This is my 1.2 chapter

Translation is an intricate and multi-layered human endeavor. While translation is often discussed in terms of transferring “from one language to another,” it goes beyond mere word substitution between languages. In translation, various aspects come into play, such as cultures, personalities, ways of thinking, literature, historical eras, development levels, as well as traditions and attitudes. Consequently, translation theory encompasses not only philological but also cultural, ethnographic, psychological, historical, and philosophical studies (Komissarov, 2002, p. 12).

Essentially, the need for translation arises when maintaining the same structure of linguistic expression is not possible. Therefore, the direct outcome of translation is realized at the linguistic level — in our case, at the level of philosophical concepts. It appears that the restructuring of the linguistic space during the postmodern era has significantly impacted the potential and application of translation approaches, particularly in the translation of traditional texts and philosophical concepts. To comprehend the implications of this influence, it is crucial to examine the potential translation challenges that emerge at various stages of the translation process (Ibid., p. 150).

During the first stage of the translation process, which involves perceiving the original text, the translator is more likely to encounter difficulties distinguishing game language units from the text space, rather than interpreting their meaning. The demarcation of a translation unit and the introduction of a new postmodern term are fundamental components of the translation process. Any errors in identifying a text piece as a translation unit may inevitably lead to a loss of meaning.

At the second stage of the translation process, the translator’s task is to convey the text’s meaning while navigating both the plurality of meanings and the lack of explicit meaning. In philosophical discourse, the issue of pluralism arises as the meaning is not directly dependent on the interpreter’s interpretation, but is constantly generated by the text itself. Consequently, each interpreter perceives different elements in unique ways.

- Overview of Translation Theories Related to Translating Philosophical Texts

Various translation theories can be applied in the context of translating philosophical texts, which provide guidelines and insights for addressing the challenges of conveying abstract ideas and concepts. Some notable translation theories include:

1. Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence (Komissarov, 1990): Russian linguist Vilen Komissarov highlighted the distinction between “equivalent translation” and “adequate translation.” Equivalent translation maintains a strong formal correspondence between the source and target texts, whereas adequate translation prioritizes meaning and function, similar to Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence. Translating philosophical texts may require balancing these two approaches, considering the need for accuracy while ensuring complex ideas remain coherent and accessible.

2. Skopos theory and the communicative orientation approach (Fedorov, 1953; Shveitser, 1988): Russian scholars Andrey Fedorov and Alexander Shveitser emphasized the significance of the target audience and context in the translation process. This perspective aligns with the Skopos theory, suggesting that a translator should bear in mind the intended function and audience of the translation when working on philosophical texts.

3. Text and language typology in translation (Levý, 1967): Russian linguist Yuri Levý examined translations based on the typological characteristics of source and target language texts. He proposed that translation practice should consider not only the linguistic and cultural specifics of different languages but also the functional characteristics of the respective text types.

- Approaches to Translating Concepts, Terminology, and Style in Philosophical Texts

1. Neologisms and established philosophical terminology (Tomashevsky, 1923); (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1958): Both Russian and French scholars underlined the challenge of translating neologisms and terms specific to the source culture. Philosophical texts often contain unique terminology that the translator must consider when deciding between coining new terms, applying standard translations, or choosing an existing counterpart in the target language.

2. Ideologeme theory (Lotman, 1970): Russian semiotician Yuri Lotman introduced the concept of “ideologeme” — a relatively stable semantic structure that reflects a culture’s ideology. When translating philosophical texts, the translator should consider the ideologemes in both the original and target cultural contexts, facilitating cultural adaptation and comprehensibility.

3. Translation strategies and techniques (Barkhudarov, 1975): Russian linguist Lawrence Barkhudarov presented a classification of translation methods, taking into account both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. The translator should employ these methods when working on philosophical texts, considering elements such as syntax, structure, and semantics.

- The Role of the Translator’s Subjectivity and Background Knowledge in Philosophical Translation

The translator’s subjectivity and background knowledge significantly influence the translation of philosophical texts. Familiarity with the philosophical domain, context, and ideas (Barhudarov, 1975); (Komissarov, 1980) enables the translator to make informed choices regarding terminology, style, and clarity. The translator’s own understanding of concepts and contextual knowledge could shape the way ideas are translated and presented, leading to both advantages and potential pitfalls, such as unintended biases or misinterpretations. Ultimately, the translator must strive for a balance between preserving the integrity of the original text and making the translated work accessible and coherent for the target audience (Shveitser, 1988).

I want you to write a continuation of this chapter (1.2)

With the following information, which should be aligned with what comes before it. for example you can say that these methods in our opinion are most refined compared to previous. also text must be rewritten because it’s from an article and i can’t put text from an article into term paper as it will be plagiarism:

Vinay and Darbelnet provide a good example of translation procedure
(procédés techniques de traduction), understood as a process that comes into
play when shifting between languages. Their seven procedures are divided
between «direct translation» (three types) and «oblique translation» (four
types) looking at equivalences obtained from comparing English and
French. These procedure operate on three linguistic levels (lexical, morphosyntactic and semantic) (Gambier, 2010, p. 413).
Translating terminological items in postmodern discourse into another
language is, as we have already noted, of a significant difficulty. Thus, we
specify four different strategies for translating peculiar postmodern terms:
1. Transliteration as a specific translation technique («direct translation»)
2. Modulation as a polysemous approach («oblique translation»)
3. Translation comment as a way to explain the translation («oblique
translation»).
4. Neologism as a translation solution («oblique translation»).