Mariela Eula -Traducciones Translations Mariela Eula Traducciones Translations - Mariela Eula

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

(1) Linguistic medium (spoken vs. written: this will affect the possibility of rendering intonation by intonation as opposed to some written equivalent)

(2) Pragmatic context (e.g. the existence of a narrator or the option of stage directions would make the use of descriptive labels possible)

(3) Nature of the text (e.g. one would expect options to be more restricted in a sonnet than a novel)

(4) Readership (e.g. there could be the possibility of slightly different use of typographical conventions for emphasis in children’s literature)

(5) Style (e.g. nineteenth-century English prose; Carroll’s highly frequent use of emphasis)

(6) Level of speech (e.g. colloquial language would alter the range of lexical and syntactic options in French; see Wood 1991:128)

(7) Linguistic frequency norms concerning various means of conveying emphasis in the SL and TL (e.g. the much higher frequency of cleft constructions in French compared to English; Volsik 1991:86)²

(8) Pragmatic function (e.g. expressing contrast, surprise, confirmation, challenge, contradiction, impatience, suggestion, order)

(9) Sentence type (e.g. the use of the interjection diable in exclamatory or interrogative sentences).

(10) Nature of word emphasised (e.g. emphasis on personal pronouns would often result in a morphological procedure; see Wood 1991:125)

(11) Presence of other emphasizing element (e.g. the presence of certainly in the following example makes it possible not to render the emphasis on the auxiliary without any real loss: I have tasted eggs, certainly > J’ai certainement goûté à des oeufs)

Having clarified the nature of procedures and parameters, it is now possible to address the question of strategies.

As a term, "strategy" is conceptually broader than "procedure," hence its use here to refer to a method employed to translate a given element/unit (including a whole text) making use of one or more procedures selected on the basis of relevant parameters. A strategy thus links procedures with the conditions which obtain when they are used, these being specified in terms of parameters. It can be either ad hoc, and be restricted to a specific context, or more general, and be reusable in a range of contexts, the latter type being naturally of greater interest to TS. When generalizable, a strategy can be construed as a rule, with the intrinsic ambiguity which characterizes this concept, as well as others such as "norm" or "law" (Mailhac 2006).

In its descriptive sense, "rule" refers to some observed regularity ("X is what normally happens/As a rule, X happens."; cf. French epistemic use of il est de règle que + indicative). In its prescriptive sense, it refers to a norm to be followed ("You must do X./The rule is to do X"; cf. French deontic use of il est de règle que + subjunctive). The two senses are obviously connected ("X is what normally happens, therefore you must do X"). However, not every descriptive rule/norm/law can be associated with a prescriptive counterpart (the Archimedes principle is purely descriptive; physicists do not admonish particles to act according to the laws which characterise their behavior, etc.). This raises the question, which will be addressed later, of the relationship between descriptive and prescriptive strategies. Given that they are oriented towards the resolution of translation problems, strategies, be they descriptive or prescriptive, are teleological in nature.

Unlike procedures, strategies are not directly visible as part of the observable translation output. In principle, they fall into three categories: they can be conscious, potentially conscious (e.g. instinctive automatized translational behavior may be accessed through introspection, if required), or totally subconscious (e.g. as would be the case with undesirable strategies such as the ones resulting in various forms of translationese).³ Whenever strategies are not directly accessible through the translator, they need to be hypothesized from the available data.

As a discipline, TS operates across a range going from the non-applied to the applied. The non-applied level is concerned with the description, explanation and prediction of phenomena, and therefore translation strategies pertaining to this level have an essentially descriptive, explanatory and predictive role; they contribute to our understanding and knowledge of translation as an activity. They need to satisfy the usual requirements of descriptive and explanatory adequacy, verifiability, falsifiability, economy (accounting for the largest possible number of phenomena with the smallest possible number of explanatory facts), etc., and will normally be probabilistic. Their formulation is conditioned by their functions and a highly abstract and complex conceptual apparatus would be perfectly in order if it proved necessary to achieve the right level of adequacy.

At the other end, applied TS seeks to provide translation strategies to guide the translator in his/her task and offer a framework for quality assessment and developing translation skills. Such strategies will be prescriptive in nature rather than descriptive and explanatory as such (even if they contain an explanatory dimension, their function goes beyond explanation); they constitute decision-making tools based on choices and contribute to translation know-how. They will normally be probabilistic and acquired as explicit knowledge before some of them, at least, are internalized and applied instinctively by the translator. In this respect, they are very similar to the grammatical rules which the learner of a second language needs to memorize, internalize and apply. This similarity can assist in clarifying the nature of the criteria which need to be met for a prescriptive translation strategy to be usable.

When addressing the question "What criteria influence the level of difficulty learners are likely to experience in acquiring grammatical features as explicit knowledge?", Ellis (2002:28) puts forward the following six criteria (provided here without the examples which illustrate them):

Mutatis mutandis, this framework can be applied to explore what criteria influence the level of difficulty trainee translators are likely to experience in acquiring translation strategies as explicit knowledge. In practice, this amounts to discovering the features which prescriptive translation strategies should ideally possess to be translator-friendly, and this is what we will attempt in order to contrast them with the properties exhibited by non-prescriptive strategies of the type formulated within non-applied TS.

Formal complexity corresponds to the extent to which the strategy involves a large or limited number of procedures and parameters. The more numerous they are, the more difficult it becomes to apply or memorize strategies, particularly in view of the fact that procedures may combine with each other, as may parameters, thus multiplying the number of theoretically possible permutations. Unlike non-prescriptive strategies, prescriptive ones must therefore remain below a certain level of formal complexity to fulfil their function.

In our example, the association of 10 procedures with 11 parameters will clearly result in a fair level of complexity (higher than Woolner’s who only had 8 and 5, respectively). This would reduce the chances of providing usable strategies. If the detail of the procedures and parameters which are categories (lexical/syntactic/phonetic procedures, pragmatic meaning, etc.) is provided in the formulation, then the level of complexity is significantly increased with the total number of items coming into play rising by an additional 24. This will result in a considerable multiplication of possible combinations; it is nevertheless possible to simplify formulations by adjusting the scope (see below).

On the positive side, some of the parameters hold for the whole text (e.g. linguistic medium, overall pragmatic context, nature of text), which means that, once factored in, and unless there are strong reasons to depart from them, they automatically apply to individual occurrences which makes their application easier.

