Exploring Translation And Multilingual Text Production Beyond Content Erich Steiner Editor Colin Yallop Editor

Exploring Translation And Multilingual Text
Production Beyond Content Erich Steiner Editor
Colin Yallop Editor download
https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-translation-and-
multilingual-text-production-beyond-content-erich-steiner-editor-
colin-yallop-editor-51127646
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Exploring Translation And Multilingual Text Production Beyond Content
Erich Steiner
https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-translation-and-multilingual-
text-production-beyond-content-erich-steiner-5185180
Exploring The Situational Interface Of Translation And Cognition 1st
Edition Maureen Ehrensbergerdow Birgitta Englund Dimitrova
https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-the-situational-interface-of-
translation-and-cognition-1st-edition-maureen-ehrensbergerdow-
birgitta-englund-dimitrova-51635200
Exploring Art Song Lyrics Translation And Pronunciation Of The Italian
German French Repertoire 1st Edition Jonathan Retzlaff
https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-art-song-lyrics-translation-
and-pronunciation-of-the-italian-german-french-repertoire-1st-edition-
jonathan-retzlaff-5126970
Crosscultural Health Translation Exploring Methodological And Digital
Tools Meng Ji Ed
https://ebookbell.com/product/crosscultural-health-translation-
exploring-methodological-and-digital-tools-meng-ji-ed-46259296

Exploring The Yogastra Philosophy And Translation Daniel Raveh
https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-the-yogastra-philosophy-and-
translation-daniel-raveh-50669974
Exploring The Yogasutra Philosophy And Translation Daniel Raveh
https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-the-yogasutra-philosophy-and-
translation-daniel-raveh-5268608
Exploring The Self Subjectivity And Character Across Japanese And
Translation Texts Senko K Maynard
https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-the-self-subjectivity-and-
character-across-japanese-and-translation-texts-senko-k-
maynard-50637452
On Translating Signs Exploring Text And Semiotranslation Dinda L Gorle
https://ebookbell.com/product/on-translating-signs-exploring-text-and-
semiotranslation-dinda-l-gorle-56652802
Valuing The Past Sustaining The Future Exploring Coastal Societies
Childhoods And Local Knowledge In Times Of Global Transition Anne
Trine Kjrholt
https://ebookbell.com/product/valuing-the-past-sustaining-the-future-
exploring-coastal-societies-childhoods-and-local-knowledge-in-times-
of-global-transition-anne-trine-kjrholt-47554554

Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production:
Beyond Content
W
DE
G

Text, Translation,
Computational Processing
3
Editors
Annely Rothkegel
John Lafíling
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York

Exploring Translation and
Multilingual Text Production:
Beyond Content
Edited by
Erich Steiner
Colin Yallop
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York 2001

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.
® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Exploring translation and multilingual text production : beyond
content / edited by Erich Steiner, Colin Yallop.
p. cm. - (Text, translation, computational processing ; 3)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 3 11 016792 1 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Translating and interpreting. 2. Discourse analysis. I.
Steiner, Erich. II. Yallop, Colin. III. Series.
P306.E93 2001
418'.02-dc21
2001030324
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Exploring translation and multilingual text production: beyond
content / ed. by Erich Steiner ; Colin Yallop. - Berlin ; New
York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2001
(Text, translation, computational processing ; 3)
ISBN 3-11-016792-1
© Copyright 2001 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of
this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printing: WB-Druck, Rieden/Allgäu. — Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin.
Printed in Germany.

Contents
Parti
Theoretical Orientation
Introduction
Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop 3
Towards a theory of good translation
M.A.K. Halliday 13
What can linguistics learn from translation?
Michael Gregory 19
The environments of translation
Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen 41
Part Π
Modeling translation
How do we know when a translation is good?
Juliane House 127
Intralingual and interlingual versions of a text — how specific is the
notion of translation?
Erich Steiner 161
Towards a model for the description of cross-linguistic divergence
and commonality in translation
Elke Teich 191
The construction of equivalence
Colin Yallop 229

vi Contents
Part III
Working with translation and multilingual texts: computational and
didactic projects
Teaching translation
Susanna Shore 249
Computer assisted text analysis and translation: a functional
approach in the analysis and translation of advertising texts
Chris Taylor and Anthony Baldry 277
Translation, controlled languages, generation
Anthony Hartley and Cécile Paris 307
Author Index 327
Subject Index 331

Introduction
Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop
The purpose of this introduction is to explain some general features of
this book (1.1), to give a brief summary of the chapters within it (1.2) and
to make some suggestions about how the book might be used (1.3). We
hope that our remarks here will not only introduce the book but also
make it clear why we believe it to be well placed in the series Text, Trans-
lation, Computational Processing.
1. What kind of book is this?
As the sub-title of the book implies, one of our aims is to move beyond
the notion of content in thinking about language and translation. The
book is an attempt to face the demands of translation and multilingual
text production by modeling texts as configurations of multidimensional
meanings, rather than as containers of content. A common conception of
translating is that it is a process of transferring content from (texts in) a
source language to (texts in) a target language. From that kind of perspec-
tive, multilingual text production — if it is seen as a textual operation in
its own right at all — is simply the expression of some (usually pre-exist-
ing) content in several languages. This book sets out to challenge such
folk notions, as well as their more technical variants in logic-oriented ap-
proaches to language. It will be a recurrent argument in this book that un-
structured and one-dimensional notions of content are insufficient for an
understanding of the processes involved in translation and multilingual
text production. Even more refined variants of such notions in logic-ori-
ented semantics suffer at least from the privileging of one dimension of
meaning. Rather than using the assumption of some stable, unchanged
content in modeling the processes in focus here — an assumption which is
rarely if ever equal to the day-to-day reality of work in translation and
text generation — we rely on the notion of meaning, a concept that allows
us to recognize multidimensionality and internal stratification into levels.
For the processes in focus are complex, and we need to do justice to them.
Thus we do not apologize for problematizing simplistic notions of con-
tent. Beyond that, we hope to demonstrate how more complex and more
flexible notions of meaning can lead directly to a better understanding
and to enhanced professional practice. The various contributions to this
volume take up relevant research questions, problematize existing an-

4 Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop
swers to them, and either show the way towards or provide new answers.
In some cases these answers take the form of computational and method-
ological tools for analysing and producing texts in multilingual settings.
Seen against this background, our book establishes a middle ground
between a conventional text book and a collection of research papers.
The readers we hope to address are advanced students rather than begin-
ners; experienced students and translators who are interested in opening
up and engaging with questions of research; teachers who are interested
in ways of helping their students to become independent reflective pro-
fessionals, with an eye on research and development not only in translat-
ing and interpreting but also in multilingual text production, including
machine translation and multilingual text generation; and the research
community in general.
We hope that the frequent use of specific textual examples — and sub-
stantial use of major portions of real texts — will help to provide ways of
entry into the more technical areas addressed in our chapters. We hope
also that those who teach translation studies or train translators and in-
terpreters will appreciate both the engagement with texts and the specific
comments on possible improvements in teaching methods. Given the in-
creasing intermingling of translation tasks and work in multilingual text
processing, teachers may also find value in the scope and perspectives of
this book. And, while the contributions to this book do have an orienta-
tion towards long-term and fundamental questions, more so than is per-
haps usual in the research literature, the book is intended to be at least
thought-provoking to researchers.
Naturally enough, the authors of the different chapters adopt slightly
different stances towards their topics and their audience, depending on
their particular focus within the general field. All of the chapters try to ex-
plore key concepts and to provide arguments for the proposed approach
or solution, and all of them should therefore be seen as contributions to a
modeling of translation and multilingual text production, beyond the spe-
cific problems addressed in each case. Chapters by House, Steiner, Teich
and Yallop are perhaps the clearest demonstrations of this. In some places
we find, in addition, an explicit attention to pedagogy, notably in Shore's
and Taylor and Baldry's contributions. In others, we see the technical ex-
pert explaining and arguing for specific technological solutions to prob-
lems of translation and multilingual text production (e.g. Hartley and Par-
is, Taylor and Baldry, Teich). Some of the chapters have a decidedly
theoretical orientation (e.g. Gregory, Halliday, Matthiessen) but there is
nowhere in this book a categorial and strict separation of theory and ap-
plication.
The contributors bring to their work a range of expertise — in linguis-
tics, translation studies (including interpreting), language teaching, lexi-

Introduction 5
cography and computer science, and this variety of educational and pro-
fessional background is one of the factors which give us hope that we can
provide some new insights into the complex phenomena addressed here.
The authors collectively exemplify interdisciplinarity, and perhaps even
transdisciplinarity, in the sense that at least some of us would not feel too
happy about being assigned exclusively to any one of the traditional dis-
ciplines. But there is another sense in which this group of authors repre-
sents transdisciplinarity: while our initial disciplinary backgrounds are di-
verse (linguistics, translation studies, literary studies, computer science),
all of us have at some point come into contact with a particular functional
theory of language, Systemic Functional Linguistics. And it is our partic-
ular pleasure to have Michael Halliday, the central figure of this school,
as one of the contributing authors. While several of us would hesitate, for
one reason or another, to call ourselves "systemicists", all of us have had
extended working contact with the theory, which supports a certain ter-
minological and conceptual coherence in the book. An important side ef-
fect of this is that notions from Systemic Functional Linguistics are ex-
plored and tested critically for their suitability in the modeling of
translation and multilingual text production.
Despite this unifying backdrop of Systemic Functional Linguistics, the
book does not assume thorough familiarity with the theory. While the au-
thors have some shared background — we all work, broadly speaking, in
intercultural and multilingual communication, and we all have some ac-
quaintance with SFL — we do not assume that our readers will also share
that background. As contributors we have therefore taken care to explain
terms more often than we might have chosen to do in a research paper,
and to make contact terminologically with other approaches to the field.
We thus hope that this book will be accessible to interested audiences be-
yond those who come to the book with similar backgrounds to our own.
On the other hand, the book does not claim to be a beginner's introduc-
tion to translation or multilingual text production from scratch, and we do
assume some knowledge of the field.
One more feature of this book will, we hope, contribute to its coher-
ence and make it appealing to the reader. All of the chapters in this book
were written for the book: this is not a relatively loose collection of con-
ference papers, nor a gathering of previously published work, but a fo-
cussed work. Indeed, the idea for this book arose from a workshop on
translation studies in Sydney in 1996, and the idea was further developed
and tested in an all-day workshop in Cardiff in 1998, attended by all but
one of the authors. Between these two events there was considerable ex-
change of electronic mail, and at the Cardiff workshop authors presented
a preliminary version of their chapter for the benefit and reactions of the
other members of the group. Finally, the editors were able to consult in-

tensively, when one of us (Erich Steiner) was visiting Sydney for three
months.
In the next section of this introduction we give more detail of each
chapter. But we hope that what we have said so far has made it clear why
we believe the series Text, Translation, Computational Processing pro-
vides a very fitting environment for our book. The approaches advocated
here are firmly grounded in models of language in use, that is in text and
discourse, rather than in models of an assumed language system dissoci-
ated from its use. Furthermore, the emphasis is on textual operations
across languages, contexts and cultures, on translations or other forms of
multilingual information sharing. Finally, the computational systems
whose architectures are discussed here are typical of recent develop-
ments, focussing on support for multilingual experts, rather than aiming
to replace them in the style of many of the older machine translation sys-
tems. Finally, it is an overall assumption of the contributions presented
here that intercultural and interlingual communication is best conceptu-
alized not as some kind of transfer of content, but rather as transfer and
interaction of textual features along a whole series of dimensions.
2. The contributions to this book
The chapters following this introduction are grouped under three broad
headings, namely (1) Theoretical Orientation; (2) Modeling Translation;
(3) Working with Translation and Multilingual Texts: Computational
and Didactic Projects. As will be clear from the brief summaries of the
chapters, none of these three headings is to be interpreted too rigidly:
chapters that are theoretically oriented, for example, do not neglect
practical application and illustration, and chapters that focus more ob-
viously on models and projects do not exclude theoretical discussion
and implications.
The Theoretical Orientation opens with a chapter by Michael Halliday,
who asks a fundamental question: what is a theory of good translation?
And he begins by contrasting the linguist's interest in a translation theory
which studies "how things are" and a translator's interest in a theory
which studies "how things ought to be". His chapter proceeds by refining
these questions and setting them in a wide context of reflection on lan-
guage — for example by characterizing theories as "indicative" or "im-
perative", and by drawing analogies between translation studies and tex-
tual analysis. He offers some thought-provoking comments on system,
equivalence and value, and his chapter serves both to provide a significant
theoretical introduction to the book, and to establish a style of theorizing
which makes constant contact with important practical issues such as why

Introduction 7
some texts are much more highly valued than others, and how it is that a
translation can be judged good.
By asking the question "what can linguistics learn from translation?",
Michael Gregory seems to be approaching translation studies from the
opposite direction to Halliday. Gregory comments on the long history of
translating as a human activity and suggests that "as well as diversity
there is also a commonality of human social experience" which makes
translation possible. While valuing functional theories of language, Gre-
gory also gives a sympathetic hearing to formal and cognitivist theorizing,
and argues for a "socio-cognitive linguistics that attempts to combine sys-
temic-functional insights and Chomskyan perspectives..." Gregory also
digs deeply into Bible translation, not only commenting on various kinds
of English translations of the Bible ("formal equivalence" versions,
"paraphrases", and so on) but also using a short extract from the New
Testament to illustrate and evaluate different translations into English.
He shows how contextual factors, like assumptions about how a transla-
tion is to be used and "self-consciousness" about theological affiliation,
find their consequences in the wording, in nuances of meaning. He con-
cludes his chapter by noting trends in Bible translation and presenting
them as food for thought for linguists.
Christian Matthiessen sets out to "locate" translation and translation
theory. He investigates translation as a process, as a process of transfor-
mation and a process of creation; and translation as product, as the con-
crete outcome of transformation or creation. He then develops the notion
that translation can be understood as a multilingual potential. With the
help of a "map" he relates translation to other areas of multilingual inter-
est in linguistics and shows how these different multingual concerns can
inform one another.
The four chapters making up the section on Modeling Translation be-
gin with one by Juliane House. House takes up one of Halliday's ques-
tions: "how do we know when a translation is good?" She gives a detailed
and useful review of the highly diverse ways of understanding and ap-
proaching this question, and outlines her own functional approach (which
is "mainly based on systemic-functional theory" but also "draws eclecti-
cally on Prague school ideas, speech act theory and discourse analysis").
She demonstrates her approach by testing it on a German translation of
an English children's book.
Erich Steiner explores the notion of translation by a detailed examina-
tion of "intralingual" and "interlingual" versions of a text. He begins with
a discussion of the important notion of "register" and then proceeds to
deal with a set of closely related texts. All of these texts are excerpts from
advertisements for Rolex Oyster watches, some in English, some in Ger-
man, published in magazines such as Newsweek, Time International and

Der Spiegel. Steiner combines the broad perspective of register and vari-
ation with careful attention to the details of wording, from the "sheer
ability" of a Rolex Oyster to keep going, to the Oyster case "sculptured"
(or is it "hewn" or "produced"?) from a solid block of metal. This detailed
textual analysis leads to some theorizing about relationships among texts
and about the nature of translation, including some reasons why translat-
ed texts are systematically different from other types of text and might be
considered to constitute a register on their own
Elke Teich offers a model of the contrastive-linguistic resources in-
volved in translation. She provides a review of categories of linguistic de-
scription in Systemic Functional Linguistics and discusses the ways in
which languages tend to differ from each other — "the dimensions of con-
trastive-linguistic description". She grounds her discussion in an exami-
nation of some differences between English and German, using as a spe-
cific text an extract from an article on The hidden strength of hydrogen.
Teich compares the English text, as published in Scientific American, with
the German translation that appeared in Spektrum der Wissenschaft, and
there is added interest for the reader in her use of the SYSTRAN system
to generate an English back translation of the German text. Teich's chap-
ter concludes with some perceptive remarks about translation strategies,
translation types and translation procedures, viewed within the model she
has developed.
Colin Yallop's chapter begins with what may seem like a philosophical
discussion of uniqueness and similarity: indeed, everything in the world is
unique and changeable. This introduces both a discussion of how it is that
we can judge things to be "the same" or "equivalent" and an examination
of a text which many might think wildly adventurous, namely a transla-
tion of Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland into the Austra-
lian Aboriginal language Pitjantjatjara. Or is it a translation? With the
help of a back translation of the Pitjantjatjara (printed beside the Pitjan-
tjatjara in the published book), Yallop is able to show that there are
points of anchorage, similarities between Carroll's original and the Pitjan-
tjatjara version, as well as points of (radical) departure, which will leave
many readers wanting to call the Pitjantjatjara text an adaptation rather
than a translation (and the published book, Alitji in the Dreamtime, does
in fact describe itself as having been "adapted and translated" from Alice
in Wonderland.).
The final section of the book consists of three chapters, each focussing
on a relatively concrete demonstration of computational and didactic
projects in translation studies and multilingual text generation. Susanna
Shore's chapter turns our attention particularly to pedagogy. After some
brief comments on conventional translation exercises in schools and uni-
versities and a review of basic concepts, Shore tackles the practicalities of

