Translation Research Handbook

Аударматану: ұғымдар, теориялар, әдістер және өз зерттеу мәселеңді құру

Source text (English)Some sociologists argue that institutions may reinforce inequality.

→D-OMIM-MOD

Target text (Kazakh)«Институттар теңсіздікті күшейтеді».

What changed: “some sociologists argue” and “may” disappeared, so a careful claim became a certain one. This book teaches you to notice changes like this, give them a code, count them, explain them and turn them into a research problem. (Invented teaching example, not a textbook quotation.)

Everything from the three sets of Esembekov lecture notes is here: every term, theory, example, table, code, formula and warning. It is arranged by topic into 8 colour-coded parts, explained in plain language, and expanded where the notes were thin.

Its main job: help you choose, narrow and defend a research problem, with its object (нысан), subject (пән), aim, questions, hypotheses, material, method and novelty.

Map of the book

Part IStart hereHow to read, what to study first, the big ideas. Part IIWhat translation isCommunication, meaning, culture, Kazakh examples. Part IIITranslation decisionsThe translator’s toolbox: every technique with examples. Part IVTheories and scholarsEven-Zohar, Toury, Baker, Komissarov and more. Part VResearch problem workshopFormulas, step-by-step, problem bank, do’s and don’ts. Part VIMethod: from text to evidenceCorpus, codebooks, counting, proving, writing. Part VIIPracticeOral answers, quiz, questions for your teacher. Part VIIIReferenceTrilingual glossary and all sources.

Tools that save reading

Try these first

Highlight any text to see its Kazakh, Russian and English equivalents and meaning from this book, and to translate it in one click.
Skim mode keeps only key points, examples, formulas and tables.
Problem builder drafts your topic, problem, object, subject, aim, questions and hypotheses in three languages.
Flashcards drill all 116 glossary terms. Fit scorer compares candidate problems.

I want to…

Create my own research problem, step by step Ch. 18 Understand object, subject, problem, aim, novelty Ch. 16 Copy a formula or template for my wording Ch. 17 See every research problem from the lectures Ch. 19 Decide which problem or theory fits me best Ch. 20 Check my problem against do’s and don’ts Ch. 21 Code translation changes (L-GEN, M-MOD, P01…) Ch. 23 Count and prove a pattern correctly Ch. 24 Build a corpus and plan a pilot Ch. 22 Plan my dissertation chapters Ch. 25 Learn the translation operations (explicitation etc.) Ch. 7–8 Learn Even-Zohar and Toury Ch. 10–11 Prepare for a seminar or exam Ch. 26 Find a term in Kazakh, Russian or English Ch. 27

Built from: Lecture notes 1, “Аудармадағы мағына, мәдениет және норма” (19 pp.). Lecture notes 2, “Translation Studies: Expanded Lecture Notes” with “Part II: Research Integration” (60 pp.). Lecture notes 3, “Research Alignment Report” (24 pp.). Examples marked illustrative are teaching examples, not quotations from real books or research findings.

Part I

Start here

How the book works, what to study first, and the few ideas that hold everything together.

How to use this book

Read it once in order, then use it as a reference.

In this chapter you will learn

How each chapter is built and what the coloured boxes mean.
The one big question behind all three lectures.
Five differences you must never mix up.
How sure each term is.

How every chapter is built

Each topic follows the same route, taken from the lecture guide itself:

DefinitionWhat the term means, in plain words, with its Kazakh, Russian and English names.
ExampleA short case, often shown as an aligned pair: source on the left, target on the right.
Why it matters in translationWhat can go right or wrong.
How to use it in researchHow the idea becomes something you can observe, count or test.

What the boxes mean

Blue: LearnGoals of a chapter and key ideas.

Green: Do thisPractical instructions you can follow right away.

Red: AvoidMistakes, false claims and things you must not write.

Yellow: CautionUnverified claims, unclear lecture terms, things to check with your teacher.

Grey: RememberShort rules worth memorising.

Formula boxTemplate = what you copy and fill inFormulas, templates and calculations.

The one big question

The question behind all three lectures

How does a translator pass on not only the name of a word, but the concept behind it, the cultural knowledge around it, and its job in the text?

Аудармашы сөздің атауын ғана емес, оның артындағы ұғымды, мәдени білімді және мәтіндегі қызметін қалай жеткізеді?

For a scientific text, the same question becomes: does the scientific meaning survive translation, or only the word form?

The teacher’s examples keep pointing at three risks that come back again and again:

A missing direct equivalent. Қансонар has no one-word English match.
A wrong cultural inference. Deciding that a family serving қазы must be rich.
A changed relation between concepts. “Authority” and “power” both becoming «билік», so the difference disappears.

Five differences to remember

Never mix these up

The meaning of a word ≠ everything a reader might guess from it.
Explaining ≠ inventing. An explanation restores meaning; it must not add new facts.
Frequency ≠ correctness. A common translation can still be wrong.
A central position in a culture ≠ artistic or scientific quality.
A stable choice ≠ one example. You need comparison before you can speak of a norm.

And one rule that runs through the whole book: separate the guess “it could be like this” from the fact “the text says this”. «Осылай болуы мүмкін» деген жорамал мен «мәтін осылай дейді» деген нақты мағынаны ажыратыңыз.

How sure is each term?

Level	Meaning	Examples
Established	Widely recognised; safe to use with a citation.	Realia, explicitation, compensation, equivalence, linguistic competence, norms, polysystem.
Context-dependent	Different schools use it differently. Always say which definition you use.	Cultureme, culturonym, “impressive equivalence”, explication vs explicitation.
Not an established theory	A classroom label. Use it only as a description, never as a named theory.	“Translation manoeuvrism”, “manoeuvre theory”, “sublimation” as a technique.

What to study, and in what order

A study route from the first lecture to your own research design.

In this chapter you will learn

A reading route through this book.
Which books and articles to read first, and what to take from each.
How to take notes that you can later cite.

Your route through this book

Understand what translation is (Part II)Communication, meaning, culture. Be able to explain the қазы and қансонар examples in your own words.
Learn the translator’s toolbox (Part III)Explicitation, generalisation, borrowing, calque, modulation and the rest. Practise naming each change.
Learn the theories (Part IV)Know what each theory is for: context, process, text, procedures, measurement or outcomes.
Build your research problem (Part V)Use the formulas and the algorithm. Pick from the problem bank or create your own.
Learn the method (Part VI)Corpus building, coding, counting, proving and validating.
Practise and revise (Part VII)Oral answers, the quiz and questions for your teacher.

Reading order

Before the next lecture, take definitions and page numbers straight from the edition you actually read. The three most important Komissarov topics are equivalence levels, translation transformations and norms of translation.

Priority	Reading	What to write down
1. Read first	Komissarov, Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты), 1990	Exact definitions of equivalence, procedures and norms; 3 real passages with page citations.
2. Core method	Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond, 2012	Translations as facts of the target culture; norms; method; tendency vs law.
3. Core method	Baker, “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies”, 1993	Corpus types, source–translation relations, measurable recurring patterns.
4. Text analysis	Baker, In Other Words; Hatim & Mason, Discourse and the Translator	Textual and pragmatic equivalence, cohesion, register, stance.
5. Domain & culture	Retsker 1974; Even-Zohar 1990; Lefevere 1992	How equivalents are chosen; the place of translations in the target system; possible institutional influence.
6. Optional	Galeeva, Kushnina, Leontiev, semiotics	Process and interpretation lenses, only if your method can make them measurable.
7. Terminology	ISO 704:2022, ISO 1087:2019, Faber, Temmerman	Concept, definition, designation, concept relations, knowledge frames.
8. Quality & techniques	House 2015; Molina & Hurtado Albir 2002; Vinay & Darbelnet 1958; Venuti 1995; Klaudy & Károly 2005	Quality assessment; technique vs method vs strategy; foreignisation vs domestication; explicitation/implicitation.

Do this while you read

Keep one page per theory: author, year, the key idea in one sentence, a quoted definition with a page number, and “how I can use it in my corpus”.
Write the edition and page every time. Published page numbers may differ from the page counter in a PDF viewer.
Mark each claim as the author’s, the lecturer’s or your own interpretation.
Check citations against your university’s required GOST format before using them in the thesis.

Part II

What translation is

Communication, meaning, culture, and the Kazakh examples from the lectures.

Translation as communication

Translation carries meaning between people who do not share the same language and culture.

In this chapter you will learn

Why translation is “second communication”.
Process, product and agent.
What a word does in a text, and why context decides meaning.
Translation vs transformation vs interpretation.
How to classify your own type of translation.

The basics

Translation as secondary communication Аударма екінші коммуникация ретінде / вторичная коммуникация

In the first communication, the author speaks to their own readers. Translation creates a second communicative event: the translator interprets the message and expresses it again for a different audience.

Chain: author → source text → translator → translated text → new reader. At every link there is context that can affect meaning.

For research: a sociology author explains theory to English readers; the Kazakh edition creates a second scholarly communication with Kazakh students.

Tool, channel or mediator? Құрал, арна, әлде делдал? / средство, канал, посредник

Translation is a process and a resource. The translated text or speech travels through a channel. The translator is the human mediator (делдал).

Example: academic text = medium; written Kazakh textbook = translated product; translator = mediator; university students = audience.

For research: always separate translation as a process, its product, and the agent who produced it.

Caution“Inductor” is not the standard English word for a translator. If a communication model uses it, check its exact definition.

Profession, art and research field Кәсіп, өнер және ғылым

As a profession, translation needs accuracy, preparation and ethics. As an art, it needs creative decisions. As a science (аударматану / переводоведение), it studies the regular patterns of translation.

Example: a legal translator avoids ambiguity; a literary translator recreates imagery; a doctoral researcher compares source–target patterns.

For research: a textbook PhD belongs mainly to the scientific study of academic translation, not to translating poems.

Intellectual work and mental processing Интеллектуалдық және ақыл-ой еңбегі

The translator uses knowledge, analysis, attention, memory and decision-making together. Intellectual reasoning uses knowledge and judgement; mental processing includes attention, memory, comprehension and production.

Example: before translating “power”, the translator thinks about the sociology context. In live interpreting, memory and attention work very hard.

For research: useful background, but brain measurement is not needed for a text-comparison design. You cannot see the translator’s mind in the finished book.

Words, functions and context

What does a word do in a text? Сөздің мәтіндегі қызметі

A word may give information (referential), show feeling (expressive), build a relationship (interpersonal), set a style (stylistic), judge (evaluative) or make a cultural signal (cultural).

Example: «Аға» can mean a relative, a respectful way to address an older man, or a marker of social distance. A dictionary equivalent may miss that function.

For research: check what a term is doing where it appears: a heading, a definition, an explanation, a case study. Not in an isolated word list.

Linguistic environment and context Тілдік орта және контекст

The linguistic environment is the social and cultural situation where a language is used. Co-text is the surrounding wording. Context includes situation and culture.

Kazakh«Компьютерді қосу»

→context

Englishswitch on the computer

Kazakh«Екі санды қосу»

→context

Englishadd two numbers

Same verb, different contexts, different English verbs.

For research: before judging a translation, record each term’s definition, sentence, chapter and disciplinary sense.

Context and extralinguistic knowledge экстралингвистикалық білім / экстралингвистические знания

Knowledge outside the language itself: the subject, the theory, the situation. A translator of sociology must know what agency, anomie, habitus, power, status mean in sociology, not only in a dictionary.

For research: check theoretical definitions in the textbook itself and in sociology reference works, and ask a subject expert using an explicit rating rubric.

Information barriers ақпараттық кедергілер

Gaps in cultural or subject knowledge that stop a reader (or translator) from understanding. Some are cultural (a reader does not know what бата is); some are domain-specific (a reader does not know what “legitimacy” means in sociology).

For research: classify cultural and domain-specific information demands separately.

Cognitive dissonance Когнитивтік диссонанс

Psychological discomfort when a person’s beliefs, words and actions contradict each other. Example: someone says honesty is essential but knowingly lies.

AvoidDifferent words for a concept across cultures are not automatically dissonance. Do not call a semantic mismatch or cultural misunderstanding “cognitive dissonance”; real dissonance needs psychological evidence.

Translation, transformation, interpretation

The latest lecture used three words that sound like alternatives. They are not. One passage can involve all three.

Term	What it describes	What you can test
Translation / transfer аудару / трансляция	The broad activity or product of moving a text or meaning between languages. “Трансляция” is not a separate technique.	The presence and function of the Kazakh academic text; the source–target relation is checked later.
Transformation трансформация	Visible shifts in wording, grammar, text structure or explicitness.	Noun → verb, addition, omission, explicitation, modulation, generalisation, etc.
Interpretation интерпретация	Building and understanding meaning. All translating involves some interpretation.	Textual signs of reformulation; the translator’s actual thinking only with process evidence.

Key distinctionTranslation = the activity or product. Transformation = visible operations in the text. Interpretation = building meaning. Do not code them as an exclusive three-way choice.

What kind of translation is yours?

A sociology textbook translation belongs to several classifications at once. A type of translation is not a strategy, not a local procedure, and not a research object.

Classification axis	Example material	What it means
Language relation	Interlingual, English → Kazakh	Jakobson’s distinction. A translation type, not a transformation.
Medium	Written	Published textbooks, not live interpreting.
Professional domain	Specialised, scientific-academic	Needs sociological concepts and terminology.
Genre and use	Educational textbook	Definitions, explanations, examples, learning activities, student readers.
Text function	Informative, explanatory, pedagogical	Test clarity, coherence, the author’s stance and teaching function.
Cultural scope	Sociocultural and ideological content	Gender, social roles, family, class, authority, agency, theory-bound concepts.
Analytical orientation (not exclusive)	Source-oriented, target-oriented, explicative, interpretative	Categories you define yourself, each with an operational definition.

Do thisFill in this table for your material before you write your introduction. It tells the reader exactly what kind of translation you study.

Traduction (French) and Übersetzung (German) are general words for “translation”. They are background terminology, not separate analytical mechanisms.

Meaning: layers, features and units

What a word says directly, what a reader adds, and how to compare meanings feature by feature.

In this chapter you will learn

The four layers of meaning, through the қазы example.
Background knowledge, connotation and implicature.
Semes and componential analysis in 4 steps.
Text units: ST, TT, supra-phrasal unity, phraseological unit, absolute synonym.
Lexeme, nomination, polysemy, and how translation develops a language.

Four layers of meaning

Source sentence: «Қонақтар қазы жеп отыр» (“The guests are eating qazy”). What is said directly and what a reader concludes from cultural knowledge are not the same.

Layer	In this example
1. Direct meaning	The guests are eating qazy. An event, its participants and a food are named.
2. Object and concept knowledge	Qazy is a traditional food made from horse meat. A reader who does not know the word may not understand what is being eaten.
3. Cultural association	Knowledge of the dastarkhan, hosting guests, honouring and festive food may be activated: a cultural script of hospitality.
4. Contextual inference	A reader may think “the host greatly respects the guests” or “the host spent a lot on the table”. This is not required in every context.

Cognitive side когнитивтік қыры

The reader links the word with their own store of knowledge. Someone who knows Kazakh culture can picture a whole hosting scene from «қазы».

Pragmatic side прагматикалық қыры

What did the speaker want to suggest in this situation? If the previous sentence says «Олар қонақтарын ерекше күтті» (“They hosted their guests specially”), the reading of honour and respect gets stronger.

Why you must not add “a rich family”

Qazy may be bought, received as a gift or saved for a special day. So «қазы» has no compulsory seme “rich family”. Adding it turns a guess into a stated fact.

Do this: the contradiction test

Try: «Олар ауқатты болмаса да, қонағына қазы берді» (“Although they were not well-off, they served qazy to their guest”). It is not a contradiction, so wealth does not follow from the original. Use this test whenever you suspect a translation added meaning: if “X, but not Y” makes sense, then Y is not part of X’s meaning.

Term	Plain meaning
Background knowledge фондық білім / фоновые знания	Knowledge a reader brings from their culture and experience.
Implicit meaning имплицитті мағына	Meaning that is suggested, not stated.
Cultural connotation мәдени коннотация	Associations a word carries on top of its basic naming meaning.
Implicature импликатура	Extra meaning a reader works out from context.

Semes and componential analysis

A seme (сема / semantic feature) is a distinguishing feature of meaning. Componential analysis (компоненттік талдау / componential analysis) compares the conceptual make-up of words and their equivalents feature by feature. Not every cultural association counts as a compulsory seme (Goddard).

Unit	Important features	What not to confuse
Магистрант	A person; a learner; studying in a master’s programme.	“Someone who finished a bachelor’s degree” is too broad: such a person may not be studying for a master’s now.
Қазы	Food; traditional name; a product made from horse meat.	“The host is rich” is not a compulsory feature. Ingredients and the meaning of respect are different layers.
Соғым	Livestock for the winter meat supply, or the practice of preparing it; the exact sense depends on context.	“Slaughtering a camel” is not the definition of all соғым. That it was a camel must be shown in the passage.

A correct paraphrase of «магистрант»

«Магистратурада оқып жүрген адам» / “a student enrolled in a master’s programme”. Where the context is clear and you want to avoid repetition, «студент», «ол» or «білім алушы» are possible. They are not absolute synonyms everywhere.

«Соғым» in context

Kazakh«Биыл соғымға жылқы алдық»

→context

EnglishThis year we bought a horse for our winter meat supply.

Kazakh«Соғым сойдық»

→L-DES

EnglishWe slaughtered livestock to prepare meat for winter.

If the passage clearly speaks of a camel, you may specify “camel”. These are context-dependent teaching renderings. The short definition of соғым is for analysis, not a full dictionary entry: in real research, check its senses in dictionaries and usage examples.

Do this: componential analysis in 4 steps

Write down the main features of the concept.
Compare them with the features of the equivalent.
Find any feature that was lost or added.
Explain what that change does in this context.

Text units

Term	What it means
Source text (ST) түпнұсқа мәтін / исходный текст	The text the translation is based on.
Target text (TT) аударма мәтін / текст перевода	The result of translation. “Translation” can mean the process or the product. “Translation text” is not automatically its own theoretical category.
Supra-phrasal unity сверхфразовое единство / күрделі синтаксистік тұтастық	Several sentences joined by a shared sub-topic and links. It may coincide with a paragraph, but the two are different concepts.
Phraseological unit фразеологиялық бірлік	A fixed multi-word unit. Its meaning can be fully or partly figurative.
Absolute synonym абсолютті синоним	Units whose important meanings and uses match completely. Being swappable in one context is not enough.

Avoid“Сверхфразовое единство = absolute synonym” is wrong. The first is a unit of text organisation; the second is a relationship between language units treated as fully equal in meaning.

Example: «Огонь бежит по полю»

The core event is fire spreading fast across space. The verb «бежит» (“runs”) creates an image of movement. Without context you cannot call it a fixed phraseological unit.

Kazakh teaching rendering	What it keeps
«От даланы шарпып барады»	Spread and effect are clear. «Шарпу» may strengthen speed or damage.
«Өрт далаға тез жайылып барады»	The information is clear; the “running” image weakens. Check «тез» in context.
«От дала бойымен жүгіріп барады»	Keeps the personification, but naturalness must be checked in the real genre.

Is there a general pattern? Showing spread through a motion image is a direction you could test. One sentence proves no universal law. Search a corpus for «от/өрт + жайылу/шарпу/жүгіру» and compare contexts. These are possible contextual equivalents, not absolute synonyms. Judge conceptual closeness, imagery and natural collocation separately.

Lexeme, nomination, polysemy

Nomination and lexeme Номинация және лексема

Nomination is giving a name to a thing or concept. A lexeme is the dictionary-level word behind all its grammatical forms.

Example: «кітап» is a lexeme; «кітаптар», «кітапқа» are forms. Naming a new concept «әлеуметтік ұтқырлық» (social mobility) is terminology work and nomination.

For research: in your term list, give each concept an ID separate from its word forms.

Semantic extension and polysemy Семантикалық кеңею және көпмағыналылық / полисемия

A familiar word widens its use and gains extra meanings; related senses live side by side.

Example: «қосу»: 2+2-ні қосу (add); компьютерді қосу (switch on); топқа қосу (include).

For research: study how familiar Kazakh words acquire stable scholarly senses, and whether an everyday sense hides the technical one. Do not assume technology invented a word’s older meanings.

Translation and language development Аударма және тіл дамуы

Translation stimulates term-creation, enlarges vocabulary and sharpens the scientific meaning of existing words.

Examples: refrigerator → «тоңазытқыш»; freezer → «мұздатқыш»; social mobility → «әлеуметтік мобильділік / әлеуметтік ұтқырлық», depending on accepted academic usage.

For research: distinguish borrowing, calque, native word-formation and terminological paraphrase.

Language, society and culture

Culture is not decoration. It often decides what an expression implies and how readers judge it.

In this chapter you will learn

Realia, lacuna, cultureme, culturonym, national colour, naturfact and artefact.
Sociolect, idiolect, stereotype and cliché.
The three different cultural problems a translator faces.
Acculturation, biculturalism, metaculture and sociocultural universals.

Culture in translation

Sociocultural aspects Әлеуметтік-мәдени аспектілер / социокультурные аспекты

Taking into account social status, customs, history, etiquette, cultural values and norms of interaction when translating.

Example: «Төрге шығыңыз» carries a signal of hospitality and honour, not just a direction to the far end of the room.

For research: sociology concepts such as role, authority, gender and social class can carry different associations in academic and everyday Kazakh.

Culture-oriented translation Мәдениетке бағдарланған аударма / культурно-ориентированный перевод

Choosing ways to make a text understandable to a new audience while respecting the source’s cultural features.

KazakhБата

→L-BOR + D-EXP

Englishbata, a traditional blessing

Keeps the name and adds an explanation. Plain “blessing” is easier, but less specific.

For research: a textbook may need explanations where English cultural assumptions are not shared by Kazakh students.

Realia Реалия

Names of things and ideas typical of one culture’s daily life, history or tradition. They may lack a simple match in another language.

Examples: қымыз, шұбат, киіз үй, бәйге, сәукеле. The translator may borrow the word, explain it, or do both.

For research: distinguish sociological technical terms from culture-specific examples used to explain them.

Lacuna Лакуна: мәдени не лексикалық бос орын

A gap: one language has a name for a concept, but the other has no direct, short or equally specialised equivalent.

KazakhЖеңге (an elder brother’s wife)

→L-GEN

Englishsister-in-law (broader)

For research: a lacuna does not prove a concept cannot be understood or translated. Explanation can bridge the gap.

Cultureme Культурема

A unit carrying cultural meaning, or a sign that creates cultural meaning. Its definition varies between schools.

Example: «Қара шаңырақ» is not just a house; it can imply lineage, continuity, inheritance and family duty.

For research: useful for cultural concepts inside textbook examples. Define your usage exactly before coding.

Culturonym Культуроним

A name for a culture-specific object, tradition or concept. Researchers use it with different scope.

Example: «Домбыра» is a cultural name. «Шаңырақ» names part of a yurt, and can also work as a symbol.

AvoidDo not count one word as both a cultureme and a culturonym without a clear codebook. The categories overlap.

National colour Ұлттық колорит / национальный колорит

The set of features that show a people’s history, life, way of speaking and material world in a text.

