Pre-translation analysis and translation strategy as components of the translation process

Tetenova Mariya Aleksandrovna Postgraduate student, The Higher School of Translation and Interpreting, Moscow State University 119234, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1, building 51 tetenova.mariia@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Translation is not a product of the times of colonialism or empires, when communication between states was the basis for diplomatic interaction and solving world conflicts and problems, and the appearance of translators was the answer to the request of the state. The history of translation goes back to ancient times, when human mobility was much lower than it is today, and when the translator's functionality was not the same as it is today. For example, in 3000 BC in ancient Egypt there was already a special hieroglyph for the translator. ^{[3, p. 65]}. The ancient Greek myth of the god Hermes mentions his mission of mediation and interpretation of thought through words, and now the translation task of interpreting meanings is named hermeneutics in his honor. It is worth noting that the above examples cannot be a full basis for the assertion that the translation craft did not exist before, because the evidence that has survived to this day is few, and they do not allow us to reject assumptions about the existence of translation practices unknown to us in even more ancient times.

Referring to ancient times allows us not only to roughly outline the time and geographical scope of the emergence of translation practice and translators as artisans, but also to highlight some texts that today we can confidently call translation products, as well as prefaces to these works, which help us make sure that the formation of concepts of pre-translation analysis and translation strategy it began long before the emergence of linguistics as a separate science.

Turning to the history of translation, we must understand that, looking for the roots of the concepts of pre-translation analysis and translation strategy, we must also study the artifacts of the times when these terms did not exist, because the formation of concepts and concepts does not occur simultaneously.

One of the first texts where the author explains his motivation in direct text is the treatise of Marcus Tullius Cicero "On Translators (On the best kind of speakers)", where Cicero directly explains his motivation for translation (italics of the author – M.T.)

"I translated them, however, not as an interpreter, but as an orator: I preserved both thoughts and their structure—their physiognomy, so to speak—but in the selection of words I was guided by the conditions of our language. With this attitude to the matter, I had no need to translate word for word, but only reproduced in the aggregate the meaning and power of individual words; I believed that the reader would demand from me accuracy not by counting, but — if I may say so— by weight. The purpose of my work is for our compatriots to understand what they need from representatives of the Attic movement and what measure of eloquence to apply to them."

Cicero emphasizes the absence of the need to translate "word for word", because it is not the "count" of words that creates meaning, but their "weight". This argument is expected from the master of oratory, who taught eloquence and public speaking, because the purpose of his texts was to make a certain impression on the listener, the way to which lay through expressive means and skillful knowledge of the language. We can draw a parallel between Cicero's approach to translation and Kashkin's approach in Russian linguistics in an effort to preserve the effect produced on the recipient. We can see this most clearly in the following passage:

"I decided to translate their speeches; to translate so that all their virtues would be reproduced in translation, i.e. all their thoughts, both in form and in content and alternation, the words only insofar as the conditions of our language allow it - however, if I failed to translate them from Greek in full, but I tried to make sure that their meaning was not lost. If my goal is achieved, then a law will be created that speakers who call themselves followers of the Attic trend will have to adhere to in their speeches."

Cicero explains his approach to translation in the preface in order to also prevent accusations of poor knowledge of the language or inconsistency of words in the original text with expressions in the translation text. So, the reader knows in advance what kind of translation will be in front of him – a text where the translator tried to express himself with the same measure of eloquence as the author of the original text.

Horace expresses a similar position to Cicero: "O most diligent translator, strive to translate not word for word" (in P. I. Kopanev's translation), who urged translators not to enclose themselves in the strict framework of the original text and give free rein to eloquence to create a worthy translation.

In contrast to Cicero, who presented a semantic translation using oratorical eloquence, Virgil, in his translation of Homer, on the contrary, does not take liberties. This is evidenced by Aulus Gellius in "Attic Nights", analyzing the translation of Virgil in comparison with the original Greek.

"It is said that when it is necessary to transpose and reproduce wonderful expressions from Greek verses, one should not always strive [to] translate absolutely all the words as they are said. (2) After all, many [poems] lose their pleasantness if they are translated as if against desire, and they resist violence. (3) Therefore, Virgil wisely and carefully, reproducing certain passages from Homer, or Hesiod, or Apollonius, or Parthenius, or Callimachus, or Theocritus, or some other [poets], omitted some of them, and translated the rest."^[5]

Thus, according to Aulus Gellius, Virgil resorts to the technique of omission, not allowing himself to select semantic analogues in the translation language, because the works of Homer are a great cultural heritage, and to introduce anything even in the smallest details is an interference in the great text. 

