647
1 INTRODUCTION
In the modern times foiled by globalization,
deepening dependence on the outer world through
the growth of internationaltrade, intensifiedhuman
resources exchanges, scientific and technological
progress, the growth of significance of international
relations, progressing migration, or the necessity or
desire to enter the international arena, one of
the
consequencesoffunctioninginthisreality,ismaking
translations. With the dissemination of these
phenomena, the relevance of translations in general,
their quality, understanding the framework of
translation process, awareness of constraints
translatorsfaceatvarious stages and how they deal
withthem,havebeenofprimeimportanceto
recover
and convey the full and true meaning in the
translatedwork.
Theintegratingworldproducesahigherdemand
for translations. In Poland, a substantial increase in
thenumberoftranslationswasobservedattheendof
the last century with the accession of Poland to the
NATO pact and accession
to the European Union,
whichsimultaneouslyhavesignificantlystrengthened
thebindswithothercountries.Thathasalsoresulted
inanincreasedinterestinthefieldoftranslation.The
theoryoftranslationwasstudiedby,i.a.B.Kielar,D.
Kierzkowska, O. Wojtasiewicz and J. Pieńkos. B.
Kielarinherbook
ontheba sisoftranslationstudies‐
“Zarys translatoryki” and D. Kierzkowska in her
book on legal language translations – “Tłumaczenie
prawnicze” present various methods of translation,
i.a.literaltranslation,freetranslationandtranslation
using various equivalents, which translators and
Translation Theories and Pragmatics
–
Analysis of
Maritime and Legalese Language Based Examples
M.Denc&J.Denc
GdyniaMaritimeUniversity,Gdynia,Poland
ABSTRACT:Translatorsandinterpreters needtorewriteorretelltheessenceofamessagetobeconveyedina
foreignlanguagethroughcognitivegrammar,implicatures,connotationsandsometimesstandardizedphrases
tobringoutthefullandtruemeaninginthetranslatedwork.
Theaimofthis
paperistoacquaintwiththespecificityofthetranslatorʹsworkshop,familiarizationwiththe
workingframeworkfortranslationsofimpliedmeaning,theoriesoftranslationandelementaryprinciplestobe
followed, so that, the reference meaning of the communicated content could impart pragmatic mea ning. In
viewoftheconstraintsof
literaltranslation,specialattentionisgiventolinguisticaspectsofpragmaticswith
regardtotheconveyanceofcontextsensitivity,precision,intentionalityofthecommunicatingsender,influence
of the translator’s linguistic intuition and approach, and communicating receiver. Different approaches to
translations and possible limitations are exemplified and explained with the use of
Polish and English
equivalentsadoptedfromstandard,maritimeandlegaleselanguage.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 13
Number 3
September 2019
DOI:10.12716/1001.13.03.23
648
interpreters appropriately apply depending on the
recipientʹsimperativeandusus
1
.
The recent technological progress and unlimited
access to the internet allow the translator to use
modern, ever‐improved and updated CAT tools
2
,
TRADOS
3
applications , ever‐growing IATE
4
online
terminologydatabase,EuroTermBank,PolTermBank,
IncoTermsBank
5
, a variety of glossaries, parallel text
databases, online dictionaries, translation memory
management software and such like in order to
increase their productivity. Their popularization,
generalaccessibilityanduserfriendlyinterfaceallow
amateur translators to translate on their own.
However, this trend may involve the risk of
delivering a translation containing
errors that
negatively affect the final results in terms of the
qualityandthewaythetextorutteranceisreceived.
Familiarization with the principles of translation
created by theoreticians over the centuries and
bearing the theories in mind are diametrically
significant to deliver a meaningful translation.
Reaching for the
literaturein the field of translation
will increase awareness and allow an amateur
translatortoassessandrevisitacquiredpracticesand
translationhabits inordertoupdate,extendorverify
previous attitude and perhaps deliver a more
productiveoneintermsoftimeandquality.
Thelawpervadeseveryaspectof
humanlifeand
the seaborne trade is a part of globalized economy.
Consequently,seafarershavetodealwithformalities
comprisingmaritimeEnglishandlegaleseEnglishe.g.
terms and conditions of their contracts, conventions
regulating their seafaring career including their
obligations and rights, as well as the peculiar
seaspeak constituting an
international language for
communicating at sea in a multinational,
multicultural, and multilingual environment. To
demonstrate challenges translators face, the paper
contains examples of Polish and English equivalents
adopted from maritime and legalese language
juxtaposedwithstandardlanguage.