Example: «қансонар», «бүркітші», «шұбат» together evoke a specific way of life.

For research: textbook case studies often contain US or European examples. Decide when to keep them and when to explain them.

Naturfacts and artefacts Натурфакт және артефакт

A naturfact occurs in nature; an artefact is made by people. Both can have cultural meaning.

Examples: naturfacts: дала, жусан, боран. Artefacts: домбыра, киіз үй, қамшы.

For research: helps find culturally dense descriptions; less central for abstract sociology terms.

Social language

Sociolect and idiolect Социолект және идиолект

Sociolect: language typical of a social group. Idiolect: one person’s own language habits.

Example: academic sociology has a disciplinary register; a particular scholar may have favourite concepts and phrasings.

For research: track author-specific terms and recurring patterns across chapters. Do not call the whole discipline one sociolect.

Stereotype and cliché Стереотип пен клише

A cliché is a ready-made familiar phrase. A stereotype is a generalised belief about a group. “Language stereotype” sometimes also means a fixed speech pattern.

Examples: «Құрметпен» is a standard closing formula (cliché). “All members of group X behave alike” is a stereotype.

For research: sociology texts often discuss stereotypes. Keep the author’s critical distance when translating them.

Three different cultural problems

Realia: what culture-specific thing is named?
Lacuna: is there a direct target-language equivalent?
Pragmatic misunderstanding: will readers infer the wrong intention or social meaning?

One expression may involve more than one, but they are separate questions. Ask them separately.

Culture contact terms

These three are not one classification and not three stages invented by Even-Zohar. Ask your lecturer which author’s usage was meant.

Acculturation Аккультурация / аккультурация

Changes that happen when cultures are in contact. It does not necessarily mean giving up one’s own culture; there are several ways to adapt (Berry 1997). Do not equate it with assimilation.

Biculturalism Бикультурализм

Combining knowledge, experience or identity from two cultural settings. Knowing two languages does not automatically give this competence. (Working definition.)

Metaculture Метамәдениет

Cultural judgements that describe and evaluate culture and affect how it spreads. Example: a preface explaining “why you should read this book”. Key source: Greg Urban, Metaculture (2001). Not Even-Zohar’s own term.

Sociocultural universals Социокультурные универсалии

Social phenomena shared across cultures (family, authority, exchange). Not the same as “translation universals” (tendencies of translated language, Chapter 11). For research: distinguish shared institutions from their culture-specific forms.

Cultural respect and intercultural competence

Respecting both cultures and not forcing Kazakh analogies onto foreign concepts. For research: avoid replacing a sociological concept with a local cultural image just because it feels familiar.

Kazakh examples workbook

Every Kazakh case from the lectures, with what each one teaches.

How to use this chapter

For each example, cover the right side and try to explain it yourself first. Then look at what the case teaches and how it transfers to scientific texts. English renderings are illustrative options unless stated otherwise.

Қазы: five ways to translate one word

The choice depends on the text’s purpose, the audience and earlier explanations.

KazakhҚонақтар қазы жеп отыр.

→L-BOR

EnglishThe guests are eating qazy.

Gives: keeps the name and national specificity. Loses: an unfamiliar reader may not know what it is. Enough if explained earlier.

Kazakh…қазы…

→D-EXP

English…qazy, a traditional Kazakh horse-meat sausage.

Gives: name and ingredients. Loses: the social meaning of respect may stay hidden.

Kazakh…қазы…

→D-EXP

English…qazy, a traditional Kazakh delicacy served as a mark of hospitality.

Gives: cultural function. Loses: does not say horse meat; acceptable only where ingredients do not matter.

Kazakh…қазы…

→D-EXP

English…qazy, a traditional Kazakh horse-meat sausage offered as a mark of hospitality.

Gives: ingredients and cultural function together. Cost: longer; good for a first mention or a teaching text.

Kazakh…қазы…

→L-GEN

English…a traditional delicacy.

Gives: general sense. Loses: the name «қазы» and the specific food. This is generalisation.

When must “horse meat” be stated?

Menus and food descriptions: always state ingredients. Do not hide a fact that affects a reader’s food choice (Visit Astana guide describes qazy as a horse-meat dish).
Fiction: give a short explanation or note at first use; afterwards repeat the name.
Cultural studies texts: explain the social function as well as the food.

The “Turkey” example, done right

The lecture note said “in Turkey they don’t eat horse meat”. Do not apply one rule to a whole country. Ask instead: “What associations will this description create for a reader who does not eat horse meat?” Explaining a cultural difference is never a reason to replace the food with another meat. Consider the specific audience’s food, religious and personal practices.

Culture and everyday life

Қансонар: tracking snow

The time after fresh snow when animal tracks are clearly visible; good for hunting.

Abai«Қансонарда бүркітші шығады аңға»

→L-DES

Descriptive renderingAfter fresh snow, an eagle hunter sets out when tracks can be seen.

Illustrative rendering, not an authenticated published English translation of Abai.

Teaches: which semantic features must stay and which can be explained through explicitation.

Шұбат, қымыз: food names

Шұбат = fermented camel milk; қымыз = fermented mare’s milk. Keeping the name and explaining it are two different decisions.

Kazakhшұбат

→L-BOR + gloss

Englishshubat (fermented camel’s milk)

Kazakhшұбат

→L-DES

Englishfermented camel milk

CautionAitmatov’s novel often comes up in class, but check the exact wording in a specific edition before quoting it.

Қара шаңырақ: ancestral family home

The main family home passed down from ancestors; a symbol of lineage continuity. Traditionally often linked with the youngest son.

Russian «родовой дом / отчий дом»; English “ancestral family home”. Neither contains every cultural implication alone. Useful for sociology of family structure and inheritance.

Жеңге and қайын іні: kinship and pragmatics

Жеңге = an elder brother’s wife; қайын іні = a spouse’s younger brother. Kinship terms encode relationships, age differences and etiquette that broad English labels collapse.

Example: playful joking between a жеңге and her husband’s younger brother could be misread as flirting by outsiders who do not know the convention. Any interpretation must be supported by the scene.

Үзеңгісін көтеру: help and social gesture

Literally, holding the stirrup to help someone mount. Russian «придержать стремя»; English “hold the stirrup”. Figurative meaning depends only on context. Watch for roles, service, respect or hierarchy in the narrative.

Idioms and proverbs

Тең теңімен, тезек қабымен

People join with others like themselves, said through a household image; can be approving or ironic.

English options: “Birds of a feather flock together” (general resemblance); “a good match” (marriage). If a sociology text discusses assortative marriage or social similarity, choose a precise academic expression instead of forcing a proverb.

Жұмыртқадан жүн қырыққан

Describes an extremely stingy person who squeezes gain out of almost nothing.

Literalshear wool from an egg

→functional

Possible sensesqueeze every penny out of something

A good exercise in formal vs functional (idiomatic) equivalence. The right idiom depends on tone.

When hens grow teeth Когда у кур зубы вырастут

A joking way to say something will never happen. English: “when pigs fly”. Kazakh, in suitable contexts: «түйенің құйрығы жерге жеткенде». Changing the image can keep the pragmatic effect, but loses the source-culture image.

Specialised vocabulary

Қойдың қоңдылығы: livestock condition

Animal condition is described with words such as арық, қоңды, семіз, көтерем; judging it needs experience of looking and touching. «Қоңды» = in good condition; «көтерем» = severely emaciated. These words are not one universal numerical folk scale; the modern veterinary BCS scale is a different system. Keep vernacular words separate from technical measurement standards.

Snow and walrus vocabulary

Environment and occupation can create fine-grained vocabularies. But there is no single rule like “exactly 12 snow names among northern peoples”, and a fixed “fatness-name list” for walruses should not be repeated without a source. Name the specific language and dictionary. Lexical detail does not prove speakers cannot perceive other categories.

Right hand, left hand Сөйлеу нормасы: оң қол / сол қол

In some religious or cultural settings, eating with the right hand is etiquette; being left-handed is not a defect. A culturally informed translator separates etiquette, personal traits and biased statements. If a character mentions «сол қолмен ас ішу», keep the cultural norm without turning it into a universal judgement. This does not prove that «солақайға сорпа жоқ» is a verified standard proverb.

Implicit meaning and agency

«Шолпан Сәрсенбайға шыққан жылы»

Can you translate it as “the year Sholpan married Sarsenbai” without the noun «неке» (marriage)? Who started the marriage?

The conventional construction «-ға шығу» (of a woman marrying) plus the wider context may license “married”. But who initiated the marriage cannot be worked out from this fragment.

Research ruleA translation may make an implicit relation explicit without adding a new claim. It may also assign a cause, intention or social role the source does not establish. Code these two cases separately.

Part III

Translation decisions

The translator’s toolbox: what each technique does, what it gains and what it can cost.

Translation operations

Making things explicit or implicit, more specific or more general, simpler, and checked.

In this chapter you will learn

Explicitation, implicitation, specification, generalisation, approximation, simplification and verification.
Where explicitation stops being explanation and becomes invention.
Obligatory vs optional changes.

These are not one flat listSome of these names are ways of changing the text. Verification is different: it is the stage where you check that a decision was right.

The operations

Explicitation Экспликация / эксплицитация / explicitation

Saying openly what the source only implies, or what is unfamiliar to the reader. Explanatory translation is one form of it (Klaudy & Károly 2005).

Sourceқазы

→EXP

Targetqazy, a traditional Kazakh horse-meat sausage

SourceҚансонарда

→EXP

Targetafter fresh snowfall, when tracks are visible

For research: in an academic text a translator may add a short definition. Label such an addition separately from the author’s own explanation.

Implicitation Импликация / имплицитация

Making something the source says openly less explicit, because the target context still lets readers recover it.

Sourcethe institution of marriage

→D-IMP

Targetнеке

May drop the institutional emphasis; check equivalence in context.

For research: separate justified compression from an omission that destroys disciplinary meaning.

Specification Нақтылау / конкретизация

Moving from a general name to a more specific one that the context supports.

SourceОл туысын шақырды.

→SPEC

TargetHe invited his sister.

Only correct if the text makes clear the relative is his elder sister (әпкесі).

Generalisation Жалпылау / генерализация

Giving a specific name through a broader concept. Part of the information is lost.

Sourceқазы

→GEN

Targettraditional food

Approximation Жуықтату / апроксимация / approximation

When there is no full equivalent, explaining through a close concept while keeping the difference in mind.

Sourceқазы

→approx.

Targeta kind of sausage

“A kind of sausage” is not the same as “any sausage”: it is a near-equivalent, not full identity.

For research: find cases where near-equivalents narrow or broaden a concept. Ask your teacher how approximation differs from generalisation in their usage.

Simplification Ықшамдау, жеңілдету / упрощение

Making the structure or the language of explanation simpler. It must not break the scientific content.

Example: splitting one complex sentence into two clear sentences.

For research: simplification is also a proposed tendency of translated language (Chapter 11). Test whether reduced complexity goes with conceptual loss, such as dropped qualifications or generalised terms.

Verification Верификация / верификация

Checking a term, fact, usage and context against reliable data.

Example: check «әлеуметтік мобильділік» against a dictionary, a textbook and a corpus.

Where explicitation must stop

Source«Қазы жеп отыр»

→M-ADD

Bad target«Бай қонақтар қымбат қазы жеп отыр»

“Rich” and “expensive” are new claims. An explanation must restore the meaning in the text. It must not invent a social judgement, a cause or a fact the author did not state.

Obligatory vs optional

Some explicitation is obligatory: the structures of the two languages differ and force it. Other explicitation is optional: chosen according to what readers know. Explaining qazy is not required by grammar, but may be needed for a given audience to understand (Klaudy & Károly 2005; their result comes from English–Hungarian literary translation, so do not assume it holds for every language pair).

Define your termIn some traditions «экспликация» means a descriptive equivalent, while «эксплицитация» means making things explicit in general. State in your research which definition you adopt.

Do this: four questions for any added explanation

Is the added information already implied in the source or its context?
Does it add a new evaluation, cause or fact?
Is it needed for this audience, or only “nice to have”?
Is it marked as the translator’s addition (note, brackets) or mixed into the author’s voice?

Equivalence and techniques

What is gained, kept, reduced or distorted when meaning changes language?

In this chapter you will learn

Literal translation vs literalism.
Equivalence vs adequacy; pragmatic and expressive equivalence.
Compensation, adaptation, borrowing, calque, transposition, modulation.
Metaphor, gradation, translator’s manoeuvring.
Foreignisation vs domestication.
Strategy vs procedure vs shift vs quality: four things not to confuse.

Literal translation and literalism

Literal translation vs literalism Сөзбе-сөз аударма және буквализм

Literal translation can be right. Literalism is mechanical copying of form that breaks naturalness or meaning.

English idiomIt is raining cats and dogs.

→literalism

Bad«Мысық пен ит жауып жатыр»

English idiomIt is raining cats and dogs.

→functional

Good«Жаңбыр шелектеп құйып жатыр»

Why literalism happens: context ignored; idioms treated as separate words; too little subject knowledge; rushed decisions; fear of leaving the surface grammar; over-reliance on dictionaries or machine translation.

AvoidDo not assume every formal similarity is a mistake. Terminology often needs stable, consistent forms.

Equivalence

Equivalence and adequacy Баламалылық және барабарлық / эквивалентность и адекватность

Equivalence: two texts correspond in important meaning or function. Adequacy: the translation is fit for its specific communicative task and context.

Englishsocial class

→P01

Kazakhәлеуметтік тап

May keep the class concept.

Englishsocial class

→L-GEN

Kazakhәлеуметтік топ

Could broaden the concept in some contexts.

For research: make equivalence measurable through conceptual features, not a vague “good/bad” impression. (Toury uses “adequacy” in a different, special sense; see Chapter 11.)

Pragmatic and expressive equivalence Прагматикалық / экспрессивтік баламалылық

Pragmatic: the reader gets the same communicative effect. Expressive: the same stylistic and emotional force.

Kazakh«Жүрегім қарс айырылды»

→expressive

EnglishMy heart was shattered.

Recreates the force more naturally than a purely literal version.

For research: a study of scientific texts puts semantic/conceptual equivalence first. Add a pragmatic column when a definition is understandable but culturally misleading.

Caution“Impressive equivalence / импрессивтік баламалылық” is not a consistently standard label. Ask which author and definition your lecturer means.

Techniques

Compensation Компенсация

Recreating a lost stylistic, humorous or emotional effect at another place in the text.

Example: an English pun that cannot be kept in one sentence; a similar play on words appears nearby to keep the overall effect.

For research: usually marginal in sociology translation, where conceptual precision matters more than humour. Count it only if you can show the restored effect.

Adaptation, borrowing, calque Бейімдеу, кірме сөз, калька

Adaptation: changing something to fit the target culture. Borrowing: taking the source word itself. Calque: translating the word’s parts one by one.

Englishsocial network

→calque

Kazakhәлеуметтік желі

Kazakhшұбат

→borrowing

Englishshubat

Adaptation: a holiday comparison changed for the target readers. For research: before inventing a new term, check the accepted Kazakh academic usage.

Translation transformations (shifts) Аударма трансформациялары / переводческие трансформации

Changes of lexical, grammatical, structural or stylistic form between source and target. They may be required by differences between the languages (Komissarov, Barkhudarov: lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical transformations; Catford: shifts).

Examples: one sentence split into two; a noun phrase turned into a verb; an English passive restructured in Kazakh.

The key ruleCode the change of form separately from its effect on meaning. A transformation is not automatically an error; many are needed because English and Kazakh grammar differ.

Transposition Грамматикалық ауыстыру / транспозиция

Changing the part of speech or construction (noun ↔ verb, passive ↔ active).

EnglishAfter the development of the institutions…

→G-STR

Kazakh«Институттар дамығаннан кейін…»

Noun → verb. Likely no loss of the concept.

Englishsocial exclusion

→P10

Kazakhқоғамнан шеттету

For research: track noun/verb and passive/active changes and test whether agency (who does what) shifts.

Modulation Модуляция

Expressing the same idea from a different point of view, with no intended new claim.

Englishdependent on

→P09

Kazakh…-ға тәуелді / …-мен анықталады

Check the force: “depends on” and «анықталады» (“is determined by”) are not equally strong.

Metaphor translation Метафораны аудару

Three options: keep the image, replace it with a target-language image, or explain its meaning.

Kazakh«Жүрегі тас»

→keep image

EnglishHe has a heart of stone.

Kazakh«Қара шаңырақ»

→explain

Englishancestral home

Explains the meaning but weakens the image.

For research: academic metaphors also deserve analysis: “social ladder”, “glass ceiling”, “social fabric”. Replacing a metaphor may rebuild the conceptual frame.

Gradation Градация

A sequence of rising or falling intensity.

Example: «қобалжыды → қорықты → үрейленді» ≈ nervous → afraid → terrified.

For research: check that translated lists keep intensity and order. Discrimination → exclusion → persecution are not synonyms.

Translator’s manoeuvring Аудармашылық маневр

Consciously changing technique according to the situation: choosing among borrowing, rewording, clarification and others.

Example: for «қансонар», use a loan plus a gloss in ethnographic research but a poetic paraphrase in a translated poem.

CautionDo not present “manoeuvrism” or a “manoeuvre theory” as an established school. Use it as an informal description of strategic flexibility unless your lecturer names a published source.

Foreignisation and domestication

Foreignisation Форенизация (бөтенсіндіру / жатсындыру) / форенизация

A strategy that keeps signs of the source culture visible: its names, concepts and features. It is not the same as word-for-word translation (Venuti).

Domestication Доместикация (жерсіндіру / үйретікті ету) / доместикация

A strategy that brings the text closer to familiar target-culture patterns.

Teaching case	Foreignising choice	Domesticating / explanatory choice
«Бата» in a Kazakh cultural example	bata (with an optional gloss)	traditional blessing
English “Thanksgiving” in a cultural example	«Тэнксгивинг» + optional note	«алғыс айту мерекесі» (descriptive)
Scientific label “habitus” (if present)	Keep the borrowed term; define it first	Use an explanatory equivalent consistently

Avoid

Textbook terminology is not automatically a cultureme. Borrowing “legitimacy” («легитимділік») may be good if the term is established and well defined, or bad if it hides the source distinction.
Do not code every borrowing as “foreignising”. Judge the overall orientation from repeated decisions and the paratext (prefaces, notes, glossaries).
You can show an edition uses a foreignising rendering. You cannot conclude the translator knew Venuti, chose deliberately, or lacked subject knowledge without outside evidence: a translator’s introduction, working notes or an interview.
Even-Zohar did not argue against adaptation in favour of foreignisation. Discuss foreignisation with Venuti, separately from Even-Zohar’s systemic view.

Four things you must not confuse

Label	What it is	Example
Strategy / orientation	The planned general approach or goal.	Foreignisation.
Procedure / technique	What the translator does locally, visible in one segment.	Borrowing.
Transformation / shift	The visible difference in form or meaning between ST and TT.	Noun → verb.
Semantic shift	A difference in the meaning represented.	Broadening, narrowing, stronger claim.
Quality judgement	An evidence-based assessment of fit, accuracy and conceptual fidelity.	E0–E3 rating with reasons.

Molina & Hurtado Albir (2002) is the standard source for separating techniques, methods and strategies. Related labels from the lecture: “strategies, tactics and procedures” = overall goal, local solution, observed operation.

Part IV

Theories and scholars

Who said what, what each theory is for, and how far it can carry your research.

Language, thought and classic translation theory

Do not confuse a theory of language with a theory of translation.

In this chapter you will learn

Sapir–Whorf and the question of untranslatability.
Jakobson, Nida, Skopos/Nord, Catford, Newmark, Vinay & Darbelnet.
Chomsky’s competence vs performance, and Hymes’s communicative competence.
Peirce and semiotics.

Language and thought

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, linguistic relativity Сепир–Уорф гипотезасы / тілдік салыстырмалылық / лингвистическая относительность

The view that a language’s categories may influence how people notice or classify things. The weak version (language may influence habitual attention) is discussed seriously; the strong version (language strictly determines thought) is controversial.

Example: detailed Kazakh kinship labels encourage fine distinctions, yet English can still explain them with several words.

For research: use it as background for conceptual differences, not as proof that a term is objectively untranslatable. It does not mean speakers of different languages live in incompatible realities.

Translatability and untranslatability Аударылу және аударылмаушылық / непереводимость

Exact one-to-one equivalence can be missing even when a concept can be conveyed by description or context.

Example: «қансонар» has no neat one-word English equivalent, yet its hunting meaning can be explained.

For research: in sociology, study partial conceptual mismatches, not absolute untranslatability of technical concepts.

Classic translation theories

Roman Jakobson (1959) Роман Якобсон, “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”

Three kinds of translation: intralingual (rewording in the same language), interlingual (between languages) and intersemiotic (between sign systems, e.g. text → diagram). A message can be interpreted adequately even when code units are not identical.

Englishsocialisation

→reformulation

Kazakh«адамның қоғам нормалары мен рөлдерін меңгеру үдерісі»

An explanatory Kazakh reformulation (intralingual rewording inside the translation). A diagram explaining it would be an intersemiotic step.

For research: good grounding for contrasting terminological form with explanatory academic meaning.

Eugene Nida (1964) Юджин Найда, Toward a Science of Translating

Contrasts formal correspondence (attention to source form and content) with dynamic/functional equivalence (orientation towards the receiver’s response and understanding).

Example: for students, «әлеуметтік ұтқырлық» may be easier to understand than «мобильділік», but its adequacy still depends on the scholarly definition.

For research: helpful for reader-oriented analysis, but student responses must be measured, not assumed.

Skopos and functionalist approaches Скопос теориясы; Nord 1997

Translation decisions depend on the purpose, audience and situation of use of the target text.

Example: a general-audience article may explain terms freely; a doctoral sociology reference must keep conceptual distinctions.

For research: state your evaluation purpose, e.g. academic teaching accuracy in published English–Kazakh textbooks.

Catford (1965), Newmark (1988), Vinay & Darbelnet (1958)

Catford, A Linguistic Theory of Translation: linguistic description of translation and the idea of “shifts”. Newmark, A Textbook of Translation: practical procedures and text types. Vinay & Darbelnet, Stylistique comparée: the classic list of procedures (borrowing, calque, literal translation, transposition, modulation, equivalence, adaptation). Use them to justify your procedure categories.

Competence

Chomsky: competence and performance Тілдік құзырет пен қолданыс / языковая компетенция и исполнение

Competence: inner knowledge of the grammatical system. Performance: actual use of language, affected by memory and attention (Chomsky 1965).

Example: a bilingual translator may know the grammar but still make an error when tired or rushed.

For research: Chomsky’s competence is not the same as full cultural or communicative competence, and it is not measurable in a text corpus.

Hymes: communicative competence Коммуникативтік құзыреттілік

Knowing not only how to make grammatical sentences, but where, with whom and for what purpose something is appropriate to say (Hymes 1972).

Example: «Сіз» and «сен» are both grammatical but not interchangeable in every relationship.

For research: useful for culturally sensitive examples and social-role language.

Peirce and semiotics

Semiotics treats words as signs linked to concepts and objects. Optional for analysing scientific terms as signs.

