory,
translators
must have
an
in-depth
understanding
of
the
signifiers
and
their
corresponding
connotations
in
the
languages
with
which
they
work,
especially
to be
able
to
competently
carry
out
the
stage
of
analysis.
In
order
to
explain this
relationship,
Vinay and
Darbelnet
use
Saussure’s
Course
in
General
Linguistics
(1960) model.
in
order
to
produce
a
good
translation,
Vinay and
Darbelnet
theorize that
it
is
the
duty
of
a
translator
to be
concerned
with
figure
1.
Saussure
“Course
in
General
Linguistics”
(1960) model
the
interaction
between
the
signifier
and
the
signified;
thus
one
must
study
the
process
of
message
comprehension
and
be
able
to
reduplicate
it
in
translation.
in
addition
to
this,
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
modified
Saussure’s
model,
claiming
that
the
interac
tion did
not
only
take place
vertically
within
the
sign,
but
also
horizontally
from
sign
to
sign
when
developing
the
message; thus
the
addition
of
horizontal
lines
to
the
diagram
above.
As
a
result,
the
message
came
to
encompass
more than
just
the basic
mean
ings
of
constituents,
it
expanded
to
include
their
connotations
as
well. This
notion
of
the
message
is
the
primary
core
which
translators/theorists
were
concerned
with.
Due
to
the
signifier playing
a
linguistic
role,
it
does not provide
the
entire
concept
or
definition
of
the
signified; this
definition
of
the
signified
is
a
process
that
is
completed
by
the
reader
in
their
mind which
they conjure
on
the
basis
of
pre-existing
connotations.
This
point
is
exemplified
when
one
considers
what
are
referred
to
as
synonyms, which
are
usually
classified
as
words
having
equivalent
signifieds.
The
problem
with
this
classification
can
be
seen
when
one
takes
into
account
the
fact
that
each
signifier
evokes
different
aspects/
connotations
of
the
signified
during
the
process
of
analysis
and
interpretation.
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
claim that
the basic
concept
of
meaning
and
sense
lies
in
the
distinctions
made
by
de
Saussure,
in
which
the
meaning
is
the
sense
of
a
sign
in
a
given
context,
and
the
sense
is
what
contrasts
one
sign
with
another
in
language
(14—15).
The
basic
concept
of
langue
and
parole
is
also
based
on
work
by
A
concept
N
/
tsignifié)
(
acoustic
or
visual
image
(signiliant)
—
/
de
Saussure,
where
langue refers
to
the
words
and
expressions

8$
Kerry Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation, Adaptation
and
Translation...
89
available
to speakers,
these
words
are
independent
of
the
way
in
which they
are
used.
Once
the
way
in
which
these
words
are
Used
is
considered,
these words
then
belong
to
parole
(Vinay
and
Dar
belnet
15).
Additionally,
words
undergo
transformations that
are
dependent
upon
which
category
they
are
used
in,
langue
or
parole
parole
being
the
more
developed
version
of
the
word
in
writteiij
spoken
manifestations,
and
langue
categorized
as
corresponding
to
traditional
notions
of
grammar
and
the
lexicon. The
aspect
of
parole
is
what
dictates
the message
of
an
utterance,
which
is
conveyed
by
the
usage
of
langue, which
is
in
charge
of
sense,
to
say
something considered
as
the
act
of
parole; consequently,
a
majority
of
the
problems
in
translation
arise
from
the
interpreta
tion
of
the
aspects
of
parole
more
so
than
those
of
langue.
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
argue
that
as
language
is
something
One
must
acquire,
it
consists
of
servitudes
and
options.
A
servitude
is
the
grammatical
aspect
of
language that
one
must
abide
by,
for
example the gender
of
nouns, the conjugation
of
verbs,
the
agree
ment
between
words
etc.
However,
it
is
noted
that
within this
rigid
grammatical
structure
there
is
some room for
choices
which
are
made possible
by
the
concept
of
parole
(meaning).
This
freedom
arises
when
components
can
become
omitted
due
to
the
ability
to
infer,
or
are
simply
no
longer
obligatory.
These omitted
pieces
of
language
and
information
are
referred
to
as
obsoletes
and
con
sidered
options.
As
a
result,
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
argue
that
it
is
imperative
“translators distinguish
between the
servitudes
imposed
upon
writers
and
the
options they
have
freely
chosen”
(16).