1
Usus(Latin:usus—usage;long‐establishedrule,practice,cus‐
tom)Thetermisusedtodesignateusageofwords,idiomsand
formsthathaveawidespreadorsignificantacceptanceamong
speakersofalanguage,regardlessofitsconformitytothesanc‐
tionedstandardlanguagenorms.
2
ComputerAidedTranslation(CAT),isabroadtermusedtode‐
scribesoftwarethathumantranslatorsuseduringthetranslation
processtoimprovetheirproductivity.TypicalCATtoolsresemble
texteditorsthatsupportbilingualfileformats,andhavebuilt‐in
translationmemory.
3
TradosStudioisthecompletetranslationon‐lineenvironmentfor
languageprofessionalswhowanttoedit,reviewandmanagetrans‐
lationprojectsaswellascorporateterminology.
4
IATE(InteractiveTerminologyforEurope)istheEUʹsterminolo‐
gydatabase.IthasbeenusedintheEUinstitutionsandagencies
sincesummer2004forthecollection,disseminationandmanage‐
mentofEU‐specificterminology.Theaimistoprovideastandard‐
ized,web‐basedinfrastructureforallEU
terminologyresources.
5
EuroTermBank(ETB),PolTermBank,IncoTermsBankallowuser
tomanagetermsandphrasesthatmustbetranslatedinaparticular
way.Terminologydatabasesaremadeupofmultilingualentries,
whichhaveapprovedtermsforspecificlanguages.Thishelpsin
translationconsistencyandefficiency.
2 METHODOLOGYOFPRAGMATICSIN
TRANSLATION
We shall begin with explaining what pragmatics is
and how it affects the translation. Pragmatics is
rooted in sociology, philosophy, and anthropology.
C.W.Morris,apsychologistandphilosopher,studied
thesefieldsandcoinedtheterminthe30’softhepast
century.Hepopularizedthe
terminhisbookentitled
ʺSigns,LanguageandBehaviorʺ
6
whereheexplained
histheory of pragmatics and the difference between
pragmatics and semantics, which concerns the
relations between signs and the objects they
symbolize. Morris says that pragmatics stems from
linguisticsandisconcernedwiththeuseoflanguage
in social contexts and the ways in which people
produce
and comprehend meanings through
language. In other words, pragmatics refers to the
waypeopleuselanguageandthewaythatlanguage
isinterpretedandunderstood.Atranslatedtextoran
utterance devoid of pragmatics may lack
understanding of what a person trul y wants to
convey.Thecontextiswhatmakesutterances
clearor
unclear to the target communication person. David
Lodge,inhisnovelentitledtheParadiseNews, pithily
explains what makes pragmatics so important to
understandinglanguagebysayingthatpragmaticsis
neededbecauseitgiveshumansʺafuller,deeper,and
generally more reasonable account of human
languagebehavior.ʺ
7
DavidCrystal,inturn,saysthat
pragmaticsstudiesthefactorsthatgovernourchoice
oflanguageinsocialinteractionandtheeffectsofour
choice on others
8
. Simply speaking, without
pragmatics, the target receiver may either not know
whata person truly means when he/she is speaking
or writing, or may miss the whole point of the
communication.
In order to produce a context‐adjusted text or
utteranceinaforeignlanguageitrequiresadaptation
to the
prevailing reality and conditions where the
targetcommunication personfunctions. It should be
rememberedthatlanguagesdifferfromeachotherin
the way they describe reality and by the bank of
words,sayings,expressionsandidiomstheyoffer,so
everyone undertaking translating needs to be aware
of existing constraints and
differences. Sometimes it
doesnotsufficetosticktoliteraltranslations.Oftena
superficialcontactwith a foreignculture producesa
conviction that we understand a given culture well
enough, which in turn, produces a feeling that the
translation of the message to be conveyed does not
require solid knowledge how
the target language
functions, solid familiarization with the culture and
reality. Pragmatics in this sense concerns primarily
texts and utterances that require creativity and
linguistic intuition in the field of literature,
journalism, advertising, marketing, fiction and
development,andinthefieldofsciencewheremany
phenomena and things are completely
unknown or
yetunnamedandonecannotrelyonliteral,word‐by‐
word translation. In the opinion of G.Finch,
pragmatics focuses on the way how communication