CautionThe lecture mentioned «Персе». It may mean Peirce or someone else. Do not attribute target-text-first method to Peirce without checking the lecture source.

Even-Zohar: translation inside a cultural system

Polysystem theory: where translations stand in a culture, and why that position changes.

In this chapter you will learn

What a polysystem is; centre vs periphery; primary vs secondary.
The three conditions when translation moves to the centre.
The six factors of the literary system.
Imitation, adaptation and version.
How to apply the lecture examples (Chekhov, Pushkin) correctly.

The core idea

Itamar Even-Zohar (Итамар Эвен-Зохар): literature is made of interacting systems. Translated literature is one of them, and its position changes over history. The centre shapes models; the periphery is a position of limited influence. This is not a judgement of quality (Even-Zohar 1990).

Two separate pairsCentre / periphery = position. Primary (innovating) / secondary (conservative, continuing established models) = function. Do not read primary/secondary as “best/worst”.

When translation moves to the centre

Condition (Even-Zohar 1990)	A sign you can study
1. The literary system is still being formed (“young”).	Are new genres, writing models and literary devices learned through translation?
2. The system is peripheral or resource-limited in relation to other systems.	Which genre or model needs are filled from outside? Do not use “weak” as a judgement of artistic value.
3. A turning point, crisis or literary vacuum.	When old models are not enough, does translation offer new options?

Six factors of the system

Even-Zohar (1990, pp. 27–44). The right column is a suggested way to apply them to a textbook translated in Kazakhstan.

Factor	What data you could collect
Producer өндіруші	Author, translator, editor and their stated roles.
Consumer тұтынушы	Students, teachers, general readers: who it is for and who actually uses it.
Institution институт	Publisher, university, expert group, programme and editorial requirements.
Market нарық	Distribution: sales, libraries, courses, online platforms. Not just price.
Repertoire репертуар	Terms, genre models, explanation and formatting conventions used.
Product өнім	The translated textbook, its term system and supporting materials.

About “code”The lecture note “pkod” is unclear. In Even-Zohar’s scheme, repertoire sits where Jakobson put code. Repertoire includes not only rules but also the stock of materials used. Confirm this match with your teacher.

Imitation, adaptation, version

Imitation (еліктеу): writing on the model or style of another work. Adaptation (бейімдеу): changing a text for a new audience, genre or setting. Version (нұсқа): a specific translation or reworking; the word itself does not show how much was changed. These are working definitions, not a compulsory Even-Zohar triad. Even-Zohar criticised excluding adaptation and imitation from research; he did not oppose them.

Using the lecture examples correctly

Chekhov’s influence

Do not stop at “he influenced”. Show which narrative, dialogue or genre model appears in which Kazakh author’s which text. Similarity alone is not proof of direct influence.

Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky translations

To say they “became models” you need prefaces, critical articles, curricula and evidence of reception in later works.

Apply it to a textbookAsk: which terminology and explanation models gained authority in the Kazakh academic system? This adapts a literary model to educational texts, so you must justify that it is valid there.

Avoid

“Translation must stay on the periphery”: Even-Zohar describes a changing position, not a rule.
“If mature literature wants to dominate, translation moves to the centre”: not one of his three conditions. Mature systems can also face crisis or need renewal.
Equating a physical “national book collection” with the theoretical centre/periphery.
Turning the well-known historical case of Hebrew literature into a rule for all translation in modern Israel.
Claiming two textbooks prove national cultural influence. Even-Zohar is context for your study, not its measurement.

Toury: norms and descriptive study

Describe the translation as a fact of the target culture before judging it.

In this chapter you will learn

What a norm is, and the five kinds of norms.
Adequacy vs acceptability.
The two probable laws: standardisation and interference.
Translation universals: simplification, normalisation, explicitation.
How to observe a norm without over-claiming.

Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS)

Gideon Toury (Гидеон Тури) studies stable choices in real translations and connects them with their cultural situation. A norm is not just an official rule: it is a shared expectation and established practice in a given setting (Toury 1995; 2012).

Translation is a norm-governed activity situated in the target culture. This target-oriented view supports describing translations before judging them.

The norms

Norm (Toury 1995)	The question it asks
Initial norm бастапқы	Is the choice oriented more to the source system’s norms or the receiving culture’s norms?
Preliminary norms алдын ала	Which texts get chosen for translation? Direct translation or through an intermediate language?
Operational norms операциялық	How are the text and language material organised during translation?
Matricial norms матрицалық	How are cuts, completeness, placement of passages and text division handled?
Textual-linguistic norms мәтіндік-тілдік	Which vocabulary, terms, sentence patterns and equivalents are chosen?

Adequacy vs acceptabilityAdequacy = orientation to source norms. Acceptability = orientation to target norms. These are not “good/bad” and not the same as “literal/free”. One text can combine both orientations.

Two probable laws

Law of growing standardisation

Unusual source relations may be replaced by habitual target-language patterns (Toury 2012, Part IV, from p. 303).

Law of interference

Features of the source language may leave traces in the translation (Toury 2012, from p. 310).

These are probabilistic, conditional hypotheses, not absolute laws.

Translation universals

Baker, Toury and later corpus researchers test proposed tendencies of translated texts. None is a compulsory law; check direction and genre effects with data.

Tendency	Plain meaning	How to test in your corpus
Simplification	Structural or lexical reduction.	Sentence complexity, dropped qualifications; compare with a reference point.
Explicitation	More overt marking of information.	Added connectives, definitions, explanations.
Normalisation	Moving towards target-language conventions.	Compare with original Kazakh academic writing.

How to observe a norm

Do this

Suppose in several translations every new term is explained in brackets the first time it appears. That is a recurring practice. Check it by genre, editor and period, and only then form a hypothesis about a norm. One example is never enough.

Toury separates textual data (the translations) from extratextual data (prefaces, statements, reviews). A promise in a preface may not match the actual decisions in the text.

Avoid

If you study norms through one textbook, conclude about tendencies in that edition, not about “Kazakh translation norms” in general.
“Kazakh first, English second” is your operational research order, not a canonical four-step Toury procedure.
Do not infer intention from norms: recurring target-language preferences do not show what a translator wanted.

Corpus, discourse and equivalence schools

The theories that turn into your actual measurements.

In this chapter you will learn

Baker’s corpus approach; parallel vs comparable corpora.
Komissarov’s equivalence levels and transformations; Retsker’s regular correspondences.
Hatim & Mason and House: discourse, function and quality.
Venuti, Lefevere and translation policy.
The six layers that tell you what kind of question each theory answers.

Corpus methods

Mona Baker: corpus-based translation studies корпустық аударматану

Translated language can be studied systematically as a corpus, not through hand-picked examples (Baker 1993). This fits the teacher’s instruction: “first analyse the Kazakh text as a text”.

Use: build a searchable Kazakh corpus; list terms, repeated collocations, markers of certainty, definition frames, causal connectives, sentence complexity. Then build a parallel source–target corpus.

Limit: corpus methods do not, by themselves, prove why a translator made a choice.

Corpus type	What it contains	The question it answers
Parallel corpus параллель корпус	Source texts and their translations, aligned.	What changed?
Comparable corpus салыстырмалы корпус	Translated texts and texts originally written in Kazakh, of a similar genre.	How does translated Kazakh differ from normal Kazakh usage?

Corpus and interpretation work togetherThe corpus finds and compares many uses; interpretation explains what the data mean in the text. Frequency alone does not settle meaning. A corpus does not directly measure what readers understood; that needs comprehension tasks or interviews.

Equivalence and transformation schools

V. N. Komissarov: equivalence levels and transformations

Different levels of equivalence, and lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical transformations that describe how a source utterance is re-expressed (Komissarov 1990). Barkhudarov developed a related classification of transformations.

Use: create a coder manual for addition, omission, modulation, generalisation, concretisation, transposition and grammatical replacement. Judge semantic effects separately.

Limit: a transformation is not in itself a semantic error.

Ya. I. Retsker: regular correspondences

Distinguishes established equivalents, contextual alternatives (variant correspondences) and context-driven transformations (Retsker 1974).

Use: build a term concordance: source concept, possible Kazakh equivalents, the chosen expression, definition, and consistency across chapters.

Limit: you cannot infer the reasons for choices from the final text without interviews or editorial evidence.

Discourse, function, quality

Hatim & Mason; Juliane House

Translations work as communicative texts. Stance, cohesion, genre, register, pragmatics and situation matter beyond the single word (Hatim & Mason 1990; House 2015, translation quality assessment).

Use: code “researchers argue”, “may”, “suggest”, negation, cause/effect, agency, examples and definitions; compare function and register.

Limit: discourse claims need enough context, not isolated one-line examples.

Venuti; Lefevere; translation policy

Venuti: foreignisation and domestication as broad orientations (1995/2018). Lefevere: translation as rewriting shaped by ideology and patronage (1992). Translation policy / institutional norms: editions, review procedures, glossary rules.

Limit: two textbooks alone cannot prove deliberate ideological change or national influence. For institutional claims, collect translators’ prefaces, project requirements, editorial rules or reviews.

Where each theory belongs

Not all theories answer the same kind of question. Keep context, process, text, procedures, measurement and outcome apart.

Layer	Research question	Theories	Status
1. Context	Why were these books translated, and which target norms matter?	Even-Zohar; Lefevere; Toury; translation policy	Supporting
2. Translator process	How might a translator understand and choose a term?	Leontiev; Galeeva; Kushnina; hermeneutics	Needs process data
3. Text and discourse	How does Kazakh academic discourse build the social concept?	Baker; Hatim & Mason; House; extralinguistics	Core
4. Observable procedures	Which lexical/grammatical shifts are in the paired texts?	Komissarov; Retsker; Vinay & Darbelnet	Core
5. Measurement	How frequent and context-sensitive are the changes?	Corpus analysis; statistics; qualitative coding	Core
6. Outcomes	Is conceptual meaning equivalent? Is the text understandable?	Semantic analysis; expert review; readers if tested	Core + optional test

The four strongest pillars for a textbook study

A. Target text first: Toury. Treat Kazakh translations as facts of the receiving academic culture before judging them against English.
B. Corpus method: Baker. Observe textual patterns systematically, not a few hand-picked sentences.
C. Translation mechanisms: Komissarov and Retsker. Classify transformations, equivalence levels and contextual choices.
D. Interpret and test consequences: Hatim & Mason, House and semantic analysis. Examine coherence, stance, concepts and reader-oriented clarity.

Interpretation, process and literary texts

Lenses for understanding meaning and voice, and where their limits are.

In this chapter you will learn

Hermeneutics, Galeeva, Kushnina, Leontiev.
Author–translator–reader; inner and outer life.
The Balzac paradox and Les Belles Infidèles.
Precedent texts, strong/weak text positions, extraposition vs exposition.

Process theories

Hermeneutics Герменевтика

Interpreting a text in its historical, cultural, genre and authorial context. The same phrase can be affectionate, ironic, hostile or ceremonial depending on who says it to whom.

For research: use close reading and conceptual context to fix the meaning of ambiguous sociology terms.

Galeeva: activity-based translation theory

Frames translation as understanding and interpretation. Process claims require translator data. Confirm the exact Galeeva publication before a full citation.

Kushnina: harmonisation theory

A broader account of how meaning is coordinated in “translation space” (Kushnina 2008, some list 2009). A possible interpretive lens; hard to measure in a corpus alone.

Leontiev: activity, action, operation

Psychological activity theory. Useful if you add interviews or think-aloud protocols, not for text alone.

AvoidConscious vs unconscious translation decisions cannot be inferred from the final product. Keep these theories as explanation unless you collect think-aloud protocols, interviews or revision histories.

Literary and interpretive ideas

Author, translator and reader Автор, аудармашы, оқырман

The author’s worldview shapes the text; the translator interprets it; the reader receives it through their own experience. A family scene may seem affectionate to one reader and improper to another because of kinship norms.

For research: do not claim a single “Kazakh reader response” without real reader research.

Inner and outer life Ішкі және сыртқы болмыс

Inner: feeling, thought, intention. Outer: action, speech, movement. They may not match. A character smiling while afraid: translate both signals without assuming one cancels the other. In a scientific text the parallel is separating the intended claim from its rhetorical presentation.

Balzac paradox Бальзак парадоксы

An author’s personal politics and the social contradictions their realistic writing shows may not match. Engels (letter to Margaret Harkness, 1888) admired how the royalist Balzac showed the weaknesses of the aristocracy he sympathised with.

For research: preserve the text and the narrator’s stance, not an invented moral correction.

CautionThe classroom scenario of a woman leaving her husband is not proof of any specific Balzac translation decision; the exact passage and translator must be identified.

Les Belles Infidèles “Beautiful but unfaithful” translations

A 17th-century French tradition of elegant translation that freely changed content, tone or structure to suit contemporary taste (Taylor 2023).

SourceHe lived in a poor house.

→M-EVAL

EmbellishedHe lived in a charming cottage.

The meaning “poverty” disappears.

Lesson: smooth Kazakh academic prose is not adequate if it hides a theoretical distinction.

Precedent text Прецеденттік мәтін

A widely known text or quotation that works as shared background: «Абай жолы», a line of Abai, “To be or not to be”. They evoke more than their literal content. Textbooks often refer to famous Western case studies; explain the reference only when needed.

Strong and weak text positions Мәтіннің күшті / әлсіз позициялары

Titles, epigraphs, first and last sentences attract more attention and frame interpretation (Akasheva & Rakhimova 2018). Other parts are not automatically less important.

Example: a chapter heading “Social Inequality” frames every later term in that chapter.

For research: sample headings, definitions, tables, captions and summaries as high-salience units.

Extraposition vs exposition Экстрапозиция / экспозиция

Extraposition: moving a sentence element to the end (“That he resigned was surprising” → “It was surprising that he resigned”). Exposition: the opening part of a narrative that introduces setting and background. For a corpus, extraposition matters only where a real grammatical shift is documented.

Abai and Shakespeare as reception cases

Is the “Abai” built in English, Russian or Turkish translations recognisable as Abai in Kazakh? Did Shakespeare translations bring new forms into Kazakh culture or reshape existing ones? These are excellent method analogies (study the translations first as independent corpora; then compare), but they belong to reception studies, not to a textbook corpus. See Chapter 19.

Terminology and semantic models

When every word is translated but the scientific model is distorted.

In this chapter you will learn

Terminology theory: object, concept, definition, designation; ISO 704 and 1087; Faber; Temmerman.
What a semantic model is, and three meanings of “model”.
The power–authority–legitimacy example.
Seven ways a scientific model can break.
Three levels of equivalence: lexical, propositional, conceptual-model.

Terminology theory

Terminology work separates objects, concepts, definitions and designations (the term itself), and the relations between them. ISO 704:2022 describes these links; ISO 1087:2019 standardises vocabulary for concept systems and concept relations.

Approach	What it gives you
Terminology theory / Терминтану	Concept, definition and terminological designation.
ISO 704 and ISO 1087	Clear distinctions between concepts, terms, definitions and relations.
Frame-Based Terminology (Pamela Faber)	Scientific terms as parts of knowledge frames.
Sociocognitive terminology (Rita Temmerman 2000)	Term meaning, categorisation and changing domain knowledge.
Frame semantics	Background knowledge activated by a technical term.
Conceptual metaphor theory	How metaphors in sociology (ladder, fabric) shape concepts.
Concept-system relations	Type-of, cause/effect, part/whole, contrast, condition.
Term consistency and variation	One concept may have justified or misleading variants.

What a semantic model is

Қазақша: ғылыми мәтіннің семантикалық моделі: негізгі ұғымдардың анықтамаларын, белгілерін, түрлерін, шарттарын және өзара байланыстарын көрсететін аналитикалық сызба. Русский: смысловая структура понятий, признаков и отношений научного текста. English: an analytic picture of what a scientific explanation means and how its concepts are connected.

Here “semantic model” is your working representation, not a universal model named after one scholar.

Model	What it refers to	Example
Scientific / theoretical model	The original author’s theory of society.	Weber-linked relations among power, authority and legitimacy.
Semantic / concept model	Your extracted map of terms, definitions and relations.	Power → authority when recognised as legitimate; types of authority.
Translation-analysis model	Your own method for comparing the languages.	Align → identify procedure → check model → evaluate equivalence.

A translator may replace words accurately but misrepresent the first model; your second model makes this visible; your third gives repeatable steps.

Core example: power, authority, legitimacy

Supported by introductory sociology accounts of the Weberian distinction (OpenStax, Introduction to Sociology 3e, §17.1). Not an extract from any selected textbook.

Power / билікThe ability to influence or affect others. It does not necessarily mean that its use is accepted as rightful.

Authority / легитимді билік, өкілеттікA recognised or legitimised form of power in the given sociological context. The Kazakh word depends on the author’s definition.

Legitimacy / легитимділікRecognition that the use of power is rightful or justified. Not always the same as formal legality.

Key relations: not all power is legitimate authority. In Weber’s sociology, traditional, charismatic and legal-rational authority are distinct ideal types. Translating legitimacy as merely “having legal permission” can erase non-legal forms of recognition.

Teaching source proposition: “Authority is power regarded as legitimate.” (Not a quote from the textbooks.)

Teaching sourceAuthority is power regarded as legitimate.

→M-0

Kazakh«Өкілеттік — легитимді деп танылатын билік»

Model-preserving candidate, if «өкілеттік» is the established equivalent here. The legitimacy condition is explicit.

Teaching sourceAuthority is power regarded as legitimate.

→M-LOSS

Kazakh«Өкілеттік — билік»

Feature loss candidate: removes the legitimacy condition and may confuse authority with power.

Teaching sourceAuthority is power regarded as legitimate.

→M-NAR

Kazakh«Өкілеттік — заң бойынша берілген билік»

Narrowing candidate, if the source means all legitimately accepted authority, not only legally granted office.

None of these proves a mistake in a real edition. To judge an actual case, read the whole paragraph, compare the exact original and check the accepted disciplinary sense in that chapter.

How scientific models break

Problem type	What changes	Example to test (illustrative)
Definition shift / loss	A defining property changes or disappears.	Legitimacy omitted from the definition of authority.
Category collapse	Two technical concepts merge into one.	Power and authority both appear as undifferentiated «билік».
Incorrect hierarchy	Superordinate and subtype reversed or blurred.	Legal-rational authority treated as the only kind.
Unjustified specialisation	A general concept becomes narrow.	Deviance → «қылмыс» where non-criminal rule-breaking was meant.
Unjustified generalisation	A narrow concept becomes too broad.	Social class → «әлеуметтік топ» in a class-specific definition.
Relation reversal / causal distortion	Cause/effect, part/whole, sequence or conditions change.	“Is associated with” → «себеп болады»; “may reinforce” → “necessarily causes”.
Quantifier / modality shift	Possibility, frequency or conditions change.	“Some / may / generally” → “all / always / must”; “may influence” → «міндетті түрде анықтайды».
Normative addition	Description becomes approval or condemnation.	A neutral category gets a moral judgement.
Concept inconsistency	Different target terms for one source concept, without reason.	Authority alternates across paragraphs.
Metaphorical reframing	A different metaphor changes the knowledge frame.	Social ladder replaced with an unrelated picture.
Foreign term without model	Borrowed label kept, defining features lost.	A loanword stands alone without its explanation.

Three levels of equivalence

The core analytical model of the research supplement. A translation can pass level 1 and still fail levels 2 or 3. And a term that looks different can still carry the concept accurately.

Level	Question	Risk example
L1: Lexical	Is the scientific term rendered by a defensible Kazakh designation?	“Class” rendered by a familiar but broader word.
L2: Propositional	Does the sentence claim the same thing, with the same certainty?	“May influence” becomes “determines”.
L3: Conceptual-model	Are defining features, taxonomies, distinctions and relations kept?	Legitimate authority becomes indistinguishable from power.

AvoidDo not use surface matching of words as your only measure of correctness.

Ethics and political language

One change of wording can change the speaker, the moral position or the strength of an accusation.

In this chapter you will learn

Translator ethics; social vs moral meaning.
Political correctness vs faithful representation.
Political metaphors, presidential speech, interpreter neutrality and modality.

Translation ethics Аударма этикасы / этика перевода

Fidelity, accuracy, confidentiality, accountability, correct attribution and handling conflicts of interest. The translator must not distort meaning or strengthen the author’s evaluation on their own initiative.

SourceThe author criticised the policy.

→M-EVAL

Wrongly intensifiedThe author exposed a criminal policy.

For research: in textbooks, do not put your own moral judgement into definitions or disputed empirical claims.

Social vs moral meaning Әлеуметтік және моральдық мағына

Social meaning: relationships and status. Moral meaning: good/bad, responsibility, fairness. «Аға» marks respect and social position; «адал» expresses an ethical quality.

For research: “deviance” is a sociological category, not the translator’s moral condemnation.

Political correctness Саяси әдептілік / политкорректность

Avoiding discriminatory language, without changing the real position of the speaker or author.

Examples: “We are concerned” ≠ “We condemn”. “Disadvantaged group” must not silently become a more accusing label.

For research: sociology discusses race, ethnicity, class, gender and inequality. Keep the author’s usage separate from your own stance.

Political correctness vs faithful representationIf an author uses a sensitive or controversial expression, an academic translator should usually keep its analytical role and degree of offensiveness rather than clean it up silently. A neutral comment, footnote or contextual note is safer than quietly changing a quotation. Preserve whether a claim is descriptive, quoted, contested, hypothetical or evaluative. Changing a historically offensive quotation into neutral words can erase its function; adding offensive meaning to a neutral description is equally wrong.

Political metaphor: «жілік шағып, майын ішу»

An image of getting the marrow out of a bone: extracting the most from a resource, or in some contexts exploitation.

Possible: “extracting every last benefit”. Stronger: “exploiting public resources for personal gain”, only if the context justifies it.

Rule: a translator must not turn an insinuation into a legally definite accusation of corruption.

CautionThe exact parliamentary (Mazhilis) quotation and speaker are not verified. Do not cite it as a real transcript without a dated official source.

Presidential speeches Президент сөзі

An official translation, live simultaneous interpreting and a journalist’s paraphrase are three different products that may shape international reception.

Examples: «Әділетті Қазақстан» → “Just Kazakhstan”; «Заң мен тәртіп» → “Law and order” are political discourse choices that need context.

For research: compare the original Akorda wording with authorised English/Russian versions before judging semantic or ideological shifts.

CautionWithout source and target transcripts, no interpreter should be credited or blamed. Name an individual only if an official programme, broadcast or credited transcript identifies them. Foreign public reaction cannot be inferred from translations alone.

Interpreter neutrality and pragmatic force

Keep the level of doubt, promise, accusation and conditionality; preserve stance, strength of evidence, modality and speaker responsibility.

Rules: “may” ≠ “will”; “allegedly” ≠ “proven”; “concern” ≠ “condemnation”.

For research: the same logic applies to sociological claims: “may suggest”, “demonstrates”, “is associated with” are different strengths.

Foreign ideology in translation

How can a translator convey values they personally reject without distorting them? (The lecture’s Afghan ideological text example.) Compare evaluative vocabulary, stance, agency, omissions and culture-specific explanations. Motives require documentary or process evidence.

Part V

Research problem workshop

How to turn everything above into a problem, object, subject, aim, questions and hypotheses that you can defend.

