Abstract
This article addresses the fact that sometimes the gap between the phrasing of source-texts and the comprehension of the target-text recipients cannot be bridged by merely changing a predominantly linguistic (‘close’) translation approach to a functionalist (‘free’) translation approach. The article presents an empirical study of the effect of two different forms of translation procedures for giving information on HIV (Aids) and tuberculosis to laypeople. The translations proffered at clinics, here the ‘official translations’ (in Afrikaans and Xhosa (which are both official languages in South Africa)), were assessed in terms of their communicative success with respondents at a lower level of literacy and knowledge than the source-text authors. The communicative problems were ascribed to the fact that the target texts were ‘close’ translations of the source texts. The source texts were therefore retranslated with a free hand for designing texts specifically for the target readers. These target texts, which were also given a different lay-out, were assessed under the same conditions with another group of respondents. To our surprise, comprehension improved slightly with only one text, but overall the improvement was not statistically significant. The study thus shows that in some contexts, translations fail to convey the necessary information, no matter whether the approach chosen is ‘close’ or ‘free’.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