Introduction 9
teaching translation in the classroom. Her discussion includes, for exam-
ple, classroom attention to the commissioning of translations. It may be
possible for teachers in schools and universities to give their students
translation assignments that have no obvious customer or audience — but
in real life, translators get their jobs from people who often have very def-
inite ideas about why and how and for whom this text is to be translated.
A professional teacher should ensure that students are prepared for this
reality. In keeping with the spirit of this book, Shore's chapter is not only
practical advice but also a demonstration of principles on a specific text,
in this case two excerpts from a catalogue of Finnish children's literature,
accompanied by a (published) translation into English.
Chris Taylor and Anthony Baldry are, like Shore, involved and inter-
ested in pedagogy. Their chapter introduces computer assisted text anal-
ysis and translation, and outlines a specific project on which they them-
selves have been working in Italy. They have developed an interactive
computer application which has been programmed with textual analyses.
This allows the translation student to view a text, to go to various modules
which assist in relevant analysis of the text (for example, cohesion or the-
matic structure) and then to type in a translation and get feedback about
the adequacy of the translation. Readers should not only appreciate the
careful explanation of how this application works but also enjoy the lin-
guistic details that are revealed in the text (which is a light-hearted tele-
vision advertisement for the Mitsubishi Pajero).
Tony Hartley and Cecile Paris have extensive experience of working on
multilingual documentation and "controlled languages" - varieties of lan-
guage in which there are restrictions on grammatical patterns and on
choice of vocabulary in order to create a less ambiguous, more consistent
language for such purposes as writing technical manuals. Hartley and Paris
carefully and helpfully explain the nature and role of controlled languages
and multilingual text generation in commercial settings, highlighting some
of the problems, giving concrete textual illustration, and showing how re-
search is contributing to the development of useful tools.
3. How this book might be used
The contributors to this book, each in their own way, are exploring con-
cepts and relationships among concepts, and arguing for or against certain
types of modeling. In a general sense, therefore, the book may serve as
text book for advanced and postgraduate seminars and working groups in
education, research and development settings. Most chapters could serve
as topics for further general discussion, but perhaps most notably those
by Halliday, with its accessible exposition of Systemic Functional perspec-

tives, and by Gregory, with its inclusion of Chomskyan as well as Systemic
Functional insights. House's chapter is a solid general introduction to the
topic of translation evaluation as well as an outline of her own approach;
while Matthiessen's will be useful to those wishing to pursue discussion of
the relationship of translation to comparative linguistics and typology in
a broad multilingual framework.
More specifically, some chapters can serve as starting points for partic-
ular discussions or projects: for example, Hartley and Paris's chapter may
form the basis for a discussion of multilingual documentation and its in-
creasing relevance to the work of commercial translators; or Shore's prac-
tical suggestions may provide the material for a discussion of how to ap-
ply or adapt her ideas to improve the teaching of translation in local
settings; or Taylor and Baldry's chapter might be studied to see whether
the kinds of textual analysis being offered to students could be used in the
context of other languages and other institutions.
Given that particular care has been taken to provide textual exemplifi-
cation of arguments, the book incorporates a wide variety of examples of
real translation tasks, supported by detailed attention to the wording of
the texts. Steiner's chapter includes some detailed examination of similar
advertisements in English and German, and Teich's a similarly useful ex-
amination of differences between English and German versions of popu-
lar scientific writing. Such studies might provide examples to inspire fur-
ther attention to textual detail, whether in English and German or in
other languages. Yallop's chapter may be helpful to those interested in lit-
erary or "creative" translation (although this book should make it clear
that there is no simple dichotomy of factual commercial or scientific
translation and literary or creative translation) and may suggest compa-
rable exercises in examining portions of translated imaginative works.
None of these suggestions is of course intended to imply that the chap-
ters can be used only in the ways mentioned, and we hope that the book
will, beyond functioning as an advanced textbook, also offer strategies
and concepts for research and development teams in the area of multilin-
gual technologies and perhaps also make some contribution towards pro-
viding a common language for discussing phenomena in translation and
multilingual text production — a common language which is urgently
needed.
We acknowledge that what we are offering here is, of course, a tradi-
tional written book — with all the attendant advantages and disadvantag-
es. But it may be helpful to point out that some of the contributions and
some of the specific technologies described here are also accessible elec-
tronically. Various text and translation corpora are also mentioned in the
book, and these resources are becoming indispensable in modern transla-
tion studies. Where it is not already stated within this book how to access

Introduction 11
such tools and resources (e.g. via an internet address), we recommend
that interested readers make contact with the individual authors to obtain
advice about access and availability.
Finally, we hope readers will find the book in itself enjoyable as well as
useful. All of us who have contributed to the book have put considerable
effort into making this a coherent collection. We hope that we have man-
aged to realize our aims in a readable text and that the book is a faithful
and worthy translation.

Towards a theory of good translation
M.A.K. Halliday
We all indulge in theorizing when we have to: we become medical advisers
when someone we know is ill, and we are always ready with theories about
translation, when faced with quaint or impenetrable instructions on some
gadget imported from overseas. Among scholars in science and the human-
ities are many with a serious interest in the practice and theory of transla-
tion as it impinges on their own disciplines; writers and literary scholars
have probably contributed the most to exploring the translation process
and the relation between a translated text and its original. But there are two
groups of professionals who theorize about translation in its entirety: the
translators themselves, and the linguists. Both these groups are concerned
with a general theory of translation; but they interpret this in rather differ-
ent ways. For a linguist, translation theory is the study of how things are:
what is the nature of the translation process and the relation between texts
in translation. For a translator, translation theory is the study of how things
ought to be: what constitutes good or effective translation and what can
help to achieve a better or more effective product (cf. Bell 1991: ch.l).1
Of course, in putting it in these personalized terms I am consciously be-
ing schematic. Some translators are interested in the nature of their un-
dertaking from the point of view of linguistic theory; and some linguists
engage in improving the quality of translations and in training translators.
It is entirely possible for the same person to adopt both these theoretical
perspectives. Nevertheless they do raise different issues. To express it in
grammatical terms: the linguist's theory of translation is a declarative the-
ory (or better, indicative, since a theory of this kind is as much interroga-
tive as declarative), whereas the translator's theory of translation is an im-
perative theory. Each is, obviously, an important and productive
enterprise. What concerns me here is the relationship between the two.
Let me recall here something I have said at times with respect to text
analysis. When we analyze a text linguistically, we usually have one of two
possible goals. One is to explain why the text means what it does: why it
is understood the way it is — by the analyst, or by anyone else. That is the
lower of the two goals, the one that is easier to attain. The higher goal is
to explain why the text is valued as it is — again, by anyone who may be
evaluating it: this might be, in the case of a literary or religious text, by a
general consensus within the culture. This second goal is more difficult to
attain, if only because it includes the first one: to be able to explain why a
text is more, or perhaps less, effective in its context one must first be able

14 M.A.K. Halliday
to explain why it means what it is understood to mean. I am using "mean-
ing" here in a broad, Firthian sense: a text has meaning at all linguistic
strata, those of expression as well as those of content. The rhyme scheme
of a poem is part of its phonological meaning.
How does this relate to the theory of translation? Let me approach this
in two steps. First: suppose we are considering two texts, in different lan-
guages, the one said to be a translation of the other. The questions that
arise are: is this text a translation of the other, or is it not? and if it is, is it
a good translation? Of course, all such categories are fuzzy; but since they
are all equally fuzzy, this does not affect the point. With the first question,
we are considering what the text means; with the second, we are consid-
ering whether it is effective — and again, the second appears as the harder
one to answer, since it is dependent on the first: we cannot judge whether
a text is effective unless we know what it means.
With the second step, we ask two questions that are analogous to my
questions regarding text analysis: why is this text a translation of the oth-
er? and why is it, or is it not, a good translation? In other words: how do
we know? But in order to take this second step, we have to shift our
stance. As long as we are asking only whether the two texts have these
particular properties, we are simply observing instances: the two are be-
ing compared directly one with the other. Once we start asking why, our
stance shifts and we are now observing systems: the systems of the two
languages that lie behind the texts being compared. Just as the exercises
in text analysis involve the theory of descriptive linguistics, so these exer-
cises in translation analysis involve the theory of comparative descriptive
linguistics (cf. Ellis 1966).
The problem of reconciling the two concepts of a theory of translation
is that they make different assumptions about the stance of the observer.
What I have called the linguist's perspective is systemic: it assumes that
you can theorize the relationship of translation only by referring to lan-
guage as system (or of course to other, non-linguistic features of the cul-
ture; but here also, to culture as system). The translator's perspective, on
the other hand, is more likely to be instantial: it assumes that to theorize
about how to improve a translation you have to engage with language as
text. So, for example, in modeling functional variation in language the
translator is more likely to think of "a register" as a text type, whereas the
linguist will think of "a register" as a sub-system. The major difference be-
tween the indicative and the imperative perspectives seems to be that
people tend to look at "translation" systemically, whereas they look at
"good translation" instantially.
It is notoriously difficult to say why, or even whether, something is a
good translation, since this must depend on a complex variety of different
factors that are constantly shifting in their relationship one to another.

Towards a theory of good translation 15
The central organizing concept is presumably that of "equivalence"; but
equivalence with respect to what? It seems that one might need some
kind of typology of equivalences, which could be assigned differential val-
ues according to the specific conditions attaching to a particular instance
of translation. Is there such a typology ready to hand?
One likely source will be found in the parameters of language itself. If
we construe these in terms of systemic functional theory there are three
vectors which are probably the most relevant: stratification, metafunction
and rank. Stratification is the organization of language in ordered strata:
phonetic, phonological, lexicogrammatical and semantic — and one or
more contextual strata outside of language proper. Metafunction is the or-
ganization of the content strata (lexicogrammar and semantics) in func-
tional components: ideational, interpersonal and textual — roughly, the
parts of the system that have to do with construing human experience, en-
acting social relationships, and creating discourse. Rank is the organiza-
tion of the formal strata (phonology and lexicogrammar) in a composition-
al hierarchy: for example, in the grammar of English, clause complexes,
clauses, phrases, groups, words and morphemes. All of these have been
used in models of translation, and I will refer to each of them in turn.
In his book A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965), Catford defined
equivalence explicitly by reference to the different strata in language. The
sense in which "translation equivalence" is most typically understood
would be that of equivalence at the semantic stratum; but Catford recogniz-
es equivalence at all the other strata, not only those of content but also
those of expression (phonology and phonetics — and also, since he is taking
account of the written medium, the analogous strata of "graphology" and
"graphetics"). There could be purely graphic equivalence between symbols
that resembled each other visually, even if they were functionally quite dis-
tinct. This kind of equivalence does not usually carry much value — though
I used to play a game of multilingual Scrabble in which the roman letters
also stood for their nearest graphic equivalents in Cyrillic: w for Russian tu
and so on; and there are certainly contexts in which phonic equivalence
may be valued rather highly. But the point I want to make here is the gen-
eral one: that equivalence at different strata carries differential values; that
in most cases the value that is placed on it goes up the higher the stratum —
semantic equivalence is valued more highly than lexicogrammatical, and
contextual equivalence perhaps most highly of all; but that these relative
values can always be varied, and in any given instance of translation one can
reassess them in the light of the task.
Catford's theory was entirely "indicative" in approach. In 19621 wrote
an article on translation in which (since it was offering a model for ma-
chine translation) I took a more "imperative" approach, adopting the no-
tion that Ellis subsequently called "translation at ranks". This operated at

16 M.A.K. Halliday
the stratum of lexicogrammar, and the idea was to list a set of equivalents
at the lowest rank, that of the morpheme, ranged in order of probability;
and then to modify the choice of equivalent in a stepwise move up the
rank scale, each step locating the item in the context of the next higher
unit — first the word, then the group an so on. So for example the Russian
morpheme o6w, might have as its most likely equivalent the English so-
cio-; but in the context of the word o6w,uu. it becomes general; when this
word, in turn, occurs in the group οβιμαΗ ÓAUHÜ (obscaja dlina), this gets
translated as the overall length (not the general length), the criterion being
'if the noun functioning as Thing is a measure of quantity'. This has never
been adopted as far as I know as a strategy for machine translation — but
it defines translation equivalence with respect to rank. Here again we can
observe that equivalence at different ranks carries differential values; and
that, again, the value tends to go up the higher the rank — clause complex
(sentence) equivalence is valued more highly than clausal, clausal than
phrasal and so on; but, again, there may always be particular circumstanc-
es in which equivalence at a lower rank acquires a relatively higher value.
The third vector in respect of which equivalence may be defined is that
of metafunction. This is different from the other two discussed in that there
is no ordering among the different metafunctions — no ordering, that is, in
the system of language, although they are typically ordered in the value that
is assigned to them in translation, with the ideational carrying by far the
highest value overall. It is not hard to see the reason for this. As a general
rule, "translation equivalence" is defined in ideational terms; if a text does
not match its source text ideationally, it does not qualify as a translation, so
the question whether it is a good translation does not arise. For precisely
this reason, one of the commonest criticisms made of translated texts is
that, while they are equivalent ideationally, they are not equivalent in re-
spect of the other metafunctions — interpersonali^ or textually, or both. To
express this in analogous contextual terms, the field of discourse has been
adequately construed in the target language but the tenor, or else the mode,
has not. We cannot here assign a typical scale of values; but there can be
considerable variation in the value that is accorded to equivalence in the
non-ideational metafunctions. In some contexts, matching the relations of
power and distance, and the patterns of evaluation and appraisal, set up in
the original text may be very highly valued in the translation, to such an ex-
tent as even to override the demand for exact ideational equivalence.
This situation typically arises where the highest value, in stratal terms,
is being placed on contextual equivalence, overriding the requirement for
equivalence at the semantic stratum. In such cases what is being expected
of the translator is a text which would have equivalent function to the
original in the context of situation. This is analogous to what Hasan (1996:
ch.5) describes as "semantic variation" between different coding orienta-

Towards a theory of good translation 17
tions within one language (for example, where different mothers use dif-
ferent semantic strategies in giving reasons for regulating their child's be-
havior). And the analogy with the concept of variation provides another
way of looking at the phenomenon of "equivalence value" that I have
been discussing. If, for example, value is given to equivalence at some
higher rank, the implication is that features at lower ranks are allowed to
vary: provided the clauses are equivalent, the words and phrases need not
be. The common motif, which permits us to look at translation as a kind
of variation, is that of variation against some higher-level constant. This
is a strategy that the translator has recourse to all the time.
To summarize the discussion of "equivalence value": in any particular
instance of translation, value may be attached to equivalence at different
ranks, different strata, different metafunctions. In rank, it is usually at the
higher lexicogrammatical units that equivalence is most highly valued;
lower units are then exempted (e.g. words can vary provided the clauses
are kept constant). In strata, likewise, equivalence is typically most val-
ued at the highest stratum within language itself, that of semantics (where
again the lower strata may be allowed to vary); value may also attach ex-
plicitly to the level of context, especially when equivalence at lower strata
is problematic. In metafunction, high value may be accorded to equiva-
lence in the interpersonal or textual realms — but usually only when the
ideational equivalence can be taken for granted (it is interesting to spec-
ulate on why this should be so).
If we now return to the two interpretations of "theory of translation"
with which I started, these may seem a little less incommensurable. Let
me express this as a characterization of the target language text (it could
alternatively be expressed as a characteristic of the text pair). A "good"
translation is a text which is a translation (i.e. is equivalent) in respect of
those linguistic features which are most valued in the given translation
context.
What this problematizes, of course, is the notion of value itself. I have
been talking of the relative value that is accorded to translation equiva-
lence at the various strata, ranks or metafunctions as outlined above.
What I have left out of consideration is the value accorded to the (source
language) text as a whole. Should a "great lyric poem" in the source lan-
guage become a "great lyric poem" in the target? — in other words, what
value is being assigned to the perceived quality of the original text? This
is a question of the value that is being placed on value itself. And this con-
stitutes one further variable for the translator, which we might need to
add to the definition:... and perhaps also in respect of the value which is
assigned to the original (source language) text.
It also raises once more the second part of my analytic inquiry: why is
the text evaluated as it is? If we can answer this, it may help us to decide,

18 M.A.K. Halliday
when translating it, how much value to place on the factor of equivalence
in value.
Notes
1. For a fuller exploration of "equivalence of contextual function", and related issues, see
the chapters in the present volume by Erich Steiner and by Cohn Yallop. Steiner draws
on the notion of variation in explaining "identity" of texts in translation, and suggests
that "For something to count as a translation, it need not have the same register features
as its source text, but register features which function similarly to those of the original in
their context of culture". Yallop defines equivalence as constructed out of "a rich diver-
sity of similarities", and discusses the metaphors with which the concept of equivalence
has been embellished. He stresses that there may in fact be no equivalence at the level of
cultural context — a situation familiar to Bible translators, which Yallop illustrates by ref-
erence to the "translation" oí Alice in Wonderland into Pitjantjatjara.
References
Bell, Roger T.
1991 Translation and Translating: theory and practice. London: Longman (Applied
Linguistics and Language Study).
Catford, J.C.
1965 A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press (Lan-
guage and Language Learning 8).
Ellis, J.
1966 Towards a General Comparative Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton (Janua Lin-
guarum Series Minor).
Halliday, M.A.K.
1962 Linguistics and machine translation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissen-
schaft und Kommunikationsforschung 15.i/ii. Reprinted in Angus Mcintosh
& M.A.K. Halliday, 1966 Patterns of Language: papers in general, descriptive
and applied linguistics, London: Longmans' Linguistics Library.
Hasan, Ruqaiya
1996 Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning, edited by Carmel Cloran, David Butt &
Geoff Williams. London: Cassell (Open Linguistics Series).
Steiner, Erich
(this volume)Intralingual and interlingual versions of a text — how specific is the notion
of "translation"?
Yallop, Colin
(this volume)The construction of equivalence.