The research vocabulary

Object, subject, problem, aim and the rest: what each one is, with examples.

In this chapter you will learn

The 12 building blocks of a research design and what each must contain.
The correct difference between object, subject and material, with a diagram, tests and examples.
Ready examples in Kazakh, Russian and English.

The building blocks

Think of them as a chain. Each block narrows the one before it.

Topic / тақырып / темаThe broad area and working title. Example: “Translation Strategies and Transformations in English-to-Kazakh Sociology Textbook Translation: Equivalence and Semantic Shifts.”
Problem / мәселе / проблемаThe unresolved question that the field does not yet answer from evidence. Not a complaint, not an accusation. Example: a term may be translated correctly as a word while its role in the scientific model changes; whether, where and how this happens in the chosen texts is not yet established.
Object / нысан / объектThe part of reality you study: a process or phenomenon that gives rise to the problem. Broad; other studies can share it. Example: the translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh.
Subject / пән / предметThe specific side, property or relation of the object that you study from your chosen angle. Narrow; your title, aim and novelty are built on it. Example: the ways the concepts of power, authority and legitimacy are rendered into Kazakh and their effect on conceptual equivalence.
Aim / мақсат / цельWhat you will achieve. Starts with a verb: identify, compare, test, describe, explain.
Tasks / міндеттер / задачиThe steps that achieve the aim (usually 4–6): review theory, build the corpus, code, analyse, validate, formulate recommendations.
Research questions / зерттеу сұрақтарыQuestions your data can answer.
Hypotheses / болжамдар / гипотезыTestable predictions, with what would count as evidence for or against.
Material / материалThe concrete data on which you study the subject: exact editions, chapters, pages and the number of aligned passages. Not the object.
Methods / әдістер / методыAlignment + comparison + coding + concept-feature analysis + validation; corpus, discourse and statistical analysis.
Scientific novelty / ғылыми жаңалық / научная новизнаYour new verifiable findings or a rigorously justified operational contribution, not familiar procedures relabelled.
Practical value / практикалық маңызыWho can use the result, and how. Example: a reproducible audit checklist for Kazakh academic textbook translation and terminology review.

Object, subject and material: the correct model

CorrectionAn earlier version of this book called the selected textbook passages the “object”. That was wrong. The concrete books and passages are your material. The object is a wider part of reality (a process or phenomenon), and the subject is the specific side of it that you study. Everything below, and the Problem builder, now follows the correct model.

Think of three nested questions:

The subject lies inside the object. The material is a concrete sample taken from the object, on which you study the subject.

	Object нысан / объект	Subject пән / предмет	Material материал
Question it answers	WHAT part of reality do I study?	WHICH side, property or relation of it, from what angle?	ON WHAT concrete data do I study it?
What it is	A process or phenomenon that gives rise to the problem and is chosen for study.	A specific aspect inside the object’s boundaries, seen through your theory and method.	The texts, editions and examples you actually collect.
Size	Broad. Several dissertations can share it.	Narrow. Belongs to your dissertation.	Countable: books, pages, N examples.
Who creates it	Exists without you.	You define it by your angle of view.	You select it by an inclusion rule.
Link to the title	Usually not the title itself.	The title is usually built from the subject.	Often in the subtitle: “based on…” / «…негізінде» / «на материале…».
Typical starter words	KK: «…аудармасы», «…үдерісі», «…дискурсы». RU: «перевод…», «процесс…», «дискурс…».	KK: «…берілу тәсілдері», «…ерекшеліктері», «…заңдылықтары», «…әсері». RU: «способы передачи…», «особенности…», «закономерности…», «влияние…».	KK: «…мәтіндері», «… үзінді». RU: «тексты…», «… примеров».

The official-style definitions

Methodology manuals for dissertations (the tradition used in Kazakhstan, Russia and other post-Soviet systems) put it this way:

Definitions to quote

Object: the process or phenomenon that gives rise to the problem situation and is chosen for study. Объект — процесс или явление, порождающее проблемную ситуацию и избранное для изучения.

Subject: what lies within the boundaries of the object; the object as seen in a particular aspect (angle of view). Предмет — то, что находится в границах объекта; объект в определённом аспекте рассмотрения.

Relation: object and subject relate as the general and the particular, the whole and its part.

An everyday analogy

	Medicine	Your field
Object	The human cardiovascular system	The translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh
Subject	The effect of drug X on heart rhythm in older patients	How the concepts of power, authority and legitimacy are rendered, and how this affects conceptual equivalence
Material	Records of 120 patients	The verified English and Kazakh editions of two textbooks; N aligned passages
Unit of analysis	One patient’s measurement	One aligned source–target segment

The deeper points (what “more sophisticated” means)

The object is given, the subject is madeThe object exists in reality whether you study it or not. The subject is constructed by you: it is the object seen through your chosen theory, angle and criteria. That is why two researchers can study the same object and still produce different knowledge.
One object, many subjectsA good object is wide enough to host several dissertations. If nobody else could share your object, it is probably your material in disguise.
The subject drives the whole designThe problem appears in the object but is formulated about the subject. The aim targets the subject. The tasks break the subject into steps. The hypotheses predict something about the subject. The novelty is new knowledge about the subject. The title usually repeats the subject.
Material is evidence, not the objectThe books and passages are the data on which you study the subject. Name them separately, with editions, pages and volume.
Methods are not the subject“Corpus and comparative analysis” is how you study; it never belongs inside the subject.
Schools differ, so check your departmentSome manuals describe the subject as the “carrier of scientific knowledge” (the theory or regularity you will establish). Critics point out that many dissertation summaries repeat the same words in object and subject. Ask your supervisor which model your council expects, and keep object and subject clearly different in wording.

One object, many subjects

Object for all rows: the translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh.

Possible subject	What becomes new knowledge
Ways of rendering the concepts of power, authority and legitimacy, and their effect on conceptual equivalence	Which procedures keep or change the concept model
Changes in epistemic modality (may, often, tends to) in translation	Where and how certainty is strengthened or weakened
Terminological consistency of key sociological concepts	How stable or variable the Kazakh terms are, and why
Explicitation in definitions of sociological terms	When explanation clarifies and when it adds or distorts
Rendering of culture-specific (US/European) examples	How foreign social examples are kept, explained or replaced
The boundary between deviance, crime and sanction	Whether descriptive categories acquire moral or legal meaning

Five quick tests

Check your wording

Sharing test: could another dissertation have the same object? It should be possible.
Inside test: is the subject a part or aspect of the object? It must be.
Different-words test: are object and subject worded differently? If they repeat each other, rewrite.
Title test: does your title echo the subject? It usually should.
Separation test: are the books, editions and examples named as material, not as the object? Are methods kept out of the subject?

Wrong and right

Wrong	Why	Right
Object: «Sociological Theory» and «Essentials of Sociology»	These are the material.	Object: the translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh.
Object: aligned passages about power, authority and legitimacy	Passages are material; the cluster belongs in the subject.	Material: N aligned passages from the verified editions.
Subject: the translation of sociology textbooks into Kazakh	That is the whole object.	Subject: ways of rendering a specific concept group and their effect on equivalence.
Subject: corpus and comparative methods	Methods describe how, not what.	Put methods in the Methods section.
Object: translation. Subject: translation of terms	Too vague, and almost the same words.	Object: English–Kazakh translation of scientific-educational sociological discourse. Subject: …
Subject: all translation problems in the textbooks	No angle, no boundary.	Name one aspect and one angle.

A full worked example in three languages

	Қазақша	Русский	English
Object	Ағылшын тіліндегі әлеуметтану оқулықтарының қазақ тіліне аударылуы.	Перевод англоязычных учебников социологии на казахский язык.	The translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh.
Subject	Билік, өкілеттік және легитимділік ұғымдарын қазақ тіліне беру тәсілдері және олардың ұғымдық баламалылыққа әсері.	Способы передачи понятий власти, авторитета и легитимности на казахский язык и их влияние на понятийную эквивалентность.	The ways the concepts of power, authority and legitimacy are rendered into Kazakh, and their effect on conceptual equivalence.
Material	«Sociological Theory» (Ritzer, Stepnisky) және «Essentials of Sociology» (Brinkerhoff, Weitz, Ortega) оқулықтарының ағылшынша түпнұсқалары мен қазақша аудармаларынан алынған N сәйкес үзінді.	Англоязычные оригиналы и казахские переводы учебников «Sociological Theory» и «Essentials of Sociology»; N параллельных фрагментов.	The English originals and Kazakh editions of the two textbooks; N aligned passages (fixed after the pilot).
Unit of analysis	Бір сәйкестендірілген түпнұсқа–аударма үзіндісі.	Одна пара сопоставленных фрагментов оригинала и перевода.	One aligned source–target segment.
Title (from the subject)	Билік, өкілеттік және легитимділік ұғымдарының ағылшын тілінен қазақ тіліне берілуі (әлеуметтану оқулықтары негізінде).	Передача понятий власти, авторитета и легитимности с английского языка на казахский (на материале учебников социологии).	Rendering the concepts of power, authority and legitimacy from English into Kazakh (based on sociology textbooks).

Sources for the definitions: university methodology manuals on dissertation writing (e.g. Tomsk Polytechnic University guide; HSE postgraduate guidelines) and translation-studies course materials. Your council’s requirements take priority.

Keep four levels separate

Level	Example
Material	Identified English and Kazakh editions of Sociological Theory (Ritzer & Stepnisky) and Essentials of Sociology (Brinkerhoff, Weitz & Ortega).
Object	The translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh (translated sociological textbook discourse).
Subject	A specific aspect: e.g. the ways a chosen concept group is rendered and their effect on equivalence.
Methods	Target-text corpus analysis, discourse analysis, aligned contrastive semantic analysis, statistics.

The vocabulary as a table

Term	Meaning in a textbook-translation study
Object / Нысан / Объект	The process or phenomenon studied: the translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh.
Subject / Пән / Предмет	The aspect of that translation you study: how one concept group is rendered and how this affects its definitions, boundaries and relations.
Problem / Мәселе / Проблема	The unresolved empirical question of whether and how selected scientific meanings change in translation.
Aim / Мақсат / Цель	Identify, explain, measure and validate translation–semantic patterns.
Material / Материал	Four exact book editions and the verified aligned passage pairs selected from them.
Unit of analysis / Талдау бірлігі	One aligned source–target segment that you code.
Method / Әдіс / Метод	Alignment + comparison + coding + concept-feature analysis + validation.
Scientific novelty / Ғылыми жаңалық	New verifiable findings or a rigorously justified operational contribution.
Practical value / Практикалық маңызы	A reproducible audit checklist for Kazakh academic textbook translation and terminology review.

What novelty is, and what it is not

Not novelty

“I was the first to identify translation transformations.” Transformations are already known; existing studies have done that. Identification alone is not novelty.

Defensible novelty

A corpus-grounded, explicitly coded method for testing whether EN→KK renderings preserve a specified conceptual model, alongside the procedures used. Or: a replicated, auditable typology of context-conditioned semantic shifts, with corpus evidence and criteria for evaluating preservation of complex concepts.

Novelty needs new criteria, data, results or explanation. Ways to build it:

Create a new well-defined combination of form codes and meaning codes, and justify each category with theory and data.
Compare the selected concept cluster across two textbook pairs, without generalising to all translators or all of sociology.
Show reliability: documented coding rules plus a second coder on a subset.
Give practical guidance for translators and editors only after analysing verified examples.
Explain how your criteria build on ISO terminology standards, concept-system approaches and translation-quality literature.

CautionNovelty stays a proposal until a systematic literature review (Kazakhstani and international) shows what earlier scholarship already did. A model is novel only after comparison with published prior approaches.

Formulas and templates

Fill-in-the-blank structures for every part of your design, and the calculations you will need.

In this chapter you will learn

The topic formula and the scope formula.
Templates for problem, object, subject, aim, questions and hypotheses.
The share formula, the rate formula and the relevance-score formula.

Topic and scope

Topic formula (Lecture 1) Kazakhstan context + specific genre + language pair + one concept group + a testable translation problem Example: Kazakh sociology textbook (genre) + English → Kazakh (pair) + power and authority concepts (group) + explicitation vs conceptual precision (problem).

Scope formula field + genre + language pair + concept group + material boundary «Әлеуметтік саладағы мәтіндердің аудармасы» (“translation of social-sphere texts”) is too broad. First fix: сала + жанр + тіл жұбы + ұғымдар тобы + материал.

A workable material exact editions + chapters/passage types + inclusion rule + volume (N units) This bounds your material. The object stays a process or phenomenon; the subject narrows it to one aspect. “All English–Kazakh academic communication” is too vague even as an object; “every semantic and cultural problem” is not a subject.

Problem templates

Problem template A: form kept, meaning changed A [unit] may keep its [surface form] while its [meaning property] changes; whether, where and how often this happens in [material] has not been established from evidence. Example (EN): “A translation may preserve a sociological term as a lexical item while changing its defining features or the relations connecting it to neighbouring concepts. The incidence, nature and translation procedures associated with such model-level shifts remain to be empirically established in the selected textbook pairs.”

Problem template B: tension between two goals When does [procedure that helps goal 1] keep [goal 2], and when does it [narrow / broaden / add evaluation to] it? Example (Lecture 1): «Ұғымды түсінікті ету үшін қосылған түсіндірме қай кезде бастапқы анықтаманы сақтайды, ал қай кезде оны тарылтады, кеңейтеді немесе бағалау қосады?» This tests the relationship between clarity and conceptual accuracy.

Problem template C: undocumented pattern How [phenomenon] is constructed in [target texts], and how far it corresponds to [source property 1, 2, 3], has not been studied systematically with [method]. Example (KK): «Қазақ тіліне аударылған әлеуметтану оқулықтарында ғылыми ұғымдардың қалай дискурстық тұрғыдан құрылатыны және олардың ағылшын түпнұсқаларындағы мағыналық ауқым, эпистемикалық модальділік, агенттік пен себеп-салдарлық байланыстарға қаншалықты сәйкес келетіні жүйелі корпустық тәсілмен жеткілікті зерттелген-зерттелмегенін анықтау қажет».

Object, subject, material, aim templates

Object: a process or phenomenon EN: The [type of translation] of [type of text / discourse] from [L1] into [L2]. KK: [L1] тіліндегі [мәтін түрі] [L2] тіліне аударылуы. / [L1]–[L2] аудармасындағы [дискурс түрі]. RU: Перевод [тип текстов] с [L1] на [L2]. / [L1]–[L2] перевод [тип дискурса]. Subject: one aspect of that object, from your angle EN: The [ways of rendering / features / regularities / effect] of [specific concepts or units] in terms of [your criterion: equivalence, modality, consistency…]. KK: [нақты ұғымдар/бірліктер] [берілу тәсілдері / ерекшеліктері / заңдылықтары] және олардың [критерий]-ға әсері. RU: [способы передачи / особенности / закономерности] [конкретных понятий/единиц] и их влияние на [критерий]. Material: the data [exact editions of original and translation] + [chapters / passage types] + [N aligned units, fixed after the pilot] Aim To [identify / compare / test / describe] [procedures] in [cluster] and [evaluate / report] [evidence-based patterns of X].

Question and hypothesis templates

Research questions: one of each kind Which / how often? → Which [procedures] occur in [units], and how frequently? Co-occurrence → Which [procedures] co-occur with retained or altered [features]? Distinctions → When the source distinguishes [A, B, C], does the translation keep the distinctions? Consistency → How consistently are [relations] preserved across [passages / books]? Explanation → Which patterns can be explained by [target conventions / terminology / norms], and what alternatives remain?

Hypothesis template In [corpus], [procedure X] is more frequently associated with [outcome Y] than [procedure Z], in [category of units]. H0: no detectable difference in [outcome] between [compared procedures] in the sampled cases. H1: a difference exists. Add: what evidence would confirm it, and what makes the test infeasible (too few cases).

Calculations

Procedure share Share (%) = (eligible instances with procedure X ÷ all comparable eligible instances) × 100 Example: 300 of 1,200 eligible units coded as explicitation = 25% of eligible coded instances, not 25% of all words. If units can carry several codes, percentages may add up to more than 100%: report multi-code frequencies or define one exclusive primary code.

Rate within a category Rate = (cases with the change in category ÷ all eligible cases in that category) × 100 Example: 36 omitted hedges ÷ 120 eligible hedges in explanatory passages = 30%; 8 ÷ 80 in definitions = 10%; difference = 20 percentage points.

Relevance score for a theory or concept (Lecture 3) Score = 20 × (0.40 × D + 0.30 × O + 0.20 × E + 0.10 × F) Each criterion is rated 0–5: D direct alignment with topic (40%), O operationalisable with your material (30%), E explains semantic consequences (20%), F feasibility (10%). Round to a whole percent. Thresholds: 90–100 essential; 75–89 strong; 55–74 supporting; below 55 peripheral. Example: D=5, O=5, E=4, F=5 → 20 × (2.0+1.5+0.8+0.5) = 96%.

Agreement between coders Raw agreement = matching codes ÷ all double-coded units; plus Cohen’s κ for mutually exclusive categories Multi-label coding may need a different agreement measure. Always report your decision rules.

Fit scale 1–5 (Lecture 2) 5 = directly testable in aligned passages · 4 = strong supporting framework · 3 = useful secondary dimension · 2 = background or a different project · 1 = mainly a teaching illustration These are research-fit judgements, not probabilities or measurements.

How to create your own research problem

A step-by-step method from a vague interest to a defensible, frozen design.

In this chapter you will learn

A 12-step algorithm from interest to pilot.
The narrowing ladder: from broad to testable.
A full worked example.
How to transfer any lecture example into a scientific-text question.

The algorithm

Name the phenomenon you noticedWrite one sentence: “In translated sociology textbooks, X seems to happen.” Example: “Hedges like ‘may’ seem to disappear.” This is a hunch, not a fact yet.
Name the levelIs it lexical (a term), propositional (the claim and its certainty), conceptual-model (definitions and relations), discourse (stance, cohesion) or cultural (realia, connotation)? Pick one main level (Chapter 14).
Fix the materialExact source editions and their Kazakh editions: authors, translators, year, publisher, ISBN. Check they really correspond, section by section.
Choose one concept cluster or one marker typeA small, coherent set: power–authority–legitimacy; deviance–crime–sanction; status–role–mobility; or a marker type such as epistemic modals. Not “all sociology terms”.
Write the problem with a templateUse Chapter 17. Make sure it is an open empirical question, not an accusation (“translators don’t know the models”).
Name object, subject and materialObject = the process or phenomenon (e.g. the translation of English sociology textbooks into Kazakh). Subject = the one aspect you study inside it (e.g. how a concept group is rendered and how this affects equivalence). Material = the editions and passages. Run the five tests in Chapter 16.
Write 2–5 research questionsInclude at least one “which/how often”, one “what effect on meaning”, and one “what explains it” question.
Turn hunches into hypothesesEach with the evidence needed and an H0. Pre-register your operational rules before you look at results.
Choose your theory core and methodSmall core: transformations + terminology + componential semantics + concept relations + modality + quality assessment. Others only as context (Chapter 20).
Run a feasibility pilotSearch for the cluster in both books; align available complete definitions and nearby examples. If evidence is too sparse, switch to the pre-declared backup cluster and record why.
Test your codingCode 10–15 pairs with your codebook; ask a second coder to code part of them independently; refine the categories.
Freeze the designKeep the approved title; fix the subject and material only after the pilot. Write the problem, object, subject, aim, questions and hypotheses in Kazakh, Russian and English.

The narrowing ladder

Each step down is more testable. Stop when you can name the exact passages and the exact property.

Level	Example	Testable?
Too broad	Translation of social-sphere texts.	No
Still broad	Translation of sociology textbooks into Kazakh.	No
Better	English → Kazakh translation of two named sociology textbooks: strategies and semantic shifts.	Partly
Good	Power and authority concepts in a Kazakh translated sociology textbook: explicitation and conceptual accuracy.	Yes
Best (frozen after pilot)	Matched EN–KK definitions and explanations of power, authority and legitimacy in the verified editions of Sociological Theory and Essentials of Sociology: procedures and retention of defining features and relations.	Yes, with denominators

Worked example

From a hunch to a design

Hunch: “Kazakh translations make sociology sound more certain than the English.”

Level: propositional (epistemic modality).

Object: the translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh.

Subject: changes in epistemic modality (the degree of certainty of scientific claims) in translation, and the procedures that cause them.

Material: aligned English–Kazakh statements containing hedges, probability markers and categorical claims in the inequality chapters of the verified editions.

Problem: scientific certainty may be increased or decreased in translation even when terms stay constant; the extent and context of this in the selected texts is not established.

RQ: In which text functions (definition, explanation, example) are modal markers omitted or strengthened, and how often?

H1: epistemic stance shifts cluster in explanatory rather than definitional passages. H0: no difference.

Method: classify modality strength, negation and quantifiers; compare source/target propositions; count shifts with denominators; read each case in full context.

Limit: small differences may be grammatical conventions, not real claim changes. Check whether certainty is expressed elsewhere in the Kazakh sentence.

Transfer any lecture example into your field

The teacher’s examples come from culture, literature, politics and medicine. The trick is to keep the analytical question and move it into scientific Kazakh discourse.

Lecture example	Underlying challenge	Scientific-text version
Қансонар	A compact expression contains several contextual features.	Do translated scientific labels keep key defining features?
Қара шаңырақ	Literal home vs lineage, inheritance, continuity.	Are family and inheritance categories presented faithfully?
Жеңге / қайын іні	Social roles can be misread without local conventions.	Are role, status, authority and kinship distinctions kept?
«Жілік шағып, майын ішу»	Criticism can be translated too strongly or too weakly.	Are moral assessments and evaluations correctly attributed?
Balzac and readers	Reader values differ from the author’s presentation.	Does the Kazakh explanation keep the sociologist’s analytical stance?
«Қосу»	An ordinary word develops a technical sense.	Does a familiar Kazakh word carry a stable scholarly definition?
Scientific “may”	Possibility can be translated as certainty.	Are hedging, causation and propositions preserved?
Foreignisation / explicitation	A procedure is not automatically good or bad.	Which procedures co-occur with accurate definitions and relations?
Шолпан marriage sentence	Implicit meaning and agency.	Does the translation add an agent, cause or role the source does not state?
Freelancer simplification	Simplifying may delete qualifications.	Is simplification associated with lost hedges or concept-scope loss?
Drug leaflet	Precision of dosage, warnings, probability.	Precision of modality, negation, conditions and causality.
Abai in other languages	What image does the translation build on its own?	What “sociological knowledge” does the Kazakh textbook build before you align it with English?

Transferable question for sociology textbooks

Қазақша аудармада шетелдік әлеуметтік-мәдени ұғымдар қандай дискурстық құралдармен ұсынылады және қай жағдайда түсіндіру бастапқы теориялық мағынаны тарылтады, кеңейтеді немесе бағалау реңкін өзгертеді?

The problem bank

Every research problem, direction, question and hypothesis stated in the three lecture notes, in one place.

How to use the bank

Browse, pick one or two that interest you, then run them through the algorithm in Chapter 18. All problems here are proposals: their novelty and the existence of the problem in real material are not yet proven.