They
further
argue
that
translators must
pay
particular
attention
to
the
options
within
a
source
language,
and
in
the
target
language
pay
close
attention
to
the
servitudes
which
will
limit freedom
(16).
This
limit
of
freedom
must
then
be
balanced out
with
the
ability
to
utilize
available
options
and
convey
the
nuances
of
the
message
in
the
source
language. When
a
translator mistakes
a
servitude
for
an
option,
this
is
said
to
lead to
over-translation,
an
‘error’
that
could
be
attributed
to
the
analysis
stage.
Over-translation
is
simplified
as
the
phenomenon
in
which
two parts
are
seen and
translated
when,
in
fact,
there
is
only
one
part.
Coming
to
the
basic
concept
of
levels
of
language,
the
impor
tance
of
preserving
the tone
of
the source
text
is
emphasized,
which can
only
be
achieved
by
separating
the
elements
which
constitute
the
tone through
the
ttse
of
stylistics.
These
elements
are
referred
to
as
the
levels
of
language,
with
the
categories
of
tones
separated
into
those
such
as
written
language,
spoken language,
technical
language
etc.
However,
when
dealing
with
tone
it
is
difficult
to
define
the
structure
of
tonality. Vinay
and
Darbelnet
note
that
tone
is
not
a
matter
of
the
level
of
language, but
part
of
the
level
itself.
These
levels
are
independent
of
the
message
as
it
is
expressed
with
its
own
concrete
signs.
Using
the
following
chart,
the
theory
of
language
levels
can
be
explained,
stating
that
the
classification
of
tone
is
based
on
opposi
tions
and
associations made
by
the
memory. This
theory
of
tone
is
very similar
to
Baker’s later
developed theory
of
the
register,
tenor,
and
mode
(mentioned
above)
where speakers
use
stylistic
choices
of
words
and
structure
to
conform
to
or
express
the
tone
in
a
situation.
In
the
table
one
can see
the
accepted
usage
row
and
the
vernacular
row,
the
difference
between
the
usages
of
these
is
dependent
on
circumstance.
The
chart
also
reflects
the
column
of
aesthetic
tonality,
which covers
the
area
of
creative
literature,
and
the
column
of
functional
specializations,
which
dictates what
Baker refers
to
as
the
register,
dependant
on
practical
necessities
and
not
an
aesthetic
intention
as
seen
in
literature.
taccepte
common
usage
•
--H
language
Lalar
poetic
language
literamy
language
written
language
ordinary
language
Aesthetic
tonality
functional speciaHsaiion
nthc
Le
Science
jargons
figure
2.
Levels
of
language
Considering
translation
as
a
science,
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
then
discuss
the
units
with
which
translators
deal
with,
noting
that
the
concept
of
a
‘word’
is
not clearly
defined;
thus
it
is
unfeasible

90
Kerry
Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation,
Adaptation
and
Translation...
91
to
consider
the
word
as
the basis
for
a
unit
of
translation
(20).
Additionally,
as
dictionaries classify
words
as
units,
and
utter..
ances
use
blank
spaces
between
words,
the
concept
of
a
word
as
a
unit
is
hard to
completely
abandon.
In
spoken
utterances,
units
are
distinguished
as
syllables
and
phonetic
groups
which
do
not
have
boundaries
that coincide
with
those
of
words
(20).
Thus the
probLem
of
defining
units
arose,
as
welt
as
the
argument
that
it
is
vital
for
translators
to
have
a
unit that
is
not
exclusively
defined
by
formal
criteria.
This
is
due
to
the fact
that translators translate
from
the
meaning
and
work
within
a
semantic
field
(Vinay and
Darbelnet
20).
As
a
result,
the
unit
then
must
be
identified
as
one
of
thought,
as
translators
do
not simply
translate
words
but
the
feelings
and
thoughts
associated
with
them
through
the
process
of
interpretation.
Additionally,
it
is
further
reasoned
that
“the
unit
of
translation
is
the
predominant
element
of
thought
within
such
a
segment
of
the
utterance
[and]
there
may
be
superposition
of
ideas
within
the same
unit”
(Vinay
and
Darbelnet
21).
This
results
in
a
unit
accumulating
many
meanings,
or
connotations; thus
becoming
superimposed
and
the
translation
only
being
able to
preserve
the
signified
with
the
most
priority.
