원클릭으로 Manus에서 모든 스킬 실행

overt-covert-translation-and-equivalence

스타0

포크0

업데이트2026년 7월 12일 02:12

Review a House-model quality assessment — is the source-text profile and function specified, is the case overt (source kept intact) or covert (cultural filter for target pragmatics), and has unjustified filtering produced a covert version. Use when an overt/covert classification or a functional-equivalence claim needs situating; register detail goes to register-field-tenor-mode-analysis, error typing to error-analysis-and-evaluation-discipline.

설치

Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.

Manus에서 실행

출처

grammy-jiang

grammy-jiang/subagent-factory

GitHub 저장소 열기 Creator 저장소 보기

다운로드

Manus에서 실행

Overt Covert Translation And Equivalence

Purpose

This skill reviews a translation quality assessment built on House's model: whether the source-text profile and its function are specified, whether the case is an overt translation (second-level access, source kept intact) or a covert one (cultural filter for target pragmatics), and whether unjustified filtering has produced a covert version rather than a translation. It treats functional equivalence as approximate value across semantic, pragmatic, and textual dimensions, not referential content alone.

When to use

A quality judgement is made without a detailed source-text profile specifying the function the target should seek.
Overt and covert translation are conflated, or a cultural-filter change is applied without justification and passed off as a translation rather than a version.
Equivalence is reduced to referential/denotative content and the pragmatic and textual dimensions are ignored.
A covert/overt classification is asserted without checking addressee needs, source status, and whether the target could function as an original.

Procedure

Triage first. Decide which sub-case is on the table before working the detailed steps:

Overt case (source kept intact, second-level access to the source function is the goal): apply steps 1, 11, 18 directly.
Covert case (cultural filter applied for target pragmatics): apply steps 3, 4, 12, 15, 18.
Disputed or unclear which case applies, or a translation/version boundary question: resolve the classification first via steps 5, 10, 13, 16, 19, then apply the case-specific steps above. Steps 2, 6-9, 14, and 17 (profile specification, equivalence scope, and evidence currency) apply regardless of which sub-case this is.

For overt translation, aim at second-level access to the source function, preserve the source as intact as possible, and balance necessary explanation against replacement of source-culture markedness (P005).
Build the quality comparison from a detailed source-text profile that specifies the function to be sought in the target text (P006).
For covert translation, account for target pragmatics through cultural filters supported by multi-method research on register and genre variation across language pairs (P007).
When evaluating covert translation, check whether titles, advertising, signs, or other target texts reveal shifts between explicit content, interpersonal address, directness, and implicitness (P008).
Classify unjustified cultural-filter changes as covert versions, and classify added special-audience or special-purpose renderings as overt versions rather than ordinary translations (P011).
Treat equivalence as approximate value across differences, assessed at text level and prioritized case by case across denotative, connotative, pragmatic, text-normative, and formal-aesthetic demands (P030).
Define text function as use in a particular situational and cultural context, not as a direct projection from broad language-function typologies (P031).
Assess meaning preservation across semantic, pragmatic, and textual dimensions rather than reducing equivalence to referential content (P038).
Require any purpose-oriented TQA method to define textual function explicitly, identify source-text type, compare translation methods or shifts, and evaluate adequacy against text-specific features (P059).
Decide translation type from source status, use, reception history, purpose, and brief, not from source-text features alone (P062).
Analyze translation as frame and discourse-world movement, then choose criticism criteria according to whether the sought function is overt or covert (P063).
For covert translation, permit language/text and register manipulation only when it preserves target-frame genre and individual textual function (P064).
Classify a case as covert translation when source and target addressees have comparable contemporary needs and the target can function as an original in its own culture (P093).
Revise overt/covert expectations when current corpus evidence shows reduced cultural filtering, dominant English source-norm takeover, or emerging overt-like hybrid translation types (P106).
Classify mismatches as covert functional errors when dimensional profile differences alter function despite acceptable grammar or denotation (P127).
Keep source-target comparison in the assessment even when target-audience appropriateness or translation purpose influences whether the product is a translation or version (P131).
Treat functional equivalence as a matter of intercultural understanding (P133).
Account for different cognitive demands in overt and covert translation (P136).
Use the overt/covert cline and translation/version distinction to state which linkage and textual operation are being evaluated (P138).

Inputs

The translation, its source-text profile and function, and the overt/covert and equivalence claims made about it.
The reasoning offered for the decision under review: the corpus, the orientation, the brief, and any quality claim made.

Output

Per finding: name the flaw and the principle it violates, apply the correction, state the residual uncertainty and the trade-off it reflects, and end with a concrete next step. Order findings highest-impact first. Reviews the translation or the TQA claim; does not produce the translation or decide publication.