Using the example of the above texts, we can confirm the fact of the formation of different translation strategies long before the term appeared. In the comments, we can also highlight the beginnings of the pre-translation analysis performed by the translators - for example, Cicero understands that the speeches of the "leaders of attic eloquence" are masterpieces of oratory, and in the text of the translation the expressiveness of the means should be preserved, even if this translation is not "in form". Otherwise, the translation will cease to be the text of the great speaker.

Jacques Amiot, a French writer who commented on his work as follows, can also be distinguished from the arguments of his motivation personally articulated by the translators:

"I ask readers to understand that the duty of a true translator is not only to correctly convey the judgment of its author, but also to present it to some extent, repeating, like a shadow, the form of style and manner of speech." Having sent his translation of the Comparative Biographies to King Henry II, he attached a note:

"I tried to convey to a greater extent what the author wanted to say, rather than decorate and polish the language, just as he tried to write in his own language seriously and in a learned way, rather than easily and smoothly." ^{[15, p. 65]}

On the first impression, we could say that Jacques Amiot, on the contrary, moved away from the desire for magnificent eloquence in the language of translation, trying to get closer to the author's word, to its form. However, as the translator himself emphasizes, the author of the text himself "tried to write seriously and in a learned way", therefore repetition, "like a shadow" (in N. K. Garbovsky's translation), suggested a lack of oratorical expressiveness, as in the case of Cicero. ^{[15, p. 66]}.

The origin of the concepts of pre-translation analysis and translation strategy back in Antiquity suggests a long way to form the term and its definition, therefore, several examples of definitions in modern linguistics can be given.   

Since in the process of pre-translation analysis, the translator should determine the zone of not only interlanguage interaction, but also intercultural. The translator must have extensive knowledge not only of the language of the target country, but also of its culture.

M. P. Brandes, specializing in written translation, notes the importance of pre—translation analysis, emphasizing the importance of understanding the organization of the text: "The general principles of pre-translation analysis make the text visible in terms of its structure and language, outline the contours of the communicative, i.e. semantic organization of the text, help to understand that the main difficulty of translation is the transfer of meaning in its entirety" ^{[2, p. 8]}.

The importance of the intercultural aspect is also emphasized by R.K. Minyar Beloruchev, who specializes to a much greater extent in interpretation: "translation will be considered complete if the translator has managed to know the depths of the culture of the people whose language he claims to know." ^{[8, p. 11]}. A well-founded question arises, in what form does the pre-translation analysis take place within the framework of interpretation? In our opinion, building a high level of understanding and knowledge of the culture of the country of the target language is a tool that allows the translator to navigate more freely in the system and organization of the text.

It is worth emphasizing that regardless of the direction in translation, the purpose of pre-translation analysis is to facilitate the process of interlanguage communication, increase the level of translation adequacy, as well as maximize the convergence of the effect produced on the recipient when perceiving the original and the effect produced on the recipient already when perceiving the translation. Thus, the pre-translation analysis stage is relevant for both written translation and interpretation. Let's explain: when translating, the translator can study the text, the paratext, the historical context in which this text was created, etc. During interpretation, which may not be entirely obvious, the translator may be warned about the topics that will be on the agenda, which will allow him to both expand his vocabulary and explore the area that will be discussed. Of course, such an opportunity does not always present itself: one of the most striking examples is simultaneous interpretation in court

There are several pre-translation analysis schemes depending on the approach. For example, proponents of linguistic theory consider pre-translation analysis as a tool to ensure the most complete understanding of the meaning of the original text. Such an understanding of the source material, according to linguistic theory, will allow you to choose the most correct translation strategy.

Supporters of the functional direction in translation adhere to the idea of the need to determine the function of the source text, as well as taking into account the context of the culture of the recipient of the translation. Therefore, pre-translation analysis for supporters of the functional direction focuses on the extralinguistic factors of the communicative situation and the question of the level of their influence on the text.

