Dr. Carlos F. Márquez Linares Dr. Enrique F. Quero Gervilla Doctoral Programme in Languages, Texts and Contexts Faculty of Translation and Interpreting university of granada

Defining Descriptive Translation of Terms

The Descriptive Translation of terms is rarely addressed by researchers as a fully fledged secondary term formation process (see paragraph № 3. Term Formation). Nevertheless, DT can be considered not only as a translation technique, but also as a secondary term formation method. It is an effective and frequent tool for dealing with neonyms or non-equivalent term forms.

P. Newmark (1988), one of the early contributors to translation theory, has given attention to Descriptive Equivalents, when “description has to be weighed against function” (p. 84). According to him, “description and function are essential elements in explanation and therefore in translation” (ibidem). In addition to this, the author differentiates between “descriptive terms” and “technical terms”. The latter terms which are used in the following circumstances:

• 
  “the object is new” and is not clear-сut yet;
  
• 
  “the descriptive term is being used as a familiar alternative, to avoid repetition”;
  
• 
  “the descriptive term is being used to make a contrast with another one” (ibidem, 153).
  

According to other influential theorists, J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet (1995), “oblique translation” can be differentiated from “direct translation” (30). The latter one includes borrowing, Calque and literal translation, while “the oblique translation” strategy consists of the following:

• 
  Transposition, i.e. “replacing one word class with another without changing the meaning of the message”;
  
• 
  Modulation, i.e. “a variation of the form of the message, obtained by a change in the point of view”;
  
• 
  Equivalence, i.e. equaling the meaning of two texts or language units;
  
• 
  Adaptation, i.e. a “a special kind of equivalence, a situational equivalence” (ibidem, 35- 40).
  

DT focuses on adaptation as specified by Vinay and Daberlnet (1995). Adaptation reaches “the extreme limit of translation” and “is used in those cases where the type of situation being

referred to by the SL message is unknown in the TL culture” (ibidem). Accordingly, DT can be considered as a subtype of the adaptation technique.
Generally-speaking, DT is a type of lexical and grammatical adaptation or transformation (Komissarov, 1990). V.N. Komissarov (1990) offers the most accurately outlined definition of DT: “a lexical and grammatical transformation under which the lexical unit of the source language is changed for the phrase revealing its content” (ibidem). Accordingly, the author separates DT from other “transformation” techniques proposed in Russian terminology. For example, it is separated from lexical and semantical methods, such as generalization, concretization and modulation; lexical and grammatical transformations, such as antonymic translation and compensation; and technical methods of translation, such as omission, addition and transfer (ibidem).
The main characteristic feature of DT is that it cannot be strictly defined. Even the definitions of the translation method do not always coincide. For example, R.K. Min'jar-Beloruchev (1999) highlights that when dealing with DT, the translator creates conformity “on the basis of the meaning of the language unit” (p. 142). Meanwhile, DT and “different types of logical thinking” (ibidem) are differentiated: generalization, concretization of meaning or antonymic translation. DT, according to the author, consists in description of a concept defined “by means of another language” (ibidem, p. 170). Consequently, DT can be considered to not be the product of logic, but the outcome of revealing the meaning of a word.
DT cannot be separated from transformations such as generalization, concretization, antonymic translation and extension (addition), because it often employs them to disclose the meaning of a term.
According to M.A. Apollova (1977), DT is necessary when a word “acquires a big semantic volume” (p. 72). If the semantics of a word in the source language is wider than in the target language, it is highly probable that the translation unit will be translated descriptively. However, such a statement is slightly limited because DT is needed when the translation unit does not have a direct equivalent or any corresponding variant in the target language. The author highlights that

the characteristic feature of English is its laconic brevity, which is obvious from the translation of words “requiring detailed description” (ibidem). Correspondingly, DT is a result of the dense semantics of a source word, which is not easily retrieved in a target language.