A. The main dissertation design

Working title (keep it unchanged for now) Translation Strategies and Transformations in English-to-Kazakh Sociology Textbook Translation: Equivalence and Semantic Shifts (based on the English originals and Kazakh translations of Sociological Theory by Ritzer & Stepnisky and Essentials of Sociology by Brinkerhoff, Weitz & Ortega).
Әлеуметтану оқулықтарын ағылшын тілінен қазақ тіліне аударудағы стратегиялар мен трансформациялар: баламалылық және семантикалық өзгерістер.

Version 1: power–authority–legitimacy

Element	Narrow, testable wording
Object / Объект / Нысан	The translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh (scientific-educational sociological discourse in English–Kazakh translation).
Subject / Предмет / Пән	The ways the concepts of power, authority and legitimacy are rendered into Kazakh, and their effect on the concepts’ defining features, boundaries and mutual relations (conceptual equivalence).
Problem / Проблема / Мәселе	A sociological term may be translated linguistically while its role in the original scientific concept model is weakened or changed. Whether, where and how this happens in the two translation pairs must be established from evidence.
Aim / Цель / Мақсат	Identify and compare translation procedures in the cluster, test retention of source definitions and relationships, and report evidence-based patterns of equivalence or divergence.
Material / Материал	Aligned English–Kazakh definitions and explanatory passages on power, authority and legitimacy from the verified original and Kazakh editions of Sociological Theory and Essentials of Sociology: headings, definitions, model explanations and connected examples, each with exact pages. Only pairs where the edition match is verified.
Proposed contribution	A small, replicable concept-model fidelity audit combining a term-level procedure code with independent criteria for preserving definitions and conceptual relations.

Қазақша. Нысан: ағылшын тіліндегі әлеуметтану оқулықтарының қазақ тіліне аударылуы. Пән: билік, өкілеттік және легитимділік ұғымдарын қазақ тіліне беру тәсілдері және олардың ұғымдардың анықтамалық белгілеріне, мағыналық шекараларына және өзара байланыстарына әсері. Материал: «Sociological Theory» және «Essentials of Sociology» оқулықтарының ағылшынша түпнұсқалары мен қазақша аудармаларындағы осы ұғымдарды анықтайтын және түсіндіретін сәйкес үзінділер.

Русский. Объект: перевод англоязычных учебников социологии на казахский язык. Предмет: способы передачи понятий «власть — авторитет — легитимность» на казахский язык и их влияние на дефиниционные признаки, границы и связи этих понятий. Материал: параллельные фрагменты оригиналов и казахских переводов учебников «Sociological Theory» и «Essentials of Sociology», раскрывающие эти понятия.

Русский, проблема: «В казахских переводах научных текстов может сохраняться внешняя терминологическая форма, но нарушаться семантическая модель исходного научного знания: различия между понятиями, их дефиниционные признаки и отношения. На материале двух конкретных пар учебников не установлено, какие переводческие решения связаны с сохранением или изменением этой модели».

Қазақша, мәселе: «Ғылыми мәтінді аударғанда терминнің сыртқы баламасы сақталғанымен, түпнұсқадағы ұғымның анықтамасы мен басқа ұғымдармен байланысы өзгеруі мүмкін. Таңдалған екі оқулықтың ағылшынша-қазақша мәтін жұптарында бұл құбылыстың сипаты мен жиілігі нақты дәлелмен зерттелуі тиіс».

Critical feasibility conditionThe exact shared passages, authorship, publishers and edition histories have not been checked against the actual books. This is a precise working proposal, not a claim that both translations contain the same chapters or wording. Pick another single cluster if the pilot finds too little overlap.

Version 2: the broad discourse design (Lecture 3)

Element	Wording
Зерттеу нысаны / Object	Ағылшын тілінен қазақ тіліне аударылған әлеуметтану оқулықтарының ғылыми-академиялық дискурсы және ондағы ұғымдық мазмұнның берілу ерекшеліктері. (Shorter variant: …оқулықтарының мәтіндері және олардағы ғылыми-ұғымдық мазмұнның берілу ерекшеліктері.)
Зерттеу пәні / Subject	Әлеуметтанулық ұғымдарды жеткізудегі аудармашылық бағдарлар мен трансформациялардың мәтіндік көріністері, таралу заңдылықтары және олардың семантикалық баламалылыққа қатысы. (Variant: …түрлері, олардың қолданылу заңдылықтары және ұғымдық баламалылық пен семантикалық өзгерістерге қатысы.)
Негізгі сұрақ / Main question	KK: Қазақша әлеуметтану оқулықтарының дискурсында қандай тұрақты тілдік-ұғымдық ерекшеліктер байқалады және оларды ағылшын түпнұсқаларымен салыстырғанда аудармашылық бағдарлар мен трансформациялар қандай семантикалық нәтижелермен байланысты? EN: Which recurrent conceptual and discursive features characterise Kazakh sociology textbook translations, and how are their source–target transformation patterns associated with semantic equivalence and shifts?
Overarching question	EN: How do recurring translation procedures in English-to-Kazakh sociology textbooks relate to the preservation and transformation of sociological concepts and academic-discourse meaning? KK: Әлеуметтану оқулықтарын ағылшын тілінен қазақ тіліне аударуда қайталанатын аудармашылық тәсілдер әлеуметтанулық ұғымдар мен ғылыми дискурстың мағынасын сақтау және өзгерту ерекшеліктерімен қалай байланысты?
Primary doctoral claim	Within the English–Kazakh parallel corpus, identifiable translation procedures may be systematically associated with changes in conceptual scope, epistemic modality, causality, agency and evaluative stance. The research will determine the strength and limits of these associations.

NoticeIn this version the second half of the object («…және ондағы ұғымдық мазмұнның берілу ерекшеліктері») already describes an aspect, which belongs to the subject. A cleaner object: «Ағылшын тілінен қазақ тіліне аударылған әлеуметтану оқулықтарының ғылыми-академиялық дискурсы». Version 2 is broader than Version 1: its subject covers all concepts, so the material needs a strict sampling rule (e.g. all marked definitions plus a systematic sample of expository paragraphs per chapter). Lecture 2 recommends piloting a narrow cluster first.

B. Lecture 1 directions (single textbook study)

Direction	Topic	Focus
Publicistic direction	«Қазақстанға арналған қазақша аударма медиамәтіндерде әлеуметтік теңсіздік ұғымының түсіндірілуі»	Explicitation plus evaluation and framing.

Main working topic pattern (Lecture 1) Қазақстандағы қазақша әлеуметтану оқулығында [таңдалған ұғымдар тобының] берілуі: экспликация және ұғымдық дәлдік. Language limit: English → Kazakh. Material: the chapters of one textbook where your concept group is defined, compared with the corresponding English edition. Add the book title once the edition is fixed.

Element	Concrete limit
Object (Нысан)	The translation of an English-language sociology textbook into Kazakh for teaching in Kazakhstan. (The lecture notes named the textbook itself here; by the model in Chapter 16, the textbook is the material.)
Subject (Пән)	Ways of explicitating selected concepts and preserving their conceptual features.
Material	A Kazakh-translated sociology textbook recommended for use in Kazakhstan, with its English source edition.
Starting term list	For example: social inequality, social mobility, social class, status, social exclusion, power, authority. Check they appear in the actual chapters.
Main questions	Which techniques are used? Which features are kept? Is a term consistent across contexts?
Kazakhstan component	Kazakh term variants; local teaching use; publishing and education context.

Working hypothesis: explicitation in a first definition may open up a concept, but not every addition is correct. Test this with the corpus; test the “understanding” part with reader data.

The state component: adding “Kazakhstan” to the title is not enough. If you study a specific state programme, include its documents and selection criteria. You do not need to study all of language policy.

Candidate material: on the OpenU platform, Brinkerhoff, Weitz and Ortega’s «Әлеуметтану негіздері» appears as Kazakh study material with its translators named. Before building a corpus, check the Kazakh edition’s title page, which English edition it was translated from, the direction of translation, the chapters and pages. Do not take the English edition year in a catalogue as the Kazakh book’s year. The catalogue card helps find material; it does not evaluate the translations.

Text type	Main focus in translation
Sociology textbook	Scientific-educational genre: concept definitions, consistent terms, examples students understand.
Scientific article in sociology	Method, argument, data, the exact theoretical meaning of a term.
Publicistic article on a social problem	Public evaluation, author’s position, persuasion, imagery.
Popular-science text	Explaining complex knowledge to non-specialists; the limits of simplification.

A sociology textbook is usually scientific-educational, not publicistic. If your teacher meant publicistic texts, change the material and redefine the main problem.

C. Twelve alternative problems (Lecture 2)

Each refers to verified English–Kazakh passage pairs from the named textbooks, not to all scientific translation in Kazakhstan.

Direction (subject focus)	Material to collect	Possible problem	Fit
A. Conceptual model fidelity	Aligned definitions of one chosen concept cluster	Definitions or conceptual links may change despite lexical matching	5/5
B. Power / authority / legitimacy	Passages defining and contrasting the three	Theoretical categories may become indistinguishable	5/5
C. Term consistency	Repeated occurrences of a small fixed term list	Variant Kazakh terms may create ambiguity	5/5
D. Epistemic modality	Parallel “may”, “likely”, “generally”, “necessary” claims	Scientific certainty may be increased or decreased	5/5
E. Deviance vs crime vs sanction	Definitions and examples of these categories	Category boundaries and moral judgements may shift	5/5
F. Cause vs correlation	Claims about determinants and outcomes	Correlation, causality and conditions may be confused	5/5
G. Term formation	Borrowings, calques and Kazakh-created terms	Competing designations may differ in precision	4/5
H. Socially sensitive concepts	Definitions of gender, ethnicity, race, identity	Ideological or cultural connotations may change	4/5
I. Conceptual metaphors	Confirmed metaphors in scientific explanation	A changed image may rebuild the conceptual frame	4/5
J. Definitions / explicit information	Glossary entries, definitions, adjacent explanation	Additions or omissions may change scientific scope	5/5
K. Discourse architecture	Headings, diagrams, topic sentences, summaries	Restructuring may change the teaching logic	4/5
L. Student comprehension	Translated definitions tested with Kazakh students	Reader interpretations may diverge from the original concepts	3/5

Why D is attractive: modality has clear observable markers (may, might, generally, necessarily), so overstatement is easy to detect. Why E fits the lectures: the teacher kept illustrating moral/social judgement and intercultural misreading. Why A is strongest for theory: it unites terminology with the science behind the words.

The three strongest designs, explained

	Option A: semantic-conceptual models	Option D: epistemic modality	Option E: social category boundaries
Material	Parallel definitions of one concept cluster (e.g. power, authority, legitimacy).	Aligned statements with hedges, probability and categorical claims.	Passages defining deviance, crime, norms, sanctions, social roles.
Problem	Does the translation keep defining features and relationships?	Do transformations change certainty or causal commitment?	Are boundaries between descriptive categories and moral/legal judgement kept?
Method	Compare source/target concept diagrams; code procedures independently; check disputed relations with a sociologist.	Classify modality strength, negation, quantifiers; compare propositions; count shifts.	Compare definitions and examples; code generalisation/specification and evaluation; review against theory.
Main limit	Needs enough matched passages in both texts.	Small differences may be grammatical conventions, not real claim changes.	Do not impose everyday Kazakh moral meanings on technical terms.

Recommendation from the notesPilot A and D on a small set of real matched passages. Choose one primary subject; modality can be a secondary category inside A if it meaningfully affects the scientific model.

D. Research questions from the notes

Power–authority–legitimacy set

RQ1: Which observable translation procedures occur in the verified passage pairs, and how often?
RQ2: Which procedures co-occur with retained or altered defining features?
RQ3: When the source distinguishes power, authority and legitimacy, does the Kazakh translation keep the distinctions?
RQ4: How consistently are the relations between the concepts kept across passages in the two text pairs?
RQ-A: How are the definition and distinctions of power, authority and legitimacy expressed in the English–Kazakh passage pairs?
RQ-B: Which observed procedures are associated with retention or alteration of defining features and relations?

Corpus-first set (Lecture 3)

RQ1: Which lexical, terminological and discourse patterns characterise the Kazakh translated textbooks when studied on their own?
RQ2: Which procedures recur in aligned segments, and how does their distribution vary across definitions, arguments and examples?
RQ3: Which procedures are associated with narrowing, broadening, strengthening, weakening or other meaning changes?
RQ4: Which patterns can be explained by target-language conventions, domain terminology and translation norms, and what alternatives remain?
RQ5 (optional): Do selected translation solutions affect comprehension among Kazakh-speaking sociology students?
RQ-A (core): In which scientific-text functions is simplification associated with omitted epistemic qualification, changed causal attribution or concept-scope loss?
RQ-B (optional validation): Do alternative Kazakh renderings of difficult concepts produce different comprehension scores in a controlled student task?

E. Hypotheses from the notes

Hypothesis	Evidence needed
Local generalisation and omission co-occur more often with loss of defining features than established disciplinary equivalents do.	Coded procedures and feature status for all eligible units.
Modal or quantifier transformations can produce scientific propositional shifts even when technical terms stay constant.	Aligned propositions with modality coding.
Some conceptual relation changes are visible only when comparing adjacent definitions or diagrams, not isolated term pairs.	Paragraph-level context windows.
Epistemic stance shifts cluster in explanatory rather than definitional passages.	Comparable numbers of eligible expressions; frequencies split by passage type; contextual coding.
Some approximate/generic equivalents are associated with concept-scope loss.	Expert-defined term domains; matched equivalents; semantic ratings.
Some target-text simplification corresponds to differences in conceptual precision.	Target-side complexity indicators plus aligned source and semantic control.
Terminological consistency differs between the two textbook translations.	Comparable key concept sets, normalised by occurrences and genre.
For culture-bound examples, borrowing plus a short explanation is more often associated with keeping culturally defining information than an unglossed generic substitute.	Enough examples in the corpus; otherwise label the test infeasible. H0: no detectable difference. Association is not causation, because translators choose procedures for different source difficulties.

Pre-register operational rules. Do not treat an observed correlation as proof that a procedure caused an error.

F. The teacher’s sample problems, from other fields

These are research-question examples, not findings about real translations. Use them as models or as topics for a different project.

Sample problem	Evidence and method	Transfer to a textbook PhD
Abai in other languages. Is the Abai built in English, Russian or Turkish texts recognisable as Abai in Kazakh?	First analyse the translations as independent target-language corpora: imagery, philosophical concepts, discourse, reception. Then compare with the Kazakh original.	76%: method analogy
Shakespeare in Kazakh culture. Do translations bring new forms and concepts, or reshape existing ones?	Translations + later Kazakh literary/theatre corpora + publication and reception history. Separate textual transfer from proven social influence.	61%: context analogy
Afghan ideological text. How can a translator convey values they reject without distorting them?	Compare evaluative vocabulary, stance, agency, omissions, cultural explanations. Motives need documents or process evidence.	79%: ideological meanings
«Шолпан Сәрсенбайға шыққан жылы». Is “married” justified? Who initiated it?	Conventional construction + wider context. “Married” may be licensed; the initiator cannot be inferred.	86%: implicit meaning, agency
Drug instructions in Kazakh. Are dosage, warnings, prohibitions and probability accurate and understandable?	Match the same approved edition; expert medical check; patient comprehension tests; risk classification.	67%: precision metrics
Freelancer simplification. Does simplifying keep facts or delete qualifications? Is it deliberate?	Code complexity and semantic loss; drafts, instructions or interviews if claiming intent.	93%: directly testable
Corporate policy translations. Are rights, exclusions, liabilities and warnings consistent?	Compare dated equivalent documents; code omissions, legal conditions, ambiguity.	65%: claim strength
Does the translator understand? Does the reader?	Translator: think-aloud, interview, revision traces. Reader: comprehension tests.	89%: reader testing
Equivalent-selection “law”. Why was a specific Kazakh term chosen?	Sociological definitions, bilingual options, target corpus usage, co-text, expert check; compare across chapters.	98%: core
Medical/pharmaceutical translation, history of norms then vs now, translation policy	Need their own corpora: approved leaflets; a historical comparison corpus; policy documents.	Different projects

G. Lecture claims that are research problems in disguise

Some statements made in class are not facts but questions waiting for data. Each can become a project of its own.

“In the 20th century, translation stopped during war and famine”

Cannot be written as fact for a whole century and every region. Specify years, place, language pair and genre. “Stopped completely”, “decreased” and “no publication data found” are three different claims.

Plan: compare national bibliographies, publishers’ catalogues, periodicals and archives for the period; record the number of translations per year, genre, language and print run; take gaps in the bibliography into account.

“Young people find American literature more interesting”

“Sells more”, “is read more”, “is liked”, “has prestige” and “is more important than national literature” are different measures. Without age range, reading language, genre and access, no conclusion is possible.

Data: surveys, library loan statistics, sales, reading diaries, interviews. Online reviews alone do not represent all Kazakhstani youth. Separate genre appeal from translation quality.

“If the meaning is bad, should we not translate it at all?”

Separate three cases: (1) the source has a factual error; (2) the author offers a controversial view; (3) the translator distorted correct meaning. (1): check the fact, flag it to the editor, add an appropriate note. (2): render the author’s view accurately; keep criticism separate from translation. (3): correct the translation. Decisions about choosing or publishing a text depend on purpose and editorial conditions.

How to state a provable flawInstead of “the translation is bad”, write: “Because feature X of concept A was lost, its difference from concept B became blurred.”

Choosing: which problem and theory fit you best

Fit ratings for every lecture concept, theory and sample problem, so you can see where to spend your effort.

How to read the ratings

Every score is a planning judgement for a two-textbook EN→KK dissertation. It is not an empirical result, not a citation metric and not a claim that a theory is “96% correct”. A low score never means a scholar is unimportant; it means the theory is indirect for this corpus, these questions and this data. A low-scoring topic may become central if you change the dissertation to reception studies, medical translation, translator cognition or translation policy. Use the formula in Chapter 17 to score your own options.

All 41 lecture concepts, ranked

Coverage: 41 concepts. Essential 16, strong 7, supporting 7, peripheral 11.

Concept	Fit	What it does in the PhD
Conceptual equivalence and semantic shifts outcome	100% essential	Code concept scope, modality, agency, causality and definitions.
Corpus-based translation studies (Baker) method	100% essential	Build a searchable Kazakh textbook corpus before aligning with English.
Parallel corpus and contrastive linguistics method	100% essential	Align source–target passages and test English–Kazakh correspondences.
Quantitative + qualitative analysis method	100% essential	Calculate frequencies and interpret changes in full context.
Scientific / sociology textbook discourse method	100% essential	Study academic definitions, exposition, stance and conceptual cohesion.
Target-text-first descriptive analysis (Toury) method	100% essential	Analyse Kazakh discourse on its own; compare with the original later.
Hatim & Mason: discourse / communicative translation theory	98% essential	Assess cohesion, author stance, information structure and function.
Komissarov / Barkhudarov: transformations theory	98% essential	Classify additions, omissions, replacements, grammatical shifts.
Komissarov: equivalence levels theory	98% essential	Evaluate levels of correspondence using contextual evidence.
Verification and translation quality assessment method	98% essential	Check meaning against author definitions, glossary, experts.
Retsker: regular correspondences theory	96% essential	Examine established vs context-dependent terminology choices.
Simplification: translated-language tendency phenomenon	96% essential	Test whether complexity reduction correlates with conceptual loss.
Translation norms (Toury) theory	92% essential	Infer recurring target-language preferences without assuming intention.
Translation regularities (заңдылықтар) outcome	92% essential	Test distributions by section, construction and theoretical context.
Context and extralinguistic knowledge lens	90% essential	Check theoretical definitions and sociological background.
Strategies, tactics and procedures theory	90% essential	Separate overall goal, local solution and observed operation.
Approximation / approximate equivalents phenomenon	88% strong	Find cases where near-equivalents narrow or broaden concepts.
Explicitation, modulation, generalisation phenomenon	88% strong	Code specific procedures and their semantic effects.
Translation universals hypotheses theory	88% strong	Test explicitation, normalisation and simplification cautiously.
Reader comprehensibility / validation method	84% strong	Use small student comprehension tests if resources allow.
Transposition (grammatical) phenomenon	84% strong	Track noun/verb and passive/active changes; test agency shifts.
Domestication / foreignisation lens	80% strong	Examine how culture-bound concepts are explained or kept.
Ideological / sociocultural concepts lens	78% strong	Audit culturally marked concepts, not motives.
Hermeneutics: understanding / interpretation theory	74% supporting	Discuss interpretive demands of scientific concepts.
Information barriers / subject knowledge gaps lens	74% supporting	Classify cultural and domain-specific information demands.
Galeeva: activity-based translation theory process	64% supporting	Frame interpretation; process claims need translator data.
Cultural respect / intercultural competence lens	62% supporting	Avoid forced Kazakh analogies in conceptual discussion.
Sociocultural universals lens	62% supporting	Distinguish shared institutions from culture-specific forms.
Lefevere: rewriting, ideology, patronage context	60% supporting	Check editorial policy where documents exist.
Translation policy / institutional norms context	60% supporting	Investigate editions, review protocol, glossary policies if accessible.
Even-Zohar: polysystem / cultural transfer context	54% peripheral	Situate translated textbooks in Kazakh academic knowledge systems.
Kushnina: harmonisation theory process	54% peripheral	Possible interpretive lens; hard to measure with a corpus alone.
Leontiev: activity / action / operation process	46% peripheral	Useful with interviews/think-aloud, not text alone.
Peirce: semiotics theory	46% peripheral	Optional analysis of scientific terms as signs and concepts.
History of translation norms: then vs now context	42% peripheral	Needs a historical comparison corpus, outside this design.
Conscious vs unconscious translation decisions process	36% peripheral	Cannot be inferred from the final product alone.
Medical / pharmaceutical translation example	36% peripheral	Shows the stakes of semantic shifts; not this corpus.
Corporate policy / consumer-language distortion example	34% peripheral	Relevant to another project.
Abai / Shakespeare translation reception example	28% peripheral	Excellent method analogy, not part of current data.
Traduction / Übersetzung labels terminology	28% peripheral	Terminological background, not analytical theory.
“Sublimation” / uncertain “Perse” reference uncertain	2% peripheral	Verify the lecture term before citing any theorist.

Lecture concepts on a 1–5 scale, by group

The second set of notes rated the same material on a 1–5 scale (5 = directly testable in aligned passages; 1 = mainly a teaching illustration).

Communication and cognition

Concept	Fit	How to use it
Translation as secondary communication	3/5	Academic knowledge moves from the author to Kazakh readers.
Tool / channel / mediator	2/5	A framing concept, not the main measurement.
Profession / art / science	1/5	Historical and introductory background.
Intellectual and mental activity	1/5	Translator cognition cannot be read from the finished book.
Functions of words in text	5/5	Check whether a term defines, compares, classifies or evaluates.
Linguistic environment and context	5/5	Establish the precise academic sense from surrounding text.
Cognitive dissonance	1/5	Not the same as conceptual mismatch; needs psychological evidence.