6
C.W.Morris,Signs,LanguageandBehavior,TheCatholicUniver‐
sityofAmericaPress,Vol.10,No.2,1947
7
D.Lodge,ParadiseNews,Penguin,1993
8
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Crystal
649
partners express what they mean and how they
interpret their utterances in social contexts, by
contrast, semantics refers to the specific meaning of
language
9
. D. Kierzkowska, in turn, defines the
methodology of pragmatics for translation purposes
asanassessmentoftheusefulness,accuratenessand
appropriateness of applied translation theory in
practice
10
.Translationconceptsformedattheturnof
the century and described by language experts and
linguistsinteraliosE.Nida,J.Delisle,K.ReissandH.
Vermeer,areaddressedbelow.
3 THEORIESOFTRANSLATION
Cicero(106‐43BC)andHorace(65‐8BC)propagated
unsophisticated, literal, word‐for‐word translation
seeingthemselvesasprotectorsandadvocatesofthe
sourcetextfidelity.Thatwascertainlyverynoblebut
not entirely productive. Only four hundred years
later, Saint Jerome, while translating, changed the
approach and started focusing primarily on guiding
thereaderstounderstandingofthe original version.
He transferred the underlying
message the author
intended,closelyfollowingtheoriginalversiongiving
hisreaderstheimpressionthattheyarereadingatext
thatwasoriginallywritteninthetargetlanguage, but
notwordforword.Thisnovelapproachhasbecomea
milestoneinthefieldoftranslationsandin1991Saint
Jerome
11
became the patron of translators. Martin
Luther King, who translated the Bible into German
basedmainlyontheoriginalHebrewandGreektexts
and not the Latin Vulgate, believed that the
translation depends on its meaning and recipients,
whereas Juan Luis Vives
12
distinguished three types
oftranslation, dependingon the type of text: on the
type of text: a translation focused on general
comprehension,atranslationpreservingthoughtsand
emotions expressed by the author and a translation
whichcombinesthetwoformerelements.
Speaking of contemporary theories of text
translation, we should
mention the Sapir‐Whorf
hypothesis about theunparaphrasability and
untranslatabilityoftextsresultingfromthe
differences in cultures and ways of seeing and
understating theworld.Anotherwell‐known
translatorEugeneA.Nida
13
introduced theconcepts
of formal
14
and dynamic equivalence
15
and

9
G.Finch,LinguisticTermsandConcepts,London:Macmillan
Education,Limited,(2016)
10
D.Kierzkowska,Tłumaczeniaprawnicze,Warszawa:Translegis,
2008,p.28
11
InLatin,SaintJeromeisknownasEusebiusSophroniusHieron‐
ymus.HisnameinAncientGreekisΕὐσέβιοςΣωφρόνιος
Ἱερώνυμος.Inhislife( 347A.D.to420A.D.)SaintJeromewasa
LatinChristianpriest,confessor,theologian,andhistorian.Hebe‐
cameaDoctoroftheChurchandisbestknown
forhistranslationof
theBibleintoLatin(theVulgate),andhiscommentariesonthe
ChristianBible’sGospeloftheHebrews.
12
“J.L.Vives,Derationedicendi,Leuven,1533,RoutledgeEncyclo‐
pediaofTranslationStudies,2
nd
edition
13
E.A.Nida,Towardsascienceoftranslating,Leiden:E.J.Brill,
1964,p.160
14
Formalequivalenceisasaword‐for‐wordtranslationortransla‐
tionofmeaningsofindividualwordsandphrasesinamoreliteral
way,keepingliteralfidelity.
15
Dynamicequivalenceisunderstoodasasense‐for‐sensetransla‐
tion.Intranslationterms,equivalencereferstothenatureandex‐
recommended the dynamic equivalence for this
purpose.Thisapproachinvolvesastrategyknownas
domestication or localization. Precisely speaking,
when an original text contains physical,
administrative, legal and cultural references specific
toaparticularplaceintheworldandthetranslation
is intended for a different location with divergent
culture
ordissimilarcivilization,allofthereferences
will have to be adapted to the reality where the
translationisintendedfor.Ifanoriginaltextmentions
phenomena or things unknown or unnamed in the
countrywherethetranslationis required, aresearch
will be required to determine what the nearest
corresponding
wordsandexpressionsareusedinthe
targetcountry.Anyunknown,equivocal,ambiguous
referenceshavetobereplacedbyotherstodeliverthe
sense to the readers of the translation. Similarly, W.
Kollerstudies the concept of equivalence. He brings
into translator’s attention five different types of
equivalence:(a)denotative
equivalenceinvolvingthe
extralinguisticcontentofatextthroughdenotatesi.e.
terminologyrelevante.g.toagivenlegalsystem,(b)
connotative equivalence relating to lexical choices
through associations, (c) text‐normative equivalence
relating to text‐types, (d) pragmatic equivalence
involving the receiver of the text or message, and,
finally,(e)formal
equivalencerelatingtotheformand
aesthetics of the text
16
. Having identified different
typesofequivalence,Kollerclaimsthatahierarchyof
values can be preserved in a translation only if the
translatorcomesupwithanequivalencehierarchyfor
thetargettext.
Subsequent approach which is fit for
unparaphrasable textis called “transcreation
17
”.This
isafairlyrecentapproachespeciallywhenbusinesses
and brands need to adapt their names, advertising
campaignsloganstobuyers andclientsfromdifferent
countries.Inthiscase,thetranslatorfocusesprimarily
ontheadaptationofthemessagecontainedinatext,
tryingto finda bridgebetween the
source language
andthelanguageandemotionsofthetargetreceiver
ofthemessage. Consequently,transcreationrequires
notonlylinguisticknowledge,butadecentportionof
creativityandexpertise,aswell.
Letthefinalwordonapproachtotranslationsbe
with K. Reiss and H.J. Vermeer who developed the
so‐
calledskopostheory.Theskopostheorywasborn
in Germany in the late 1970s and reflects a general
shiftfromlinguisticandformaltranslationtheoriesto
a more functionally and socio‐culturally oriented
conceptoftranslation.InitiallyformulatedbyReissin
the1970s,thetheorywaspropagatedbyVermeerin
the
1980s,andwasfurtherdevelopedinthe1990sby
Nord, one of its most important second‐generation
scholars.Thebasicprinciplesoftheskopostheoryare
summarized as follows: Any form of translational
action,includingtranslationitself,maybeconceived
asaʺpurposefulactivity.ʺ
18
Theactionshouldfollow