What can linguistics learn from translation?
Michael Gregory
1. Prologue
I began the last, and only previous, piece I have written on translation,
and that was nineteen years ago, with the disclaimer that I was not a trans-
lator, nor an expert on translation, but "a linguist, a philologist whose spe-
cialties are the description of present-day English, sociolinguistics and
stylistics" (Gregory 1980: 45). That remains true today with the proviso
that I have taught and written increasingly about linguistic theory since
then. In that paper I was concerned with what help linguistics in the Firth-
ian tradition might be in the practice and study of translation. So I started
with some of Firth's own insights: that "the whole problem of translation
is in the field of semantics" (Firth 1957: 32), and for Firth semantics was
what linguistics was all about: "the disciplines and techniques of linguis-
tics are directed to assist us in making statements of meaning" (Firth 1957:
191). He saw these statements as being dispersed throughout the different
modes of description: the phonetic (including the phonoaesthetic), the
phonological, the morphological, the syntactic, the collocational (or lexi-
cal) and the situational, and recognized that with some modes we might
be facing meanings that are untranslatable (Firth 1957: 193). He also
pointed out that it would pay to distinguish the kind of translation that is
being called for, in his words "creative translations" (literary translations
that aim to be works of art in the target language), "official" translation
and machine translation; he saw a need for "the restriction of research in
translation to the circumscribed fields of restricted languages" (Palmer
ed. 1968:91). Firth was at that time ahead of his time when, as regards ma-
chine translation his hunch was that the best progress would be made by
the study of long units rather than the minimal segments favored by his
transatlantic colleagues, and also by the examination of the mutual ex-
pectancy of words in cliches and high frequency collocations, particularly
within restricted languages.
From Firth it was not too long a step to J. C. Catford's (1965) concise
and lucid A Linguistic Theory of Translation, and his development of
Firthian ideas on translation within the framework of scale and category
linguistics and, very importantly, what is now called dialect and register
(or diatype) theory, itself a sophistication and extension in many ways of
Firth's concept of restricted language. So I spent much of the paper sum-
marizing Catford's articulation of the concept of translation equivalence

20 Michael Gregory
within the parameters of language variation (see Halliday, Matthiessen,
and Steiner in this volume).
There was little originality in my paper and I have always been agree-
ably, if a little shamefacedly, surprised that so many real translators and
genuine experts have, over the years, expressed their appreciation of it.
I was, indeed, serious in my disclaimer of translation experience. How-
ever, as an undergraduate at Oxford in the middle to late 'fifties, pursu-
ing studies in the Honour School of English, I was, of course, faced with
the expectation that one should be able to translate, with extensive "gob-
bet" commentary Greek (Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschlyus),
Latin (Vergil), French (Boileau, Racine, Corneille) and Anglo- Saxon:
all this for "Prelims" at the end of the first two terms. After that there
was Beowulf and, if you wanted it, some Old Norse and Old and Middle
High German, and so on. At Oxford in those days "they", with the ex-
ception of Nevill Coghill, did not think Middle English needed much
translation but there was extensive linguistic commentary to be done on
the texts. I imagine things have changed, even at Oxford, over the last
forty years. Some of you, perhaps, will know the nature of the translating
in which we were involved: heavily literal, morpheme by morpheme, and
some will remember the inestimable value of "cribs" and the surrepti-
tious homage paid to Loeb.
However, even in the light of this limited and narrowly focussed expe-
rience, I have always been impressed by the very facts of translation: the
fact that it has long been a constant human activity (to it we owe our first
dictionaries in the West, bilingual and then "hard" or "foreign word"
glossaries); the fact that translation is clearly seen throughout the world
as socially and culturally necessary and useful; and the fact that whatever
problems it faces, translation overcomes enough of them to be acknowl-
edged as worthwhile, successful enough to earn a great investment of
time, energy, and human and material resources.
One can, then, surely assume that it has proven, and does prove, its
worth as one of humanity's answers to Babel. Another answer is the
learning of foreign languages, itself necessarily implicated in the act and
art of translation; and foreign language teaching and learning has contrib-
uted much to linguistics, particularly to that of the descriptive, tagmemic,
Firthian and Hallidayan traditions (as, for example, in the work of C. C.
Fries and of Halliday, Mcintosh, and Strevens 1964). Perhaps it is now
translation's turn, and it is appropriate that we reflect on what linguistics
might learn about what it studies from the facts, processes and conse-
quences of translation.
The omnipresence and long history of translation has, to my mind, two
important theoretical implications. The first is one that should give en-
couragement to functional theorists of language. The relative success of

What can linguistics learn from translation? 2 1
translation suggests that as well as diversity there is also a commonality
of human social experience and, in significant measure, of the linguistic
representation and processing of experience amongst different cultures
living through different languages. Otherwise translation would be well
nigh impossible. Now it is true that translation of the documents of anoth-
er culture does not usually begin in the absence of some considerable de-
gree of cultural contact by way of trade, war, imperialism, religious mis-
sions, migrations and so on. But once there is contact, translation of one
sort of another commences. That translation might at first be the sort of
inter-actional, inter-linguistic negotiations that leads eventually to pidgins
and then later, possibly to creóles. This begins with human social inter-
changes which are rooted in the activities in which language can operate
with what Bernstein (1976,1972,1974) called a restricted code. In other
words there is something concretely "going on" between the participants
which is meaningful in itself to both sides and to which language is a com-
municative support rather than the major mode of meaning: the exchange
of beads or gems (or for that matter, traveller's cheques) for water, food,
and shelter requires a minimum of linguistic interchange as do the "mean-
ings" of friendliness, hostility, or guarded neutrality. But we do make nois-
es with our faces in order to live, in Firth's idiom, and sooner rather than
later there is the attempt to match the different noises with the different
acts and experiences of living. Small wonder, then, that of all the kinds of
translation, one of the first in a new contact between cultures and lan-
guages is, ironically, an attempt at one of the most difficult in some re-
spects, simultaneous interpretation. I became aware of the pidiginization
and language borrowing aspects of simultaneous interpretation, even of a
most sophisticated kind, in the early nineteen sixties as a Scottish delegate
at the Council of Europe's Seminarium Erasmianum on the relationships
between what, in those politically not so correct days, were called devel-
oped and underdeveloped countries. Here were a group of scholars from
each European country, and guests from the sub-continent, Africa and
Asia: economists, sociologists, political scientists, linguists and anthropol-
ogists, all having their say in their own professional, restricted languages
and interpreters working in English or Dutch or French having to cope.
They did a marvelous job. When one of the French or Dutch or Belgian
economists was holding forth onplannification I would put on the headset
and listen to how the interpreters were getting on. There were some ex-
traordinary sentences of a polyglot nature gallantly produced in the heat
of the moment but they did their job in the exchange of meanings.
Once cultural contact is instituted and maintained on a basis usually of
some kind and degree of equality, elaborated code translations follow,
particularly if the cultures are literate. And they too have their measure
of success.

22 Michael Gregory
So the functional theorist can take comfort. Cultural relativity, cultural
diversity there most certainly is, but we are, in many important ways, po-
tentially "all members, one of another". We share a common human ex-
perience as Shakespeare's Shylock put it so succinctly:
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affec-
tions, passions, fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same
diseases, heal'd by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed: If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you
poison us do we not die? ...
(Merchant of Venice III i 48-56)
And that speech of Shylock's, like most of Shakespeare, has been trans-
lated into over a hundred languages effectively enough for it to have been
estimated that a Shakespeare play is being performed in one language or
another somewhere in the world every hour of every day.
However, the most translated body of writings in the world is almost
certainly that collection known as the Bible: the Hebrew and Christian
scriptures written in Hebrew over many centuries and first and, possibly
second century, Greek, with a touch of Aramaic; and these writings are
myths, legends, poems, songs, legal documents, chronicles, narratives and
letters. And all or part of these writings have been, according to the Unit-
ed Bible Societies 1997 Scripture Language Report, translated into two
thousand, one hundred and ninety seven languages. These languages
have a re-presentation of the original text's representation of the mean-
ings of the cultures in which they originated.
So the functional linguist is emboldened to postulate general theories
of grammar for the description of particular languages and their texts: for
example, that they can be described in terms of unit, structure, class and
system along scales of rank, delicacy and exponence (Halliday 1961), or
units-in-hierarchy and context which can be approached from particle,
field and wave perspectives (Pike 1967, Pike and Pike 1982). We set up
and test functional roles such as Actor, Process and Goal (Halliday (1967)
or Actor, Undergoer and Scope (Pike and Pike 1982), or Agent, Patient,
Recipient, Processor (Gregory 1982) or Agent, Affected, Carrier (Fawc-
ett 1980). We do this to capture, among other things, the "languaging" of
roles played by participants in the material and mental events of human
lives. There is confidence, too, that in all languages there are formal re-
sources which enable speakers to assert what they believe to be facts of
human experience, or question them, or direct the behaviour of others;
there is confidence that there are also resources to indicate the inter-con-
nectedness of what we say in texts and to point out the degrees of impor-
tance of different parts of the message we make with language (Halliday
and Hasan 1976, Halliday 1967).

What can linguistics learn from translation? 23
The fact of translatability, however that might be a matter of degree,
has led translation scholars such as Beekman, Callow and Kopesec
(Beekman and Callow 1974; Beekman, Callow and Kopesec 1981), influ-
enced by functional theories of language, to see value in recognizing con-
cept as a theoretical postulate, that is to recognize that our cognitive seg-
mentations of experience that are lexicalised in a particular language as
individual lexical items do not limit the linguistic expression of other seg-
mentations of experience which are so lexicalised in another language but
not in that particular language. The speaker of one language can use
phrases (including clauses) to catch the nuances the speaker of another
language may, as we say, "have a word for".
Indeed the distinguishing of translations as "literal" or "free", of hav-
ing formal or dynamic equivalence, of being paraphrases or adaptations
speaks to this challenge. One interesting example: in the fourth chapter
of the letter to the Ephesians, traditionally attributed to Paul of Tarsus,
there is a passage in which the task of Christian leaders is seen to be, in
the recent but, in many respects, conservative, translation of the New Re-
vised Standard Version, "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for
building up the Body of Christ" (v. 11-12). Now, the Greek word translat-
ed as "equip", katartizo, was originally a medical term, describing the
treatment of dislocations and fractures. It is "a word Paul's companion,
Dr. Luke, would have used to describe what he had to do quite often and
what a chiropractor does today, that pulling and twisting about of limbs
the practitioner euphemistically calls 'adjusting'" (Bowen 1998: 4); In
other words, the Greek word is itself consonant with the metaphor of the
church as the Body of Christ, whereas "equip" would fit better with one
of the Pauline military, rather than corporeal, metaphors for the church.
I have always thought that if F. R. Palmer, in his brisk and not very well
argued dismissal of the value of concept in his book, Semantics (1981:24—
29), had thoroughly considered the process of translation he might have
had second thoughts. Culturally specific cognitive and linguistic segmen-
tations of experience might present the translator problems in searching
for the "right word" but there may be combinations of words which will
suffice. Seeking to isolate the conceptual properties of the source lan-
guage word can help in finding the appropriate word or words in the tar-
get language. Translation does indeed draw attention to the lexicality of
language as the rich dictionary proposals of Mel'cuk (Steele ed. 1990;
Mel'cuk and Pertsov 1987) and Fleming (1988) attest. The Collins Co-
build projects have a most important contribution to make in this area.
The second implication of what I have called the "fact" of translation
should be an encouragement to formal and cognitivist theorists of lan-
guage. Despite the apparently widely different uses made of syntactic,
morphologic, and phono/graphologic resources in different languages,

24 Michael Gregory
the utilitarian success of translation as well as the fact of language learn-
ing suggest that there must be a significant measure of "universality" in
human grammars that involves, even if it is not just a matter of, a common
innate linguistic competence (see, for example, Chomsky (1986: 17-29,
37^10,145-152)). Chomsky's question as to how it is that, from scraps and
shreds of evidence, we learn our first language so quickly is a legitimate
and central one that linguistics has to ask of its phenomenon and seek to
answer, particularly if one realizes that the question is not about learning
social and cultural meanings, which are over-determined, but about learn-
ing principles of structuration. A capacity for language, not a language, is
our genetic gift. Research into principles of human grammatical organi-
zation and the distinguishing of parameter settings for individual lan-
guages and groups of languages is an endeavour of the greatest impor-
tance in addressing language as process, program (see Fawcett 1992,
Gregory 1998) as well as of potential value in the theory and practice of
translation. So long as functional and formal schools of linguistics exist in
an apartheid relationship, just so long are we open to the accusation that
we prefer the securities of tunnel vision and collégial comfort to the full
range of intellectual challenges set by the phenomena.
That is why I maintain that to separate in any absolute way a theory of
form (or structure) from a theory of function (or usage), to privilege the
one activity over the other, is profoundly to misinterpret the essential na-
ture of any language as an open, dynamic system, one in which what we
call form and function are in a productive, symbiotic relationship. The
grammar of a language (its form) allows the speaker to do what the
speaker wants (function) but insists on how the speaker does it (symbio-
sis), which means that ultimately the grammar is functionally predictable
and interpretable even though it is not functionally determined in any ab-
solute way which would prohibit its ability to respond to and create new
meanings (Gregory 1995b: 434). The fact of translation witnesses to this
symbiotic process.
This is also why Elissa Asp and I are working to develop a socio-cogni-
tive linguistics that attempts to combine systemic-functional insights and
Chomskyan perspectives with some important influences from Richard
Hudson's Word Grammar (1984), particularly as regards the multiple in-
heritance of properties by the instance from models and the priority of
the instance over any models (see Asp (1992, 1995, 1998a, 1998b, in
press), Gregory (1995a, 1995b, 1998a, 1998b)): key factors in translation.
In the next section of this article we will look, from the point of view of
this kind of linguistics, at a group of texts which are all English transla-
tions of a particular New Testament Greek text. The translations present
themselves variously as being "formal equivalence", "dynamic equiva-
lence", and "paraphrase" versions and the Canadian Bible Society re-

gards them as having "distinctive features" and "theological affiliations".
We shall see how far we can go in discovering the functional and formal
models from which they inherit properties and what light this brief and
largely informal comparative analysis throws on the question of the rela-
tionship between translation and linguistics.
Among the resources for this part of the paper are biblical concordances,
dictionaries, expository dictionaries, a grammar of New Testament Greek
and that monument of philological scholarship, Alfred Marshall's Nestlé
Text Inter-Linear Greek-English New Testament (1958); so perhaps, forty
years on, I am returning, at least in some respects to an activity that was re-
sented by many but prescribed by Oxford philologists. Now I hope I can
recognize that there are limits to our objectifying of the subjective, and gen-
eralizing the specific, but that there is knowledge to be gained by trying.
2. Texts
In 1997, two American professors of religion, Steven M. Sheeley and
Robert N. Nash Jr. published their book The Bible in English Translation:
An Essential Guide, henceforth Sheeley and Nash, and in the same year
the Canadian Bible Society distributed to members and churches Our Bi-
ble: How it came to us, henceforth Our Bible.
Sheeley and Nash is a hundred and sixteen page book written by two
teaching scholars for a general audience, and Our Bible is a twenty-four
page public relations and informational booklet. Both have, however, the
following in common: they survey the origin of that collection of writings
known to Christians as the Holy Bible, the history of its translation into
English, the large and increasing number of twentieth century English
translations, and offer information and advice to help what might be
termed consumers choose one or more translations for use in private de-
votions, study, and/or public worship. Use will be made of both of them
here as a gnostological resource, an indication of what knowledge about
the Bible and its current English translations is widely available to the
communicating community context of literate North Americans at the
end of the twentieth century.
Our Bible presents a chart which categorizes twelve available transla-
tions: five as having formal equivalence". The King James Version (KJV),
The New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bi-
ble (NASB), the New American Bible (NAB) and the New Revised Stan-
dard Version (NRSV); five as having dynamic equivalence: the Contem-
porary English Version (CEV), the New International Version (NIV),
Today's English Version also known as the Good News Bible (TEV/
GNB), God's Word (GW) and the New Century Version (NCV); and two

26 Michael Gregory
as beingparaphrases: the Living Bible (LB) and The Message (TM). Each
version is given a reading level using Dale-Chall, Fry, Raygor and Spache
Formulas, a short statement of distinctive features such as for the NRSV,
"published 1990 as a revision of the RSV. Gender inclusive language
when supported by the original language" and a theological affiliation
such as for the NIV: "Transnational, transdenominational team of schol-
ars. Conservative, evangelical". The full chart is appended.
Sheeley and Nash also comment in more detail, and frequently in a more
critical vein, on all the above with the exception of GW which has the low-
est reading level of all: 4.3, compared with 12.0 for the KJV and 11 for the
NASB. They do, however, comment extensively on five other modern
translations: the Jerusalem Bible (JB), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB),
the New English Bible (NEB), the Revised English Bible (REB) and the
New Living Translation (NLT). They use similar translation categories to
Our Bible but, rather unhappily, have verbal forformal equivalence. With
some reservations they place the NIV in that category whereas Our Bible
has it in the dynamic category. Sheeley and Nash subdivide the dynamic
into general idiomatic translations (JB, NEB, REB, NCV, NLT) and com-
mon language versions (TEV/GNB, CEV). They point out that
... the dynamic equivalence theory was first proposed by Eugene Nida as an approach to
biblical translation that might assist Bible translators in various cultural contexts ... a
general idiomatic approach was launched by translators like James Moffat, Edgar Good-
speed, J. B. Phillips and Ronald Knox who viewed their translations as phrase-for-phrase
efforts to reproduce the meaning of the text in modern English. In the words of Phillips
their goal was to make their translation 'not sound like a translation at all' (62).
They then indicate that "a second movement among dynamic translators,
known as the common language approach, emerged later as a result of ef-
forts by the American Bible Society to use linguistic analysis to translate
Bibles in international mission contexts ... Extensive linguistic analyses
and theories about the communication of meaning from one language to
another provided the theoretical foundation for these common language
translations" (63).
Sheeley and Nash also express an awareness of the fuzziness at the edg-
es of such categories. Discussing the debate over the value of paraphrased
versions they write: "In many ways all translations are paraphrases of the
Bible, because no translation can ever capture the exact meaning of the
original language Perhaps the whole debate is simply a matter of de-
gree" (87). Our Bible, however, distinguishes paraphrase from translation
as including "built-in personal commentary" (24).
In another section Our Bible presents four types of translation: "a) lit-
eral (formal equivalent); b) idiomatic equivalent; c) functional (dynamic)
equivalent, d) free (added commentary) paraphrase." (4).

