Channels, Fall 2020

Channels • 20 20 • Volume 5 • Number 1 Page 21 seem to agree on a handful of principle classifications, even if they disagree as to the level at which equivalence ought to be pursued. The smallest unit, not surprisingly, is the word level, translating a text word-for-word and producing a very literal translation (Jones, 2014; Kesić, 2014; Mansoor, 2018; Yaqub, 2014). However, this level has limited value outside of closely related language pairs and should be used cautiously to avoid nonsensical translations. Next is the clause/phrase level, translating groups of words as a whole unit to preserve the form of the original, especially between unrelated languages. Idioms and proverbs fall into this category, as the meanings of their component words are typically obliterated in light of the phrase’s meaning (Suchanova, 2013). The next level up from the phrase/clause is the sentence (Jones, 2014; Kesić, 2014; Mansoor, 2018; Yaqub, 2014). An argument could be made that this level can be included in the previous level but, given that sentences often consist of more than one clause, it seems right to give it its own classification. Mansoor (2018) argues that this is the highest level at which one ought to translate a text. The final level is that of the thought/whole text, though this level is not widely acknowledged for being too broad and risking a shift toward gist translation, losing the finer details of the text in the process. An important note to make is that the translation is not limited to any one of these levels in the course of their work, as with degrees of freedom. Baker (1992) suggests the translator start at the word level then progress to the sentence (as cited in Mansoor, 2018). Another valuable point is the attention to context. Bakhtin (1986) states that purely linguistic elements, such as words, phrases, and sentences, only acquire meaning in the context of the whole utterance (text). Likewise, Saeed (2009) stresses the importance of looking at context, the phrase, sentence, and whole text, to clarify any issues of lexical ambiguity. Similarly, Comza (2019) warns against allowing oneself to be hindered by individual words or grammatical constructions at the cost of the text’s communicative function. Conside ring the value of larger context in clarifying and specifying meaning in combination with the semantic content of individual words, the clause seems to be the most useful and practical level of translation, especially with idioms and in dealing with unrelated languages, as mentioned earlier. Genre Moving along from level of translation, the translator must also consider the genre of the ST to achieve an equivalent result. Bakhtin (1986) describes speech genres by stating “all our utterances have definite and relatively stable forms of construction of the whole” and that they have “certain stable utterances” (pp. 78 -79). He also maintains that genres are governed by speech styles, including the consideration of grammatical forms as a stylistic decision. According to Bakhtin, factors determining genre include content of the text, linguistic style, and compositional structure. He states that, based on a knowledge of genre types, one can assume these factors in a text from its opening words. Reiss (1981) works from this assumption in her analysis of text-type translation, stating that the translator should begin by looking for stylistic cues and patterns to establish the text type, then subsequently delve into the text variety, a culturally fixed sub-variety of text type which is dictated by the linguistic norms of the language. She also warns against carelessly transferring SL conventions into the TT, which would produce an unnatural and inappropriate translation. Komissarov (1990) also considers the genre-stylistic features of