tentoftherelationshipbetweenthesourcelanguageandthetarget
language,similaritiesandoverlappingrangeofwordsandexpres‐
sions.
16
KollerW.,Theconceptofequivalenceandtheobjectoftransla‐
tionstudies,Targetno.7,1995,pp.191‐222
17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcreation
18
NordCh.,Translatingasapurposefulactivity,Functionalistap‐
proachesexplained.Manchaster,St.JeromePublishing,(1997)p.12.
650
theʺskoposrule,ʺwhichpostulatesthattheformofa
target text (TT), including translation strategies and
methodsadopted,shouldaboveallbedeterminedby
thepurposeorskoposthattheTTisintendedtofulfill
in the target context; that is,ʺthe end justifies the
meansʺ
19
. The skopos of the TT and the mode in
whichitistoberealizedarenegotiatedbetweenthe
commissionerandthetranslator.Thetranslatorasthe
ʺexpertʺ in translational action is responsible for the
final translation
20
. While the translator is entitled to
decide what role a source text (ST) plays in the
translationprocess,thedecisivefactoristheprecisely
specified skopos. The ST is only one element of the
commissionandanʺofferofinformation.ʺ
21
Thisway
they formulated a clear “target text‐oriented
paradigm”
22
for combining a variety of translating
strategiesforadaptationofthesourcemessagetothe
target communication person and reality the person
functionsin.Thestrategiesinclude:
translation guiding the reader to general sense
withamoreflexibleapproachtotheoriginaltext
and with regard to the principles of grammar of
thetargetlanguage.
translationprotectingandreflectingthoughtsand
feelings,wherethetranslatorbecomesanadvocate
oftheauthor’semotions,intentsandmanyatime
thewit,
translation where the combination of the two
aboveshouldbepreserved,whatrequiresnotonly
thetranslationofthetextfromthesourcelanguage
into the target language but foremost a cultural
andemotionaladaptationoftranslatedtextssothe
target communication person, apart from
comprehension, will not be stripped
of the joy
from reading, suspense, atmosphere, etc. created
bytheauthor.Inthiscasethetranslatorbecomes
an advocate of the author’s talent and the
translationascendstotherankofart.
domestication or localization aims at finding the
bestpossibleequivalentincaseofinsufficientbank
of terminology or when we deal with a distant
recipient. This would involve, for example, fixed
parameters, proper names, specific professional
terminology, conversion of measurements, titles,
academic degrees, etc. functioning in the reality
wherethe
translationisrequired.
creative translation is applied when the intention
and tone of the translated message are to be
preserved. This allows stepping away from the
fidelity of the original text and replacing the
originalwordingwithwordsorsayings
expressing the spiritand purpose inherent in the
original message. This can involve
concrete or
abstractsense.
Before making the decision on the translation
strategy, a translating person should try to get to
know who the target communication person is. The