Semantic complexity (the term "semantic" is preferable to "functional" in the context of translation) can be defined as the extent to which the meanings involved are transparent or opaque. In the case of emphasis, some of the meanings are particularly subtle, varied and difficult to identify in English, both in terms of the intonation pattern which expresses them and their actual semantic nature (Wood 1991). Similarly, French equivalents can be difficult to label and extremely idiomatic (e.g. particles). In order to retain their practical usefulness, strategies must refer to meaning types which are characterized by a reasonable degree of transparency, a constraint which does not apply in the same way to non-prescriptive strategies. Meanings referred to in non-applied theories must be clear too, but a modality which is so abstract that it could only be expressed through complex logical symbols, for instance, would not be of any practical use to a translator.

Reliability corresponds to the extent to which the strategy has exceptions. In view of the nature of the translation process, rules will normally be probabilistic and carry a number of exceptions. For example, not all instances of English prosodic stress will result in lexicalisation and statistical information about possible correlations between factors and procedures would be helpful to prioritize recommendations. On this particular criterion, prescriptive strategies remain close to their non-prescriptive counterparts, since, even at the non-applied level, claims about descriptive rules can only be made if the number of exceptions remains below a certain level.

Scope represents the extent to which the strategy has broad or narrow coverage. Here, there seems to be a trade-off in terms of usability. Compare the following possible formulations: (a) "When..., lexicalize"; (b) "When..., use an adverb"; (c) "When..., use précisément." It could be argued that (a), which has the broadest scope, is more usable, to the extent that it can be applied more frequently. However, it can also be argued that it is of less assistance to the translator compared to (c), for it does not offer a specific solution in the way (c) does (option (b), is clearly in the middle in terms of what it provides). In other words, the more general the strategy, the more usable it may prove in terms of potential frequency of use, but the less usable it may turn out to be if its broader coverage correlates with a greater lack of precision. Similarly, narrow scope may turn out to be helpful in yielding specific solutions, but, by nature, these will be very limited in their application.

As hinted earlier, varying the scope from specific equivalents to broader categories may constitute a means of simplifying strategies, reducing them to broad principles which may prove particularly helpful if combined with reliable frequency information (e.g. "When ..., the most frequent types of procedures to render English emphasis into French are, in order:....). Again, on this criterion, prescriptive strategies remain close to their non-prescriptive counterparts, as the descriptive and explanatory power may well weaken as coverage expands.

The extent to which a strategy can be formulated simply with minimum metalanguage will obviously be crucial to its acquisition and application. The terminology Woolner resorts to remains simple and, with the exception of the term "deontic," does not extend beyond basic grammatical labels. Although it examines a different type of emphasis from the one we are focusing on here, Cadiot’s article (1991) provides a perfect example of the kind of linguistic metalanguage which may be required for descriptive and explanatory purposes, but would be highly problematic if used systematically in the formulation of applied strategies: détachement sans rappel, dislocation, détachement thématique, aboutness, apodose, protase, horizon thématique ouvert par le constituant détaché, topicalisation, acquis/given, statut sémantique et référentiel, clivage, référence déictique/générique, modalité constative/injonctive, diathèse passive/neutre, ancrage référentiel, rhématicité globale, biprédications, pronoms topiques, propositions incolores, bloc référentiel figé, mécanismes inférentiels, extériorité syntaxique, liberté référentielle, kairos, energeia, indexation situationnelle, déjà-là, cadrage de l’énonciation, etc. It is interesting to note that the author’s analysis is very much a linguistic one, with very little said about translation as such. This example also illustrates how the possible contribution of linguistics to applied TS is constrained by the degree of technicality of the conceptual and terminological apparatus borrowed. The same problem would not arise with non-applied TS since, whenever necessary, its formulations can make use of a highly abstract and complex conceptual apparatus.

In theory, Ellis’s L1/L2-contrast criterion could be reformulated in terms of SL/TL contrast: a SL feature that corresponds to a TL feature is easier to translate than a feature that does not. However, closer scrutiny reveals that the existence of a corresponding feature does not necessarily simplify the translation process. Both English and French can express emphasis through intonational stress, yet we have seen how problematic the translation of this linguistic feature can be. Also, the distance between languages and the resulting mismatch in the way meanings are mapped are not necessarily synonymous with difficulty. If we consider translation into English of what French tends to use to convey what would amount to prosodic stress in English (lexical/syntactic/morphological/phonetic/typographical resources, punctuation, descriptive label), being able to render all these by prosodic stress (or its written equivalents-italics, etc.) is quite economical: a whole range of very disparate French elements can be handled by a single English procedure. In other words, the SL/TL contrast has to be interpreted in terms of the number of possible procedures involved in rendering the corresponding SL problem (a stressed word in our case) in a given translation direction. Consequently, in the case of translation strategies, the SL/TL contrast will automatically correlate with the number of relevant procedures, which means that it will be subsumed within the formal-complexity criterion mentioned earlier and can be dispensed with as a separate criterion.

A further criterion to be added here concerns the order of terms in the formulation. Whereas descriptive characterisations could be formulated as "Procedure X is used when...," prescriptive statements should mirror the order of the actual translating process, starting with the conditions and ending with the choice of procedure: "When ..., select procedure X."

The criteria identified so far add up to what could be described as a "minimax principle" of minimum effort for maximum usability to the translator,⁴ and the need for simplicity which they specify should be qualified to allow for the distinction between memorizable and consultable know-how, given that the latter can be more substantial and complex than the former. However, these criteria are not enough in themselves, since initially one has to ensure that the recommended strategy is actually a desirable one. It ought to meet certain quality standards in order to guard against the spread of undesirable translational behavior (e.g. interference, stylistic flattening, over-explicitation, etc.; Chesterman 1997:152).

In principle, desirable strategies could be construed as being simply the ones used by competent translators. In his discussion of what he calls "normative laws," i.e. laws "descriptive of the behavior of competent professionals" "who set the professional norms," Chesterman (1997:73-74) mentions possible criteria which might be used to identify this subset of translators. Amongst them are peer recognition and years of experience, "In other words, translator competence (on this view) is defined socially, not linguistically." If desirable translational behavior is identified as being simply what competent translators defined in this manner actually do, there is no guarantee that it will deliver quality because the criteria are not directly linked to the merits of the translation output and it assumes that such translators are generally unlikely to perform in a manner which is open to criticism. There is also a clear danger of circularity in Chesterman’s position if translational competence is identified on the basis of the presence of certain behaviors, e.g. explaining culture-bound terms, to use his example: How do we know that a translator is competent? Because (s)he explains culture-bound terms. How do we know that such behavior is a sign of quality? Because that is what competent translators do.