It is clear, throughout both Sheeley and Nash and Our Bible, that their
authors would ultimately, if pressed, agree with Eugene Van Ness Goet-
chius that "generally speaking, no Greek word has an exact 'literal' equiv-
alent in English which may be used to render it in every context" (Goet-
chius 1965: XV). In other words, there is a reasonable amount of linguistic
sophistication in both these popular publications.
Our Bible gives in its chart a passage comparison for each of its catego-
rized versions. The passage is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Here is a transliterated
Greek version from the Nestlé Greek text with Alfred Marshall's inter-
linear English translation (1958).
V.16 pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimes
Every scripture [is] God-breathed and profitable
pros didaskalian, pros elegmon, pros epanarthoain,
for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
pros paideian ten en dikaiooune
for instruction — in righteousness,
V.I7 hiña artios e o tou theou anthropos,
in order that 5
fitted 4
may 'the 3
of God 2
man, be
pros pan ergon agathon exerpromenos
for every work good having been furnished
It is somewhat remarkable how close the five formal equivalence transla-
tions (KJV (1611), NKJV (1982), NASB (1971/95), NAB (1986), NRSV
(1989)) of this passage are despite their temporal, geographical and theo-
logical contexts.
"Scripture" however is initially capitalized only in the NKJV and the
NASB, two professedly evangelical and conservative translations. It is not
so in the Roman Catholic NAB (the formal version in 1986 of the 1970
dynamic translation) nor in the "mainline and inter-confessional" NRSV,
and interestingly, not in the generic model for both the NKJV and the
NASB, the KJV, also known as the Authorized Version (that is authorized
to be read in Church of England churches) and a translation still praised
and reverenced by contemporary self-styled conservatives and evangeli-
cals for its literalness. Indeed, the addition of "conservative and evangel-
ical" to "Church of England" in the theological affiliation for the KJV is
a very modern and American appellation and would have meant some-
thing rather different in the seventeenth century. There is, of course, no
initial capitalization in the Greek text.
In interpreting pasa graphe the translator has available a co-textual col-
location and colligation in the preceeding verse (15): hiera grammata, lit-
erally 'sacred letters', translated as 'holy scriptures' in the KJV and 'sacred
writings' in the NASB and NRSV. As Craig S. Keener has pointed out, hi-

28 Michael Gregory
era grommata "was also used for pagan religious writing (e.g. in the cult of
Isis) but is attested in Greek speaking Jewish sources as a name for the Bi-
ble that then existed", i.e. the Hebrew scriptures (Keener 1993: 630). It is
doubtful as to whether the author of 2 Timothy is referring to anything else
despite the LB version of this noun phrase as "the whole Bible".
The item pasa is regularly glossed in New Testament Greek-English
lexicons (see e.g. Vine's (1996), Strong's (1996), Bauer, Arndt and Ging-
rich (1979)) as 'all', 'every' or 'any'. Marshall chooses the simple universal
reference deictic 'every' which concords with singular heads; the five for-
mally equivalent translations in the chart choose the inclusive reference
deictic 'all' which concords with plural and non-count heads which sug-
gests that scripture (with or without an initial capital) is interpreted as a
non-count noun.
Marshall's morphologically accurate translation of theopneustos as
'God-breathed' stands in contrast to the five formally equivalent transla-
tions' use of a form of 'inspire' and the agentive 'by God'. This latter
translation is in the tradition of Wycliffe (1384), Tyndale (1526), Cover-
dale (1535) and the Greek Bible (1539). Interestingly the NIV, catego-
rized in the chart as dynamically equivalent but as 'verbal' equivalent by
Sheeley and Nash, uses the literal 'God-breathed'. This raises the ques-
tion of items which, by way of long respected translations such as the KVJ
which have the status of generic models, have become terms in the field
of discourse of Anglophone theology. This passage has several of them:
'inspiration', 'doctrine' and 'righteousness' which are key terms in sys-
tematic theology and often the centres for controversy, and 'reproof,
'correction' and 'instruction' which have their place in pastoral theology.
So there is a strong tendency, as one contemporary translator said to me,
to stick with the "golden oldies"; they are lexical models of which the Bi-
ble translator is very aware.
Ophelimos from a form of ophelos, literally to 'heap up' and by exten-
sion, 'accumulate', 'benefit' or 'gain' is translated by Marshall, KJV,
NKJV and NASB as 'profitable'. The KJV as a model and a capitalist cul-
tural heritage which gives value to anything to do with 'profit' might well
be behind this selection. The other contemporary formally equivalent
translations and all the dynamically equivalent translations and the para-
phrases avoid 'profitable' and select the culturally more neutral 'useful'.
The other terms in this verse, translated by the KJV as 'doctrine', 're-
proof, 'correction' and 'instruction' are all, as Keener points out (1993:
630), standard terms from ancient, particularly Greek education, no mat-
ter how severe they seem interactionally to us now. The abstract noun, di-
daskalia was derived from the agentive noun didaskosos, an 'instructor'
or 'teacher', itself derived from didasko, a causative form of the primary
verb dao 'to learn'. So 'doctrine' (KJV, NKJV) and 'teaching' (Marshall,

and all the other formally and the dynamically equivalent translations)
are both candidates. The modern and contemporary preference for
'teaching' may be because it is perceived as being more dynamic and
open-ended than 'doctrine' now is, and can, for those translators who do
not feel the need to be too literal, project a noun phrase or clausal com-
plement as in 'teaching the truth' (TEV/GNB) and 'teach us what is true'
(LB). 'Reproof' {pros elegmon) central to the practice of Judaism and of
early Jewish Christians (as Paul's letters and Acto attest) was usually done
privately and gently at first, and only publicly when that failed. Pros epa-
narthoain, literally 'for correction', etymologically derived from epi, a pri-
mary preposition, and anothro, 'to straighten up', and in many contexts
translatable as 'rectification' provides the purpose and consequence for
the 'rebuke', 'reproof' or 'admonishment' of the previous phrase. Neither
'rebuke' or 'correction' are in the forefront of contemporary educational
theory and practice and so dynamic/functional and paraphrase versions
which are usually not accompanied by explanatory footnotes (as are the
Study Bible versions of formal equivalence translations such as the
NRSV, the REB and the NIV, borderline dynamic/formal), seem to rec-
ognize a need for the expansion here, making use of the complement pos-
sibilities of English -ing forms, so we have:
'helping people and converting them' (CEV),
'rebuking error, correcting faults' (TEV/GNB),
'pointing out errors, correcting people' (GW),
'for showing people what is wrong in their lives, for correcting faults'
(NCV),
'to make us realize what is wrong in our lives, it straightens us out'
[re-etymologizing at work here?] (LB),
'exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes' (TM).
Several preachers from a range of denominations (Roman Catholic, An-
glican, United Church of Canada, Presbyterian and Baptist) have told me
that they prefer to use these more clausal translations in sermons or hom-
ilies because they are more "dynamic" and "concrete" (in the sense of
particularizing relevance) than the literal/formal equivalent translations
with their noun phrases, which they consider "static" and "abstract".
The final phrase of verse 16: pros paideian ten en dikaiooune, is trans-
lated identically by Marshall, the KVJ and NKJV but the other formal
translations have 'training' for 'instruction', and with the exception of the
TEV/GNB ('giving instruction') the dynamic translations also prefer
'training' or 'train'. Significantly the Greek paideia (noun) and paideuo
(verb) are both frequently used in collocations and contexts which sug-
gest that the 'tutelage', 'instruction', 'education' is accompanied by disci-

30 Michael Gregory
pline or chastening (see Strong (1996: 672-673), Vine (1996: 328)). Clear-
ly contemporary translations have not allowed this to influence their
choices.
As noted above, 'righteousness' has become the term for a complex
and controversial concept in theology and has remained in the modern
formal translations. In the article on righteousness in the Oxford Com-
panion to the Bible, John Zeisler (1993: 656) points out that "it has been
maintained that Paul consistently uses 'justify' (dikaioo) for the restora-
tion and maintenance of the relationship with God and 'righteousness'
(idikaiosune) for the consequent life of his people, with both justification
and righteousness being by faith. But there is disagreement about the ex-
act meaning of most of the relevant passages.". Given this kind of a prob-
lematic, and scholarly doubt about Paul's authorship of the Letters to
Timothy compounding the matter, it is perhaps understandable that rela-
tively conservative contemporary formal translations such as NASB,
NAB and NRSV stay with the "authorized" KJV model of 'righteous-
ness' in this passage. However, with the exception of the NIV, the dynam-
ic translations and the paraphrases do not hesitate to "unpack the mean-
ing", and they do so in one direction. We are presented with 'showing
them how to live' (CEV), 'giving instruction for right living' (TEV/GNB),
'training them for a life that has God's approval' (GW), 'teaching how to
live right' (NCV), 'helps us to do what is right' (LB), 'training us to live
God's way' (TM), and one notes here again a preference for English
clausal and transitivity possibilities.
Verse 17 reminds the translator and the linguist that the parameter set-
tings of Greek and English are not identical and that word-by-word trans-
lation can produce non-English; form insists on how we say what we mean
and Marshall's word-by-word translation has to make use of ordering nu-
merals:
"In order that 5
fitted 4
may be 'the 3
of God 2
man"
It also raises the question of inclusive language. For the seventeenth cen-
tury translators of the KJV and for Marshall in (1958) 'man of God' for
theou anthropos might be considered a generic use of 'man', but it is
somewhat surprizing to see this translation maintained in the NKJV
(1982/83), the NASB (1971/1995 update) particularly as Greek has the
word aner to mean, specifically, a male. The expression the New Testa-
ment writer worded as theou anthropos has a long history: the ancient
Hittites used it to describe religious figures, and the Hebrew scriptures
used it for those commissioned by God to be spokepersons. This lies be-
hind the inclusive translations such as 'God's servants' (CEV, GW, 'the
person who serves God' (TEV/GNB/NEV). The NAB and NRSV use the

somewhat more formal translation reflecting the possessive genitive: 'one
who belongs to God', and 'everyone who belongs to God' respectively.
3. Epilogue
In this brief look at excerpts of Bible translation we have seen that the
contextual parameters in which they occur have a perceivable signifi-
cance and are reflected in nuances of experiential, interactional and orga-
nizational meaning. Purposes and preoccupations about the use of the
translation (private devotions, public worship, study and evangelism) play
their part as does self-consciousness about theological affiliation (conser-
vative, evangelical, mainstream, Roman Catholic) and all these are open
to use in market exploitation. Small wonder, then, that there is also, to a
considerable extent, an institutionalizing of different views of equiva-
lence: formal/literal, dynamic/functional and free paraphrase.
Two trends seem to be emerging and both should give food for thought
to the linguist. The first trend is towards revising functional translations in
a more formal direction. This has been the case in the 1985 New Jerusalem
Bible version of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1989 Revised English
Bible version of the 1970 New English Bible. The motivations for this
move may be rather complex: it is probably, and partially, a response to
some of the scholarly criticisms and reservations as regards accuracy and
fidelity to the originals that were expressed about the earlier versions de-
spite their considerable success; it may also have been motivated by a de-
sire to compete for recommendation in official lectionaries which are in-
creasingly in use in so called main-line denominations; and, finally, these
revisions may be aiming for the theological college and seminary market.
Both these translations are competitors in the Study Bible market with the
NRSV, and the increasing optionality of Hebrew and Greek for candidates
for ministry has meant that professors of scripture are more and more anx-
ious that their students should be using translations that preserve the orig-
inal word order and sentence structure as much as possible, and which also
provide detailed notes: historical, linguistic, and interpretive for herme-
neutic and exegetical purposes. In this they belong to a very long history of
interpretation which is to some extent responsible for the very nature of
the Biblical texts which are being translated, as Kugel (1947) has so cogent-
ly argued at length. One might call this trend the "philological" trend and
the linguist as philologist should take note of it.
The second trend might be called the "linguistic" trend and is con-
tained in the replacement of the free paraphrase Living Bible of 1971 with
the functionally equivalent New Living Translation of 1996. The LB was
an immense success both in sales and influence but many critics felt that

32 Michael Gregory
the rigidly evangelical stance of its progenitor, a seminary trained pub-
lisher, Kenneth N. Taylor led to some distorting paraphrases. Taylor did,
however, set up a missionary foundation to receive the royalties from the
LB and the success of that paraphrase enabled him to establish Tyndale
House Publishing which has produced the NLT 1996, not a paraphrase
but a version which probably most reflects the postulates on translation
of linguists in the Catford, Nida, and Summer Institute of Linguistics tra-
ditions. Its translation seems free of any partisan distortions and for this
reader the volume was only marred by the inclusion of a Tyndale Verse
Finder which smacks of a "proof-text" view of scripture, a nod perhaps to
the theological inclinations of the founder of the publishing house. In
their introduction (XII) the Bible Translation Committee of the NLT give
a succinct account of functional equivalence. They write: "the goal of this
translation theory is to produce in the receptor language the closest nat-
ural equivalent of the message expressed by the original language text—
both in meaning and style. Such a translation attempts to have the same
impact on modern readers as the original had on its audience." These two
trends, what I have called the "philological" and the "linguistic" are, of
course, ultimately not contradictory; like "formal" and "functional" as re-
gards translation equivalence, they mark different positions on a cline or
continuum in this case of linguistic scholarship, and they help translations
of complex and culturally significant documents such as the Bible serve
different but related purposes. There is a need, irrespective of market
considerations, both for translations of the Bible which give a more or less
literal rendering of the Greek and Hebrew texts and translations which
express the Greek and Hebrew in the natural language of today. And lin-
guistics has important roles to play in both of these activities. In fulfilling
those roles the linguist can be forced to pay increased attention to the in-
heritance of properties from diverse but appropriate models: generic,
syntactic and lexical; and to recognize that the form of a particular lan-
guage is a particular setting of a universal capacity for language, a setting
which will allow you to do what you want to do but, in the end, will insist
on how you do it. This symbiosis of form and function means that the
translator has to have an ultimate fidelity to messages rather than mor-
phemes but also recognize that morphemes make messages; it also means
that the linguist must surely question any theoretically rigid distinction
between a theory of structure and a theory of usage, between linguistics
and philology, if her or his work is to be socially and culturally useful, us-
able, and accountable.
Our short, informal look at different English translations of the same
Koine Greek passage in section 2 indicated, I suggest, that translators do
manage to realize much of the experiential, interactional and organiza-
tional meanings of the original even if the formal resources of the target

and source language differ: for example, predicating verb followed by
complement/argument organizes for textual prominence differently than
do Greek nominalizations of processes, but 'pointing out errors, correct-
ing people' may well be as appropriate for the late twentieth century En-
glish reader as pros elegmon, pros epanarthoain was for the first century
user of Greek. There are limits to translatability as there are limits to our
ability to characterize linguistic universale but both endeavours are surely
well worthwhile and mutually enriching.

34 M i c h a e l G r e g o r y
- β
β
»
e <
α
<
E
ω
3
S
ω
Λ
- o
S
S
o ë - G . g - β
Ή « S e T . s
ce „ · 3 >> o
h Ο β s M
- « 0 e —
Ρ <
ΙΛ W
l-H [T.
Q
¡ i
9 2
έ ο
H J
a u
W
ω 9
• S
M
s o
» - s
2 o
S W
a e
•ä Λ
-4-ί
ω U
, Ρ
Ρπ C
O
Ο
<Ν
S §
« Ε
G υ
2
' S Τ 3
S u
2 3
. ο
•β S
ο ο
U Μ
ο α)
u - e - =
ce ta 3
s e s
S S Ή
ω S o
• τ Ë S
« >2 - Ρ
^ >
ο δ
e η
.2 ^
ce ·Η
' δ . 8
(Λ Ο
e ^ .
μ
>> ο
Λ " - 1
tí Ü
<υ χ ι
S «
«5 Ο
(-ι
<
L
> Oh
5 . a
p . «
•π S
ö a
V T 3
s a o
3 O
I
" o 6
. s
| ü
4-H ü
rt - C
tí
O < -
•a g
o
•a
ω
a
a
O - g
e σ -
cd ω
S | !
s c
3
O
£
e t > £
3 Oh
g f 8
8 M
2 ."§> «
a G x >
. 9 >
i> 3
O B * 1
C
O u
3 Λ
C £
§ O
—ι 1)
e s
υ η
"Ó
ο e
N
Ç
H C
O
¿ 0 0
O
00
a>
Ό
e
s
•a
e
ed Ό
" 2 δ
a >
3
υ
u
ed
O . o
'λ o
« S t

g β
¡ .2
I—i <
/
>
OÛ S
ñ>
O .Ή J 3 · 3 Ό Ί ί · 3 a>
" p S c ' S g i
• s 1 § # a
« I § s
. a θ 1 2 % -
en
• a
Β
ce
U
> - i
'•3 5 3
cd o
ζ
Ή U
I g
• 3 §
Λ Q
Ό ^
Ο 4-1
ο g
>> h
Χ ι Oh
Τ 3 tM
2 κ
· - £
α " - 1
S 00
I I
Ρ S
3 s
•G
ω
ε ο
< . 9
^ Ι -
Ο Κ
σ ο
τ—I ΪΛ
ΛΊ >1
λ - α
r-f (ΐΐ
υ
υ
e __
¡3 «
3
Ο
ω
3
σ 1
' S " 2
a o Cd
' C 8 - ä
e η
I ' S
S2 cd
^ e
<<< «
<< o
0 0 ce
. S Ε
. 9 •α
cd O
IH
0
U
> 2
«4-1
O
e " a
. o C
O
ε
1)
td
u
3
υ
υ
¿I
<2
ce •ά
IH
9 O
< í
ω υ
0 0 JS
C
O
3
o o ce
c
_ce 3
O
Β S
υ
Τ 3 a
O Λ
E
IH
s · «
C
O U
m
* - e -
I S ^ £
ζ ß S β
< ¡ ιζι
o
Λ
-*-»
cd
U
a
cd
ε
o
P i
Ο Ε
Λ
μ υ 2
H G
• O O S
α η
« s i
? - S s
cd . S P
ü - „
λ Ί . s
1 3 >
H μ
a> b 5
μ· Ο · 3
• s " " S
Oh ' 3
oí 6 0 5
s s u
.s'S S
S Ο Ό
3 t i Ο
' S S Λ
Λ , Ο
•G S α
u - g o
3 u υ
^ s a
1)
χ>
cd
ε §
Τ 3 Μ
i r § &
U ω
Ο >
Ü ω
Ε
Λ tH
βο ο
e « ι
Ο Ό
3 «
fe
> u
<U
e α
ο ο
Μ α
o - J
5 8 I s
o o 9
S u ?
O
«
υ
Λ
' S j à
o - g
I I
t e u
' S o
ö 3
ce O
Ü Λ
Γ 3 t d
.2 U
. a α
fi §
O s
VO
3
ce
¡» U 0)
ä ' S . ?
ζ g pq

