{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01795142555438226, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.537931034482758, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What’s so “proper” about translation? Or interlingual translation and interpretative semiotics

Abstract Jakobson’s famous classification of three types of translation is the point of departure for a discussion of “translation proper,” or translation from one natural historical language to another. Eco’s comparison of the terms interpretation and translation show that they overlap but are not synonymous as there is a limit to translation that does not hold for interpretation. A translation strategy that aims for equivalent effect is guided by the intentio operis as well as by the regulative hypothesis of the encyclopedia, which takes into account the inferential and pragmatic conditions of communication that are implied but not explicit in the text. The paper compares insights from what has been called the “cultural turn” in Translation Studies with Eco’s regulative hypothesis of the Encyclopedia as a dynamic interpretative strategy.