Ya. I. Recker (1981) considers DT to be explanatory: “in essence it is not a translation but a more or less extensive explanation of the meaning” (p. 58). The author also provides the examples: “journeyman —вкалифицированный рабочий или ремесленник, работающий по найму” (ibidem) (kvalificirovannyj rabochij ili remeslennik, rabotajushhij po najmu; L.t.: a qualified worker or a craftsman, working as a hired person). Recker (1981) concludes that a translation can have different versions; however, the words “requiring the exact translation” are the exceptions (ibidem, p.“b5u9l)l: — спекулянт, играющий на повышение биржевых ценностей” (ibidem) (spekuljant, igrajushhij na povyshenie birzhevyh cennostej; L.t.: a speculator, playing for the increase of stock exchange values). Accordingly, the DT method focuses on explanation, provided the language units do not require an exact form.
G.V. Terehova (2004) unites Calque and DT and calls them types of “free translation” (p. 56). DT is indeed not a strict term translation method; however, Calque can be considered “free” only to some extent, because it does not strengthen translators’ creative thinking. Nevertheless, Calque is not always accurately delineated, i.e. it depends on component correlation and the meaning of the source term. The idea of uniting Calque and DT under the same translation type triggered the suggestion to distinguish Calque elements within DT (see Calque and DT below).
In DT, meaning is revealed by “a description method” (ibidem). The characteristics of this translation method are contradictory: a terminological method of translation and a descriptive one can be differentiated (although the translation of terms can also be descriptive). For example, “the phrase видное место (in a newspaper) can be conveyed terminologically – a prominent place, front page, and also in a descriptive way: поместить на видном месте to feature story” (ibidem) (vidnoe mesto; L.t.: prominent place; pomestit' na vidnom meste; L.t.: to put into a visible place). The DT method is regarded as a free description of a situation by the author; although it can be crystallized in a language (на видном месте is a set expression). In addition to this, the DT of terms is an indisputable phenomenon and can be investigated within

terminology. In terminological fields, DT defines (although, not strictly) terms and insures that they function properly.

L.L. Vagapova and A.S. Vagapov (2007) highlight that DT should be shorter than the “extensive description” (ibidem) offered in a dictionary. Consequently, DT can be differentiated from free explanation.
According to the authors, this type of translation leads to “word redundancy and approximateness” (ibidem). It can be considered as a rushed conclusion, because sometimes it is DT, which offers the only accurate and definite translation. Examples of DT are also provided for: “computer-process interface - устройство сопряжения вычислительной машины с технологическим процессом, code auditor - автоматическое средство контроля качества программы (ibidem)” (ustrojstvo soprjazhenija vychislitel'noj mashiny s tehnologicheskim processom; L.t.: the device for connecting a computing machine with technological progress; avtomaticheskoe sredstvo kontrolja kachestva programmy; L.t.: automatic means of program quality control).
V.N. Komissarov (1990) also highlights that word redundancy is a disadvantage of DT. Some examples of the phenomenon are given: “whistle-stop speech -- выступление кандидата в ходе предвыборной агитационной поездки” (ibidem) (vystuplenije candidata v hode predvybornoj agitatcionnoj poezdki; L.t.: the performance of a candidate during (in the course of) a pre- election propaganda trip).
Accordingly, DT has extra explanatory elements. However, it is recommended for differentiating irrelevant or additional components within DT from indispensable ones. This triggered the shaping of the DT with Additional or Irrelevant Components method (see

9. “Descriptive Translation Groups within the Coporate Govenrance Field”).

T.A. Kazakova (2008) states that DT is not only used in case of an absence of a regular equivalent, but also when “meaning functions of the corresponding units in the source and the target language do not coincide” (p. 113). According to T.A. Kazakova (2008), DT is used, as a rule, “simultaneously with a transcription” (p. 109). However, the author underlines that the

short form of a description is needed in order to avoid “an artificial unit” (ibidem, 113), i.e. transcription or calque. Accordingly, DT is needed when concepts are not clear-cut in the concept patterns of the target language. In addition to this, short term forms are more natural when compared to DT. Nevertheless, Calque and Direct Loan cannot always substitute DT, this only happens if the form of the term can function within the target language, i.e. its form is recognizable or can become so, and a descriptive form is too badly organized to be a sound unit in LSP.

Among countless translation methods, DT turns out to be an elusive linguistic phenomenon, as it cannot be strictly defined, and at the same time its presence in translation theory is unquestionable. On the basis of the abovementioned definitions, it is possible to outline the main features of DT:

• 
  DT is a special type of adaptation or transformation;
  
• 
  DT is used in case of the direct equivalent in the target language not existing, i.e. it deals with neologisms (in terminology – neonyms) and non-equivalent units;
  
• 
  DT is an extensive (to a certain extent) verbal explanation;
  
• 
  The aim of DT consists in the explanation of the source term meaning and the disclosure of its content;
  
• 
  DT is often necessary in case of a semantically dense source term.
  

8.