Language, culture, social categories

Concept	Fit	How to use it
Sociocultural aspects	4/5	Context for culturally sensitive social terms.
Culture-oriented translation	3/5	Treatment of culture-specific textbook examples.
Realia	2/5	Only if authentic culture-specific examples occur.
Lacuna	4/5	No straightforward one-to-one terminological counterpart.
Cultureme	2/5	Cultural meaning; define the school of usage.
Culturonym	1/5	Peripheral.
National colour	2/5	Local examples, not abstract concepts.
Naturfacts and artefacts	1/5	Mainly teaching examples.
Sociolect and idiolect	3/5	Academic register and author-specific terminology.
Stereotypes and clichés	4/5	Important when textbooks analyse groups and norms.

Kazakh examples

Example	Fit	What it models
Қансонар	1/5	Semantic components and explicitation.
Қымыз / шұбат	1/5	Borrowing and culture-specific labels.
Қара шаңырақ	3/5	Kinship, heritage, family structure.
Жеңге / қайын іні	3/5	Social roles, status, pragmatic misunderstanding.
Үзеңгісін көтеру	1/5	Social gesture, service, figurative reading.
Тең теңімен, тезек қабымен	2/5	Social matching; phraseological equivalence.
Жұмыртқадан жүн қырыққан	1/5	Idiomatic/evaluative meaning.
When hens grow teeth	1/5	Idiomatic pragmatic equivalence.
Livestock condition vocabulary	1/5	Folk taxonomies vs scientific terminology.
Snow and walrus vocabulary	1/5	Lexical specialisation; avoid unsupported word counts.
Left/right-hand etiquette	2/5	Cultural conventions and social interpretation.

Procedures and equivalence

Concept	Fit	How to use it
Literal translation vs literalism	4/5	Separate accurate formal correspondence from distortion.
Equivalence and adequacy	5/5	Independent criteria for concept preservation.
Explicitation	5/5	Clarified implicit conceptual information.
Implicitation	5/5	Essential definition made less explicit.
Compensation	2/5	Lost effect restored elsewhere, if demonstrable.
Adaptation, borrowing, calque	5/5	Specialised Kazakh terminological choices.
Translation transformations	5/5	Core category for local differences.
Metaphor translation	4/5	“Social ladder”, “social fabric”, theoretical metaphors.
Gradation	3/5	Order, intensity and hierarchy.
Pragmatic / expressive equivalence	4/5	Communicative force and evaluations.
Translator’s manoeuvring	2/5	Descriptive notion, not a standard theory.

Language, knowledge and learning

Concept	Fit	How to use it
Nomination and lexeme	5/5	Separate a concept from the words that name it.
Semantic extension and polysemy	5/5	Common Kazakh forms with field-specific senses.
Translation and language development	3/5	Contribution to Kazakh scientific vocabulary.
Sapir–Whorf	2/5	Background, not proof of untranslatability.
Translatability / untranslatability	3/5	Limits of direct equivalence vs explanation.
Jakobson	3/5	Meaning without identical forms.
Nida and functional equivalence	3/5	Communicative effects; reader response must be tested.
Skopos / functionalism	3/5	Educational purpose shapes decisions.
Chomsky competence/performance	1/5	Not measurable in a textual corpus.
Hymes communicative competence	2/5	Social appropriateness and cultural inference.

Political and ethical language

Concept	Fit	How to use it
Translation ethics	3/5	Do not alter contested claims or insert moral judgements.
Social vs moral meaning	4/5	Deviance is not automatically “crime” or “immorality”.
Political correctness	4/5	Race, ethnicity, class, gender.
Political metaphors	2/5	Analogy for degrees of criticism.
Presidential speech translation	1/5	A political corpus, not this one.
Interpreter neutrality and pragmatic force	5/5	Preserve modality, assertion strength, evidence markers.

Interpretation and literary theory

Concept	Fit	How to use it
Author–translator–reader	3/5	Separate source claim, target product and reader response.
Inner/outer psychological life	1/5	Mainly literary psychology.
Hermeneutics	4/5	Reconstruct scientific meaning in context.
Balzac paradox	1/5	Analogy for avoiding ideological correction.
Les Belles Infidèles	2/5	Elegant rewording can still distort science.
Precedent text	3/5	Well-known theoretical texts, quotations and cases.
Strong/weak text positions	5/5	Definitions, captions, headings, summaries as core sampling sites.
Extraposition/exposition	2/5	Only when a structural shift really occurs.

Extra theories for the literature review

They strengthen a scientific-text focus. Do not turn them into 20 separate variables: choose a small core and use the others to justify individual categories.

Theory / method	Fit	Use
Terminology theory / Терминтану	5/5	Concept, definition and designation.
ISO 704 and ISO 1087	5/5	Concepts, terms, definitions, relations.
Frame-Based Terminology (Faber)	5/5	Terms as parts of knowledge frames.
Conceptual equivalence	5/5	Do definitions and roles correspond?
Concept-system relations	5/5	Type-of, cause/effect, part/whole, contrast, condition.
Componential semantic analysis	5/5	Compare defining features item by item.
Term consistency and variation	5/5	Justified vs misleading variants.
Corpus-based translation studies	5/5	Systematic aligned evidence, not anecdotes.
Epistemic modality and hedging	5/5	Certainty, possibility, frequency, evidential stance.
Identification and systematisation	5/5	Transparent classification of phenomena.
Semantic interpretation	5/5	Explain why a shift matters.
Translation quality assessment	5/5	Separate observations from judgements.
Inter-coder reliability	5/5	Check replicability of coding.
Sociocognitive terminology (Temmerman)	4/5	Categorisation and changing domain knowledge.
Frame semantics	4/5	Background knowledge activated by terms.
Conceptual metaphor theory	4/5	Metaphors in sociology and their effects.
Sociolinguistics	4/5	Socially situated meanings and labels.
Linguistic interference	4/5	Source or possible mediator-language influence.
Translation norms (Toury)	4/5	Regular target-language patterns.
Critical discourse analysis	3/5	Stance and ideology; scope it tightly.
Intertextuality	3/5	Links to sociological authorities and quoted theories.
Psycholinguistics	2/5	Only with reader-comprehension measures.
Neurolinguistics	1/5	Outside a text-comparison project.

Recommended theoretical coreTranslation strategies and transformations + terminology theory + componential semantics + concept relations + epistemic modality + evidence-based translation quality assessment. Use sociolinguistics as context, and psycholinguistics only if you actually recruit readers.

Supporting disciplines

Discipline	Use	Priority
Translation Studies	Equivalence, procedures, shifts, strategies, corpus comparison.	Core
Terminology / semantics	Conceptual components, term consistency, polysemy, ambiguity.	Core
Sociolinguistics	Socially situated terms: power, identity, class, gender, culture.	High
Psycholinguistics	Reader comprehension, processing effort, student interpretation.	Optional; needs participant data
Neurolinguistics	Neural representation and processing of language.	Outside the current design
Systematisation	Categories, transparent codes, frequency tables.	Method; essential

Sample problems: how directly they transfer

Sample question / concept	Transfer fit	What belongs in the PhD
Equivalent-choice regularities in sociology	98%	Core: definitions, contextual alternatives, term consistency, semantic outcome.
Translation vs transformation vs interpretation	96%	Core distinction; non-exclusive coding.
Freelance simplification / lost qualifications	93%	Directly testable with text measures and parallel context.
Reader comprehension / did the translator understand?	89%	Reader test optional; translator understanding needs a process study.
Marriage example: implicit meaning and agency	86%	Strong illustration for roles and explicitation.
Foreign ideology in translation	79%	Sociocultural assumptions, hedging, evaluation, bias-sensitive wording.
Abai multilingual translation-first corpus	76%	Procedural analogy; do not add Abai to the corpus.
Medical leaflet accuracy and intelligibility	67%	Transfer verification and reader-safety criteria.
Company terms and semantic distortion	65%	Stakes of omissions; corporate motives not measurable.
Shakespeare’s influence on Kazakh culture	61%	Cultural transfer analogy; needs reception evidence.

Priority structure

Priority	Do now	Avoid
Primary: must measure	Target Kazakh discourse; procedures; conceptual equivalence; semantic shifts; normalised frequencies.	Ten hand-picked sentences; universal laws; frequency = effectiveness.
Secondary: strengthens evidence	Term definitions, native-Kazakh comparison, reader test, double-coding, expert judgement.	Calling a translation wrong because a literal word is missing.
Context: explain cautiously	Toury’s norms; sociocultural context; institution/policy only where documented.	Attributing ideology, conscious intent or nationwide cultural change from text alone.

Primary framework	Supporting background	Only if you expand the design
Baker, Toury, Komissarov, Retsker, discourse/semantic analysis	Even-Zohar, Lefevere, extralinguistic competence, hermeneutics	Translator interviews: Leontiev/Galeeva. Reception: Even-Zohar. Policy: Lefevere.

Do’s, don’ts, life-hacks and checklists

Everything the notes warn about, plus quick tricks, in one checklist chapter.

In this chapter you will learn

A checklist for a good research problem.
Every “must not claim” rule.
Life-hacks that save time and protect you at the defence.
Common misunderstandings from the lectures, corrected.

Checklist: is my research problem good?

Tick every line

☐ It is an open question that evidence can answer, not an accusation or an opinion.
☐ It names the exact material: books, editions, translators, chapters.
☐ It is limited to one concept cluster or one marker type.
☐ The object is a process or phenomenon (not the books); the subject is one aspect of it from your angle; the material (editions, passages) is named separately. They pass the five tests in Chapter 16.
☐ Each research question can be answered from the data you will actually have.
☐ Each hypothesis states its evidence and an H0.
☐ You have a denominator: you know what counts as an eligible unit.
☐ You code form and meaning effect separately.
☐ You have a second coder or an expert check planned.
☐ Claims about translators’ intentions, ideology or knowledge are excluded unless you collect process evidence.
☐ Novelty is worded conditionally until the literature review confirms it.
☐ A pilot confirmed there are enough matched passages; a backup cluster is pre-declared.

What you must not claim

Never write

That a repeated shift proves a universal law of all translation (“All Kazakh translators unconsciously simplify”).
That an omission proves the translator did not understand the text.
That a readable Kazakh textbook proves its English concepts were faithfully conveyed.
That ideological rewriting happened just because the output differs from the source.
That a high relevance percentage is empirical evidence.
“Translators do not know the models”: a possible cause, not an observed fact. Safer: “Certain target-text choices may suggest incomplete representation of source theoretical distinctions.”
That a strategy raises quality without a defined outcome measure, representative data and analysis.
That the freelancer lied, the translator misunderstood or the publisher imposed wording, without independent evidence.
That two textbooks show national cultural influence or deliberate ideological alteration.
Illustrative numbers (10,000 / 5,000, 1,200 / 300, 120 / 24, 200 / 44) as results.

What a text can and cannot showA text can document semantic divergence. It cannot establish that the translator did not understand sociology. Other possible causes include editing, edition mismatch, terminology conventions, censorship, simplification, indirect translation and inadvertent errors. To study translator knowledge, you need interviews, correspondence, drafts or a designed investigation.

Do’s and don’ts for the method

Analyse the Kazakh translation as a text first, then align it with English.
Keep teaching examples in a separate folder from real corpus records.
Check domain meaning: race, ethnicity, power, authority, role, status, class, deviance are theory-loaded.
Check edition provenance: two English editions may differ; align the one actually translated.
Select a stated set of chapters and passages.
Track the denominator.
Report raw agreement and Cohen’s κ (or a better measure) with your decision rules.
Cite source and translated pages; add short screenshots where permitted.
Allow an “uncertain” code with a reason.
Record why you switch cluster, before you see results.

Don’t

Pick only conspicuous mistranslations (sampling bias).
Treat every structural change as an error: description ≠ evaluation.
Mix terminology, discourse and grammatical transformations into one count.
Compare unbalanced books or different chapter functions without normalising.
Call a word wrong without the author’s domain-specific definition.
Call a feature “simplification” without a reference point.
Confuse what the text shows with what the translator thought.
Assume Russian mediation without evidence.
Give Peirce, Leontiev, Kushnina, cultural universals, Shakespeare, Abai and medicine their own dissertation chapters.
Broaden the subject to all of sociology, literature and cultural translation.

Life-hacks

Small tricks with big effect

The contradiction test. “X, but not Y” makes sense? Then Y is not part of X’s meaning, and a translation that adds Y adds a claim.
The three-question test. WHAT part of reality? = object. WHICH side of it, from what angle? = subject. ON WHAT data? = material. If you can put it on a shelf, it is material, not the object.
Write the denominator first. Before counting anything, write “out of how many eligible units?”
Two columns, always. One for what changed in form, one for what changed in meaning.
Read one paragraph around every term. Most false alarms disappear with context.
Start with strong positions. Headings, definitions, captions, summaries, glossaries: highest value, quickest to align.
Pilot with 10–15 pairs before coding hundreds.
Use “may” as your detector. Search the English for may/might/tends to/often/some; check what happened in Kazakh.
Give every concept an ID (C01 = power, C02 = authority), not every word form.
Keep a decision log. Every coding disagreement and how it was resolved is evidence of rigour at your defence.
Phrase findings at the right level: description → association → possible explanation. Never jump to a law.
Ask your teacher early about unclear terms (Chapter 26 lists the questions).
Keep three documents from day one: corpus manifest, codebook, audit trail.
Say “candidate” (candidate feature loss, candidate narrowing) until the full context is checked.

Misunderstandings corrected

What the notes first said	More precise explanation
«Қазы жесе, үй иелері кедей емес» (If they eat qazy, the hosts are not poor)	Serving qazy may suggest respect or a generous table, but one food does not show a family’s income.
«Түркияда жылқы етін жемейді» (In Turkey they don’t eat horse meat)	Do not apply one rule to a whole country. Consider the specific audience’s food, religious and personal practices.
Translation should stay on the edge of national literature	Even-Zohar describes translation’s changing position; it is not an instruction to stay peripheral.
If mature literature wants to dominate, translation moves to the centre	Not one of his three conditions. Mature systems can also have crises or need renewal.
Even-Zohar opposes adaptation and only supports foreignisation	He criticised excluding adaptation and imitation from research. Discuss foreignisation separately, with Venuti.
A sociology textbook is a publicistic text	A textbook is usually scientific-educational. Newspaper social articles and scientific articles have different tasks.
Магистрант = someone who finished a bachelor’s	Not everyone with a bachelor’s studies for a master’s. That paraphrase loses the key feature.
Сверхфразовое единство = absolute synonym	The first is a unit of text organisation; the second is a relation of fully equal meaning.
Aculturation, biculturalism, metaculture are one Even-Zohar triad	Three separate terms from different traditions (Berry; working definition; Urban).

Uncertain classroom labels

Term from the lecture	How to treat it in academic writing
«Аудармашылық маневризм»	Informal description of strategic flexibility, unless the lecturer gives a named source.
«Маневр теориясы»	Not an established theory without a documented author and publication.
«Импрессивтік эквивалент»	Clarify the meaning and scholar; use pragmatic/expressive/functional terms where appropriate.
«Солақайға сорпа жоқ»	Verify wording, frequency and context before calling it a canonical proverb.
«Жүректен жілік шығады»	Not securely identified; do not cite it as a stable proverb.
«Жілік шағып, майын ішу» in the Mazhilis	A discussed metaphor until a dated official transcript identifies the quotation.
“Exactly 12 snow names among Siberian peoples”	Unsupported as a universal claim; name the language and classification.
“Who translated the president’s speech?”	Name someone only if an official programme, broadcast or credited transcript identifies them.
«Персе»	Could be Peirce or another scholar; check before attributing anything.
«Сублимация»	Not a standard transformation category; ask whether simplification or substitution was meant.
«Традукция», «Übersetzung»	General French and German words for translation, not separate mechanisms.
«Социокультурные универсалии»	Shared social phenomena across cultures; not translated-language universals.
“Quantitative phenomenon”	An observed distribution of a measured variable, not a causal law.
“Inductor”	Not the standard word for translator; check the model’s definition.
Textbook example pairs in these notes	Hypothetical teaching illustrations, not verified quotations.
“12 procedures” and “10,000 / 5,000”	A provisional codebook and hypothetical counts, not study results.

Part VI

Method: from text to evidence

How to build the corpus, code it, count it, prove a pattern and write the dissertation.

Building the corpus and the pilot

Start with a coherent target-language corpus, not ten decontextualised sentence pairs.

In this chapter you will learn

The corpus-first workflow in 8 steps.
The short plan for a small study.
The evidence pipeline from selection to report.
How to run a pilot and fix your subject and material.
The three documents to keep from day one.

The teacher’s key pointDo not stop at “the translator used procedure X in ten sentences”. First analyse the Kazakh translated textbooks as academic texts. Then align them with the originals, quantify recurring changes, interpret semantic consequences and test any claimed regularity.

The corpus-first workflow

Define the datasetRecord exact English and Kazakh editions, authors, translators, years, chapter coverage, publication rights and omissions. Do not assume two editions match section by section.
Create the Kazakh target-text corpusExtract selectable text; keep page/section IDs; clean OCR only if really needed; mark headings, definitions, examples and metadata. Analyse it without looking at the English.
Target-only discourse analysisMeasure term consistency, collocations, connectives, definition patterns, apparent certainty, evaluative markers, passive/active constructions, academic coherence. Deliverable: a target-text profile.
Add a comparable Kazakh corpus, if feasibleSimilar sociology writing originally in Kazakh, of the same level and genre. It tells you whether a construction is normal academic Kazakh or unusually translation-like, so not all complex Kazakh is called a “translation effect”.
Align the English originalsMatch verified editions, chapters, paragraphs, clauses and terms; review many-to-one and one-to-many alignments by hand. Keep all matched and unmatched units, not a cherry-picked ten. Note indirect translation where evidenced.
Annotate transformations and semantic outcomesAt least two independent dimensions: procedure (e.g. omission) and meaning effect (e.g. modal strengthening). Multiple labels where needed. Annotate corpus-wide under defined inclusion rules.
Quantify and triangulateCompute denominators, percentages and uncertainty ranges, and rates by chapter, book and construction. Resolve coder differences; use expert review and close reading.
State context-bounded regularitiesClaim only tendencies supported in this corpus. Discuss competing explanations: grammatical necessity, editorial intervention, genre, term familiarity.

Why two stagesThe Kazakh-first stage shows what the translation is as a text. The parallel stage shows whether it is equivalent to its source. Translated-language patterns cannot be blamed on translation if they are typical of the target genre too.

A short plan for a small study

From Lecture 1. A starting plan, not a guarantee of statistical sufficiency.

Take two thematic chaptersfrom one textbook.
Find the exact matching editionof the original.
Mark 15–20 key terms.
Collect all their usesin those chapters; for example, 100–150 contextual pairs may result.
Align the sentencesand include the sentences next to each definition.
Code each usewith the same instructions.
Count frequenciesand analyse the cases with meaning change separately.

The evidence pipeline

Stage	What you do	Output
1. Select / Verify	Choose editions; verify authors, translator, year, publisher, ISBN and page correspondence.	Corpus manifest with identifiers and page links.
2. Sample	Declare one concept cluster and fixed inclusion criteria.	All eligible definition/explanation pairs in that scope.
3. Align	Match whole passages and diagrams, including headings, glossaries, examples and definitions.	One stable segment ID per comparable item.
4. Identify	Mark each candidate procedure/shift at word, term, phrase, clause or structure level.	Primary procedure, optional secondary, explanation.
5. Interpret	Recover meaning from the source context, disciplinary definition and nearby passages; reconstruct ST and TT relations separately.	Feature-by-feature difference record.
6. Classify & evaluate	Assign independent form and meaning codes (allow “uncertain” with a reason); score equivalence against predefined features, not intuition.	Retained / modified / unclear with quotes; E0–E3/EU.
7. Validate	Double-code a subset; resolve disagreements; keep page references and screenshots; disciplinary reviewer.	Agreement, disagreements, adjudication notes.
8. Quantify	Count comparable aligned units, not arbitrary words.	Procedure × semantic effect × textbook tables.
9. Report / Discuss	Frequency tables, interpreted case studies, limitations, plausible alternatives.	Findings with limits, not unproven motives.

Identification vs interpretationIdentification (идентификация / сәйкестендіру, анықтау): finding a phenomenon and deciding which code describes it. Interpretation (интерпретация / түсіндіру): explaining what it means in context and why the difference matters.

Example: “social class” → «әлеуметтік топ». Identification: a broader general category replaced a specific sociological class label. Interpretation: “group” can be wider than “class”; class-specific detail may be lost, depending on the surrounding definition. (Illustrative, not evidence of a published error.)

The semantic-model audit protocol

Recover the original model before judging the translation.

Set boundariesVerify editions. Choose one shared concept cluster and all relevant headings, definitions and explanations.
Reconstruct ST conceptsFrom the original passages: definition, necessary features, neighbouring concepts, relations.
Draw the ST concept mapNodes = concepts; edges = type-of / part-of / causal / contrast / conditional links.
Map the Kazakh TTKazakh terms, definitions, relations, omissions, shifts, alternative readings.
Compare feature by featureEach relation: retained, changed, added, lost or indeterminate. Do not infer an error from wording alone.
Assign independent procedure codesP01–P12, without treating the procedure itself as a semantic failure.
Review with expertsA translation scholar and preferably a sociologist; keep disagreements as data.
Report limitsCorrelations, uncertainty, sampling coverage, indirect translations, edition differences.

Pilot: fix the subject and material before writing

Pilot task	Success looks like	If not achievable
1. Book correspondence	Exact source and Kazakh editions can be paired; major sections located.	Investigate edition differences before any semantic evaluation.
2. Concept-cluster search	A usable set of complete corresponding definitions/explanations.	Switch to the pre-declared backup cluster and record why.
3. Evidence table	Exact texts and page references for each pair, including definitions.	Exclude non-verifiable examples.
4. Model map	Source and target definitions and relations describable in operational terms.	Reduce category complexity or clarify definitions.
5. Code feasibility	Two coders identify the same changes with reasonable agreement.	Refine the codebook; keep ambiguous cases unresolved.
6. Significance	Findings answer a conceptual equivalence question, not just count words.	Reformulate the narrow question before full coding.

Pilot worksheet columns: ID, textbook/edition, ST page, KK page, English excerpt, Kazakh excerpt, ST defining features, model edge, translated features, procedure, semantic code, E0–E3/EU, coder 1, coder 2, notes.

The first pilotVerify the original-to-Kazakh edition links; search power/authority/legitimacy and their contextual equivalents; align all complete definitions and nearby examples in both works. If evidence is too sparse, switch to your pre-declared backup cluster (e.g. deviance–crime–sanction). Do not switch clusters after seeing results without recording why. A feasible dissertation can focus on a small coherent cluster rather than hundreds of unrelated words: what matters is a complete, replicable sample and a defensible interpretation.

Three documents to keep

Document	What it holds
Corpus manifest	Bibliographic identity of each English and Kazakh edition, original language, translation pathway if documentable, chapters and page crosswalk.
Codebook	Definition of each procedure and semantic-effect category, positive and negative examples, tie-break rules.
Audit trail	Exact excerpts, page screenshots if legally appropriate, independent coding records, disagreements and final interpretations.

Coding: codebooks and records

Make the variables observable. Every code system from the notes, with examples.