One of the most detailed schemes of pre-translation analysis is proposed by the scientist K. Nord ^[16]. She suggested dividing the components of pre–translation analysis into two categories - extralinguistic factors and intra-textual factors:

1) Extralinguistic factors:

— the author of the text,

— the intention of the author of the text,

— recipient of the text,

— the method of transmission of the message,

— the place where the text was created,

— time of text creation,

— the reason for creating the text,

— the communicative purpose of the text.

2) Linguistic factors:

— the subject of the text,

— the content of the text,

— the structure of the text,

— non-verbal elements of the text and their relation to verbal ones,

— syntactic features of the text

— the lexical composition of the text,

— the tone of the text,

— the pragmatic impact of the text.

The classification proposed by K. Nord is exhaustive: the scientist considers both linguistic and extralinguistic, cultural and situational components.

I.S. Alekseeva, a representative of the functional approach to translation, also created her own scheme of pre-translation analysis: ^{[1, pp. 326-329]}:

1. Collecting external information about the text:

— the author of the original text;

— the time of creation and publication of the original text;

— source (book, Internet site, magazine or newspaper).

— the recipient of the text.

I.S. Alekseeva also identifies four types of information:

— cognitive,

— operational,

— emotional,

— aesthetic.

Cognitive information carries objective information about the outside world relevant to the original text. Through operational information, the motivation to perform certain actions is realized through the use of various linguistic means. The essence of emotional information is to communicate new information for sensory perception: such information can be limited by the norms of etiquette, and include any emotionally colored vocabulary, etc. Aesthetic information includes means of expression, wordplay, non-verbal speech (gestures, facial expressions, etc.)

The translator should also define, or at least try to define, the communicative purpose of the text. The purpose of a text often depends on the genre in which the text exists. The communicative purpose or communicative task of the text can be to communicate new information, establish contact, convince of something, instruct, etc. Determining the communicative purpose of the text will help the translator determine which language constructions will be dominant in translation. For the most accurate selection of language tools in translation, it also seems necessary to determine the speech genre of the original text. 

The above scheme by I.S. Alekseeva takes into account all aspects of the text to be translated, which subsequently allows the translator to make the highest quality translation.  Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing that no scheme is prematurely relevant, and if some information does not correspond to any of the categories, the researcher will need to supplement the scheme.

M. P. Brandes and V. I. Protovortov, in turn, believe that "in order to perform a high-quality translation, a translator must understand that he is translating not just the language of the text and not just the text, but translates a language that is an expression of repeatedly meaningful content, that is, not only "what" is said in the text, but "what"it is said and 'how' it is expressed in the text itself and the language of the text" ^{[2, p. 8]}. This definition implies the need for the translator to have deep knowledge of the culture, history and way of life of the country of the target language, which will allow him to think not through the categories of his native language, but to "switch" to other thinking and the manner of expressing and constructing thoughts.

It should be noted that among the translation theorists there are those who do not operate with the concept of "pre-translation analysis". For example, R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev argues that "a text is not just a sequence of graphic or sound linguistic signs limited to a single purpose, it is also a system of linguistic units carrying far from equivalent information" ^{[9, p. 131]}. It can be assumed that the theorist still implies the need for pre-translation analysis, since he notes the need for information analysis, but within the framework of interpretation, which R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev specializes in, there is both a time limit for translation and the task of preserving the maximum of key elements of the source text, and in this endeavor the translator is free to release "less significant" information. 

We emphasize that in all these concepts there are many common elements: the need to determine the genre and style of the source text, the definition of types of information, which together helps the translator to determine the dominant language style of translation.

After analyzing the basic concepts of the pre-translation analysis of the text, it can be stated that there is no common and unified scheme. The scheme of I. S. Alekseeva seems to us the most convenient, because it takes into account both linguistic and extralinguistic factors.

A logical continuation of the consideration of pre-translation analysis is the consideration of the concept of translation strategy. In modern translation studies, the term "translation strategy" is used everywhere.  At the same time, this term is "one of the least defined concepts of translation studies" ^{[10, p. 110]}. The low level of certainty and concreteness of the term is due to its heterogeneity: this term includes both the tactics of translation, the personal characteristics of the translator, and the translation transformations themselves used to create an adequate translation.  The terms "translation strategy" and "translation strategy" are often used synonymously: this is how S. Alekseeva, I. V. argue. Voynich, N. K. Garbovsky and V. N. Komissarov. However, this does not deny that different researchers put different meanings into this term, which makes it difficult to define it more or less uniformly. 