W h a t c a n linguistics l e a r n f r o m translation? 3 5
•o
o
3
•S
Ή
o
υ
u
3
S
ω
•S
a
o
o
m
-Sì
-ß
,α
< %
O O
l-H NN
o <
ri
O E
W E
ce
β
•o . a
S »
Λ 0>
11
s s
'3 Β
S . S
•S3 O
•α ü
S S
Ζ
ω 0
S a
u
«kí 'S
O O -O
Ü 2 I ?
•o ¡; ?f
2 O . S
.3 M-l tí
Q. - 3
« m 5
S -S ~
i a - S S
2 S S
3
Ξ β
o. O «
• e r Η
u 'S o
» ¿ • a
a u u
3 3 2
Ό
O
O
60
ET
<υ
>
<υ
Μ
Û H
' ü "2
Ο Β.
•S · &
£ a
u tr
e ω
ο
^ S
m o
> ' 3
ω a
S α τ;
o
*
u
α
.g
'en
•p
Bl
ϊλ ω
HH [T.
Q ^
S ^
11
É o
Ν
H J
ce o>
<=> Ή
(3 o
σ* ω
. 3
to
Já «
S ' S 5
Xi
Τ3
(D
-*-»
Ih
8 «
Λ 60
α. es
3 3
ce 60
c
S
<1> CS
•o —
£ ce
 o
e y
es -C
'S = s
£ e ¡2
Z
8 2 £
« ß >
T3
„>- β
> ™
'•3 ce
Λ
u
g 'S J
i Ρ
ali
•β -
S s
«î ® U
T3
J >
M Λ
(fl ^ O
ω
s
Λ «
•S""0
δ .a
¿0 M
O ίπ
ι S ce
Ρ o
υ Ό
s. _
Ή t
.Ρ 5 t/1
>-
Έ «c ο
5 ω i-i
te S f l
. 3 . a S
** •S
u
.S M-, ô .
»2. 8
i 3 α
•a ^ eo
B - d -S
g S Ä
^ tí
£ 5
5 £
în
J3 Ό
«-» O «
α " 0
"
1 - i - s
o 2 -β
J
η
O
- ;; O
Ί3 2 60
β 3 < w
ce o
3s -S
M <υ
•ο - ä
Jä α
co ω
. a u
•3 -β
ε ^
Ο X>
β u
3 3
-H tH
ce ,0
Ih "+-I
3 Λ
ed 5/3
ζ '-a
U-)
S?
CS
Ο -β
y «
β Já
Ψ. «

o
U
00
κ
ce
α
0) ft
u (U o
u
tíα
ce « •
M
£"ce
>
<
L
>
ω
Q ' 3
σ*
W
u >
tí χι O g 60
ce 60.a Jä
•a ·α
a ι w "Η ¿ > "1
e Β « g Μ «
ι- ?
. s i
ß 5
"§ tí
S .2
« κ
.a ώ
« §
g §
ee α>
W . 3
υ
. a 60
Ό . 3
S
ce 3
•o x>
o «
S 2
2 a
•S £
a
•9 . e
(Λ
— o
<υ ce
5 S
o. S
•g «
5 y
I 83?
.9 | · 1 S
ω C K 3 o
α <υ er ό
I -
011
m a M
•α ¿ «
c - « S
ce ο χι ?
í « > . »
Ifä·8
βο— 2 I ,
•S S O - s
o M ¡
« Q*
ti n c 3
S £ J> q·
u
3 t.
μ· g 2 Ό U
o .2 - s s «
> a T3
Cfl [Λ
> en
1 S
Ζ J3
T-l en
ο ω
Ο «M
O ¡2
u "Γ
•s ¿
2 «
H w
> 'S
O Ih
tí Ph
o I
vi ψo
<2 Λ
o . a
•I ^
2 «
ftW
s
< s
ω ¡S
' ' >
ffl o
60
η Ih C
O
3 ο Ξ
60 «Η Τ3
C u t í
ce en o
Π O o
Ή -A «
en
y .e e
« o
•3 Ί ' Β
Ρ W >

Michael Gregory
O
O
ύ J
Ο E
« E
ω
60
a
c
e
>
"δ
c
e
h
α
>
Λ
5
60
> J
T
3 c
e
<
d <a
Ζ
ω °
O Ï
< %
t/î <
e
n eu
υ
. § 2 . 3
u
60
c
e
•J-.
e
n . .
c
e c
e
α E
g ε
3 'S
C
L <
4
-
ι
•c o
^
ω ^
> 2
W O
Τ
3 O
u" ° w
— rt Ά
O a 5
ω S S
O.-β e
5P« 2
2
•S
u ω Ό
¡
u a o
fc¡ ~ O
O 1 „
υ (
-
< &
.Ρ '3
Ό
U
t
-
<
c
e
ex
υ
(
h
C
L
T
S
ο E S
fcs a
O O
ο .E .
ω .S "
c
e
c « >
• s h o
I f l S,
ο α a,
cl c
e c
e
υ
ω .
I
H V
I
c
e β
ο
>».s
a) ja
J3 ü
- Ό
« S
J- O
ΐ
5 6
0
R S
S Ì
Η
Q *
g J
60
.3
e
c
e
u
E
60
β
'S
c
e •
u tí
S -2
<! 5
en
y -ra
o J
O £
•a
c
c
e
> „
'3 c
e
c
e o
^
3 . S S
ω "3
[β « 3
.a £ 60
•
Ό (
U .g
S & s
~ O a
o S 8
>.β χ
Ί <
2
B S .
ω S w
• a l l
c
o Ο ,
60
.S
"
Λ e
/
3 5
2
D g ' *
•r^ «
60 _
'GO
sì *
a c
o O
•p. o -a
ö S 5
P
C
/
5
3
c
e t
H
60 g
α £
-α
" 2 0
; s a
Ο β· U ™
•β 2
2 Η
I tf s S
a t? « Ό
Λ 3 o _
U -κ O
s 'C 'Ϊ Ό
o u ? u
« C
/
5 τ-, Τ
3
^ ω O S
Ö .tí rh
c
e β U tí
'S ω
c
e u
« 'S
a u
« &
"
u S
u Λ
tí c
e
0 J
*
O c
/
i
1 g
S o
1
/
3
3 2
P- s
v
o
u-i
θ
£ 3 .2
fl> ΧΛ
e h
A ω 
υ
M
<û
"5! "3
J o
60 60 3
,S S O
« oi
^ Q Ö
ï X> Λ
.a S
. 5j
£.8
T
3
tí
c
e
u
>
'•S c
e
c
e o
ω
60
tí
c
e
>
•
u
•S ts
Γ «
X
I
(
Α O
3
2 3
Μ
Η
C
Λ ^
U a
•a-a
(
Λ Ό
5 C
£ C
Q
Ο Ό
I S
« s
^ s
O .2
M T
3
'
Z
i β
c
e c
e
1 1
s M
•H 3
β g
2 S
S J3
3 60
S «
^ l-i
i l -
S M
« «
1
2 >
o a
« h
ω 3
2 0
S 1
3
•a 60
ut a
S o
a t
-
·
ì i
c
e c
«
S ï
O « o
. a ñ o
h ·Β Ό
Ρ O
S fe o
M g. «
•
C ω o
MfeΌ
S 3 "
43 1) Ό
* * α
ο (« α
Ό
a 60 σ-
tío
Ι
Λ -tí ^
CLJ^
'S S í
J3 ε <
3
> «
a «
.S "3
j=
o.
c
e
w
c
e
&
H
•α Λ
s s
" 3
c Λ

S £ ao.e
Τ3
υ
3
.s
β
o
U
w
h
ρ <
ω
H
H [T.
Q
l a
S 3
a , s
« j S1
ω -S a
w S M
a s §
5 fr-
s s S
« ω -a
h Λ .2P
— c
S* ® 0
2 s «
5 s ί
8 8 ο
• 2 ig
< 2 e
«ö
00
'deS
a 05
ο ω α
•3 "S.Ü
m
υ
A υ
tù
u e
s
•o
S
io <
u
' « Pi

38 Michael Gregory
References
Asp, Elissa D.
Natural language and human semiosis: a socio-cognitive account of metaphor.
Ph.D. dissertation. York University, Toronto.
Knowledge and laughter: an approach to a socio-cognitive linguistics. In: Pe-
ter Fries and Michael Gregory eds., 141-158.
On the paradigmatic functions of syntagmata. Paper to the 25th International
Systemic Functional Congress, Cardiff University, Cardiff, U.K. (mimeo).
Praying for a crowd: John Donne's 'The Language of God' as interaction. Pa-
per to the 10th Euro-international Systemic Functional Workshop, Liverpool
University, Liverpool, U.K. (mimeo).
How to do things with words: some observations on speech acts in relation to
a socio-cognitive grammar for English. In: Jessica De Villiers and Robert
Stainton, Communication in Linguistics. Toronto: Alan Bordeaux.
Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich
1979 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Lit-
erature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beekman, John and John Callow
1974 Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Beekman, John, John Callow and Mark Kopesec
1981 The Semantic Structure of Written Communication. Dallas, Texas: Summer In-
stitute of Linguistics.
Bernstein, Basil
1971 Class, Codes and Control, Vol. I: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of
Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, Basil (ed.)
1973 Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 2: Applied Studies Towards a Sociology of Lan-
guage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, Basil
1974 Introduction to Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 3: Towards a Theory of Educa-
tional Transmissions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bowen, John
1998 Getting in shape. In: Good Idea Vol. 5, No. 2. Toronto: Wycliffe College.
Canadian Bible Society
1997 Our Bible: How It Came to Us. Toronto: CBS.
Catford, J. C.
1965 A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
Cha, Jin Soon (ed.)
1995 Before and Towards Communication Linguistics: Essays by Michael Gregory
and Associates. Seoul: Sookmyung Women's University.
Chomsky, Noam
1986 Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praegor.
1992
1995
1998a
1998b
in press

Fawcett, Robin
1980 Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interation: Towards an Integrated Model of a
Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicat-
ing Mind. Heidelberg: Julian Groos Verlag.
1992 Language as program: a reassessment of the nature of descriptive linguistics.
Language Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 4, 623-657.
Firth, John. Rupert.
1957 Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951, London: Oxford University Press.
Fleming, Ilah
1988 Communication Analysis. Vol. 2. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Fries, Peter and Michael Gregory (eds.)
1995 Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex.
Goetchius, Eugene Van Ness
1965 The Language of the New Testament. New York: Scribner's Sons.
Gregory, Michael
1980 Perspectives on translation from the Firthian tradition. Meta Vol. 25, No. 4,
455-466. Montreal: University of Montreal Press.
1982 Notes on Communication Linguistics. Toronto: Glendon College of York Uni-
versity.
1995a Remarks on a theory of grammar for a socio-cognitive linguistics. In: Jin Soon
Cha (ed.), 413^33.
1995b Arguments, roles, relations, prepositions and case: proposals within a socio-
cognitive grammar of English. In: Jin Soon Cha (ed.), 434—476.
1998a Systemic functional linguistics and other schools: retrospectives and prospec-
tives. Plenary paper to the 25th International Systemic Functional Congress,
University of Cardiff, Cardiff, U.K. (mimeo).
1998b The grammar of interaction: interpersonality and intertextuality in John
Donne's The Bait. Paper to the 10th Euro-international Systemic Functional
Workshop, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K. (mimeo).
Halliday, M. A. K.
1961 Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, No. 17,241-292.
1967 Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics, No. 3, Part
1, 37-81, Part 2,199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya, Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hudson, Richard
1984 Word Grammar. London: Blackwell.
Keener, Craig S.
1993 The TVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove,
111: Inter Varsity Press.
Kugel, James L.
1997 The Bible As It Was. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univer-
sity Press.

40 Michael Gregory
Marshall, Alfred
1958 The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. London: Samuel Bagster and
Sons.
Mcintosh, Angus, M. A. K. Halliday and Peter Strevens
1964 The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Mel'cuk, Igor and Nikolaj Pertsov
1987 Surface Syntax of English: a Formal Model within the Meaning-text Frame-
work. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Metzger, Bruce M. and Michael D. Coogan (eds.)
1993 The Oxford Companion to the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, Frank R. (ed.)
1968 Selected Papers of J. R. Firth, 1952-59. London: Longman.
Palmer, Frank R.
1981 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pike, Kenneth L.
1967 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behav-
iour. The Hague: Mouton.
Pike, Kenneth L. and Evelyn G. Pike
1982 Grammatical Analysis. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the
University of Texas at Arlington.
Sheeley, Steven M. and Robert W. Nash, Jr.
1997 The Bible in English Translation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Steele, James (ed.)
1990 Meaning-text Theory: Linguistics, Lexicography, and Implications. Ottawa:
University of Ottawa Press.
Strong, James
1996 The New Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.
Vine, W. E., Merrill F. Unger and William White, Jr.
1996 Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Zeisler, John
1993 Righteousness. In: Metzger and Coogan (eds.).

The environments of translation1
Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
1. Introduction
In this chapter, I shall take an "outsider's" look at translation: I shall ap-
proach translation as a functional linguist — more specifically, a systemic
functional one — with an interest in issues relating to multilinguality. I am
not a translation theorist; my experience is with description of various
languages, language typology and with multilingual (as well as multimo-
dal) text generation. Nor am I a professional translation practitioner. But
our family covers three languages (Swedish, German and English). I grew
up in Swedish with translation by my mother as the only early mode of ac-
cess to German- and English-speaking family members; and I have had
innumerable opportunities to practice translation myself since the "trans-
lation method" was, fortunately, still favoured by the teachers who tried
to teach me English, German, French and Arabic. Further my brother
and sister-in-law, Tryggve and Ingrid Emond, and one of their daughters,
Vibeke Emond, do translation on a professional basis from various lan-
guages spoken in Europe and from Japanese into Swedish and I have ben-
efited from listening to their experiences. So translation is in a sense part
of daily life for me — a situation which is actually very common, even typ-
ical, in families around the world.
1.1. Value of contextualizing "translation"
My main concern in this chapter is to "locate" translation along the dimen-
sions that organize the semiotic complex of language in context — both as
a phenomenon in its own right and also as one multilingual concern in re-
lation to other multilingual concerns — in particular language comparison
and typology. My impression is that it is helpful to try to contextualize
translation in this way, since as an "outsider" looking at recent accounts of
translation I am struck by the degree to which these accounts tend to insu-
late translation from other at least potentially relevant concerns:
- "translation theory" and "science of translation" seem to be re-
served for translation of texts by human translators: the develop-
ment since the 1950s of translation by computers — machine transla-
tion (MT) — does not seem to have contributed to these fields; and

42 Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
they do not theorize the complementarity of human translation and
MT. By the same token, MT does not make much reference to trans-
lation theory and the science of translation.
- accounts of translation do not on the whole refer to multilingual re-
search within comparative and. contrastive linguistics and within typo-
logical linguistics.2
By the same token, typological linguistics does not
have translation on its research agenda — neither as a phenomenon
nor as a methodology.
- accounts of translation do not on the whole refer to research into
multilingual communication, as in multilingual and bilingual contexts
and in multilingual generation within computational linguistics.
- accounts of translation seem to be confined to translation between
languages rather than translation between semiotic systems in gener-
al (a task made relevant by current developments under the headings
of multimodality and multimedia).
- accounts of translation may make reference to general theories of
language (as in Eugene Nida's reference to early Chomskyan con-
cepts such as the distinction between deep structure and surface
structure (Gentzler 1993: Ch. 3) or in the translation studies drawing
on the Prague School (Gentzler 1993: Ch. 4)); but translation theory
seems to exist fairly independently of current general theories of lan-
guage. By the same token, current general theories of language do
not seem to have "translation" on their agendas and as Michael Gre-
gory (in this volume) has pointed out, linguistics can learn a good
deal from translation.
Perhaps the most surprising tendency in accounts of translation is the
omission of MT. For example, among recent books, neither the historical
accounts produced by Gentzler (1993) and Venuti (1995) nor the more
practical text book by Baker (1992) deal with it. MT is mentioned only in
passing by Bell (1991) — although the model of translation he proposes
in fact looks very similar to the kind of accounts given by researchers
working on MT within computational linguistics. However, Hatim & Ma-
son (1990:22-25) discuss the role of machine translation and refer to it in
other contexts as well.
To the extent that my impressions reflect the general tendency in the field
of translation, they are not of course in themselves indicative of a problem.
It may be that as a phenomenon manual translation needs to be given a spe-
cial and distinct status. However, I believe that we can only gain further lin-
guistic insight into translation by contextualizing it rather than by insulating
it. This will mean among other things exploring where the outer limits of

The environments of translation 43
translation as a phenomenon lie — where translation ceases to be re-con-
strual of meaning and shades into first-time construal of meaning, where
translation as a phenomenon is located in a typology of systems, and where
translation as a field of study is located relative to other fields concerned
with multilinguality — comparative linguistics, contrastive analysis and ty-
pological linguistics. In a way, Catford (1965) does all these things: his lin-
guistic theory of translation is a wonderfully rich contribution; he develops
a very comprehensive picture of translation by systematically examining it
in the light of a general theory of language and it can serve as a basis for sim-
ilar efforts now. The central theoretical task is to expand his account in the
light of new theoretical developments and descriptive findings.
In this chapter, I will contextualize translation — starting with the widest
environment possible and then gradually narrowing the focus. The reason
for this approach will become clear along the way — particularly in Section
3. But before I start, I would like to explore the conception of translation
embodied in the lexicogrammar of English in order to bring out certain key
issues in the modelling of translation. The first step in my contextualization
is thus to contextualize it in the lexicogrammar of English.
1.2. The context of "translation" in English lexicogrammar
To explore this conception of translation, I extracted all the occurrences of
"transi*" in LOB (the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus), the one-million
word corpus of British English created as a British counterpart to the
Brown corpus. I filtered out lexemes unrelated to translation, such as
translucent; but I retained all the forms of the verb translate and the nouns
translation and translator. I then analysed the clauses and nominal groups
containing these words, selecting those instances where the sense of trans-
lation is "semiotic" (which corresponds to entry II.l in The Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary: "to turn from one language into another; 'to change
into another language retaining the sense' (J. [ - Johnson's Dictionary])",
except that semiotic systems other than languages may be involved and
different subsenses need to be recognized, as noted below) and filtering
out those instances where it has a different (though possibly related) sense
(asm. In 1910 Dr. Talbot was translated to Winchester, and Dr. Hubert Bürge
became Bishop of Southwark.) There is a total of 28 clauses with translate
as Process and 40 nominal groups with translation or translator as Thing in
LOB; the distribution across the crude genre categories recognized in
LOB is quite uneven, as shown in Table 1. People write about translation
in certain registers, such as that of religious discourse, but not at all in oth-
ers (fiction and humour). (The results are very clear even though the dif-
ferent text types are not represented by samples of the same size in LOB.)

