• Larysa Kyrychuk Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University
Keywords: academic paper abstract, translation technique, literal translation, modified literal translation, free translation, re-contextualization


Translation of academic paper abstracts has always been the point at issue in academic discourse. Translators are, particularly, faced with the problem to solve: should the translated abstract reflect accurately the original, thus presenting its formal features, or should it be modified, so that the target text becomes adjusted to the linguistic, cognitive and cultural expectations of the target reader. Taking into account that the techniques employed by the translators are predetermined by their strategic approach to academic paper abstract translation, the identification of the prevalent techniques in the target texts makes it possible to point out the most frequently taken translators’ stances. Specifically, the comparative-contrastive and descriptive analyses of the Ukrainian-English micro- and macro-unit pairs undertaken in this study enables us to outline the prevalent strategic approaches to this type of translation. The study shows that the techniques used by the translators involve calques, word-for-word rendering, obligatory and optional transformations, translation shift at the textual level, re-statement, etc. The target texts that exhibit the translators’ preference for a certain type of the techniques are distributed into the classes of literal (31 out of 71 cases), modified literal (37 cases) and free (re-contextualized) translation (3 cases). The findings of the study are commented on and generalized in the conclusions.


Al-Khasawneh, Fadi Maher Saleh. 2017. “A Genre Analysis of Research Article Abstracts Written by Non-Native Speakers of English.” Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 4(1): 1–13.

Bonn, Sarah Von and Swales, John M. 2007. “Similarities and Differences in French and English EAP Research Article Abstracts. The Case of Asp.” Language and Discipline Perspective on Academic Discourse 260–277. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press..

Byrne, Jody. 2006. “Technical Translation. Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation.”

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2002. Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students. University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor.

Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interaction in Academic Writing. London, UK: Longman.

Hyland, Ken. 2007.” Genre Pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 Writing Instructions.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16(3): 148–164.

Krein-Kuhle, Monica. 2003. Equivalence in Scientific and Technical Translation. A Text-in-Context-Based Study. University of Salford, Salford, UK.

Larson, Mildred L 1984. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Lanham, MD. University Press of America.

Lores, Rosa. 2004. “On Research Article Abstracts: from Rhetorical Structure to Thematic Organization.” English for Specific Purpose 23(2) 280–302.

Parales-Escudero, Moise and Swales, John M. 2011. “Tracing Convergence and Divergence in Pairs of Spanish and English Research Article Abstracts. The Case of Iberica.” Iberica 21(21): 47–70.

Peterlin, Agness Pisanski. 2008. “The Thesis Statement in Translation of Academic Discourse: an Exploratory Study.” The Journal of Specialized Translation 10–22.

Terzi, Canan and Arslanturk, Yalcin. 2014. “An Analysis of Dissertation Abstracts in Terms of Translation Errors and Academic Discourse.” International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies 2(4): 1–11.

Yakhontova, Tetiana. 2006. “Cultural and Disciplinary Variation in Academic Discourse: The Issue of Influencing Factors.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 153–167.