Anti-patterns to flag

Conflating "version" and "translation": an unjustified cultural-filter change is a covert version, not a covert translation; an added special-audience or special-purpose rendering is an overt version, not an ordinary translation. Mislabeling either hides that the product needs a different kind of assessment (P011).
Classifying a rendering as covert on fluency or idiomaticity alone. Covert status requires two things together: source and target addressees have comparable contemporary needs, and the target could function as an original in its own culture — reading naturally satisfies neither on its own (P093).
Clearing a translation because it reads grammatically and denotationally correct while a dimensional-profile shift (register, genre, stance) has already changed its function. That is a covert functional error, not a pass (P127).
Reapplying a fixed textbook overt/covert expectation to a language pair or genre where current corpus evidence shows reduced cultural filtering, English source-norm takeover, or an emerging overt-like hybrid type — the classification itself may be stale, not just the filtering choice (P106).
Treating overt and covert translation as equally demanding to process: overt translation co-activates source and target pragmatics (dual-frame load), covert translation primarily activates target pragmatics. Attributing assessed difficulty to the wrong frame misdiagnoses the finding (P136).

References

See ../../references/translation-quality-principles-index.md for the full principle catalogue grouped by skill, and ../../references/translation-quality-evidence-notes.md for how these principles are grounded and kept faithful to the sources.

Provenance

Derived from P005, P006, P007, P008, P011, P030, P031, P038, P059, P062, P063, P064, P093, P106, P127, P131, P133, P136, P138, grounded in the distillation-only source House, Translation Quality Assessment. The frontmatter provenance block lists the exact principle and claim ids, which resolve into principles/principles.yaml and analysis/claims.jsonl.

이 저장소의 다른 Skills

같은 저장소

applied-corpus-tools-and-textual-devices

grammy-jiang/subagent-factory

Review the applied use of corpus tools and textual analysis — keyword, concordance, and collocation analysis, description of existing translations, and tracking of textual devices (theme dynamics, clausal and iconic linkage, deixis) — set against the commission's purpose and risk level. Use when concrete tooling or textual-device tracking is under review; corpus design choices go to corpus-design-and-methodology.

2026-07-120

chinese-prose-and-europeanization

grammy-jiang/subagent-factory

Review Chinese target prose for Europeanized distortion — defending concision, flexible syntax, and rhythmic force, matching connectors to the actual relation, and preferring concrete subjects over abstract nominalizations. Use when a Chinese target text's Europeanization is under review; translationese used as a quality proxy goes to translation-universals-and-the-third-code.

2026-07-120

cognition-pragmatics-and-contrastive-evidence

grammy-jiang/subagent-factory

Review how cognitive and contrastive-pragmatic evidence is used — admitting process research only where it clarifies comprehension or transfer, treating verbal reports and neuroimaging as limited evidence, and triangulating pragmatic claims across data types. Use when a cognition or contrastive-pragmatics claim underlies a quality judgement; the descriptive-norm reconstruction it informs goes to descriptive-studies-and-translational-norms.

2026-07-120

corpus-design-and-methodology

grammy-jiang/subagent-factory

Review whether a corpus-based translation study is built to answer its question — corpus type (parallel / monolingual comparable / multilingual comparable), comparability, metadata, alignment, and frequency normalisation — before any difference is attributed to translation status. Use when a corpus design or corpus statistic is under review; universals interpretation goes to translation-universals-and-the-third-code, applied tooling to applied-corpus-tools-and-textual-devices.

2026-07-120

cultural-filtering-ideology-and-globalization

grammy-jiang/subagent-factory

Review quality where culture, ideology, English-as-a-lingua-franca, and globalization bear on the choices, grounding any power or ideology critique in detailed linguistic form and function first. Use when a cultural-filter, ideology, or ELF/globalization claim is under review; the overt/covert filtering judgement goes to overt-covert-translation-and-equivalence.

2026-07-120

descriptive-studies-and-translational-norms

grammy-jiang/subagent-factory

Review whether translated text is studied descriptively and target-orientedly — a reproducible method, norms reconstructed from recurrent corpus regularities, and an individual pattern attributed to a translator only after author style, source-language, and sociolect are ruled out. Use when a descriptive method or a translational-norm claim needs review; universals go to translation-universals-and-the-third-code.