In this chapter you will learn

Four code systems: simple (Lecture 1), form codes, meaning codes, P01–P12.
The E0–E3 rating rubric.
The variables codebook and unit of analysis.
What a full analysis record contains.
Worked examples.

Unit of analysis

An aligned segment: a sentence, clause, definition, or technical term in full paragraph context. Sampling uses a predeclared rule, e.g. all marked definitions plus a systematic sample of expository paragraphs from each chapter.

Simple code set (Lecture 1)

Code	Meaning
EXP	Explicitation (making explicit).
SPEC	Specification.
GEN	Generalisation.
SIMP	Simplification.
OMIT	Omission.
OTHER	Another operation. Several codes are allowed.

Outcome: feature kept / lost / added / unclear, plus a short argument and checked data.

Form codes: what changed on the page?

Code	Translation decision	Observable sign
L-BOR	Borrowing / транскрипция	Source-derived technical word kept in Kazakh form.
L-CAL	Calque / калька	Parts translated into a Kazakh expression.
L-DES	Description / сипаттамалы аударма	A compact item expanded into a phrase or definition.
L-GEN	Generalisation / жалпылау	Specific category replaced by a broader one.
L-SPE	Specification / нақтылау	Broader category replaced by a narrower one.
L-SUB	Lexical substitution / алмастыру	A different word, not simply generalisation.
G-STR	Grammatical / structural shift	Passive↔active; clause order; nominalisation↔verb.
D-EXP	Explicitation / экспликация	Information made explicit in the target.
D-IMP	Implicitation / импликация	Source detail or explicitness reduced.
D-OMI	Omission / түсіріп қалдыру	Meaningful material absent; check if recoverable.
S-STY	Stylistic / rhetorical change	Register, evaluation, metaphor or certainty altered.

Multiple codes are possible: a term may be generalised (L-GEN) and briefly explained (D-EXP) at once. Record the primary mechanism and any secondary one.

Meaning codes: what happened to the meaning?

Code	Effect	Diagnostic question
M-0	Preserved / sufficiently preserved	Are core conceptual features retained?
M-BRD	Broadening / кеңею	Does the target include more cases than the source?
M-NAR	Narrowing / тарылу	Does the target exclude some source cases?
M-LOSS	Feature loss / жоғалту	Was a defining condition omitted?
M-ADD	Unsupported addition / үстеме мағына	Does the target add an unlicensed claim?
M-MOD	Modality shift / модальдік өзгеріс	Did “may”, “might”, “tends to” become certainty?
M-EVAL	Evaluation or stance shift	Did neutrality become praise, blame or stronger criticism?
M-REL	Relation shift	Did correlation become causation, or role become authority?
M-AMB	New ambiguity	Is the target term ambiguous where the source is not?
M-UNC	Unresolved / белгісіз	Is the context insufficient to assess?

Equivalence rating rubric

Rating	Meaning	Rule
E0 Preserved	Conceptually adequate	All defining features kept; only ordinary restructuring.
E1 Minor shift	Limited divergence	Nuance or emphasis changes, category still identifiable.
E2 Material shift	Important feature altered	Broader/narrower concept; missing defining condition; altered theoretical force.
E3 Major distortion	Core meaning contradicted or reversed	Concept identity or central proposition cannot be recovered.
EU Unclear	Cannot assess	Too little context, contested terminology or uncertain alignment.

A proposed working rubric, not a validated international standard. Pilot it, refine the boundaries, give examples for each score, and count unclear items separately.

The 12-procedure inventory (P01–P12)

A provisional teaching codebook, not 12 observed findings. Justify your final inventory with a chosen scholarly taxonomy (Baker; Newmark; Vinay & Darbelnet; Toury; House) and revise it after seeing data. Code procedure and semantic outcome on separate axes.

Code	How to recognise it	Illustrative EN → KK
P01 Established equivalent	Established field term kept	social role → әлеуметтік рөл
P02 Borrowing	Source form transferred as a loan	habitus → хабитус
P03 Calque	Parts translated piece by piece	social structure → әлеуметтік құрылым
P04 Descriptive paraphrase	Short concept explained in several words	social mobility → әлеуметтік мәртебенің өзгеруі (context-dependent)
P05 Explicitation	Implicit feature articulated	authority → заңды деп танылған билік (if the source requires legitimacy)
P06 Implicitation	Expressed detail made implicit	legitimate authority → билік (a risky loss)
P07 Generalisation	Narrow category → broader one	social class → әлеуметтік топ
P08 Specification	Broad category → narrower one	deviance → қылмыс (often too narrow)
P09 Modulation	Perspective rephrased, no intended new claim	dependent on → …-ға тәуелді / …-мен анықталады (check force)
P10 Grammatical transposition	Part of speech or construction changes	social exclusion → қоғамнан шеттету
P11 Omission	Source element disappears	may reinforce inequality → теңсіздікті күшейтеді (lost hedge)
P12 Compensation	Lost effect restored elsewhere	a culturally loaded example explained later in a note

None of these entries was taken from the named textbooks. Procedures overlap: assign one primary code and optional secondary codes with explicit rules. Foreignisation is assessed separately, as a broader orientation, not as a 13th local operation.

Variables codebook (Lecture 3)

Variable	Options	What to verify
Text function	definition; argument; example; instruction; summary	Same stance expectations across functions?
Source conceptual category	agency; structure; power; mobility; inequality; gender; family	Are chapter-specific definitions respected?
Translation procedure	literal; transposition; omission; addition; explication; modulation; generalisation; other	Coded independently of quality.
Semantic outcome	preserved; narrowed; broadened; strengthened; weakened; causal change; agency shift; indeterminate	Is the change entailed by the original?
Epistemic stance	certain; probable; possible; attributed; hedged; unknown	Did “may” become categorical?
Terminology consistency	same concept/same equivalent; justified variants; unexplained variants	Within and across chapters.
Target readability	defined context score; reader test correct/incorrect if run	Readable ≠ accurate.
Alignment metadata	book; edition; chapter; page; translator; segment ID	Can another coder reproduce the extraction?

The full analysis record

Copy this structure into your corpus spreadsheet. It merges the analysis record, the Conceptual Fidelity Matrix and the annotation sheet from the notes.

Field	What to record
Evidence ID	ST-001; SOC-001; book_KK / chapter / page / paragraph / definition-ID. One ID per aligned unit.
Source bibliographic data	Author, edition, year, ISBN, English page/section, figure/table numbers.
Target bibliographic data	Translator, publisher, year, Kazakh page/section; intermediate version if documented.
Concept identifier	Stable ID independent of wording: C01 = power, C02 = authority…
Quoted unit + context	Exact EN and KK wording; preceding/following sentences; heading; diagram if present; screenshot reference.
Target-only discourse coding	Definition / explanation / example; terminology; scope; modality; cohesion; readability.
ST definition and model	Essential features; relation between nodes (type-of, contrast, condition, cause…).
Form code(s)	L-GEN, G-STR, D-EXP or P01–P12, with 1–2 sentences of evidence.
Meaning code(s)	M-BRD, M-MOD, M-LOSS, M-0…
Scientific proposition	Are modality, negation, evidential support and causation retained?
Consistency	Do repeated uses match the same concept without unexplained variation?
Equivalence score	E0 / E1 / E2 / E3 / EU + reason.
Alternative + confidence	An alternative only when justified; high/medium/low confidence.
Validation / second coder	Agreement, disagreement, adjudicated code, rationale; sociology expert comment; whether process or reader evidence exists.

Minimum evidence for a dissertation claim	Must contain
ST–TT pair	Exact English and Kazakh wording; authors; ISBN/edition; both pages.
Context window	Heading, the full definition, one adjacent sentence, model diagram if present.
Procedure	Primary local code P01–P12 and reason; optional secondary.
Orientation	Foreignising / domesticating / mixed, only if evidence warrants.
Semantic assessment	Which feature or relation was retained/lost/added? E0–E3/EU.
Reliability	Second coder or reviewer; uncertainty and alternative interpretation.

Worked examples

All illustrative teaching pairs, not textbook quotations and not evidence of published errors.

A. Social classsocial class

→L-GENM-BRD

Kazakhәлеуметтік топ

Potential E2 if the context needs a class-specific position. “Топ / group” may be more inclusive than “class”. Confirm the source definition and target terminology.

B. Deviancedeviance

→L-SPEM-NAR

Kazakhқылмыс

Potential E2. Not all departures from social norms are crimes. To assess without guessing: check the chapter definition and surrounding text; if the source includes non-criminal norm violations, the translation narrows the category.

C. Modalitymay contribute to inequality

→S-STYM-MODM-REL

Kazakhтеңсіздікті туғызады

Potential E2–E3. Possibility and contribution become certain causation.

D. Authority vs power“power” and “authority” used distinctly

→L-SUBM-AMB

Kazakhboth rendered only as «билік»

Possible E1–E2. A legitimacy distinction may be lost; recover context before scoring.

E. Explicitationsocialisation

→L-DESD-EXP

Kazakhәлеуметтену, яғни қоғам нормаларын меңгеру үдерісі

Likely E0–E1 if accurate. Added words may improve access without changing the concept; check that the explanation reflects the original theory.

F. Attribution + modalitySome sociologists argue that institutions may reinforce inequality.

→D-OMIM-MOD

Kazakh«Институттар теңсіздікті күшейтеді».

Attribution and modal marker omitted; a stronger unqualified claim. Check other clause-level evidential or modal devices before declaring a shift.

G. Verb choiceSocial mobility may depend on education.

→G-STRL-SUB

Kazakh«Білім әлеуметтік мобильділікке әсер етуі мүмкін».

Restructuring plus verb change. Does “depend on” → «әсер ету» (“affect”) weaken the relationship? Does the proposition survive?

H. Established termSocial mobility

→L-BOR

Kazakh«Әлеуметтік мобильділік»

Borrowing / established equivalent candidate. Could preserve the concept; cannot be graded at word level only. Check definitions, chapter context and academic usage (and the competing native term «ұтқырлық»).

I. GeneralisationInstitutional discrimination

→L-GENL-SUB

Kazakh«Ұйымдардағы әділетсіздік»

Possible generalisation plus reframing. Do the structural/institutional dimensions of discrimination disappear?

J. Frequency markerGender roles are often socially constructed.

→D-OMI

Kazakh«Гендерлік рөлдер қоғамда қалыптасады».

Possible omission of “often”. Check scope; do not attribute ideological intent without process records.

K. StructureAfter the development of the institutions…

→G-STRM-0

Kazakh«Институттар дамығаннан кейін…»

Noun → verb restructuring. Likely no necessary loss of the concept.

Demo record	Source	Target	Codes / note
DEMO-01	Social class may influence educational opportunity.	Әлеуметтік тап білім алу мүмкіндігін анықтайды.	Modality strengthened: “may influence” → “determines”.
DEMO-02	Deviance can violate social norms without being criminal.	Девиация — қылмыс.	Category narrowing and definition loss.

Reliability

Coding protocol

Define each category with positive and negative examples.
Test the instructions on 10–15 pairs first.
Have a second coder independently code a subset. If you code alone, re-check later and flag doubtful cases.
Calculate agreement (raw + Cohen’s κ for mutually exclusive codes; another measure for multi-label coding).
Reconcile disagreements and keep a decision log.

Counting and proving

Frequency is not quality, and quality is not causality. How to make each claim correctly.

In this chapter you will learn

How to count with a proper denominator.
What a pattern (заңдылық / закономерность) really is.
How to show a method is effective.
Four levels of conclusion, from description to an unsupported leap.

“10,000 words; 5,000 by this method”: what does it prove?

If you write «10 000 сөздің 5 000-ы осы тәсілмен аударылған», you must show what was counted and what the denominator is. A procedure can work on a term, a phrase, a sentence or a paragraph; words and procedures are not one-to-one.

Illustrative data point	Correct interpretation
10,000 source word tokens	Length of the sample. Not 10,000 translation decisions.
1,200 aligned eligible term/passage instances	A clear denominator: each unit could receive the code.
300 of 1,200 coded as explicitation	25% of eligible coded instances, not 25% of all words.
5,000 of 10,000 defined comparable units	50% of those units, only if categories and overlaps are handled transparently.

Do not invent countsThese numbers illustrate the logic only. Before reporting percentages, confirm edition, sampling interval, aligned units, coding reliability, and whether results are per chapter, per concept cluster or per source-word token. Cross-tabulate procedure × semantic effect × textbook.

What counts as a pattern?

Hypothesis to test: epistemic modal markers are omitted more often in explanatory passages than in formal definitions. (Invented numbers.)

Passage type	Eligible English hedges	Omitted in Kazakh	Rate
Definitions	80	8	10.0%
Explanatory passages	120	36	30.0%
Total	200	44	22.0%

Numerator: omitted modal markers. Denominator: all eligible markers in each pre-specified category. 30% vs 10% is a 20-percentage-point gap; statistical tests and confidence intervals help with sampling uncertainty.

Another illustration from Lecture 3: in explanatory sections, 18 of 80 eligible hedges lost a modal marker, compared with 4 of 75 in definitions. Then read the 22 cases in full argumentative context to see whether the Kazakh really strengthens the claim or uses another marker elsewhere.

What qualitative reading adds

Distinguish “may” as possibility from “may” as permission.
Check whether probability is expressed elsewhere in the Kazakh sentence or paragraph.
Check whether attribution (“some researchers suggest”) survives even if the modal is gone.
Look at section function, disciplinary usage and grammatical constraints.
Decide whether the change alters the strength of a sociological claim.

Four levels of conclusion

Level	What you may say
Description	“In this sample, 44 of 200 eligible modal markers were absent from aligned target segments.”
Association	“Omission is more frequent in explanatory than definition passages, in these books.”
Possible explanation	“Differences may relate to discourse function, genre, linguistic conventions or editorial decisions.”
Unsupported leap	“All Kazakh translators unconsciously simplify; this is a universal law.” Never.

What a defence must show(1) a clear theoretical proposition; (2) explicitly defined categories; (3) a transparent corpus and denominators; (4) both quantitative distribution and close contextual reading; (5) limitations and alternative explanations. That is far stronger than a list of isolated transformations.

Frequency ≠ quality ≠ causality

Keeping a foreign name may preserve national colour but leave the scientific concept unclear. Explicitating a term may improve readability but add a theoretically false claim. Compare at least four criteria:

Dimension	What to check	Evidence
Conceptual accuracy	Are defining features retained?	Source vs Kazakh definition
Relation fidelity	Are links between concepts kept?	Power vs legitimate authority; type-of relations
Term consistency	Same concept, coherent translation?	Concordance of all sampled uses
Reader clarity	Do readers understand correctly?	Expert judgement; comprehension test only if run

A strong result is conditional: “In these 52 verified aligned passages, procedure P05 appeared 18 times; 15 preserved conceptual features under our pre-specified rubric.” Such a sentence needs real counts, transparent denominators and a second-coder check (House 2015 for quality evaluation).

Proving a method is effective

“Show that this method was effective” needs an outcome measure, not a count of how often it was used. Effectiveness depends on concept, context, reader and function.

Criterion	Operational evidence	Can the books alone prove it?
Conceptual accuracy	Two independent sociology experts rate preservation of chapter-specific definitions	Partly: needs expert review
Discourse fidelity	Contextual coding of modality, attribution, causality, agency, evaluation	Yes, if carefully coded
Terminological consistency	Same concept mapped across text and glossary	Yes
Reader comprehension	Students answer concept/application questions after reading	No: needs a reader study
Translator intention	Interviews, editorial notes, keylogs, drafts	No: needs process sources
Institutional policy effects	Briefs, style guides, contracts	No: needs documents

A feasible two-stage validation design

Study 1, corpus evidence: identify and classify choices; assess semantic consequences, without claiming causality.

Study 2, optional reader experiment: for a few difficult concepts, randomly assign readers to the published Kazakh translation or an expert-validated alternative; test comprehension with equivalent questions; balance prior sociology knowledge and language proficiency. Do not just ask “did you like it?”: ask readers to explain the definition in their own words.

Example of a defensible claim“In the analysed corpus, explicitation was associated with preservation of definitional detail more often than unqualified generalisation in selected classes of concepts. In a separate reader test, the explanatory variants improved concept comprehension without reducing expert-rated semantic fidelity.” Use it only if your data support both parts.

Five threats to validity

Mixing terminology, discourse and grammatical transformations into one count.
Comparing unbalanced books or chapter functions without normalising.
Calling a word wrong without the author’s domain definition.
Calling something “simplification” without a reference point.
Confusing what the text shows with what the translator thought.

Writing the dissertation

Where every theory belongs, the Kazakhstan context, and a risk map of sociological concepts.

In this chapter you will learn

A chapter architecture with theoretical anchoring.
How to frame the Kazakhstani contribution.
Which sociological concepts are risky and what to verify.

Chapter architecture

Chapter	Contents	Anchoring
Introduction	Problem, gap, aim, object/subject, questions, methods, material, novelty	Translation product; scientific academic discourse
1. Theory	Equivalence, semantic shifts, scientific concept, regularities, norms, discourse	Komissarov; Retsker; Toury; Hatim & Mason; House
2. Corpus method	Kazakh target corpus, comparability, alignment, annotation, metrics, reliability	Baker; corpus linguistics; contrastive linguistics
3. Target-text results	Terminology, definitions, modal/causal discourse, cohesion in Kazakh editions	Target-oriented DTS; discourse analysis
4. Source–target results	Transformations, distributions, semantic outcomes, conditional regularities	Komissarov; Retsker; mixed methods
5. Validation and discussion	Expert verification; optional reader test; context, policy, limitations	House; subject competence; Toury; context theories
Conclusion	Bounded findings, validated recommendations, limitations	No universal rules beyond the sample

The Kazakhstan context

Your study can contribute to Kazakh scientific terminology without claiming Kazakh cannot express abstract theory. Separate a language’s expressive resources from historically contingent terminological choices in specific books.

Kazakh academic-language issue	Textual test
International vs Kazakh-derived terminology	Borrowing / calque / native expression vs preservation of definition and recognised usage.
Common-language polysemy	Does an everyday Kazakh word hide the specialised sense?
Institutional and legal terminology	Are authority, legitimacy, law and status kept apart as the theory requires?
Conceptual inconsistency	Are several Kazakh translations of one concept justified by context?
Social and moral connotation	Is a neutral expression turned into blame or praise?
Regional/cultural examples	Do US or European examples stay accurate and readable?
Possible intermediary-language influence	Compare editions; do not assume Russian mediation without evidence.
Terminology resources	Compare with disciplinary glossaries and recommendations; no list replaces contextual evaluation.

Risk map of sociological concepts

Concept	Possible Kazakh rendering	What to verify
Social class	Әлеуметтік тап	Class distinction vs generic group.
Social status	Әлеуметтік мәртебе	Ascribed/achieved status; not personal prestige alone.
Social role	Әлеуметтік рөл	Expectations tied to a position; not acting on stage.
Power	Билік / ықпал ету қабілеті	Coercion, resources, resistance or general influence.
Authority	Билік / өкілеттік / бедел	Legitimacy: legal, traditional, charismatic or situational.
Socialisation	Әлеуметтену	Learning norms/roles across life, not just making friends.
Deviance	Девиация / нормадан ауытқу	Norm violation vs crime or illness.
Race / ethnicity	Нәсіл / этностық ерекшелік	Different constructs; avoid conflating.
Gender	Гендер / әлеуметтік жыныс	The theory’s distinction from biological sex.
Inequality	Теңсіздік	Type: income, opportunity, power or status.
Social mobility	Әлеуметтік мобильділік / ұтқырлық	Movement between statuses/classes, not travel.
Also check	agency, anomie, habitus, social exclusion	Theory-specific meanings.

One-sentence methodological summaryAnalyse the Kazakh translated textbooks as target-language academic discourse; build an English–Kazakh parallel corpus; identify recurring translation procedures; test whether their use is associated with specific semantic and communicative changes; verify the findings through contextual analysis and appropriate external checks.

Final reminderTo make a convincing argument: show the source, show the translation, identify the procedure, interpret the context, document the semantic effect, and explain the evaluation criteria.

Part VII

Practice

Ready-to-say answers, scripts, a quiz and the questions to bring to your teacher.

Oral answers, quiz and questions

Practise each answer aloud in 20–30 seconds.

In this chapter you will find

12 exam-ready answers.
45-second explanations of the dissertation in Kazakh and English, and one for your supervisor.
A 15-question quiz with answers.
All questions to ask your teacher.
A one-page revision sheet.

Twelve exam-ready answers

What is translation?: Mediated intercultural communication. It recreates a message for another linguistic audience while protecting its relevant meaning, purpose and style.
What is realia?: Culture-specific references such as қымыз or бата. The translator can borrow the term, explain it, or combine both.
What is a lacuna?: A missing direct equivalent. It does not mean a concept is impossible to communicate.
What is a cultureme?: A culturally meaningful unit. Қара шаңырақ carries ancestry, continuity and family beyond the literal home.
What is literalism?: Mechanical word-for-word copying that distorts a natural expression. Literal translation itself is not always wrong.
What is explicitation?: Making implicit information explicit, as when қансонар is explained as fresh snow suitable for tracking animals.
What is compensation?: Recreating a lost stylistic or emotional effect in another place in the target text.
What is sociolinguistics?: The study of relations between language, society, identity and social roles. Useful for culturally sensitive sociology terminology.
What is psycholinguistics?: The study of comprehension and production of language. It becomes useful for my PhD only if I test student understanding.
What is Sapir–Whorf?: Linguistic relativity: language may influence categories of thought, but speakers of different languages do not live in incompatible realities.
What is a semantic shift?: A change in the meaning expressed by a source–target pair: broadening, narrowing, loss of a condition, addition, or a change of modality.
Where is my novelty?: A reproducible audit of a concept model (e.g. power–authority–legitimacy): procedures are identified separately from semantic consequences and tested against the aligned text.

45-second explanations

Ауызша жауап (қазақша)

Менің зерттеу тақырыбым — әлеуметтану оқулықтарын ағылшын тілінен қазақ тіліне аударудағы стратегиялар, трансформациялар, баламалылық және семантикалық өзгерістер. Зерттеу нысаным — ағылшын тіліндегі әлеуметтану оқулықтарының қазақ тіліне аударылуы. Зерттеу пәнім — билік, өкілеттік және легитимділік ұғымдарын беру тәсілдері және олардың анықтамалар мен ұғымаралық байланыстарға әсері. Зерттеу материалы — екі оқулықтың түпнұсқалары мен қазақша аудармаларындағы сәйкес үзінділер. Алдымен мәтіндерді сәйкестендіріп, аударма амалдарын кодтаймын. Содан кейін тұжырымдамалық модельдің мағынасы сақталғанын дәлелдермен тексеремін.

Oral script (English)

My dissertation investigates translation strategies and transformations in English-to-Kazakh sociology textbooks. My object is the translation of English-language sociology textbooks into Kazakh. My subject is how the concepts of power, authority and legitimacy are rendered and how this affects conceptual equivalence. My material is aligned passages from two named textbook pairs, subject to edition verification. I identify local translation procedures, then check whether defining features and conceptual relations survive in Kazakh. My proposed contribution is a transparent, independently checkable model-fidelity audit rather than an unsupported claim that translators lacked theoretical knowledge.