It would therefore be more appropriate to determine what represents desirable strategies by applying empirically verifiable criteria. One could demonstrate for instance that, for a relevant set of readers, a given strategy to deal with cultural references has removed a degree of opacity which would have interfered with the communication of the message or, to use our example of emphasis, that the strategy applied has successfully conveyed the intended nuance (e.g. surprise) whilst satisfying other essential parameters. Woolner’s study yields another example: 28% of cases of identified emphasis were not translated (1998:25-26). In order to establish whether we are dealing with a recommendable amount of deletion, a high level of undesirable omissions, or something in between, one could apply a combination of criteria amongst the ones which were identified (linguistic frequency norms, nature of text, pragmatic context, etc.).

It should be pointed out that prescriptive strategies need not correspond to attested translation strategies as a quality prerequisite. For instance, if no occurrence of the procedure we called "descriptive label" has been identified in existing studies, it does not necessarily follow that using such a procedure, and therefore formulating a strategy based on it, would be inappropriate, since it could merely reflect the fact that it happened to be absent from the corpus or corpora used or, alternatively, that no one had thought of using it in spite of its obvious merits in certain contexts. Flexibility is necessary here to accommodate the possibility of new translation procedures and strategies.

At this point of the discussion a few remarks are called for concerning the way in which some of the notions used in our analysis relate to the concept of norm. We shall restrict ourselves to issues which are directly relevant to the kind of strategy we have been focusing on.

Given that strategies are rules, they share the ambivalence linked to this notion with the concept of norm in so far as both can exist in descriptive and prescriptive forms. Anything prescriptive, be it a strategy or a norm, will need to satisfy the desirability and minimax-principle criteria and anything described as a "norm" must be based on a statistically significant volume of data. It follows from this that a descriptive norm of the type which would stipulate the procedure(s) selected when certain conditions are fulfilled in terms of relevant parameters would only differ from the corresponding descriptive strategy with regard to the statistical significance of the data on which it is based. A strategy (whether descriptive or prescriptive) can be based on a limited corpus, whilst a norm, by definition, cannot. It also means that, in practice, when a descriptive/prescriptive strategy is grounded on data which is statistically significant, it amounts to a descriptive/prescriptive norm.

As far as the relationship with parameters is concerned, certain norms can operate as parameters in view of the fact that they constitute factors which are relevant to the decision-making process. One example would be Chesterman’s expectancy norms which are "established by the expectations of readers of a translation (of a given type) concerning what a translation (of this type) should be like" (1997:64). These expectations may cover: "text-type and discourse conventions, (...) style and register, (...) the appropriate degree of grammaticality, (...) the statistical distribution of text features of all kinds, (...) collocations, lexical choice, and so on." (id.).

Conclusion

On a first level, our analysis has enabled us to explore what makes the translation of intonational emphasis from English into French problematic, to identify 10 possible procedures and 11 parameters, and to comment briefly on some of the issues relating to relevant strategies.

On a second level, we have tried to demonstrate that prescriptive strategies, whose function is to guide the translator in his/her task and offer a framework for quality assessment and developing translation skills, should ideally comply with a minimax principle for the translator (minimum effort for maximum usability) and meet the six criteria which underlie this principle: the formal and semantic complexity, as well as the metalanguage, should be such that they do not interfere with the formulation; the number of exceptions to the rules should be limited and the scope as broad as possible; the order of formulation should mirror the translation process and start with the conditions to end with the choice of procedure. In addition, a desirability requirement, to be assessed by objective empirical criteria, should be satisfied in order to ensure quality.

Strategies put forward by the non-applied branch of TS differ from prescriptive strategies in a number of ways. Their function is to describe, explain and predict translational phenomena and therefore contribute to our understanding and knowledge of translation, as opposed to practical translation know-how. They do not need to meet the desirability and minimax-principle criteria (apart from the reliability and scope criteria) and, as a result, have a different relationship with neighboring disciplines such as linguistics, since borrowing highly complex concepts from them may well be appropriate at times.

Given the differing properties of descriptive and prescriptive strategies, translatologists should be clear about the nature and function of the strategies they endeavor to reconstruct and should not attempt to blur the differences between them, since this would undermine their specificity and, with it, the extent to which they can fulfil their respective functions.

Critics, such as Cross quoted above, who seemingly reject wholesale the contribution of TS to the work of the translator fall into the trap of a monolithic and reductionist view of TS which does not correspond to the reality. Applied TS can and does make a contribution to the practice of translation and it does so by exploiting, whenever appropriate, the findings of non-applied TS research.

References

By Omar Jabak,

Binnish, Idlib, Syria

It is commonly believed that translators are better at translating into their native language than into a second language. The underlying reason for this assumption is that translators have a more profound linguistic and cultural background of their mother tongue than of a second language which they have to learn in order to be well-versed translators. By the same token, the translator who translates into his or her native language has a more natural and practical knowledge of the various linguistic elements of his or her native language, such as semantics, syntax, morphology and lexicology than the translator who translates into a foreign language. In addition, translation into the first language enables translators to render cultural elements such as proverbs, idioms, metaphors, collocations, swear words and others into proper equivalents in their mother tongue because such translators are born and bred in the culture into which they translate these culture-bound aspects. In fact, the translators' first language is naturally acquired in a culture and environment where the first language is naturally acquired and practiced. On the other hand, their second language is, for the most part, learned, rather than acquired, later on in the course of their life. As a result, the linguistic and cultural knowledge of their second language is always in progress and never complete. In this respect, James Dickins (2005) points out:

Translator training normally focuses on translation into the mother tongue, because higher quality is achieved in that direction than in translating into a foreign language. (2005: 2)

On the linguistic level, translation into the first language provides the translator with some advantages, such as an instinctive knowledge of morphological, semantic, syntactic and lexical aspects of his or her mother tongue because the translator acquires these linguistic elements naturally in the course of time. These various aspects constitute the translator's increasing linguistic reservoir. In contrast, translation into a second language not only provides the translator with some kind of bookish knowledge, but it also puts him or her at the mercy of references, such as grammar books, and general and specialized dictionaries as the translator's second language is, in most cases, learned outside its natural context rather than acquired. Every time the translator is unsure of the morphological, semantic or lexical rules of the second language into which he or she translates, he or she will have to refer to references and dictionaries for help. Sometimes, he or she consults more than one reference or dictionary to decide on the right meaning of a certain word or phrase, and the search for appropriate equivalents in the target language may take even a long time. In this respect, Katherine Reiss (2000) argues:

Due to the fact that differences between the grammatical systems of languages are frequently quite great, it is the morphology and syntax of the target language that clearly deserve priority unless there is some overriding factor either in the nature of the text or some special circumstance. (2000: 60)

As far as the morphological aspect is concerned, translation into the mother tongue tends to be more successful than translation into a second language because of the translator's inherent knowledge of the morphological rules of his or her first language. The following invented example in Arabic may illustrate this point. The sentence is hwa akbaru waladin fi ala'ila. This Arabic sentence corresponds to the following English sentence: he is the eldest child in the family. Such a sentence may confuse a novice translator whose first language is Arabic because "akbaru", which is morphologically equivalent to the comparative English form "elder/older", is, in fact, used here to refer to the superlative degree. For a translator whose first language is English, such a sentence will not pose any challenge because his or her morphological competence will automatically lead him or her to the right choice. Furthermore, the semantic knowledge of the translator who translates into his or her mother tongue is an added asset to good translation because he or she does not translate words in isolation but meaning in a given context. In some languages, one word can be used to refer to more than one thing and only those translators who translate into their native language are aware of such a semantic feature. This, however, may cause confusion or translation loss when translation is done into a foreign language. Michael Hanne (2006) highlights this point by stating the following example:

European cultures traditionally make a firm distinction between emotional and intellectual activities, attaching them to the heart and the head respectively. In traditional Chinese culture, I understand, no such distinction is made, since the heart is referred to as the location of mental activities of all kinds. Take these sentences from Herman Melville: "I stand for the heart. To the dogs with the head. I had rather be a fool with a heart than Jupiter Olympus with a head" (2006: 209)

Despite the fact that translators' best friends are assumed to be monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, the translators who translate into their first language perform well even without the help of such dictionaries because, by intuition, they are more aware of the lexical aspect of their native language than that of a second language. In addition, they are fully equipped with the lexical knowledge of their first language which will help them match correct lexical items in both the source language and the target language. By virtue of this knowledge, for example, they can decide what verbs collocate with what nouns, what adjectives collocate with what nouns, what adverbs to use before what adjectives, what tense to use, whether a feminine, masculine, singular or plural should be used, and other important lexical information . Roman Jacobson (2001) further illustrates this point by providing an example form Russian:

In order to translate accurately the English sentence "I hired a worker," a Russian needs supplementary information, whether this action was completed or not and whether the worker was a man or a woman, because he must make his choice between a verb of completive or noncompletive aspect…and between a masculine and a feminine noun. (2001:116)

It is worth mentioning that both the linguistic and cultural elements in the source language and the target language should be well-observed in order that translation is carried out successfully. However, the transference of cultural elements into cultural equivalents tends to be more daunting for the translator who translates them into a second language than for the translator who translates them into his or her first language and culture. Eugene Nida (2001) asserts the existence of this dividing line between linguistic and cultural challenges facing translators:

In fact, differences between cultures cause many more severe complications than do differences in language structure. (2001:130)

As far as culture is concerned, translation into the first language provides the translator with an in-depth knowledge of the various aspects of his or her culture because most texts are normally coloured with cultural elements such as idioms, proverbs, metaphors, swear words and other cultural features. When translators translate into their native language and culture, they are fully aware of the cultural sensitivities of the target language and can best render the cultural elements of the source language into proper equivalents in their own language and culture. On the other hand, the translator who translates into a foreign language and culture may not be able to see and recognize the cultural aspects of the foreign or second language because he or she is an alien to that culture no matter how many cultural references or phrases he or she memorizes. In such a situation, if any translation were to be done, it would not sound very successful. Peter Newmark (1981) suggests:

He [the translator] will be 'caught' every time, not by his grammar, which is probably suspiciously 'better' than an educated native's, not by his vocabulary, which may well be wider, but by his unacceptable or improbable collocations…For the above reasons, translators rightly translate into their own language, and a fortiori, foreign teachers and translators are normally unsuitable in a translation course. (1981: 173 Check page number)

In general, cultural pervasive aspects, such as proverbs, idioms, metaphors, swear words and others challenge translators who translate into both the first language and the second language as these aspects are not easy to transmit from one culture into another. However, the translators who translate such intriguing features into their native language find them much easier to handle and render than the translators who attempt to transfer them into a second or foreign culture. As a matter of fact, all languages and cultures have these cultural sensitivities, but share with each other only few of them. Besides, it is not very common to find equivalent proverbs, for instance, in languages belonging to different families such as English and Arabic. Yet, it is the responsibility of translators to ensure that there is no equivalent to a certain proverb before they suggest their own translation of that given proverb. An invented example that may illustrate this point is the following English proverb "diamond cut diamond". For a translator whose native language is English and whose second language is Arabic, the accurate translation of this proverb into Arabic is rather difficult, not because the words have no Arabic equivalents but because the cultural dimension and reference will be lost once the English words are replaced by their corresponding Arabic equivalents. Oddly enough, such a translator might be quite tempted to translate the above-mentioned proverb literally. The target audience, however, will make neither head nor tail of that translation. More importantly, the meaning of such a proverb in the target language, which is Arabic, will be distorted once it is rendered literally. On the other hand, the translator whose mother tongue is Arabic and whose second language is English will easily find an equivalent Arabic proverb to the above-mentioned one because his or her cultural reservoir will help him or her find an appropriate equivalent proverb in Arabic. As a result, the translator will translate this proverb correctly into an Arabic proverb which the target audience will readily understand. Interestingly enough, the translator will come up with the following equivalent Arabic proverb "la yafulu alhadida illa alhadidu" which literally corresponds to the following English sentence: "Iron cuts only iron". We notice that in the English culture "diamond" is used while in the Arabic culture "iron" is used instead. The target audience may understand the overall meaning of such strange-sounding sentences, but they will know for sure that these sentences are produced by ill-experienced or novice translators whose first language is not English.  In fact, the target audience will easily identify any translation errors and spot them because the translation is carried out into their own culture. In this particular respect, Katherine Reiss (2000) points out:

The audience factor is apparent in the common idiomatic expressions, quotations, proverbial allusions and metaphors, etc., of the source language… The translator should make it possible for the reader in the target language to see and understand the text in the terms of his own cultural context. (2000: 79)