19
Reiss,K.andHansJ.Vermeer.(1984).Grundlegungeinerallge‐
meinenTranslationstheorie.Tübingen:Niemeyer.(1984)p.101
20
Vermeer,HansJ.Skoposandcommissionintranslationalaction.
A.Chesterman(trans.).InL.Venuti(ed.).TheTranslationStudies
Reader.London:Routledge,(2000)pp.221‐233.
21
BaorongW.,TranslatingPublicityTextsintheLightoftheSkop‐
osTheory:ProblemsandSuggestions,Vol.13,No.1,2009,TheUni‐
versityofHongKong
22
Toury,G.DescriptiveTranslationStudiesandBeyond.Amster‐
dam:JohnBenjamins,(1995),p.25
biggestmistakewouldbetotranslateindetachment
from the target recipient, which Kierzkowska
suggests, and differentiates 3 target communication
recipients
23
.
Theclose recipientisthe one who knows, or has
themotivationtoexploreandprobethecultureofthe
country,thelanguageandtheprevailingrealities,and
assuchwillappreciatethetranslationasclosetothe
source text as possible. An example of a close
recipientcouldbe
anAmericanbusinessman,running
abusiness inPoland, a foreign researcher employed
ataPolishuniversity ora studentfrom Nigeria.All
thesenationalslivinginPolandshouldbeinterested
in further exploration and familiarization with the
realitytheycurrentlyexistin.Itwouldbeundesirable
to apply rough equivalents.
Briefly speaking the
translatorshouldgiveupdomesticationinfavourof
foreignisation. Relevant examples are illustrated in
table5.
The distant recipient is a person who does not
knowmuchaboutthecountryofthesourcelanguage
orknowsitsuperficially,showslittleinterestinitor
hasnomotivationor
noneedtogettoknowitbetter.
Consequently, such a recipient will need a bypass
pathtounderstandingthroughtheuseofconnotation
equivalence.Anexampleofadistantrecipientmaybe
anyonewatchingorreadingnewsfromabroadoran
ordinary tourist staying abroad‐any nationals, for
whom
the described reality is unknown, unclear or
roughly speaking, irrelevant. Application of
foreignisation may, in this case, become counter‐
productive.
Last but not least, Kierzkowska distinguishes a
self‐defined recipient, and understands the one as a
personoraninstitutionthatbindsthetranslatorwith
a certain terminology. For example, a
publishing
house,anindustrialpla ntoralogisticscompanymay
preferthewordingoftheoriginalversionespeciallyif
thereisatendencyofforeignwordstopenetratethe
targetlanguage,orevendominateovernativewords
entering the language in an original form or
foreignized version. Let us provide
examples of
terminology from the logistics sector which have
penetratedPolishlanguageintheiroriginalEnglishor
polonized versions e.g. outsourcing, piggyback, fair‐
play, outlet or cross docking. Needless to say, these
examples could be multiplied. This approach is
recommended as their translation would require
longer, descriptive explanations, and domestication
has
not been popularized yet or does not exist.
Borrowing foreignwords is along‐known,
widespreadphenomenon.Iftherearenoequivalents
in the native language, the borrowings are very
welcomeandwhatisthemostdesired,theyareoften
foundmoreprecisethantheirequivalentsofferedby
thebank
ofthetargetlanguage.ProfessorJanMiodek
claims that there are no words unnecessary to the
language. He does not mind borrowing foreign
words,providedthatsomeoneʺdoesnotclingtoʺthe
word and gives up the whole range of available
variantsandsynonyms
24
.

23
D.Kierzkowska,Tłumaczeniaprawnicze,Translegis,2008,p.88‐
89
24
J.Miodek,Osłowach,któresięrozpychają,aradiointerviewpod‐
casthttps://www.polskieradio.pl/Jan‐Miodek/Tag173266
651
4 TRANSLATIONEXAMPLESANDANALYSIS:
4.1 Literaltranslations
Literal translations, initiated by Cicero and Horace,
rely entirely on the word‐for‐word strategy which
Delisle defines as translating elements of the source
textintothetargettextwithoutmakinganychanges
25
.
The below table illustrates such examples based on
“PolishintoEnglish”translation:
Table1.
_______________________________________________
S Sourcelanguage
E Examplesofliteraltranslation
26

R Receivedsense
D Desiredsense
_______________________________________________
S “Niepsujsobiekrwi.”
E ʺDonotspoilyour/yourselfblood!”
27

R ʺDonotinfectyourbloodʺ,“Donotgetyourblood
infected”
D ʺDonotupsetyourself.”Oridiomaticallyspeaking
:”Donoteatyourheartout.”
S “Siłowniaokrętowapalisię.”
E “Ship’sgymisburningitself.”
“Thenavalengineisburning.”
28

R “Alocationonashipforgymnasticsisburning.”
“Amarineengineisonfire.”
D Theengineroomisonfire.
(Notethesourcephraseinformsonlyaboutthe
locationofthefire.)
S „Statekzawinąłzgodniezrozkłademrejsów.”
E Theshipwrappedupaccordingtocruisetimetable./
Theshipwasinlinewiththeflightschedule.
29

R “Theshippacked/ispackedaccordingtoatimetable.”
Translatedtextsuggestsmoreofaspacewhilethe
authormeansasailingvessel.
D Thevesselhasarrivedasscheduled.
_______________________________________________
Obviously the literal translation does not always
fail. Even idiomatic expressions may be translated
successfully using the word‐for‐word strategy. The
tablebelowillustratessuchexamples:

25
J.Delisle,Translation:aninterpretiveapproach.UniversityofOt‐
tawaPress,1988,p.200
26
Examplesofincorrect,ineffective,counter‐productiveautomatic,
non‐selectiveorinvoluntaryword‐for‐wordtranslations,
27
Thetranslationreceivedfromthefreemultilingualmachinetrans‐
lationservicedevelopedbyGoogle,totranslatetextinApril2019.
Interestingly,themachinedoesnottranslatelanguagesdirectly,it
firsttranslatesthegiventexttoEnglishandthentothetargetlan‐
guage.
https://translate.google.com/?hl=pl#view=home&op=translate&sl=a
uto&tl=en&text=Nie%20psuj%20sobie%20krwi.
28
https://translate.google.com/?hl=pl#view=home&op=translate&sl=
au‐
to&tl=en&text=Si%C5%82ownia%20okr%C4%99towa%20pali%20si
%C4%99.
29
https://translate.google.com/?hl=pl#view=home&op=translate&sl=
au‐
to&tl=en&text=Statek%20zawin%C4%85%C5%82%20zgodnie%20z
%20rozk%C5%82adem%20rejs%C3%B3w.
Table2.
_______________________________________________
S SOURCETEXT
L LITERALTRANSLATION
D DESIREDSENSE
_______________________________________________
S „Onnieskrzywdziłbynawetmuchy.”
L Hewouldn’thurtafly.
D Thepersonactingisgentleandwouldneverdo
anythingtoinjureoroffendanyone.
S „Wszystkieręcenapokład!”
L “Allhandsondeck!”
D Allcrewmembersaretogoondeck(literally)orthe
involvementofagroupofpeopleisrequired
(idiomatically).
S „Przestańpłakaćnadrozlanymmlekiem.”
L “Stopcryingoverspiltmilk.”
D Stopbeingupsetoversomethingthathasalready
happened.Itwillnotchangeanything.
_______________________________________________
4.2 Translationsforspecificpurposes.
Every profession has a number of standardized or
codified words, phrases, informal sayings and
technicalterms.Italsoreferstoanysortoflinguistic
elements, initially non‐normative, that become
widespread, and consequently enter usus, gaining
normative sanction within the area of usage and
ultimately
become a norm in a standard language.
The maritime language is no different. The below
table illustrates examples adopted from a set of key
phrases in the English language (which is the
internationallyrecognizedasthelanguageofthesea)
contained in The Standard Marine Communication
Phrases(SMCP)publication,which
withoutaproper
expertise in the field, would, most probably, be
misleadingorunclear.
Table3.
_______________________________________________
IMOSMCP MEANING
Phrases
_______________________________________________
Steady. Reduceswingasrapidlyaspossible.
Meether. Checktheswingofthevessel´sheadina
turn.
Traffic VTSauthorizationforavesseltoproceed
under
clearance conditionsspecified
Walkout Reversetheactionofawindlasstolowerthe
(ofanchors) anchoruntilitisclearofthe
hawsepipeand
readyfordropping
Union Amethodofcargohandlingbycombining
two
purchase derricks,oneofwhichisfixedoverthehatch,
theotherovertheship’sside
Offstation Notinchartedposition
(ofbuoys)
_______________________________________________
The SMCP is based on basic knowledge of the
English language where grammatical, lexical and
idiomaticvarietieshavebeensimplifiedtonecessary
minimum and standardized to offer precise, simple
and unambiguous language block so as to avoid
confusionanderrorwhilecommunicatingatsea.This
meansthatthecompiled
phraseshavebeensubjected
toanumberofadaptations,omissionsandexclusions
including:
avoidingsynonymsandambiguouswords,
avoidingcontractedforms,
652
providing fully worded answers toʺyes/noʺ
questions and basic alternative answers to
sentencequestions,
providingonephraseforoneevent,
structuring the corresponding phrases according
totheprinciple:identicalinvariableplusvariablee.g.
I require ... (a) pilot / tug assistance / divers /
medicalassistance.
omissionofthefunctionwordse.g.the,a/an,is/are
(in this respect, however, flexible approach is
advised)
spellingoflettersanddigits,
expressing positions, bearings, courses, distances,
speed,times,and
applicationofmessagemarkers.
30
Sincethemaritimelanguageistoacertainextent
detachedfromtheeverydaylanguage,thecommonly
acceptedgrammaticalandlexicalrulesdonotalways
apply.Inordertoprotectnaturalnessandtheagreed
“correctness” of the ship‐to‐ship and ship‐to‐shore
communications, which paradoxically may be
regarded as
an evident mistake or an intolerable
simplification,atranslatingpersonneedstobeaware
thatsuchsimplificationsandrestrictionsareapartof
maritimelanguageandapplythemwhenlegitimate.
Noteworthy is the fact that the area of maritime
English can be further subdivided into maritime
English for the purpose of
navigation, shipboard
communications, shipboard safety, marine and
electrical engineering, shipbuilding, cargo handling,
maintenance, and the legalese maritime English for
contracts of employment, insurance contracts,
certificates of competency, conventions regulating
seafaringcareer,andseafarers’respectiveobligations
andrights.
Everybranchoflanguageforspecificpurposeshas
its own distinctiveness. A number
of complex,
exclusive, often unshared terms and phraseology
make translation very difficult without adequate
expertise. A translating person should at first be
familiarized with the phraseology in the mother
tongue before he/she undertakes translations in this
field. The table below illustrates the detachment of
workplacelanguagefromstandardlanguage.
Table4.
_______________________________________________
MaritimeEnglishGeneralEnglish
_______________________________________________
funnelchimney
starboard/portsideright/leftside
galleykitchen
bulkheadwall
overheadceiling
headrestroom
bunkeringrefueling
portholeroundwindow
_______________________________________________