It seems difficult to define this term not only for us: the term "translation strategy" is not given in the "Explanatory Dictionary of Translation Studies", which contrasts sufficiently with the level of use of this term in scientific and educational sources. 

The lack of a generally accepted and unified definition of this term leads to the emergence of many theories that are being created due to scientists' concern about the undefinitiveness of the term. For example, this concern can be found in B. Dimitrova's book "Expertise and Explanation in the Translation Process". B. Dimitrova offers a classification of definitions of the term "translation strategy". Among them, the scientist identifies: classifications based solely on textual characteristics, and classifications based on other criteria (for example, when using the "think aloud" method). In the group of classifications based solely on textual characteristics, the researcher includes the differentiation of domestication and forenization strategies. In the second group, the differentiation of strategies for converting translated text (PT) and this operation with the source text (IT), this distinction was proposed by linguist Andrew Chesterman. In her work, B. Dimitrova also analyzes the global strategies formulated by R. Jaaskelainen. The above-mentioned strategies perform the function of directing the translation process, which in principle equates them to the principles of translation activity.

Zh. Dansett's translation strategy implies a list of rules according to which translation is carried out, the ideal manifestation of which will be a solved translation problem.  Among the most constructive and well-founded definitions, B. Dimitrov also cites the approach of Krings and Lersher: according to this approach, the translation strategy should be considered from the principle of developing communicative strategies in the process of learning a foreign language ^{[14, p. 26]}.

A. G. Vitrenko in his article "On translation strategy" examines the definitions of translation strategy proposed in the works of A. D. Schweitzer, N. A. Kryukov, A. R. Minyar-Beloruchev. As a result of the analysis and comparison, the author concludes that the "translation strategy" as a scientific concept "in fact does not mean a scientific, but an ordinary concept, and as a result is terminologically illegitimate" ^{[2, p. 15]}. This conclusion is quite categorical, but its formation can be traced: the above-mentioned scientists use this term in a very different context.

 For example, A. D. Schweitzer uses the term "strategy" both in the meaning of a program of translation actions and in the meaning of global problems of specific types of translation. Also, A. D. Schweitzer, by the translation strategy, implies a principled approach to solving particular problems within the framework of a common task ^{[12, p. 90]}. In the process of studying, A.G. Vitrenko notes that the use of the term "translation strategy" in the meanings of "deverbalization strategy", "strategy of literal (free) translation", "strategy of genre poetic stylization" is very frequent.

R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev also adheres to the trend of synonymizing the concepts of "translation strategy" and "translation methods". The definition proposed by R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev is to understand the translation strategy as a well-coordinated system of "interrelated techniques that take into account the type of translation and naturally existing translation methods" ^{[9, p. 155]}. After analyzing all the above-mentioned translators and linguists, A. G. Vitrenko comes to the conclusion that the translation strategy is a certain special type of translation thinking that justifies the actions of the translator in the translation process. At the same time, the scientist notes that this concept is too vague and abstract to become a term. ^{[3, p. 5]}

According to V. N. Komissarov, it is translation thinking that forms and creates translation strategies, thanks to which theory is implemented. ^{[7, p. 356]} To the basic idea of the mechanism of the emergence and development of a translation strategy through some components of the communication situation, V. N. Komissarov adds that this is not a feature of the translation strategy, since the translation strategy is associated with translation as a whole, that is, with all translation acts, and not only with the communication situation. Thus, the concept proposed by V.N. Komissarov includes both the process of planning a strategy and the process of implementing this plan itself, which is why V.N. Komissarov's translation strategy is "expansive" ^[10].

N. K. Garbovsky suggests defining a translation strategy depending on the conditions for the implementation of a specific act of translation.

According to N. K. Garbovsky, the strategy should be based on the translator's understanding of the clear purpose of translation, and should also correspond to the general line of behavior of the translator. Thus, the development of an original translation concept is directly related to the awareness of the ultimate goal of translation, because it is thanks to this awareness that the strategy is developed. ^{[5, p. 308]} In contrast to the concept of V. N. Komissarova, N.K. Garbovsky's concept does not indicate a particularly significant role of the communicative situation of translation, however, it is precisely this that is a formative factor both for the translation concept and directly for the translation strategy. If we analyze the concept of N. K. Garbovsky in comparison with other theories described above, then it is the concept of N. K. Garbovsky that turns out to be the closest to the communicative and functional approach to translation. The concept proposed by N. K. Garbovsky not only takes into account the conditions in which a particular translation activity takes place, but also emphasizes their diversity, due to the equally great variety of communicative situations in which a translator may find himself and in which translation will need to be carried out.