Furthermore, idioms are another cultural element featuring in most languages. Translators most often find idioms somehow difficult to translate because of their unpredictable meaning. For this reason, idioms should be translated very carefully; otherwise their meaning is distorted. English, for example, is widely known as a highly idiomatic language. When translators whose second language is English translate literary texts into English, the may not be able to translate these texts into idiomatic English because their knowledge of English idioms is not as naturally good as that of a native speaker due to the fact that the native speaker's knowledge of idioms is highly steeped in his or her own culture. Unlike any string of words, idioms should be treated with utmost care because their meaning does not depend on the meaning of their individual words but can only be explained and comprehended in cultural terms. In the case of the translator whose first language is not English, there is a strong possibility that he or she may quote idioms wrongly or use them indiscriminately out of their natural context. On the other hand, the translator whose first language is English and who translates into English is hardly ever likely to make such blunders. Accordingly, when translating idioms, the translator should focus on meaning and not on the search of equivalent idioms in the target language because not all languages depend on idioms for communication. In this case, the translator should aspire to come to grips with the meaning of a certain idiom and put it in a way most convenient for the recipient language and culture. In this respect, Katherine Reiss (2000) says:

The factor of idiomatic usage becomes even more important for translation when no convenient and comparable expression is available, and some form of structural adaptation is necessary to avoid an undue strain in the target language. (2000: 62)

Another cultural element which merits consideration with regard to translation is swear words. As a matter of fact, swear words or taboos are common features permeating all languages and cultures. Native speakers of a certain language can both identify swear words and use them correctly, unlike nonnative speakers of that language whose lack of such knowledge deprives them of such an advantage. These so-called taboos are not easy to translate because their meaning is culture-bound. Besides, what is seen as a taboo in one culture may not be regarded as such in another culture. More importantly, the variation of swear words along with their elusive nature makes their translation into the translator's first language much easier than into the translator's second language. Accordingly, those who translate taboos into their native language and culture will effortlessly find proper equivalents to these taboos in their own culture because they are instinctively familiar with the various aspects of their own culture. In addition, their innate knowledge of what might, or might not, be accepted in their culture will enable them to make up culturally appropriate equivalents to some swear words which originally have no equivalents in their native culture. In contrast, those who translate taboos into a foreign language culture will not be able to provide culturally proper equivalents for these taboos because those translators lack the intuitive knowledge of the foreign culture into which they carry out translation. In this regard, Katherine Reiss (2000) pinpoints the elusive nature of swear words and illustrates that by giving an example of some animal names used as swear words in two different languages. She says:

Swear words pose problems for translation: the emotional elements must be carefully matched with the specific situational context. Animal names are known to be favored as swear words, but different languages have different associations for different animals. When a Frenchman swears at someone with the words "la vache!", the German translation "Die(se) Kuh" (literally "the cow") would miss the meaning completely…while "la vache" as a swear word finds its equivalent in the German word "Schwein!"(English "bastard!") (2000: 84-85)

Not only do words have different meanings and associations in different cultures, but they also express different personal and/or social attitudes. Interestingly enough, some words may sound inoffensive or neutral in one culture, whereas their equivalents in the target culture express social disapproval and disgust. As a result of this discrepancy, the translator who translates such words into his or her native language culture will have to be very careful so as not to use equivalents whose meaning may be emotionally charged, unlike the meaning of their counterparts in the source language. However, for a translator who translates these words into a foreign language, the decision to use neutral equivalents is almost often on an ad hoc basis as he or she is not as fully aware of the customs and traditions of the target language culture as is the native speaker of the target language. As a result, he or she may use equivalents which, in the target language, sound either vulgar or offensive while their corresponding counterparts in the source language are neutral or inoffensive. A good example that best illustrates this point is the one which Mona Baker (1995) gives. She argues:

Differences in expressing meaning are usually more difficult to handle when the target-language equivalent is more emotionally loaded than the source language item… Homosexuality is not inherently pejorative in English, although it is often used in this way. On the other hand, the equivalent expression in Arabic, shithuth jinsi( literally: 'sexual perversion') is inherently more pejorative and would be quite difficult to use in a neutral context without suggesting strong disapproval. (1995: 24)

In conclusion, it can safely be said that the translators who carry out translation into their native language outdo their fellow translators who translate into a second or foreign language because the former are more naturally equipped with both the linguistic and cultural knowledge of the target language than the latter. Besides, in terms of linguistic competence, translation into the first language provides the translator with an intuitive knowledge of the morphology, semantics, syntax and lexicology of the target language which is, in fact, his or her mother tongue. On the other hand, translation into a foreign language deprives translators of such knowledge and puts them at the mercy of references and dictionaries which may or may not be available or useful when needed or consulted. On the cultural level, the translator who translates texts containing cultural elements or references into his or her native language tends to be more successful than the one who translates such texts into a second or foreign language. The reason behind such a success is that the translator who translates into his or her native language will readily recognize cultural elements such as proverbs, idioms, metaphors, swear words and others which cannot be translated literally. Such elements, however, will not be easily identified by the translator who does translation into a foreign language even if he or she spoke and wrote like a native speaker.

Baker. M 1995 In Other Words: A coursebook on translation, Routledge: London & New York.

Dickins J et al 2002 Thinking Arabic Translation: A course in translation method: Arabic to English, Oxon: Routledge.

Hanne. M 2006 'Epilogue: Metaphors for the Translator', in: S Bassnett (ed), The Translator as Writer, Continuum: London & New York, pp209.

Jacobson. R 2001 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation', in: L Venuti (ed), The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge: London & New York, pp

Newmark.P 1981/1988 Approaches to Translation, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Nida. E 2001, 'Principles of Correspondence', in: L Venuti (ed), The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge: London & New York, pp

Reiss. K 2000 Translation Criticism- The Potentials and Limitations, ( R, Erroll, Ed ), Jerome Publishing: Manchester.

By Massoud Azizinezhad,
B.A & M.A. in English translation,
Iran

I. Introduction

"What translation theory does is, first to identify and define a translation problem; second, to indicate all the factors that have to be taken into account in solving the problem; third, to list all the possible translation procedures; finally, to recommend the most suitable translation procedure, plus the appropriate translation."

III. The state of translation as an artStill, there are many others who believe that translation is an art. Translation has a lot in common with arts as well as sciences. It sometimes becomes highly dependent on the idiosyncrasies and intuition of the translator. Like composers and painters, translators often find their own moods and personalities reflected in their work. The major factor that prevents translation from being considered an art is that, unlike translators who have to solve a range of different problems, the defining factor of an artist's work is esthetics.IV. The state of translation as a craft

Categorizing translation breeds some fuzziness since the field has traits in common with both science and art. Therefore, we must choose the category that is most congruent, or at least most convenient and workable. That category is craft. In a similar vein, Newmark (1988b, p.7) describes translation as: "a craft consisting of the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language."

