Introduction

Translation is widely understood as the process of conveying written or spoken texts from a source language (SL) into their equivalent forms in a target language (TL). Scientists believe the fundamental objective of translation is to make a wide range of texts – religious, literary, scientific, philosophical, and others – accessible to a broader audience through linguistic transfer.

If language were to merely serve as a system for categorizing universal concepts, the task of translation would be considerably simpler, and acquiring a second language (L2) would be far less demanding. In this context, (Culler, 1976) asserts that languages are not simply nomenclatures; rather, the conceptual frameworks of one language may differ significantly from those of another. Each language structures and interprets reality in its own distinct way, thereby shaping meaning rather than merely labeling pre-existing categories (Culler, 1976). From this perspective, one of the key challenges in translation arises from the conceptual and structural disparities between languages. The greater the linguistic and cultural gap between the SL and the TL, the more complex the task of transferring meaning becomes.

These linguistic and cultural differences are believed to contribute to the inherent difficulty of translation. While various elements such as form, meaning, style, idiomatic expressions, and proverbs can pose significant challenges, this paper will specifically focus on the procedures employed in translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs) and the strategies used for rendering allusions, which represent a particularly intricate subset of CSCs.

Translation procedures, strategies and methods

Nida outlines translation procedures in two primary categories: technical and organizational.

Technical procedures include:

1. analyzing both the source and target languages;
2. conducting a thorough examination of the source text before initiating the translation process;
3. evaluating semantic and syntactic equivalences between the source and target languages (Nida, 1964).

Organizational procedures involve ongoing revision and assessment throughout the translation process. This includes comparing the translator’s version with existing translations by other professionals, and evaluating the communicative efficacy of the translated text by soliciting feedback from target-language readers to gauge its clarity and accuracy (Nida, 1964).

Krings defines a translation strategy as “the translator’s potentially conscious plans for solving concrete translation problems within the framework of a specific translation task.” Expanding on this notion, Seguinot (1989) identifies three primary global strategies commonly used by translators:

• continuing to translate for as long as possible without interruption;
• immediately addressing and correcting surface-level errors;
• postponing the correction of stylistic or qualitative issues until the revision phase.

Similarly, Loescher (1991) defines a translation strategy as “a potentially conscious procedure for solving a problem faced in translating a text, or any segment of it.” This emphasis on conscious decision-making is a recurring theme in translation studies. Supporting this perspective, Cohen (1998) asserts that what distinguishes strategies from other processes is the element of conscious awareness during their use. Additionally, Bell (1998) distinguishes between global strategies, which pertain to the translation of entire texts, and local strategies, which are concerned with specific text segments. This differentiation reflects the varying types of translation problems that may arise at both macro and micro levels within a given task. Venuti (1998) conceptualizes translation strategies as encompassing two fundamental tasks: selecting the foreign text to be translated and determining the appropriate method for its translation. In articulating this view, he introduces the influential dichotomy of domestication and foreignization to describe strategic orientations – whether the translation adapts the source text to the target culture (domestication) or preserves its foreign characteristics (foreignization). Jaaskelainen approaches strategy from a cognitive perspective, defining it as “a series of competencies, a set of steps or processes that favor the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of information.” According to her, translation strategies are inherently heuristic and flexible, and their application is often shaped by shifts in the translator’s goals or contextual constraints.

In later work, Jaaskelainen further distinguishes between two broad categories             of strategies based on the process and product dimensions of translation. Product-related strategies are concerned with decisions such             as the selection of the source text and the overall method chosen for its translation (Jaaskelainen 2005). In contrast, process-related strategies refer to a loosely structured set of principles or decision-making guidelines that a translator employs to navigate specific translation situations. Within process-related strategies, Jaaskelainen identifies a distinction between global and local strategies. Global strategies are overarching principles or orientations that inform the translator's general approach, while local strategies pertain to specific, moment-to-moment decisions made to solve discrete translation problems and facilitate effective problem-solving (Jaaskelainen 2005).

