Revision as of 03:02, 14 December 2019 edit Visviva (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 34,917 edits →Relationship to translation: trim ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:06, 14 December 2019 edit undo Visviva (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 34,917 edits add a cite Next edit →
Line 34: \|year=2014 \|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935338.013.10 }}</ref> Due to idiom and the wide variety of local usages, word-for-word translation has long been considered inadequate and the best translations take into account the vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idiom and local usage of the target audience while remaining faithful to the text, and context, of the original document. Transcreation is thus a variation on the "imitation" or "adaptation" approach to translation.{{sfn\|St-Pierre\|2016\|p=83}} Similarly, viewed in terms of the continuum between [[free translation]] and [[literal translation]], transcreation is considered to be "closest to ‘free’ on the literal – free cline."{{sfn\|Gaballo\|2012\|p=96 n.1}} The validity of transcreation as a distinct form of translation, however, has been questioned.{{sfn\|Bernal-Merino\|2014\|p=91}} While the term has been widely embraced by translation brokers seeking new business, it has been greeted with considerably more skepticism by professional translators.{{sfn\|Gaballo\|2012\|p=95}} Line 104: \|isbn=9781317621676 \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9fEjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA174 \|ref=harv}} *{{Cite book \|title=Unity in Diversity: Current Trends in Translation Studies \|isbn=9781134960422 \|year=2016 \|publisher=Routledge \|chapter=Theory and Practice: Translation in India \|first=David \|last=St-Pierre \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wsDsCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83 \|ref=harv}}

Transcreation: Difference between revisions