44 Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
Clauses with translate as Process were analysed for VOICE and PRO-
CESS TYPE. The voice analysis is straightforward: the clause is either
'operative' (Process realized by an active verbal group) or 'receptive'
(Process realized by a passive verbal group); if it is 'receptive', it is either
'agentive' (the Agent is present, realized by a òy-phrase) or 'non-agen-
tive' (the Agent is absent). In English in general, the 'operative' option is
unmarked and the 'receptive' one is marked; but the marking is quite
strikingly reversed in the small sample of clauses from LOB: 23 out of 28
clauses are 'receptive' and only 5 are 'operative'. The vast majority of the
'receptive' clauses are 'non-agentive' (21 out of 23). This means that
translator is very clearly backgrounded in the lexicogrammatical con-
struction of translation — a striking confirmation of Venuti's (1995) no-
tion of the invisibility of the translator.
Table 1. The distribution of senses of transi* in LOB
"Genre" category # of occur-
rences of
"transi*" in
semiotic sense
[clauses +
nominal
groups]
PROCESS TYPE
[clause]
VOICE [clause]
"Genre" category # of occur-
rences of
"transi*" in
semiotic sense
[clauses +
nominal
groups]
material
clause
relation-
al clause
opera-
tive
clause
recep-
tive:
agentive
clause
recep-
tive:
non-
agentive
clause
Category A (Press:
reportage)
1 0 0
Category Β (Press:
editorial)
0 0 0
Category C (Press:
reviews)
11 3 2
Category D
(Religion)
15 1 6
Category E (Skills,
trades and hobbies)
2 2 0
Category F
(Popular lore)
2 1 1
Category G (Belles
lettres, biography,
essays)
24 10 0
Category H (Mis-
cellaneous, mainly
Government docu-
ments)
1 0 0

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

aforesaid, except in Cases where it shall be unavoidably necessary to
lay the Gas Pipes across any of the Water Pipes, in which Case the
Gas Pipes shall be laid over and above the Water Pipes at the
greatest practicable Distance therefrom, and shall form therewith a
Right Angle, and in that Case the Gas Pipes so crossing the Water
Pipes shall be at the least Six Feet in Length, so that no Joint of any
such Gas Pipe shall be nearer to any Part of any such Water Pipes
than Three Feet at the least; and in laying down the Gas Pipes, the
said Trustees, or the Company, Contractor, or other Person or
Persons supplying Gas or laying down Pipes for the Conveyance
thereof, shall in no Case join Two or more Pipes together previously
to their being laid in the Trench, but shall lay each Pipe as nearly as
may be in its Place in the Trench, and shall in such Trench properly
form the Jointing with the other Pipes to be added thereto with
proper and sufficient Material, and shall also make and keep all and
every such Trench and all Pipes connected or communicating
therewith and all the Screws Joints, Inlets, and Apertures therein
respectively, air-tight, and in every respect prevent the Gas from
escaping therefrom, upon pain of forfeiting for every Offence the
Sum of Five Pounds.
XII. And be it further enacted, That in case any Pipe, Cock, or
Branch shall in pursuance of the Powers herein contained be carried
or laid from any Main or Pipe belonging to the said Trustees, or to
any Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons contracting to
light or lighting with Gas the said Square or any other Place within
the Limits or Jurisdiction of this Act, into, through, or against any
private Dwelling House, Building, Yard, or Ground, for any Purpose
whatsoever, and the Owner or Occupier of any such private Dwelling
House, Building, Yard, or Ground shall be desirous that the same
Pipe, Cock or Branch, shall be altered or removed and taken away,
and of such Desire shall give Notice in Writing to the said Trustees,
or to such Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons so
contracting to light or lighting with Gas as aforesaid, then and in
every such Case the said Trustees, or such Gas Light Company, or
other Person or Persons so contracting to light or lighting with Gas

as aforesaid, shall within Seven Days next after the Service of such
Notice at the usual Office or Place of transacting Business of the said
Trustees, Gas Light Company, or other such Person or Persons as
aforesaid respectively, alter or remove and take away, or cause to be
altered or removed and taken away, all or any such Pipes, Cocks,
and Branches respectively, and in default thereof it shall be lawful for
such Owner or Occupier, or any Person or Persons acting under the
Authority of such Owner or Occupier, to cause such Pipes and
Branches respectively to be altered or removed and taken away, as
the Case may require; and all the Costs and Expences of and
incident to every such Alteration or Removal shall be paid by the said
Trustees, or by such Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons
contracting to light or lighting with Gas as aforesaid, and may be
recovered in the same Manner as any Penalty or Forfeiture which
shall be incurred under the Provisions contained in this Act may be
levied or recovered, before a Justice of the Peace.
XIII. And be it further enacted, That whenever the Water which
shall be supplied by any Water Works Company, or Company
established for the Supply of Water, shall be contaminated or
affected in any way whatsoever by the Gas of the said Trustees, or
of any Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons contracting to
light or lighting with Gas the said Square called Brompton Square, or
any other Place or Places within the Jurisdiction of this Act, then and
in every such Case the said Trustees, Gas Light Company, or other
Person or Persons so contracting to light or lighting with Gas as
aforesaid, shall, within Twenty-four Hours next after Notice thereof
in Writing, signed by any One of the Directors, or by the Secretary or
Chief Clerk for the Time being of any such Water Works Company,
and left at the usual Office or Place of transacting Business of the
said Trustees, Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons
contracting to light or lighting with Gas as aforesaid, cause Measures
to be taken effectually to stop and prevent such Gas from
contaminating or affecting the Water of any such Water Works
Company; and in case the said Trustees, Gas Light Company, or
other Person or Persons contracting to light or lighting with Gas as

aforesaid, shall not, within Twenty-four Hours next after each and
every such Notice so left as aforesaid, effectually remove the Cause
of every such Complaint, and prevent all and every such
Contamination whereof Notice shall be given as aforesaid, then and
in every such Case the said Trustees, or such Gas Light Company, or
other Person or Persons contracting to light or lighting with Gas as
aforesaid, shall on each and every Complaint whereof Notice shall be
given as aforesaid forfeit and pay to the Secretary or Chief Clerk of
such Water Works Company, for the Use and Benefit of such
Company, the Sum of Ten Pounds for each and every Day during
which the Water supplied by any such Water Works Company shall
be and remain contaminated or affected by the Gas of the said
Trustees, Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons contracting
to light or lighting with Gas as aforesaid; and every such Penalty or
Forfeiture shall and may be levied and recovered for the Use of such
Water Works Company, in the same Manner as any other Penalty or
Forfeiture which shall be incurred under the Provisions contained in
this Act may be levied and recovered before a Justice of the Peace,
with Costs, to be assessed by such Justice.
XIV. And whereas it may be or become a Question upon such
Complaint as aforesaid whether the said Water be contaminated or
affected by the Gas of the Trustees, Gas Light Company, or other
Person or Persons so contracting to light or lighting with Gas the said
Square, or such other Place or Places as aforesaid; be it therefore
enacted, That in every such Case it shall be lawful for any such
Water Works Company at aforesaid to dig to and about, and to
search and examine all or any of the Mains, Pipes, Conduits, and
Apparatus of the said Trustees, Gas Light Company, or other Person
or Persons contracting to light or lighting with Gas as aforesaid, for
the Purpose of ascertaining whether such Contamination proceed or
be occasioned by the Gas of the said Trustees, or of each Gas Light
Company, or other Person or Persons; and if it shall appear that the
said Water has been contaminated or affected by any Escape of Gas,
then and in every such Case the Costs and Expences of the said
Digging, Search, and Examination, and of the Repair of the

Pavement of the Street or Place which shall be taken up or
disturbed, shall be borne and paid by the said Trustees, Gas Light
Company, or other Person or Persons by whose Gas the said Water
shall be so contaminated as aforesaid, which Costs and Expences
shall be ascertained and determined (if necessary) by any Justice of
the Peace, and may be levied and recovered in the same Manner as
any Penalty or Forfeiture which shall be incurred under the
Provisions contained in this Act may be recovered before a Justice of
the Peace: Provided always, that if upon such Examination it shall
appear that such Contamination has not arisen from any such
Escape of Gas from any of the Mains, Pipes, or Conduits of the said
Trustees, Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons contracting
to light or lighting with Gas as aforesaid, then and in every such
Case the Water Works Company by whom or on whose Behalf such
Examination and Search shall be made shall bear and pay all the
Costs, Charges, and Expences of and incident to such Examination
and Search, and shall also make good to the said Trustees, Gas Light
Company, or other Person or Persons so contracting to light or
lighting with Gas as aforesaid, any Loss, Injury, or Damage which
may be occasioned to the Mains, Pipes, Conduits, or Apparatus of
the said Trustees, Gas Light Company or other Person or Persons as
aforesaid, in and by such Search and Examination, and also any
Injury or Damage which may be done in or about any of the
Footways or Carriageways which shall be broken up or disturbed in
such Search or Examination; the Amount of such Injury, Loss, or
Damage to be ascertained and determined, if necessary, by any such
Justice of the Peace as aforesaid.
XV. And be it further enacted, That whenever any Gas shall be
found to escape from any Pipe or Pipes which shall be laid down, set
up, or used in or about the lighting Brompton Square, or any other
Place or Places within the Jurisdiction of this Act, the said Trustees,
or the Gas Light Company, or other Person or Persons contracting to
light or lighting with Gas the said Square, or such other Place or
Places as aforesaid, shall, immediately after Notice given to them or
him respectively, by Parol or in Writing, of any such Escape of Gas,

from any Person or Persons whomsoever, cause the most speedy
and effectual Measures to be taken to stop and prevent such Gas
from escaping; and in case the said Trustees, Gas Light Company, or
the said Square or other Place or Places respectively, shall not,
within Twenty-four Hours next after such Notice given, effectually
stop and prevent any future Escape of Gas, and wholly and
satisfactorily remove the Cause of Complaint, then and in every such
Case the said Trustees, or the Gas Light Company, or other Person
or Persons so contracting to light or lighting with Gas as aforesaid,
shall for every such Offence forfeit and pay the Sum of Five Pounds
for each Day after the Expiration of Twenty-four Hours from the
Time of giving any such Notice, during which the Gas shall be
suffered to escape as aforesaid; which Penalty or Penalties shall
from Time to Time be recoverable in a summary Way, in the same
Manner as any other Penalty or Forfeiture which shall be incurred
under the Provisions contained in this Act may be recovered.
XVI. And be it further enacted, That if the said Trustees, or any Gas
Light Company, or other Person or Persons whomsoever contracting
to light or lighting with Gas the said Square called Brompton Square,
or any other Place or Places within the Jurisdiction of this Act, shall
at any Time drain, carry, or convey, or cause or suffer to be drained,
carried, or conveyed, or to run or flow, any Washings or other
Liquid, or any other Matter or Thing whatsoever which shall arise or
be made in or about the Prosecution of their Gas Works or the
Manufacture of Gas, into the River Thames, or any other River, or
into any Brook, Stream, Reservoir, Canal, Aqueduct, Waterway,
Feeder, Pond, or Spring Head, or into any Drain, Sewer, or Ditch
communicating with any of them, or shall do any Annoyance, Act, or
Thing to the Water contained in any of them whereby such Water or
any Part thereof shall or may be soiled, fouled, or corrupted, then
and in every such Case the said Trustees or such Gas Light
Company, or other Person or Persons so contracting to light or
lighting with Gas the said Square, or such other Place or Places as
aforesaid, shall for every such Offence forfeit and pay the Sum of

Two hundred Pounds to any Person or Persons who shall sue for the
same in any of His Majesty’s Courts of Record at Westminster, by
Action of Debt or on the Case, wherein no Essoign, Protection, or
Wager of Law, and not more than One Imparlance, shall be allowed;
Provided always, that no such Penalty or Forfeiture shall be
recoverable, unless the same be sued for within Twelve Calendar
Months next after such Annoyance, Injury, Damage, Act, or Thing
shall have ceased: Provided also, that in addition to the said Penalty
of Two hundred Pounds (and whether such Penalty shall or shall not
be sued for or recovered), in case any Washings or other Liquid, or
any other Matter or Thing whatsoever which shall arise or be made
in or about the Prosecution of such Gas Works, or the Manufacture
of Gas as aforesaid, shall be drained, conducted, or conveyed, or
caused or suffered to run or flow into the said River Thames, Or any
other River, or into any Brook, Stream, Reservoir, Canal, Aqueduct,
Waterway, Feeder, Pond, or Spring Head, or into any Drain, Sewer, or
Ditch, communicating with any of them, or if any such Annoyance,
Act, or Thing shall be done or caused to be done as aforesaid, and
Notice thereof in Writing shall be given by any Person or Persons
whomsoever to the said Trustees, or to the Gas Light Company, or
the said Square, or such other Place or Places as aforesaid, and if
the said Trustees, or such Gas Light Company, or other Person or
Persons as last aforesaid, shall not, within Twenty-four Hours next
after every such Notice as aforesaid, stop and prevent all such
Washings or other Liquids, and all such other Substances and Things
as aforesaid from being drained, conducted, or conveyed, or from
running or flowing in manner aforesaid, and also cause any such
other Annoyance, Act, or Thing as aforesaid to be discontinued, then
and in every such Case the said Trustees, Gas Light Company, or
other Person or Persons so offending shall forfeit and pay the Sum of
Twenty Pounds for each and every Day such Washings or other
Liquids, or other Matters or Things, shall be so drained, conducted,
or conveyed, or caused or suffered to run or flow in manner
aforesaid, or such other Annoyance, Act, or Thing shall be so done
or caused to be done as aforesaid; and such last-mentioned Penalty

shall and may be levied and recovered in the same Manner as any
other Penalty or Forfeiture which shall be incurred under the
Provisions contained in this Act may be levied or recovered, and shall
be paid to the Informer or Informers, or to the Person or Persons
who in the Judgment of the Justice or Justices before whom the
Conviction shall take place shall have sustained any Annoyance,
Injury, or Damage by the Act, Matter, or Thing in respect whereof
such Penalty or Forfeiture shall be inflicted.
XVII. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Trustees from Time to Time to appoint so many able-boded Men to
act as Watchmen, and to patrol, watch, and guard the said Square,
and all other Places within the Jurisdiction of this Act, during such
Hours and at such Wages as the said Trustees shall think proper, and
to provide suitable Arms and Clothing for such Watchmen, and also
to provide and set up Watchboxes for their Reception at such Places
as the said Trustees shall think necessary; and also to provide a
proper Watchhouse or Place for the safe Custody of such Persons as
may be apprehended by such Watchmen while on Duty; and that
such Watchmen shall act as Constables during the Hours appointed
for their watching, and shall have, exercise, and enjoy all such and
the like Powers and Authorities, Privileges and Immunities, as any
Constable may have and enjoy by Law; and every Person who shall
assault or resist, or promote or encourage the assaulting or resisting,
any such Watchman in the Execution of his Duty, and also every
Victualler who shall harbour or entertain any Watchman during any
Part of the Time appointed for his being on Duty, shall for every such
Offence forfeit and pay a Sum not exceeding Five Pounds; and in
case and as often as any such Watchman shall misbehave himself or
neglect his Duty, he shall forfeit and pay a Sum not exceeding Two
Pounds.
XVIII. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Trustees from Time to Time to cause the Name of the said Square,
and of any other Street or Place within the Jurisdiction of this Act, to
be painted or otherwise described in a conspicuous Part of any

House or Building within such Square, Street, or Place respectively;
and also from Time to Time to cause all the Houses, Buildings, and
Tenements within the Jurisdiction of this Act to be distinguished by
Numbers, to be painted or affixed upon the Entrance Doors thereof
respectively; and if any Person or Persons shall alter or wilfully
deface or remove any such Name or Number, or any Part thereof, or
if any Person or Persons for the Time being chargeable with the
Rates which shall be made in pursuance of this Act in respect of any
House, Building, or Tenement of which the Number shall be so
altered, defaced, or removed, shall not perfectly reinstate such
Number within Seven Days next after such Person or Persons
respectively shall be required so to do by a Notice from the said
Trustees or their Clerk, every such Person shall for every such
Offence forfeit and pay a Sum not exceeding Five Pounds.
XIX. And be it further enacted, That proper Gates shall be erected
and at all Times kept up and preserved by the said Trustees, across
the Footways and Carriageways at the Entrance to Brompton Square
next the Turn-pike Road, so as to inclose and keep the same
Footways and Carriageways (such footways and Carriageways not
being now public Highways) private, as far as may be consistent
with the general Convenience of the Occupiers of Houses in the said
Square; and which said Gates shall be kept closed during such Hours
between Ten of the Clock at Night and Seven of the Clock in the
Morning, as the said Trustees shall direct, and during those Hours a
Key or Keys thereof shall be left in the Charge of the Watchman or
Watchmen on Duty in the said Square.
XX. And be it further enacted, That the said Trustees shall contract
with or employ some Person or Persons to cleanse the Carriageways,
and take away the Dust, Cinders, Ashes, and Rubbish (not being
Rubbish arising from Building or Repairs) from the Houses of the
Inhabitants within the Jurisdiction of this Act; and if any Person or
Persons (not being duly authorized by the said Trustees, and not
acting under or on behalf of a Person so authorized) shall go about
to collect or gather, or shall ask for, receive, or carry away any Dust,