Newmark (1988) draws a clear distinction between translation methods and translation procedures, emphasizing that the former applies to entire texts, while the latter pertains to individual sentences or smaller linguistic units. He classifies various translation methods as follows:

Word-for-word translation maintains the original syntactic structure of the source language (SL) and translates each word in isolation, using its most common equivalent, regardless of context.

Literal translation converts SL grammatical constructions into their closest target language (TL) equivalents, while still translating words individually and often out of context.

Faithful translation aims to convey the precise contextual meaning of the SL text, remaining within the constraints of TL grammar.

Semantic translation closely resembles faithful translation but gives greater consideration to the aesthetic and stylistic qualities of the source text.

Adaptation represents the most liberal form of translation and is typically used for genres such as drama and poetry. It involves reinterpreting the text by preserving the core themes, characters, and plots while adjusting the cultural elements to suit the TL audience.

Free translation departs significantly from the original in style, form, and sometimes even content, prioritizing fluency over fidelity.

Idiomatic translation aims to convey the intended message of the SL text using natural idioms and colloquialisms in the TL, which may sometimes alter subtle nuances of meaning.

Communicative translation seeks to reproduce the exact contextual meaning of the original text in a way that is both linguistically and culturally accessible to the target audience.

Newmark (1991) also proposes a continuum between semantic and communicative translation, asserting that a given text – or even a particular segment – can be approached with varying degrees of either method, depending on the desired effect. Both approaches ultimately aim to achieve equivalent effect for the reader. Zhongying (1994), writing from a Chinese context, supports literal translation as the preferred approach, stating that many within the Chinese translation community advocate translating literally whenever possible, turning to free translation only when necessary.

To further clarify the relationship between procedures and strategies, the following section will focus specifically on the procedures used in translating culture-specific terms (CSTs), followed by a detailed discussion of the strategies employed for rendering allusions, which represent a particularly challenging subset of CSTs.

Procedures of translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs)

Graedler (2000) outlines several procedures for translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs), which are particularly challenging due to their rootedness in the source language (SL) culture. The proposed procedures include:

1. Coining a new word in the target language (TL) to reflect the meaning of the original;
2. Providing an explanatory paraphrase of the SL expression instead of translating it directly;
3. Retaining the SL term in its original form;
4. Selecting a TL term that, while not identical in meaning, shares a similar level of cultural relevance or significance.

In a related discussion on culture-bound terms (CBTs) – defined as lexical items that denote “concepts, institutions, and personnel specific to the SL culture” (Harvey, 2000). Harvey proposes four principal techniques for their translation:

1. Functional equivalence: this method involves substituting the sl term with a tl referent that performs a comparable function within the target culture. While some scholars, such as weston, view this as the “ideal method of translation,” others, like sarcevic caution that it can be misleading and should be avoided in certain contexts.
2. Formal equivalence (or linguistic equivalence): this technique aims for a word-for-word translation, maintaining the original form and structure of the sl term.
3. Transcription (or borrowing): this sl-oriented strategy reproduces the original term in the tl, either by direct transfer or through transliteration. If the term is self-explanatory or contextually clear, it may be used without elaboration. Otherwise, it should be supplemented by an explanation or a translator’s note, particularly when the tl audience is unlikely to be familiar with the sl.
4. Descriptive or self-explanatory translation: this approach substitutes the cbt with generic or explanatory terms that convey its meaning, especially when direct translation may result in ambiguity or lack of clarity. In texts directed at specialized readers, it may be beneficial to include the original sl term alongside the description to ensure precision.

Newmark (1988) delineates a range of translation procedures aimed at addressing the challenges posed by culture-specific terms and other linguistic elements:

• Transference: the direct transfer of an sl word into the tl text, often through transliteration. This procedure corresponds to what harvey (2000) terms “transcription”:
• Naturalization: the adaptation of an sl word to conform first to the phonological and then to the morphological norms of the tl.
• Cultural equivalent: the substitution of an sl cultural term with a culturally analogous term in the tl; however, newmark notes that such equivalents may lack precise accuracy.
• Functional equivalent: the use of a culture-neutral term in the tl to represent a culturally specific sl concept.
• Descriptive equivalent: an explanatory phrase that conveys the meaning of a culture-bound term (cbt) using several words.
• Componential analysis: a comparative procedure wherein an sl word is analyzed alongside a tl word with a similar, though not identical, meaning by examining their shared and divergent semantic components.
• Synonymy: the use of a near-equivalent term in the tl, often prioritizing brevity over exactness.
• Through-translation (calque or loan translation): the literal translation of idiomatic expressions, compound names, or phrases common in the SL, transferred directly into the TL.
• Shifts or transpositions: grammatical adjustments necessary to conform to TL norms, such as changes in number, word class, or syntactic structure when direct equivalents are unavailable.
• Modulation: a change in perspective or cognitive viewpoint in the TL rendition to conform to TL norms, reflecting differences in how SL and TL cultures express concepts.
• Recognized translation: the adoption of officially accepted or commonly recognized translations for institutional or established terms.
• Compensation: the strategy of offsetting a loss of meaning or nuance in one part of the text by adding or enhancing it elsewhere.
• Paraphrase: a more detailed explanatory rewording of a CBT compared to the descriptive equivalent.
• Couplets: the combined use of two distinct translation procedures within a single instance.
• Notes: supplementary information provided by the translator to elucidate cultural references or ambiguities.

The employment of footnotes as a translation strategy serves as a valuable supplement to the procedural methods previously discussed, such as transference, naturalization, and descriptive equivalents (Newmark, 1988). While these procedures primarily address the linguistic and cultural transfer of terms within the text, footnotes      fulfill a meta-textual function by providing additional explanations that cannot be seamlessly incorporated into the main body without disrupting coherence or stylistic flow. Footnotes are particularly effective for elucidating culture-specific allusions – elements densely embedded in the source text that presuppose a shared cultural knowledge among the source language audience but           may be obscure or unfamiliar to target language readers.  Albakry (2004) notes that allusions in literary texts often rely on such prior cultural knowledge, and glossing through footnotes offers a means to approximate the original meaning while preserving readability. However, Albakry also cautions against overuse, acknowledging that excessive footnoting may be intrusive and thus recommends their judicious application. This perspective aligns with Nida’s (1964) assertion that footnotes serve two primary functions: to supply supplementary information and to highlight discrepancies or peculiarities in the original text. When used strategically, footnotes are widely held to enable translators to preserve the cultural richness and semantic density of the source text without compromising the accessibility or fluency of the target text. This strategy might prove especially indispensable in literary translation, where cultural and historical allusions significantly contribute to the text’s depth          and resonance. Footnotes are scientifically thought to represent a complementary strategy within the broader framework of translation procedures. Whereas direct procedural methods address the transfer of linguistic and cultural elements, footnotes enhance the target reader’s comprehension          by providing essential cultural context, thereby maintaining both the fidelity and readability of the translation.

Strategies of translating allusions

Proper names (PNs), defined by Richards (1985) as “names of a particular person, place, or thing,” play a critical role in literary works. Personal PNs often signify essential cultural, social, or historical information about characters, such as their origin, social status, or ethnicity, and therefore require careful translation to preserve their function in the target language (TL).

Hervey and Higgins (1986) propose three principal strategies for translating PNs. The first strategy, exotism, involves directly transferring the PN from the source text (ST) to the target text (TT) without modification. This approach preserves the original’s cultural specificity but may impede comprehension for readers unfamiliar with the source culture. The second, transliteration, adapts the PN according to the phonological and orthographic conventions of the TL, thus facilitating pronunciation and readability while retaining phonetic resemblance to the original. The third strategy, termed cultural transplantation, represents a more radical cultural transposition in which the SL PN is replaced by an indigenous TL name that shares similar cultural connotations but is not a literal equivalent (Hervey & Higgins, 1986). This enhances relatability for the TL audience but may reduce the source culture’s presence in the translation.