30
IMOStandardMarineCommunicationPhrases,B.Katarzyńska
(trans.),FundacjaPromocjiPrzemysłuOkrętowegoiGospodarki
Morskiej,Gdańsk,2011p.28
Table5.
_______________________________________________
MaritimeLegalese GeneralEnglish
English
_______________________________________________
amendmentchange,additionorimprovement
repatriationreturningtothecountryoforigin
denunciationtermination
depositaryfunctions treasuryfunctions
Implementandapply
enforce
indemnityrepayment/refund
authoritativeofficiallanguages
languages
entitlement(e.g.to rightto(e.g.tocompensation)
compensation)
_______________________________________________
4.3 Formalanddynamicequivalence
The table below illustrates examples of Nida’s
concepts of translation‐formal equivalence and
dynamic equivalence. Translation with the use of
formal equivalence demands greater attachment to
thesourcetextbytheapplicationofforeignisation.By
contrast, dynamic equivalence (domestication) puts
naturalness and general comprehension before
precisionandattachmenttotheoriginaltext.
Table6.
_______________________________________________
UNITSOFTERRITORIALADMINISTRATIVEDIVISION
OFPOLAND
_______________________________________________
P POLISHPROPERNAME
F FORMALEQUIVALENCE(FOREIGNISATION)
D DYNAMICEQUIVALENCE(DOMESTICATION)
E EUUNIFICATION(STANDARDIZATION)
_______________________________________________
P GMINA
F GMINA/’GMAINA/
D COMMUNE;MUNICIPALITY
E NUTS
31
level5
P POWIAT
F POVIAT
D DISTRICT
E NUTSlevel4
P WOJEWÓDZTWO
F VOIVODESHIP;VOIVODSHIP
D REGION;PROVINCE
E NUTSlevel3
_______________________________________________
4.4 Denotativeandconnotativeequivalence.
Koller distinguishes denotative and connotative
equivalence. The former refers to denotates, that is
terminology relevant to a given legal system. The
latter one‐connotative equivalent‐refers to
associationsofthetargetlanguageterminology.

31
NUTSintheEUNomenclatureofTerritorialUnitsforStatistics.
InPolandregulatedbyRozporządzenieRadyMinistrówzdnia14
listopada2007r.wsprawiewprowadzaniaNomenklaturyJedno‐
stekTerytorialnychdoCelówStatystycznych(NTS)(Dz.U.2007nr
214poz.1573)
653
Table6.
_______________________________________________
P POLISHPROPERNAME
D DENOTATIVEEQUIVALENCE
C CONNOTATIVEEQUIVALENCE
_______________________________________________
P LICEUM
D LYCEUM
C SECONDARYSCHOOL
P EGZAMINMATURALNY
D MATURAEXAM
C FINALEXAM
P MARSZAŁEKSEJMU
D SEYMMARSHAL
C SPEAKER
P KWESTOR
D QUESTOR
C BURSAR
_______________________________________________
4.5 Pragmaticequivalence.
We also distinguish pragmatic equivalence, which
imposesonthetranslatortheuseofspecificterms.We
talk about pragmatic equivalence when the client or
recipient of the translation is, for example, an
institution that orders a specific translation, eg.
Wyższa Szkoła Bankowa WSB Universities,
Akademia Marynarki Wojennej w Gdyni Naval
University of Gdynia, Uniwersytet Morski w Gdyni
Gdynia Maritime University. The three schools
represent different status in Polish hierarchy of
schools of tertiary education but due to
incompatibilityofeducationsystemsworldwidetheir
English equivalents do not indicate the difference.
Pragmatic equivalence
refers to terminology having
thesameeffectonthetargetmessagereceiversinboth
languages.
The§46and§47
32
oftheSwornTranslator’sCode
on translation of academic degrees, titles, and
certificationadviseusingtheoriginalversiontoavoid
any valuing judgment due to the incompatibility of
education systems in different countries. Only
equivalents determined on the basis of international
agreements or nostrifications can be applied.
Otherwise, all titles
and alike should remain
untranslated. For these, it is widely accepted to
provide an explanation to clarify the applied
terminology or a domesticated equivalent in the
translatorʹsfootnote e.g. mgr inż. Jan Kowalski with a
note roughly equivalent Jan Kowalski, M.Sc. According
totheSwornTranslator’sCode,thetranslator
hasthe
right to assume that the recipient of a technical or
legal translation has knowledge and expertise in a
givenfieldanddoesnotneedadditionalclarification.
5 CONCLUSION
Translation at times is a very complex and
demanding process. The above analysis shows how
muchattention and preparation is
required before a
translationis initiated if certain dependencies are to
betakenintoaccount.Thechoiceoftherightstrategy,