Cinders, or Ashes from any House, Building, or Place within the
Jurisdiction of this Act, every Person so offending shall for every
such Offence forfeit and pay a Sum not exceeding Ten Pounds.
XXI. And, to the Intent that a Pleasure Garden or Shrubbery may be
maintained and preserved within the inclosed Area of the said
square, for the Embellishment thereof, and for the Use of the
Inhabitants of the Houses in the said Square; be it further enacted,
That it shall be lawful for the said Trustees from Time to Time to
contract for, and in the Names of any Five or more of the said
Trustees, to take and accept from the said William Farlar, his Heirs
or Assigns, a Lease or Leases of all Ground now laid out and which
hereafter shall be laid out as or for an inclosed Area in the said
Square, at such Rent or Rents, and subject to such Stipulations and
Conditions as shall from Time to Time be settled and agreed upon
between the said Trustees and the said William Farlar, his Heirs or
Assigns, so that such Rent or Rents shall not in the whole at any one
Time exceed the yearly Sum of Thirty Pounds, and the Estate and
Interest of the Lessees in every such Lease shall by virtue of this Act
absolutely vest in the Trustees for the Time being; and such Rent or
Rents, and the Costs and Charges of and incident to the
Performance of such Stipulations and Conditions, and also the Costs
and Charges of every such Lease, shall be paid out of the Rates to
be made by virtue of this Act; and during the Continuance of every
such Lease the said inclosed Area (subject to the Stipulations and
Conditions which shall be contained in every such Lease
respectively) shall be kept and maintained as and for a private
Pleasure Garden and Shrubbery, for the exclusive Use and
Enjoyment of the Persons for the Time being occupying Houses in
the said Square (subject to the Regulations and Provisions contained
in this Act), and shall be kept securely fenced in and inclosed with
good and substantial Iron Railing, and proper Entrance Gates, and
with good and secure Locks on all such Gates; and no Person or
Persons whomsoever other than the Occupiers of Houses in the said
Square (not being menial Servants) shall be entitled to have or use
any Key or Keys of the said inclosed Area, except it be with the

Consent in Writing of the Majority of the said Trustees, who for the
Time being shall be Occupiers of Houses in the said Square:
Provided always, that the Owners and Occupiers of Houses in the
said Square called Brompton Square built previously to the passing
of this Act, shall, notwithstanding any thing herein-before contained,
have and enjoy all Right and Interest, if any, which such Owners or
Occupiers respectively may have, or be entitled to, in the inclosed
Area of the said Square under or by virtue of any Covenant or
Agreement now in existence.
XXII. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Trustees to contract, by the Year or otherwise, with any Person or
Persons for the doing of any Works or Business whatsoever relating
to or connected with the Execution of this Act, so that no such
Contract shall continue in force for more than Three Years from the
Time of contracting, and the Clerk to the said Trustees shall enter all
such Contracts in a Book or Books to be provided and kept for that
Purpose.
XXIII. And be it further enacted, That all the Paving Stones, Gravel,
and other Materials of which the Footways and Carriageways within
the Jurisdiction of this Act shall for the Time being consist, and the
Posts and Rails which shall be set up for the Protection of the said
Footways, and also all the Lamp Posts, Lamp Irons, Lamps, and
other Utensils which the said Trustees shall from Time to Time cause
to be set up or used for lighting the said Footways and
Carriageways, and the Watchboxes, Arms, and Clothing which shall
be provided by the said Trustees for the Use of the Watchmen who
shall be employed in pursuance of this Act, and also (during the
Continuance of any Lease of the inclosed Area of the said Square
which shall be granted to the said Trustees as aforesaid) the Iron
Railing, Fences, Gates, and Locks of and belonging to the said
inclosed Area, and the Fences, Plants, Shrubs, and Herbage in the
said inclosed Area for the Time being, and also the Materials of
which the Gravel Walks therein for the Time being shall be formed
and consist, shall for all Purposes be deemed and considered as

vested in the said Trustees, and shall in all Actions, Suits,
Indictments, Complaints, Convictions, and other Proceedings
whatsoever relating thereto, be described generally as the Property
of the Trustees for regulating and improving Brompton Square and
certain adjacent Places, without naming the said Trustees or any of
them.
XXIV. And be it further enacted, That if any Person or Persons shall
wilfully or maliciously destroy or damage any of the Footways or
Carriageways within the Jurisdiction of this Act, or any Part thereof,
or any Post, Rail, Lamp Post, Lamp Iron, Lamp, Watchbox, Arms,
Clothing, or other Utensil or Thing which shall be provided by or in
pursuance of the Directions of the said Trustees, or any of the Iron
Railing, Fences, Gates, Locks, Trees, Plants, Shrubs Herbage, or
Gravel Walks of or belonging to the inclosed Area of the said Square,
or any of them, or any Part thereof respectively, every such Person
shall for every such Offence forfeit and pay a Sum not exceeding
Five Pounds; and every such Person, and also every Person by
whom any of the said Footways and Carriageways, Lamp Posts,
Lamp Irons, Lamps, Watchboxes, Arms, Clothing, Iron Railing,
Fences, Gates, Locks, Trees, Plants, Shrubs, Herbage, Gravel Walks,
Utensils and Things, or any of them or any Part thereof respectively,
shall be carelessly or accidentally destroyed or damaged, shall make
full Satisfaction for the Damage or Injury done or committed by him,
her, or them respectively; and unless such full Satisfaction shall be
forthwith made, any Justice of the Peace, upon Application to him
for the Purpose by or on behalf of the said Trustees, may award
such Sum of Money to be paid to the said Trustees by way of
Satisfaction for such Damage as such Justice shall think reasonable,
and the same shall be recovered in the Manner herein-after provided
for the Recovery of any Fine, Penalty, or Forfeiture to be inflicted or
imposed under the Provisions of this Act.
XXV. And be it further enacted, That if at any Time or Times during
the Continuance of any Lease or Leases of the inclosed Area of the
said Square, any Person or Persons shall, without the Consent in

Writing of the said Trustees, make or cause to be made, or shall sell
or cause to be sold, or shall offer for Sale any Key or Keys for
unlocking or opening the Gates of the inclosed Area of the said
Square, or any of them, or if any Person or Persons shall knowingly
purchase or use any Key or Keys so unlawfully made or sold, every
such Person shall for every such Offence forfeit and pay a Sum not
exceeding Ten Pounds, and it shall be lawful for the said Trustees or
any of them, or any Person or Persons in their Service or Employ, or
acting under their Authority, to seize and to detain and keep or to
destroy every such Key.
XXVI. And be it further enacted, That to enable the said Trustees to
carry this Act into Execution it shall be lawful for them from Time to
Time to make such Rates as they shall deem needful upon the
Tenants and Occupiers of all Lands, Houses, Shops, Coach-houses,
Stables, Erections, Buildings, and other Tenements whatsoever
within the Jurisdiction of this Act, in such Sums of Money as the said
Trustees shall think proper, so that such Rates shall be just and
equal Pound Rates, according to the annual Rent or Value of the
Premises thereby assessed, and so that the Costs and Expences of
and incident to the enclosed Area of the said Square shall be wholly
borne by the Tenants and Occupiers of Houses in the said Square,
and so that in every such Rate it shall distinctly appear what Part
thereof shall be raised in respect of the said last-mentioned Costs
and Expences, and so that the said Rates shall not in any One Year
exceed the Sum of Two Shillings in the Pound of the annual Rent or
Value of the Property rated, except as to Houses in the said Square,
after such Lease of the enclosed Area of the said Square shall be
obtained as aforesaid, and during the Continuance of every such
Lease, and so that in the last-mentioned Cases the Rates in respect
of the Houses in the said Square shall not in any One Year exceed
the Sum of Two Shillings and Sixpence in the Pound of the Rent or
annual Value thereof; and in making the said Rates, all Stables,
Coach-houses, and other Buildings which shall belong to or be held
and occupied with any of the Houses in the said Square, and within
the Jurisdiction of this Act, shall be respectively rated with such

Houses, and not as separate Buildings; and to facilitate the making
of the said Rates, it shall be lawful for the said Trustees, or any
Person or Persons appointed by them, at all seasonable Times to
examine the Books of Assessment to any Public, Parliamentary.
Parochial, or Local Tax charged upon or affecting the Houses,
Buildings, or Tenements within the Jurisdiction of this Act, or any of
them.
XXVII. And be it further enacted, That in every Rate to be made as
aforesaid, the Landlord or Proprietor of every House or Tenement
within the Jurisdiction of this Act, which shall be occupied by any
Ambassador, Foreign Minister, or other Person not compellable by
Law to pay such Rate, shall be deemed to be and shall be rated as
the Occupier thereof respectively.
XXVIII. And be it further enacted, That whenever any House within
the Jurisdiction of this Act shall be let out ready furnished, or shall
be let out, furnished or unfurnished, in separate Tenements, or
wholly or in part to a Lodger or Lodgers, the Landlord or Owner,
being the Person or Persons claiming or receiving the Rent payable
by the Occupier or Occupiers of every such furnished House,
Tenement, or furnished Lodging respectively, shall be deemed to be
and shall be rated as the Occupier thereof: Provided always, that the
Goods and Chattels of every Occupier of any such ready-furnished
House or separate Tenement or Lodging, shall (without Prejudice to
the Liability of the Person or Persons so rated) be liable to be
distrained for raising such Rates, and all Arrears thereof, so that in
no Case any greater Sum shall be levied by Distress of the Goods
and Chattels of any such Occupier than shall at the Time of making
such Distress be actually due from such Occupier for the Rent of the
Premises in which such Distress shall be made: Provided also, that
every such Occupier who shall pay any such Rate or Rates, or upon
whose Goods and Chattels the same shall be levied, shall and may
deduct the Amount of the Sum or Sums which shall be so paid or
levied out of any Rent payable by such Occupier to the Person or

Persons rated; and such Payment shall be a sufficient Discharge to
every such Occupier for so much of such Rent accordingly.
XXIX. And be it further enacted, That every Rate which shall be
made for the Purposes of this Act may from Time to Time be altered
and amended by the said Trustees at any Meeting pursuant to this
Act, either by inserting the Name or Names of any Person or Persons
who ought to have been rated or who shall have come into the
Possession of any rated or rateable House, Building, or Tenement
during the Time for which any Rate may be payable, or by striking
out the Name or Names of any Person or Persons who ought not to
have been rated, or by raising or lowering the Sum or Sums charged
upon any Person or Persons, or by apportioning between any
outgoing and incoming Tenant any Sum or Sums which shall be
charged upon either in such Rate or otherwise as the said Trustees
shall think necessary for making such Rate a just and equal Rate;
and the Monies charged to any Person or Persons in consequence of
any such Alteration or Amendment may be recovered and levied in
the same Manner as if such Alteration or Amendment had been an
original Insertion.
XXX. And be it further enacted, That the first Rate which shall be
made by virtue of this Act shall be for Two Quarters ending at
Christmas Day next after the passing of this Act, and that every
subsequent Rate shall be for One whole Year, commencing from the
Expiration of the Term for which the preceding Rate shall have been
made; and that all the said Rates shall become due and be payable
immediately upon the making thereof, but may be collected in one
or several Payments, or yearly, half-yearly, or quarterly, as the said
Trustees shall from Time to Time direct; and that such Rates and all
other Monies which shall become due or be payable to the said
Trustees in pursuance of the Provisions in this Act contained shall be
and are hereby vested in the said Trustees, and shall be paid to such
Person or Persons as the said Trustees shall from Time to Time
appoint to collect and receive the same, and shall be applied and
disposed of by the said Trustees in defraying the Expences of and

incident to the Execution of this Act, and otherwise as in or by this
Act is directed or authorized.
XXXI. And be it further enacted, That if any Person or Persons liable
to pay any Rate or Rates which shall be made in pursuance of this
Act, or any Part or Parts of any such Rate or Rates, shall refuse or
neglect to pay the same, it shall be lawful for any Justice of the
Peace for the County of Middlesex, and every such Justice is hereby
authorized and empowered (such Defaulter having been first duly
summoned to appear before such Justice or Justices to shew Cause
for such Refusal or Neglect, and not having appeared upon such
Summons, or having appeared and not shewn good and sufficient
Cause to such Justice that he, she, or they, is or are not chargeable
with such Rate or Rates) to grant a Warrant under his Hand and
Seal, authorizing the Person appointed to collect the same Rates as
aforesaid, or any other Person or Persons, to levy such Rate or
Rates, and all Arrears thereof, together with all incidental Coats and
Expences, by Distress of the Goods and Chattels of the Person or
Persons so neglecting or refusing; and if the said Rate or Rates, and
all Arrears thereof, together with all such Costs as aforesaid, and
also all Costs of and incident to the taking and detaining the
Distress, shall not be paid within Five Days next after the Distress
shall be taken, the Person appointed to collect the said Rates, or
other Person authorized by the said Warrant, shall cause the Goods
and Chattels distrained to be appraised and sold, or such Part
thereof as shall be sufficient to pay the said Rate or Rates, and all
Arrears thereof, and all such Costs and Expences as aforesaid, and
the Costs and Expences of keeping, appraising, and selling the
Distress, and after full Payment of the same, shall return the
Overplus (if any) to the Owner or Owners of such Goods and
Chattels respectively, on Demand made thereof by such Owner or
Owners; and in default of such Distress it shall be lawful for any
such Justice to commit the Person or Persons so neglecting or
refusing to pay such Rate or Rates, and all Arrears thereof, and all
attendant and incidental Costs and Expences as aforesaid, to the
Common Gaol or House of Correction, there to remain without Bail

or Mainprize for any Time not exceeding Six Calendar Months, unless
Payment shall be sooner made of such Rate or Rates, and all Arrears
thereof as aforesaid, together with all Costs and Expences attendant
upon and incident to the Recovery thereof (such Costs and Expences
to be ascertained and determined by such Justice); and subject and
without Prejudice to the Powers and Remedies herein before
provided for the Recovery of the said Rates, the said Trustees may
sue for and recover the same, with full Costs of Suit, in any Court of
Request, or by Action of Debt in any of His Majesty’s Courts of
Record; and in every such Action it shall be sufficient to declare that
the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the Sum sought to be
recovered by virtue of a Rate (or of several Rates, as the Case may
require) made in pursuance of this Act.
XXXII. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Trustees to borrow at Interest, or to raise by the Sale of One or
more Annuity or Annuities for a Life or Lives (subject to the
Restrictions herein-after contained), any Sum or Sums of Money
which the said Trustees shall from Time to Time require, in or about
the Execution of this Act; and the said Trustees shall make and
deliver to the Person or Persons from whom any Money shall be so
borrowed One or more Promissory Note or Notes in the Form or to
the Effect following, to the Amount of the Money so borrowed;
namely,
‘The Trustees for regulating and improving Brompton Square and
certain adjacent Places, acting in the Execution of an Act of the
Fifth Year of King George the Fourth, intituled [here insert the
Title of this Act], hereby promise to pay to — —, — — Executors
or Administrators, or — — or their Order, by Indorsement
hereon, out of the Rates to be made in pursuance of the said
Act, the Sum of — Pounds on the — Day of — [here name a
Day for the Payment of the Money, not being less than Five
Years nor more than Fifteen Years from the Date of the Note],
and also Interest for the same from the Date hereof, at the Rate
of — per Centum per Annum, by half-yearly Payments, on every

— Day of — and — Day — in the meantime. In witness
whereof Three of the said Trustees have hereunto subscribed
their Names, the — Day of —.’
And the said Trustees shall also make and deliver to the Purchaser or
Purchasers of every such Annuity, a Grant thereof in the Form or to
the Effect following:
‘The Trustees for regulating and improving Brompton Square and
certain adjacent Places, acting in the Execution of an Act of the
Fifth Year of King George the Fourth, intituled [here insert the
Title of this Act] in consideration of the Sum of — paid to them
by — of — do hereby grant to — an Annuity of — a Year during
—, and to be paid half-yearly on the — Day of — and the — Day
of — out of the Rates to be made in pursuance of the said Act.
In witness whereof Three of the said Trustees have hereunto set
and affixed their Hands and Seals, the Day — of —.’
And the Money expressed to be made payable in every such
Promissory Note as aforesaid, and the Interest thereof, and also
every Annuity which shall be granted as aforesaid, shall be and are
hereby respectively charged upon and made payable out of the
Rates to be made by virtue of this Act, and shall be paid accordingly;
and every such Promissory Note shall be transferable by
Indorsement and Delivery, in the same Manner as any other
Promissory Note is by Law transferable; and every such Annuity shall
be and be deemed Personal Estate; but no such Annuity shall be
granted for the Lives of more than Two Persons, or be made to
depend on the Life or Lives of any Person on Persons who at the
Time of granting such Annuity shall be under the Age of Thirty-five
Years, nor shall any such Annuity be granted so as to produce to the
Purchaser an Income exceeding by more than One-fifth the Income
which a Sum equal in Amount to the Purchase Money for the same
would produce if then invested in the Purchase of a similar Annuity,
according to the Rate prescribed by Two several Acts, one made in
the Forty-eighth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George

the Third, intituled An Act to enable the Commissioners for the
Reduction of the National Debt to grant Life Annuities, and the other
made in the Fifty-second Year of the Reign of His said late Majesty,
intituled An Act for amending Two Acts passed in the Forty-eighth
and Forty-ninth Years of His present Majesty, for enabling the
Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to grant Life
Annuities; and none of the said Trustees shall be personally liable for
the Payment of any Promissory Note or Annuity to be issued or
granted in pursuance of this Act.
XXXIII. And be it further enacted, That the Names of the Trustees
present at each Meeting in pursuance of this Act, and also all their
Orders and Proceedings at each such Meeting, shall be entered in a
Book or Books to be kept for that Purpose; and the Entry of the
Proceedings at each Meeting shall be signed by the Chairman at the
next Meeting, and such Entries being so signed shall be deemed
Originals, and may be read in evidence in all Courts whatsoever.
XXXIV. And be it further enacted, That if any Person or Persons shall
beat or dust, or cause to be beat or dusted, any Carpet or Carpets,
or shall slack, sift, or screen, or cause to be slacked, sifted, or
screened, any Lime or Rubbish, or shall mix any Mortar, or shall
make or assist in making any Bonfire, or shall discharge any
Fireworks, or play at Football, or any other Game in the said Square,
or any Part thereof; or if any Person or Persons shall set or place or
cause to be set or placed any Timber, Bricks, Stone, Lime, Mortar, or
other Building Materials, or any Stall, Stallboard, or Basket, or any
Goods, Wares, or Merchandize whatsoever, or any Mud, Dirt, Sand,
Rubbish, Filth, Dung, Ashes, or Dust, upon any Footway or
Carriageway within the Jurisdiction of this Act; or if any Person or
Persons shall run, drive, or place, or cause to be run, driven, or
placed, any Coach, Chaise, Waggon, Cart, Truck, Wheelbarrow, or
other Carriage whatsoever, upon any Footway within the Jurisdiction
of this Act; or if any Person or Persons shall cause or wilfully permit
or suffer any Horse or other Beast or Cattle, which such Person or
Persons may be riding, driving, or leading, to go upon any such