I.2. The complexity of the concept of translation strategy

When choosing a translation strategy, a translator often faces the need to decide who he will "meet" when doing his work: the reader or the author. Depending on the decision he made, the approach of domestication or forenization is implemented, respectively. This choice is related to the concept of "alien" in translation, which, when forenized, will be demonstrated to the reader, and in the case of domestication, it will be smoothed out and brought to the denominator of the culture of the country of the target language.

For the first time, these two methods of translator's work, but not yet named in such terms, were proposed by F. Schleiermacher in his lecture "On different methods of translation" (1813). This lecture by the German theologian and philosopher can be called one of the largest theoretical contributions to the development of the science of translation among German romantics. F. Schleiermacher proposed to clearly distinguish two approaches to translation, where in the first case the translator decides to move towards the reader and adapt the text for him, that is, bring the author to the reader, and in the other – to move towards the author, as if thereby forcing the reader to come to the author to some extent independently. The purpose of the translator, Schleiermacher believed, "is to make the same impression on the reader as the original makes on an educated person who is fluent in a foreign language, while still being a stranger to him; he does not have to, like a schoolboy, first think in his native language, with effort sculpting a whole out of details — he easily feels the beauty of the work, but at the same time is clearly aware of the difference between native and foreign" ^[13].

Speaking about the category of "alien" in translation, we must emphasize that this category was highlighted by Cicero when he described his own experience of translating Greek speakers into Latin. Awareness of the degree of "foreignness" of the material for the culture of the recipient of the translated text should be based on an analysis not only of the "foreignness" of the content of the material, but also in the form, which seems quite possible. Thus, the translator also needs to decide to what extent and what exactly he will keep. While preserving the "foreignness", the translator thereby adheres to the idea of preserving linguistic and cultural diversity, because he offers it to the reader. However, the translator must be able to identify and transmit precisely the elements that translate "alien", otherwise he risks, through translation interference, coming to the calculation of the structures of the translated language, which may not correspond to the norms of the language of the host culture.

There is also a reverse point of view, whose supporters believe that the translator's work should show the author's text as if he were a native speaker of the host culture, that is, fully adapt not only the original text itself to the culture of the target language, but also how to turn the author into a native speaker of this culture. F. Schleiermacher considers this method ridiculous, because, in his opinion, it is impossible to separate the author from his native language. This idea – that language determines thinking, in linguistics will later be supported by verbalists, V. Humboldt, E. Sepir and B. Whorf.

F. Schleiermacher is rather skeptical when talking about the translator's work: he sympathizes with him, because, in his opinion, the translator is almost always doomed to defeat, and "absolute and exhaustive" understanding is impossible, as well as correct translation. Nevertheless, F. Schleiermacher notes that "we will take comfort in the fact that everything has its good and its bad sides, and wisdom consists in taking as much good as possible and as little bad as possible, in any case, this should be sought." ^[13] The most complete, according to according to E. N. Mishkurov, the representation of the theses of F. Schleiermacher's work is given by I. S. Alekseeva in the textbook by I. S. Alekseeva "Introduction to Translation Studies": "We find the development of the views of Romantics on a new theoretical basis in the work of the famous theorist and translation practitioner of the first half of the XIX century Friedrich Schleiermacher "On various methods of translation" (1813). Without sharing the views of many of his contemporaries, who emphasized the impossibility of translation, Schleiermacher formulates clear conditions that can ensure the fidelity of the translation to the original. Schleiermacher characterizes translation as a hermeneutic process, emphasizes the need for a different approach to texts of different types, drawing a line between texts of “business life” and texts from the fields of science and art. Stating the need to convey the “spirit of language” in translation, Schleiermacher relies on the equality of the reader's impressions of the original and translated text and puts forward the method of “alienation” as the main one in conveying the originality of the original. A shade of "alienness" is necessary, in his opinion, to preserve national specificity" ^{[1, pp. 78-79]}.

