Issues of Normativity, Equivalence, and Linguopragmatic Adequacy in the Translation of Official-Administrative Discourse: A Case Study of The Institutes of Timur
Keywords:
normativity, equivalence, linguopragmatic adequacy, historical terminology, official styleAbstract
The translation of official-administrative discourse requires not only semantic accuracy but also strict adherence to normative linguistic conventions and the preservation of pragmatic functions embedded in the source text. As a historical legal and administrative monument, The Institutes of Timur presents numerous translation challenges due to its archaic terminology, institutional concepts, formulaic expressions, and culturally specific administrative practices. This study investigates the issues of normativity, equivalence, and linguopragmatic adequacy in the English translation of The Institutes of Timur.
References
[1] S. M. Akpaca, “Applying an empirical approach to the search for equivalents in translating administrative terms used in civil status records,” International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 114–130, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.36892/ijlts.v5i1.391.
[2] Y. Gao, D. Ren, and R. Moratto, “Translating official documents: An art of governance by translation in the Qing dynasty,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 11, Art. no. 1406, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03939-w.
[3] J. House, “Translation studies and pragmatics,” in Pragmatics and Its Interfaces, C. Ilie and N. R. Norrick, Eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2018, pp. 143–162, doi: 10.1075/pbns.294.07hou.
[4] A. Rędzioch-Korkuz, “Revisiting the concepts of translation studies: Equivalence in linguistic translation from the point of view of Peircean universal categories,” Language and Semiotic Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33–53, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1515/lass-2022-0008.
[5] L. Shen and H. Kotze, “Linguistic indicators differentiating translated and untranslated diplomatic discourse: A diachronic analysis of the United Nations General Debate (1946–2022),” Lingua, vol. 320, Art. no. 103933, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2025.103933.
[6] A. N. Alrumayh, “Historical overview of equivalence in translation studies,” European Journal of Language and Culture Studies, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1–8, 2024.
[7] M. Baker, In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 3rd ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2018.
[8] S. Bassnett, Translation Studies, 5th ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2021.
[9] J. Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 5th ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2022.
[10] J. House, Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2015.
[11] ] A. Chesterman, Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory, Rev. ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016.
[12] L. Venuti, Ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 4th ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2021.
[13] W. Koller, “Equivalence in translation theory,” in Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 5, Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, Eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2018.
[14] C. Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained, 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2018.
[15] H. Zhu and Q. Feng, “Translation policies in the Republic of China (1912–1949): A comparative study of governmental, semi-governmental, and non-governmental translating institutions,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 12, Art. no. 1472, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-05328-3.