Vinay and
Darbelnet
argue
that
the
translator
should
be
more focused
on
semantics
of
units
than
on
the
structure,
as a
result
there
are
a
variety
of
translation
units
which
contribute
to
semantics.
Vinay
and
Darbelent
believed that
the task
of
the
translator
was
to
establish
relationships between
specific
manifestations
of
two
linguistic systems,
and
should
take
the
following
steps
during
the
stage
of
analysis
to
achieve
this:
—
identify
the
units
of
translation;
—
examine
the
SL
text;
this
consists
of
evaluating
the
descrip
tive,
affective,
and
intellectual
content
of
the
units
of
translation;
—
reconstitute
the
situation
which
gave
rise
to
the
message;
—
weigh
up
and
evaluate
the
stylistic
effects,
etc.
(30)
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
believe
that equivalence
is
created
when
a
change
arises
in
the
message
content
between
source language
and
target
language;
however,
this
change
must
go
beyond
the
parole
and
enter
the
langue due
to
the source
language
often
containing
various
depths
of
complexity.
The
aim
of
equivalence
is
not
to
give
a
one
to
one
correspondence,
but
rather
to
reproduce
the
precise
meaning
of
the source language
in
the
target
language
which can
only
be
done by
looking
at
the
situation presented
in
the
source
text.
The
reduplication
of
the
situation between
the
two languages can
be
accomplished
in
a
variety
of
ways,
whether
the
stylistic
and
syntactic
means
are
kept
the
same
or
altered.
When
considering
fixed
expressions,
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
note
that
“fitting
equivalent
situations,
semantic equivalences
can
be
recorded
in
glossaries
as
collections
of
gallicisms,
idioms,
proverbs,
idiomatic
expressions,
etc”
(256).
However, they
also
claim
that equivalence
results
from
an
in-depth
knowledge
of
both
languages
which
causes
the
translator
to
focus
on
the
situation
instead
of
translation
units.
This
concentration
on
the
situation
is
also
similar
to
Baker’s
theories
on
the
modes
of
discourse,
where
one should
translate
based
on
the situation
and
role
the
target
text
is
expected
to
play.
Vinay
and
Darbelnet
claim
that
the
fixed
expressions
in
a
text
which
require
an
equivalent
expression
already
refer
to
a
universally
known
event;
thus
these
universal
events
are
considered
as
covering
a
large
portion
of
the
message
and
not
needing
specific
markers
(257).
Vinay
and
Darbelnet,
for
the most
part,
seem
to be
occupied
with
the
semantic
equivalence
between
a
source
language text
and
a
target
language
text,
placing emphasis
on
the
importance
of
a
translator’s
bilingual
ability,
as
well
as,
being
dually
cultured.
However,
they
do
not
quite
focus
on
the
role
that
the
target
lan
guage
text
will
be
playing,
but
are
rather
more
focused
on
the
role
that
the
source
language
text
played. As
a
result,
I
believe
that
they
have largely
neglected
the
aspect
of
target
language
readership
when
forming
their
theories.
Chan
and Pollard
state
that
from
this
line
of
work
taken
by
theo
rists
such
as
Vinay
and
Darbelnet,
the
need
for
a
three-step
analysis
based
discourse-oriented translation-paradigm
was
evident
(144).
These
three
steps
were
to
consist
of:”
a
contrastive
study
of
dis
course
norms
governing
the
structure
of
compare,
specific
text-gen

92
Keny
Sluchinski
res
between
two
languages,
an
explanation
of
the
criteria
used
an(j
functions achieved
by
structural
devices used
in
each,
followed
by
an
analysis
of
the
solutions observed
in
actual
translations”
(144)
Similarly,
Schaffner claims
that
for
standards
of
textuality
trap
lation
scholars
look
to
the
text
linguistic model
of
de
Beaugran
and
DressIer
(1981)
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambler
49)
In
addition
to
this,
scholars have
attempted
to
apply
discourse
analysis
in
various ways,
Schaffner
cites
Gopferich
1995;
Col
inn
1997
as
comparing “specific
genres
cross-culturally
in
order
to
identify
genre
conventions
and draw
conclusions
for translation
purposes”,
as
well
as
notes
that
others
researched
areas
pertain
ing
to
more
linguistic aspects
of
the
translation
process
such
as
“discourse
markers,
theme-rheme
progression,
connectors,
rhetorj
cal
devices,
lexical
repetition,
and
particles
of
domain-specific
discourse”
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambler
49). The
goal
of
such
a
detailed analysis
was
to
identify
the
patterns
of
shifts
in
coherence
and
cohesion,
as
well
as
shifts
in
transitivity
(Doorsiaer,
Luc
van, and Yves
Gambier
49).