V. The issue of teachability of translationUp to now we found that translation is mostly a craft. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a craft is "a skill or a technique"; if we are to teach translation we should try to teach it as a craft is taught, taking into account the merits and nature of translation, the proficiency of students in both source and target languages. and the objectives of the translation course itself.

So much for the nature of translation; now let us examine the possible teaching techniques applicable to translation classes.

As the name suggests, the core of the grammar-translation method of teaching is grammar (Larsen, 1986). Although this method of teaching is seldom used nowadays, some parts of it are still popular with some teachers "especially for evaluating advanced students or in specialized tests for translators or overseas final exams of courses where translation is still part of the curriculum" (Madson, 1983). Whatever the role of translation in today's teaching and testing methods, it is important to make a distinction between teaching translation and teaching language.

Teaching translation to students who are learning the target language at the same time necessitates taking into account two major issues: first of all, we should be aware of the fact that learning how to cope with translation-related problems is not exactly the same as learning the language itself, although they go hand-in-hand. There are many difficulties such as translation of figurative language, culture-specific terms, translation of sacred texts, and other text types with regards to their functions, (see Newmark, 1988a) which fall in the categories to be taught as translation-related issues. Second, it is vital to decide which language teaching method is better to be used along with the method adopted for teaching translation as a craft.

According to Pienemann's (1989) teachability hypothesis in applied linguistics, there are two sides in learning a language: one refers to the developmental sequence for certain aspects of language that takes place regardless of the learner, or the method of learning; the second dimension, the variational sequence, refers to the variation in language acquisition based on the relationship between the learners and their situations. The developmental sequence is practically controlled by the nature of our common language acquisition device. The variational sequence is based on learner variables such as the extent to which the learners are integrated into the target culture.

In teaching translation, one has to take into account these two factors because they are closely related to both translation and language. Actually we can say that the LAD (language acquisition device) is important in translation in that it is effective in the process of learning the language itself. The second set of factors, i.e., those which constitute the basis of the variational sequence, are important in teaching translation due to the fact that they are all intertwined with language and thus with translation. Being familiar with the target language culture is the best example of these factors.

So, in order to be successful in teaching translation, instructors should be able to merge the language teaching techniques they may deem best for their students with those of teaching translation. The techniques adopted for teaching translation should be chosen with attention to both sides of the nature of translation: first its objective and theoretical principles and second the subjective part which is mainly related to the student's intuition and creativity.

VI. Conclusion

The first noteworthy conclusion we can draw from this paper is that translation is teachable because, on the one hand, it is a craft and consequently teachable as are other crafts; on the other hand, it is closely related to teaching language itself, although it is vital to make a distinction between the two.

Another important point is that those engaged in teaching translation to students who are learning the target language along with translation should be aware that they are teaching two different things at the same time and that they should use a congruent eclectic method applicable to both. Believing that translation is a teachable craft they should help their students get an insight into the nature of translation and recognize that it is vital for them to pay attention to translation theories while honing their translation and language skills. They should also be aware that ignoring the above-mentioned points leads to students' confusion, lack of motivation, and loss of interest in the curriculum. References

© By Anita Karlson Henssler
A freelance translator (English, German and Danish into Norwegian).
Join PolarZone - her Free Newsletter for the Freelancer.
CH-4313 Moehlin,
Switzerland

One problem most freelance translators are faced with is how to receive payment. In particular: How to receive payment for small jobs. Many translation agencies are reluctant to pay small fees via wire transfer due to the transaction fees; often they will send you a check instead. And I suppose I don't have to tell you: The banks charge an enormous commission when you come and want to cash in your check.

Then along came PayPal...

Basically PayPal lets you send and receive payment over the Internet. It bases its service on the existing bank and credit card networks, but it is not a bank in itself.

Registering is free; all you need is an email address. Sending money is free - receiving money however, is not. You pay 3.4 % of the received amount unless you are receiving Dollars; in this case you pay 2.9 % of the received amount. Then you have to pay a flat fee for each transaction: 0.35 Euros or 0.30 Dollars. In addition you have to pay a cross boarder fee of 0.5 % - 1.0 % if you receive payment from someone located in another country.

Then you have to pay a small fee when you withdraw your money to your regular bank account. (Unless your bank is located in the United States; then you don't have to pay this fee.) How much this fee is depends on the country you are located in. I for instance live in Switzerland and have to pay 0.50 CHF to withdraw to my account. Banks in countries within EU, except the United Kingdom, all charge 1.0 Euro.

Let us have a look at an example. I perform a small translation and charge a minimum fee of 20 Euros. 3.4 % of 20 Euros is 0.68 Euros, plus the flat fee of 0.35 Euros. Add the cross boarder fee of 1%, which is 0.20 Euros. So, of my 20 Euros PayPal takes 1.20 Euros. In addition I have to pay the fee of 0.50 CHF for withdrawing the money to my regular bank account.

If the agency sent me a check instead of using PayPal, my bank would charge 7.50 CHF (4.80 Euros) for cashing the check for me. Each bank has its own fees for cashing checks and receiving wire transfers. But for smaller amounts PayPal is definitely the cheapest way of accepting payment. You will have to do a small calculation and see how large amounts you can receive before the PayPal fees exceed the fees your bank charges.

But is it safe?

Most freelance translators using this way of receiving payment are satisfied with the service and have had no problem with PayPal. I have only heard of one-two translators having their accounts frozen by PayPal for no legitimate reason.

Some negative aspects of PayPal

The problems with PayPal only start when you have a problem, so to speak. Solving a problem can be very time-consuming and frustrating, and in many cases no solution is reached. Their customer support is not exactly something to brag about. It is very difficult to get behind their wall of auto responders and answering machines!

Another thing to be aware of are scams. There are numerous scams around, from people sending out emails pretending to be from PayPal asking you to confirm your credit card number, to hackers entering your account and spending all your money.

Other negative aspects of PayPal are that it is not available in all countries and you can only receive payment in a few currencies.

By using PayPal you take a large risk compared to using the traditional banking system. The chance of loosing your money is there. At the moment there are several lawsuits filed against PayPal and a lot of people who have lost money and not received any compensation. Have a look at these web sites:

www.paypalwarning.com
www.aboutpaypal.org

A few tips for using PayPal

The majority of the people having problems with PayPal are people selling items via auctions etc. Some examples: Payment is cashed from the buyers account and not transferred to the sellers account. A buyer uses a stolen credit card number to purchase items from you and your account risk being frozen for being involved in criminal activity.