The idea of language as a thought-forming phenomenon was later developed by L. Wittgenstein, who expressed the idea that it is language that forms the image of the world in human consciousness and that the boundaries of language mean the boundaries of our world. Later, these postulates became the basis for a "linguistic turn" in the philosophical thought of the 20th century. 

It should also be noted that there is another assessment of the ideas put forward by F. Schleiermacher: L. Venuti (born 1953), for example, sees in them a "chauvinistically condescending attitude towards other cultures." E. N. Mishkurov gives a clarification that "L. Venuti condemns "English-speaking translation theorists and practitioners" who only in 1977 read the scientist's lecture in English translation and included it among the "most important sources of modern translation theory" for the fact that they are still perplexed by his wish that the translation "create a sense of foreignness in the reader", believing that that the only correct solution lies in the "utter naturalness of expression", in the translator's use of "modes of speech behavior adopted in the culture of the addressee." ^{[17, pp. 1-12]}.

It was L. Venuti who first used the terms "domestication" and "forenization" to characterize the translation solution of linguistic and cultural issues. Venuti calls domestication an ethnocentric approach, whose proponents often come to reduce the volume of the text and reduce, strengthen the emphasis on the cultural component of the translation language, "bring the author closer to the reader." In the forenization approach, the emphasis is placed on preserving the linguistic and cultural features of the work, and "the reader approaches the author." Venuti attributes to domestication the creation of a "transparent" style, the perception of which does not require additional efforts or references, which, as it were, removes from the text of the work everything "strange" and "alien" for the reader, replacing it with "one's own" and "understandable". Forenization, unlike domestication, does not aim to make the translated text digestible for the reader, completely removing it from priority tasks and putting at the forefront the preservation of the text's self, its uniqueness, which is built, among other things, on the cultural background of the author of the work. Venuti also believes that forenization is an excellent tool for resisting the prevailing and aggressive Anglo-American culture, while domestication itself understands a certain culture as dominant in terms of translation, which means that among its tasks it has the likening of the text of the work to the "familiar" for the recipient-carrier of the "dominant" culture. Remarkably, L. Venuti perceives domestication as a tool, including Euro and anglocentricity, as a "smoothing translation" that masks and smoothes the distinctive features of the translated text. According to Venuti, with this approach, the translator frees himself from additional explanations that foreign objects and phenomena would require if they were preserved. Venuti contrasts this strategy with forenization, "resisting translation", in which the translator adds comments to clarify the features of a foreign culture and language. According to Venuti, it is "desirable for a translator to reduce ethnocentric coercion in translation," that is, to move away from domestication. The forenization approach emphasizes the linguistic and cultural diversity of the world around us, does not choose "dominant" cultures, and also motivates efforts to learn about other cultures. It is important to note that Venuti calls domestication and forenization heuristic terms that can change their role depending on the period and status of the States of the original and translated texts. 

However, the translation product depends not only on the decision made by the translator, but also directly on his personality. O. I. Kostikova calls the translator a central figure in the translation process, when he is defined as a type of interlanguage and intercultural communication, because he "manifests himself as a "creative person". ^{[8, p. 91]} Thus, the translation product is not a "clone" of the original, adjusted for approximation either to the host culture or to the author's originality, it absorbs a fraction of the translator's personality, which, according to O. I. Kostikova, as an "inevitable subjective component of any translation process" manifests itself "as both at the stage of interpretation and at the stage of creating a new text in the target language." ^{[8, p. 91]} O. I. Kostikova also notes that "any deviation from the original text is determined primarily by the creative principles of the translator and goes back to his chosen strategy," which emphasizes the existence of the original intention of the translator. The concept of "translation intent" will subsequently be included in the concept of "translation concept", which will be proposed as an "operational logical category" that would correspond to the properties of consistency, when consistency is "a property of objects and phenomena that presupposes the unity of interrelated and interdependent components forming a certain structure." In addition to the translation concept, the concept of "translation concept" also includes "translation horizon" and "translation position". The idea of the translator O. I. Kostikov defines as the initially planned "introduction of certain changes either to the system of meanings contained in the text of the original work, or to the way of formal reflection of this system." ^{[8, p. 92]}

Thus, pre-translation analysis and translation strategy are not only not exhaustive components of the description of the translation process, but form a complex system of the translation process.