Schaffner
also
cites
Trosborg (2002)
as
an
avid
applicant
of
Halliday’s
theories,
and
that
Trosborg believed
the
text
is
the
unit
of
discourse
analysis,
and
that
‘discourse’
“indicates
a
higher
level
which
involves
regular
patterns
in
the
use
of
language
by
social
groups
in
areas
of
socio-cultural activity”
(Doorslaer.
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambler
50).
Schaffner
claims
that
Trosborg based
her
approach
on
Hal
liday’s
register
analysis
and
on Swales’
genre analysis
in
order
to
create
a
model
of
pre-translational
analysis (Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambier
50).
On
the
basis
of
Halliday’s
model,
many
argue
that
it
is
imperable
for
the
ideational
and
the
interpersonal
functional components
to
be
kept
equivalent
in
translation,
which
consequently
requires changes
of
the
register
to
account
for
culture-specific
discourse
preferences
(Doorslaer,
Luc van,
and
Yves
Gambier
51).
Schaffner
goes
on
to cite Hatim
(2009: 37)
as
arguing that
‘situational
appropriateness
established
by
registers,
together
with
textual well-formedness,
generic
integrity
and
a
discourse
perspective,
may
more
helpfully
be
seen
as
layer
upon
layer
of
Analysis,JflterPretatj0fl,tPtatb01fnTatb01
93
socbotextm1l
practice”
(Doorslaer,
Luc
van,
and
Yves
Gambler
51
).W1efl
addressing
context, Chan
and
Pollard
note
that
discourse
flalysis
has
enhanced
translation
studies
in
the way
that
it
pro
vided
“a
focus
on
the
complexity
of
meaning
and
interpretation
in
communjcation,
derived
from
pragmatics
and
sociolinguistics,
anch0
the
field
of
translation
studies
firmly
within the
study
of
commu
cati0fl” (145).
Nida,
with
his
readership focused
theories
0f
translation, was
at
the head
of
communication
theories
and
those
of
which
put
the conveying
of
the
source
text
message
to
the
readership
as
a
priority.
it
has
been
argued
that
Nida,
as
did
Vinay
and
Dalbenet,
took
a
heavily
scientific approach
towards
translation
when
formulating
his
theories
of
formal and
dynamic
equivalence.
Ge
notes
that
the
concept
of
dynamic
equivalence
was
first
revealed
in
Nida’s
work
Toward
a
Science
of
Translating
and
elaborated
upon
in
The
Theo;y
and
Practice
of
Translation
in
great
detail;
additionally,
Ge
estimates
that
around the
mid-1980s,
dynamic
equivalence
became
known
as
functional equivalence. However,
Nida
was
the
first
theorist
to
introduce
the concept
of
the
readership
and
reception
to
the
field
of
translation
studies;
consequently
creating
a
shift
away
from
the text-based
focus
which translators
and
theorists
had
focused
on
for
so
long.
Panou
notes
that
Nida
described
formal
equivalence
as
having the
goal
of
preserving
both
the
form and
content
of
the
original
in
the
target
text, while Leonardi (2000)
notes the
need
for
a
target
language
item
equivalent
for
source
language
words
or
phrases
to
be
present.
Nida
acknowledges
that the
cases
in
which
exact language
pairs
exist
are few,
as
a
resttlt he
advocates
for
the
use
of
formal
equivalence
only
when
required,
either
by
the
context
or the
purpose.
In
cases
where
formal
equivalents
are
used incorrectly,
due
to
an
error
in
the
interpretation
stage,
this
results
in
serious
implications
for
the
readership
as
the
target
text
will
not
be
easily
understood
and
sound
unnaturaL
Leonardi
(2000)
cites
Nida
warning
that “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”.

94
Keny
Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation, Adaptation
and
Translation...
95
On
the
contrary.
dynamic
equivalence
aims
to
convey
the
message
of
the
source
text
as
naturally
as
possible
in
the
target
text
for
the
target
culture.