As long as you use PayPal to receive money and don't connect your PayPal account to a credit card the risk is relatively low. In the worst case you could loose the money available on your PayPal account, for whatever reason: hackers getting into your account, PayPal freezing your account etc.

Having read a few of the horror stories about PayPal, I am very cautious using their system. But I still use it for receiving small payments. Basically out of a lack of alternatives. PayPal was the first company to offer this kind of service, and for a long time it was the only company providing this service.

In the last year or so a few other companies have started providing the same service or very similar services. Most of them are very new companies and still not industry standard. When I ask agencies if they pay via Moneybookers for instance, they have never heard of this. But many of them can offer payment through PayPal.

I am sure we soon will have very good alternatives. But for now it seems we are stuck with PayPal whether we like it or not.

Guidelines for using PayPal

The only advice I can give is to be careful using PayPal. Here are some tips to help minimize the risk of loosing money through PayPal.

1. Only receive smaller amounts through PayPal.
2. Never leave large amounts on your PayPal account: Withdraw your money as soon as you have a couple of hundred Euros/Dollars.
3. Access your account and check that everything is ok each time you expect to receive payment.
4. Be prepared to loose the money on your account.

1. to move from one place or condition to another; transfer; specif., a) Theol. to convey directly to heaven without death, b) Eccles. to transfer (a bishop) from one see to another; also, to move (a saint's body or remains) from one place of interment to another;
2. to put into the words of a different language;
3. to change into another medium or form to translate ideas into action;
4. to put into different words; rephrase or paraphrase in explanation;
5. to transmit (a telegraphic message) again by means of an automatic relay (as is cited by Yazdunpanuh, 2000:1)

Grammatical Conversion in English: Some new trends in lexical evolution by Ana I. Hernández Bartolomé and Gustavo Mendiluce Cabrera Universidad de Valladolid