Apart from proper names, allusions to historical events, literary works, mythology, or religion pose significant translational challenges due to their cultural specificity and assumed prior knowledge within the source culture. Several strategies are employed to render such allusions accessible:

• Explication or glossing: providing brief explanations within the text or as footnotes to clarify the allusion (Albakry, 2004). This maintains the original reference while supporting reader comprehension.
• Substitution with target culture equivalents: Replacing the allusion with a culturally analogous reference from the TL to evoke a similar effect (Venuti, 1998).
• Omission or neutralization: removing or neutralizing the allusion when it is too obscure or untranslatable, prioritizing fluency over cultural specificity.
• Retention with contextualization: preserving the original allusion but enriching the surrounding context to aid comprehension without explicit notes.

Each approach involves a balance between fidelity to the source text and accessibility for the target readership, reflecting the translator’s role as a mediator between cultures (Nida, 1964; Venuti, 1998).

Regarding the translation of proper names (PNs), Newmark (1988) asserts that “normally, people’s first and surnames are transferred, thus preserving nationality and assuming that their names have no connotations in the text.” However, the transference procedure may not be effective when PNs carry significant connotations or implied meanings. For instance, some names in the Persian poet Sa'di’s Gulestan bear cultural and symbolic connotations that demand specific translation strategies. Newmark (1988) proposes a solution for such cases: “first translate the word that underlies the SL proper name into the TL, and then naturalize the translated word back into a new SL proper name.” Although this strategy addresses the connotative dimension, it appears limited primarily to personal PNs. Newmark himself acknowledges that this approach is “usable merely when the character’s name is not yet current amongst an educated TL readership,” thereby disregarding the accessibility needs of less-educated readers.

Leppihalme (1997) offers a more comprehensive framework for translating proper name allusions, distinguishing the following strategies:

Retention of the name:

• Using the name as is.
• Using the name with added guidance.
• Using the name accompanied by a detailed explanation, such as a footnote.

Replacement of the name:

• Replacing the name with another SL name.
• Replacing the name with a TL name.

Omission of the name:

• Omitting the name but transferring its sense by other means, e.g., by a common noun.
• Omitting both the name and the allusion entirely.

Furthermore, Leppihalme proposes nine strategies specifically for translating key-phrase allusions:

• Use of a standard translation.
• Minimum change, i.e., a literal translation without regard to connotative or contextual meaning.
• Adding extra allusive guidance in the text.
• Employing footnotes, endnotes, translator’s notes, or other explicit external explanations.
• Stimulated familiarity or internal marking, which involves adding intra-allusive allusions.
• Replacement by a TL item.
• Reduction of the allusion to its basic sense through rephrasing.
• Re-creation, which uses a fusion of techniques for creatively constructing a passage that hints at the allusion’s connotations or special effects.
• Omission of the allusion.

These strategies underscore the complex balancing act translators perform between preserving cultural specificity and ensuring the text’s accessibility and readability for the target audience.

Conclusion

This study has examined various procedures and strategies for translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs), proper names (PNs), and allusions, highlighting the importance of balancing fidelity to the source text with accessibility for the target language reader. Although some stylistic critics view translations “sprinkled with footnotes” as visually unappealing, footnotes can greatly assist target text (TT) readers in fully grasping the meaning and cultural depth of the source text (ST). Among translation procedures, functional equivalence and the use of notes             are held to stand out as especially effective                 in conveying CSCs. In fact, a combination of these strategies tends to produce a more accurate and comprehensive understanding than relying on any one approach. Translators’ strategies for rendering allusions are critical             for preserving the connotations and cultural nuances they carry. Novice translators who overlook or inadequately render allusions risk losing the richness of the original text,        resulting in translations that fail to engage or inform most TL readers. It is true that for a translation to be successful, it should evoke in the TT readers the same or a similar effect as the original text does in its readers. This analysis shows that translators who prioritize the literal preservation of proper names over the communicative value of allusions may compromise the text’s impact. Therefore, competent translators should strive not to deprive TL readers of the ability to appreciate and understand allusions, even if this requires adaptive strategies.

In short, we gather that the optimal translation approach is one that embraces the use of notes. Footnotes or explanatory annotations, when employed as part of both translation strategy and procedure, are indispensable for ensuring that readers in the target language gain as much from the text as those of the source language.