For your supervisor (қазақша)

«Мен әлеуметтану оқулықтарының түпнұсқалары мен қазақша аудармаларындағы таңдалған ғылыми ұғымдардың анықтамаларын және өзара байланыстарын салыстырғым келеді. Мәселе жеке терминнің дұрыс аударылуымен шектелмейді: ғылыми модельдегі айырмашылық, шарт және себеп-салдар қатынастары сақталды ма, соны тексеремін. Талдауда трансформация түрін бөлек, ал оның семантикалық салдарын бөлек жіктеймін. Әр қорытындыны нақты параллель үзінділермен, беттермен және бірізді бағалау өлшемдерімен дәлелдеймін».

The defence test

Сіз қандай заңдылықты анықтадыңыз, оны қандай корпус пен критерий негізінде дәлелдедіңіз, ал оның семантикалық салдарын қалай тексердіңіз?

Which regularity did you find, on what corpus and criteria did you prove it, and how did you test its semantic consequences? Your PhD should answer all three with reproducible evidence.

Quiz: 15 questions

Answer first, then open each answer.

1. Is “no single-word equivalent” the same as “impossible to translate”?: Answer
No. A phrase, paraphrase or footnote may explain it.
2. Difference between realia and lacuna?: Answer
Realia is a culture-specific reference; a lacuna is a missing direct target-language match.
3. Which method explains hidden cultural information in the target text?: Answer
Explicitation / экспликация.
4. Which procedure makes up for a lost wordplay elsewhere?: Answer
Compensation / компенсация.
5. Can a grammatical transformation preserve semantic equivalence?: Answer
Yes. Form changes do not automatically mean meaning loss.
6. Is “social class” always a synonym of “social group”?: Answer
No. “Group” is often broader than the class category.
7. Difference between “may cause” and “causes”?: Answer
Possibility vs certainty; the target may change epistemic force.
8. What must be preserved when translating political criticism?: Answer
The speaker’s precise stance, uncertainty, degree of criticism and attribution.
9. Nomination vs lexeme?: Answer
Nomination is naming; a lexeme is a word-level vocabulary unit.
10. Does Sapir–Whorf prove some languages cannot express certain concepts?: Answer
No. The strong deterministic claim is contested.
11. Who proposed competence/performance?: Answer
Noam Chomsky.
12. Which discipline tests how readers understand translated terms?: Answer
Psycholinguistics, usually through comprehension experiments or observation.
13. Why is identification alone not enough for novelty?: Answer
Transformations are already known; novelty needs new criteria, data, results or explanation.
14. Object vs subject?: Answer
Object = the process or phenomenon studied (e.g. the translation of English sociology textbooks into Kazakh). Subject = one aspect of it seen from your angle (e.g. how certain concepts are rendered). The books and passages are the material, not the object.
15. How would you assess “deviance” → «қылмыс» without guessing?: Answer
Check the chapter definition, the surrounding text and the Kazakh passage. If the source includes non-criminal norm violations, the translation narrows the category.

Questions to ask your teacher

From Lecture 1

In the қазы example, is the meaning of honour a fixed seme of the word, or a contextual inference?
By what criterion do we draw the line between explicitation and adding information the author did not give?
When translating қазы, which depends more on the text’s purpose: showing the ingredients or the social meaning?
Do we use “approximation” as a near-equivalent? How does it differ from generalisation?
Can Even-Zohar’s second condition be stated as “a peripheral or resource-limited system”?
Which Even-Zohar work do we connect with the point about adaptation and imitation? Whom was the foreignisation remark about?
Does my note “code” in the scheme correspond to repertoire? Which author’s system do acculturation, biculturalism and metaculture come from?
If I study Toury’s norms through one textbook, should I conclude about a tendency in that edition rather than a general translation norm?
Is my material a real sociology textbook, or publicistic texts on social problems?
If I limit the topic to one concept cluster (e.g. power–authority–legitimacy) and the English–Kazakh pair, is the problem specific enough?
Is it enough to show the Kazakhstani component through Kazakh term practice and the textbook’s teaching use, or is a specific state programme needed?
In «Огонь бежит по полю», should I study the metaphor, the collocation or the conceptual correspondence first? Which corpus would you recommend?

From Lecture 3

When is a recurring pattern a “закономерность” rather than a frequent feature of a small corpus?
Can target-text-first corpus analysis and Komissarov’s equivalence model be used in one design without mixing their purposes?
What counts as evidence that an explicitation strategy is effective: expert rating, reader comprehension, or both?
Do two textbook pairs support only within-corpus claims, or should I add a comparable Kazakh academic corpus?
Which work and theorist did “Персе” and “сублимация” refer to?

From Lecture 2

Which author and definition do you mean by “impressive equivalence”?
Is there a published source for “translator’s manoeuvrism”?
What exactly does “inductor” mean in the communication model you used?

One-page revision sheet

Term	In one sentence
Explicitation	Making hidden or unfamiliar information needed for understanding explicit.
Seme / semantic feature	A distinguishing feature of meaning.
Componential analysis	Comparing the conceptual features of equivalents.
Connotation	Associative shade added to a word’s basic naming meaning.
Implicature	Extra meaning inferred from context.
Approximation	Rendering through a close equivalent, keeping the difference in mind.
Verification	Checking a decision against reliable data.
Polysystem	Interacting systems whose positions change.
Repertoire	The models and stock used to make and use products.
DTS	Describing real translation practice and explaining its conditions.
Norm	A shared expectation and choice tendency in a given setting.
Parallel corpus	Source texts and their translations.
Foreignisation	An orientation that lets cultural-linguistic difference be felt; not word-for-word.
Domestication	An orientation towards familiar target-culture patterns.
Semantic shift	A change in meaning between source and target.
Object / subject / material	The process or phenomenon / the aspect of it you study / the concrete texts you study it on.

Part VIII

Reference

The trilingual glossary, every source from the notes, and how to grow this handbook.

Trilingual glossary

Kazakh, Russian and English terms with a plain meaning. Type to filter, or open Flashcards to practise.

Filter the glossary

Қазақша	Русский	English	Meaning
Аударматану	Переводоведение	Translation Studies	The academic field that studies translation as a process, product and social practice.
Аударма стратегиясы	Переводческая стратегия	Translation strategy	The planned general approach to a whole text, e.g. foreignisation.
Аударма тәсілі	Переводческий приём	Translation procedure / technique	A local operation visible in one segment, e.g. borrowing or calque.
Аударма трансформациясы	Переводческая трансформация	Translation shift / transformation	A visible change of form or meaning between source and target.
Баламалылық	Эквивалентность	Equivalence	Correspondence of two texts in their important meaning or function.
Барабарлық	Адекватность	Adequacy	Fitness of a translation for its communicative task (Toury uses it for source-orientation).
Түпнұсқа мәтін	Исходный текст	Source text (ST)	The text a translation is based on.
Аударма мәтін	Текст перевода	Target text (TT)	The result of translation.
Делдалдық	Посредничество	Mediation	The translator’s role between author and new reader.
Екінші коммуникация	Вторичная коммуникация	Secondary communication	Translation as a second communicative event for a new audience.
Ұлттық колорит	Национальный колорит	National / cultural colour	Features that show a people’s life, history and speech in a text.
Әлеуметтік-мәдени контекст	Социокультурный контекст	Sociocultural context	The social and cultural conditions that shape meaning and reading.
Мәдени бейімдеу	Культурная адаптация	Cultural adaptation	Changing content so it fits the target culture.
Мәдениетке бағдарланған аударма	Культурно-ориентированный перевод	Culture-oriented translation	Translating with attention to both source and target cultures.
Реалия	Реалия	Realia	Names of culture-specific things: қымыз, киіз үй, бәйге.
Лакуна	Лакуна	Lacuna	A gap: no direct equivalent in the other language.
Культурема	Культурема	Cultureme	A unit that carries cultural meaning; definition varies by school.
Культуроним	Культуроним	Culturonym	A name of a culture-specific object or concept.
Натурфакт	Натурфакт	Naturfact	A natural thing with possible cultural meaning (дала, жусан).
Артефакт	Артефакт	Artefact / artifact	A human-made object with possible cultural meaning (домбыра).
Метафора	Метафора	Metaphor	An expression that describes one thing through the image of another.
Фразеологизм	Фразеологизм	Idiom / phraseological unit	A fixed multi-word unit with fully or partly figurative meaning.
Мақал-мәтел	Пословица / поговорка	Proverb / saying	A traditional short saying that expresses common wisdom.
Клише	Клише	Cliché / formulaic expression	A ready-made familiar phrase, e.g. «Құрметпен».
Стереотип	Стереотип	Stereotype	A generalised belief about a group of people.
Социолект	Социолект	Sociolect	Language typical of a social group.
Идиолект	Идиолект	Idiolect	One person’s individual language habits.
Номинация	Номинация	Nomination / naming	Giving a name to a thing or concept.
Лексема	Лексема	Lexeme	The dictionary word behind all its grammatical forms.
Терминжасам	Терминообразование	Terminology formation	Creating new terms in a language.
Семантикалық кеңею	Семантическое расширение	Semantic extension	A word gaining new, wider meanings.
Көпмағыналылық	Полисемия	Polysemy	One word having several related meanings (қосу: add, switch on, include).
Калькалау	Калькирование	Calque / loan translation	Translating a word’s parts one by one (social network → әлеуметтік желі).
Кірме сөз	Заимствование	Borrowing	Taking the source word itself (habitus → хабитус).
Сөзбе-сөз аударма	Дословный перевод	Literal translation	Word-for-word translation; sometimes correct.
Буквализм	Буквализм	Literalism	Mechanical form-copying that breaks meaning or naturalness.
Экспликация	Экспликация / эксплицитация	Explicitation	Making implicit or unfamiliar information explicit.
Импликация	Импликация / имплицитация	Implicitation	Making explicit source information less explicit.
Компенсация	Компенсация	Compensation	Restoring a lost effect at another place in the text.
Жалпылау	Генерализация	Generalisation	Replacing a specific name with a broader one; detail is lost.
Нақтылау	Конкретизация	Specification	Replacing a general name with a more specific one.
Жуықтату / апроксимация	Аппроксимация	Approximation	Rendering through a close, not identical, equivalent.
Ықшамдау, жеңілдету	Упрощение	Simplification	Making structure or wording simpler; must not break content.
Верификация	Верификация	Verification	Checking a decision against reliable data.
Сипаттамалы аударма	Описательный перевод	Descriptive translation	Explaining a concept in several words instead of one term.
Доместикация (жерсіндіру, үйретікті ету)	Доместикация	Domestication	An orientation towards familiar target-culture patterns.
Форенизация (бөтенсіндіру, жатсындыру)	Форенизация	Foreignisation	An orientation that keeps source-culture difference visible.
Прагматикалық баламалылық	Прагматическая эквивалентность	Pragmatic equivalence	Same communicative effect on the reader.
Экспрессивтік баламалылық	Экспрессивная эквивалентность	Expressive equivalence	Same stylistic and emotional force.
Терминологиялық бірізділік	Терминологическая последовательность	Terminological consistency	One concept rendered by the same term throughout.
Интерпретация	Интерпретация	Interpretation	Explaining what a phenomenon means in context.
Идентификация	Идентификация	Identification	Finding a phenomenon and deciding which code describes it.
Жүйелеу	Систематизация	Systematisation	Arranging phenomena into transparent categories.
Семантикалық өзгеріс	Семантический сдвиг	Semantic shift	A change in meaning between source and target.
Тұжырымдамалық дәлдік	Понятийная точность	Conceptual accuracy	Keeping the defining features of a concept.
Мәтіннің күшті позициясы	Сильная позиция текста	Strong textual position	Highly salient places: titles, beginnings, endings.
Мәтіннің әлсіз позициясы	Слабая позиция текста	Weak textual position	Less salient parts of a text.
Градация	Градация	Gradation	A sequence of rising or falling intensity.
Экстрапозиция	Экстрапозиция	Extraposition	Moving a sentence element to the end.
Прецеденттік мәтін	Прецедентный текст	Precedent text	A widely known text used as shared background knowledge.
Герменевтика	Герменевтика	Hermeneutics	Interpreting texts in historical and cultural context.
Тілдік салыстырмалылық	Лингвистическая относительность	Linguistic relativity	The idea that language may influence thought (Sapir–Whorf).
Аударылмаушылық	Непереводимость	Untranslatability	Absence of exact one-to-one equivalence.
Тілдік құзырет	Языковая компетенция	Linguistic competence	Inner knowledge of the grammar (Chomsky).
Тілдік қолданыс	Языковое исполнение	Linguistic performance	Actual language use, affected by memory and attention.
Коммуникативтік құзырет	Коммуникативная компетенция	Communicative competence	Knowing what is appropriate to say, where and to whom (Hymes).
Психолингвистика	Психолингвистика	Psycholinguistics	Study of how people understand and produce language.
Әлеуметтік лингвистика	Социолингвистика	Sociolinguistics	Study of language in relation to society and identity.
Нейролингвистика	Нейролингвистика	Neurolinguistics	Study of language in the brain.
Моральдық мағына	Моральный смысл	Moral meaning	Meaning about good/bad, fairness, responsibility.
Әлеуметтік мағына	Социальный смысл	Social meaning	Meaning about relationships, roles and status.
Саяси әдептілік	Политкорректность	Political correctness	Avoiding discriminatory language without changing the speaker’s stance.
Аударма этикасы	Этика перевода	Translation ethics	Fidelity, accuracy, accountability, correct attribution.
Модальділік	Модальность	Modality	Expression of possibility, necessity, certainty (may, must).
Мәтіндер корпусын салыстыру	Сопоставление корпусов текстов	Parallel-corpus comparison	Systematic comparison of aligned source and target texts.
Параллель корпус	Параллельный корпус	Parallel corpus	Source texts aligned with their translations.
Салыстырмалы корпус	Сопоставимый корпус	Comparable corpus	Translated and original texts of a similar genre.
Кодтау кестесі	Кодировочная схема	Coding scheme / codebook	The list of codes with definitions and examples.
Ғылыми жаңалық	Научная новизна	Scientific novelty	New verifiable findings or a justified new method.
Семантикалық модель	Семантическая модель	Semantic model	A map of concepts, their features and relations in a text.
Ұғымдық жүйе	Система понятий	Concept system	A structured set of related concepts.
Ұғымаралық қатынас	Понятийная связь	Concept relation	Link between concepts: type-of, part-of, cause, contrast.
Ғылыми модельдің сақталуы	Сохранность научной модели	Scientific model fidelity	Whether a translation keeps the source theory’s concept structure.
Аударма амалының жиілігі	Частотность переводческого приёма	Procedure frequency	How often a procedure occurs among eligible units.
Салыстырмалы мәтін бірлігі	Сопоставимая единица текста	Comparable aligned unit	One matched source–target segment that can be coded.
Сема	Сема	Seme / semantic feature	A distinguishing feature of meaning.
Компоненттік талдау	Компонентный анализ	Componential analysis	Comparing meanings feature by feature.
Коннотация	Коннотация	Connotation	Associative shade on top of the basic meaning.
Импликатура	Импликатура	Implicature	Extra meaning inferred from context.
Фондық білім	Фоновые знания	Background knowledge	Knowledge readers bring from their culture.
Имплицитті мағына	Имплицитный смысл	Implicit meaning	Meaning that is suggested, not stated.
Күрделі синтаксистік тұтастық	Сверхфразовое единство	Supra-phrasal unity	Several sentences joined by one sub-topic.
Абсолютті синоним	Абсолютный синоним	Absolute synonym	Units fully equal in all important meanings and uses.
Полижүйе	Полисистема	Polysystem	Interacting cultural systems whose positions change (Even-Zohar).
Репертуар	Репертуар	Repertoire	The stock of models and materials used in a culture.
Орталық / периферия	Центр / периферия	Centre / periphery	Positions of greater or lesser influence; not quality.
Дескриптивті аударматану	Дескриптивное переводоведение	Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS)	Describing real translations and their conditions (Toury).
Норма	Норма	Norm	A shared expectation and choice tendency in a setting.
Бастапқы норма	Исходная норма	Initial norm	Basic choice between source and target orientation.
Аккультурация	Аккультурация	Acculturation	Changes from contact between cultures; not just assimilation.
Бикультурализм	Бикультурализм	Biculturalism	Combining knowledge or identity from two cultures.
Метамәдениет	Метакультура	Metaculture	Culture about culture: judgements that help it spread (Urban).
Еліктеу	Подражание	Imitation	Writing on another work’s model or style.
Бейімдеу	Адаптация	Adaptation	Changing a text for a new audience or setting.
Нұсқа	Версия	Version	A particular translation or reworking.
Зерттеу нысаны	Объект исследования	Research object	The process or phenomenon (part of reality) that gives rise to the problem and is studied; broad.
Зерттеу пәні	Предмет исследования	Research subject	The specific aspect, property or relation of the object studied from your angle; the title is built on it.
Зерттеу мәселесі	Проблема исследования	Research problem	The open question evidence must answer.
Зерттеу мақсаты	Цель исследования	Research aim	What the study will achieve.
Зерттеу міндеттері	Задачи исследования	Research tasks / objectives	The steps that achieve the aim.
Болжам	Гипотеза	Hypothesis	A testable prediction with evidence criteria.
Зерттеу материалы	Материал исследования	Research material	The concrete texts, editions and examples on which the subject is studied; not the object.
Практикалық маңызы	Практическая значимость	Practical value	Who can use the result and how.
Заңдылық	Закономерность	Regularity / pattern	A recurring, context-bounded tendency shown by data.
Эпистемикалық модальділік	Эпистемическая модальность	Epistemic modality	How certain a claim is presented as being.
Кодтаушылар арасындағы сенімділік	Межкодировочная надёжность	Inter-coder reliability	How far independent coders agree.

All sources

Every reference from the three notes, merged and grouped by use.

Before citingThis list is for orientation and verification, not a ready dissertation bibliography. Check editions, pagination and your university’s required GOST variant. Page numbers refer to the publication’s own numbering, which may differ from a PDF viewer. URLs are pointers, not substitutes for page citations.

Translation theory: core

Baker, M. (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, 233–250. John Benjamins. DOI 10.1075/z.64.15bak
Baker, M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Routledge, 1st ed. 1992; 3rd ed. 2018 (textual, pragmatic and semiotic equivalence).
Toury, G. (1995). The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation. In Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, 53–69. John Benjamins.
Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. Revised ed. John Benjamins. DOI 10.1075/btl.100. Ch. 1 pp. 17–34; Part IV: standardisation from p. 303, interference from p. 310.
Komissarov, V. N. (1990). Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). Москва: Высшая школа. 253 с.
Retsker, Ya. I. (1974). Теория перевода и переводческая практика: очерки лингвистической теории перевода. Москва: Международные отношения.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. Longman.
House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. Routledge.
Even-Zohar, I. (1990). Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11(1). “The Literary System”, pp. 27–44; “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”, pp. 45–51; “Translation and Transfer”, pp. 73–78.
Venuti, L. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. Routledge, 1995; Routledge Translation Classics reissue 2018.
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Routledge.
Klaudy, K., & Károly, K. (2005). Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1), 13–28. DOI 10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Didier. English ed.: Comparative Stylistics of French and English (1995). DOI 10.1075/btl.11
Molina, L., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2002). Translation techniques revisited (techniques vs methods vs strategies).
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford University Press.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. St. Jerome.

Language, meaning and communication

Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In R. A. Brower (ed.), On Translation. Harvard University Press.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Brill.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Penguin.
Goddard, C. Componential analysis. Handbook of Pragmatics Online. John Benjamins. DOI 10.1075/hop.m2.comm1

Terminology and concepts

ISO 704:2022. Terminology work — Principles and methods.
ISO 1087:2019. Terminology work and terminology science — Vocabulary.
Temmerman, R. (2000). Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach. John Benjamins.
Faber, P. Frame-Based Terminology (scientific knowledge frames).
OpenStax. Introduction to Sociology 3e, §17.1 Power and Authority. Public instructional reference; not one of the analysed textbooks.

Process and cognition

Kushnina, L. V. (2008). Теория гармонизации: опыт когнитивного анализа переводческого пространства. Пермь. 196 с. (some bibliographies cite 2009).
Kushnina, L. V. О когнитивных механизмах перевода. Studia Rossica Gedanensia.
Galeeva, activity-based translation theory: confirm the exact publication before citing.
Leontiev, activity theory (activity / action / operation).

Culture, literature and society

Urban, G. (2001). Metaculture: How Culture Moves through the World. University of Minnesota Press.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation. Applied Psychology 46(1), 5–34. DOI 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Engels, F. Letter to Margaret Harkness, early April 1888 (Balzac and realism).
Taylor, H. (2023). Belle and Fidèle? Women Translating Ovid in Early Modern France. In Ovid in French. Oxford University Press.
Akasheva, T. V., & Rakhimova, N. M. (2018). Strong Positions in Elfriede Jelinek’s Lust and Their Translation. DOI 10.12731/2077-1770-2018-3-52-70
Visit Astana. Astana Gastro Gallery, “7 dishes, must try in Kazakhstan”, item 9 (qazy as a horse-meat dish; proves nothing about wealth or guest status).

Research material

Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. Sociological Theory: English source edition and its Kazakh edition (verify editions and credits).
Brinkerhoff, D., Weitz, R., & Ortega, S. Essentials of Sociology / «Әлеуметтану негіздері»: OpenU catalogue card lists the Kazakh material and translators (verify title page, source edition, direction, chapters, pages).

How to add to this handbook

This book is meant to grow with your PhD. Here is how to add new material so it stays easy to navigate.

Where new material goes

If you learn…	Add it to
A new term or concept	Its topic chapter (Parts II–IV) as a term block, and a row in the glossary (Ch. 27)
A new scholar or theory	Part IV, plus a fit rating in Ch. 20 and an entry in Ch. 28
A new research problem or topic idea	The problem bank (Ch. 19)
A new technique or code	Part III and the codebooks (Ch. 23)
A real corpus finding	A new chapter in Part VI, clearly marked “verified data”, kept apart from teaching examples
Feedback from your supervisor	Ch. 21 (do’s and don’ts) or the relevant chapter as a “Caution” box

Copy these building blocks

The contents list, page numbers, part pages, chapter chips, search, the highlight dictionary and Flashcards all update themselves. A new glossary row (four cells: Kazakh, Russian, English, meaning) instantly appears in the highlight dictionary and the flashcard deck. Add a chapter as a section with class="ch", an id and a data-p part number (1–8).

<div class="term"><h4>Term name <span class="tri">Қазақша / Русский</span></h4>
  <p>Plain definition.</p>
  <p><strong>Example:</strong> …</p>
  <p><strong>For research:</strong> …</p></div>

<div class="pair"><div class="st"><span class="lab">Source</span>…</div>
  <div class="mid"><span class="arrow">→</span><span class="code">L-GEN</span></div>
  <div class="tt"><span class="lab">Target</span>…</div>
  <div class="note">What changed and why it matters.</div></div>

<div class="box caution"><span class="bt">Caution</span>…</div>   (also: learn, do, avoid, remember)

Keep the evidence ruleMark every new example as illustrative or verified (edition, page). Keep the line between what a text says and what you suppose.