Nida
favoured
the
practice
of
dynamic
equivalence
due
to
his
inclination towards
the
readership
and
the
practical freedom
of
translation that
could
be
obtained through
dynamic
equivalence.
As
noted
by
Panou,
Nida
believed
dynamic
equivalence
not
only
played
a
role
in
the
correct
communication
of
the
source
text
information,
but
went
beyond
this
to
connect
with
the
readership
(3).
Ge
claims
that
the
theory
of
dynamic
equivalence,
which
he
refers
to
as
functional, serves
the
purpose
of
demolishing
barriers
between
the
source
culture
and
target
culture.
Logically, the
greater
the
difference between
the
cultures
is,
the more difficulties
of
comprehension
will arise.
Consequently,
the
more
culturally
specific
a
text
is,
the
higher
degree
of
flex
ibility
a
translator
has
for
modifications;
thus
dynamic
equiva
lence.
However,
the
downfalls
of
dynamic
equivalence
are
most
evident
between
source
text
and
target
text
with
large
cultural
dissimilarities;
thus
the
target
text
communicates
less
about
the
cultural
frame
in
which
the source
text
belongs.
Due
to
this
lack
of
cultural frame,
Nida
argues
that readers
can
understand
the
message
of
the source
text
without
needing
to
acquire additional
knowledge
about
the
source
text
culture.
Additionally,
not
only
is
the
target
text
then more
likely
to
be
acceptable
to
the
target
audience, but
also
more
comprehensive
and
natural.
While
Nida
was
developing
his
theories
he
was
in
the midst
of
translating
the
Bible,
a
very
controversial text that
has
sparked the
debate
between
the freedom
of
translation/innovation
and
obedi
ence
under
authority/fidelity
to
a
sacred
text.
With his
translation
of
the
Bible,
Nida
attempted
to
cater
to
the
vast
readership
of
the
many
different
cultures
and
languages.
In
order
to
achieve
this
Nida developed,
and
favoured, the
option
of
dynamic
equivalence.
Nida
believed
that
the
process
of
translation
originally
takes
place
within
the
brain,
simultaneously
as
one
reads
the
words
before
them.
As
a
result,
Nida
believed
that
due
to
the
vast
diversity
of
readerships
and
their
needs,
until
a
theory
of
language
was
developed,
and accepted,
which
was
based
on
the
working
of
the
human
brain
‘we
cannot
ex-
pect
to
have
one
dominant
and
comprehensive
theory
of
language
and
translation’
(Constanti
nescu
286).
Much
like
Vinay
and
Dalbemet,
Nida
believed
that
the
meanings
of
words
depended
on
the context,
what
Vinay
and
Dalbernet referred
to
as
the
situation,
and
interpretation
of
the
reader.
Nida
also
acknowledged
the
existence
of
distinct
language
levels,
focusing
on
the distinctions
made
by
social
contexts;
as
a
resctlt
of
this
multi-level
language structure,
Nida
believed
that
theories
“that would
make
our
world
linguistically
and
culturally
understandable”
were
in
dire
need
(Constantinescu
286).
Nida
believed
that
his
theory
of
dynamic
equivalence
could
achieve
what
the world
lacked
at
that
time,
by
regarding
the
meaning
of
a
source
text
as
more
important than
the style
Nida
was
convinced
that
translating
must
be
based
on
the
readership
and
their
accept-
alice
of
the
target
text.
Constantinescu
argues
that
for
Nida,
“the
goal
of
translation
is
to
reproduce
the
total dynamic
character
of
the
original
communication”
and
that
“the
ultimate
purpose
of
the
translation,
in
terms
of
its
impact
upon
its
intended
audience,
is
a
fundamental
factor
in
any
evaluation
of
translations”(286).
Constantinescu
notes
that
Nida
argued
for
language
to
be
viewed
as
“a
shared
set
of
habits
using
the
voice
to
coinmunicate”(284)
and
that
Nida’s
theory
of
dynamic
equivalence
consisted
of
three
major points,
those
being
that
it
is
reader
oriented
,
flexible,
and
realistic
(285).
Panou
notes that
Nida
has been
severely
criticized
for
his
theo
ries
as
they
went
against
popular theories
of
those
times,
citing
that
theorists
such
as
Lefevere
(1993)
believed equivalence
was
at
the
word
level(3).