32
KODEKSZAWODOWYTŁUMACZAPRZYSIĘGŁEGObyPol‐
skieTowarzystwoTłumaczyPrzysięgłychiSpecjalistycznych,TE‐
PIS,Warszawa2018p.11
therightattitude,andtherightequivalencerequiresa
lot of preliminary preparation. We have also shown
how crucial it is to determine who the target
communication person is, for the translation cannot
be detached from target receiver and his/her
expectations. All that requires from a translator of
pragmatic texts knowledge
and expertise in a given
field, culturalawareness, familiarization with
differences and similarities in legal and
administrative systems and awareness of the
untranslatabilityofanumberoftermsandonthetop
of it the ability to collate all the dependencies to
choosethemostappropriatetranslationequivalence.
Oncethe
equivalencehasbeenchosen,thetranslator
shouldremainattachedtothisoptionforthesakeof
consistency of the entire text. Finally, the person
undertaking the translation must not mislead the
targetrecipient.
InthisregardwewouldliketoquoteTadeusz‐Boy
Żeleński, who was a Polish stage
writer, poet, critic
and, above all, the translator of over 100 French
literaryclassics intoPolish:“Translationisadifficult
process; in formal terms, it is more difficult than
writing,for it is easier to find a form for oneʹs own
thought, (...) not for someone elseʹs thought arising
fromacompletelydifferentspirit.Itrequiresnotonly
knowledgeof a foreign language (itis the leastof a
problem), but general knowledge of literature and
culture of a given country; and last but not least, a
goodcommandofyourownnativelanguage”
33
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
C.W. Morris, Signs, Language and Behavior, The Catholic
UniversityofAmericaPress,Vol.10,No.2,1947
Jopek‐Bosiacka A.(2006),Przekład prawny i
prawniczy,Warszawa:PWN
IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases, B.
Katarzyńska (trans.), Fundacja Promocji Przemysłu
OkrętowegoiGospodarkiMorskiej,Gdańsk(2011)
KielarB. (2003) Zarys tranlatoryki,Warszawa: zak
ład
GraficznyUW
Kierzkowska D.( 2008),Tłumaczenia prawnicze,Warszawa:
Translegis
Kierzkowska D.(2011), Kodeks Tłumacza przysięgłego z
komentarzem,Warszawa:Translegis
Miodek J. (2007) Jestem za “ekstraodlotem”‐ wywiad,
Wrocław:SłowoPolskie;GazetaWrocławska
Myrczek E.(2006),Lexicon of law terms, Warszawa: C.H.
Beck
Nida E.A.(1964) Towards a science of Translating,
Leiden:Brill
Pieńkos J.(1999), Podstawy juryslingwistyki, Język w
prawie‐prawowjęzyku,Warszawa:OficynaPrawnicza
MuzaS.A.
T. Boy‐Żeleński T., Nowe studia z literatury francuskiej,
Kraków,1922
Pisarska A.,T.Tomaszkiewicz (1996)Współczesne tendencje
przekładu,Poznań:UAM
SercevicS.(1997)NewApproachtoLegalTranslation.The
Hague:Kluwer
lawInternational
Scholz J. (2000), Przekład jako medium kontaktu kultur,
FoliaGermanica2,UniwersytetŁódzki
Panou D. (2013) Equivalence in Translation Theories: A
Critical Evaluation, University of Leicester, UK ISSN

33
T.Boy‐ŻeleńskiT.,Nowestudiazliteraturyfrancuskiej,Kra‐
ków,1922,p.285(authors’translation)
654
1799‐2591TheoryandPracticeinLanguageStudies,Vol.
3,No.1
www.transkrypt.pl
www.supertlumacz‐tlumaczenia‐
medyczne.znanyprawnik.pl
www.tepis.org.pl
www.eurotermbank.com