Translation Strategies in Consumer-Oriented Texts: Are They Always TT-Oriented?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to analyse translation strategies in consumer-oriented texts involving the English-Arabic language pair on two scales, a general scale in light of Newmark’s (1981) semantic and communicative strategies and a cultural scale under Venuti’s (1995/2008/2018) two orientations in translation strategies, domestication and foreignization, to determine both overall and cultural tendencies of the chosen data. The study adopts a functional translation approach as a theoretical framework that serves to determine the purpose of employing different strategies at the macro-level. This examination helps to evaluate whether consumer-oriented texts lean towards a TT reader, i.e., having more communicative and domestication translation rather than semantic and foreignization translation. The results reveal that both semantic and communicative translation frequently occur in the general translation procedures used in the data of GCC in-flight magazines, which are used as a data sample of consumer-oriented texts. As for cultural strategies, the analysis shows that domestication is the predominant cultural strategy when translating these texts, occurring in around 98% of total cultural procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".