She
also
cites
the
critic
Broeck
(1978),
who
claimed
that
it
was
not
possible
to
measure
the
equivalent
effect
on
the basis
that
“no
text
can
have
the same
effect or
elicit
the
same
response
in
two
different
cultures
in
different
periods
of
time”
(3).
Nida
describes dynamic
equivalence
as
being
measur
able
in
terms
of
the
degree
of
response
from the
target
reader
ship
compared
to
that
of
the original.
Constantinescu
notes
that
Nida
acknowledges
the
flaw
within this
statement
as
he
states
that
‘this
response
can
never
be
identical,
for
the
cultural and

96
Keriy
Sluchinski
Analysis,
Interpretation,
Adaptation
and
Translation...
97
historical settings
are
too
different’(2$7);
however,
Nida
also
defends
dynamic equivalence
in
the
same
statement reasoning
that
‘there
should
be
a
high degree
of
equivalence
of
response,
or
the
translation
will
have
failed
to
accomplish
its
purpose’(287).
Panou
goes
on
to
further
argue
that
the
fiercest
critic
of
Nida
was
Edwin
Gentzler,
who
was
against
categorizing
translation
studies
as
having
“scientific”
properties
and
claimed
that
Nida
used
dy
namic
equivalence
“in
order
to proselytize readers,
regardless
of
their
culture,
to
endorse
the ideas
of
Protestant Christianity”(3).
further
critiqtle
of
Nida
is
noted
by
Constantinescu
whom
states
that
according
to
Hui-juan,
the
main
reason
for
discrepancy
within
Nida’s
theory
is
that
there
was
a
deficiency
“in
dealing
with
transference
of
aesthetic
elements
for
literary
translation”
and
that
it
has
“limitations
in
guiding
literary
translation
because
it
fails
to
address
the
transference
of
aesthetic
elements
for
literary
translation”
(285).
Despite
criticism,
Nida
firmly believed
the
duty
of
the
translator
to
be
that
of
identification,
especially
with
the
translation
of
the
Bible,
stating
that
‘as
a
Christian
servant
he
must
identif,’
with
Christ;
as
a
translator
he
must
identify
himself
with
the
Word;
as a
missionary
he
must
identifv
himself
with
the
people’(
Con
stantinescu
286). This
is
further
supported
by
Nida’s
study
of
missionary
work,
in
which
Constantinescu
cites
Nida
as
discover
ing
that
the
missionaries
‘were able
to
identify
themselves
with
the people
—
to
be
all
things
to
aLl
men
—
and
to
communicate
their message
in
terms
which
have meaning for
the
lives
of
the
people’(286).
According
to
Nichols,
when translating
the
Bible
the
most
important
task
a
translator
has
is
to
reproduce
the
message
in
the
target
language
with
the
closest,
most
natural,
sounding equivalent
to
the
source
language.
This
is
exactly what
Nida
aimed to
do
with
his
theory
of
dynamic
equivalence, emphasizing
the
aspect
of
naturalness
as
a
translation
was
made
to
be
the
advocate
of
the
original,
not
to
simply serve
and
appear
as a
translation.
As
a
result,
many
translators
of
the
Bible
adopted
the
theory
of
dynamic
equivalence
due
to
the fact
that
the main
goal
was
for
the
reader-
ship
to
understand
the
writers.
In
support
of
this
phenomenon,
Nichols
claims
that writers
used
the
common
language
of
“Koine
Greek”
in
the
New
Testament
(44);
thtis
it
was
important
for
translators,
when
translating
the
Bible,
to lean
towards
the
most
common
interpretation
in
cases
of
ambiguity.
Nichols
also
notes
on
the
topic
of
selecting natural
equivalents
that the
historical
and
cultural
context
should
not
be
distorted;
this
is
much
in
tine
with
Nida
and one
of
the
key
components
in
his
dynamic
equivalence
theory.
Additionally,
Nichols emphasizes four
aspects
of
transla
tion
that
Nida
is
said
to
have
implemented
in
Bible translation
(44):
Contextual
consistency
has
priority over
verbal
consistency,
dynamic equivalence
has
priority
over
formal,
the
aural
form
of
the
language
has
priority
over
the
written
form, and
forms that
are
used
by
and
acceptable
to
the
audience
have
priority over
forms
that
may
be
traditionally
more