2026-07-120

name	overt-covert-translation-and-equivalence
kind	skill
status	ready
description	Review a House-model quality assessment — is the source-text profile and function specified, is the case overt (source kept intact) or covert (cultural filter for target pragmatics), and has unjustified filtering produced a covert version. Use when an overt/covert classification or a functional-equivalence claim needs situating; register detail goes to register-field-tenor-mode-analysis, error typing to error-analysis-and-evaluation-discipline.
provenance	{"principles":["P005","P006","P007","P008","P011","P030","P031","P038","P059","P062","P063","P064","P093","P106","P127","P131","P133","P136","P138"],"claims":["C00002","C00015","C00016","C00017","C00018","C00027","C00031","C00035","C00037","C00038","C00053","C00054","C00055","C00056","C00057","C00061"],"evidence":[],"source_anchors":[],"authored_from_digest":"44077a66590391a40c3c81618836df58db15c89e430d8918933b8eff77a3011e"}

Overt Covert Translation And Equivalence

Purpose

When to use

A quality judgement is made without a detailed source-text profile specifying the function the target should seek.
Overt and covert translation are conflated, or a cultural-filter change is applied without justification and passed off as a translation rather than a version.
Equivalence is reduced to referential/denotative content and the pragmatic and textual dimensions are ignored.
A covert/overt classification is asserted without checking addressee needs, source status, and whether the target could function as an original.

Procedure

Triage first. Decide which sub-case is on the table before working the detailed steps:

Overt case (source kept intact, second-level access to the source function is the goal): apply steps 1, 11, 18 directly.
Covert case (cultural filter applied for target pragmatics): apply steps 3, 4, 12, 15, 18.
Disputed or unclear which case applies, or a translation/version boundary question: resolve the classification first via steps 5, 10, 13, 16, 19, then apply the case-specific steps above. Steps 2, 6-9, 14, and 17 (profile specification, equivalence scope, and evidence currency) apply regardless of which sub-case this is.

For overt translation, aim at second-level access to the source function, preserve the source as intact as possible, and balance necessary explanation against replacement of source-culture markedness (P005).
Build the quality comparison from a detailed source-text profile that specifies the function to be sought in the target text (P006).
For covert translation, account for target pragmatics through cultural filters supported by multi-method research on register and genre variation across language pairs (P007).
When evaluating covert translation, check whether titles, advertising, signs, or other target texts reveal shifts between explicit content, interpersonal address, directness, and implicitness (P008).
Classify unjustified cultural-filter changes as covert versions, and classify added special-audience or special-purpose renderings as overt versions rather than ordinary translations (P011).
Treat equivalence as approximate value across differences, assessed at text level and prioritized case by case across denotative, connotative, pragmatic, text-normative, and formal-aesthetic demands (P030).
Define text function as use in a particular situational and cultural context, not as a direct projection from broad language-function typologies (P031).
Assess meaning preservation across semantic, pragmatic, and textual dimensions rather than reducing equivalence to referential content (P038).
Require any purpose-oriented TQA method to define textual function explicitly, identify source-text type, compare translation methods or shifts, and evaluate adequacy against text-specific features (P059).
Decide translation type from source status, use, reception history, purpose, and brief, not from source-text features alone (P062).
Analyze translation as frame and discourse-world movement, then choose criticism criteria according to whether the sought function is overt or covert (P063).
For covert translation, permit language/text and register manipulation only when it preserves target-frame genre and individual textual function (P064).
Classify a case as covert translation when source and target addressees have comparable contemporary needs and the target can function as an original in its own culture (P093).
Revise overt/covert expectations when current corpus evidence shows reduced cultural filtering, dominant English source-norm takeover, or emerging overt-like hybrid translation types (P106).
Classify mismatches as covert functional errors when dimensional profile differences alter function despite acceptable grammar or denotation (P127).
Keep source-target comparison in the assessment even when target-audience appropriateness or translation purpose influences whether the product is a translation or version (P131).
Treat functional equivalence as a matter of intercultural understanding (P133).
Account for different cognitive demands in overt and covert translation (P136).
Use the overt/covert cline and translation/version distinction to state which linkage and textual operation are being evaluated (P138).

Inputs

The translation, its source-text profile and function, and the overt/covert and equivalence claims made about it.
The reasoning offered for the decision under review: the corpus, the orientation, the brief, and any quality claim made.

Output

Anti-patterns to flag

Conflating "version" and "translation": an unjustified cultural-filter change is a covert version, not a covert translation; an added special-audience or special-purpose rendering is an overt version, not an ordinary translation. Mislabeling either hides that the product needs a different kind of assessment (P011).
Classifying a rendering as covert on fluency or idiomaticity alone. Covert status requires two things together: source and target addressees have comparable contemporary needs, and the target could function as an original in its own culture — reading naturally satisfies neither on its own (P093).
Clearing a translation because it reads grammatically and denotationally correct while a dimensional-profile shift (register, genre, stance) has already changed its function. That is a covert functional error, not a pass (P127).
Reapplying a fixed textbook overt/covert expectation to a language pair or genre where current corpus evidence shows reduced cultural filtering, English source-norm takeover, or an emerging overt-like hybrid type — the classification itself may be stale, not just the filtering choice (P106).
Treating overt and covert translation as equally demanding to process: overt translation co-activates source and target pragmatics (dual-frame load), covert translation primarily activates target pragmatics. Attributing assessed difficulty to the wrong frame misdiagnoses the finding (P136).