1. Introduction English is a very productive language. Due to its versatile nature, it can undergo many different word formation processes to create new lexicon. Some of them are much lexicalised—such as derivation or compounding. However, new trends are pointing up in the productive field. This is the case of the minor methods of word-formation—i.e. clipping, blending—and conversion. As they are recent phenomena, they have not been much studied yet. Even scholars differ in their opinions about the way they should be treated. There is only one point they all agree with: these new methods are becoming more frequently used. For example, conversion will be more active in the future, and so, it will create a great part of the new words appearing in the English language (Cannon, 1985: 415). Conversion is particularly common in English because the basic form of nouns and verbs is identical in many cases. This paper will attempt to analyse in depth the behaviour of one of these new word-formation methods: conversion. It is probably the most outstanding new method in the word-formation panorama. It is a curious and attractive subject because it has a wide field of action: all grammatical categories can undergo conversion to more than one word-form, it is compatible with other word-formation processes, and it has no demonstrated limitations. All these reasons make the scope of conversion nearly unlimited. 2. Definition, terminology and characteristics "Conversion is the derivational process whereby an item changes its word-class without the addition of an affix" (Quirk, Randolph and Greenbaum, 1987: 441). Thus, when the noun 'sign' (1) shifts to the verb 'sign(ed)' (2) without any change in the word form we can say this is a case of conversion1. However, it does not mean that this process takes place in all the cases of homophones (Marchand, 1972: 225). Sometimes, the connection has to do with coincidences or old etymological ties that have been lost.. For example, 'mind' (3 and 4) and 'matter' (5 and 6) are cases of this grammatical sameness without connection by conversion—the verbs have nothing to do today with their respective noun forms in terms of semantics (ibid.: 243). Conversion is particularly common in English because the basic form of nouns and verbs is identical in many cases (Aitchison, 1989: 160). It is usually impossible in languages with grammatical genders, declensions or conjugations (Cannon, 1985: 430). The status of conversion is a bit unclear. It must be undoubtedly placed within the phenomena of word-formation; nevertheless, there are some doubts about whether it must be considered a branch of derivation or a separate process by itself (with the same status as derivation or compounding) (Bauer, 1983: 32). Despite this undetermined position in grammar, some scholars assert that conversion will become even more active in the future because it is a very easy way to create new words in English (Cannon, 1985: 415). There is no way to know the number of conversions appearing every day in the spoken language, although we know this number must be high (ibid.: 429). As it is a quite recent phenomenon, the written evidence is not a fully reliable source. We will have to wait a little longer to understand its whole impact, which will surely increase in importance in the next decades. The terminology used for this process has not been completely established yet. The most usual terms are 'conversion', because a word is converted (shifted) to a different part of speech; and 'zero-derivation', because the process is like deriving (transferring) a word into another morphological category with a zero-affix creating a semantic dependence of one word upon another (Quirk, 1997: 1558). This would imply that this affix exists—because it is grammatically meaningful—although it cannot be seen (Arbor, 1970: 46). Other less frequently used terms are 'functional shift', 'functional change' or 'zero-marked derivative' (Cannon, 1985: 412), denominations that express by themselves the way the process is considered to happen. Conversion is extremely productive to increase the English lexicon because it provides an easy way to create new words from existing ones. Thus, the meaning is perfectly comprehensible and the speaker can rapidly fill a meaningful gap in his language or use fewer words (Aitchison, 1989: 161). "Conversion is a totally free process and any lexeme can undergo conversion into any of the open form classes as the need arises" (Bauer, 1983: 226). This means that any word form can be shifted to any word class, especially to open classes—nouns, verbs, etc.—and that there are not morphological restrictions. Up to date, there has only been found one restriction: derived nouns rarely undergo conversion (particularly not to verbs) (Bauer, 1983: 226). This exception is easily understood: if there already exists one word in the language, the creation of a new term for this same concept will be blocked for the economy of language. For example, the noun 'denial' (7) will never shift into a verb because this word already derives from the verb 'deny' (8). In that case, the conversion is blocked because 'to deny' (8) and '*to denial' would mean exactly the same. However, there are some special cases in which this process seems to happen without blocking. This can be exemplified in the noun 'sign' (1), converted into the verb 'to sign' (2), changed by derivation (suffixation) into the noun 'signal' (9) and converted into a new verb, 'to signal' (10). In this case there is no blocking because these words have slight semantic differences (Bauer, 1983: 226-227). It must be pointed out that the process of conversion has some semantic limitations: a converted word only assumes one of the range of meanings of the original word. For example, the noun 'paper' has various meanings, such as "newspaper" (11), "material to wrap things" (12)... The denominal verb, though, only contains the sense of putting that material on places like walls. This shows the converted item has only converted part of the semantic field of the source item. The aim of conversion varies with the user. Adults convey it to use fewer words, whereas children perform it in order to be understood, although they frequently produce ungrammatical utterances (Aitchison, 1989: 161). Anyway, it always helps to make communication easier. Thus, trying to gather this double functional raison d'être we have compiled our corpus of examples from international newspapers and magazines, such as The New York Times or Newsweek, and popular literature, such as the teenagers' magazines Smash Hits and Teens. The complete list of extracts can be found in the appendix. 3. Typology There are many cases in which the process of conversion is evident. Nevertheless, conversion is not as simple as it may seem: the process is easily recognisable because both words are graphically identical; the direction of this process, though, is sometimes nearly impossible to determine. This is not very important for the speaker: he just needs a simple way to cover a gap in the language. As this paper tries to give a comprehensive vision on conversion, it will attempt to establish the direction of the process. Therefore, both the original category and the derived one will be mentioned. The criterion to establish the original and derived item has been taken from Marchand (1972: 242-252). It focuses on several aspects: the semantic dependence (the word that reports to the meaning of the other is the derivative)   the range of usage (the item with the smaller range of use is the converted word),   the semantic range (the one with less semantic fields is the shifted item)   and the phonetic shape (some suffixes express the word-class the item belongs to and, if it does not fit, this is the derivative).   After this analysis, intuition is still important. Verbs tend to be abstract because they represent actions and nouns are frequently concrete because they name material entities. Conversion is quickly related to shift of word-class. With this respect, it mainly produces nouns, verbs and adjectives. The major cases of conversion are from noun to verb and from verb to noun. Conversion from adjective to verb is also common, but it has a lower ratio. Other grammatical categories, including closed-class ones, can only shift to open-class categories, but not to closed-class ones (prepositions, conjunctions). In addition, it is not rare that a simple word shifts into more than one category. 3.1 Conversion from verb to noun We shall first study the shift from verb to noun. It can be regarded from seven different points of view (Quirk, 1997: 1560). These subclassifications are not well defined in many cases. The same pair of converted words can be placed into two different categories depending on the subjectivity of their meaning. Nouns coming from verbs can express state of mind or state of sensation, like in the nouns 'experience' (13), 'fear' (14), 'feel' (15) or 'hope' (16). Nouns can also name events or activities, such is the case of 'attack' (17), 'alert(s)' (18) and 'laugh(s)' (19). The object of the verb from which the noun is derived can be observed in 'visit' (20) (with the sense of that which visits), 'increase' (21) (that which increases), 'call' (22) and 'command' (23). In the fourth division the noun refers to the subject of the original verb. Examples of this kind are 'clone' (24) (the living being that is cloned), 'contacts' (25) or 'judge' (26). Other nouns show the instrument of the primitive verb, like in 'cover' (27) (something to cover with) and 'start' (28). Finally, a place of the verb can also be nominalised, like in 'turn' (29) (where to turn) or 'rise' (9). 3.2 Conversion from noun to verb Verbs converted from nouns have also many subclassifications (Quirk, 1997: 1561). They can express the action of putting in or on the noun, such as in pocket(ed) (30) (to put into the pocket), 'film(ing)' (31) (to put into a film) and 'practice' (32). These verbs can also have the meaning of "to provide with (the noun)" or "to give (the noun)", like 'name' (33) (to give a name to somebody), 'shape' (34) (to give shape to something) or 'fuel(s)' (35). The verbs belonging to the third division will express the action done with the noun as instrument. It can be exemplified with 'hammer' (36) (to hit a nail by means of a hammer), 'yo-yo' (37) (to play with a yo-yo) 'dot' (38) or 'brake' (braking) (39). Another group of verbs has the meaning of to act as the noun with respect to something, as exemplified in 'host(ed)' (40) (to act as the host of a house). Other subclassification has the sense of making something into the original noun, like in 'schedule(d)' (41) (to arrange into a schedule) and 'rule' (42). The last group means to send by means of the noun, that is the case of 'ship(ped)' (43) or 'telephone(d)' (44) (in an abstract sense). 3.3 Conversion from adjective to verb Adjectives can also go through the process of conversion, especially to verbs. De-adjectival verbs get the meaning of "to make (adjective)". It can be easily seen by means of examples like 'black(ed)' (45) (to make black), 'open' (46), 'slow(ing)' (47)... In some cases, when these transitive verbs are used intransitively, a secondary conversion may happen (Quirk, 1997: 1561-1562), as it will be explained later on. 3.4 Conversion from a closed category to any other category Closed-class categories can also undergo conversion. Although their frequency is much less common, the process is not ungrammatical. All morphologic categories have examples of this kind (Cannon, 1985:425-426). Prepositions are probably the most productive ones. They can easily become adverbs, nouns and verbs. This is the case of 'up' (48 and 49) and 'out' (37 and 50). Conversion to noun may as well occur in adverbs like in 'outside' (51) and 'inside' (51); conjunctions, as regarded in 'ifs' (52) and 'buts' (52); interjections and non-lexical items, like 'ho ho ho's' (53) and 'ha ha ha' (54); affixes such as 'mini-' (55) can appear as noun (56) and proper noun (55).... Conversion to verb is frequent in onomatopoeic expressions like 'buzz' (57), 'beep' (57) or 'woo(ing)' (58). Finally, phrase compounds can appear as adjectives, such as in 'borrow-the-mower' (59), 'down-to-earth' (60) or 'now-it-can-be-told' (61). 4. Partial conversion Conversion from noun to adjective and adjective to noun is rather a controversial one. It is called 'partial conversion" by Quirk (1997: 1559) and Cannon (1985: 413) and 'syntactic process' by Bauer (1983: 230). This peculiar process occurs when "a word of one class appears in a function which is characteristic of another word class" (Quirk, 1997: 1559). Most of these cases should not be treated as conversion but as nouns functioning as adjectives and vice versa. 4.1 Conversion from noun to adjective There are some clues, though, to make sure conversion has taken place. In the case of adjectives coming from nouns, the hints are quite easy: they can be considered as cases of conversion only when they can appear in predicative as well as in attributive form. If the denominal adjective can be used attributively, we can affirm conversion has happened. If it can only appear predicatively, it is merely a case of partial conversion. 'Mahogany music box' (62) can be used in an attributive way, "the music box is mahogany". This implies 'mahogany' is a denominal adjective. However, in the predicative phrase 'antiques dealers' (63) we cannot treat 'antiques' as an adjective because the attributive form of this expression is ungrammatical (*dealers are antique). Another way to make sure we are in front of a case of conversion is to change a word for another similar one. For example, in 'Du