Chapter Two
30
restructuring (Faber and Ureña Gómez-Moreno 2012: 78) are at work,
which are typically associated with translation proper of specialized texts.
At the same time, PILs do have some specific features (such as the
structural and content-related changes; see Section 2), which fall outside
the traditional definition of intralingual translation. This raises the question
whether PILs should be defined as new creations rather than intralingual
translations. The answer depends on how we define the notion, which is
not a simple matter since an adequate definition of intralingual translation
is an ongoing topic of discussion in the field of translation (for a critical
analysis see Zethsen Korning 2009 and Seel 2015). Up till now there have
only been provisory definitions of what constitutes intralingual translation,
even though this translation type is very frequent in daily life. Examples
cited by Zethsen Korning (2009: 800) include subtitling, simplified
reading (for children, non-native speakers) and popularized technical
literature requiring adaptation in register (i.e. rewording of technical
jargon in common language). Register variation is more particularly
relevant to medical communication. For understandable reasons, the level
of technicality in the different types of medical documentation is aligned
with the background knowledge of the target reader: the more specialized
the reader, the more technical the register. For a broader audience the
specialized topics are described in a language “close to general discourse
and to the layman’s everyday experience” (Gotti 2003: 294 ff.). PILs are a
good example of this popularizing type of discourse: the main purpose is
to inform the reader about specialized (i.e. medico-pharmaceutical) topics
using the vocabulary and style of general language. This implies that no
attempts are made to introduce the reader into the specialist's conceptual
model and terminological resources, but rather to adapt the specific
contents and language to the patient’s language use and perspective.
The phenomena caused by such changes in language register
(specialized vs. common language) have been studied by scientific
disciplines such as science popularization (Niederhauser 1993; Niederhauser
1997; Danneberg & Niederhauser 1998, Becker 2001, Dawkins 2009) and
translation studies (Zethsen Korning 2009). According to the latter register
adaptations are generally associated with intralingual translation, which is
according to Jakobson’s (1959/2000: 114) classical definition any
“interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same
language”. According to Zethsen Korning (2009: 796), however, the clear-
cut distinction between inter-and intralingual translation as suggested by
Jakobson does not work in practice: As the boundaries between
interlingual and intralingual translations are increasingly blurred, there are
very different kinds of translations required in contemporary society. The