Footway, or shall tie or fasten any Horse or other Beast or Cattle to
any House, Wall, Fence, Post, Rail, or other Thing whatsoever, across
any Footway or Carriageway within the Jurisdiction of this Act; or if
any Person or Persons shall place or put out, or cause or permit to
be placed or put out upon or before any House or Building next or
towards any Footway within the Jurisdiction of this Act, any Garden
or other Pot or Tub (except such Pot or Tub shall by Iron Rails or
Bars be perfectly secured from falling); or if any Person or Persons
shall lead or drive any Horse or other Beast in any Part of the said
Square, either with or without any Carriage, for the Purpose of
breaking, exercising, trying, or offering for Sale any such Horse or
other Beast; or if any Person or Persons shall empty or begin to
empty any Boghouse, or to take away any Night Soil from any House
or Place within the Jurisdiction of this Act, or shall come with Carts
or Carriages for that Purpose (except between the Hours of Twelve
of the Clock at Night and Five of the Clock in the Morning); or if any
Person or Persons shall occasion any other Kind of Obstruction or
Annoyance whatsoever, in or upon any of the Footways or
Carriageways within the Jurisdiction of this Act, or shall obstruct or
incommode, hinder or prevent, the free Passage of any such
Footway or Carriageway, or prejudice or annoy in any Manner
whatsoever any Person or Persons travelling, passing, or going
thereon; or if any Person or Persons shall breed, feed, or keep any
Kind or Species of Swine in any House or Building within the
Jurisdiction of this Act, or within any Yard, Garden, or other
Tenement held with any such House or Building; every such Person
shall forfeit and pay a Sum not exceeding Five Pounds for every such
Offence.
XXXV. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That no Person
shall be subject to any Penalty on account of any Rubbish, Building
Materials, or Scaffolding, being necessarily deposited or fixed in or
upon any Footway or Carriageway, before any House or Building
which shall be pulling down, rebuilding, or under Repair, so that the
same be properly enclosed, and convenient Space left for Carriages
to pass and repass with ease and Safety, and so that a sufficient

Light be kept up and maintained there from Sun-set to Sun-rise, to
prevent Accidents, and so that all such Rubbish, Building Materials,
Enclosures, and Scaffolding respectively, be removed within a
reasonable Time after such pulling down, rebuilding, or repairing
shall be finished, or upon Notice signed by the Clerk to the said
Trustees, and given to the Owner or Occupier of the House or
Building which shall be so pulling down, rebuilding, or under Repair,
or affixed upon some conspicuous Part of such House, Building,
Enclosure, or Scaffolding: Provided also, that in case any Person or
Persons so depositing or affixing or causing to be deposited or
affixed any such Rubbish, Building Materials, or Scaffolding as
aforesaid, in or upon any of the said Footways or Carriageways as
aforesaid, shall not properly enclose the same, and leave convenient
Space for Carriages to pass and repass with Ease and Safety as
aforesaid, and also keep up a good and sufficient Light there from
Sun-set to Sun-rise, so as to prevent Accidents, or shall not remove
any such Rubbish, Building Materials, or Scaffolding upon such
Notice as aforesaid, every Person making default in any of the Cases
aforesaid shall forfeit and pay a Sum not exceeding Ten Pounds.
XXXVI. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any
Officer or Person employed in the Execution of this Act, without any
other Warrantor Authority than this Act, to seize and detain, and for
any other Person or Persons to assist in seizing and detaining any
unknown Person or Persons who shall commit any Offence
punishable under this Act, and to take such Offender or Offenders
before a Justice of the Peace, in order to his or her Conviction for
such Offence.
XXXVII. And be it further enacted, that if any Person or Persons
shall obstruct, hinder, or molest the said Trustees or any of them, or
any Officer or other Person whomsoever, who shall be employed or
acting in the Execution of this Act, in the Performance of any Act,
Matter, or Thing to be done by virtue of or under the Authority of
this Act, or if any Person or Persons who shall be summoned to give
Evidence before any Justice of the Peace touching or concerning any

Offence or Matter punishable under this Act, shall not attend
pursuant to such Summons, nor produce a sufficient Excuse to the
Satisfaction of such Justice for his Non-attendance, every Person or
Persons so offending shall for every such Offence forfeit and pay a
Sum not exceeding Ten Pounds.
XXXVIII. And be it further enacted, That all Penalties and
Forfeitures which shall be incurred under the Provisions herein-
before contained, the Manner of levying or recovering whereof is not
herein-before particularly directed, shall be recoverable before any
Justice of the Peace for the County of Middlesex, upon Complaint
made to any such Justice within Six Calendar Months next after the
Offences respectively shall be committed; and it shall be lawful for
every such Justice to whom such Complaint shall be made, to
summon the Party or Parties complained against before him, and on
such Summons to hear and determine the Matter of such Complaint,
and on Proof of the Offence or Offences respectively, either by the
Confession of the Offender or Offenders, or by the Oath of any
credible Witness or Witnesses, to convict such Offender or
Offenders, and to adjudge him or them to pay the Penalty or
Forfeiture incurred, although no Information in Writing shall be
exhibited before such Justice; and in every Case where any such
Penalty or Forfeiture, together with all Costs of and incident to the
Complaint, Summons, Hearing, and Conviction, shall not be forthwith
paid by the Offender or Offenders at the Time of Conviction, such
Penalty and also such Costs as aforesaid shall be levied by Distress
and Sale of the Goods and Chattels of the Offender or Offenders, by
Warrant under the Hand and Seal of such Justice, (and which
Warrant such Justice is hereby empowered and required to grant);
and in every such Case it shall be lawful for such Justice to order the
Offender or Offenders so convicted to be detained and kept in safe
Custody until Return can conveniently be made to such Warrant of
Distress, unless the Offender or Offenders shall give sufficient
Security, to the Satisfaction of such Justice, for his or their
Appearance before such Justice on such Day or Days as shall be
appointed for the Return of such Warrant of Distress (not being

more than Seven Days from the Time of taking such Security), and
which Security the said Justice is hereby empowered to take by way
of Recognizance or otherwise; and if upon the Return of such such
Warrant it shall appear that no sufficient Distress can be had
thereupon, or in case it shall appear to the Satisfaction of such
Justice, either by the Confession of the Offender or Offenders or
otherwise, that such Offender or Offenders hath or have not
sufficient Goods and Chattels whereon such Penalties or Forfeitures
with all Costs as aforesaid can be levied, if a Warrant of Distress
were issued (in which Case it shall not be necessary to issue any
Warrant of Distress), then and in every such Case it shall be lawful
for such Justice to cause such Offender or Offenders to be
committed to the Common Gaol or House of Correction, there to
remain without Bail or Mainprize for any Term not exceeding Six
Calendar Months, unless such Penalties and Forfeitures, and all
attendant and incidental Costs, shall be sooner paid; and the Monies
arising by such Penalties and Forfeitures respectively shall from Time
to Time, in every Case where the Appropriation thereof is not herein-
before otherwise directed, be paid to the Treasurer to the said
Trustees, and (subject to the Power hereby given to the said
Trustees to dispose of any Part or Parts thereof, not exceeding One
Half, in rewarding the Informer or Informers, or any other Person or
Persons who shall have aided in detecting or convicting the Offender
or Offenders respectively) shall be applied and disposed of for the
Purposes of this Act.
XXXIX. And be it further enacted, That every Justice of the Peace
before whom any Person shall be convicted of any Offence against
this Act, shall and may cause the Conviction to be drawn up in the
following Form of Words, or in any other Form to the like Effect:
‘Middlesex to wit. } Be it remembered, That on the — Day of —
in the Year of our Lord — A. B. is convicted before — One of His
Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex, of
[here shortly state the Offence, and when and where
committed] contrary to the Form of a Statute made in the Fifth

Year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Fourth,
intituled [here set forth the Title of this Act], and I do adjudge
that the said A.B. hath therefore forfeited the Sum of —. Given
under my Hand and Seal, the Day and Year first above written.’
XL. And be it further enacted, That where any Distress shall be
made for any Rate or Penalty to be levied in pursuance of the
Provisions contained in this Act, the Distress shall not be deemed
unlawful, nor the Party or Parties making the same a Trespasser or
Trespassers, on account of any Defect or Want of Form in any
Proceeding relating thereto, nor shall the Party or Parties distraining
be deemed a Trespasser or Trespassers ab initio, on account of any
subsequent Irregularity, but the Person or Persons aggrieved by any
such Irregularity may recover full Compensation for any special
Damage by an Action on the Case, subject to the Limitations herein-
after made.
XLI. And be it further enacted, That if any Person shall think himself
or herself aggrieved by any Rate to be made in pursuance of this
Act, he or she, having first paid such Rate or Assessment, may
appeal to the said Trustees at their next Meeting after the Payment
thereof, and the said Trustees, if they shall think such Person
aggrieved, shall give such Relief in the Premises as they shall deem
reasonable; and if any such Person shall be dissatisfied with the
Determination of the said Trustees, or if any Person shall think
himself or herself aggrieved by any thing which shall be done by any
Justice of the Peace in the Execution of this Act, such Person may
appeal to the Justices of the Peace for the County wherein the Cause
of Complaint shall arise, at their General Quarter Sessions to be held
next after the Expiration of One Calendar Month from the Time when
the Cause of Complaint shall arise, but not afterwards, such
Appellant first giving Fourteen Days Notice at the least in Writing of
his or her Intention to make such Appeal, and of the Matter thereof,
to the Clerk to the said Trustees, and within Five Days next after
such Notice entering into a Recognizance before some Justice of the
Peace for such County, with Two sufficient Sureties conditioned to try

such Appeal at and abide the Order of and pay such Costs as shall
be awarded by the Justices at such Sessions, and also (when the
Appeal shall be against a Conviction) to pay the Penalty or
Forfeiture, if the Conviction shall be affirmed; and the said Justices
at such Sessions, upon Proof of such Notice having been given as
aforesaid, and of such Recognizance as aforesaid having been
entered into, shall hear and finally determine the Matter of such
Appeal in a summary Way, and award such Costs to the Appellant or
Respondent as the said Justices shall think proper, and may by their
Order or Warrant levy such Costs by Distress and Sale of the Goods
and Chattels of the Person or Persons ordered to pay the same, and
for want of sufficient Distress may commit such Person or Persons to
the Common Gaol or House of Correction for any Term not
exceeding Six Calendar Months, or until Payment of such Costs, and
the Determination of the said General Quarter Sessions shall be final
and conclusive to all Intents and Purposes; and no such Rate or
Assessment as aforesaid, nor any Proceeding touching the
Conviction of any Offender or Offenders, or any other Matter or
Thing done or transacted in or about the Execution of this Act, shall
be quashed or vacated for Want of Form, or removed by Certiorari or
any other Writ or Process whatsoever, into any of His Majesty’s
Courts of Record at Westminster; but any such Rate or Assessment,
or any Matter of Form in any Conviction or Proceeding as aforesaid,
may be amended as the Justices at any General Quarter Sessions
shall direct.
XLII. And be it further enacted, That any Justice of the Peace for
the County of Middlesex may act as such in the Execution of this Act,
notwithstanding he may at the same Time be a Trustee under this
Act; and none of the said Trustees, nor any rated Inhabitant or
Occupier of any House, Building, or Tenement within the Jurisdiction
of this Act, shall by reason thereof be deemed an incompetent
Witness in any Action, Prosecution, Information, Complaint, Appeal,
or Proceeding whatsoever relating to the Execution of this Act, or to
any Rate made in pursuance thereof; and all Notices and
Summonses which are required to be given by this Act, or which

may be necessary for carrying this Act into Execution, may be either
written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, and may (in
all Cases in which the Manner of serving the same is not particularly
directed by this Act) be served either by delivering the same to the
Person or Persons to whom such Notices or Summonses respectively
are directed, or by leaving the same at the usual or last known Place
of Abode of such Person or Persons, or at or upon any House,
Building, or Tenement whereunto such Notices or Summonses
respectively shall relate.
XLIII. And be it further enacted, That the said Trustees may sue
and be sued in the Name of their Clerk or Treasurer for the Time
being, and not otherwise; and no such Action or Suit shall abate or
be discontinued by the Death or Removal of such Clerk or Treasurer,
but the Clerk or Treasurer for the Time being to the said Trustees
shall always be deemed Plaintiff or Defendant, as the Case may be,
but such Clerk or Treasurer shall not be personally answerable for
any Damages or Costs which may be recovered against him by
reason of his being so made Plaintiff or Defendant, but such
Damages and Costs respectively shall be paid by the said Trustees
out of the Money to be raised under this Act; and such Clerk or
Treasurer shall be a competent Witness in such Action,
notwithstanding he may be the nominal Plaintiff or Defendant.
XLIV. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Trustees from Time to Time to hire any Room or Building, as they
shall think fit, in any convenient Place within the Limits of this Act, to
be used as and for an Office or Offices for keeping their Accounts,
holding their Meetings, and transacting the Business relating to this
Act, or for other the Purposes of this Act, and to accept and take a
Lease of such Room or Building to themselves, or any of them, or to
any Person or Persons in Trust for them, for any Term or Number of
Years, at and under such Rent or Rents as they shall from Time to
Time think fit, and to pay such Rent or Rents out of the Money to
arise by virtue of this Act.

XLV. And be it further enacted, That no Action or Suit shall be
commenced against any Person or Persons for any thing done by
such Person or Persons in or about the Execution of this Act, until
the Expiration of One Calendar Month next after a Notice in Writing,
fully and explicitly stating the Cause or Causes of Action, and the
Name or Names, and Place or Places of Abode of the intended
Plaintiff or Plaintiffs, and of his or their Attorney or Agent, shall have
been delivered to or left at the usual Place of Abode of the intended
Defendant or Defendants; and no such Action or Suit shall be
commenced after a Tender of sufficient Amends shall have been
made, either to the Party aggrieved or (on his or their Behalf) to the
Attorney or Agent named in such Notice, nor after the Expiration of
Six Calendar Months next after the Fact committed, and the Venue in
every such Action or Suit shall be laid in the County where the Cause
of Action shall have arisen and not elsewhere; and the Defendant or
Defendants may at his or their Election plead specially or the General
Issue, and at the Trial thereof give this Act and the special Matter in
Evidence; and if the Matter or Thing complained of shall appear to
have been done under the Authority of this Act, or if any such Action
or Suit shall be brought contrary to the foregoing Restrictions and
Limitations, or any of them, then the Jury shall find for the
Defendant or Defendants; and upon such Verdict, or if the Plaintiff or
Plaintiffs shall be nonsuited, or discontinue his, her, or their Action,
after the Defendant or Defendants shall have appeared, or if upon
Demurrer Judgment shall be given against the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs,
then the Defendant or Defendants shall have Treble Costs, and have
such Remedy for the Recovery thereof as any Defendant may have
for the Recovery of Costs in any Case by Law.
XLVI. And be it further enacted, That no Person who shall be an
Occupier of any House, Building, or Tenement within the Jurisdiction
of this Act, and shall be charged in respect thereof towards any of
the Rates to be made by virtue of this Act, shall be liable or charged
in respect of the same Premises to or with any general Rate or Rates
for paving, lighting, or watching the Town or Parish of Kensington or
any Part thereof, or to or with any Rate for or towards paving,

lighting, or watching any particular Street, Road, or Place; any Law
or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
XLVII. Provided always, and be it further enacted. That nothing
herein contained shall extend to authorize the said Trustees to
expend any Money which shall be raised under the Authority of this
Act in or about the first laying out, forming, paving, or gravelling any
of the Footways or Carriageways on the East, West, or North Sides
of Brompton Square, or in or about the first enclosing, forming, or
planting any Part of the Area of the said Square.
XLVIII. Provided always and be it further enacted, That nothing in
this Act contained shall extend or be deemed or construed to extend
to prejudice, diminish, alter, or take away any of the Rights, Powers,
or Authorities vested in the Commissioners of Sewers for the City
and Liberty of Westminster and Part of the County of Middlesex; but
all the Rights, Powers, and Authorities vested in them shall be as
good, valid, and effectual as if this Act had not been made.
XLIX. Provided also, and be it further enacted, That nothing in this
Act contained shall operate or be construed to take away any Right,
Power, Interest, Privilege, Advantage, or Authority, which is by Law
now vested in the Governor and Company of Chelsea Water Works,
or in the Company of Proprietors of the West Middlesex Water
Works, or in the Grand Junction Water Works Company respectively;
but that all and every the said Rights, Powers, Interests, Privileges,
Advantages, and Authorities respectively, may be exercised and
enjoyed in as full and ample a Manner to all Intents and Purposes as
the same were exercised and enjoyed immediately before the
passing of this Act.
L. And be it further enacted, That all Costs and Expences of and
incident to the obtaining and passing this Act shall be paid out of the
first Monies which shall be raised by virtue of this Act.
LI. And be it further enacted, That this Act shall be deemed and
taken to be a Public Act, and shall be judicially taken notice of as

such by all Judges, Justices, and others, without being specially
pleaded.

LONDON: Printed by George Eyre and Andrew Strahan,
Printers to the King’s most Excellent Majesty. 1825.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ACT TO
PROVIDE FOR THE PAVING, GRAVELLING, LIGHTING, AND
WATCHING CERTAIN FOOTWAYS AND CARRIAGEWAYS IN AND
NEAR BROMPTON SQUARE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.
copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and
Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Exploring Translation And Multilingual Text Production Beyond Content Erich Steiner Editor Colin Yallop Editor

More Related Content

Similar to Exploring Translation And Multilingual Text Production Beyond Content Erich Steiner Editor Colin Yallop Editor (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Exploring Translation And Multilingual Text Production Beyond Content Erich Steiner Editor Colin Yallop Editor